Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl

Ohhhhh I remember these pictures ALL too well. It was not too long ago that someone else had posted them here on ATS. The ones in the link are not too bad compared to some of the others. If possible, you should find the one where she is holding a rabbit with the word "gift" above her head. Disturbing is an understatement.

reply to post by AnonymousVan


Lol, yes, the fact that these pics are freely available on the net, and posted here, and no arrests are made, completely blows the OP out of the water.

If this is not kiddie porn by law, it isn´t at all.

Off course, one could argue if this is something we should want, but the knee jerking is way out of proportion.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by neonitus

 

What an innocent doll your avatar is.

But then, your avatar IS just a rendering. How about a photo of you at ten years old? Pretty plain I bet...playing outside, celebrating a birthday party, school picture?

Like it should be.

Now, let's put you into something a bit more sexy, shall we daughter?

Now THAT was just creepy

reply to post by SirClem

What an innocent doll your avatar is. But then, your avatar IS just a rendering. How about a photo of you at ten years old? Pretty plain I bet...playing outside, celebrating a birthday party, school picture? Like it should be. Now, let's put you into something a bit more sexy, shall we daughter?

oh i see more clearly now, you do have a problem .

pro tip : there is a difference between what is clearly pornographic and what is not pornogrphic
Pornographic : you can see clearly a sexual act.
Non pornographic : you CANT see anything sexual, not even a bit suggestive.

So i think you have a dirty twisted mind if you can see anything sexual while viewing thoses little girls modeling, but its only my opinion

I haven't watched any of the videos nor do I plan to they will be obnoxious. I once caught 5 mins of a documentary on the tiny tots beauty paegants and that traumatised me enough.
Thirty years ago culture was largely in denial about the exploitation of children and from what I can see from the preview of the children's undie ad it looks like a bunch of children playing ( how do people know these sorts of vids exist, what the h*** are you putting in the search box?? ).
So now that that exploitation has become understood you would think that things would have got better. Instead the 'innocence' from the ad I mentioned, still wrong in so many ways but more to do with culture as a whole and the darker side of materialism than any sexuality, to the over made up creatures of the child's beauty paegants and the apparrently overly made up young girl in the Vogue ad. Make up by definition has a sensual and or erotic base.
So we go from an innocence where child exploitation was largely swept under the carpet and depictions of children were by and large innocent, to a state we are in now where child exploitation is noted and acted upon.
It's as if the exploiters of children are now saying yes it goes on, but we don't care what you think. Are we too shocked by the severe acts of child abuse we hear from the media that the excesses of the pageants and use of children in adult situations is considered too mild to be of concern.

Originally posted by goldentorch
I haven't watched any of the videos nor do I plan to they will be obnoxious. I once caught 5 mins of a documentary on the tiny tots beauty paegants and that traumatised me enough.
Thirty years ago culture was largely in denial about the exploitation of children and from what I can see from the preview of the children's undie ad it looks like a bunch of children playing ( how do people know these sorts of vids exist,



what the h*** are you putting in the search box?? ).

Um...one simple word.

Underoos.

Want to call the cops on me for remembering what Underoos were and that they had commercials for them?

There is a difference between pornography and modeling. And this falls into the modeling category, IMHO.

reply to post by Kitilani


Sorry about that nothing personal just trying to make a general point. Underoos are way off my culture map and if I've intruded on childhood memories my apologies.
You've made me feel like one of the bad 'un's I raille against

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Sorry about that nothing personal just trying to make a general point. Underoos are way off my culture map and if I've intruded on childhood memories my apologies.
You've made me feel like one of the bad 'un's I raille against

But you had no problem just assuming the worst about me, didn't you?

Thirty years ago culture was largely in denial about the exploitation of children and from what I can see from the preview of the children's undie ad it looks like a bunch of children playing ( how do people know these sorts of vids exist, what the h*** are you putting in the search box?? ).

So now I am curious just "what the hell" you thought I put in the search box. All you had to do was watch one to see it was a national ad that ran on television in the 80s. So I could have searched for "old commercials" "underoos" "Kids ads" etc. I can go on and on.

