French Vogue Slammed for Sexy Photos of a 10yo

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427
French Vogue Slammed for Sexy Photos of a 10yo

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20110804/young-model-thylane-blondeau-110804/

Thylane Loubry Blondeau, a 10-year-old with stunning good looks, seems destined for a wildly successful modeling career. But photos of the preteen in this month's issue of French Vogue are reigniting a debate over the sexualization of young girls.
With her full lips, waist-length hair and piercing blue eyes, Blondeau is already an in-demand model. The Parisian has been modelling since she was four, appearing in such magazine as Vogue Enfants. But it's her spread in this month's French Vogue that has tongues wagging.

The issue, which was guest-edited by designer Tom Ford, shows the preteen Blondeau wearing a red dress, leopard-print stilettos and red nail polish while lying on a tiger skin rug in one shot. In another, she reclines on a bed dressed in a low-cut, gold lame gown and gold stilettos.

Blondeau is not the only little girl in the editorial. The spread features more than a dozen pages of girls in makeup and up-dos.

The editorial is said to have been designed to question our culture's -- and the fashion industry's -- obsession with youth. The copy in the spread asks, in part, "What makeup at what age? How does one wear makeup at 13? What about at 70? Obviously not like one does at 20."

Janna Sauers, editor at Jezebel.com notes the images are disturbing, but that they're "purposefully, knowingly disturbing" and aimed to provoke a reader to question the fashion industry's treatment of young girls.

"Models only three or four years (and one middle-school growth spurt) older than Thylane grace international runways, glossy magazine covers, and ad campaigns for luxury brands regularly," she writes. "Only they are not styled as children, which Thylane and the other child models so obviously were in this spread, with their too-big shoes and their white, little-kid cotton undershirts peeking out from too-big designer outfits."

She adds that she believes that the spread was published in the knowledge that outrage would follow, which it seems to have done.

Blondeau is not the first young model to stir up the sexualization debate. Brooke Shields created plenty of controversy in 1981 when the then-15-year-old posed provocatively in Calvin Klein jeans and declared that nothing came between her and her Calvins.

In 2007, a 13-year-old Dakota Fanning posed in a controversial campaign for Marc Jacobs. And her younger sister Elle Fanning is now the face of Jacobs' Fall 2011 campaign – at the age of 13. Miu Miu recently chose Hailee Steinfeld, the 14-year-old star of True Grit, as the face of its fall 2011 campaign.

1. Do you think that there is a big problem with the sexualization of young girls in the media?
2. Do you think that an editorial that purposefully shows sexualized pictures of young girls makes an effective social commentary about the issue?

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

I don't care for modeling in young children, Toddlers & Tiaras anyone?, especially when they are dressed in provactive clothes and posing in ways that children should not be posing in. I think we force children to grow up far to quickly. No doubt that this little girl is beautiful, but there are more classy ways for children to model...not spread out in high heels and skimpy clothes on animal skins. Gross.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I don't care for modeling in young children, Toddlers & Tiaras anyone?, especially when they are dressed in provactive clothes and posing in ways that children should not be posing in. I think we force children to grow up far to quickly. No doubt that this little girl is beautiful, but there are more classy ways for children to model...not spread out in high heels and skimpy clothes on animal skins. Gross.

I think (from the article, having not seen the actual magazine) that was the point - they were trying to get a reaction out of people to kind of highlight how gross it is to sexualize children. Do you think that showing pictures like that is an effective way to acheive that goal? Or were they just being sensationalistic?

I'm torn on this one.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

I don't think showing pictures like that is effective just as I don't think showing pictures of boobs is a good way to advocate BF'ing. I'm an equal opportunity prude. Smile

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

1. Do you think that there is a big problem with the sexualization of young girls in the media?

Yes. And young boys. And anorexic women/men who may be of age but who look like prepubescent boys or girls.

2. Do you think that an editorial that purposefully shows sexualized pictures of young girls makes an effective social commentary about the issue?

No. I find it simply exploitative and sensationalistic and a way to seek views/ratings/commentary.

Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1316

"Potter75" wrote:

1. Do you think that there is a big problem with the sexualization of young girls in the media?

Yes. And young boys. And anorexic women/men who may be of age but who look like prepubescent boys or girls.

2. Do you think that an editorial that purposefully shows sexualized pictures of young girls makes an effective social commentary about the issue?

No. I find it simply exploitative and sensationalistic and a way to seek views/ratings/commentary.

THIS!

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Potter75" wrote:

1. Do you think that there is a big problem with the sexualization of young girls in the media?

Yes. And young boys. And anorexic women/men who may be of age but who look like prepubescent boys or girls.

2. Do you think that an editorial that purposefully shows sexualized pictures of young girls makes an effective social commentary about the issue?

No. I find it simply exploitative and sensationalistic and a way to seek views/ratings/commentary.

Agreed!

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

1. I don't personally find anything "pormographic" about the pictures. I think they were tastefully done, and she looks beautiful. Now that being said, would I let my own DD do something like this? Absolutely not. I don't agree with sexualizing our children (like with the stupid toddlers and tiaras) personally, but I wound't condemn another parent if they choose to let their children participate in things like this. I do think that this world is youth obsessed, but it's always been this way, and always will be.

