I had a long look at Vonny le Clerc's twitter feed the other night - she is fabulous.
Going back to the painting, for a moment, it's interesting how different viewers "see" a painting differently. I can see why Riverside sees it the way she does, but I have never "seen" it that way, perhaps because as a younger woman I was always skinny with small breasts. To me, they don't look like adolescent girls, they look like young women with the body shape I had at any point in my twenties. (And on a related note, is part of the reason we - collective we of early 21st century viewers - now see them as looking like teenagers because we've internalised a view of what the female body should look like which now includes over-the-top silicon filled breasts?)
Now a painting I did find really disturbing back when I was a teenager was Munch's "Puberty" which is a nude of a clearly pubescent girl, deliberately painted in a very vulnerable pose (arms crossed in front of her body as if to try - unsuccessfully - to protect herself from the viewer's gaze), and I got this real vibe from it of "this artist gets off sexually on the thought of vulnerable teenagers that he has power over." Horrible picture.
There's a lot of the surrealists I react to in the same way - paintings of naked women with the heads of birds (or masked) with spears being pointed at their vulvas, that sort of image. Again even as a teenager (my mum was an artist and I grew up in a house filled with art books) I just thought "these artists hate women, this is really screwed up."
I just don't have the same visceral reaction to Waterhouse's picture. (Which is not to say that Riverside's reaction is wrong, just that I'm not sure we can clearly read either age or intent into the picture - though there's something very sexist and very deep-rooted in the cultural fear of women's sexuality and sirens/nymphs luring men to their doom).