10 year old model in Vogue: High end kiddie porn?

hatrickpatrick

If they haven't at least hit puberty yet it's just way beyond acceptable.

Mrmoe

I don't think it is child porn but it definitely shouldn't happen. It is in a similar vein to child beauty pageants that you often see in the USA.

Naomi00

This is old news? I remember reading about this shoot like a month ago? Or at least, French Vogue did exactly the same thing already.

It's very creepy anyway, don't really see the point of it.

Also I think the whole Elle whatever her name is and that other kid being put in ads for brands etc is the film industry's fault, it's not the fashion industry that made them into 'celebrities' at that age. I don't understand why they use these kids in their ads anyway. It's not going to sell clothes, they're not even models and it doesn't make the clothes look good either

Paddy Cow

southsiderosie wrote: »

I was back in the US this past spring, and came across "Toddlers and Tiaras" one night while flipping channels. It is probably the most disturbing tv show I've ever seen.

Tom Hanks has no problem with it. He even entered his own daughter.

latenia

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Tom Hanks has no problem with it. He even entered his own daughter.

:eek:

vampire of kilmainham

squod wrote: »

World is gone to hell. The previous Pope had raised that issue 15 years ago. I guess it's only now we're realising.

the previous pope raised the issue look at the state of the church who are they to raise issues on child porn when half of them were molesting children themselves and more of them covering it up. The church me arse...

Biggins

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Tom Hanks has no problem with it. He even entered his own daughter.

Well that makes it alright then! (I think not - just for clarity)
I'm badly disappointed in Tom Hanks - thought he would have a bit more kop-on.

The following image should give you a sign how low-brow this stuff really is - SAFE for work image.
Read the sign behind Tom Hanks head.

mike65

Even Benetton realised after a while that there is only so much mileage in manufactured outrage. Certain matters are more than just publicity the exploitation of children for corporate gain should be one of them.

df1985

and with that sales of vogue skyrocket.....they know what theyre doing.

MagicMarker

latenia wrote: »

:eek:

Check out the link...

Biggins

df1985 wrote: »

and with that sales of vogue skyrocket.....they know what theyre doing.

They are idiots - it might rise short term - but in the long term, their actions will be alone, ultimately and repeated be used to persuade others to turn away from their publication.

Short term possible gain - possible long term further losses.
I don't think they are allowing for the further future, just the immediate one!

Magic Beans

orourkeda wrote: »

Why cant parents just let their children be children?

When you say parents do you mean mothers? Because I can't imagine any father doing this to their daughters.

southsiderosie

Biggins wrote: »

Well that makes it alright then! (I think not - just for clarity)
I'm badly disappointed in Tom Hanks - thought he would have a bit more kop-on.

The following image should give you a sign how low-brow this stuff really is - SAFE for work image.
Read the sign behind Tom Hanks head.

It's a parody video.

Biggins

southsiderosie wrote: »

It's a parody video.

I know Tom Hanks was possibly doing a parody but the fact that someone could even think about in jest (never mind real), having a contest of that sort is sad, which is my point.

The sadder part that even though he's parodying, there is others out there actually like that for such real competitions.

southsiderosie

Magic Beans wrote: »

When you say parents do you mean mothers? Because I can't imagine any father doing this to their daughters.

Given that this girl has been a model since she was four years old, I would assume her father has a pretty good idea of what she has been up to.

Fathers are also involved with pagents, and can be just as crazed as the mothers (although they are certainly outnumbered in that regard).

southsiderosie

Biggins wrote: »

I know Tom Hanks was possibly doing a parody but the fact that someone could even think about in jest (never mind real), having a contest of that sort is sad, which is my point.

Did you actually watch the video? It was a total send-up of those pageants and the kind of parents who put their children in them.

Biggins

southsiderosie wrote: »

Did you actually watch the video? It was a total send-up of those pageants and the kind of parents who put their children in them.

I did.

I apologise if my point was not put across right.
I find it disturbing that some might find the comedy topic of having a sexy baby competition as ok.
Remember Channel 4 did a skit about paedophiles some time back and they got lashed for it.
It in the same vein of thought to which I allude.
(I use the above ONLY as an example - I'm sure there is others)

We cannot continue on one hand to condemn outright the likes of Vogue when on the other-hand, we do comedy skits about sexy babies?
If we can, is it not hypocritical to some extent?

Simi

Biggins wrote: »

Remember Channel 4 did a skin about paedophiles some time back and they got lashed for it.

Well since you brought it up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRRw1ERj2Gc

southsiderosie

Biggins wrote: »

I did.

I apologise if my point was not put across right.
I find it disturbing that some might find the comedy topic of having a sexy baby competition as ok.
Remember Channel 4 did a skit about paedophiles some time back and they got lashed for it.
It in the same vein of thought to which I allude.
(I use the above ONLY as an example - I'm sure there is others)

We cannot continue on one hand to condemn outright the likes of Vogue when on the other-hand, we do comedy skits about sexy babies?
If we can, is it not hypocritical to some extent?

I guess I just have a different take on it.

The Tom Hanks skit is clearly a satire of "Toddlers and Tiaras" - it is JUST like an episode of the show. So the satire isn't meant for us to laugh with him, it is meant for us to laugh at the people who put on these ridiculous events (and the network, TLC, which gives them airtime). So I see it as another form of condemnation.

--LOS--

seriously creepy pictures which clearly aim to be provocative

mackg

southsiderosie wrote: »

I guess I just have a different take on it.

The Tom Hanks skit is clearly a satire of "Toddlers and Tiaras" - it is JUST like an episode of the show. So the satire isn't meant for us to laugh with him, it is meant for us to laugh at the people who put on these ridiculous events (and the network, TLC, which gives them airtime). So I see it as another form of condemnation.

Agree 100%. Something like that can be far more damning and actually make a lot more people aware of something then just ranting and raving about it.

Biggins

southsiderosie wrote: »

I guess I just have a different take on it.

The Tom Hanks skit is clearly a satire of "Toddlers and Tiaras" - it is JUST like an episode of the show. So the satire isn't meant for us to laugh with him, it is meant for us to laugh at the people who put on these ridiculous events (and the network, TLC, which gives them airtime). So I see it as another form of condemnation.

O' not doubt that its a form of condemnation - and I agree with the sentiment.
However there is a a tad bit of double-sidedness to it.
We can joke about sexy babies (regardless of how good its intentions) - yet others with their stuff, can't.
Again I agree with the intention of the parody but "two wrong don't make a right" - and as long as we find justice in making comedy skits for sexy babies - the other side can (with some justification) say "Well hang on... we can't do our stuff - but you can!"

I still agree with the meaning behind the parody - no if's or buts - and in that light its well intentioned.

southsiderosie

mackg wrote: »

I thought the way they had the little kid say "Beyonce" was really creepy.
Reminds me of a zombie. Also her mother is clearly mental.

Jesus Christ, did you see the spray tan one? :eek:

A) Why are you spray-tanning a four year old?

Why are you spray-tanning a four year old who is crying hysterically?

I feel so bad for these kids.

Chuck Stone

Creepy stuff indeed and the only way it could be stopped is if people boycott the (r)mags.

Honey-ec

Naomi00 wrote: »

This is old news? I remember reading about this shoot like a month ago? Or at least, French Vogue did exactly the same thing already.

This is French Vogue. It's the same shoot, the magazine has finally gone to press.

mackg

southsiderosie wrote: »

Jesus Christ, did you see the spray tan one? :eek:

A) Why are you spray-tanning a four year old?

Why are you spray-tanning a four year old who is crying hysterically?

I feel so bad for these kids.

I swear I saw a little kid covered in fake tan in cork city yesterday:eek:

Mommy's little art project.

Paddy Cow

southsiderosie wrote: »

I guess I just have a different take on it.

The Tom Hanks skit is clearly a satire of "Toddlers and Tiaras" - it is JUST like an episode of the show. So the satire isn't meant for us to laugh with him, it is meant for us to laugh at the people who put on these ridiculous events (and the network, TLC, which gives them airtime). So I see it as another form of condemnation.

I thought the skit was excellent. I randomly came across it and didn't know it was a skit and at first I was like WTF Tom Hanks :eek: but then I coped on he was messing. The little girl in that is one hell of a natural actress and I had to google whether or not she was Tom's daughter. Even after I clicked it was a skit they were so good I thought they might be related or somthing LOL

I loved the bit at the end when Ron Howard the other girl won. It really did a great job of taking the piss out of the whole thing. I don't know how parents can claim it's the child's choice, when usually the children have been doing it since they were babies and don't know any different.

southsiderosie

I don't think there is anything wrong with children appearing in ads if they are doing so as children. This Gap Kids ad is perfectly appropriate. But the girl in question was dressed as an adult, was wearing adult makeup, and was posed provocatively.

