Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl

provocative 10 year old - lol I see little nude kids between 1-10 running around every beach I go to in so cal they must all be part of some sick child slavery ring.

And sorry to tell you this but my sister is pretty butch and her daughter dressed way worse than this by getting clothes from her friends - sorry but 10 year olds arent stupid they know what they like in clothes.

Originally posted by Nomad451
You losers.

There is nothing kiddie-porn about it.. Is she in her underwear, chest exposed? bent in sexual positions?

Sorry all I see is a pretty 10 yr old girl dolled up like a model. The only valid argument this "story" has is the dolling up of young girls as models... Much like the beauty pageants controversy.

There is absolutely nothing sexual in this at all

Yes loser there are those photos you explain would be considered sexual, they just don't post those particular photos in the news articles due to that.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


I don't see the photos as porn, either. However, the responsible persons here are walking a fine line. Provocative poses are intentional, and that is to stir up erotic feelings or to provoke them.

reply to post by SirClem


I agree. This started with those little girl Beauty Pageants. I blame mothers because these girls cannot drive themselves to a modeling agency and sign themselves up for this stuff. It's the mother and the father who REALLY should be ashamed of himself that he would allow his little angel to be looked at like that. So, it's both parents or whoever the guardians are who is to blame. But it all started when little totters were being put into Beauty pageants.

I see the psychoanalysts have arrived in force. Can we get back to a little reality?
It is amazing to me that a member can have an opinion that this is purposely provocative exploitation of a child, and this member gets cast as a closet pedophile, while these internet psycho analysts defend the photos as "child's play".
Absurd.
This type of photography brings attention to the skin, the object. It is not "child's play", and those that are making that comparison are being intellectually dishonest. I believe the definition of porn is in the intent of the work. Porn does not have to depict a sexual act. I used the term "soft porn", and a poster said something like, "you obviously don't know what soft porn is..." Perhaps I don't, perhaps someone should define it.

Attack the argument, debate the topic, make your opinion known. Don't play Freud. Just try to be honest.

If you happen to share the same opinion as a baptist minister on any particular subject, it is not the end of the world. You might be cast as a pedophile for agreeing, that is the risk you take.

And that, my friends, is ABSURD.

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
Ah, welcome to our modern society where age is of no consequence!

Ya, I don't think the judge will buy that line.

Anyhow, my thoughts on the pics

First off, what a intriguing face...the eyes are amazing. I am trying to figure out who she reminds me of..perhaps a young angelina? Either way, when she comes of age, she is going to be quite pretty...

The photos didn't make me consider them sexually, (frankly, I am a bit curious about those whom seen that and immediately started thinking of sex)...seemed more emo to me (sad serious face)...but, I am not oblivious to what is being pointed out here. I cannot think of who the target audience is overall...horny 10 year old boys? 10 year old girls that want to go clubbing? donno overall...but I think "sexualizes" may be a bit of an exaggeration...if she was wearing a thong or something, then sure..but she seems well clothed and only a perv would be thinking this was sexually stimulating (ok, not a perv...hell, I am a perv...but like, a deviant).

Someone attracted to say, 10 year olds is not attracted to this because she is pushing an adult look (they tend to like 10 year old happy looks)..someone whom enjoys painted adults won't be attracted to this either because she aint got no boobz So, the target may simply have been to create a strange paradox


Now, I do think that such mags are pushing kids to grow up quicker...I think the most disturbing effect is that specific model pushing herself to become older before she enjoys her youth...wearing makeup and such is something teen girls start worrying about, not kids...

Originally posted by violet

Originally posted by Nomad451
You losers.

There is nothing kiddie-porn about it.. Is she in her underwear, chest exposed? bent in sexual positions?

Sorry all I see is a pretty 10 yr old girl dolled up like a model. The only valid argument this "story" has is the dolling up of young girls as models... Much like the beauty pageants controversy.

There is absolutely nothing sexual in this at all

Yes loser there are those photos you explain would be considered sexual, they just don't post those particular photos in the news articles due to that.

loser?

Did you just call someone a loser because they hold a different opinion on something? Really, do try and speak in a mature context...this isn't 4chan or something, we are adults here...now, show at least some respect, or go find a different forum more your mentality

tisk tisk
-shames you-

Originally posted by SirClem

This type of photography brings attention to the skin,

Skin?
I noticed the eyes...those were striking, stood out amongst everything from my view...amazing eyes, almost unnerving.
You noticed skin? going to check again, but beyond hands, I think she was pretty much covered up from head to toe...
are we seeing the same pictures?

I believe the definition of porn is in the intent of the work. Porn does not have to depict a sexual act.

Pet peeve kicks in
Porn requires sexual acts...depending on how explicit is depending on if its soft or hard...
Its actually a very descriptive understanding...I think what you meant to say is "sexual" or perhaps sensual nature of...sorry, just wanted to correct that for accuracy...lets not reduce every word we have in order to make a shock statement...

Calling this porn is like calling squirt guns weapons of mass destruction...it renders the word meaningless....of someone has a collection of porn, I expect to see XXX stuff, not a issue of cosmo


(ADD
I just rechecked the link...the first picture has a V shape going down her shirt...that is highly suggestive in my mind, Didn't even see it initially though (again, her eyes struck me, the rest sort of went into the background).

