10 year old Vogue model

(202 Posts)
sherbertdipdab Fri 05-Aug-11 07:48:49

VOGUE FGS

just when you thought it couldn't get any younger sad

www.inquisitr.com/132475/10-year-old-vogue-model-thylane-lena-rose-blondeau/

catsareevil Fri 05-Aug-11 08:00:25

YANBU

I dont understand why Vogue would want to entertain this kind of thing.

hester Fri 05-Aug-11 08:05:19

YANBU

Plus: what the hell were the parents thinking?

I have a friend with two exceptionally beautiful daughters, 7 and 8. They look like identical twins - it's hard to tell them apart - but the eldest is very into girly stuff and clothes, the youngest is into superheroes and sports. Anyway, they started modelling and the elder got loads of work - she loved it and was very keen to co-operate and do it well - and the younger, who was restless and bored, didn't.

My friend heard them chatting in their room one night and the younger was saying to the elder, "You're the beautiful one, and everybody loves you more than me." She says it was like a slap in the face, an instant realisation of FGS what am I doing here? She instantly pulled them both out of modelling and quite right too.

I would be so proud if my daughter looked like that.................at 23. How can parents let their baby do that?

fastweb Fri 05-Aug-11 08:09:33

I dont understand why Vogue would want to entertain this kind of thing.

How much publicity did\will they get from this single shoot ?

Even Vogue is seeing a fall in circulation in this economic downturn.

At the moment any visibility over and above their competitors will probably be seen as a good thing.

Controversy is hardly seen as a dirty word when it comes to raising a profile in the fashion world.

strandednomore Fri 05-Aug-11 08:10:10

i'm suprised that's legal.

catsareevil Fri 05-Aug-11 08:15:50

Fastwab - That had crossed my mind too, but I had always seen Vogue as being more upmarket than the type of magazine that would court publicity in this way. I must have been wrong.

trixymalixy Fri 05-Aug-11 08:18:15

YANBU

Tortington Fri 05-Aug-11 08:25:53

well i shan't be buying that again

pigletmania Fri 05-Aug-11 08:29:44

It's creepy and wrong. The poor girl looks like a mini Lolita. Shame on you Vogue. Yes what are the parents thinking

Claw3 Fri 05-Aug-11 08:31:28

I heard on the radio the other day that something like 98 little girls were admitted to hospital with anorexia, some as young as 5 years old and all below the age of 10. Its disguisting.

EuphemiaMcGonagall Fri 05-Aug-11 08:32:10

YANBU - look at that poor child with her face made up and her eyebrows plucked! shock

DD (9) already frets about being fat (she's skinny!), ugly, etc. and I don't know where it comes from. I don't buy magazines other than Radio Times (grin) and we don't watch any TV shows that might make her feel inadequate, and yet she's still picking up this pressure from somewhere.

What chance does that wee model have?

angry

msrisotto Fri 05-Aug-11 08:47:06

That is so so wrong and gross.

nenevomito Fri 05-Aug-11 08:47:43

This is just so ridiculously wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

The picture shows a 10 year old girl dressed as an adult woman in an adult pose wearing high heels.

Why is this somehow forgiveable for high fashion, but would be considered completely taboo in any other medium? The answer is that it isn't. The sexualisation of young girls in the media is bad enough as it is without a major player like Vogue normalising what would be considered inappropriate everywhere else.

What on earth were her parents thinking?

fastweb Fri 05-Aug-11 08:48:21

That had crossed my mind too, but I had always seen Vogue as being more upmarket than the type of magazine that would court publicity in this way. I must have been wrong

I doubt this was done to with an overt intent to pander to the Jordan end of the market, probably framed as being "ironic" and making a "statement".

Plus it leaves a great possibility to turn negative publicity into good when they get their pre prepared hair shirts out, apologize unreservedly, slam some hapless fallgal and do a high profile, high selling editorial on "letting girls be girls".

Thus giving them a quick, highly visible rebirth in a sector of the market that perhaps would be the first to chop the cost of a Vogue off their monthly outgoings and stick with a cheaper mag. But with the apology Vogue would look more attractive than the cheaper mag, cos Vogue has wriggled it's way into being a high profile player into one of the key issues that matters to a fairly large sector of their intended audience.

I doubt if they had gone straight for the "let girls be girls" bandwagon it would have reached such a wide audience, not least cos pre this shoot they would have had to work exceedingly hard at making themselves look truly relevant to the campaign\perspective.

</cynic>

I think once you scratch the polished surface of the fashion world the sleaze quotient (at every level) isn't that hard to find.

SeenButNotHeard Fri 05-Aug-11 08:52:51

Is the girl American?

Having had the unfortunate experience of seeing tiny children dressed up for Pagents over there, I can't say that this image particularly shocks me.

I don't like it though - and really would have thought that Vogue would have more sense.

faverolles Fri 05-Aug-11 08:59:56

Apart from everything everyone else has said, this girl is tipped to be the next big thing in fashion - what happens if puberty hits and she develops undesirable features? (in the world of modelling I mean) What happens to her then, if her boobs are "too big", or her hips "too wide" Will her parents be supportive? Quite frankly if they are happy for her to pose like that at age 10, I don't think they will be.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Fri 05-Aug-11 09:02:01

I think that children are only really beautiful when they are being and dressing like children. A child that dresses/acts as an adult is just weird and a magazine that facilitates and encourages that is just tacky. I think that Vogue has lost the plot, possibly some of its readership and probably a lot of the 'prestige' it enjoys. It's just another tacky magazine now, no more mystique or anything to set it apart from any other.

She LOOKS 10 as well, as if she is playing dress up. The whole thing is bizarre.

malinois Fri 05-Aug-11 09:02:04

Seen - Eurotrash I think. By Eurotrash I mean "Daddy is from Germany originally but went to college in the US, where he met mummy who is from Sweden but actually half-Chinese/Hungarian. We live in Monaco with all our other over-privileged Eurotrash friends and our extremely tenuous grip on reality. See you in St Moritz! <air kiss, air kiss>"

Not that I'm stereotyping or making any assumptions.

kayb123 Fri 05-Aug-11 09:18:38

shame on the parents for allowing their daughter be seen in a way that can be seen posing in a adult like way - thankfully she is fully clothed, i was half expecting some leg to be showing. Why cant children stay children and inocent.

FriggFRIGG Fri 05-Aug-11 09:23:46

that is so sad.

i will NOT be buying vogue again.

annieversaire Fri 05-Aug-11 09:23:48

I think the pose is very sexually provocative and to me it crosses a line in terms of paedop[hilia. Sorry, it's just how I reacted at first seeing it.

I don't think it is right.

porcamiseria Fri 05-Aug-11 09:29:34

wrong wrong wrong, but agree given that america has 3 year olds dressed like playboy bunnies

sorry, lots of americans are lovely but SHAME ON HER PARENTS, fucking twats

BuxomWenchOnAPony Fri 05-Aug-11 09:32:01

Good god.

Horrible, just horrible.

LadyClariceCannockMonty Fri 05-Aug-11 09:33:37

Really vile. The pose, the heels, the make-up ...

