Guess how old this girl is

[Rob]

In all honesty, Mousy, I don't see that as a very stident issue. Those who make those remarks fall into 3 categories:

1) Factious
2) Those who need help
3) Idiots

Thought I don't care to find evidential support I would wager that many who follow model magazines have eating disorders so number 2 is no surprise.

[Robert_S]

It is interesting and true nowadays that you cannot imagine 'innocent' nude pictures of kids which used to be around in many a family photo album, or even nude kids on say the beach (which was very common until 15 or 20 years ago) because children appear no longer to be viewed as 'sexless' in some way. People did not give childhood nudity a thought on the whole until recently (I suppose there have always been pedos who have of course), but they inhabited a world of relative adult naivety about such things. The fact that this debate has been so heated points to a very changed attitude, and lots of adult confusion about sexuality and childhood and our relationship with them.

Around here we are still pretty relaxed about non-sexual nudeness. We have our sauna, where families gather naked together and the kids get to see their siblings and parents "a naturelle" on a weekly basis. In the countryside (like at our summer cottage) it's also customary to swim naked from the sauna, without giving much regard to weather a neighbour might be looking or not (they know not to). Small children still commonly bathe naked at public beaches. Sadly enough. I do recognize this meme that tries to make all of this unnatural and dangerous, but for me it is a foreign influence that I don't welcome at all.

It is a 'meme' that is far more entrenched here in the UK I suspect. The paedophile scares in the media, the sledgehammer approach of the last government to child protection (read 'covering arses') all have played to people's paranoia and lack of confidence in many of their ordinary day to day dealings with children. Many adults simply go out of their way to avoid having to interact with them. That's their loss, but more importantly, the children's.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be far less concerned about a child innocently running around naked than done up like those OP pics.

[Callan]

Whatever her age, somebody get that poor girl a sammich.

I love you, FBM.

[Warren Dew]

She's got that "surly teenager" look a few years early, but since when do people find "surly" to be attractive?

Honestly, if the French find those pictures sexualizing/sexy/sexual in any way, they must be hard up for actual attractive women.

[hadespussercats]

She's got that "surly teenager" look a few years early, but since when do people find "surly" to be attractive?

Honestly, if the French find those pictures sexualizing/sexy/sexual in any way, they must be hard up for actual attractive women.

Are you kidding? Surly is the very essence of bad-boy or bad-girl attractiveness.

[hadespussercats]

I find the photos tacky and off-putting-- the same way I find "Toddlers in Tiaras" tacky and off-putting.

But child pornography is a big, ugly term to be tossing around without some serious reflection beforehand.

The girl is being posed to look nubile. But... this is the tricky part: children are sexual beings. I'm not sure what the benefit is to try to pretend that isn't so-- to react so strongly to what is strongly implied, but hardly depicted, here.

There was a woman photographer living in Massachusetts when I was in college, who almost had her children taken away by social services because she'd taken what seemed to me to be thoughtful, introspective portraits of her children naked. The photos were at least somewhat about sexual awakening, and they certainly showed more than the pictures of this little Vogue girl-- but they didn't seem exploitative (though, oddly, these fashion shots do seem to-- though I'd be hard-pressed to say why, beyond the level of professional polish involved.) I didn't think the rush to extreme judgement was fair, or even reflective of the reality of childhood.

[hadespussercats]

As for Seraph's comment about public versus private-- it's obvious to me anyone holding that view hasn't spent much time in the parent-oriented parts of the blogosphere.

Millions of mothers and fathers blog, and post countless pictures of their children online, in blogs, flickr accounts, online photo albums, and so on and so forth. The idea of a private family photo album is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Incidentally, there are controversies within the mommyblogging community about what should be posted-- once these little kids grow up, how will they feel about anyone being able to access pics of them naked in the tub, and so forth. And there are worries about attracting sexual predators, or being accused of child pornography if you post a pic of your naked four-year-old daughter frolicking at the beach.

In light of all this, I'll repeat-- I think we need a clearer idea of what exactly we're trying to condemn before we start playing the pedophilia card.

[charlou]

Paedophilia discussion aside, I'm surprised that more responses in this thread haven't picked up on the fact that - whether they realise it's an expose or not - some readers of the magazine are seeing the girl's body as one that they would aspire to have. That is a dangerous thought in an area of industry and media that already has a massive effect on women's self esteem.

Surely, like the paedophilia concern, this is an issue of the women who think that way having a psychological problem, and not necessarily the fault of the image itself. If there are women who think that way, they're going to be looking at any young girl's body with that thinking in mind.

[Tero]

It's just one of those hundreds of things wrong about modern life.

We started to go in the wrong direction as soon as we came down from the trees. We had or nifty language. Soon spears and tools were invented, and mother in laws.

The first guy that put that arrow head or spearhead on the spear had no idea we would eventually cut down the rain forests we came from.

Signed, Über-luddite (don't worry, I won't do anything about it)

[hadespussercats]

I find the photos tacky and off-putting-- the same way I find "Toddlers in Tiaras" tacky and off-putting.

