I searched for any thread related to this, but saw nothing, so I’m proceeding ahead.
Anyone else hear about this? Supposedly, Cindy Crawford allowed her 5 year-old daughter to pose for photographs that a friend was shooting for her swimsuit company. Anyway, they weren’t necessarily meant to be public (at least according to Cindy’s spokesperson) but they did end up on said friend’s website. The outcry, apparently, was immediate and loud. Why? Well, the accounts I’ve read offered two reasons… 1.) the kid sports a "tattoo: on her lower back, and 2.) she’s (to quote the press) “topless.” Now I couldn’t find the actual photos anywhere but on chinadaily.com and I’ve included the link for everyone’s perusal.
The scandalous pictures at the center of the teapot (I think) tempest. Safe for work, I’m pretty sure.
So, as a dedicated childless person, can you give me your honest opinions on whether or not this is out of line? Personally, I wouldn’t think so because I don’t see that baby doing anything other than what we all did growing up. It certainly doesn’t come across to me as sexualized (hence the wording that I’ve seen used to describe is questionable, in my humble opinion), but rather as just cute. As far as the “ink,” well, I’m sure we all need to break out the pitchforks and torches and head after the Cracker Jacks people. Obviously it never occurred to those in a dither that it might be temporary. It makes more since to believe that she’d put her kid under the needle before grade school starts. All the better to be ahead of the fashion curve I guess.
However, I do know that most parents are probably hyper aware of pedophiles and their motives. I’m sure no one ever wants to do anything to encourage them or possibly make their children a target. Is that it then? Is it too puritan influences taking over? Or maybe I’m missing the boat entirely and someone better equipped can explain where I’ve gone wrong in my assumptions.
I’m more put off by the tattoo, than the semi nudity. Even if the tattoo is fake, it’s tacky on a child, especially the location. On an adult female, a lower-back tattoo can be sexy, but isn’t that the only reason people get them back there?
I let my kids get fake tattoos. Hey, they look cheesy in an “I’m five and such a bad ass” kind of way, but the kids love them and I don’t care. They come off with baby oil, for christ’s sake.
I’ve seen plenty of pictures like the one of her “topless” - it’s her back. I think it’s only sexualized if you want it to be.
Only speaking for myself, I got mine back there because I love butterflies (they have special meaning for me) and I wanted one really badly, but in a place no one ever saw unless invited. So I guess the interpretation is up to each individual.
Also, I wanted to make clear that I’m not making light of any legitimate concerns parents might have regarding their reasons for being put off over this. It’s just that I don’t understand what seems to be shallow knee-jerk reactionarism (if that’s even close to a word). If their feelings pertain to said fears over pedophilia, could someone more qualified on the subject (IE: a mom or dad), articulate it better than my ramblings could ever?
And on preview, I loved fake tattoos as a kid too. That was the bestest prize outta the box, well before the comics or the magnifying glass. I didn’t even like carmelized popcorn back then.
I’m absolutely sure that I’ve seen television footage of very small girls running around topless–like, on commercials for diapers or fabric softener. Really, small children aren’t gendered. I don’t know what the big deal is.
Does Cindy have a back tattoo? If so, I can absolutely see the little girl would want one - wanna be just like Mommy. Or like some other cherished adult in her life.
I don’t think it’s a big deal, either. When i was a little girl I used to put mehndi on my hands and wear a bindi on my forehead and lots of bracelets - all of which are considered marriage apparel and very mature. It was just dress-up, like all little girls love to do.
I cannot see one thing wrong with any of this. Every kid loves fake tattoos, and every kid gets half-naked pictures taken (should I take the bathtime pictures out of my photo album, even though they don’t show anything?). Those pictures aren’t in the least sexy.
The only mistake here is putting them out on the Internet in the first place; it probably isn’t that great an idea for someone like Cindy Crawford to put her kid in such photo shoots, because they will almost inevitably wind up public somehow. That’s what happens when you’re a celebrity, so you have to be extra-careful if you don’t want your child plastered all over the Web.
I don’t see what the big deal is. The pictures were not meant for public consumption, for starters, which means they were for friends and family and professional collegues. If all the grown-ups involved felt comfortable that there were no pedophiles in that group who might come molest the poor girl, then I don’t think we have much business second-guessing them.
'Sides, aren’t most pedophiles attracted to the whole “innocence” thing? (I’m not sure, maybe that’s a myth.) Seems like a coy, topless tattooed girl wouldn’t be innocent ENOUGH to appeal to that mindset. But it’s a hard mindset for me to get into, so maybe I’m wrong there.
I think it’s perfectly normal for parents to think their kids emulating them is cute. When WhyKid was little, I worked at Blockbuster, and he thought Mommy ruled the world. I have a great photo of him at the same age in a little blue polo and khakis with a belt, with my work keys dangling from his beltloop and my nametag pinned on his shirt. He has a grin a mile wide because he looks “just like a Blockbuster worker!” I wish I could share it, but I haven’t figured out the scanner yet. Was I perverting him by forcing him to emulate the unwashed masses, subject to the crushing heel of the bourgeois? Hardly. I was getting a kick out of his delight in being like his parent. Like it or not, Cindy’s career involves standing on a beach posing for a camera. Of course her daughter’s going to emulate it. (And very well, I might add.)
Besides, naked children are beautiful for a completely different reason that naked adults are. I wish our culture would stop thinking that if we thinks kids are gorgeous we want to sleep with them. THAT’s evidence of a perverted mind, to me.
Now some might see that as too tortured and twisted logic, but I think that’s certainly a fair enough point (from my non-pedophile way of thinking). I don’t know if all those so-call “modeling” sites would mean a different take on this though. Hmmm.
Anyway, I’m just glad to know that I’m not the only one who felt this was a huge overreaction. Since I’m not a parent, I was afraid that I just wasn’t getting the point, that there was something really to fear here. So I’m glad I posted it to y’all and have faith that not all of my reasoning has completely vanished. Thank you.
Oh, and dangermom hits another part of the nail squarely on the head; if you’re a celebrity, perhaps you need to be even more vigilant about what goes on with your kid. I can’t imagine how much more important this would have to be for them. Q.E.D.
I guess I’m just not much of a pervert, because I thought those pictures were adorable and perfectly age-appropriate. If I ever have kids I guess they’ll come get me.
If they’re going to get all panty-twisted about the sexualization of the toplessness, and the sexualization of the fake tattoo, why aren’t they getting equally upset about the two nearly-naked girls hugging? If they were, say, 18 years old, nobody would be upset about the toplessness or the tattoo, but you’d hear something about the hugging, I’m sure…
Excellent point! Maybe those girls don’t matter, because doncha know, their mothers aren’t famous. :rolleyes: And AHunter3 is also correct. Can you envision what kind of uproar there’d be over that? Hell, I’d be shocked to ever see a boy in an advertisement playing with a kitchen cookware set.
Eh, you just need to get the right toy catalogs. I get one that is so yuppie/organic that everything is drawn in colored pencil instead of photographed, and there isn’t a piece of plastic in the whole thing. That catalog has a kitchen set (with fridge!) and the picture, of course, features a boy happily getting something out of the oven.
The pictures don’t seem worthy of a loud outcry so much as a disapproving frown.
If I had a 5-yr-old girl, I wouldn’t worry about an occasional candid topless photo taken by family. I have several naked-frolicking-toddler pics of my sons. But let a non-family member take a posed topless swimsuit photo of my child? Nope.
And temporary tatoos are fine, my kids love them. But on a girl’s lower back? Not my kid.
These things aren’t just a child emulating an adult, they are a child emulating a sexual being and I think it’s inappropriate.
I don’t see anything wrong with those pictures. She’s just being a normal kid, just like those who sneak into mommy’s room and put on make up and high heels. She’s playing pretend, specially if it really wasn’t a real photoshoot.
I just wish American media (to which I am subjected, since I have cable) would just top ‘thinking about the children’. If someone is sick enough to be sexually attracted to kids, nothing, not even dressing them in a burkha, would stop them.