I know it's French Vogue but I agree with those who are boycotting UK Vogue from now on. I used to buy it occasionally but won't touch it with a bargepole now. And I'll be emailing them to tell them why.

porcamiseria Fri 05-Aug-11 09:34:53

shes french, not american, sorry !!!!

sherbertdipdab Fri 05-Aug-11 09:49:55

do they really think we would buy clothes worn and modelled by a 10 year old.. the more you think about it the grosser it becomes
angry

<hmm those shoes looked fab on that 10 year old, I must pop out and get some.... NOT>

More pics I think the one with the gold dress slashed to the waist is the worst. She is French apparently.

MumblingRagDoll Fri 05-Aug-11 10:29:55

It's disgusting. Vogue attempting to be cutting edge and only succeeding in looking like desperate idiots. The child is lovely...but then so are most ten year olds....especially plastered in makeup.....what do they want exactly?

For grown women to think "Ooh must buy that dress..then I will look like that 10 year old!"

Or do they want 10 year olds to read Voue? It's very stupid and very disturbing and I'm a very permissive thinker....I feel so angry at Vogue.

DontAskMeSums Fri 05-Aug-11 10:45:13

YANBU
Cheap and sleazy.

sue52 Fri 05-Aug-11 10:50:12

Exploitative and very wrong. What were her parents thinking?

EduStudent Fri 05-Aug-11 12:22:28

Fastweb completely summed up my thoughts on this.

Icelollycraving Fri 05-Aug-11 12:58:38

She is so beautiful! She has such a photogenic face,stunning,but certainly looks older.There are some pictures on the second link which are more age appropriate but the gold dress & the first one on the leopard print are really quite grotesque styling,I assume it's to court publicity though. Any press is good press thinking? Grim.

strictlovingmum Fri 05-Aug-11 13:04:29

Wrong, wrong, very morally wrong, but her face is so beautiful*the girl is a stunner*.

LineRunner Fri 05-Aug-11 13:07:45

There was a previous thread a couple of months ago, about whether a 12 year old should be signed up as a fashion model.

I said 'No' [quite vociferously] and was variously accused by some other mothers on the thread of being 'angry', 'aggressive' and 'jealous'.

I was surprised, but not in a good way.

I really do think that using child models for women's fashion is exploitative, not in the best interests of women and girls, and creepy.

SomethingBlue Fri 05-Aug-11 13:07:45

That is absolutely grotesque. The one of her running through the cornfield gives a glimpse of what a child that age should be doing. The 'knowing' looks at the camera make my blood run cold.

archieleach Fri 05-Aug-11 13:10:44

But is there anything that can be done about it?
I do hope so. Race to the bottom I guess.

LineRunner Fri 05-Aug-11 13:10:49

SomethingBlue, The Observer hasd something similar on/in its magazine a while back. Haven't bought it since.

ZZZenAgain Fri 05-Aug-11 13:12:29

tacky and irresponsible parenting IMO. Why do it? They have money (perhaps they'd like more?), they are minor celebrities in their own right I think in France, so just a bit on the stupid side I presume.

That's shocking sad especially the picture with no top on and all the necklaces covering where her boobs would be if she was actually old enough to have them. Awful angry. The picture of her in the cornfield is lovely and appropriate though and seems to be for children's vogue ( can't believe there actually is one!) why couldn't the have stuck with that?

RockinSockBunnies Fri 05-Aug-11 13:25:50

That child is absolutely stunningly beautiful. She does look older than 10. The clothing and poses are weird - deliberately controversial and thought provoking.

Then again, remember Brooke Shields....didn't seem to do her career any harm.

RoundOrangeHead Fri 05-Aug-11 13:26:13

she is such a beautiful looking child, she doesn't need the gimmick of being dressed like an adult for her to gain publicity

she will obviously be successful without all the controversy

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 13:31:10

sexualisation of youngsters is abhorrent.vile

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Fri 05-Aug-11 14:35:34

LineRunner... I remember that thread. I think the difference is that this 10 year old is being dressed up like an adult in really inappropriate clothes and the 12 year old had the opportunity of being signed up (as a 12 year old), with the potential of being ready to work at 16 or thereabouts. I don't see anything wrong with a 12 year old modelling age appropriate clothing, I think it's a good opportunity for the child to earn money for later on as long as the mother doesn't start trying to live through her child.

LineRunner Fri 05-Aug-11 14:40:11

Hi Lying. How are you this fine day.

I thought I was really clear on t'other thread that my views were about children actually doing women's fashion modelling when they are still children, as opposed to little Billy showing off his new dungarees whilst playing with a tonka truck in the Argos catalogue.

I still got jumped on! Sigh.

LolaRennt Fri 05-Aug-11 14:44:46

I can only imagine the kind of people who will want to buy the magazine for the photos, because,again, most adult women aren't going to be interested in a 10 year old tarted up and laying on a tiger skin rug will they?

WTF are her parents on. Seiously.

Servalan Fri 05-Aug-11 14:46:01

Good grief- on what planet is this anywhere approaching acceptable?! Don't know why I'm so shocked really, the pressures on young girls to grow up too quickly are all around us.

Personally I don't think the question of whether it will do her career any harm in the future is the issue here. I don't think anything that chips away at the the general view of child sexualisation being abhorent is at all healthy. It is not something that should ever be normalised.

It's deeply cynical and very depressing.

superv1xen Fri 05-Aug-11 14:46:18

YANBU

shock

lachesis Fri 05-Aug-11 14:50:27

Yuk. I haven't read Vogue for years because of its predeliction for underage models who look eating-disordered or drugged.

What kind of parent allows this?

sherbertdipdab Fri 05-Aug-11 14:51:10

Anybody any good at doing those online petition things.
I'd def sign it!

sherbertdipdab Fri 05-Aug-11 14:52:30

Come on Mumsnet , perhaps the powers that be can get something moving!

(I am not techy enough and wouldn't know where to start)

malinois Fri 05-Aug-11 14:58:57

sherbert - not quite sure what you want to achieve. This is French Vogue, so what would starting a UK petition achieve? I cannot believe for a moment that British Vogue would have ever published these images.

StewieGriffinsMom Fri 05-Aug-11 15:00:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sallyb9 Fri 05-Aug-11 15:00:56

10 years old! Where has the element of fun gone from this child's life?! Thinking that it's all about the lastest 'in' fashion and accessories is desperate measures for Vogue. Are their marketing team really that desperate?? I wouldn't dream of conveying this message to my little girl.

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 15:04:18

sherbet you can indivudually email publisher express dissatisfaction
conde naste press room

Sorry - I don't really feel that outraged ....

The child is healthy, happy and somewhere along the line she and her parents consented to doing this.

It is no worse than those parents who enter their darlings into baby competitions, put them up for 'Britain's got Talent' or be included in the parental shows like Supernanny.... usually those shows show really underaged kids in distressing circumstances.

I wouldn't do it to my children, but that isn't the issue

flimflammery Fri 05-Aug-11 15:06:21

That image is truly shocking. She is a child, fgs. I am appalled at Vogue. Would they let their own daughters pose like that? Perhaps they would, their view of what is acceptable seems so warped.

Oh look, soft porn for peadophiles on our newsagents shelves.

I'm horrified by the tiger one shock

flimflammery Fri 05-Aug-11 15:09:45

Itsjustafleshwound: It's in no way comparable to having your child on Supernanny. It's conveying the message that a child is an object of sexual desire.