I guess there is a question of 'where do you draw the line?'. One would like to think that the parents have more sense (they obviusly don't) or that the photographer would think it is inappropriate (clearly not) or that the editors would have nixed the idea when it was proposed. This kids of irresponsible behavior among all parties involved is what invites the government to try to stick their oar in...Not that I'm sure that they could really do anything in this case.

Teyla Emmagan

Yeah, I have a problem with this. The images of the kid are so sexualised (lying on a bed, the stillettos, the pouting, the sexy clothes, the heavy make up).

I just feel sorry for the kid, because whoever is supposed to be looking after her interests (parents, guardians whatever) are doing a sh*t poor job. It's exploitation.

Paddy Cow

southsiderosie wrote: »

I guess there is a question of 'where do you draw the line?'. One would like to think that the parents have more sense (they obviusly don't) or that the photographer would think it is inappropriate (clearly not) or that the editors would have nixed the idea when it was proposed. This kids of irresponsible behavior among all parties involved is what invites the government to try to stick their oar in...Not that I'm sure that they could really do anything in this case.

It's like that scene in Bruno where the casting director is asking the parents if they would allow their babies and toddlers to do all sorts of inappropriate stuff and the parents keep smiling and saying yes.

miss no stars

There's only one word really to sum up the poses - sick.

WindSock wrote: »

Meh. Girls generally like dressing up, tottering around in stillettos and putting on make up. Does it make them more attractive to paedos? I doubt it does very much.

They like doing that yea! And parents take cute funny pictures of them looking gawky and awkward and silly and have a laugh about it. They don't tailor the clothes, put them in full makeup and high heels and a 'sexy pose' and publish it in one of the worlds most read magazines!

joshrogan wrote: »

She is dressed very sensible compared to some of the 10-15 year old girl's I've seen on the street who dress like women of the night.

Those girls aren't being photographed and shown for all the world to see. Their parents are probably TRYING to cover them up!

df1985 wrote: »

and with that sales of vogue skyrocket.....they know what theyre doing.

Sometimes I buy the September issue of Vogue. I won't this year.

Dangerous Man

So, I suppose the consensus after all this talk is that no one would do her. Vogue Fail. Make the kids hotter next time. Disgraceful.

Wertz

southsiderosie wrote: »

This thread is about the sexual, not economic exploitation of young children. If you want to start a thread on sweatshop practices, then go ahead.

I will add however, that in many poor countries, sweatshop work is a critical means of AVOIDING sexual exploitation...and in the context of places like Cambodia and Honduras, we're not talking about questionable photos.

Granted...it's a bit whatabouttery on my part and not strictly on topic.

However I still think this is a storm in a teacup and as others have pointed out, the courting controversy on the mag's behalf is a surefire way to generate publicity, sales and possibly advertising contracts. I don't think such a "prestigious" title as Vogue would have gone down this road without making sure they were toeing the line on legal grounds.

That this, maybe, makes it "okay" to sexualise children (if that's what it's doing) sort of falls behind the sexualisation of children in the "real world" as is to be seen on the shopping streets of this country on any given day, through clothing and accessories and many other aspects of modern culture; TV shows, ads, "teen" mags and music and associated videos especially.


Your second point is well made...it's no doubt better to have kids working in a sweatshop than in a whorehouse...but both are expolitative and in both cases it's mainly by the West

RussellTuring

I don't really think this is as bad as people are making it out to be. Unless you actually find the child sexually arousing, I don't see the problem. It's obvious in all of the photos I've seen that she is very much a child so how can it be sexualisation? To me, it would be a different matter if they had made her appear to be an adult but for all of the clothes, make-up and poses, she still looks like a child, albeit one with a team of stylists at her disposal.

I also don't agree with this "children are growing up too fast nowadays" rabble. Historically, a girl would be expected to be married and have had kids by the time she would now be finished secondary school.

Biggins wrote: »

Side issue: If the likes of Vogue want to be able to stop crying about government interference in their business - they should stop doing this schite!

So to deal with the issue of government interference, they should shut up and do what the government says? That's ridiculous.

