Sexual Exploitation of Children

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:49 am

All of here will agree that pedophiles need to have a certain operation done and video movies showing sex with children need to be burned along with the people who make them. So why is a magazine like Vogue promoting it as depicted in the first pic on this link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... model.html

Are the hot adult models now passe? Do we need provocative pictures of children to promote sales? Will we start seeing more Pretty Baby type flicks that the liberal parts of society will accept and condone? Thoughts please.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:26 am

Have you ever seen Little Miss Sunshine? Reminds me of the pageant at the end. This is plain ridiculous how they're being depicted. Excluding paedophiles, there's NOTHING sexual about pre-pubescent children, and this horrible fashion/beauty media need to stop portraying sexuality in pre-pubescent children.

Then again, these are the same people that put out impossible ideals for beauty and destroy self-confidence in people whom have beautiful bodies. The fashion/beauty industry is simply sickening, so just don't listen to them.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:08 am

Holy crap, that's disturbing, particularly in such a mainstream magazine.

Lyrics from a song I heard recently wrote:...Why the need?
Why the need to eroticize our children?
...
Dishwalla - "Pretty Babies"

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:09 am

It's SICK SICK SICK and the magazine should be brought to court for sexual exploitation.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:20 am

I ... don't really see anything objectionable in the pictures in that article. They look like a little girl playing dress-up with some rather conservative fashion and her mother's makeup. That said, I think it's stupid.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:42 am

null0010 wrote:I ... don't really see anything objectionable in the pictures in that article.

They look like a little girl playing dress-up with some rather conservative fashion and her mother's makeup.

Hardly, those pictures are Highly sexual in nature and Barely appropriate for a Teen let alone a pre-teen

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:50 am

What's the issue here?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:54 am

I see how you CONVENIENTLY ignored the two that had her laid out in sexual poses

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:41 am

The picture you posted Null suggests nothing of a sexual nature. I've said before you can usually spot the differences right off.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:46 am

CUDA wrote:
They look like a little girl playing dress-up with some rather conservative fashion and her mother's makeup.
Hardly, those pictures are Highly sexual in nature and Barely appropriate for a Teen let alone a pre-teen

That, my friend, lies in the eye of the beholder.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:50 am

Pic #1 from link: HUGE slit down the middle of her front. This is normally used to expose breasts of women who are adults.
Pic #2: Children should not be in a adult type pose in a sexual content.
Pic #3: Why would any pic of a child have her pulling her lip???
Pic #4: it's about the only one that be passed as ok but why would any pre-teen wear so much make up?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:53 am

Is the thread about whether people find the pictures themselves arousing or if the intent of the photographer was to suggest sexuality? I'm confused now.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:56 am

CDN_Merlin wrote:Pic #1 from link: HUGE slit down the middle of her front. This is normally used to expose breasts of women who are adults.
Pic #2: Children should not be in a adult type pose in a sexual content.
Pic #3: Why would any pic of a child have her pulling her lip???
Pic #4: it's about the only one that be passed as ok but why would any pre-teen wear so much make up?

Pic #1: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #2: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #3: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #4: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.

I seriously fail to see the "sexuality" suggested by this article. This is photography of a dress-up session. That's what little girls do.

Now, if she were shirtless or posing bent over or wearing a bikini or something, then I could understand these cries of "inappropriate sexuality".

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:58 am

Uhm no. It's all about motive when it comes to photography. There is definitely a line where dress crosses a line. No child should be portrayed in a sexually suggestive manner. I'm sure we can all see the difference no matter what the age of the girl.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:02 pm

Grendel wrote:
CUDA wrote:...those pictures are Highly sexual in nature and Barely appropriate for a Teen let alone a pre-teen
That, my friend, lies in the eye of the beholder.

Granted.

For *this* beholder, the pose and dress in two of the four pics in the linked article are overtly sexual, which is disturbing for a model that young. I don't think my perception is that far from the norm.

null0010 wrote:I seriously fail to see the "sexuality" suggested by this article.

