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]

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.

[exoticfruits]

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]

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.

[RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie]

'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]

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.

[JeremyVile]

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]

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

[MarshaBrady]

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.

[CheerfulYank]

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]

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.

[RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie]

'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]

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

[Indaba]

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
[email protected]

Publisher digital activities
Louis Orliange
[email protected]

Account Director
Laure Civet de Louvencourt
[email protected]


Editorial Director GQmagazine.fr, Glamour.com and Vogue.com
Joseph Ghosn
[email protected]

Marketing Manager
Mathilde Lebreton
[email protected]

ADVERTISING SERVICE
[email protected]

SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE
[email protected]

[Oblomov]

Dh and I both thought it was vile.