5 is a little young for a tramp stamp.
I’m guessing that in context (or out of?), five is a little too young for make-up too, but we don’t stop our kids from trying that out or taking pictures of them.
And I would also guess that the reason the “tramp stamp” is where it’s located is because of how the photo was shot. Wouldn’t make much sense to put it on her tummy.
much ado about nothing…
A message to the people who caused this brou-ha-ha (not dopers):
Don’t you have anything better to worry about? Open a goddamn newspaper! Five years ago we had people jumping out of hundred story buildings destroyed by terrorists because they’d rather die that way than be burnt alive. Every day soldiers are dying in wars we have trouble even justifying to ourselves. Our country is torturing people not-so-secretly and wants to take steps to make it legal. Get your mind out of the gutter, for fuck’s sake, and try thinking about something that matters.
Thank you.
(We have a fantastic picture of my fiance holding his three year old goddaughter. Neither is wearing shirts, in fact, they could both be naked for all you can tell in the picture. It is hilarious and cute and we refer to it as her “blackmail picture”. And yet someone, somewhere out there, would want him arrested.)
Not this individual. I learned what is most commonly implied by that type of tattoo on here.
Same here.
I was referring to the adult type of fake tattoes that appear real.
But why have one at all? It’s a cute picture without it.
Most kids though, when putting on fake tattoos, want them where they can see them. Otherwise, what’s the point?
See, I had mine long before I was a Doper and had never heard that phrase. But then again, I’m frequently out of any loop out there available. 
Good to know that I keep excellent company with remarkable taste in trinkets. 
Ah, gotcha. However, if I find 'em on anyone under, say 15, then I assume they’re not real, no matter if even the Painter of Tripe did them. :eek: 
Why do it? I figure that WhyNot might be onto something. Maybe mommy has one there? If so, and she’s modeling, it seems possible that she’d want to emulate her as completely as possible. See previous responses about make-up, high heels, grown-up dresses and various other things that are only geared for adults but that kids co-opt for play.
Does that mean that overall it might not be appropriate? I suppose so depending on the person making the call. But I would venture a guess that Mrs. Crawford was innocent here and only thought it’d be adorable. Which, in my humble opinion, it is.
…she named her kid Fiasco?
(what happens when you read the thread title only)
Yanno, I’d post more threads with a blunder (that’s Fiasco’s sister) in the title if it got such cuties to respond.
That’s exactly what I thought. It would be perfectly fine if she were a half-naked child doing the things that children do, like putting stick-on tatoos on the arms and hands and building sand castles. But the pose is so adult, as is the tatoo. By the way, that tatoo had to be designed as a fake tramp stamp for a young woman, I never found anything remotely similar in a box of Cracker Jacks.
She might be emulating adult behavior as all children do, I know I tried on my mom’s make up and heels. But I also know that my mom would never let me out of the house like that. There’s just too much “come hither, pervs of the world” in that photo. It would be adorable in a family album, I wouldn’t want that shared with the world.
Cute girl. Looks like my oldest daughter did when she was that age. She also did stick-on tattoos till they looked like a formel-1 racer. The pictures looks like what regulary comes in my postbox from various children’s clothing stores. There’s no controversy. Actually I find it a bit tacky some would refer to the pictures of a 6yo girl as topless. Says more of those labelling them so, that it does of the mother.
I haven’t looked at the pictures, but every time my mother sees a little girl wearing a bikini we need to pick her eyes back up from the floor. All my beach pictures from before age 12 are “topless”! We’ve spent the last 20 years trying to figure out why someone would put a “tit-cover” (as my brother named them when he was 5) on someone with no tits.
I don’t know that I’d let my daughter that age wear a fake tattoo there, but it’s not so far outside of the parameters of acceptability as to be unquestionably wrong. As for the “topless” thing, so?? Who cares? She’s a little girl!
People need to get real concerns.
I flinch whenever I see one of those diaper commercials these days. It seems innocent to us, but perverts really do . . . uh . . . use them. There’s an inmate in my local prison who was incarcerated for touching a child. The police found tapes of diaper commercials in his house. He didn’t get charged with anything for that-- it’s not child porn, even if he was using it that way.
I’ve seen them sold in kiosks and dollar stores here in Spain. Often the long ones are used as “bracelet” tatoos, but some kids have seen them as tramp stamps on MTV and want them there.
My Danish mother in law game my daughter a book of rhymes that comes with a CD. When I checked the book, and after being exposed for too long to Disney’s sanitized view of the world, I was surprised to see the drawings in the book, and came to the conclusion that it would never sell in the US. Amongst other things, the book portrait kids and their families sunbathing in the nude. It was refresing to see it.
Danes have a very casual attitude to nudity, I don’t believe that Danish kids are more in danger of being sexually abused than American kids. I insist that no matter how much you wrap up your kids, anyone sick enough to be sexually attracted to them will still do.
I just don’t get it.
No, it doesn’t. There is simply not room for disagreement here. What’s with your relativist excuse-making here? Five-year-old children run around topless. Assuming they have clothes on at all. That’s completely normal. Anyone who claims that an image of a topless little girl too young to have tits is “sexual” has something very wrong with them. (What’s the difference between a shirtless five-year-old girl and a shirtless five-year-old boy in the first place? Why is one acceptable and the other not?) The increasingly hysterical prudishness that people in our society are succumbing to is not normal and not acceptable, and people who espouse such views should be openly mocked. That’s how society keeps people in check - by using social disapproval to indicate that some things are reasonable and some are not.
I’m just really irritated at thi increasingly bizarre fear of nudity in our society. Children run around naked at that age. Hell, I don’t think this is the sort of thing that would have gotten a second glance even twenty years ago - family photos with naked children used to be considered a perfectly normal thing. Which only makes sense, as there are lots of toddlers out there who remove their clothing at every possible opportunity. Now suddenly this is cause to freak out because a topless five-year-old is being “sexualized”? Sexualization is in the mind of the beholder, perverts.
The idea that young children shouldn’t be naked is nothing short of insane, and it’s a marked and drastic change in our society over just a couple decades. And it’s a view that is having increasingly malignant effects on society - there have been reports over the past few years of people being arrested for developing family photos with naked children in them, because they were treated as violations of child pornography laws. The (inexplicably) ubiquitous photo of the naked toddler on the toilet probably counts as scatological child pornography to some people. (I don’t understand why people take those pictures, but every parent seems to have them. I don’t pretend to understand parents.)
Well, I’m not going to pretend that those people are sane, or that such views are acceptable. That insanity is having an increasingly negative effect on society. Tolerance is well and good, but applying it to something like this is ridiculous; this is not a valid viewpoint and it should not be treated as such, any more than a schizophrenic’s claims that the government is using satellites to steal their thoughts are valid. Maybe if we start telling these hysterical idiots that they’re hysterical idiots, they’ll wake up and start to reconsider these inane, insane opinions.
Blech. Sorry for the rant, everyone. This just hit a personal sore point for me. The ridiculous extent to which we’re taking this “Think of the children!” mantra these days is really starting to upset me.
Do you think he should have been charged?
Someone, somewhere is jerking off to a Frontline commercial. I’m not gonna cringe every time I rub my dog’s belly and she goes spread eagle on the floor.