Stupid girl, parents, media

I don’t see anything here that wouldn’t be revealed by a shot from swim team practice. I’m all for the yearbook having control of what they choose to include in their pages, but I think it wouldn’t have hurt anyone to let this one in.

I agree with the reaction against “slut shaming”. Why is there all this talk of “hookers”? That word has a specific meaning, and I don’t see anything in the photo that in any way implies that she exchanges sexual favors for money. I would venture that she almost certainly doesn’t, although she may enjoy sex recreationally for it’s own sake- which is a reasonable thing for an 18 year old woman to do. And how do we know she is a bad role model? Would you change your mind if she was top of her class, an accomplished sculpture, and fluent in five languages? Or does being proud of racy pictures of yourself (and the subsequent implication that you may be a sexual creature) completely invalidate anything else a woman might have done? Who is the regressive one, here?

Anyway, I wish someone had taken a few revealing photos of me at that age. I had no idea that I was beautiful, or that I wouldn’t ever look 18 years old (or experience that period in my sexuality) again. I agree this young woman is probably a bit misguided and her parents seem like a piece of work, but it takes all kinds and she’ll figure it out eventually.

And I’m sure you, of course, would righteously pass up fame and fortune should it come to your door. Honestly, I think a lot of the posts in this thread are sour grapes.

It seems to me that she’s a shoe-in for being voted “Most likely to.”

“Hit that, I’d”

When they came for Tater Tot Tuesday, I said nothing because I didn’t like Tater Tots.

When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up.

:frowning:

Is anyone else really interested in swim team practice at sven’s old school? At my high school, the girl’s swim team was more covered up in the pool than they typically were during the school day.

With a name like Sydney Spies, aren’t you pretty much regulated to being a porn star?

It’s not that the kid had a picture rejected, it’s that the parents then made a big deal about it and drew attention to the situation. Yeah, and anyone named Sydney Spies is either a character in an animated Disney channel series or a stripper (or both like the late Earl Warren).

I dunno, I remember the girls’ swim team pictures from my yearbooks and they were in one-piece swimsuits, sitting on the bleachers and smiling, not giving the camera bedroom eyes while doing a suggestive pose.

It wouldn’t have “hurt” anyone, but it wouldn’t have been fair to the other students who submitted pictures that complied with the rules.

I agree that “slut” and “hooker” are too harsh to be throwing around. I know nothing about that young lady and she might well be a straight A student and great humanitarian. If she’s proud of her body and her sexuality, good for her.

However, the place to show that off is not your senior year yearbook, especially when there are clearly defined rules about what is and isn’t suitable for the pictures. Save the sexy shots for your model portfolio or your own album or to send your sweetheart.

Again, she can take as many sexy pics of herself as she wants, it’s just that your high school yearbook isn’t the place to be showing them off, especially when they go against Da Roolz.

So is she a hot-blooded, confident young woman owning her sexuality, or a clueless misguided wretch thanks to her equally clueless parents? Make up your mind.

Oh, please. If I, or my kids if I had any, found ourselves in the national spotlight because one of us submitted a risque yearbook picture I’d want to crawl under the rug and die of shame.

Nah, not enough z’s or x’s. That’s a superheroine secret identity name, sorry. Also, that pic is totally a superheroine crime fighting outfit, I have no idea where you guys get the hooker/stripper vibes from :stuck_out_tongue:

I graduated in nineteen seventy something, and you had two choices, school or “recommended” local photography studios . The local studios were well versed in the rules; head and shoulders only, no visible logos on clothing, no political or social statement clothing, neutral background, etc.

If the girl wants the world to see racy pictures of her, then she has every right in the world to rent billboards and post photos of herself wearing as little clothing as she wants in any pose she wants as long as it doesn’t violate local ordinances. She also has the right to distribute whatever photo she wants amongst her friends and family. No one is stopping her.

But if she wants a class photo in the yearbook, the yearbook has rules and standards, and she needs to follow them.

Her parents are doing her a disservice by taking this public.

Ex-model here. She has two things on her side; she’s 18 and she’s not obese. That’s it. Her face is average http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150377839253088.382956.62233143087&type=1#!/photo.php?fbid=10150377839668088&set=a.10150377839253088.382956.62233143087&type=3&theater and anyone can bleach their hair. From her photos, it’s clear she doesn’t know jack shit about modeling, but she seems to think she’s good at it based up on the sheer volume of awful poses in her photos http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150377839253088.382956.62233143087&type=1#!/photo.php?fbid=10150377839538088&set=a.10150377839253088.382956.62233143087&type=3&theater

Being a non-obese 18 year old is not an accomplishment. It’s how things are supposed to be.

If she were obese she’d have to be called Sydney’s Pies.

Shameless attention whoring for celebrity. They aimed for going viral, and they made it! A career in modeling, a spokes person, or weathergirl, some door could open for this girl, even if only locally.

Ever think that perhaps she as dim as a 12 watt bulb, and maybe this is her only ‘ability’?

Playboy has probably already called, what do you want to bet?

My HS valedictorian was a complete bimbo who got straight A’s taking easy level classes. She beat out two certified geniuses, because they both got a 3.9(something) in a 500 level college class as HS sophomores. Being pretty and shallow does not mean she is not a successful student.

And our Val did not look half as hot as this girl. :smiley:

You would be surprised how many porn stars, supermodels and high end-call girls are smarter and have more business savvy then you or I ever will.

Nothing wrong with that. It’s just that one’s class photo in the school yearbook isn’t the proper place to go out of one’s way to advertise that particular hobby.

If my yearbooks had pictures like that, I might have a reason to open one of them 20 years later. You go girl!

Here’s the thing about actually having sex; it’s generally done without an audience, and is very much no one’s business but the participants.

Putting clothes on is making a statement. Putting on tiny skirt and a tube top says “I want you to view me as a sexual object”. Can’t get mad when people oblige you. Trying to put that picture in the yearbook says “I an an attention whore.” Can’t get mad at people for giving you attention, no matter how negative.

The parents obviously are trying to gain some pub for their daughter. It worked. End of story.

What’s crazy is that if you flip through these pictures, there are several that are FAR more attractive than the ones she chose AND she’s covered. This one is adorable. She looks very pretty here. If they fixed the lighting, this would be a very pretty senior picture.

I just wonder why she’s dressed for a Whitesnake video. It is 2012, right? Because she’d look right at home in my yearbook, and that’s just wrong.