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 15:11:37

appalled any parent allows overt sexualisation,branding and selling of a young girl as a commodity. the application of make up, the sexual pose,the accessories used.it is all gross

at 10yo she cannot possibly know or understand the imagery and its potency. for her i expect is is a fun day being fussed over

BUT her parents should know and understand the potency of the image.maye they ameliorate this with some guff about she likes dressing up etc. but to make profit out of selling wee girl in provocative imagery well there is a name for that

pimps springs to mind

Sexual desire??? What is the demographic for Vogue - why on earth would sexual desire come into it???

The children on Supernanny have no say in participation and are shown most times in severe distress

Sidge Fri 05-Aug-11 15:35:21

Gosh she is beautiful.

But some of the images are just repellent - I like the ones of her sitting in front of the mirror, in the cornfield and in the shorts and the daft hat - but the others are hideous. Overtly sexual and provocative. Which is just entirely wrong for a pre-pubescent child.

LineRunner Fri 05-Aug-11 15:39:20

The demographic for Vogue I suppose is anyone who wants to buy it/look at it.

Do ten year olds consent? My then 13 year old wasn't even allowed to consent to her own HPV jab; I had to do it for her.

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 15:42:09

the image is reproduced on news and online sites.not just vogue

LineRunner Fri 05-Aug-11 15:54:00

And actually, it could be argued that if the target demographic of Vogue is well-heeled women then that might have the effect of normalising repellent images?

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 16:00:22

only if you model your behaviours/values upon print media

QuintessentialShadow Fri 05-Aug-11 16:03:53

What is the main difference between these shots in Vogue, and shots of children that is currently circulating in secret online, and which the police are trying to clamp down on.

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 16:12:33

well quite big differences
1.namely consent parental knowledge
2.reproduction in legal respected medium
3.veneer of respectability
4. not seeking to be illicit. freely available and on sale

CheerfulYank Fri 05-Aug-11 16:15:06

I know we've already established that she's French, but I'm a bit irritated with the "well Americans dress their little girls like prostitutes" nonsense. No, we don't. Most ten year olds around here look like this , actually.

And I find it interesting that it's a poster here said "given that america has 3 year olds dressed like playboy bunnies" and yet on lots of message boards on other forums about this child it's all "there's nothing wrong with this, all the controversy is just another example of America's uptight culture." So which is it, eh? Either we slap a t-shirt emblazoned with "future porn star" on our daughters the second they emerge from the womb or we're repressed prudes. Pick one and stick with it, thanks!

FWIW this girl is lovely. Lots of girls are. Who knows what she'll look like when she's an adult? I find it abhorrent to put so much emphasis on a child's looks. But that's probably my uptight culture talking.

EndInTearrs Fri 05-Aug-11 16:22:54

Take away all the make-up and trashy clothes and what a beautiful child.

However YANBU, she shouldn't be dressed as an adult and certainly shouldn't be paraded as an adult. Peodophile's dream. She's the same age as my son who still thinks farting is funny and who is very rarely seen without a muddy face - nobody would believe he is the same age as this girl.

EndInTearrs Fri 05-Aug-11 16:25:12

Oh and as for the American thing - well when we were in America 12 year old girls LOOKED 12, they looked like sweet little kids.

Walking through town the other day my DS said hello to a group of what I assumed to be 14/15 year old girls in mini-shirts, tight shorts and heavy make-up. I said "who are they??" and he said "oh they're in my class at school". He's 12!

Us Brits are just as guilty I'm afraid.

MichaelaS Fri 05-Aug-11 16:34:18

just terrible. nothign to do with paedophiles really. its more sad that this 10 year old girl is being held up as some sort of desirable image, something grown adult women might want to look like. yes she's beautiful, but grown women have a different type of beauty to children.

more stomping on the idea that having boobs and hips and a feminine shape is normal, more reenforecment of the idea that we should all starve ourselves into a stick shape and put appearance before character, intelligence, acts of kindness etc etc.

ok so magazines like that are all about promoting appearance, it just distresses me the gaping gender gap in expectations and the resulting changes in how the next generation of young men and young women perceive their roles in lives. I'm not usually one to harp on about feminism and equality but just imagine how peverse it would be if an aspirational men's magazine was to show pictures of a half naked 10 year old boy. it would be laughable. why is it not laughable in a women's magazine? so sad.

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 16:36:47

it is sexualisation and girl as commodity.dont know what her parents were thinking

EndInTearrs Fri 05-Aug-11 16:42:59

The thing is, could you imagine showing some of these images to a teenage lad and saying "guess her age". I can't imagine any of them saying 10. Infact some of them might even make the mistake of admitting to finding her attractive until they realised how old she was. It's wrong. Let kids be kids. Plenty of time for pouting at a camera in heels and make-up when she's older.

LolaRennt Fri 05-Aug-11 16:52:01

CheerfulYank
I asusme most of the posters who have said that have not lived in both countries. They have watched some horrible pagent show set in America. Overt sexualization of children especially girls is one of the reasons my DH (english) and I have decided to leave England to return to the states. Future wag tshirts and the like make my blood boil. But hey any chance for america bashing (even if the kid in question is not american...whoops)

lachesis Fri 05-Aug-11 16:57:46

I don't think this child is beautiful, either, in any sort of special way. She looks like a baby hooker in these photos and her parents are nothing but pimps.

RoundOrangeHead Fri 05-Aug-11 17:01:30

I think she looks younger than 10 actually

Notkatewinslet Fri 05-Aug-11 17:01:45

Wrong on so many levels that i cant even begin...

RoundOrangeHead Fri 05-Aug-11 17:02:12

she looks like a little kid covered in make-up

porcamiseria Fri 05-Aug-11 17:03:10

SORRY CHEERFUL YANK!

and we are staring to copy those shitty pagents anyway

Its the French now, look at Roman Polanski eh...

minipie Fri 05-Aug-11 17:15:04

I haven't read all the thread but most posters seem to be concentrating on the effect of the photo on the girl and on other young girls.

That's very important of course, but there is also the effect on the women who will (mostly) be reading the magazine.

We have long been encouraged to aspire to look like 18 year olds... then 16 year olds... 14 year olds.... We're now being told we should aspire to look like 10 year olds? WTF?

Please can we have models that are actually the age that might buy and wear the clothes they are advertising?

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 17:16:24

well a 10yo dressed inappropriately is a talking point

LolaRennt Fri 05-Aug-11 17:21:01

Thats a point minpie, but I expect adults to know better than to swallow this shit and prefer to save my outrage for this kid and the horrible drug addled/anorexic future I'm imaging for her

CheerfulYank Fri 05-Aug-11 17:22:21

It's okay, it's just...I mean, I don't watch Shameless and think that's what all Brits are like! smile The reason Toddlers and Tiaras is so newsworthy is that we're all shocked by it too.

GhoulLasher Fri 05-Aug-11 17:24:42

Lola we're MEANT to know better but it's a slow drip, drip of perfect images bing fed to us that has damaged our veiw of the body and what's normal/desirable.

If Vogue set a precedent for the use of tiny little girls with flawless skin and little girls bodies...well the next generations have had it haven't they?

LadyClariceCannockMonty Fri 05-Aug-11 17:27:01

Ghoul, exactly. Messages like this are insidious.

LolaRennt Fri 05-Aug-11 17:27:25

I don't think this is the start of a new low of younger girls, I think Vogue thought they could cause outrage by using one poor little girl and her stupid parents for media attention and they did. It wasn't meant to be the norm, it was meant to cause talk

TooImmature2BDumbledore Fri 05-Aug-11 17:29:44

What makes me sad is that if I had just glanced at that photo, I probably wouldn't have realised the girl was only 10. She differs only in height from the normal run of stick-thin, flat-chested models used in Vogue and other fashion magazines. Some of them are probably only 5 or 6 years older than her, and yet they are held up as the standard for all women. What happened to the womanly figure?