2. My answer to this is no. Again, I don't agree with it at all. I don't think that children need to be used in this way. I understand why marketing teams do this, though... because it sells. I think that there's 1000 other directions that makeup lines, clothing designers, and anyone else that feels the need to use children in their ads can go.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"Potter75" wrote:

1. Do you think that there is a big problem with the sexualization of young girls in the media?

Yes. And young boys. And anorexic women/men who may be of age but who look like prepubescent boys or girls.

2. Do you think that an editorial that purposefully shows sexualized pictures of young girls makes an effective social commentary about the issue?

No. I find it simply exploitative and sensationalistic and a way to seek views/ratings/commentary.

Ditto.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Starryblue702" wrote:

1. I don't personally find anything "pormographic" about the pictures. I think they were tastefully done, and she looks beautiful. Now that being said, would I let my own DD do something like this? Absolutely not. I don't agree with sexualizing our children (like with the stupid toddlers and tiaras) personally, but I wound't condemn another parent if they choose to let their children participate in things like this. I do think that this world is youth obsessed, but it's always been this way, and always will be.

2. My answer to this is no. Again, I don't agree with it at all. I don't think that children need to be used in this way. I understand why marketing teams do this, though... because it sells. I think that there's 1000 other directions that makeup lines, clothing designers, and anyone else that feels the need to use children in their ads can go.

You honestly think these were tastefully done? With a young child dressed in skimpy clothes, high heels, and spread out like a porn star over an animal skin? Really??

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Starryblue702" wrote:

1. I don't personally find anything "pormographic" about the pictures. I think they were tastefully done, and she looks beautiful. Now that being said, would I let my own DD do something like this? Absolutely not. I don't agree with sexualizing our children (like with the stupid toddlers and tiaras) personally, but I wound't condemn another parent if they choose to let their children participate in things like this. I do think that this world is youth obsessed, but it's always been this way, and always will be.
.

I don't understand your post at all. You state that these are tasteful and beautiful, and then state that the parents are letting their children participate in the sexualizing of their children. Those contradictory statements lead me to believe that you think that sexualizing children is tasteful and beautiful, as long as it is not your children.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

I don't understand your post at all. You state that these are tasteful and beautiful, and then state that the parents are letting their children participate in the sexualizing of their children. Those contradictory statements lead me to believe that you think that sexualizing children is tasteful and beautiful, as long as it is not your children.

The pics that I saw that were posted by the OP I didn't find anything wrong with. If you saw that I put in parenthesis (toddlers and tiaras), that's what I meant with that statement. Young girls are always made out to be sexy, whether it be by Victoria's Secret, American Eagle, makeup lines... or anything else... so I don't know why anyone is freaking out about this particular spread. Do I agree with it? No. Would I let my young daughter do something that I though was distatseful? No, but that doesn't mean that I condemn it for someone else's child, either. Each parent has the freedom to let their child do what they think is appropriate.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Starryblue702" wrote:

The pics that I saw that were posted by the OP I didn't find anything wrong with. If you saw that I put in parenthesis (toddlers and tiaras), that's what I meant with that statement. Young girls are always made out to be sexy, whether it be by Victoria's Secret, American Eagle, makeup lines... or anything else... so I don't know why anyone is freaking out about this particular spread. Do I agree with it? No. Would I let my young daughter do something that I though was distatseful? No, but that doesn't mean that I condemn it for someone else's child, either. Each parent has the freedom to let their child do what they think is appropriate.

Victoria Secret Models are over 18 (any that I've ever seen) - they are not young little girls. Really, any regular clothing ad or makeup ad that you listed above, the models are not laying out in skimpy clothes nor are they oddly posed on an animal skin rug.

There is a large issue with this magazine because they are making LITTLE girls pose in ADULT ways with ADULT clothing. There is nothing appropriate about it.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

Victoria Secret Models are over 18 (any that I've ever seen) - they are not young little girls. Really, any regular clothing ad or makeup ad that you listed above, the models are not laying out in skimpy clothes nor are they oddly posed on an animal skin rug.

There is a large issue with this magazine because they are making LITTLE girls pose in ADULT ways with ADULT clothing. There is nothing appropriate about it.

I don't think the magazine is "making" anyone do anything. As a parent, I have total control over what I allow my children to be a part of and this little girl's parents have the same control. I'm assuming they have no problem with the spread.

My opinion? I don't think it is too totally terrible. But then again I let my kids dance on stage with make-up and 2-piece costumes so what do I know? lol

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cp=23&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=thylane+loubry+blondeau&qe=VGh5bGFuZSBMb3VicnkgQmxvbmRlYXU&qesig=Wr9UT2a_U8h3UG2bDfcGyA&pkc=AFgZ2tlSTTZFzdNTy0FxJlEXqLrqO-U9TIxaNz2obz1VA80ipd-bi2BX4Nf4TYOFsR_o5lLx9aYDCHohf1QqQZKrtzcqebeXGg&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1280&bih=615&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

I don't know. These are way way over the line for me. The topless one with the beaded necklace and head dress? The "come hither" look with hand tugging down on jeans?

She is 10. Who is she selling to? I don't want to look like a 10 year old. I think that the message is that we are all supposed to look like virginal yet whorish waifs. No thanks, not for me. If I were I subscriber to that magazine I would cancel my subscription.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

I don't think the magazine is "making" anyone do anything. As a parent, I have total control over what I allow my children to be a part of and this little girl's parents have the same control. I'm assuming they have no problem with the spread.

