Talk

Advanced search

how wrong is this?

(22 Posts)
babyonboard Wed 13-Jul-05 16:37:08

http://angelswithattitude.faithweb.com/photo.html

oh my god..how sick, my cousin just sent me this link and i thought i'd share..
he sent a sccathing email to the administrators...

nutcracker Wed 13-Jul-05 16:39:22

OMG

Norash Wed 13-Jul-05 16:40:16

Is this for real or are those dolls? Please tell me they are dolls.

essbee Wed 13-Jul-05 16:40:59

Message withdrawn

babyonboard Wed 13-Jul-05 16:41:05

for real...maybe a bit of photoshop - ing, but still so so wrong

spykid Wed 13-Jul-05 16:41:15

what the...?

Janh Wed 13-Jul-05 16:41:18

Are the kids touched-up or just the pics? They're horrible.

Norash Wed 13-Jul-05 16:43:27

I thought the point was for kids to look good as kids, not drag queens. Maybe I am just naive. Who would want their kids to look like that?

TrophyWife Wed 13-Jul-05 16:44:28

OMG
how frightfull, they are meant to be kids, right?

emmatmg Wed 13-Jul-05 16:46:40

Jeeeeesussss!



Most of theose girls have more make up on than I wear in a week....no actually, a month.


YUK!

babyonboard Wed 13-Jul-05 16:48:47

heres a copy of the letter my cousin sent to them..good on him!

Dear Sir,
I stumbled across the Angels With Attitude site here:

http://angelswithattitude.faithweb.com/photo.html

At first I thought it was some kind of joke site, a competition to see who could airbrush the life out of their childrens' photos and make them look like plastic dolls. Seriously. I'm not saying this to deride you. I really did. Then I thought it may have been an extreme retouching excercise with the children as haples victims..

Can you believe how horrified I was when I read the rules?

"Will be judged on facial beauty, expression & fashion, and overall appeal of photo. These should be professional pictures, but should not be extremely or overly retouched. (We are judging the child - not the retoucher!) "


How can you say this, and consistently vote to the top pictures which are so grotesquely painted over? Skin has no features whatsoever, eyes are blue-white and in many cases, obviously made larger by the photo retouching program. Eyelashes are obviously fake or airbrushed, the tear ducts of most of these children seem to be nonexistent. The retouching job on most of these photos is so extreme it would look out of place in some tacky mens magazine, fashion spread, or even animated movie. Yet you still ignore your own rules and allow them to win?

Shame on you.

I wish to enter this simple photograph of my daugher, Lucy. In the appropriate category.

She is 9 months old on this photograph. it has NOT been retouched, airbrushed, painted, mangled, manipulated or otherwise had the life ripped out of it by any overzealous wannabe cartoon editor.

It is a 'professional' photo in so far as I am a semi-professional photographer, and it was taken with a professional camera by myself.

Peter.

Catsmother Wed 13-Jul-05 16:51:40

I've caught bits of programmes about American "pageants" on Channel 4 before now. All pretty sick and aside from encouraging the thought in very young girls that "looks" (plastic ones at that) are all that matter in life, I'm also aghast at the amount of time used up in pursuit of various "titles" that the girls should be using to play instead ! And is it just me, or does anyone else think that there is something very very sinister indeed about slathering extremely young children - practically babies - in heavy make-up ??

I feel this goes beyond cultural differences between the UK & US and the whole thing really does make me feel very uncomfortable.

As BoB points out, I think the pics in the links have been enhanced on the PC - for a start - all the eyes look similarly wrong ...... but to present your toddler daughter as a "pin-up" ..... it's so so wrong.

Norash Wed 13-Jul-05 16:54:00

Good on him.

Catsmother Wed 13-Jul-05 16:55:54

BoB ... I agree with what your cousin wrote to the manager of this site. However, personally, I feel the wrongness of a site like this goes far beyond arguments over whether or not, or how much, a photo has been airbrushed. No way would I submit even a natural photo of my daughter to somewhere like this ...... in all honesty, I wonder just who would want to look there - apart from the very misguided parents I mean. Does no one else worry that paedophiles would be attracted to a site where kids are presented as supposedly "mini adults" ??

spacecadet Wed 13-Jul-05 16:57:46

seen progs about those beauty queen littlies, its disgusting, poor things look like barbie dolls gone wrong. that little girl that was murdered in america, was one of those, she was only about 6, parents were accused.

Done Wed 13-Jul-05 16:58:24

Raeagan April 19-35 doesn't look toooooo bad....apart from the earing

spacecadet Wed 13-Jul-05 16:59:04

but they reckon they found evidence that it was some local paedophile, maybe he saw her done up like that?

Janh Wed 13-Jul-05 16:59:48

Done, I noticed her too and was assuming there had been another pic (although it doesn't say so) - she is lovely, even with the earring. And normal!!!

Nemo1977 Wed 13-Jul-05 17:00:33

god poor kids only one of them looked even slightly natural and one in the 11-14 catergory looked about 30

spacecadet Wed 13-Jul-05 17:04:08

uurrgghh..makes me shudder. reagan looks ok.

babyonboard Wed 13-Jul-05 17:10:55

only in america..as they say..

babyonboard Wed 13-Jul-05 17:12:44

and on a lighter note...
only in...

http://www.mp3s.pl/onlyin/

the america one is pretty amusing

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: