That these pics on the Zara kids clothes website are inappropriate

[PenguinBarnotBird]

Looking for summer shoes for DD online this morning and came across these pics which made me feel uncomfortable. Like an attempt at doing high fashion photography for kids clothes. The poses feel inappropriate for kids this young. Also the sandals are fugly but that’s an aside.

There is something about the setting of some of the photos

The 70’s vibe but why with beds

Beds are fine but normally kids are jumping on beds/playing with toys etc on them not lolling back like that

I agree. Something not right about these.

Swear my mum had those outfits when she was that age.

The pictures are off. I have no issues at all with girls or boys sitting in whichever position they find themselves in, in whatever clothes they happen to be wearing. As part of play/childhood/just being comfortable in their own skin. They are so innocent and engrossed in just being themselves that they could be stark naked and still look like innocent little children.
But these pictures are not just part of play. An adult has dressed them, and positioned them, and then taken pictures of them and decided on which picture to choose. The child was very much required to do what the adult required and that makes them vulnerable.

The crotch focus wasn’t an innocent coincidence of childish positioning. It was a deliberate act by an adult on a child.

The angles are wrong for her age. It's like how lots of women hated how Joss Whedon shot Wonder Woman - the pervy angle trying to look up her skirt, the crotch shots - while plenty of other people didn't notice. But Patty Jenkins didn't shoot that angle...
We are socialised to accept the male gaze as standard when it shouldn't be.

Those photos are shocking as are the clothes but then I wouldn't buy from Zara anyway they are unethical and the clothes are awful anyway

@GingerBeverage

The angles are wrong for her age. It's like how lots of women hated how Joss Whedon shot Wonder Woman - the pervy angle trying to look up her skirt, the crotch shots - while plenty of other people didn't notice. But Patty Jenkins didn't shoot that angle... We are socialised to accept the male gaze as standard when it shouldn't be.

... but apparently the photos were 'child-led'.

A phrase that makes me shudder with all the connotations that might mean.

But as I said up thread. My every day working life is working with sex offenders. The photos, and the dismissing of it from posters makes me feel uneasy. Just too much exposure to how paedophiles think and behave. I find the pics creepy and disturbing.

'Child-led' nonsense, it wasn't a child behind the camera. The kids might have sat the way they sat, rolled around on the floor, asked to sit on the moped but they didn't choose the camera angles or pick the photos to be used.

Although I see nothing wrong with the photos, I might add that if you feel that they are inappropriate, then it is inappropriate to post them.
If they are unsuitable, then posting them just distributes them more.
Fortunately, there's nothing at all sexual about them.
What I don't get is parents who buy thongs for their little girls. Why do it?
No,. these photos are fine, but for your own protection, don't post photos you are uncomfortable with. That's just my opinion, not a criticism or judgment.

@Lockdownbear I used the phrase 'child-led' because one of the parents of another child modelling in this campaign described how her child came up with some of the poses and shots themselves. The parent took the photos.

Hmm well the Zarakids instagram has more of these shots, including a couple that have a LOT of negative comments.

I'm really baffled how people can't see anything wrong with these photos, seems so glaring to me.

Yes children might come up with all kinds of poses but that's because they are innocent and don't understand what adults have in their minds.

But as I said up thread. My every day working life is working with sex offenders. The photos, and the dismissing of it from posters makes me feel uneasy. Just too much exposure to how paedophiles think and behave. I find the pics creepy and disturbing.

Totally agree

Apparently this isn’t the first time Zara have been criticised for the photos of children being inappropriate

@IHateCoronavirus has hit it on the head. I didn’t like the photos but struggled to articulate why. It’s the adult orchestration and arrangement of children that doesn’t sit right.

It's like the whole disgusting film Cuties that shitty Netflix have still got up. It's absolutely gross.

I'd forgotten about Cuties and how they kept protesting it was 'art' and it was supposed to be a film against exploitation of children. But still the children in it were exploited by the people who made the film!

I expect Zara, like some on this thread, will pretend there's nothing wrong with those photos and it's only people's minds thats wrong.

I still can't see why they are inappropriate. If they were like some of American Apparel's adverts, then yes. But I just see kids sitting wearing normal clothes in natural positions, typical of kids.
I can't even image that a person with paedo profiling would take notice of these images with priority of any other images of kids.
If they were adults sitting like that, I would not feel they were sexualised in anyway either, so why attribute this disturbing thought to children? Cool, chilled out kids looking unposed. I wouldn't even have noticed the pictures if they had not been highlighted.
Now of course, the meer suggestion will be making people study them in more detail, to look for the inappropriateness. Gross. That is inappropriate. Leave these kids alone, or escalating these thoughts could get back to them and haunt them for life.

Well, why aren't there any photos of the boys legs and crotches?

@GingerBeverage

Well, why aren't there any photos of the boys legs and crotches?

Would that make it better? Or aren’t paedophiles interested in little boys?

@gingerbeverage
If you sell shorts, or wear shorts, then legs get seen. And Zara sells both girls shorts, boys shorts, womens ahorts and mens shorts, with suitable photos to help you make purchasing decisions. There is nothing inappropriate about shorts, or seeing legs, arms or faces. And I certainly don't see any crotch shots. Both bare legged photos tastefully are angled so that leg or knee hide any undesirables. It looks like the photographer carefully and intentoinally ensured the leg obscured such views. And as for the blue legged photo, the legs are covered in blue cloth and the shorts are loose fittibg (not tight) so unless you have Xray vision then rhere is norhing wrong there.
What worries me is rhe vast nunber of people who seem to imagine these pictures to be alluring un some twisted way and who seem to fantasise things that these images do not portray. The girls modesty is covered in fanric, unless you think that a knee is some kind of organ.
Just leave these kids alone. Next season there will be new fashions, new clothes and new photos.
If you cant get over ordinary pics of people dressed in clothes, goodness knows how you will cope with the summer swimwear edition.
Theres sonething very disturbing abkut this fixation on some uninteresting images of clothes on kids. Look around you in the street in the hot weather. Kids will wear shorts all the time. Its normal and there wont t be muns/dads saying, 'cover that knee' because they will have bought those shorts.
Yes, I know I have ranted on too much, but seriously, a knee, a smile and with clothes covering your privates, does not constitute any offence. I might agree with you if it was underwear but it is not.

Defending the male gaze is deeply embedded in our society and culture.
The photo of a girl in a crop top straddling a bed on their instagram is provocative. Just because YOU are not provoked doesn't make it not so.
As I said, many of the comments on instagram are from Zara devotees who has been shocked and disappointed. People are allowed to express their responses without being lectured they're delusional or stupid.

I don’t like the angle. If these were not professional photographers then presumably they just said tell the children to do what they want (child-led) , take lots of photos and we’ll choose the best.

Zara most definitely are responsible for the photos that they chose. It was deliberate and they know it will make some parents uncomfortable which drives publicity, like this thread It is not like film is expensive now, if they didn’t get the shots they wanted they could have asked them to re-do