Guess how old this girl is

[stripes4]

Not really Ani. What you need is this

[Mousy]

I find it bothersome that women are jealous of her figure, personally...
And yes, there are topless shots of her - one with implied nudity (her hair covering her chest) and two with her chest entirely exposed. I'm not linking to them because this isn't the right area of the site for that (I don't think any area is right!).

[Animavore]

Well that is odd. Kids don't have 'a figure'. If she wore a hat she could be mistaken for a boy from behind.

[Robert_S]

Those photos are not a bit of fun. They're done up professionaly. They aren't "posey" they're deliberately posed. It wasn't some girl playing with the makeup, it was a professional makeup artist and hairdresser taking some time with it. They weren't taken Kodak easy-share, it was a fucking expensive camera. It wasn't mum and dad doing a quick snapshot to capture the moment. It wasn't th local paper thinking it was funny or cute to show a kid playing dress-up, it was a fashion magazine where they think about how things looks all day.

She's not a child playing dress-up. She's not playing at all, she's working.

I find it bothersome that women are jealous of her figure, personally...
And yes, there are topless shots of her - one with implied nudity (her hair covering her chest) and two with her chest entirely exposed. I'm not linking to them because this isn't the right area of the site for that (I don't think any area is right!).

[Animavore]

There is nothing to reconcile here.

[klr]

Bwa-ha-ha!
Just what I thought. You've no coherent argument just the disgust reflex.

You're really intent on digging yourself a hole on this one. And talk about an infantile response. That belongs in the school-yard.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... then it's at duck. This is trying to objectify a 10-year old as a sex object, in the public eye. It's so obvious it doesn't need explaining. And if you can't see the problem with this ... well then, you have a problem.

...
I wouldn't even find the same poses in an adult sexual. Not with those clothes. Just 'posey'. Now if she was sucking suggestively on an icepop or has a candlestick between her legs I'd grant you clemency but not on these pics.

It doesn't matter what you might personally think. You ought to know perfectly well what society in general thinks both in terms of what is considered a sexual pose (including clothing), and what is considered appropriate for young children. And rightly or wrongly, that's what counts here.

As to the disgust reflex: Don't knock it. Humans in general are disposed to find certain situations/actions unsettling or repulsive, across a wide range of social and cultural contexts. We're not blank slates.

This was never on the religious radar either, certainly not in my time. The church was far too busy preaching about other things, most of which people have tended to ignore or cast off anyway. So religious conditioning isn't an explanation for negative reactions here, not for me or for anyone else here who is arguing against you.

Sexualising is a much subtler thing than porn, Ani. (in reference to the 'legs spread' remark) It's about representing a person as a viable object of sexual desire, and seeking to enhance those characteristics so that sexual desire will be fostered and encouraged.

Fostered and encouraged! By who? You have no grounds for this. Only a sick person would get that from these images and they get that anyway.
I just see a little girl playing grown-up for lulz.

Odd how you can dismiss someone else's claim as groundless and then make one of your own with no backup at all.

And as Seraph has pointed out, we have a name for those "sick people".

[Animavore]

As I've said. There's nothing to reconcile here. I'm not discussing it further.

[Hermit]

I'm not discussing it further.

That gives me the chance to have the last word with you. Depending on the context, there may be nothing wrong with photos like this one. The difference consists in whether it is confined to a family environment or published in the mass media. Same applies to the photos Mousy linked to in the opening post. If you can't see that difference, you really are a bit thick. (And I am prepared to cop an admonishment or suspension for calling you thick a second time.)

[Animavore]

How grown up.

[Animavore]

By the way, I have never reported anyone in my life so, unless someone else has a problem, which looks doubtful, it's not going to happen.

[Hermit]

Depending on the context, there may be nothing wrong with photos like this one. The difference consists in whether it is confined to a family environment or published in the mass media. Same applies to the photos Mousy linked to in the opening post.

How grown up.

[Animavore]

Sad.

[MiM]

I hate to live in a world where the immediate reaction (also mine) to those pictures is unreflective condemnation and disgust. What about context and the benefit of doubt over how they where initially intended? At least here is a page that claims that they are a critical expose about using too young models. http://www.styleite.com/media/thylane-loubry-blondeau/

Would it be possible for a major US studio to film Bugsy Malone (1976, Jodie Foster) today?

[Bella Fortuna]

Here's an interesting article on this controversy: http://jezebel.com/5827092/fashion-indu ... rench-girl

[Ronja]

...here is a page that claims that they are a critical expose about using too young models. http://www.styleite.com/media/thylane-loubry-blondeau/

I've just spent a bit over a half hour searching in every way I can think of on http://www.vogue.fr (I still have some of my high-school French left, though not much). I came up with absolute nada - could not even reliably find the January issue. IMO the website sucks.

However, one of the Helsinki libraries subscribes to Vogue Paris - I'll put in a reservation for the January 2011 issue if I can do that on the Net, else I'll call them on Monday and ask about getting it delivered to our local library.