Biggins

RussellTuring wrote: »

...So to deal with the issue of government interference, they should shut up and do what the government says? That's ridiculous.

No - they should try sometimes behave as the public would ideally like them to.
That way the government of the public won't have to react to the public demands for possible further legal restrictions to cut out such crap behaviour.
...I guess that point went over your head.

Wertz

RussellTuring wrote: »

I also don't agree with this "children are growing up too fast nowadays" rabble. Historically, a girl would be expected to be married and have had kids by the time she would now be finished secondary school.

Yes by the time she would have finished secondary school...16/17. No-one on this thread (or in general) is arguing about sexualisation of that age group...10 year olds are a world away from that age group though, or at least they used to be...it seems that nowadays they are marketed to in the same way that those of a somewhat more sexually mature age used to be.

Make no mistake, children are a huge market force...snag them early and you have a mark that can influence parents to buy for them, are very transient in their desires, bore quickly and move on to the next shiny new thing and easily lead by clever sales and advertising tactics and will be consumers themselves for many years when they obtain their own spending power.
Big business seems to just keep lowering the age they are willing to sell to, and broaden the gamut of stuff they're willing to sell to that age bracket...the fashion industry leads this charge in a lot of respects (although perhpas not the high fashion industry)

Biggins

RussellTuring wrote: »

...I also don't agree with this "children are growing up too fast nowadays" rabble. Historically, a girl would be expected to be married and have had kids by the time she would now be finished secondary school.

Historically, life spans used to be a lot shorter over all over previous centuries.
Its just another point to consider.

RussellTuring

Biggins wrote: »

No - they should try sometimes behave as the public would ideally like them to.
That way the government of the public won't have to react to the public demands for possible further legal restrictions to cut out such crap behaviour.
...I guess that point went over your head.

So I'm just too stupid to understand your point? Brilliant. Anyway, you've just reworded what you said previously: that if they don't like being told to change their behaviour by governments, they should just change their behaviour.

I'm not saying the magazine was oblivious to the reaction this would cause and had only the best intentions, but I think people acting so is only giving them what they want. Do you think governments taking action to prevent this happening again will mean they won't come up with something else even more shocking?

Biggins wrote: »

Historically, life spans used to be a lot shorter over all over previous centuries.
Its just another point to consider.

And what?

Wertz wrote: »

Yes by the time she would have finished secondary school...16/17. No-one on this thread (or in general) is arguing about sexualisation of that age group...10 year olds are a world away from that age group though, or at least they used to be...it seems that nowadays they are marketed to in the same way that those of a somewhat more sexually mature age used to be.

Make no mistake, children are a huge market force...snag them early and you have a mark that can influence parents to buy for them, are very transient in their desires, bore quickly and move on to the next shiny new thing and easily lead by clever sales and advertising tactics and will be consumers themselves for many years when they obtain their own spending power.
Big business seems to just keep lowering the age they are willing to sell to, and broaden the gamut of stuff they're willing to sell to that age bracket...the fashion industry leads this charge in a lot of respects (although perhpas not the high fashion industry)

Indeed. But again, children often were married/working in their early teens or even younger until relatively recently. Things like this might shock us into believing otherwise but childhood lasts much longer now than it did in the past. There was no such thing as a teenager a century or so ago.

Biggins

RussellTuring wrote: »

So I'm just too stupid to understand your point? Brilliant. Anyway, you've just reworded what you said previously: that if they don't like being told to change their behaviour by governments, they should just change their behaviour.

I'm not saying the magazine was oblivious to the reaction this would cause and had only the best intentions, but I think people acting so is only giving them what they want. Do you think governments taking action to prevent this happening again will mean they won't come up with something else even more shocking?

Good god, does everything have to be explained out like talking A. B. C. basic?
Ok, here we go...

...Vogue print some crap that a lot of folk find disturbing.
...In the end (like England shortly) further enactment of laws are introduced to try stopping this rubbish.

Now, if your still able to understand the above - there is an intervening more complicated process going on.

...Vogue print some crap that a lot of folk find disturbing.
...The public reacts... voices concern...
...Politicians see this and further react for (a) their own wish to be seen as popular (b) seen to be doing something (c) wanted to be seen siding with the people and possibly a majority (d) genuinely concerned (e) all of the above and more...
...Alternative media jumps upon the bandwagon for (a) paper sales (b) wanting to go with the flow and also a chance to knock possible competition (c) Remotely possible concern too (d) wanting to get in the door of expressing concern for the sake of being seen as the good guys (e) not wishing further regulations so they pretend their reasons are for some of the above before they are criticised as being part of the problem and not the solution (f) all the above reason and more...