Sure, some may not see sexuality in those two images, and that's fine. But clearly many (or even most) do. Thus the problem.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:29 pm

null0010 wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:Pic #1 from link: HUGE slit down the middle of her front. This is normally used to expose breasts of women who are adults.
Pic #2: Children should not be in a adult type pose in a sexual content.
Pic #3: Why would any pic of a child have her pulling her lip???
Pic #4: it's about the only one that be passed as ok but why would any pre-teen wear so much make up?
Pic #1: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #2: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #3: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #4: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.

I seriously fail to see the "sexuality" suggested by this article. This is photography of a dress-up session. That's what little girls do.

Now, if she were shirtless or posing bent over or wearing a bikini or something, then I could understand these cries of "inappropriate sexuality".

Your definition of the pics are fine, if there are never any pics taken adn teh girl is at home with her mom. Not being displayed to the entire world for all pedophiles to see and get sexually excited about.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:31 pm

flip wrote:Is the thread about whether people find the pictures themselves arousing or if the intent of the photographer was to suggest sexuality? I'm confused now.

I took it as the intent of the Photographer

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:45 pm

null0010 wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:Pic #1 from link: HUGE slit down the middle of her front. This is normally used to expose breasts of women who are adults.
Pic #2: Children should not be in a adult type pose in a sexual content.
Pic #3: Why would any pic of a child have her pulling her lip???
Pic #4: it's about the only one that be passed as ok but why would any pre-teen wear so much make up?
Pic #1: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #2: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #3: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.
Pic #4: Little girl playing with her mother's clothes and makeup.

I seriously fail to see the "sexuality" suggested by this article. This is photography of a dress-up session. That's what little girls do.

Now, if she were shirtless or posing bent over or wearing a bikini or something, then I could understand these cries of "inappropriate sexuality".

Little girls playing dress up don't have fashion photographers publishing their poses in magazines. If they did little girls playing dress up would have a whole different meaning for some people....that is the context that is raising concern.
It isn't that a little girl would strike a pose or pile on the make up and mimic adult girls, it is all about, for who, and why, someone would publicize such photos.

I wonder if you have thought of that distinction.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:58 pm

null0010 wrote:Now, if she were shirtless or posing bent over or wearing a bikini or something, then I could understand these cries of "inappropriate sexuality".

you obviously do not understand the difference between Sexual and pornographic in nature

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:07 pm

Any doubt about Null's motivations or line of 'reasoning' has just been removed.

[ Post made via Android ]

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:21 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:Anu doubt about Null's motivations or line of 'reasoning' has just been removed.

TB, watch it.

Null wasn't advocating child porn or even suggesting that sexual images of children are acceptable. All he said was that he didn't see sexuality in the images.

I may personally think it puts him in the minority (or perhaps with the visually-challenged

), but it's no reason for implications about motive or mindset.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:25 pm

No…null is just playing his usual game of posting to get a response…and everyone is playing the dutiful wife, as usual.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:25 pm

I think some of you are disregarding the fact that other 10 year old girls are going to look at this stuff and, for example, put on a whorish amount of make-up and pull their lips at men. I can't even tell you how much trouble I got into mimicking things I saw when I was that age.

FJ gives this thing a thumbs down.

Hell, I don't even have a daughter, and it disturbs me.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:34 pm

It is pretty screwed up, even if one doesn't see it as direct sexualization (though I certainly do myself).

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:58 pm

My step daughter just turned 12. I wouldn't let any photographer take pics like that.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:24 pm

While little girls will play dress up, wear their mothers clothes, smear lipstick on their faces and totter around the house in their mothers high heel shoes...they aren't:

Dressed by adults
Poised by adults
Photographed by adults
Used by adults to sell a adult magazine (and before Null chimes in, Vogue is not a little girl magazine)

Anyone here that thinks the photo is benign in either intent or purpose, needs to re-check their morality.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:40 pm

Spidey wrote:No…null is just playing his usual game of posting to get a response…and everyone is playing the dutiful wife, as usual.

Is the idea that someone might have such a different viewpoint so alien that it simply does not exist?

I'm not trying to say that advertising using children who know no better is somehow morally correct, I simply do not see any sexuality associated with these photographs.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:48 pm

woodchip wrote:While little girls will play dress up, wear their mothers clothes, smear lipstick on their faces and totter around the house in their mothers high heel shoes...they aren't:

Dressed by adults
Poised by adults
Photographed by adults
Used by adults to sell a adult magazine (and before Null chimes in, Vogue is not a little girl magazine)

Anyone here that thinks the photo is benign in either intent or purpose, needs to re-check their morality.