Agree with minipie.

GhoulLasher Fri 05-Aug-11 17:30:58

Yes but Vogue are a very powerful outfit. It's VOGUE ...they're part of...the very centre of fashion and if they say "little girl chic" is the next big thing then that's what goes.

It' a follow on from this kindof thing

Which came out of Japan and has snuck into the UK and USA.

LolaRennt Fri 05-Aug-11 17:35:44

Weird.

And some warnign next time please, am now paraniod that I have google imaged lolita.

GhoulLasher Fri 05-Aug-11 17:36:47

It's a novel Lola and also the name of a very popular style of dress all over the world. It's not like googling something dodgy ffs.

LolaRennt Fri 05-Aug-11 17:38:47

It was joke ffs

Xenia Fri 05-Aug-11 17:43:11

As a libertarian I would not ban it but I don't think girls can look attractive in that kind of way until they are 13+. So it only really has a shock value.

GhoulLasher Fri 05-Aug-11 17:49:36

Oh. One of these grin might have illustrated it beter Lola...

ouryve Fri 05-Aug-11 19:19:52

Agreeing about the gold dress. In what world is is alright for a 10 year old to be posing on a bed with a come hither look angry

lifechanger Fri 05-Aug-11 19:29:09

MichaelaS has it. It's not really about children, it's about an extreme of what the ideal Voue woman whould look like - huge eyes, small fragile body, soft and pure wrinkle free skin, waif like skinny and arms, baby soft hair and androgenous figure. That's what is sick about this - the message they are trying to send to adult women.

lifechanger Fri 05-Aug-11 19:30:49

Whould?? bloody hell...

mippy Fri 05-Aug-11 19:37:50

Aside from the weirdness of a ten year old posing that way...it doesn't suggest to me that those clothes will fit an adult body. I have seen models in Vogue that look fourteen or so, and this is always what I think.

sherbertdipdab Fri 05-Aug-11 19:48:29

Yes first they (fashion industry) slim women down to an 'ideal' size 0 and now they want us to look like we are aged 0.
angry

mippy Fri 05-Aug-11 19:56:20

Lolita fashion is a different thing - it's very culturally specific and doesn't translate exactly to Western culture but it's about a style of dress, not wanting to be a child - just as goths don't actually want to be vampires.

This girl is really beautiful, but they have dressed and posed her like an adult in some of these shots, and that's the difference.

CheerfulYank Fri 05-Aug-11 20:37:30

What lifechanger said.

I love the comment on the article: "every generation's going to have its Brooke Shields or Eva Lonesco." Yes, and both of those girls were wronged too! FFS!

HarperSeven Fri 05-Aug-11 20:56:04

I disagree with anyone who says this isn't really about children, it's just about women needing to look young. While there is something to that argument, I think the real intention here is more sinister.

The concept of 'sexualisation' of young girls in advertising does not just mean young girls are made to look sexually attractive... this kind of imagery is meant to convey a sexual maturity in young girls, the images show us young girls who seemingly want to be sexy and therefore to 'want' sex. That is sex they cannot consent to. So to my mind, this imagery argues that children can validly consent to sex.

I find that base and cowardly and wrong. Cowardly because all this kind of thing does is legitimise a sexual predators longing for young victims. It says...she's asking for it.

CheerfulYank Fri 05-Aug-11 21:21:43

You're right, HarperSeven , of course it's about the child. I also think it's awful for so much emphasis to be placed on how beautiful her appearance is when it may very well change. She could develop a very different shape/look after puberty, which is just asking for any number of complexes. Poor little mite.

scottishmummy Fri 05-Aug-11 21:37:12

its a both and.child and adult women imagery and sexualisation
commoditisation and selling of a dysmorphic iamge

Maarias Fri 05-Aug-11 22:07:01

It's worrying and horrible, but I do wonder whether it wasn't meant to provoke controversy, and publicity. It's certainly achieved it even by us talking about it here...

clairmatin Sat 06-Aug-11 17:22:52

It's Wrong wrong wrong wrong!!! angry
With all the internet child pornography + the rest.....
How come something like this can be allowed to be printed!

Let's boycott VOGUE!!! and lock up the parents !!!

Xenia Sat 06-Aug-11 17:42:19

Freedom of the press is much more important. We need a libertarian state where parents are allowed to have different views from the norm and where we all celebrate our differences (within reason). That is much more important than whether Vogue can generate press comment by presenting a girl in a particular way.

If you want to protect girls lobby to stop child marriages across the globe.

CheerfulYank Sat 06-Aug-11 17:45:26

Parents are allowed to have different views from the norm. Magazines should not publish photos of children looking like adults , even if the parents are daft enough to allow it.

maypole1 Sat 06-Aug-11 17:53:09

I don't get it what is this picture supposed to be sexy yuk

The parents are the same ilk who buy bras and thongs for their little children

Nothing wrong for a child to model for a childrens clothing range say next or a childrens magazine but this is sick

I would imagine their making the clothing so small the only people who can fit in them are 10 year olds

Shame on her mum and dad

This reminds me of a documentary I watched a while back were a dad was allowing his 13 to dance on the Internet for older men apparently its a japeneese thing and the worse thing he was a policemen

I guess everyone has a price and for these parents they were willing to cash in their daughters dignity

I don't really like saying this but ss need to look into this their is clearly something wrong with the parents judgement she has leoped print high heels on for gods sake

maypole1 Sat 06-Aug-11 17:56:59

Like others have said modelling agencies often pick ip the next big thing but then puberty hits

Spots
Wide hips and crooked teeth
Uneven boobs come and their dropped at the blink of an eye

I very much doubt this girl will look the same when she is 13 then what

I feel very sorry for children when their parents place all their importance on how they look

nooka Sat 06-Aug-11 18:00:39

My dd is the same age as the model. I think it is a very vulnerable age when children are caught between wanting very much to be older and also wanting to still be a carefree child. dd flips between child/min adult several times a day. I could just imagine her being caught up in the enjoyment of being the center of attention that the photoshoot must have entailed (although I bet it was exhausting too) and being really disturbed about what she was being asked to do.

I found the photographs very disturbing, in particular the poses and the knowing looks. To me they look like a child who doesn't particularly 'want it' but has had it anyway, which I very much hope is an illusion. Very sad. I wonder whether like Brook Shields she will be trying (and failing) to control those pictures as an adult, when she will know more about what some people will be doing with them. I imagine these will be floating around the internet for a very long time.

Dexifehatz Sat 06-Aug-11 18:44:24

That's shocking especially the picture with no top on and all the necklaces covering where her boobs would be if she was actually old enough to have them. Awful . I agree with this

lachesis Sat 06-Aug-11 19:02:21

'Like others have said modelling agencies often pick ip the next big thing but then puberty hits

Spots
Wide hips and crooked teeth
Uneven boobs come and their dropped at the blink of an eye

I very much doubt this girl will look the same when she is 13 then what'

Or she might wind up reaching an adult height far below what's required for a high-end fashion modelling.

Xenia Sat 06-Aug-11 19:28:47

I think it is very important that magazines can take photographs. None of you need to buy Vogue or anything else you don't like but we need a free press. That's more important than the fact someone might not like a pro or anti hunting magazine and want it banned etc.