Are you still with me?

...So the politicians react for above reason and bring in new laws...
...Some like Vogue then cry "Too much rules.. the politicians (the people!) killing the industry"...
...My original quote...

Side issue: If the likes of Vogue want to be able to stop crying about government interference in their business - they should stop doing this schite!

...So if your still with me again, they previously at times blamed everyone but themselves and cried 'foul' - what they can't or refuse to see is that they are the masters of their own demise.
And if they are too stupid to see that or bring about change within their own industry, well fcuk them - they deserve what they get!

...And by their own inaction and/or stupidity, they will get it! England is starting to lead by example.
Self-regulation has been exposed to be fatally flawed too many times.

RussellTuring wrote: »

...Do you think governments taking action to prevent this happening again will mean they won't come up with something else even more shocking?

If they do something more shocking - and this I suspect clearer breaking new possible laws, they again deserve what they will get.

RussellTuring wrote: »

And what?.

Seriously?
Your saying you don't grasp, know or acknowledge the importance of the simple fact I stated previously?
Please come back when you do. You will better further then understand what is going on in this world in comparison to many years ago, why the social changes have come about and the knock-on effects.
There is not point explaining something more complicated such as life experience compression, the inbuilt function at gene level of the desire to procreate, the concept of marriage and how it played out in relation to not just being about love but also complex relationships between countries given a shorter lifespan in which to do it - when you don't grasp the easier stuff.

RussellTuring

Biggins wrote: »

Good god, does everything have to be explained out like talking A. B. C. basic?
Ok, here we go...

...Vogue print some crap that a lot of folk find disturbing.
...In the end (like England shortly) further enactment of laws are introduced to try stopping this rubbish.

Now, if your still able to understand the above - there is an intervening more complicated process going on.

...Vogue print some crap that a lot of folk find disturbing.
...The public reacts... voices concern...
...Politicians see this and further react for (a) their own wish to be seen as popular (b) seen to be doing something (c) wanted to be seen siding with the people and possibly a majority (d) genuinely concerned (e) all of the above and more...
...Alternative media jumps upon the bandwagon for (a) paper sales (b) wanting to go with the flow and also a chance to knock possible competition (c) Remotely possible concern too (d) wanting to get in the door of expressing concern for the sake of being seen as the good guys (e) not wishing further regulations so they pretend their reasons are for some of the above before they are criticised as being part of the problem and not the solution (f) all the above reason and more...

Are you still with me?

...So the politicians react for above reason and bring in new laws...
...Some like Vogue then cry "Too much rules.. the politicians (the people!) killing the industry"...
...My original quote...

...So if your still with me again, they previously at times blamed everyone but themselves and cried 'foul' - what they can't or refuse to see is that they are the masters of their own demise.
And if they are too stupid to see that or bring about change within their own industry, well fcuk them - they deserve what they get!

...And by their own inaction and/or stupidity, they will get it! England is starting to lead by example.
Self-regulation has been exposed to be fatally flawed too many times.



If they do something more shocking - and this I suspect clearer breaking new possible laws, they again deserve what they will get.

Wow. Do you condescend to people for a living? That was nice. However in all of that condescension you neglected to mention that this concerned group is often a vocal minority, and that they take it upon themselves to impose their own morality on the majority.

I find it amazing that you think so many of the reasons you gave for silencing the press are actually valid and that whether or not this should be allowed was a secondary concern. Instead of debating whether or not it is right for governments to dictate what may or may not be published, you state that selling newspapers and garnering votes should be good enough reason for people to accept censorship. Just because some people scream "think of the children" at the top of their voices, this does not make it okay to do anything they want. I suppose it comes down to whether not you believe that what you described above really is the entirety of a population acting as one and doing what they have decided should be done. With all of the self-interested back-scratching and self-aggrandisement you've alluded to, I don't think it is.