See, this thread sure looks like people just want to see child rapists around every corner. Here I posted two very innocent national television ads and after NOT watching them, you got upset about me posting them.

This makes me curious what goes on in your mind when you see that stuff. As a kid, I thought I want those. As an adult I think, I remember those. So what exactly did you think that made you so upset that you came to the conclusion that I used some nefarious search terms to display videos there is apparently something wrong with me for remembering.

I do not want you to feel like a bad anything but I would like to better understand the mind of the people that see stuff like that and without even looking for context, assume it is something dirty. Maybe I am just not horny enough when I am looking at children to see all this sexuality others see?

Please take this as an honest attempt to understand the difference between your mind and mine with regard to this and not just an angry reply. I really would like to understand.

Who is this ad aimed at, what is the age range of French Vogue readers?

This imo is sheer sexualization of children, the child is dressed provocatively, low cut top pouting lips.

For no amount of money would I have let a 10 year old of mine be used in such a way.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
Who is this ad aimed at, what is the age range of French Vogue readers?

This imo is sheer sexualization of children, the child is dressed provocatively, low cut top pouting lips.

For no amount of money would I have let a 10 year old of mine be used in such a way.

Would you let her wear a bathing suit at a beach?

Can anyone in this thread tell me if the rate of child rape is higher or lower in France than in the US?

Originally posted by SirClem
Wrong Logman.
Someone frames these photographs. The child does not pick the poses.
Someone dresses the model. The child does not pick the outfits.

funny that, exactly the same is done at these type of things!
www.universalroyalty.com...

I saw this headline and ignored it for a couple of days, mainly because the picture they used of the girl was rather innocent looking. I figured that this article was just more pap from the media. When I saw this thread I clicked on the link and saw more pics that were rather uninteresting. Being the father of two beautiful daughters, I can't count the times they played, "dress up" when they were little. They wore their moms heels and pretended to be all grown up. This was just innocent fun. I think that anyone who would be offended by what they were doing must have their own sexual hangups and issues.
Personally, I think this is much to do about nothing.

None of these pictures seemed sexually provocative in any way. Tacky?....yes. Pornographic?...no.
I don't like to see kids manipulated by the media and certainly would never approve or condone of their use in any sexually charged advertising.

Vogue got exactly what it wanted out of this. They got people who probably never read their magazine all worked up and babbling about a stupid photo shoot. This will be forgotten in a week or two anyway.

If you say this is porn, you might be half a pedo already. (WHAT the heck is going on in YOUR mind?)

Tacky, controversial, etc..etc..exactly what they intended..but...

...if you feel "sexually provoked" by this...maybe see your psychiatrist, right now!!

What about the American and European businessmen that go to Thailand and places to screw under age boys and girls? Why are there never threads about that on ATS? Because it's not white kids being abused?

reply to post by dizzylizzy


I agree with you too.

The entire fashion world needs to be hung out to dry; it's all run by sexually perverted maniacs and homosexuals that would sell their own mothers if it means they could make a quid or two.

Time to go back to basics and have our girls dressed appropriately accordingly to age and boys need to stop being feminized and dress also accordingly.

reply to post by flexy123


It may not be porn but it IS exploiting a young female child for $$$; makes me sick to the stomach a mother would allow this photo shoot.

reply to post by NuroSlam

Yes, it was meant to be creepy because that is what the parents are doing in this case.
Very creepy indeed.
One point I would like to make. I don't believe this is criminal, just incredibly shallow and tacky. If anyone says that some of the poses are not meant to be provocative, well we just have to disagree.

reply to post by AnonymousVan

This is the risk that I took posting my beliefs. Ignorant people misunderstand a post, or an entire thread.
Vanity is a fault, let's not teach our kids vanity.
If you see nothing wrong with the photographs, fine. We can disagree without labeling someone sexually delusional. But, like I said, that is the risk you take when you take on a subject like this.