We want much much less intereference by the state over what is published, not more. That should be the mumsnet campaign. More freedoms not fewer.

LadyClariceCannockMonty Sat 06-Aug-11 19:36:29

I just cancelled my Vanity Fair subscription and explained to them why I shan't be buying it, or any other Conde Nast publication, again.

I agree with Xenia that a free press is important, but so is the right to voice objections and exercise economic clout. I will miss my Vanity Fair though!But it's worth it. This is an important issue.

EuphemiaMcGonagall Sat 06-Aug-11 19:36:50

Oh get lost Xenia. angry This isn't about the freedom of the press.

PoppyDoolally Sat 06-Aug-11 19:40:01

I would suggest that this image is illegal under UK law. It is an indecent image if a child. No two ways about it. She is in a sexually provocative pose. Wearing full make up and nail colour. A fleeting glimpse of that picture without any knowledge of her age would leave any reasonable adult under the impression that it was yer another such photo of an adult model.

If a man was found in possession of such a photo of, say, his niece, he would be charged with possessing an indecent image of a child.

mumsnet please report vogue to the police for distributing an indecent image of a child. It will be one of the clearest challenges to those who are seeking to sexualise our children.

flossy1967 Sat 06-Aug-11 19:40:58

I think Vogue is being very exploitative of this young girl and they should have more commonsense than to publish this kind of material. The parents of this child should have stopped her doing these kinds of images it is inappropriate. I hope that vogues buyers vote with their purses and stop buying it! From my limited knowledge of vogue it is mainly advertisements - how will this affect companies advertising in vogue I hope some will stop using them!

CheerfulYank Sat 06-Aug-11 19:41:25

What about the freedom of a child to not be pimped out by her parents, Xenia ? FFS!

Dexi for some reason that picture doesn't bother me as much. Yes, she's topless but to me that one almost looks like a normal kid on holiday or something. She has no breasts at all; it's like looking at a baby to me. The ones of her in makeup and heels disturb me much more.

strictlovingmum Sat 06-Aug-11 19:50:12

Agree with all of you who see it as a"Parental pimping", what the hell her parents were thinking about.
Images are beautiful, if this girl was of appropriate age, but she isn't, and therefore it is very disturbing.
She is way to young to be pouting like that, obviously photographer who was directing her manipulated her very well.
Shame on you 'Vogue" for making our children every pervert's dream come true.
To you Xenia do you have girls of your own?
Would you be happy if this was you cherub ten year old?

strandednomore Sat 06-Aug-11 19:53:40

Her mum is a French actress, there is a picture of her with her daughter at an earlier fashion show (when the little girl was 5) walking down the catwalk together...
the dad is a famous French footballer. Apparentlyt.

strictlovingmum Sat 06-Aug-11 20:01:47

So this must be some kind of acceptable "Eurotrash" bullshit.
strandednomore I guess it figures, "mother actress, father footballer, maybe same moral ethics and norms, don't apply to their children.
In twisted world of no reality, maybe this is acceptable, but when is splattered all over the "VOGUE", within easy reach of our daughters, pardon me for not giving two f***s, about the status of her parents, nor their professions.

Xenia Sat 06-Aug-11 21:20:11

Every mother who dresses their little girl in crop tops is doing the same. Only complain about this Vogue issue if you will also be on the street tomorrow stopping every single parent who is with a little girl in clothes like this. You must be consistent. Either you want the freedom or you don't.

The image is not unlawful. We want fewer not more restrictions on the press even if it is images people (some people or even most people ) may not like.

Yes I have two girls. Many people in the UK get on these hysterical band wagons which seem always to come with some kind of dictat - Ban It. I wish we didn't do this. We need to think more about freedom. By all means don't buy Vogue but banning is not the English way. Conversely let people wear the burkha but let us be free to write about how silly and hot they may be and how they will fall over and the other issues relating to it. Banning is rarely the best way to proceed.

The "string em up" in relation to all matters in this field is another nasty thing about current British society and probably it was just as bad in the Victorian age for that matter.

I would allow parents in the UK even if children are under 10 to be covered (as plenty are near where I am) and also to be displayed with sexually provocative clothes on as is equally common. I would also allow children to be naked. I want a country with those freedoms. We only keep them if we sometimes fight for the freedom for people to do things of which we don't approve.

LineRunner Sat 06-Aug-11 21:32:11

Xenia. You're very autocratic! 'You must....'

Must I?

sherbertdipdab Sat 06-Aug-11 21:42:25

Xenia

Do you think it acceptable for adults to look upon the under 10s as sexual objects?

Xenia Sat 06-Aug-11 21:45:52

Yes. I don't think any thoughts shoudl be banned. It's a very very important principle. Once you get to controlling thought then you are into a 1984/Brave new World type situation. Obviously very few adults are aroused by small children. Some people will be aroused by the sight of a goat or a wall. That doesn't mean their thoughts should be rendered illegal. It's the action on the thought which coiuld and should be illegal in relation to some thoughts.

strictlovingmum Sat 06-Aug-11 21:46:09

Xenia I am equally unimpressed at "down the street cropped tops and hot pants on the ten year olds".
I would not go into debate about "burkha" and certainly would not put in the same sentence girl covered head to toe with a girl that looks like something from a "Milan street corner".
As for freedom of press, I am all for it, but don't you see, this isn't about freedom, this is about manipulation, manipulation and corruption of a young mind.

LineRunner Sat 06-Aug-11 22:02:25

Oh dear.

I shall desist from engagement with Xenia as it's giving me the creeps.

PoppyDoolally Sat 06-Aug-11 22:04:50

Don't worry, on the barrister thread Xenia has just compared SAHMs to prostitutes. I hope it's dry under that bridge Xenia.

LineRunner Sat 06-Aug-11 22:08:10

Ah! Thanks, Poppy.

Nuff said.

sherbertdipdab Sat 06-Aug-11 22:09:45

not going to waste my time typing a response to Xenia

PoppyDoolally Sat 06-Aug-11 22:11:58

The reality is that the criminal law rightly imposes restrictions on what may or nay not be possessed/distributed and so on. No right thinking person would condone, say, a photograph of the commission of rape of a child or adult being published in a newspaper. This is NOT a freedom of the press issue Xenia.

Feminine Sat 06-Aug-11 22:13:20

Gosh , I am really surprised that so many of you thought she was American.

I live in the States , 10 year old girls here are much more childish (in a good way) from clothing to behaviour.

I think she is way too young ,but from her features it is easy to tell that she will be able to model as an older teen/adult...no harm if she stops for a bit now.

Ofgs - I haven't seen you on here for ages Xenia and now I have, I'm seething. This has sweet f all to do with freedom of the press and everything to do with exploitation of a child.

Whether the exploitation is the fault of the parents or of society is immaterial imho; Vogue, as an internationally recognised voice/leader of fashion have (or should have) a duty to keep exploitation out of fashion.

The pictures stink; they should never have been dreamed of let alone published and you are being v silly indeed in trying to justify it being okay to publish them. I know you're not a troll because I've seen you on here over enough years to know that you occasionally come on to try and shock and irritate people, so okay - you win and I am shocked and irritated.

exoticfruits Sat 06-Aug-11 22:21:07

I saw it today for the first time and it was dreadful. Vogue should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

LineRunner Sat 06-Aug-11 22:21:39

Hi Remus. Thanks for the heads up on the faux provocation.

