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

southsiderosie

There has been a great dea of controversy surrounding the decision of French Vogue to feature a ten year old girl in an editorial. (DM outrage article here).

Of course children are often featured as models, but generally they are dressed as children. In this case, however, the child in question has been dressed - and more disturbingly, posed - as an adult woman.

Some have argued that Vogue is using the images of a 10 year old to question the fashion industry's use of 13 and 14 year old girls to sell adult clothing. Currently Marc Jacobs and Miu Miu feature ads with Elle Fanning and Hailee Steinfeld, who are, respectively, 13 and 14 years old. Personally, I think this view gives the industry way too much credit; I know they like to do this kind of stuff for attention, but this is veering on kiddie porn.

In the UK, the government is calling for an inquiry into these kinds of practices, but I'm not sure how this would affect anything. I have to wonder, given how so many parents let their young girls dress, if anyone even cares; maybe the use of sexed-up ten year olds is the logical conclusion for a culture that sells small girls padded bras and hotpants, and for an industry that fetishizes pre-pubescent bodies.

Have we all gone mad, or does the fashion industry need a serious kick in the face?

squod

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

messymess

When has the fashion industry ever NOT needed a kick in the face?

Duggy747

I can well imagine that Vogue knew they would get this reaction.

My name is URL

It's definitely exploitive. Don't agree with the hysterical notion that it's high end child porn however.

Logical Fallacy

Exploitative? Sure.

Porn? Nope.

Son Of A Vidic

southsiderosie wrote: »

Have we all gone mad, or does the fashion industry need a serious kick in the face?

The fashion industry amongst others, needs a kick in the face alright.

Biggins

It similar to that American crap of dressing young kids up as adults as sending them down the catwalk in competitions.
(...And sadly some here in Ireland are copying)

Let kids be kids for fcuks sake - god knows their innocence is robbed soon enough by the media and other idiots!

Da Shins Kelly

The fashion industry is so f*cked up. They justify what they do by saying it's all in the name of "art". It needs a serious kick in the face, but they all have their heads so far up their own a*ses, it'd probably take a miracle to make them see how warped their own industry is.

Son Of A Vidic

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.

Are you serious? Can anyone else see the irony in a Pope raising this issue?

The King of Moo

I'm guessing Vogue's sales have been down and they wanted to generate a little controversy to get some attention.
I doubt most of the outraged people would be buying it anyway for some reason.

I feel sorry for the little girl being manipulated by what's always been a horrible and exploitative industry.

booboo88

Seriously? Your getting upset as the 10 year old is posed as grown woman?
NOT wearing revealing clothes, which if you venture outside the front door someday you will realise that young ones ARE dressing alot worse, revealing alot more flesh than this girl.
Im 23 and my dad wouldnt let me outside the door in what some of the young girls are wearing

Logical Fallacy

Biggins wrote: »

It similar to that American crap of dressing young kids up as adults as sending them down the catwalk in competitions.
(...And sadly some here in Ireland are copying)

Let kids be kids for fcuks sake - god knows their innocence is robbed soon enough by the media and other idiots!

You have to remember, some people don't want kids, they want little versions of themselves that they can live through.

It's freakish.

o1s1n

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.

lol

Sprrratt

I wonder how many perverted addictions you have fueled on here now

WindSock

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.

later12

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.

Yeah, sounds like Il Papa has really been ahead of the curve in stamping out child abuse and the sexualisation of minors....

Are you for real?

joshrogan

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.

Saila

Sprrratt wrote: »

I wonder how many perverted addictions you have fueled on here now

:pac:

Saila

maude flanders forum -->

Biggins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You have to remember, some people don't want kids, they want little versions of themselves that they can live through.
It's freakish.

Indeed. thats idiot Katie Holmes that married an even bigger idiot and space cadet, Tom Cruise is always at this type of crap.
Recently seen sticking her 3/4 year old in mini adult clothes and high heals for flips sake!
Daftness. They need to be hit over the head with a bottle of "Kop the fcuk on!"

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.

I dunno to be honest - but why play with fire or Russian roulette on the matter.
They should leave it out - end of story.

child of celebs - what normal childhood?
sure there is an exploitation angle from having the child work in the industry, and you'd wonder about the effects same as young child actors, but the clothing and makeup itself? nothing new

there was some controversy over having a child of similar age in some music video where she was dressing/acting very provocatively in her childish way - now that was bad, particularly the applause she was getting for it

southsiderosie

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.

