I guess it’s a matter of opinion as to whether it’s sexy or not. Of course, it would be the pedophile’s opinion that counted and at that point the picture could always be used on a milk carton. :rolleyes:
I don’t see anything sexual in the cat walk photo or the Cindy Crawford kid photo.
Catwalk fashion shows are not about the models but about the clothes. It is not a parade of ‘women I’d liked sthupp’. Catwalk fashion shows are not big sexy events People go to them to look at CLOTHES.
Clothing as commerce, as in ‘This is our new fall line’ or clothing as pure ART.
this sort of thing just reminds me of a classic joke.
A man goes to see a psychiatrist and the doctors starts off with an ink-blot test.
The first image, the man says "I see two people having sex’
The second image the man says "I see three women having sex’
The third image the man says "I see a dozen people having sex’
The doctor looks at him and says, “Well, it is clear you have an obsession with sex.”
“ME?!?!” the man said, “YOU are the one with all the dirty pictures!”
When I first saw the picture, I thought, “Time for a bigger bathing suit, Mom, she’s outgrown this one.”
I showed it to my mom, sisters and 9-year-old niece. The consensus was “3 small fabric triangles+ some string = way too revealing for a 10-year-old.”
That would be a sexy bikini on a woman - not fit for children. Rated “M” for mature.
The girl in the picture is a miniature woman on the catwalk, and that’s wrong in my opinion. If she had the full panty bottom it wouldn’t be a big deal, but dude, look at how low her bikini bottom is. If you saw a woman wearing something that low, wouldn’t you be pretty :dubious: ? I would. A child wearing that cut of bikini bottom, and then walking on the catwalk seems like she’s pretending to be one of the adult models. And what do adult models do? Make the clothes look sexy and stylish. The latter is fine for a kid, but the former is definitely not.
I just see an adorable girl in a bikini.
It seems like more and more we are determining what is appropriate based on what some pedophile somewhere might get off on, which is impossible considering there are guys that are turned on infants.
Subway Prophet - I love you.
Back on topic; perhaps I am overreacting a bit at this but what really bugs is like what Lucky 13 said - it looks too small on her. Plus the fact that you can see so much of her tummy towards her crotch is actually quite disturbing for me at least because I have young cousins and I’d hate for them to think that dressing like that is cool at their age.
And I do agree that it’s fortunate that she’s not been sexualized in any other way - makeup, heels, tatts etc. but when you take any sort of garment designed to show off a woman’s sexually attractive feature; short skirts to show leg, tummy tops to show off flat abs, tiny bikinis to reveal most of her body and put them on a child, it’s disgusting because most people don’t find that attractive. They find it disturbing because they don’t see children as sexual objects and shouldn’t have to.
That said; yes fashion shows are about the fashion. But this fashion is for women, not little girls. If it was a bunch of little girls bouncing up and down the catwalk in appropriate swim wear, well why not? If they’re having fun, they should go for it.
But also on appropriate swimwear; shouldn’t we be encouraging kids to be more sun-safe and conscious of what effect exposure to the sun will have? Put away the bikinis and offer some nicer coverups that don’t look dopey for those who are sun-conscious. The reason kids think it’s cool to dress ‘sexy’ is because we’ve said that ‘sexy’ = ‘cool’ = revealing skin. If we turn it around and say it’s cool to be covered up, then kids will fall in with it. They just want to be accepted.
This is a perfect example of begging the question. In this case, the question being begged is “Is this sexual?”. This quote assumes it’s sexual and asks questions from that perspective, even though the case has plainly not been made and is still up for discussion, as this thread itself indicates.
An example this perfect deserves to be highlighted.
Ironically, if you go back more than 40 years (before Mary Quant introduced the miniskirt), short skirts were considered appropriate only for little girls, never for grown women. Dropping the hemline way down used to be a sign of maturity.
<sigh> I was born too late for 1940s fashions. Women looked sharp then.
crypto child porn
Yikes. I agree with those saying that bikini bottom is much too low-cut and revealing for a little girl to wear. If it were a more modest swimsuit bottom that didn’t draw so much attention to her pubic region it wouldn’t seem nearly so bad.
I don’t pay much attention to fashion, let alone kid’s fashions (being a non-parent), so I wonder what boys’ swimsuits look like nowadays. Has anyone here seen little boys wearing skimpy g-string bikini swimsuits or speedos at the beach?
If people don’t do that with their sons, why do they think it’s desirable to put their pre-pubescent daughters in skimpy/suggestive clothes?