My opinion? I don't think it is too totally terrible. But then again I let my kids dance on stage with make-up and 2-piece costumes so what do I know? lol

Well I suppose it is all in what you feel comfortable with you children wearing. I don't even let my 2-year old wear a 2-piece bathing suit. So naturally, I am going to be even more opposed to a sexy shoot with a 10 year old posing seductively.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"Potter75" wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cp=23&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=thylane+loubry+blondeau&qe=VGh5bGFuZSBMb3VicnkgQmxvbmRlYXU&qesig=Wr9UT2a_U8h3UG2bDfcGyA&pkc=AFgZ2tlSTTZFzdNTy0FxJlEXqLrqO-U9TIxaNz2obz1VA80ipd-bi2BX4Nf4TYOFsR_o5lLx9aYDCHohf1QqQZKrtzcqebeXGg&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1280&bih=615&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

I don't know. These are way way over the line for me. The topless one with the beaded necklace and head dress? The "come hither" look with hand tugging down on jeans?

She is 10. Who is she selling to? I don't want to look like a 10 year old. I think that the message is that we are all supposed to look like virginal yet whorish waifs. No thanks, not for me. If I were I subscriber to that magazine I would cancel my subscription.

I didn't see the topless one using the link from the OP. I agree that crosses the line for me. But the others? Well, that's what I'd expect from Vogue to be quite honest.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

I didn't see the topless one using the link from the OP. I agree that crosses the line for me. But the others? Well, that's what I'd expect from Vogue to be quite honest.

I guess I just consider Vogue an adult magazine, so I expect it to be adults modeling, not children. When I open a crewcuts or boden magazine, it would be weird to me to see adults posing as children and wearing children's clothing, or posing in childlike poses (leapfrogging, or skipping rope or whatnot). I would not understand the marketing objective. This makes me feel the same way. I think that this child has plenty of time to be an adult and to pose naked or semi naked.......I don't really think that a 10 year old can give the informed consent as to how her body/images are used as I don't think that at that age she can possibly understand how those images can be perceived or interpreted by grown men. That makes me feel very uncomfortable for this child.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"Potter75" wrote:

I guess I just consider Vogue an adult magazine, so I expect it to be adults modeling, not children. When I open a crewcuts or boden magazine, it would be weird to me to see adults posing as children and wearing children's clothing, or posing in childlike poses (leapfrogging, or skipping rope or whatnot). I would not understand the marketing objective. This makes me feel the same way. I think that this child has plenty of time to be an adult and to pose naked or semi naked.......I don't really think that a 10 year old can give the informed consent as to how her body/images are used as I don't think that at that age she can possibly understand how those images can be perceived or interpreted by grown men. That makes me feel very uncomfortable for this child.

I consider Vogue to be a fashion magazine (and it is). I certainly wouldn't be shocked to open it up and find someone under the age of 18 modeling. Obviously her parents are comfortable with it and I don't think it crosses the line legally. Can't say I feel uncomfortable for anyone....if you don't like it don't subscribe to Vogue.

carg0612's picture
Joined: 09/23/09
Posts: 1554

For me, personally, I think part of what makes me so uncomfortable about the photos is the perceived intention. I don't think the intent is purely for fashion. I perceive the intent to evoke sexual feelings about a minor child and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Honestly I have a difficult time with the sexual exploitation of adults so when you place a child in that scenario I get really squeemish about it (yup, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little).

I know people have the right to make provocative images of adults, whether I like it or not, but I just personally feel that children should not be a part of that image.

No, I don't subscribe to Vogue, never have, never will - especially if they keep this up.

It's not that I can't appreciate, oh and I do appreciate, the human form. I guess I just feel there are more appropriate, less sexual ways to promote that appreciation.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

I consider Vogue to be a fashion magazine (and it is). I certainly wouldn't be shocked to open it up and find someone under the age of 18 modeling. Obviously her parents are comfortable with it and I don't think it crosses the line legally. Can't say I feel uncomfortable for anyone....if you don't like it don't subscribe to Vogue.

But it's not just modeling...I've seen child models and it isn't them spreading out in a sexually provacative way. I feel bad that her Mother is OK with her young child protraying a sexually charged adult.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cp=23&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=thylane+loubry+blondeau&qe=VGh5bGFuZSBMb3VicnkgQmxvbmRlYXU&qesig=Wr9UT2a_U8h3UG2bDfcGyA&pkc=AFgZ2tlSTTZFzdNTy0FxJlEXqLrqO-U9TIxaNz2obz1VA80ipd-bi2BX4Nf4TYOFsR_o5lLx9aYDCHohf1QqQZKrtzcqebeXGg&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1280&bih=615&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

I don't know. These are way way over the line for me. The topless one with the beaded necklace and head dress? The "come hither" look with hand tugging down on jeans?

She is 10. Who is she selling to? I don't want to look like a 10 year old. I think that the message is that we are all supposed to look like virginal yet whorish waifs. No thanks, not for me. If I were I subscriber to that magazine I would cancel my subscription.

