It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CCLLCCLL
 


JonBenet Ramsey, remember her? Sexualized and now dead. Just sayin.....




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainInstaban
 


Of course not, they would be adults. These photos aren't porn, but they are teetering on a dangerous line.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


The actions of this mom and her daughter set the stage for other little girls to do the same. She is now a public figure and what she does is our business.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


Why are you talking about homosexuality? Where does that enter the picture? There is at least one photo of this girl which implies nudity. Her chest is covered with her long hair. The poses are adult in nature, with adult intent. While I don't see these photos as porn, they are too provocative for a 10 year old girl.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PrincessAeriel
 


Keep telling yourself that line of crap. You dress in suggestive clothing for yourself? Really? It's not for anyone else? Really?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Get a grip. No one is suggesting they were "turned on" by the photos. However, it is clear to most people that the photos are sexually suggestive and are inappropriate for a 10 year old girl.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Logman
 


Just a guess here but maybe the people who are having a problem with this have secret desires that this sort of things bring out and they dont want to think they are capable of those types of desire so they try and demonize what they see and prove to the world that this is unacceptable for anyone.

Just a thought. People tend to believe that others think the way they do.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by CaptainInstaban
 


One of the pictures is clearly implied nudity. She is bare chested with her hair covering her breasts, much like you would see an adult woman pose to tease.


If you look at these pics with the preconceived notion that the world is out to molest kids, and have hysteric criteria for what is appropriate and not, then offense can be taken from lots of things.

These kids get to play model for a day, and yes they make them look like real models would, in a real professional setting.

Are real models sensual? I guess they can be depending on the intention, they can take lots of poses.

I think the intention was more to make the kids look like real models, than an effort of pure sexualisation of these kids.

I guess they knew though that they would shock a lot of PC people with it, and get some extra publicity.


They are mimicing real models. Are real models doing sexual things or really sexual suggestive things in these shoots?

Imo they are not, except for the fact that they are often gorgeous women, wich I find attractive, and I might think of sex.

Is that the fault of the model and the picture, or my brain?

When I see these pics, I have no problem, cause I can clearly see it´s kids, wich are not sexually attractive, merely put in a setting that my brain would find mildly attractive if it were adult models.

Since there is no nudity, sexual acts or depiction or even suggestion of sexual acts, I can´t find a problem with the pics themselves.

I´m not particularly fond of the fashion industry, and the view on women they spread. The only thing that might be a problem is if these kids get lost in this world and develop an annorexia, or generally waste their time and mental health pursuing a career in an industry that is absoultely useless and pointless.




edit on 6-8-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Wow, what an interesting read this has been.
Some extremes on both sides of the fence, you're totally against this and view it as pornography, and are then labelled as a potential closet pedo, or, you don't see a problem in the pics and .......... are labelled as an overt pedo.

Well, you get what I mean ......... ya can't win!

Come on people, the majority would never find pleasure in the sexualisation of children, so cut this harsh labelling please.
The "approval junky syndrome" is far too apparent.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Village Idiot
 

You are undoubtedly a pedo for even posting on this thread.

You now have an internet "sex crime" on your record.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
That is mainstream news and its shocking!!!

Thanks for posting


I already know this before!!


edit on 7-8-2011 by AboveTopZecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


You call this "child porn?" Tell you what, man. Take these pictures down to your local police station. I'm sure they have someone who specializes in crimes against children. Ask them, "is this child porn?"

They might deck you for trivializing actual the rape and torture of children in such a way.

Softcore porn? Softcore porn requires nudity. Playboy is softcore. Penthouse is softcore. This isn't softcore porn. it's not any sort of pornography.

Sexualizing? How so? What's sexual here? It's a child in makeup and fancy clothes. If this is making your pecker perk, maybe it's YOU who have the problem.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Projecting blame has been a common approach in this thread. It's obvious that the girls are being sexualized. It isn't porn, but provocative and suggestive. You don't have to be turned on by the photos to realize that, and those who do realize that do not have a problem. The problem rests with those who placed the young girls in this situation, and are capitalizing on it financially.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

I don't know if you have read the thread, but you are implying that at least one half of the ATS members that have responded to this thread have psychological problems. So, whom exactly is seeing perversion where it does not exist? Perhaps a little SELF analysis is in order?
I will refrain from attacking you for NOT having a problem with these photos, because that is not a debate on the merits of the arguments that I, and others, have made. If it is not soft porn in your view, that is relevant. The rest, of course, is not.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Sexualizing? How so? What's sexual here? It's a child in makeup and fancy clothes. If this is making your pecker perk, maybe it's YOU who have the problem.


Clearly someone is sexualising this child in these photos. This many pages in and the only thing that really seems obvious is that some people are upset with people like you and me for NOT seeing that sexualisation. In short, some of us have been labeled as having a problem because we do not see anything sexual in a fully clothed 10 year old girl. Interesting little thread aint it?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox It's a child in makeup and fancy clothes. If this is making your pecker perk, maybe it's YOU who have the problem.
I think the problem would be advancing on a young girl. Men cannot help but be aroused by beauty. The age restriction is imposed by society protecting its own offspring. Our brains and bodies operate under natural laws. Man-made laws are in place to curb our natural tendencies. Please, let's not forget we are animals and become righteous.
edit on 7-8-2011 by gentledissident because: hyphen



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gentledissident
 

Very true.
I recall an incident where a young coach got into some trouble with some underage girls. Although inexcusable, no one seemed to have a problem with the girls dressing like hookers, acting like hookers, or for seducing the coach. In fact, there was no room for criticism of the behavior of the girls, only the behavior of the coach.
Much like this thread.
Thanks for posting.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousVan
Seriously, if anyones is provoked by thoses pictures, or view thems as something sexual,then it mean you have a serious problem.

I dont see anything sexual in thoses pictures,sorry guys, if you find the pictures disturbing or arousing.....you need serious help.


Figures, you're into backing kiddie porn also.
What else should we expect from Anonymous.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by dalan.
 



While I don't see these photos as porn, they are too provocative for a 10 year old girl.


In your opinion which is as far as your authority goes, especially when it comes to another person's child. You may personally feel that the poses are too "provocative" for a 10 year old girl, but you do not have the right to do anything about it.

The only thing that you have the right to do is voice your concern on this issue. Or, if you have your own children, you have every right to be their parent. But where other parent's children are involved, you simply have zero authority to stop them from doing something that you find immoral.

Its not your place.

This nanny-mentality has to go away.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 

Actually, dalan, apprentice of Satan,
people have more rights than what you state.
Let's turn this argument around a bit, just for fun.
You state that I, or he, or we, cannot do anything about the way this girl dresses, but that is false. People can and will react to the way you dress, and the way you act. Sure, they have no right to harm her, no one has that right. (Although it is funny that we do that in the name of "war", but, that is beside the point. Amazing hypocrisy....)
Anyway, people have the right to have empathy for the girl. I am sure you weren't expecting that, but I reserve the right to feel sorry for her, and to feel like she is being sexually exploited.
So, there, we do have some rights after all.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join