Just ignore 'it'. Best rid.

CKolibrie Sat 06-Aug-11 22:50:30

Yes, i agree. Completely out of order... Why can't kids be kids and stay kids for a lot longer. This Vogue thing coupled with the news paper headlines of 5 year old kids having anorexia means something IS seriously wrong in our society and culture for allowing this to happen in the first place.

Shame on the different kinds of Media that promote this sort of twisted reality. We need to apply some age-appropriate limits on certain Music channels and or advertisement and work on our own self-image so that we can instill the same confidence and respect to our daughters and in some cases sons that are picking up on this ridiculous body-dysmorphia. Kids should be able to be kids and women should be able to be women without having the pressure of needing to look skinny like teenage girls sad.

Kids learn from their parents and other grown-ups so if they see their mum on a diet and having an issue with food then this can be transferred to their child, anorexia is something that is learned and not something they are born with. We are the role models so if we put up with it, it transfers to our kids...

I just hope we wake up before it is too late and try and have/create better rolemodels for our kids instead of this celebrity, fashion, fame crazed and skinny culture that could be ruining our childrens childhoods.........

Sorry rant over smile

CheerfulYank Sat 06-Aug-11 23:41:54

I don't think Xenia is a troll as such, I think she just has some very...interesting...ideas. She posts a lot.

scottishmummy Sat 06-Aug-11 23:48:04

belt up with who is troll
concentrate on discussion

CheerfulYank Sun 07-Aug-11 03:30:05

Like you're doing right now? [wee humphy face]

lachesis Sun 07-Aug-11 03:50:45

My daughter is so striking, not traditionally pretty, she has been scouted by major modelling agencies and sat to be painted more than once (although she has not such thick lips). An old lady artist, well known, last week remembered her, and asked to sketch her to paint her, passing on her details to us.

She is a tall girl for her age, her father's side are so very tall. She is not anything I would consider beautiful, except inside, just that she has a face that is memorable, and long legs and arms in relation to her torso, with the promise of being as lanky as all her father's side, my MIL is 5ft., 11in.

But she is a lass. I would not for anything sell her up for a photos like this, though I know she could make them, she is always wanting to please. I would not give her to any agency or sign on with one because she is too young and it is not her decision to make. It is mine and I chose to, although we are very poor in money, have her live the life of a normal child of this rural area. Just yesterday we were walking in a great garden and she was saying to me, of MIL, how MIL loves her, and brings her toys (she is 8) but she has not much money. I said to her, it is no measure of a person, what money he or she has.

She does not have any 'career' other than being a lass, though if I were a pimp, she would have as much a 'career' as this poor girl. But I'd rather sell myself for anything I could get on a street in any Scottish city than pimp my child like this, or send the message to her that all her beauty was what she could attain by posing as a baby hooker. She has only one life to lead, and my hand to God it will not be thinking it is all hinged on looks she has as a child, or any other time.

I know fully what is her destiny, and how it will come to pass.

The bottom line is this girl is pimped like a common hoor by her mother and whatever excuse she has for a father. And it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

LolaRennt Sun 07-Aug-11 03:59:00

The girl has a job, that's all Xenia cares about

CheerfulYank Sun 07-Aug-11 04:19:07

Lachesis I wish you could send your post to that poor girl's parents, I really do.

HarperSeven Sun 07-Aug-11 06:31:50

Xenia - you can't control thoughts, can't police them, granted ... you think it's 'acceptable' for under 10's to be viewed by adults as sexual objects, provided they don't act upon it.

Don't you accept that permitting the sale of provocative imagery of children may encourage paedophilia?

Xenia Sun 07-Aug-11 12:05:14

"Xenia - you can't control thoughts, can't police them, granted ... you think it's 'acceptable' for under 10's to be viewed by adults as sexual objects, provided they don't act upon it."

Yes, I do think that. I don't have any sexual interest in children myself but I think people can think what they like. The law thinks so too.

The next stage on from that is should we allow photographs of any child with nothing on because 0.1% of the population are aroused by that. I would not ban those images and thankfully we don't. If a parent want s to photograph their toddlers on the beach with nothing on they can and that's right.

"Don't you accept that permitting the sale of provocative imagery of children may encourage paedophilia?"

1. I do not think what Vogue has published should be banned. Hardly anyone reads Vogue. I'm a subscriber and it does have quit al ot of interesting imagery from time to time. All sorts of stuff gets in that magazine which isn't in the mainstream media. Go to any children's clothes website except a few overtly middle class ones like Boden and you'll find the same stuff, bikinis etc. I woudlnt' ban that either but to home in on vogue is unfair (and I accept Mumsnet has a campaign which I don't agree with to ban bikinis for children or something - nothing better for getting people behind you than sayign you will ban something - thankfully we're british and tend not to ban much).

2. So the issue here is not just say an image of a naked baby which you might find in Mother and Baby magazine and some men and women presumably might masturbate. It's the provocative nature of it that is the question being asked of me. Presumably soem of you watched taht TV programme about little girls being made up and paraded as beauty queens? That is identical. So any ban would have to ban all those kinds of thigns and family photos where the family has the toddler wearing the mother's makeup. I just think people should be left alone and that this is one of those areas where peopel can by all means criticise but the state should not intervene.

How would you intervene? Would you pass a law saying that no boy or girl under puberty age can be show in a magazine, family snap, you tube video or walking down the street made up or dressed to appear older and sexually provocative? Every school in the land has girls of 12 - 14 hitching up their school skirts and trying to hide make up and probably some who are younger than that.

LadyClariceCannockMonty Sun 07-Aug-11 13:47:12

Xenia, people aren't talking about banning people taking holiday snaps of their children, or stopping schoolgirls wearing make-up and short skirts. It seems to me that you're just overextending your argument to make a point.

You're mixing up lots of things here, Xenia, none of which are combining to make a sensible point imho.

There are certain men and women who are turned on by pictures of young children; there are others turned on by pictures of shoes, or underwear, or even bloomin' frozen chickens for all I know. Banning NORMAL photographs of children is as bonkers an idea as banning pictures of shoes, or indeed frozen chickens. Nobody is suggesting that at all.

But forcing magazines to be a bit more sensible in their approach to fashion modelling ISN'T bonkers and to make sure that magazines such as Vogue use models of 16 or more/a mixture of ethnic backgrounds/no models who are clearly anorexic etc seems to be to be entirely sensible.

Fashion should be about pushing boundaries, sure - but those boundaries should be within a code of conduct that doesn't exploit children, or people with eating disorders, or any other group.

kickingking Sun 07-Aug-11 14:06:47

Sadly, this doesn't really suprise me.

Many years ago, I went out with someone whose mum 'worked in fashion' - no idea what she actaully did. I was shocked to discover that many of the models you see in magazines are in their mid teens.

The mum worked on a shoot and showed me the photos. She and my then-boyfriend expected me to admire the beauty and poise of the fourteen year old model. I was just shock. The mum kept saying "And the funny thing is, she doesn't even realise she's beautiful!" Riiight. That's why she's posing provocatively for photos, is it?

The total inapporiateness of a ten year old lolling about pouting, in heels, full make up and red nail nail varnish aside - who knows how this girl will change as she grows up? If she gets acne, or bigger than the industry deems acceptable. What a blow to her confidence.

The poor child, I feel so sorry for her.