She's not topless in any one of these pics. If you're referring to the black and white one, if you look closely, she has a gray shirt on. She's barely even showing any skin in these pics. Again, I think they're fine... not something I would let my daughter do, but I'm not this child's mother. They are responsible for her, and obviously felt that there was nothing wrong with this shoot, as is their right to let her do this if they feel it's OK. No laws were broken here, and far from it. Yes she's on a animal print rug... but SHE'S FULLY CLOTHED! Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this, and I don't really see anything wrong with this photo spread.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

I consider Vogue to be a fashion magazine (and it is). I certainly wouldn't be shocked to open it up and find someone under the age of 18 modeling. Obviously her parents are comfortable with it and I don't think it crosses the line legally. Can't say I feel uncomfortable for anyone....if you don't like it don't subscribe to Vogue.

I wouldn't be shocked to find someone under 18 modeling either. I do find it shocking to find a 10 year old modeling seductively. It may be a fashion magazine, but it is one who caters to adults, I don't know many 10 year olds who shop couture or could finance couture purchases. I feel safe saying that the target audience of french Vogue is not elementary schoolers, like the model is.

Her parents comfort level does not affect my opinion at all. Some parents are comfortable selling their daughters into the sex trade for a price.....that does not make it right. I get the whole "if you don't like it don't subscribe thing"....but we do have certain decency laws in place ~ and the reaction that these spreads have caused makes it pretty clear that this shoot and others like it of this 4th grader offend or shock a lot of people. I mean, to me it is like saying "if you don't like child porn don't look at it" or "if you don't like spousal abuse don't abuse your spouse". Well, okay. But I can also call for a halt to child porn or spousal abuse, or be happy that there are laws in place forbidding it.

Studies prove that young girls overexposed to images like this are affected by them ~

A 2007 study by the American Psychological Association (APA) showed that the exposure to sexualized images of girls and young women (on TV, in movies, ads and toys) impacts girls' self-esteem by setting unrealistic body expectations, fueling depression and the kind of self-objectification that has been linked directly with decreased condom use during sex and diminished sexual assertiveness.
In other studies, college women were shown two commercials with clichéd portrayals of women later expressed less interest in math- and science-related careers than students who hadn't been shown the ads.
So if there's one argument for saying to say no to 10-year-old models, it's that it fuels a culture of perpetual preening and insecurity among both young girls and older women. At the very least we can let little kids get through grade school before they start spending their mornings wondering if they're looking sexy enough that day or not.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/05/vogues-10-year-old-model-and-the-pressure-to-be-hot-from-cradle-to-grave/#ixzz1UpiM8DyZ

Personally that is not a culture which I will embrace or perpetuate for my daughter. I hope that the magazine loses advertisers and rethinks their sexy tots shoots.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I'm still chewing over the idea that the reaction that most people voiced here (outrage over the sexualization of a child) is (according to the article) the exact reaction they were trying to get - to get people talking about the problem. In that way, it seems like they were successful.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Starryblue702" wrote:

She's not topless in any one of these pics. If you're referring to the black and white one, if you look closely, she has a gray shirt on. She's barely even showing any skin in these pics. Again, I think they're fine... not something I would let my daughter do, but I'm not this child's mother. They are responsible for her, and obviously felt that there was nothing wrong with this shoot, as is their right to let her do this if they feel it's OK. No laws were broken here, and far from it. Yes she's on a animal print rug... but SHE'S FULLY CLOTHED! Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this, and I don't really see anything wrong with this photo spread.

You aren't looking very closely. This is the image I was referring to.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=thylane+loubry+blondeau&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=615&tbm=isch&tbnid=0GL4CSStBm0LqM:&imgrefurl=http://itsybitsysteps.com/10-year-old-vogue-model-thylane-loubry-blondeau/thylane-blondeau/&docid=gTt5YEm-RQP15M&w=425&h=640&ei=fFdFTsLpNcbC0AGR_JiRCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=302&vpy=88&dur=570&hovh=276&hovw=183&tx=80&ty=200&page=8&tbnh=140&tbnw=104&start=124&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:124

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Starryblue702" wrote:

She's not topless in any one of these pics. If you're referring to the black and white one, if you look closely, she has a gray shirt on. She's barely even showing any skin in these pics. Again, I think they're fine... not something I would let my daughter do, but I'm not this child's mother. They are responsible for her, and obviously felt that there was nothing wrong with this shoot, as is their right to let her do this if they feel it's OK. No laws were broken here, and far from it. Yes she's on a animal print rug... but SHE'S FULLY CLOTHED! Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this, and I don't really see anything wrong with this photo spread.

The point isn't that she is clothed, it's the way that she is posed and the message they are trying to portray. And sorry, if you have to "look very closely" to see if a CHILD is wearing a shirt...that's an issue. That means, they are trying to make it look as if she is naked.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

But it's not just modeling...I've seen child models and it isn't them spreading out in a sexually provacative way. I feel bad that her Mother is OK with her young child protraying a sexually charged adult.

Are you referring to child models for GAP or TCP? Obviously those images are going to be vastly different than the edgy and often controversial images of Vogue.

I found a very interesting link with other young fashion models and had planned on sharing it until I came to the nude photos of Brooke Shields at the age of 10. From what I can tell this edgy style of modeling is nothing new, even with children. Fashion is often about being over the top, trendsetting, pushing the boundaries.....