Seriously?
Your saying you don't grasp, know or acknowledge the importance of the simple fact I stated previously?
Please come back when you do. You will better further then understand what is going on in this world in comparison to many years ago, why the social changes have come about and the knock-on effects.
There is not point explaining something more complicated such as life experience compression, the inbuilt function at gene level of the desire to procreate, the concept of marriage and how it played out in relation to not just being about love but also complex relationships between countries given a shorter lifespan in which to do it - when you don't grasp the easier stuff.

No I didn't say that; you did. Nevertheless, what you've said, including your apparent acknowledgement that people did in fact get married younger in life than they do now would suggest to me that childhood in fact last longer now than it did in the past. If you really think I am too stupid to grasp your points, why don't you try enlightening me rather than using it as a cop-out to avoid answering simple questions?

Haelium

I think an equally important issue is that a magazine can pay people to sit around all day and dictate what is and isn't fashionable. When vogue employees can stay employed, yet thousands of real workers cannot, there is a problem.

Naomi00

Honey-ec wrote: »

Do you honestly not see the difference between 10 and 16?



This is French Vogue. It's the same shoot, the magazine has finally gone to press.

I know it's the same shoot. That's why I said that.

What I meant was, these pictures were released about a month and a half ago. No 'controversy' in the fashion industry really because if anyone here actually reads Vogue they wouldn't be too ~shocked by something like that. (I think it's very creepy tbh). What I meant was that this 'controversy' was around a while ago and is old news. It's just tabloids desperate for a story. They should just give out about Toddlers and Tiaras instead, it's a million times worse than that photo shoot.

Naomi00

Haelium wrote: »

I think an equally important issue is that a magazine can pay people to sit around all day and dictate what is and isn't fashionable. When vogue employees can stay employed, yet thousands of real workers cannot, there is a problem.

Lol, they don't. Designers make clothes, Vogue doesn't. Also if Vogue didn't exist where would all the rubbish magazines copy their ideas from?

Biggins

RussellTuring wrote: »

...you neglected to mention that this concerned group is often a vocal minority, and that they take it upon themselves to impose their own morality on the majority.

Did I?
All that has been seen so far in public reaction, is that by FAR the majority is in disgust at the likes of Vogue and their actions.
How that become a minority now you'll have to further explain to us.

RussellTuring wrote: »

...I find it amazing that you think so many of the reasons you gave for silencing the press are actually valid and that whether or not this should be allowed was a secondary concern.

Did I say they were valid - please show me where? Please do!
I listed some of the stages of why some things in regard to this matter come about.
Again, please show me where I have contended that they are fully valid?
I have not opinionated either way - by that seems to have gone over your head!

RussellTuring wrote: »

...Instead of debating whether or not it is right for governments to dictate what may or may not be published, you state that selling newspapers and garnering votes should be good enough reason for people to accept censorship.

Aaa... No... ONCE AGAIN - PLEASE SHOW WHERE I ADVOCATED THIS???

RussellTuring wrote: »

...Just because some people scream "think of the children" at the top of their voices, this does not make it okay to do anything they want.

Yes, your right here - and I have NOT said different.

RussellTuring wrote: »

...why don't you try enlightening me rather than using it as a cop-out to avoid answering simple questions?

You ask simple questions - on the perhaps assumption that there is simple answers.
There is not, as in this case.
If anyone was to further diversify on long, LONG answer to your not understanding some concepts here, this thread would be right off track far, far altogether.

What you really need to do as you is go to an appropriate boards.ie section and ask a number of questions. Like...

* "What is the complex difference between the lifespan of humans today in comparison to those that existed perhaps hundreds of years ago?"

* "With the above in mind how has those aspects and change between the two changed stages, had a knock-on effect on socio-economic, morality and legal issues amid others?"

To answer those complicated questions here - again, would take this thread, far, far off track.
In respect of the OP and his/her topic, I decline to do that here.

wayfarers

livinsane wrote: »

Its nothing to do with the clothes - it's the pose that is in appropriate.

Reminds me of classical nude paintings and is also reminiscent of Scarlett Johannson's nude pose with Tom Ford and Kiera Knightly.

Bit tenuous, classical nude paintings weren't designed to flog lipstick or handbags and that 10 year old kid IS dressed. Plus every photo of a female fashion model is designed to have them looking attractive or pretty. Designers ain't gonna shift many clothes if the model wearing them looks like a sack of sh1te.

wayfarers

Naomi00 wrote: »

I know it's the same shoot. That's why I said that.

