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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
C'mon, every 7 Seconds a Kid is dieing because of Hunger
and you talk about "Fashion Photos",
this is wrong and not the Photographs!

You need to create a list to see the real important Topics,
a Discussion about 10 year old Fashion Models do not really belong in to this list!

(but it is a part of our whole abused Society)




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Brooke was posed totally nude when she was 10 years old. The photo was recently removed from a London exhibit by the Scotland Yard Obscenity Department. I'd post a link, but you can google it, it's everywhere.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Maybe you are in denial at the impact of the photos on other people. Vogue Enfants knew exactly what they were doing here, all at the expense of this child.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
When I was 8 I stood in for a fellow pupil who had stage fright for the school play - A boy.
He was supposed to do a rendition of Burlington Bertie
.

They decided to swap trousers for fishnet tights and underneath my shirt bib I wore nothing. I flashed *I'm bert bert I aven't a shirt* and everyone got a flash of my nips. *Shrug*

Got a standing ovation.


edit on 5-8-2011 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Sadly, after watching 5 minutes of Toddlers and Tiaras, this kind of crap coming from the fashion world does not surprise me. In fact, they have just sunk to a new low by using a 10 year old. In the good old days they just tried to pass off under 18 teenagers as sexy adult models.

Kate Moss was only 16 when she broke onto the scene with this photo shoot. She was topless.

forums.thefashionspot.com...

edit on 5-8-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

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?


Apples to oranges. At the beach is a normal setting, not getting paid for it, not posing for the world to see, just natural playing at the beach; no makeup, no provocative intent.
edit on 5-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Hi. I didn't realize you had asked a question directly of me.

Again, I will use the comparision of Brook Shields. They found a child model with remarkable beauty, and an unusually seductive facial expression.

The only purpose was to be a little shocking, and sell their product. I don't think they are promoting child porn.
If they are, we will be seeing these little girls in all their magazines, and the mainstream will stop buying them.

While I do most certainly agree the child has been sexualized, in this case, I personally consider it harmless.
This being said, I only saw the one picture.

These are of course, only my opinions.

edit on 8/5/2011 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


I was generalising the search box thing accross the whole thread and if you read my original reply tied it to a sense of innocence. I have upset you and there's nothing I can do about that but will not get into a flaming.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


Disgusting, and the parents of this child are just as guilty for flaunting their little girl in this manner. The photographs of this young girl are probably being pinned up in homes of pedophiles! Our society is really losing their sense of value and morality.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by SirClem
 


Disgusting, and the parents of this child are just as guilty for flaunting their little girl in this manner. The photographs of this young girl are probably being pinned up in homes of pedophiles! Our society is really losing their sense of value and morality.


I shouldn't think pedo's by their very nature care greatly about either fashion or a child dressed up to be an adult.
They like them young and innocent...Not dressed up like a 30 year old clotheshorse.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


On the link you are providing for comment ...is it your opinion this is child porn?

Either way it is so disturbing a subject but something we seem to be faced with repeatedly.
Every month it seems a large child porn ring is busted up.
Hard to think there can be that many and stretching across states and even countries.

IMO -We are really doing kids a disservice with those pageant moms and programming like Toddlers in Tiaras.
Even the Barbie doll is a freakish sexualized girl. What are we teaching the kids?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
this is a tricky subject because there are many fine lines. I have daughters and will admit freely that I would never allow my child to be displayed in this way. Not because of a moral objection to the sexualization aspect, though that would be a concern, but because we are teaching this child early on to trade on her looks. That it is what's external that makes you relevant. Good press, bad press, it all sells magazines. It all gets you "out there" and because of that fact, people are now uncaring of the type of attention they receive, so long as they get it. Hell, in many cases the more controversy you inspire the better. And kids see this. They see that behaviors that they get scolded for..(tantrums, vulgarity) can mean big cash payoffs in the world of the celebrity and if you are "attractive" so much the better. Then you can REALLY show your ass. One can't help but step back and see that maybe the industry is just a little bit sick and putting makeup on kids and tossing them in front of the camera is among the least of the injustices they are doing them. And yeah, at 11 little girls are going to slumber parties and putting stickers on notebooks but they are also developing breasts, some have their periods and many have their own questions about sexuality, even if very basic. It is what it is and we can't immediately go on red alert when something of a sexual nature and a child are put in the same room. it is just up to us as adults to help them navigate the situation, not necessarily toss a blanket over their heads and hurry them from the room if they arent actually being hurt.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Kitilani
 


It's human nature.