Is it something I'd sign my kid up for? Probably not unless it was some passion of hers. Am I okay with the photos in general? Pretty much.

daniellevmt's picture
Joined: 07/25/06
Posts: 213

Meh, Vogue is a high fashion mag, and although it's printed for adults, I don't see why that means every pic in it has to be OF adults. I don't think the editorial was intended to cause controversy at all...fashion is art, and this was a way of displaying it. I personally don't have an issue with the pics that were printed. And as far as the girl "posing seductively" or having a "come hither look" on her face, well, that's all totally subjective, isn't it? None of those thoughts crossed my mind when I saw the pics. I believe that it did for some of you, but that just proves that not everyone views them the same. And as far as comparing it to child porn....really? I mean, really??

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

You aren't looking very closely. This is the image I was referring to.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=thylane+loubry+blondeau&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=615&tbm=isch&tbnid=0GL4CSStBm0LqM:&imgrefurl=http://itsybitsysteps.com/10-year-old-vogue-model-thylane-loubry-blondeau/thylane-blondeau/&docid=gTt5YEm-RQP15M&w=425&h=640&ei=fFdFTsLpNcbC0AGR_JiRCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=302&vpy=88&dur=570&hovh=276&hovw=183&tx=80&ty=200&page=8&tbnh=140&tbnw=104&start=124&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:124

This picture wasn't on the set that was initially posted. This one I do have a problem with.

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

The point isn't that she is clothed, it's the way that she is posed and the message they are trying to portray. And sorry, if you have to "look very closely" to see if a CHILD is wearing a shirt...that's an issue. That means, they are trying to make it look as if she is naked.

In the pic I thought she was talking about she was fully clothed, and you had to "look closely" as the pic was in black and white and she had a light gray shirt on so it was hard to see.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I'm still chewing over the idea that the reaction that most people voiced here (outrage over the sexualization of a child) is (according to the article) the exact reaction they were trying to get - to get people talking about the problem. In that way, it seems like they were successful.

I guess so, but t what point do you draw the line? We should be talking about the issue of childhood abuse, but would you be ok with a picture of a child being molested? I'm just saying that I have more respect for amessage that cancome across without crossing the line of endorcing what they are trying to advocate against. Not to mention, though I have never picked up a copy of French Vogue magazine, it seems to me that it is not a magazine about social awareness and advocacy. Maybe I am wrong but considering that many of the their models are probably under 18 anyway, what exactly are they trying to advocate for or against? Honestly I would think they are more about shocking people into reading their magazines and this is one way to do it.

I think the pictures are gross. And I think French Vogue should get out of the social commentary business. What's next, their piece on underwweight models? It just seems hypocritical to me, which makes me question their motive beyond selling more magazines.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

I don't think the magazine is "making" anyone do anything. As a parent, I have total control over what I allow my children to be a part of and this little girl's parents have the same control. I'm assuming they have no problem with the spread.

My opinion? I don't think it is too totally terrible. But then again I let my kids dance on stage with make-up and 2-piece costumes so what do I know? lol

To the bolded....I'm not sure what your intention of bringing this up means? Are you saying that allowing your kids to wear make-up and 2 piece costumes in dance blurs the lines so that it is easier to allow it in other areas like modeling?

Honestly your statment and this thread made me think of an episode of Dance Moms where the girls were fitted to wear these skimpy hookerish outfits for a competition. The mom's saw them being fitted and under their breath talked about how they disliked the costumes but they still let their girls go out and compete in them. After the cmopetition was over and they lost, they yelled at the dance instructor for choosing the costumes and how appaulled they were. Of course had the girls won instead of lost, I have a feeling they would of been just fine with it. :roll:

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"culturedmom" wrote:

To the bolded....I'm not sure what your intention of bringing this up means? Are you saying that allowing your kids to wear make-up and 2 piece costumes in dance blurs the lines so that it is easier to allow it in other areas like modeling?

Honestly your statment and this thread made me think of an episode of Dance Moms where the girls were fitted to wear these skimpy hookerish outfits for a competition. The mom's saw them being fitted and under their breath talked about how they disliked the costumes but they still let their girls go out and compete in them. After the cmopetition was over and they lost, they yelled at the dance instructor for choosing the costumes and how appaulled they were. Of course had the girls won instead of lost, I have a feeling they would of been just fine with it. :roll:

No, that's not at all what I meant. My comment was actually rather sarcastic in nature....but I was insinuating that I'm probably more lax about make-up/clothes than other parents to begin with so that's why I'm not having a royal hissy over this particular spread. I know what costumes you're referring to (from Dance Moms) and I had no problem with those either. In fact, they look very similar to what most 8 & Under groups wear. I can guarantee they weren't DQd for their costumes.

I will say I find it interesting that you watch the show but find the photos in the OP "gross." lol

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

No, that's not at all what I meant. My comment was actually rather sarcastic in nature....but I was insinuating that I'm probably more lax about make-up/clothes than other parents to begin with so that's why I'm not having a royal hissy over this particular spread. I know what costumes you're referring to (from Dance Moms) and I had no problem with those either. In fact, they look very similar to what most 8 & Under groups wear. I can guarantee they weren't DQd for their costumes.