HarperSeven Sun 07-Aug-11 14:09:03

Zenia - here's the law on indecent photos of children:
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/
You will see that whether an image is within the law or not depends on whether it is regarded as 'indecent'.
To quote from the text:"The word 'indecent' has not been defined by the Protection of Children Act 1978, but case law has said that it is for the jury to decide based on the recognized standards of propriety."

So what we are arguing about here is the standard of propriety that should be applied.

You seem to have difficulty recognising that there is a spectrum of allowable imagery and imagery which falls foul of the law, or should.

My view is that these images are indecent and shouldn't be permitted. Now perhaps you can answer my question, as you failed to in your last post.

chaya5738 Sun 07-Aug-11 14:48:10

they article missed out the worst of the Vogue photos. Check out the middle one with the toothbrush in this link:

vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/disturbing-sex-kitten-vogue-photoshoot-featuring-children/

Xenia Sun 07-Aug-11 16:15:47

HS, I did answer the question. I don't think it does and I wouldn't ban the images. However if people are just talking about making a fuss, make a fuss. I am equally in favour of people's rights to protest and sometimes it works as we've seen from the industry starting to use bigger models or thin ones but then photoshopping them to look a bit fatter.

I wouldn't ban the image and I don't think they are "indecent". Also it's in Vogue. They always look at context. The standards for a Tesco ad may be different from those allowed in an art gallery etc. I remember the Opium ad which was allowed in Vogue and Tatler (naked woman's breast) but not allowed on anything more mainstream I think from memory.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 16:23:44

I guess it's up to those why buy the mags not to. Only a fool would think that images like this in mainstream media have no effect on the further making available of children for sexual titillation and availability. Don't support it, I don't.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 16:24:27

The one with the toothbrush is indecent Xenia, absolutely no doubt about it.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 16:27:30

Vogue and Tatler are mainstream media, let's not do the the pervets jobs for them by mixing this up with art and higher aesthetic values. It commercialises children and makes it acceptable to sexually objectify them and that is exactly what it is intended to do.

exoticfruits Sun 07-Aug-11 16:28:39

I would do my bit and boycott it, but I never buy it anyway. Not buying it is the only way to get through.

Xenia Sun 07-Aug-11 16:32:14

If you think it breaks the law report it to the police. I think you can even report things by email these days.

I'm not a natural apologist for dressing up little girls. I bought ours role reversal children's books and they were tom boys and define themselves by their brains and careers as do I but I certainly don't think this photo spread is worth making a fuss about. We need much less state interference and fewer laws and less of a nanny state. Not more. That's what we should be lobbying for. We need a situation where if a parent doesn't want a child to see XYZ then the parent takes responsibility. I am sick of all this foisting blame on to others.

Due to economics the state is going to get a huge lot smaller so the sooner people start taking personal responsibility again the better.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 16:36:09

Do you think the photo with the toothbrush is acceptable?

'We need a situation where if a parent doesn't want a child to see XYZ then the parent takes responsibility' This has nothing to do with what images children see though and everything to do with what Vogue thinks is appropriate for adults to see in the context of a fashion magazine. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not we are a nanny state and everything to do with whether it is appropriate to have highly sexualised images of ten year olds draped across the pages of a fashion magazine.

LadyClariceCannockMonty Sun 07-Aug-11 16:37:27

Objecting to things we don't like in the media is not necessarily the same thing as abdicating responsibility. And it's not about 'blame' either. I don't have kids, but if I did I would try my best to make them know that their worth was not tied up in how 'grown-up' they looked or how expensive their clothes were. I would also not encourage them to look at images that I thought were inappropriate, and I'd be careful what images I left lying around in the shape of adult reading matter (e.g. Vogue). People can take responsibility BUT STILL voice objections when they don't like something. I've no intention of treating this as criminal per se and reporting it to the police, but I have cancelled my Vanity Fair subscription, will no longer buy any Conde Nast product, and have explained to them exactly why. This can exist alongside personal responsibility of the kind you describe.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 16:40:21

I'm not interested in the banning debate, I just want to see individual and collective responsibility and people standing up and being counted. These images are unacceptable and if everyone who thought so said so that would be a big step in the right direction.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 16:42:14

Although I would say the law also exists to protect those who can't protect themselves, less nanny state than wholly necessary really.

JeremyVile Sun 07-Aug-11 16:45:51

Theres no doubt she is absolutely, stunningly beautiful. The pictures are interesting.

I dont feel all riled up by it in terms of the paedophilia angle - the pictures arent going to turn viewers into padophiles, they exist and by definition do not need a child to be tarted up beyond her (/his) years to be sexually attractive.

What does bother me is that I honestly think if the world of fashion could get away with it, they would probably always choose to use 10/11/12 year olds. Its fucked up that the ideal version of The Female is something that exists in a tiny window of time - petite, no tits, no hips, perfect tight child-like skin, full lips, big eyes, thick hair.

Then again, i can totally see why those things are considered beautiful. Its all a bit fucked really.

LadyClariceCannockMonty Sun 07-Aug-11 16:52:28

To be honest I find the commodification just as disturbing as the sexualisation. Then again, they are inextricably linked.

MarshaBrady Sun 07-Aug-11 16:53:05

The make up, high heels and sultry poses irritate me. So much so I find it hard to even think she is beautiful. Maybe in a normal child like shoot she would be, but not like this.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 17:07:23

If we create a mainstream environment where children are seen to be sexually available to adults then of course we will facilitate men who want to have sex with children though. We have to unequivocally say that this is unacceptable, not from some moral majority, rightist perspective but from the simple one that children should not be exploited sexually.

I don't care about perverts on the beach/ at the pool, not a lot you can do, my kids will wear next to nothing (sun permitting, obv) and so they should. This takes it to another level though.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 17:12:39

And it wasn't a trick question Xenia, or any others who are not sure about the pics. Do you think the toothbrush picture is acceptable or not?

CheerfulYank Sun 07-Aug-11 17:16:28

Yes, we should be able to depend on parents to do what's best for their children, but unfortunately they don't.

There are parents who think nothing of selling their children to pedophiles...should they be allowed?

What if this little girl were posing naked with a dildo? Should that be allowed?

Xenia Sun 07-Aug-11 18:38:15

Answer is Yes to LG.
To CY I have no problems with nudity of children in pictures and thankfully this country still lets people take naked images of their chidlren (despite the awful situation that poor female newsreader got into just beacuse she took some to be developed) but posed with a sex toy would be the wrong side of the line under the legislation mentioned above.

Do I think people should be allowed to sell their chidlren for sex? No, of course not. We draw a line in most countries somwhere and where the line is drawn is often difficult to judge, but in the UK the age of consent for sex is 16. My own church's law is 14 for girls or older if the law of the land is older in the place where you are.

I also agree with LG that those who hold views that these pictures should be criticised or the magazine boycotted should have the right to say those views and those who think they are lawful should be allowed to as well. Than kfully we are still in a country where we can all express our views. |In many countries that is not possible.

'My own church's law is 14 for girls'

Well, I'd worry about that too tbh, as well as your views that these images are okay and not inappropriate. You clearly have v different values than most of the women I know.

strictlovingmum Sun 07-Aug-11 18:57:43

YOU GO TO CHURCH DO YOU NOW Xenia?????hmm

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 19:06:16

You really think that pic is ok? Blimey, there's the problem. It so obviously isn't, the way it's framed, in that context and so on. But as long as adults are happy to go along with it then there's not much that can be done.