I think on some level it is indeed sexualizing these poor little girls. Considering that the fashion industry has so often used anorexic models who in some ways resemble pre-pubescent girls more than adult women with curves, it almost seems like this is the fashion industry’s “young and thin” aesthetic taken to an extreme.
I see the daughter of a designer’s business associate, getting on the catwalk as a favor for her Dad/Mom.
None of the adults imagining the fanaticism of the world around their child.
The PC Police are the ones with the dirty minds.
Actually, what upsets me more than the skimpy bikini is that some people are upset because the poor (female) child was exposed to topless or near topless women :rolleyes:
Yup. Nudity is always sexual.
It will scar the poor child for life to see breasts.
There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world.
I wouldn’t let my child out in that bikini, mostly because it looks 3 sizes too small, impractical for an active child and uncomfortable. Would I take my child to a beach where there was topless sunbathing- absolutely, and I’d probably be topless myself!
Taken as read. The entire fashion industry revolves around the concept of “SEX SELLS”. Throwing a child into the middle of that is not good IMHO.
I wouldn’t call it krypto KP, just inappropriate.
Sorry but I’m just going to have to break this down and I won’t be going in order but…
You seem to be confusing your own personal opinion with facts.
Nobody, but nobody makes anyone see a young girl as a sexual object. If you looked at the picture in the OP and you saw a sexual object, that was your head. Just because you find it disgusting, doesn’t mean that most people do. Just because you find it ‘sexual’ doesn’t mean that it is.
There are many ways a garment can ‘show off’ a part of a person’s anatomy. Not everyone, finds ‘legs’ to be a sexually attractive feature. Not everyone sees ‘tummys’ as a sexual feature. Not every one sees ‘breasts’ as a sexually attractive feature. Sometimes you can cover up a feature to accent it. Would you be upset if she were wearing a tight sweater? Little girls have bodies. Seeing her flesh, doesn’t mean that she has been sexualized. If she is running around in her ballet tights is that ok. Specifically, what parts of a young girl is it OK for people to see? You said there are some you should have to see and that it is wrong to see, so what parts are OK to see?
I don’t find any of those, inherently sexual. Makeup, Shoes, and tatoes sex up people? Actually, makeup at a fashion show is frequently used to downplay any individuality of the model. Why do you think runway models walk with that expressionless gaze? Why do you think they don’t make eye contact with people in the audience? It is because, you arent’ supposed to look at them. She does have a little body painting on her leg. Did you miss that? Do you approve of that? Or do you fear that might make dirty old men want to have sex with her?
You can do that with your kid, but getting the world to agree to raise their kids in the Freudian Push Up Bra method, may be a bit of a challenge. Good luck with that.
Seriously… all this rhetorical tap dancing you’re doing re what is, and is not, perceived as “sexual” aside, you don’t think a pre-pubescent girl with a low cut bikini riding just above her pubis, strutting down a modelling catwalk has sexual connotations? Where do I buy these extra large horse blinders you seem to have access to?
I must have a super jumbo pair as well, 'cus I just don’t find a little girl in a swim suit sexual.
FWIW - most 10 year old girls strut around, regardless of where they are, and she’s not painted up like a barbie doll. If my 9 year old neice was wearing this and we were going to the beach, I wouldn’t notice at all, other than to tell her it was a cute suit.
Oh well, different strokes, I guess.
I’d be less desturbed if she was naked, honestly. That’s just the human body.
By declaring parts of it off-limits for public viewing, we sexualize them. Then, when we cut as close as possible to the taboo areas, we’re teasing. This is a swimsuit designed to tantalize. It’s sexual because it exposes everything *but *the genitals and breasts.
I must have a super jumbo pair as well, 'cus I just don’t find a little girl in a swim suit sexual.
FWIW - most 10 year old girls strut around, regardless of where they are, and she’s not painted up like a barbie doll. If my 9 year old neice was wearing this and we were going to the beach, I wouldn’t notice at all, other than to tell her it was a cute suit.
Oh well, different strokes, I guess.
I have attained perfection through begging. Every man’s dream. I’ll take a picture. Thanks, Derleth.
Here is the difference between naked and sexualized, at least in my opinion.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41983136@N00/276274165/
That’s a cute kid, naked, non sexualized, although a little dirty.
I like naked. I like kids. I like sex. Just not mixed all together.
No children were traumatized by the photography. Except of course when he’s 16 and we trot out the photo album in front of his new girlfriend.