Little girls playing dress-up.

Vogue editorial.

I think there is a clear difference between the two.

southsiderosie

My name is URL wrote: »

It's definitely exploitive. Don't agree with the hysterical notion that it's high end child porn however.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Exploitative? Sure.

Porn? Nope.

OK, so where would you draw the distinction? Because the images in the Vogue editorial are so sexualized that the line is a little blurry for me.

robbie_998

Fap fap fap .........

Wertz

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Are you serious? Can anyone else see the irony in a Pope raising this issue?

He was probably giving out that there weren't enough 10 yr old boys in the fashion magazines.


Anyway this issue about young-models overshadows the 1,000s of child workers in the fashion industry...but then they don't matter since they're in Asia, using needless and machines.
At least the young western girls in question are well paid and have the protection of agencies and a code of standards (however questionable)...they're not getting paid hourly rates of pennies, working in bad conditions or for ridiculous lengths of time per shift.
But by al means get your collective knickers in a twist about poor little rich girls...if a law was being broken here I'm sure the authorities would not see it flaunted in such a brash manner and the mag wouldn't have gone ahead with publishing...

livinsane

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.

mackg

So the reason was sexy children all along

southsiderosie

Wertz wrote: »

Anyway this issue about young-models overshadows the 1,000s of child workers in the fashion industry...but then they don't matter since they're in Asia, using needless and machines.
At least the young western girls in question are well paid and have the protection of agencies and a code of standards (however questionable)...they're not getting paid hourly rates of pennies, working in bad conditions or for ridiculous lengths of time per shift.
But by al means get your collective knickers in a twist about poor little rich girls...if a law was being broken here I'm sure the authorities would not see it flaunted in such a brash manner and the mag wouldn't have gone ahead with publishing...

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.

tfitzgerald

This s the reaction vogue wanted. No such thing as bad advertising

WindSock

southsiderosie wrote: »

Little girls playing dress-up.

Vogue editorial.

I think there is a clear difference between the two.

Fair enough, I didn't see that pic. I suppose it is a bit ****ed up to have a 10 year old dressed up and posing like that.
I can't see how the mag are trying to achieve anything but controversy for the exploitation of a kid.

southsiderosie

Biggins wrote: »

It similar to that American crap of dressing young kids up as adults as sending them down the catwalk in competitions.
(...And sadly some here in Ireland are copying)

Let kids be kids for fcuks sake - god knows their innocence is robbed soon enough by the media and other idiots!

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.

KeithAFC

Sounds like me people are going out of the way to be shocked or offended.

southsiderosie

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.

I watched that a few times in horrified fascination, very disturbing.

Biggins

Wertz wrote: »

...if a law was being broken here I'm sure the authorities would not see it flaunted in such a brash manner and the mag wouldn't have gone ahead with publishing...

Non-surprisingly the media generally knows where to not cross the line but tries to push it to suit their own reasons.
England has recently acknowledged this and is now thinking of re-writing child laws or adding to the current ones so that the line is a lot more clear - 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!

Seeing this type of crap from Vogue, only puts me in the frame of mind of never further wanting to see a copy of it in my wifes hands and to be honest, if she saw this type of thing going on in their mag, I know she'd be boycotting their publication from there on in, and I'd fully support her boycott.
Vouge only see short term gain maybe in publicity - but in the long term, they are maybe shooting themselves in the head.
Can't say I'll be sorry when they die from it!

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Non-surprisingly the media generally knows where to not cross the line but tries to push it to suit their own reasons.
England has recently acknowledged this and is now thinking of rewriting child laws or adding to the current ones so that the line ive a lot more clear - 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!

Seeing this type of crap from Vogue, only ever not wanting to see a copy of it in my wifes hands and to be honest, if she saw this type of thing going on in their mag, I know she's boycotting their publication from there on in, and I'd fully support her boycott.
Vouge only see short term gain maybe in publicity - but in the long term, they are maybe shooting themselves in the head.
Can't say I'll be sorry when they die from it!

How come you aren't outraged about her parents letting her do this?

southsiderosie

bluewolf wrote: »

How come you aren't outraged about her parents letting her do this?