I will say I find it interesting that you watch the show but find the photos in the OP "gross." lol

Hmmm. Well I like to watch the show Intervention too but I don't approve of drugs. :roll: I watch it because of it's shock value really and like the article I find the mom's on that show "gross" as well. I have a fetish for watching train wrecks, I guess. The fact that you believe this.....

is ok and have no problems with allowing your child to wear it I think actually proves what I thought you were saying in the first place. I think if anyone asked a mom on the street if they would allow their 10 yo to be seen wearing silk thigh high stockings with garters, daisy duke silk shorts with ruffles on the butt, a tube top, and red lipstick, they would say "hell no". Not even on Halloween. I wouldn't let an 18 yo goout like that, costume or not. But somehow if they are in a "competition" it's OK, according to even you ( for 8 and under!?!). So that tells me that maybe things like dance does create line blurring.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"culturedmom" wrote:

Hmmm. Well I like to watch the show Intervention too but I don't approve of drugs. :roll: I watch it because of it's shock value really and like the article I find the mom's on that show "gross" as well. I have a fetish for watching train wrecks, I guess. The fact that you believe this.....

is ok and have no problems with allowing your child to wear it I think actually proves what I thought you were saying in the first place. I think if anyone asked a mom on the street if they would allow their 10 yo to be seen wearing silk thigh high stockings with garters, daisy duke silk shorts with ruffles on the butt, a tube top, and red lipstick, they would say "hell no". Not even on Halloween. I wouldn't let an 18 yo goout like that, costume or not. But somehow if they are in a "competition" it's OK, according to even you ( for 8 and under!?!). So that tells me that maybe things like dance does create line blurring.

Ummm......I'm pretty sure I know what I was saying and how I meant it......lol.

I don't really care if you poll every mother on the street, the internet, or the local bar about the costume. I will allow my children to do things that I feel comfortable with and I have no qualms about the dance costume you posted. I didn't ask for your opinion when I decided to formula feed, enroll my children in a charter school, or when I decided to sign them up for dance class. Why the heck would I care what you think about what I let them wear on stage at a COMPETITION??

The lines aren't blurred for me. Just because we have different ideas of what is acceptable doesn't make your way any better than mine.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"culturedmom" wrote:

Hmmm. Well I like to watch the show Intervention too but I don't approve of drugs. :roll: I watch it because of it's shock value really and like the article I find the mom's on that show "gross" as well. I have a fetish for watching train wrecks, I guess. The fact that you believe this.....

is ok and have no problems with allowing your child to wear it I think actually proves what I thought you were saying in the first place. I think if anyone asked a mom on the street if they would allow their 10 yo to be seen wearing silk thigh high stockings with garters, daisy duke silk shorts with ruffles on the butt, a tube top, and red lipstick, they would say "hell no". Not even on Halloween. I wouldn't let an 18 yo goout like that, costume or not. But somehow if they are in a "competition" it's OK, according to even you ( for 8 and under!?!). So that tells me that maybe things like dance does create line blurring.

That costume makes me squeamish. No young child should be dressed like, regardless of the reason. I don't view competition any different in the moral department. Either you think it's OK to dress your child in revealing outfits or you don't, I wouldn't change my opinion if it were a competition or halloween...or any other event.

I watch that show too because I obviously also like train wrecks. Most of their costumes are completely inappropriate for my moral standard and taste.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

The outfit is no more "revealing" than a bikini Rebecca. I get that you wouldn't put your daughter in a bikini, but I would. Like I said, I'm more lax when it comes to clothes and make-up, and since what my kid is wearing doesn't affect you in any way (not even indirectly) why do you care?

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

Ummm......I'm pretty sure I know what I was saying and how I meant it......lol.

I don't really care if you poll every mother on the street, the internet, or the local bar about the costume. I will allow my children to do things that I feel comfortable with and I have no qualms about the dance costume you posted. I didn't ask for your opinion when I decided to formula feed, enroll my children in a charter school, or when I decided to sign them up for dance class. Why the heck would I care what you think about what I let them wear on stage at a COMPETITION??

The lines aren't blurred for me. Just because we have different ideas of what is acceptable doesn't make your way any better than mine.

Alana, I could care less about whether you used formula, enrolled your kids in charter school, or put them in whatever class you wanted. However, if you bring it up in debate, then it is open to debate and I will post my opinion on it. You made the statment about your girl's dance class, not me. Just like you probably dont care what I watch on tv but because I brought it into the debate, you are free to comment on it, and you did. I'm not whinning about how it's not your business what I watch, now am I? You were free to comment on it and you did saying that you felt that the costumes they wore, that I alluded to, were just fine. So now I get to comment on your comment.

That's how debate works. If you don't want anyone's opinion on something, don't bring it up.

Now getting back to the debate and my point, my theory is that we become comfortable with things that we normally wouldn't be comfortable with, the more we are slowly introduced to them. I think that people who are accustomed to seeing kids in outfits that are inappropriate in most circles, would be a lot less likely to think that the 10 yo in French Vogue is inappropriate.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

The outfit is no more "revealing" than a bikini Rebecca. I get that you wouldn't put your daughter in a bikini, but I would. Like I said, I'm more lax when it comes to clothes and make-up, and since what my kid is wearing doesn't affect you in any way (not even indirectly) why do you care?

Because this is a debate! I'm sure if this were IRL Rebecca would just shake her head and move on. But we are here debating and so that just lends itself to people havign opinions on what is posted, Alana. You have been around long enough to know how this works.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"culturedmom" wrote:

Alana, I could care less about whether you used formula, enrolled your kids in charter school, or put them in whatever class you wanted. However, if you bring it up in debate, then it is open to debate and I will post my opinion on it. You made the statment about your girl's dance class, not me. Just like you probably dont care what I watch on tv but because I brought it into the debate, you are free to comment on it, and you did. I'm not whinning about how it's not your business what I watch, now am I? You were free to comment on it and you did saying that you felt that the costumes they wore, that I alluded to, were just fine. So now I get to comment on your comment.