So, yes, I think they are perhaps pushing the envelope a bit on the first one (if that is her skin and not a skin colored shirt that is...not sure actually) But, I hold firm on one thing...I think I am far more curious about those whom noticed that first and became erm...is aroused the word I am going for here, or leaped towards it being porn...honestly, I wouldn't let anyone whom seen this as porn babysit my kid...

reply to post by SaturnFX

If you are that curious about me, keep checking my posts. Keep your Freud book handy and come back with some more insight about me... or anyone else besides the girl, the parents, the photo shoot, and a society that exploits children for money.

I see some girls looking like adults.

But it doesn't look like porn to me.

reply to post by Miraj

Fair enough.
Thanks for your input.

reply to post by neonitus


In producing shots like these, they are 'normalising' the exploitation of children for the adult market.
That is sinister enough and needs to be addressed seperately as an issue from the paedophile issue. However yes, paedo's will get this girls pics from online and the topless ones of her that her parents posted online as well. They will, if they dont just jack off to her face pouting back at them, will see it as a tool to claim POLITICAL power ( go research the plethora of openly paedophile political parties in Europe trying to lower the age of consent to 10 and engage as activists in the mainstream political circles) and they will use this to further justify their sickening actions of abuse. They want nothing more than to view ten year olds as 'little adults' and Vogue has basically served that view up for them on a platter.

The ones who did me, used images pretty much the same as these to coerce and convince me as a child it was 'ok' and I was 'big girl' big enough for rape..so dont tell me I am paranoid - I KNOW!
Updo's in adult styles, red pouting lips, sultry adult-like poses and hips bent forward etc etc ARE sexual poses to sexally addicted people. Get a brain!
Printing this is irresponsible, grossly misinformed, and dangerous. They have abused this child who cannot have given informed consent and the spread has handed paedo's world over an excuse and justification they will now exploit to the full. Go read some of the websites fighting paedo's and listen to what these sick bastards are saying about child sex THEN come tell me it 'wont do no harm'. Of course it will!

And it wont be rich kids safe and secure that will cop the end results of this pictorial bull#..it will be the kid on the street, the one on her way to school from the burbs, the easy target...your kids maybe..there is a ripple effect, there is a risk here..and French Vogue editors need to be put on charges for collaborating if not direct aiding and abbetting crime. IMO

reply to post by SirClem

I used the term "soft porn", and a poster said something like, "you obviously don't know what soft porn is..." Perhaps I don't, perhaps someone should define it.

Softcore Pornography Defined

Softcore pornography is a form of filmic or photographic pornography or erotica that is less sexually explicit than hardcore pornography. Softcore pornography depicts nude and semi-nude performers engaging in casual social nudity or non-graphic representations of sexual intercourse or masturbation. Softcore porn precludes explicit depictions of vaginal or anal penetration, cunnilingus, fellatio and ejaculation. Visual representations of genitalia (full nudity) are typically permissible in a softcore context in printed media,[1] and increasingly so in film[2] and television.[3] Erections of the penis may not be allowed (see Mull of Kintyre Test), although attitudes towards this are changing.[4]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aeae5c1e9ffa.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47bf5224fba4.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Rosha

Ugly, but a whole lot of truth in what you write.
I think society needs to reject this sort of thing outright, including the baby pageants. I wonder what Brooke Shields would have to say about all of this.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I too, look at these photos and fail to see reasons why they would be considered sexual.
They are fully dressed in clothing that fully covers their body, perhaps their poses could be considered somewhat sexual. But any pose could, and these certainly aren't blatantly so.

I do find it a little creepy to look at however and I question as to why they have done such a photo shoot. I believe it would be completely insane to call for arresting the vogue editors for comitting crimes (from another post).

reply to post by dalan.

So, the naked body is not soft porn if it is done provocatively? Interesting. Perhaps I will snatch some shots and see what ATS has to say about it. I would guess their definition is a bit different than yours mate.


Edit to add: You seem to like that shot. Better get your Freud book out.

Vogue should be prosecuted and the Editor should be jailed.

All the paedophiles on planet Earth must've thought they'd woken up on a different world where suddenly it's acceptable to view children in adult themes.

Vogue will say they are about fashion, but fashion is about sexual attraction, clothes and make-up are about making yourself sexually attractive.

Don't tell me that this is something innocent when a 10 year old girl is dressed-up and made-up and presented in an adult sexual manner in Vogue Magazine.

Say what you see.

Clear child exploitation for all the pervs who like em young.

Cosmic...

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.

Yes I have a serious problem with the fact that due to parental neglect and social apathy and disregard of common sense and decency, one in every 3 children will face an abuser and be raped tonight. Yes I have a serious problem stemming from this giving abusers exactly what they want - LEGITIMACY.
I have a big problem with it, but I am not the problem. I am however, one of the many millions of unfortunate recipients of the terrible consequences of someone else problem and I think that if you dont have a problem with this, then you are part of the problem!