What is human nature? Wearing silly bands? Playing dress up? I feel like somehow you are being more specific than the question warranted and that lack of specificity in response leaves a large hole.

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.

Then why is it not working for me? She is in a dress. I did not know little girls in dresses were supposed to turn me on. Maybe now that you told me I should look again.

There is nothing wrong with people being honest; it's those who bury their head in the sand that is creepy.

Are you suggesting I am being anything less than honest?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
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


Where did you get "incorrigible" from?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
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.


Never saw "Pretty Baby" then?
Features a fully nude 10 year old shields in that movie. The OP might have actually made some ground with that one.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logman
reply to post by Stovokor
 

It's not kidde-porn and these photos would not get you in trouble with the authorities. This is no different from any kid's Beauty Pageant and do you see them in danger of being shut down? If you think that is sexualising a child you should see some of the stuff that comes out of Asia.

A child can look beautiful without being sexual. If you see a child and think she is being sexual then that it is YOU with that proclivity. I saw the photos and saw a beautiful child and didn't think once she looked "sexy".

It's like the right-wing conservatives trying to "straighten" out gay men. They do it because they are gay. And so the people that get outraged and these kinds of photos are in fact projecting their own feelings. Freud would have a field day.



You make some good points...here are mine.

(Vogue Enfants) is a European children's fashion magazine. All the models in it are children modeling a child's modern clothing. The photos many are upset over are of young model (Thylane Lena-Rose Blondeau). She is a beautiful child....but i believe...she should not have all that makeup on....and I question some of the clothes styles. Her parents are in show business...and probably think nothing of it....the way I view her...is a little girl playing dress-up and getting paid for it. Yes..I do think she is too young for all that makeup ....and I think whoever created this particular fashion shoot made a major mistake with that...



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:01 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?


I am going to ask you again why there needs to be a point. I have 11 photo albums. I would love to show them to you. You would spend days asking "what is the point of that picture?" on just about all of them other than the few that are obvious holidays.

What is the point? What is the point in wearing silly bands again I ask. Why does there need to be a point for it to be legitimized? How about the point was something that maybe the French could explain to you because unlike us, they do not seem to see SEX everytime a child looks grownup.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Personally I wouldn't let my 10 year old daughter or son for that matter do these photos. No matter how anyone feels about it, it just gives people the wrong general impression.

However, the Vogue corporate marketing director is a genius for doing this.

I bet their sales are triple ramped just because of the on-line chatter and water cooler talk.
Their strategy worked... everyone is talking about it.

Good for them and their record-high 3rd quarter news stand sales.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Kitilani
 


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


You do realize that the last 3 posts of yours I responded to were questions, right?


Originally posted by aero56
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?


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?


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


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?


Projection? Closet? Which is it?


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


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


And that reason is what?



Please tell me how I earn the right to ask as many questions as you.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
Apples to oranges. At the beach is a normal setting, not getting paid for it, not posing for the world to see, just natural playing at the beach; no makeup, no provocative intent.
edit on 5-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo




So if that little girl were wearing that dress for free, it would be ok? If she were wearing it at the beach it would be ok? The problem you have now is the makeup and the paycheck? Please explain how her getting paid makes it any more sexual? Ever seen a little girl in a bikini or tight one piece? I see far more 10 year old nipples at the beach than I do in any of the photos in this thread.

That is a really weak response to say it is ok for kids to wear next to nothing at the beach for free but to wear a dress in a chair for money somehow makes it sexy.




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join