Guess how old this girl is

[charlou]

Which images would be more questionable to you, ones of a young girl made up to look like a much older woman or a woman made up to look like a very young girl?

Well, the former looks to me like exploitation of a child, at least in this instance:



The latter can look a bit out of the ordinary, but we are dealing with someone old enough to make adult decisions.



So, the former.

That latter one ... old lady is self-assured. You go grrrl. And fuck the "mutton dressed up as lamb" deprecation.

Carry on.

[charlou]

^ *I mean regarding the latter picture of the two Seraph posted.

[floppit]

I haven't said anything yet because, reading through, I feel like my take on it is almost off topic.

Maybe this is just me whining a little but as a woman I seem to have spent a lifetime up against stereotypes of female emptiness, like cardboard cut outs or caring machines, or in dissent 'hard nosed', aggressive, unattractive, cold...

At 16 my boss said he'd never teach a 'girl' to break horses, but he was the best so I stuck to it until tenacity changed his mind, together with the frustrations of attempting to teach lads who had half the desire to shut the fuck up and listen. At uni, the next life, tenacity and strength saw me seen as 'frightening' - go figure, I never hurt a soul, didn't even argue dammit! And so it roles on, till as a newly split woman it felt like my head had been shaved, the epitome of what is not the female's place, to split from a critically ill husband.

See, that's what bothers me about the pictures, not temptations to paedophiles. The kids on this earth are all our human kids, every damn last one of them and while there's a shit ton of weight to mould and form the girls into empty spaces, mindless dolls - it makes me cringe, for them. Those pics are no more or less haunting than the beauty pageants, or the array of countless cinderella dresses, Disney princess importing strength from male alliance, and those less attractive, less weak females - the villains, evil.

I want us to stay shocked because behind each child face with false eyelashes plonked on is a little human being who I think is being squashed into a role by adults. It is a mile away from the dress up games, lets face it, as much as little girls (including mine) will play princess, dress up is also for dragon slaying and super heroes (including mine), dress up is to try on 100 roles, not one, and when it is ONLY one it starts to matter what that role is.

[Ronja]

Damn fine post, floppit.

[charlou]

Yes indeed. Thank you.

[kiki5711]

those shoes look bigger than her!

[charlou]

Reading through some of the responses on this thread is akin to reading the reactions of certain Taliban males and crazy Imams would have seeing a Muslim woman in a bikini on the front of Vogue.

An industry which exploits individuals in order to exploit the majority is always going to do things that offends certain sensibilities, thrives on it in fact. As Evabot accurately pointed out they are using the young girl in the same way they would any other model. A at the VERY WORST it should be considered tasteless, you'd need to be mental consider the concept behind the shoot was to promote and encourage child rape or to support child rape enthusiasts, child labour, the collapse of Western Civilisation, or a harbinger of the Crowned and Conquering Child.

This whole thing is a pseudo-event. It has been created and designed to get people talking about it because it will increase sales amongst the target market. It works because often those most outraged are the most vocal and first to buy the product to use as evidence of the talking point they've been handed. It's just part of the Spectacle, nothing to get your knicks in a twist about.

Somewhat relatedly: I went into an Abercombie & Fitch store a couple of years ago to get my niece a gift certificate for Baby Jesus-mas and I felt weird in there. The B&W photos of nude and semi-nude people brought out an alarming air of palpable sleaze that outdid any porn shop or strip club I've been in.

I think it was not so much from the sexuality, but the tone of the blatant marketing of it. I'm not prudish at all about selling sex, but selling a sexual identity in the form of a product from a factory makes me uncomfortable. And that's something that the style of these photos conveys to me. That there is a young girl in place where an older one would be brings it that much more into focus to me and gave me that same feeling I had in that store.

Also, this ... RobertS you've captured and expressed something there that I had in mind but it was evading articulation.

I think the use of the child is a parody of that. I'm not sure if vogue had parody in mind, but it is.

[Audley Strange]

Which images would be more questionable to you, ones of a young girl made up to look like a much older woman or a woman made up to look like a very young girl?

Well, the former looks to me like exploitation of a child, at least in this instance:



The latter can look a bit out of the ordinary, but we are dealing with someone old enough to make adult decisions.



So, the former.

I don't think your comparison is fair nor answers the question you quoted. The old woman in the bottom has not been made up to look like a child especially not professionally and not to sell products. As to that you could make the point that some women might balk at the thought, but how many desperate young women would allow themselves to be exploited in order to further their career? Is that not somehow worse?

I'm missing something I think.

Is the issue that of child labour, is it one of redundant stereotypes?

I'm really not getting this. To me they are tasteless, but subjectively so, I don't get what is so wrong with them in and of themselves.