LeninGrad Sun 07-Aug-11 19:11:32

I was going to mention the age of consent earlier, there will be a clamour for it to be lowered in my lifetime unfortunately. Men who want to have sex with children are paving the way with photoshoots like this and they are winning the argument, women who participate/ perpetuate it are facilitating them.

imogengladheart Sun 07-Aug-11 19:19:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Indaba Sun 07-Aug-11 19:45:50

Offensive on so many fronts

here are the Vogue France contacts

please spend 5 mins to call or email them

CONDE NAST DIGITAL
26 rue Cambaceres
75008 PARIS

Tel: 01 53 43 60 00
Fax: 01 53 43 61 61



Director of digital publishing activities
Sarah Herz
sherz@condenast.fr

Publisher digital activities
Louis Orliange
lorlianges@condenast.fr

Account Director
Laure Civet de Louvencourt
lcivet@condenast.fr

Editorial Director GQmagazine.fr, Glamour.com and Vogue.com
Joseph Ghosn
jghosn@condenast.fr

Marketing Manager
Mathilde Lebreton
mlebreton@condenast.fr

ADVERTISING SERVICE
pub@condenast.fr

SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE
abonnements@condenast.fr

Oblomov Sun 07-Aug-11 19:53:35

Dh and I both thought it was vile.

Indaba Sun 07-Aug-11 19:55:16

sorry, not v it literate...hope this easier to cut and paste

lortianges@condenast.fr;lcivet@condenast.fr;jghosn@condenast.fr;mlebrteon@condenast.fr;pug@condenast.fr;abonnements@condenast.fr

Will check out US publishers and post in a mo.

HarperSeven Sun 07-Aug-11 19:57:25

Indaba - thanks for that.

Presumably this issue of French Vogue will be distributed in the UK? If that's right, we should take a collective stand and report the distribution as an offence under The Protection of Children 1978. Easy to check at the newsstand whether it is being sold.

Indaba Sun 07-Aug-11 20:07:29

and here is global email address

communications@condenast.com

but what we need is editors address...so will still look.

please email...posting on MN helps....but emailing them directly would be great!

I'll email them. My DD is 10, the idea of her posing like that little girl (that's what she is) is sickening.
The shot with the toothbrush is just nasty.

Indaba Sun 07-Aug-11 20:14:45

sorry! typos......

here we go again....a global address is mentioned at end so please refer to French publication

lorlianges@condenast.fr;lcivet@condenast.fr;jghosn@condenast.fr;mlebreteon@condenast.fr;pub@condenast.fr;abonnements@condenast.fr;communications@condnast.com

Done, I await a response and hope it isn't in French.

Indaba Sun 07-Aug-11 20:23:46

Vogue is owned by:

Advance Publications, Inc.

which is run by Samuel Newhouse, Donald Newhouse & Thomas Summer

Can anyone get their email address?

"Advance Publications, Inc., is a privately held communications company that, directly or through subsidiaries, owns Condé Nast Publications, Parade Publications, Fairchild Publications, American City Business Journals, the Golf Digest Companies, and newspapers in more than twenty-five American cities; Advance Publications' subsidiaries also have extensive interests in cable television, as well as in Internet sites which are related to its print publications."

HarperSeven Sun 07-Aug-11 20:29:01

I think some of the images linked by chaya5738 are actually from a different publication, Cadeaux magazine... not sure they're all from French Vogue.

Indaba Sun 07-Aug-11 20:31:36

yes, its wrong

have cut and paste from message in AIBU to get more views.

Hope link works.

If you are as disgusted as us, please email/write/protest

I want email addresses of owners of Vogue (Advance Publications) and am still trying to find them so if you can help, please do

post read"

VOGUE FGS

just when you thought it couldn't get any younger sad

www.inquisitr.com/132475/10-year-old-vogue-model-thylane-lena-rose-blondeau/

French Vogue email contacts are:

lorlianges@condenast.fr;lcivet@condenast.fr;jghosn@condenast.fr;mlebreteon@condenast.fr;pub@condenast.fr;abonnements@condenast.fr;communications@condnast.com

General Contact address is (ane please mention French publication)

communications@condnast.com

CheerfulYank Sun 07-Aug-11 21:24:41

Emailed. Just said that I wanted to express my disgust, that it was reprehensible to teach a child that she was "beautiful" when made up and posing like and adult woman, and I did not appreciate the implications that we, as women, should try to emulate the androgynous body of a pre-pubescent child. And that although I don't subscribe I do buy Vogue from the newstands every now and then, but will not be doing so again.

GabyG Sun 07-Aug-11 22:10:38

If it's legal, it's time to change the law.

sherbertdipdab Sun 07-Aug-11 22:45:10

OP here, thanks for all the email addresses Indaba

Lets try and get something positive to come out of the exploited images of a young child published in Vogue magazine.

Please email.
smile

exoticfruits Mon 08-Aug-11 07:41:02

I will email-I think that we should all make a stand against exploitation of children.

I am still waiting for a reply. Hopefully they have been inundated with emails.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 08-Aug-11 12:01:53

This has just been discussed on This Morning, the woman 'defending' it was famous for having modelled herself on Barbie, and has had thousands of pounds of plastic surgery.
She's also planning surgery for her very young daughter in the future. shock.
Did anyone else see it?

LadyClariceCannockMonty Mon 08-Aug-11 12:03:36

No, but I'll look for it on YouTube – thanks LadyBeagle. Couldn't they have found someone less provocative to defend it? I understand that they do it for the drama/ratings, but I'd actually be interested in what someone rather less obviously biased had to say in its defence, in the interests of a nuanced argument.

Xenia Mon 08-Aug-11 13:16:29

I am sure it makes better television though if they have polarised views. Then less we ban the better but people can express views of course.

minipie Mon 08-Aug-11 14:23:27

I agree with Xenia

I don't like these images at all. But they aren't illegal and I don't think they should be.

The solution is not more regulation. The solution is for everyone to stop buying bloody Vogue (and in fact all other magazines which use models who are under 18 and/or very underweight - so that's most of them then).

If that happened then magazines would have to wake up and use adult, healthy weight models.

Vote with your purse.

LadyClariceCannockMonty Mon 08-Aug-11 15:38:13

minipie, that's my view too. I agree that it's important that we have a free press – so many places don't and in the UK I think we take it for granted sometimes – but we also have free speech. In a capitalist society our right to free speech is often best utilised through our right not to buy things. I think it's important though for those who object not just to stop buying Conde Nast products but also to explain to the company why they're doing so.

minipie Mon 08-Aug-11 15:41:42

Yes, agreed, makes sense to write to the publisher too.

PhylisStein Wed 10-Aug-11 09:19:05

yuk yuk yuk

Has anyone linked to this yet? Parents not happy - but I do wonder if they're just reacting to the backlash?

WorraLiberty Sat 28-Apr-12 16:56:35

Isn't that the same link that was in the OP?

They're both date August 2011 but it won't load properly for me.

Naa this one has more photos - some with A LOT of leg..WTAF

splashymcsplash Sat 28-Apr-12 19:09:14

Why has such an old thread been resurrected?

Sorry my fault splashy the link is new on yahoo and I was going to start a thread about it but did a search first so I wasn't dublicating, and appear to have gone and zombied a thread..sorry splashy sad

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now