TBH, the parents, the stylist, the photographer, and the editor all need a good kick up the arse.

mackg

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.

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.

Biggins

bluewolf wrote: »

How come you aren't outraged about her parents letting her do this?

Who says I ain't?
This is thread about Vogue - if it was one about the parents - I'd vocalise the same concerns.

Brennaldo II

Wouldn't call it porn, but it isn't right either. Biggest crime here is more than likely bad parenting though, I agree with what's been said already, just let kids be kids

Simi

I came...

Biggins

Here is a video (silent) of the item that Vogue is advertising on their website: http://tinyurl.com/3rzf895

One disturbing picture that will be in the magazine is one that consists her reclining in a gold dress, slashed v-neck posing her bare chest (and stomach), some would say like an adult model that does so teasingly to draw in the reader.
For a ten year old, for me, anyone that thinks of doing that to a child, has a disturbed mind.

Because of the uproar, her mother has had to takedown her Facebook page support her childs modelling. Aside from Vogue, apparently her mother might have questions to be asked of her.

According to ABC News, Blondeau has been modeling professionally for half her life. She reportedly had her first runway show at the age of five and hasn't looked back. A few of her other spreads include pictures of her without a top on.

http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/French-Vogue-Uses-10-Year-Girl-Fashion-Spread-34091.html

Fremen

I was a bit weirded out by the picture in the article the OP linked to. It's tasteless, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it child porn.

Karona

When I was 10 I was dressed in tracksuits most of the time and still playing with my barbies. Kids aren't kids for long anymore. Its terrible.

But Vogue do this for this type of reaction. Only last month Vogue italia had a photoshoot with plus size models and there was uproar about how these larger ladies shouldnt be in it as they are promoting an unhealthy lifestyle.

You wouldn't hear a peep when there is a photoshoot in it with anorexic models. Typical :rolleyes:

orourkeda

Why cant parents just let their children be children?

God knows, her childhood will be short enough.

southsiderosie

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.

Girls dressing like hoochie mamas (often without their parents knowing) is one thing. When I was 14, my parents were pretty strict, so I had to wait to put on my trollop makeup and short shorts until after I had left the house.

But I think this is different: this is a commercial publication, run by adults, which is essentially trying to profit from the sexualized images of a very young girl.

goose2005

But once again the media show how little they know - "modelling" sites featuring underage girls have been around for years, and lots of parents brought their children to their "studios" without knowing that it was for pseudo-porn.

southsiderosie

goose2005 wrote: »

But once again the media show how little they know - "modelling" sites featuring underage girls have been around for years, and lots of parents brought their children to their "studios" without knowing that it was for pseudo-porn.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here: a shady 'modelling' studio or website is not the same thing as a publication like Vogue, which is arguably one of the most-read, most influential fashion magazines in the world.

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

Have we all gone mad, or does the fashion industry need a serious kick in the face?

Kicks in the face. Ideally starting on the inside of the knee though, to bring their face down to optimum kicking height. Bad enough they prefer women sans the features women are supposed to develop in puberty, but dropping the age limit is a pretentious bit of wankery too far.

Paddy Cow

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.

I doubt paedo's would be attracted to her as they like kids and not women so kids who look like women wouldn't be innocent enough to turn them on but it makes me uncomfortable to see a child dressed like a fully grown woman.

She might like dressing up in heels and make up and that's fine and normal for a child her age but she isn't going to realise the sort of attention it will attract. Plenty of girls go out done up to the nines, thinking they are grown up and are flattered by the male attention they recieve but are too immature emotionally to deal with it. Most normal guys who find out that the attractive 16/17/18 year old is actually just a 13/14 year old with loads of make up will run a mile but not all will and many girls get taken advantage of. A few years make a huge difference in teens.

It's the job of parents to be the boring old foggie who tells them "you are not going out dressed like that, go up stairs and change". This normally leads to the usual strop and "you don't know what it's like to be young" blah blah but I'd rather a normal, stroppy child/teen that develops naturally, than some sort of best friend that I live my life through and send out into situations they are not ready for yet.

God I sound old. I'll write a letter to the Daily Mail "won't someone think of the children".

The___________

tfitzgerald wrote: »

This s the reaction vogue wanted. No such thing as bad advertising

Tell that to the News of the World....