Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:51 PM by Kitilani
Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Kitilani

The point is not whether YOU were aroused or titillated. That is not how you define exploitation.
At the risk of sounding like an old person, it doesn't stop here. Just wait, the boys are next. It's coming.
Copy and paste my comments. If they will exploit kids, they will stop at nothing to make a profit.



My point certainly is whether or not I was aroused or titillated. Who are you to tell me what my point is? You see exploitation where I see no evidence of any such thing. I am sure her family got a nice big check from Vogue and evidence that this girl was harmed in any way at all seems to be wholly lacking. Maybe we need to look up the definition of exploitation?

As for the boys being next, scroll up and go back 30 years.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:57 PM by SirClem
reply to post by cripmeister

I don't really think you have to worry about a moral majority. I believe we have a sick society. I will explain why.
This girl means nothing to so many people, she is just an object. There is little empathy for the child, the "child" does not exist.
We are judging ourselves, and we are making excuses for our lack of empathy because we are so scared to be honest.
A sincere thank you to all of those that sense something is wrong here.



reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:57 PM by Patrioitinsheepclothing
reply to post by Nomad451


Sorry Im no expert , but maybe you could keep defending it like a child preditor would and keep proving my lamans point.

Im not your leg work man, go hunt your own evidence down that out there and open that door you been affraid to, you got alot to learn about the world and the evil that leerks.

Some how you seem to think that child preditors only think their eye candy comes from hard core kiddi porn, that can only be found in the dark black market.
But wouldnt it make sense to know, alot of thier desires crop up from the kids section of some catalog or other form of reading they can get thier hands on without drawing attention, then its all down hill from there.

I bet your the type to give his 10yr old girl g-string panties from A&F for her B-day and think its fashion!!


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:58 PM by SirClem
reply to post by neonitus

I thought I made it clear.
This is exploitation of a child.
I suspect that you troll threads.
Clear enough?

edit on 4-8-2011 by SirClem because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:04 PM by SirClem
reply to post by Kitilani

I could tell you that you are blind. I am here to tell you. You are blind. That is who I am, since you ask.

Scroll back? I see boys in underwear in a youtube video, perhaps having fun. What do you see?
Some of you kill me.
I tell you what, show me your definition of exploitation of a child in a youtube video, I am sure you can, and I will bet this girl made more money for her mommy and daddy.
And her "career". You miss the point, blind man.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:09 PM by neonitus
reply to post by SirClem


we all like riddles, but perhaps not on forum discusions.
if youve got something to say just say it.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:14 PM by SirClem
reply to post by neonitus

I revised my previous comment.
I "suspect" you troll threads.
On topic, I think I have been pretty clear that this is exploitation of a child, in my view.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:17 PM by Kitilani
Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Kitilani

I could tell you that you are blind. I am here to tell you. You are blind. That is who I am, since you ask.


Instead of asking you should try reading.

Scroll back? I see boys in underwear in a youtube video, perhaps having fun. What do you see?


The exact same thing.

Some of you kill me.


Which ones of us specifically?

I tell you what, show me your definition of exploitation of a child in a youtube video, I am sure you can, and I will bet this girl made more money for her mommy and daddy.
And her "career". You miss the point, blind man.


Do you even know what you are saying? You seem to be responding to points other people made and that I argued against but are using my post to do it for some reason.

Go back and read my posts before calling me blind. Your lack of ability to see the point I made would be considered blind.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:24 PM by SirClem
reply to post by Kitilani

YOU posted the boys in underwear. And, the other link that doesn't work.
All as a rebuttal to what? My simple premise that my example is exploitation of a child.
My posts may be a riddle, perhaps above some people's heads, but I have been VERY clear.
This is exploitation of a child, it is provocative, and meant to be so. If you can't see it, perhaps there is something wrong with YOU.
I am prepared to debate that point.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:28 PM by SirClem
reply to post by riddle6

I am not saying this is the worst thing to happen to a child. Or, that this is the most glaring example of exploitation of a child...it is not.
This thread is not meant to be THE consummate thread on child exploitation.

It just made me sick. I wish I could take the kid fishing.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:34 PM by Kitilani
Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Kitilani

YOU posted the boys in underwear. And, the other link that doesn't work.


The link works just fine. Embedding was denied by youtube, click the link and you can watch the video just like I just did. The other commercial is the same thing but with girls.

All as a rebuttal to what? My simple premise that my example is exploitation of a child.

To point out that 30 years ago there were kids dancing around on television in their underwear, boys and girls. This girl is FULLY DRESSED. But for some reason you think her wearing clothes is sexy to someone and kids in their underwear are just having fun.

When you were a kid, did you often call all of your buddies over to dance around in your underwear together in front of tv cameras? Not my idea of fun. Sounds more like a job. Like a modeling job.

My posts may be a riddle, perhaps above some people's heads, but I have been VERY clear.


Wrong poster. I never said anything about your posts being a riddle. Nothing has gone over my head.

This is exploitation of a child, it is provocative, and meant to be so.


This is your opinion. I would suggest little girls in their underwear is far more exploitative than a girl in a gold dress. Unfortunately neither one seems particularly sexual to me.

If you can't see it, perhaps there is something wrong with YOU.
I am prepared to debate that point.



Yes, there is something wrong with me because I do not see what is so sexy about a fully dressed 10 year old girl.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 09:49 PM by riddle6
reply to post by jerryznv


The girls parents are from Europe (France and Italy I believe). Her dad is a soccer (football) player and her mom is a fashion designer. I believe the magazine is French Vogue. Outside of what you could call an uptight culture, America has nothing to do with this.


reply posted on 5-8-2011 @ 03:16 AM by bluemirage5
reply to post by SirClem


It's not the first time Vogue has done that.......

look at who runs Vogue and those who work behind the scenes.....they're gay


reply posted on 5-8-2011 @ 03:27 AM by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by SirClem


There was a thread about this months ago.

This is not kiddie porn, it´s young girls posing as adult models. Not posing as adult porn models, but fashion models.

I see no nudity or depiction of sexual acts, sure they are posing in a sensual way, like an aduilt model would.

I don´t know if that is completely acceptable, but let´s not overreact and call this kiddie porn, because it´s not in any way or form.

Just some kids playing dress up, with a professional twist.
edit on 5-8-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^