But child pornography is a big, ugly term to be tossing around without some serious reflection beforehand.

The girl is being posed to look nubile. But... this is the tricky part: children are sexual beings. I'm not sure what the benefit is to try to pretend that isn't so-- to react so strongly to what is strongly implied, but hardly depicted, here.

There was a woman photographer living in Massachusetts when I was in college, who almost had her children taken away by social services because she'd taken what seemed to me to be thoughtful, introspective portraits of her children naked. The photos were at least somewhat about sexual awakening, and they certainly showed more than the pictures of this little Vogue girl-- but they didn't seem exploitative (though, oddly, these fashion shots do seem to-- though I'd be hard-pressed to say why, beyond the level of professional polish involved.) I didn't think the rush to extreme judgement was fair, or even reflective of the reality of childhood.

I might have remembered some of the facts wrong. This is the photographer I was remembering. I'm a big fan of pretty much her entire oeuvre-- including the notorious family photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann

Here's a quote:

Mann recorded a combination of spontaneous and carefully arranged moments of childhood repose and revealingly — sometimes unnervingly — imaginative play. What the outraged critics of her child nudes failed to grant was the patent devotion involved throughout the project and the delighted complicity of her son and daughters in so many of the solemn or playful events. No other collection of family photographs is remotely like it, in both its naked candor and the fervor of its maternal curiosity and care.

[FBM]

Whatever her age, somebody get that poor girl a sammich.

I love you, FBM.

[charlou]

Good comments, hades ...

The girl is being posed to look nubile. But... this is the tricky part: children are sexual beings. I'm not sure what the benefit is to try to pretend that isn't so-- to react so strongly to what is strongly implied, but hardly depicted, here.

It is true that children are nascent sexual beings .. Of course! They are little human mammals, evolved to procreate upon maturity.

The development of their sexuality is informed and imposed upon to a large extent by culture, both immediate and broad. In Western culture there's a fetishisation of childhood by many that consider children as sacred, asexual beings, whose sanctity and purity needs protection, until, at a certain arbitrarily defined point post puberty suddenly become human and allowed to be sexual, and even then only in ways that conform to the culture that prescribes the boundaries. In Western culture that's become (perversely imo) juxtaposed with exploitation in marketing and media. It's not surprising that people become outraged when these extremes meet head on. There's a clash of ideals, both of which the humanity and autonomy of the children themselves is overlooked/ignored.

[Hermit]

Good comments, hades ...

The girl is being posed to look nubile. But... this is the tricky part: children are sexual beings. I'm not sure what the benefit is to try to pretend that isn't so-- to react so strongly to what is strongly implied, but hardly depicted, here.

It is true that children are nascent sexual beings .. Of course! They are little human mammals, evolved to procreate upon maturity.

The development of their sexuality is informed and imposed upon to a large extent by culture, both immediate and broad. In Western culture there's a fetishisation of childhood by many that consider children as sacred, asexual beings, whose sanctity and purity needs protection, until, at a certain arbitrarily defined point post puberty suddenly become human and allowed to be sexual, and even then only in ways that conform to the culture that prescribes the boundaries. In Western culture that's become (perversely imo) juxtaposed with exploitation in marketing and media. It's not surprising that people become outraged when these extremes meet head on. There's a clash of ideals, both of which the humanity and autonomy of the children themselves is overlooked/ignored.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[Warren Dew]

Are you kidding? Surly is the very essence of bad-boy or bad-girl attractiveness.

Two things I never understood, I have to admit. I'd also think pedophilia would be about exploiting vulnerability, rather than being attracted to bad boys or girls, but I could be wrong.

As for Seraph's comment about public versus private-- it's obvious to me anyone holding that view hasn't spent much time in the parent-oriented parts of the blogosphere.

Millions of mothers and fathers blog, and post countless pictures of their children online, in blogs, flickr accounts, online photo albums, and so on and so forth. The idea of a private family photo album is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Absolutely. There are public pictures online in my wife's flickr account of my daughter in a leopard print dress, of her in heels, of her lying on a couch - those being the kinds of things that people have objected to in the pictures in the original post - and my daughter is only 3.

Incidentally, there are controversies within the mommyblogging community about what should be posted-- once these little kids grow up, how will they feel about anyone being able to access pics of them naked in the tub, and so forth.

I figure we can always limit distribution and make these pictures more difficult to find once she gets to an age where they might be embarassing. Then we can allow access by any boyfriends we disapprove of.

More seriously, they're going to grow up in a different world than we did. Public bathtub pictures will be commonplace, and likely unremarkable to their generation.

[Audley Strange]

I'll guess ten.

I've read through this thread and still don't get what it I'm expected to be appalled or upset at.

Is it...

A) Paedophiles.
B)The Fashion Industry.
C)Parents today.
D)Bloody Children.
E)Vogue Readers.
F)The Jews.

Could someone let me know who the bad guy is here?