10 year old Vogue model

[sherbertdipdab]

VOGUE FGS

just when you thought it couldn't get any younger :(

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

[Xenia]

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]

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]

Oh dear.

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

[PoppyDoolally]

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

[LineRunner]

Ah! Thanks, Poppy.

Nuff said.

[sherbertdipdab]

not going to waste my time typing a response to Xenia

[PoppyDoolally]

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]

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.

[RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie]

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]

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

[LineRunner]

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

Just ignore 'it'. Best rid.

[CKolibrie]

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 :(.

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 :)

[CheerfulYank]

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

[scottishmummy]

belt up with who is troll
concentrate on discussion

[CheerfulYank]

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

[lachesis]

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]

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

[CheerfulYank]

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

[HarperSeven]

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]

"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).
   

1. 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]

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.

[RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie]

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]

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 . 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]

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]

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/