What I meant was, these pictures were released about a month and a half ago. No 'controversy' in the fashion industry really because if anyone here actually reads Vogue they wouldn't be too ~shocked by something like that. (I think it's very creepy tbh). What I meant was that this 'controversy' was around a while ago and is old news. It's just tabloids desperate for a story. They should just give out about Toddlers and Tiaras instead, it's a million times worse than that photo shoot.

The kids in Toddlers & Tiaras are half the age of this french wan and they're encouraged to pout and simper and mimic adults- though why I dunno, the judging panel is almost always made up of adult women and a token gay guy. Says a lot when female judges encourage this behaviour in young children. Still I guess these kids want nothing more than to be arm candy to some rich old dude when they grow up.

up for anything

This is sad.

Biggins

wayfarers wrote: »

...Designers ain't gonna shift many clothes if the model wearing them looks like a sack of sh1te.

Do the kids look crap in Littlewoods or Next catalogues for example?
No. They don't.
There is a difference between looking decent, clean and respectable given ones actual age and looking like something your really not - like a ten year old posing open chested, pretending to be teasing sexually(?) like you would see an adult doing in a normal publication mainly based for adults.

wayfarers

Biggins wrote: »

Do the kids look crap in Littlewoods or Next catalogues for example?
No. They don't.
There is a difference between looking decent, clean and respectable given ones actual age and looking like something your really not - like a ten year old posing open chested, pretending to be teasing sexually(?) like you would see an adult doing in a normal publication mainly based for adults.

LMAO. You can't compare Vogue to the fcuking Littlewoods catalogue! The demographics are all wrong. Vogue will only be read by fashion heads with bulging wallets and a wardrobe that changes every 6 months, anyone buying from Littlewoods is doing it for economic and convenience reasons- cheap and cheerful. Vogue is flogging high end clobber so I can't see how any dirty auld fella will be picking up the September issue of Vogue just to get their jollies to some young wan in a boob tube whereas they can get that and more besides in the Littlewoods; busty MILF squeezed into Pretty Polly and Playtex. People are getting hysterical about a fashion shoot in Vogue, I'd love to know their monthly sales figures; who besides hairdressers and fashion students buys it anymore?

RussellTuring

Biggins wrote: »

Did I?
All that has been seen so far in public reaction, is that by FAR the majority is in disgust at the likes of Vogue and their actions.
How that become a minority now you'll have to further explain to us.

I didn't say this particular case was a minority, only that the people who speak loudest do not necessarily speak for all. You seem to be discounting the possibility that in this and other matters, most people just don't care and so won't cause much of a fuss about it, going along with what those who have an opinion say.

Did I say they were valid - please show me where? Please do!
I listed some of the stages of why some things in regard to this matter come about.
Again, please show me where I have contended that they are fully valid?
I have not opinionated either way - by that seems to have gone over your head!


Aaa... No... ONCE AGAIN - PLEASE SHOW WHERE I ADVOCATED THIS???


Yes, your right here - and I have NOT said different.

You said:

and while this type of Vogue crap continues, I can't blame them.

Side issue: If the likes of Vogue want to be able to stop crying about government interference in their business - they should stop doing this schite!


Can't say I'll be sorry when they die from it!


That way the government of the public won't have to react to the public demands for possible further legal restrictions to cut out such crap behaviour.




fcuk them - they deserve what they get!



If they do something more shocking - and this I suspect clearer breaking new possible laws, they again deserve what they will get.

So despite all of this, you have no opinion either way about whether or not the methods you described are a valid way of deciding whether or not the public believes in restricting the press in such a manner? I find that very hard to believe.

You ask simple questions - on the perhaps assumption that there is simple answers.
There is not, as in this case.
If anyone was to further diversify on long, LONG answer to your not understanding some concepts here, this thread would be right off track far, far altogether.

What you really need to do as you is go to an appropriate boards.ie section and ask a number of questions. Like...

* "What is the complex difference between the lifespan of humans today in comparison to those that existed perhaps hundreds of years ago?"

* "With the above in mind how has those aspects and change between the two changed stages, had a knock-on effect on socio-economic, morality and legal issues amid others?"

To answer those complicated questions here - again, would take this thread, far, far off track.
In respect of the OP and his/her topic, I decline to do that here.

You said life spans have historically been shorter than now and I asked you what point you were trying to make with this. If you can't articulate it, you shouldn't have brought it up.