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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Logman
 


The point of posing this 10 year old girl in seductive clothing and poses, one of which her chest is bare, but discreetly covers her breasts (like some Playboy pics), is what?




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 

Funny.
HA. HA.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Nomad451
 


This "loser" wants to know why do you think the 10 year old was photographed to look like a grown up woman, makeup, hair tosseled, and in one pic, barechested with hair and beads covering her chest? Please explain, why would they do that?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Logman
 


The point of posing this 10 year old girl in seductive clothing and poses, one of which her chest is bare, but discreetly covers her breasts (like some Playboy pics), is what?


What is the point of silly bands? What is the point of playing house? What is the point of anything that kids do?
How did this become about a point?

If it was kiddy porn, we would not be discussing the pictures as we are right now.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Logman
 


Yes, a child can be beautiful, and not sexual. True enough. Add to that sexy clothes, make up, tosseled hair, bare chest (oh yeah covered with her hair and beads) and suggestive posturing.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Nomad451
 


Anyone who looks at these pics and doesn't sense seduction and sexuality, IS kidding themselves.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


Not entirely fully clothed. Look at the pics again. And again, what is the point of these photos in the first place?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Nomad451
 

I thought this is where you were headed. If the "viewer" sees something sinister, then it is all in the "viewers" mind.
The only problem with that is, nature does not work that way. Look around, girls dress provocatively for a reason. Sex sells. Nuns wear full body armor for a reason.
This is a child, dude, not an adult model.
...and to think we speak the same language.



Amen, friend. Thank you. So many posters, here and other places, are suggesting something is wrong with the viewer if they see theses photos as sexy, as opposed to the wrongness of sexualizing the 10 year old girl.
edit on 5-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


It's human nature. There is no other reason for a 10 year old girl to be dressed and photographed this way other than to illicit a sexual feeling, or at least a thought. There is nothing wrong with people being honest; it's those who bury their head in the sand that is creepy.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



edit on 5-8-2011 by aero56 because: posted to wrong person



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

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.



Sorry, pouting lips on a 10 year old are not provocative to me at all, neither is a low cut top on a ten year old. Actually, nothing about a ten year old girl in any type of clothing, or even lack there of, is even remotely sexually provocative to me.
Maybe that's just because I am a dad and don't see little girls as sex objects at all. I don't see how anyone can look at her is a sexual way. Maybe your seeing something I don't.
edit on 8/5/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by neonitus
 


It's "Vogue Enfants".............meaning incorrigible child. Yep, they buy it.
edit on 5-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


It didn't strike me as soft porn. Little girls love to dress up like this. I did as a child, and even got into Mom's makeup. Most of us did the same thing as little girls. We just weren't put in magazines.

This is the same thing they did to Brooke Shields as a little girl, only not nearly as bad. Pictures of Brooke at this age were sometimes in underwear in very compromising poses, and I strongly objected to them at the time.
We thought her mother must have been nuts. I still think she might have been.

But look at this photo from a different perspective; that is, a child playing dress-up.

To the males out there, are you sexally aroused by the photograph? I doubt many of you are.

A note on the side: Pedophiles will have an older girl try to look like a younger child, not the other way around.

Take Warren Jeffs for example. He asked the thirteen year old to remove all her public hair. Why? To remove secondary sexual characteristics so he could pretend she was with a much younger child.

If you wanted a child that looks like a woman, then you would just have a woman.

However, I'm glad to see people are objecting to this. I would hate to see it as a trend that comes into "vogue".
Pun intended.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Nomad451
 


Explain to me how it isn't? What is the point and purpose behind the photos? Why not photos of her just playing like 10 year olds do, with her friends, or listening to her ipod?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


Not entirely fully clothed. Look at the pics again. And again, what is the point of these photos in the first place?


The point of these photos is to get the unwashed masses babbling incoherently about their stupid magazine. I think they have succeeded.
edit on 8/5/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Nomad451
 


Projection? Closet? Which is it?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Nomad451
 


Explain to me how it isn't? What is the point and purpose behind the photos? Why not photos of her just playing like 10 year olds do, with her friends, or listening to her ipod?


For the same reason they don't print pictures of women washing dishes, or taking out the trash. Vogue is a high fashion magazine.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nomad451
 


Then what does it have to do with? What is the point of the photographs? Seriously.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Is that all you have in your arsenal of answers, just questions? Oh, please.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


And that reason is what? You didn't answer the question. I expected a bit more from you.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join