Afraid I agree with woodchip here. Creepy on so many levels. What the hell were the parents thinking too? Are they that clueless, or perverted maybe, to not have thought that certain sicko adult males would get a turn on by that picture OF THEIR DAUGHTER? Uuhhhhhhhgg! Prepubescent girls are NOT sexual objects, nor should they be represented as looking like sultry sexual objects, period.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:07 pm

null0010 wrote: Is the idea that someone might have such a different viewpoint so alien that it simply does not exist?

No, I just think you like playing the role of the contrarian.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:38 pm

null0010 wrote:
Spidey wrote:No…null is just playing his usual game of posting to get a response…and everyone is playing the dutiful wife, as usual.
Is the idea that someone might have such a different viewpoint so alien that it simply does not exist?

I'm not trying to say that advertising using children who know no better is somehow morally correct, I simply do not see any sexuality associated with these photographs.

would you allow your daughter that have photographs like that taken for a magazine aimed at adults???

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:06 pm

CUDA wrote:
null0010 wrote:
Spidey wrote:No…null is just playing his usual game of posting to get a response…and everyone is playing the dutiful wife, as usual.
Is the idea that someone might have such a different viewpoint so alien that it simply does not exist?

I'm not trying to say that advertising using children who know no better is somehow morally correct, I simply do not see any sexuality associated with these photographs.
would you allow your daughter that have photographs like that taken for a magazine aimed at adults???

Depends on her mother's answer.

But that question is really aside from the point. This is not my daughter or your daughter, it is someone else's daughter.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:16 pm

That fact that it's someone else's daughter is irrelevant. It's not a good idea. Anyone else remember Jean Benet Ramsay (spelling?)? You're being obtuse, Null. No one said it was pornography, but it has been demonstrated that it is sexual in nature. Bad motive, bad idea.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:37 am

null0010 wrote:
CUDA wrote:would you allow your daughter that have photographs like that taken for a magazine aimed at adults???
Depends on her mother's answer.

But that question is really aside from the point. This is not my daughter or your daughter, it is someone else's daughter.

that sir is a B/S answer!! and it's exactly the point.

so I will ask it again. and it is a YES or NO question.
would you allow your daughter that have photographs like that taken for a magazine aimed at adults

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:15 am

CUDA wrote:would you allow your daughter that have photographs like that taken for a magazine aimed at adults

Vogue is a fashion magazine, not a porn magazine, so I don't see why I wouldn't. Assuming my hypothetical daughter wanted to do it.

In either case, this is a loaded question. If I say "yes," you will attack me for being a "bad parent" (read: a parent who does things differently than you would); if I say "no," I am a hypocrite or something, regardless of how little sense that accusation makes.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:45 am

CUDA wrote:so I will ask it again. and it is a YES or NO question.
would you allow your daughter that have photographs like that taken for a magazine aimed at adults

yes, provided it was Modern Maturity, Country Living or Fly Fisherman. I would be a bit leery of Vogue,
however.

FWIW, this thread has been an interesting read. My daughter brought the photo shoot in question(she's 22,and follows such literature closer than I ever have) to my attention and we both thought it to be in extremely poor taste. Not, however, the first such incident, as I can recall some really, really bad stuff on billboards and the like over the past 20 years, from time to time.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:46 am

null0010 wrote:
CUDA wrote: Assuming my hypothetical daughter wanted to do it.

well here's a bit of Parenting advise for you. your hypothetical 10 year old daughter doesn't get a say so in the matter. you do the right thing and protect your child. allowing her to dress and pose like that is asking for trouble.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:57 pm

So it seems my prediction was accurate.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:25 pm

well since you had no idea how you'd handle the situation and you said you'd leave the choice up to a 10 year old. I figured you needed some instruction

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:38 pm

CUDA wrote:well since you had no idea how you'd handle the situation and you said you'd leave the choice up to a 10 year old. I figured you needed some instruction

I still stand by my reply. I would also, if my hypothetical daughter wanted to smoke when she turned 18, buy her first pack of cigarettes for her.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:10 pm

at 18 you have no say in the matter. at 10 you better say