That's how debate works. If you don't want anyone's opinion on something, don't bring it up.

Now getting back to the debate and my point, my theory is that we become comfortable with things that we normally wouldn't be comfortable with, the more we are slowly introduced to them. I think that people who are accustomed to seeing kids in outfits that are inappropriate in most circles, would be a lot less likely to think that the 10 yo in French Vogue is inappropriate.

Thanks for teaching me how to debate. I appreciate that. No really! I do!!

My point was, I don't care what you think about my parenting decisions. You can comment on them all you like but it won't affect what I do or what I think is appropriate. I'm not "whinning" or whining...lol...just telling it like it is.

Competitive dance didn't change my view on what is appropriate to wear. I'm just lax about that kind of stuff in general. You can have all the theories in the world about why I think the photo spread or the dance costumes are acceptable, but in reality I know how I feel about the subject and how I reach my parenting decisions and you haven't a clue.

By the way, does your last sentence even make sense?

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"culturedmom" wrote:

Because this is a debate! I'm sure if this were IRL Rebecca would just shake her head and move on. But we are here debating and so that just lends itself to people havign opinions on what is posted, Alana. You have been around long enough to know how this works.

And you've been around here long enough to know that my name isn't Alana.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn you were always quick to point out in debates that Moms shouldn't judge other Moms on their parenting decisions and start Mommy Wars. Please tell me how the photo spread or dance costume affects you negatively.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Ah, now you are reverting to "whining" about my typos and sarcasm. And I call you Alana as a shortening of your login name. Like I call Steph, Lulu or Laurie just freddie instead of freddieflounder). I mean really, grow up! I know Alana is not your name hence the screename Alana*sMommy. I may be a bad typist but I can read. Quit grasping at straws.

Ugh. I should have known by your quickness to get defensive with Potter and others that you are just incapable of debating with. I have been around long enough to know THAT.

Before this debate gets locked, I am done. But I am sure you will have the last word, so be my guest and tehn we will move on.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"culturedmom" wrote:

Ah, now you are reverting to "whining" about my typos and sarcasm. And I call you Alana as a shortening of your login name. Like I call Steph, Lulu or Laurie just freddie instead of freddieflounder). I mean really, grow up! I know Alana is not your name hence the screename Alana*sMommy. I may be a bad typist but I can read. Quit grasping at straws.

Ugh. I should have known by your quickness to get defensive with Potter and others that you are just incapable of debating with. I have been around long enough to know THAT.

Before this debate gets locked, I am done. But I am sure you will have the last word, so be my guest and tehn we will move on.

I'm not getting defensive or grasping at straws, lol. Honestly, debating with you makes me chuckle.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

The outfit is no more "revealing" than a bikini Rebecca. I get that you wouldn't put your daughter in a bikini, but I would. Like I said, I'm more lax when it comes to clothes and make-up, and since what my kid is wearing doesn't affect you in any way (not even indirectly) why do you care?

It's not that I care what you dress your child in, however, the debate is asking what we think of little children wearing skimpy outfits. The point I was making, if I am not comfortable letting my child wear a bikini than it's pretty obvious I would never allow her to wear a barely there dance outfit or pose in a seductive way. Morally I think it's incredibly wrong to allow little girls to show so much skin. It does tie into this debate.

My opinion had nothing to do with your child, you are making it way personal. If you are OK with your child wearing such outfits, than that is your choice. Just like any other kid that I see wearing similar outfits, I would still cringe in public and wonder what the Mother is thinking.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

I also think there is a difference between some bikini's vs the outfit worn at the dance competition. Many bikinis are not designed to be revealing or look sexy. Some actually are more like tankinis. The costume worn on the show were designed to look sexy, leggings were included to draw attention to the upper thighs. I'm curious, Alana, if you find the costume this group of girls wore to be appropriate, do you think their dance they performed to be appropriate, especially when they opened their legs to the audience? I heard quite a few gasps when they were performing. I think the mothers on the show made a valid point in how inappropriate the costumes and dance were. I would not be one bit surprised if they truly were used as an example to not even make 5th place. The judges were looking away during parts of their performance. I was shocked their instructor thought everything was fabulous!

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I knew there was a reason I was avoiding the GDB today. Smile

I agree that if you put your personal experiences/decisions out there on the debate board, you open them up for debate. This is not a support board.

Having said that, I am not liking the personal comments that have nothing to do with debating, and everything to do with just snarking back and forth at each other. I'VE been on the debate board to know that you both know the difference between debating and snarking. Wink

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"Beertje" wrote:

I also think there is a difference between some bikini's vs the outfit worn at the dance competition. Many bikinis are not designed to be revealing or look sexy. Some actually are more like tankinis. The costume worn on the show were designed to look sexy, leggings were included to draw attention to the upper thighs. I'm curious, Alana, if you find the costume this group of girls wore to be appropriate, do you think their dance they performed to be appropriate, especially when they opened their legs to the audience? I heard quite a few gasps when they were performing. I think the mothers on the show made a valid point in how inappropriate the costumes and dance were. I would not be one bit surprised if they truly were used as an example to not even make 5th place. The judges were looking away during parts of their performance. I was shocked their instructor thought everything was fabulous!

I did think that some of the dance moves were inappropriate and that is likely why they were DQd. It had nothing to do with the costumes, I can guarantee, because the majority of them are 2-piece and look similar.

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I knew there was a reason I was avoiding the GDB today. Smile

I agree that if you put your personal experiences/decisions out there on the debate board, you open them up for debate. This is not a support board.

Having said that, I am not liking the personal comments that have nothing to do with debating, and everything to do with just snarking back and forth at each other. I'VE been on the debate board to know that you both know the difference between debating and snarking. Wink

Alissa, you too are missing my point. I didn't come to this board or thread looking for support (obviously). And I'm okay with people disagreeing with my parenting decisions, otherwise I'd never bring them up. What I don't get is why anyone would care about my parenting decisions that don't negatively affect my children, their children, or anyone for that matter. Pretty much why I think FF/BF debates are lame....

And sorry, but sometimes Lana just makes it all too easy! lol

b525's picture
Joined: 06/06/07
Posts: 298

Isn't the point, though, that allowing this sort of thing can eventually desensitize a person to it? Like, however many years ago, people were to be completely covered when they went swimming in the ocean. Then, someone got racy and developed women's swimsuits that went to the knees (gasp!). Then, that became accepted and the coverage got less. And less. And less. Now, there's not much out there that people gasp at and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I think the concept is the same for both the dance outfits and the photos. Many years ago, that type of provocative modeling in publications was absolutely frowned upon. Then, gradually, it became more accepted, but only for adults. Now, it's getting younger and younger. Where's the line? It's desensitization and it's not always a good thing. I think it could be argued that allowing something in certain circumstances (i.e. just for art or just for competition) is another step in the process of normalizing certain behaviors/types of dress/whatever for everyday life.

ETA: And so, in this case, judgments that the general public makes about the appropriateness of this spread (or costumes in dance) can, in fact, negatively affect your children and mine. A mom's decision to allow thigh highs and pelvic thrusts in dance competition or a too-adult photo spread in a magazine does affect the culture in which my children grow up. I don't want my boys thinking that this is what girls are about.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

Alissa, you too are missing my point. I didn't come to this board or thread looking for support (obviously). And I'm okay with people disagreeing with my parenting decisions, otherwise I'd never bring them up. What I don't get is why anyone would care about my parenting decisions that don't negatively affect my children, their children, or anyone for that matter. Pretty much why I think FF/BF debates are lame....

And sorry, but sometimes Lana just makes it all too easy! lol

I'm not talking about you debating about why someone else should care - of course that is perfectly fine to debate. That's pretty much verbatim my argument for gay marriage - why does anyone else care.

What I am talking about is personal comments that serve no purpose to further a debate and are only thrown out there to be snarky like "sometimes Lana just makes it all too easy!" or "Ugh. I should have known by your quickness to get defensive with Potter and others that you are just incapable of debating with." Those comments aren't debating, they are just trying to get each other's goat. So please, both of you, knock it off with those types of comments.

But, as always, debate away.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

Im not sure where I land on this debate. I am tempted to use this debate as an example of how this article did do as it states and bring attention to this issue.

I also see this as somewhat of an equality thing. I personally find it very unfair that it is OK for a man to go topless, but not for a woman. Not that I want to (no one needs to see that:eek:) but just on principal. Also, a childs body is not sexual, so what does it matter what she is wearing? But at the same time I would not let my child dress the way the dance girls were, so.......... Im really not sure where I stand on this.

"b525" wrote:

Isn't the point, though, that allowing this sort of thing can eventually desensitize a person to it? Like, however many years ago, people were to be completely covered when they went swimming in the ocean. Then, someone got racy and developed women's swimsuits that went to the knees (gasp!). Then, that became accepted and the coverage got less. And less. And less. Now, there's not much out there that people gasp at and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I think the concept is the same for both the dance outfits and the photos. Many years ago, that type of provocative modeling in publications was absolutely frowned upon. Then, gradually, it became more accepted, but only for adults. Now, it's getting younger and younger. Where's the line? It's desensitization and it's not always a good thing. I think it could be argued that allowing something in certain circumstances (i.e. just for art or just for competition) is another step in the process of normalizing certain behaviors/types of dress/whatever for everyday life.

ETA: And so, in this case, judgments that the general public makes about the appropriateness of this spread (or costumes in dance) can, in fact, negatively affect your children and mine. A mom's decision to allow thigh highs and pelvic thrusts in dance competition or a too-adult photo spread in a magazine does affect the culture in which my children grow up. I don't want my boys thinking that this is what girls are about.

As to this quote, you can go even further back in history and say that we all started out wearing no clothes at all and then were forced to cover more and more until we were completely covered and that this is a way of reclaiming our bodies. So in that way, judgements like Alanas mommy could be seen as positively affecting our children. I also dont want my boy thinking that girls are about sex, but she is 10. These pictures are not about sex, IMO.

b525's picture
Joined: 06/06/07
Posts: 298

"ftmom" wrote:

I also dont want my boy thinking that girls are about sex, but she is 10. These pictures are not about sex, IMO.

She is 10. The clothes she is wearing, the poses, and the facial expressions are not typical of ten-year-olds. They are typical of adult women flaunting their sexuality. And, that is the rub for me.

Pages