Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Main Floor > News

News This is the forum where we post hard news and current events. If it is outside the box then that is where it goes. If it is your opinion, please write in the Op/Ed forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-18-2011, 01:39 PM   #1
Potemkin
Omne ignotum pro magnifico
 
Potemkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 23,834
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,915 Times in 1,145 Posts
Default Lingerie for 4yo girls

Quote:
Most of the photos are too risque to feature on MailOnline, the bare legs and stomachs of the girls deeming them inappropriate for publication.
Too much for The Mail? Really?

That is saying a lot.

I am going to bet the website and catalog is visited more by pervs than parents.

Maybe that is what they are shooting for.


----

'It's entirely inappropriate': Fashion industry outraged after French label launches lingerie for girls as young as FOUR

By Daisy Dumas

Last updated at 1:51 PM on 17th August 2011

In a move that has shocked fashion onlookers, scantily-clad young girls wearing make-up and sporting voluminous up-dos are promoting a new range of lingerie that is targetted at girls as young as four years old.

Combining lingerie and lounge wear to form 'loungerie,' the Jours Après Lunes line for four to 12-year-olds features a range of panties, bras, camisoles and T-shirts with lace edges, ribboned bow detailing and nautical stripes.

The shots feature young girls in poses and styling that seem far too premature for their ages.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...oung-FOUR.html
__________________
When surfing online remember Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is cr@p."

© Gregori Potemkin. All rights reserved. But wait . . . fair use allowed and encouraged. Actually, go 'head and publish the whole thing as is. I don't care.
Potemkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 03:45 PM   #2
Dietrich
Niche player
 
Dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,483
Thanks: 153
Thanked 291 Times in 186 Posts
The girl below did a major photoshoot for none other than
VOGUE magazine, just this past month, here in the U.S.

She is 10 years old.





Here's what the 10 year old Vogue model looks like in real life,
just to show you how young a child she really is:

Dietrich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 04:13 PM   #3
Exodia
Khan of the Golden Horde
 
Exodia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southeast PA
Posts: 7,220
Thanks: 920
Thanked 1,260 Times in 696 Posts
The girl in the second photo looks younger than 10.
__________________
Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. -- Theodore Roosevelt
Exodia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 05:56 PM   #4
Dietrich
Niche player
 
Dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,483
Thanks: 153
Thanked 291 Times in 186 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodia View Post
The girl in the second photo looks younger than 10.
It's the same girl.

(but, yes, the consensus reaction in the fashion world was largely that this girl looked even younger than 10. Even in some of the Vogue shots she looks more like she's 8).
Dietrich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 06:30 PM   #5
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 27,152
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 1,064
Thanked 3,385 Times in 1,905 Posts
I read a few articles about her - she's been modelling for some time.

I'm going to have a look at that 'loungerie' website... shouldn't be too hard to find.
__________________
"Most of what you did with Ebola was go to Africa and count corpses after the fact." - CJ Peters
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 06:37 PM   #6
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 27,152
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 1,064
Thanked 3,385 Times in 1,905 Posts
Bloody hell... somebody needs to be shot & pissed on.
__________________
"Most of what you did with Ebola was go to Africa and count corpses after the fact." - CJ Peters
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2011, 04:54 PM   #7
Ought Six
Dismember
 
Ought Six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 35,164
Blog Entries: 15
Thanks: 178
Thanked 390 Times in 326 Posts
Arrow

The sexualization of children just keeps slowly moving forward. What was unthinkable a couple decades ago is the norm now. If the trend continues, sexy lingerie for four year olds will be the norm, and the edge of the envelop will be.... where? Child porn on sale at the local video store? NAMBLA an accepted lobbying organization for 'ped rights'? It would not surprise me a bit.
__________________
* I have the right to live, thus I have the right to defend my life from attackers who would take it from me.
* I have the right to my private property, thus I have the right to defend my property from thieves who would take it from me.
* I have the right to self-determination, thus I have the right to defend my liberty from tyrants who would take it from me.
* The only usable tools for these tasks are guns, and thus I have the right to shoot anyone who would take my guns from me.
Ought Six is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2011, 09:51 PM   #8
AndreaCA
one of those hopelessly disorganized people
 
AndreaCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,033
Thanks: 2,231
Thanked 478 Times in 290 Posts
Toddlers & Tiaras anyone?

AndreaCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 10:43 AM   #9
Glockd
5.56, faster than 911
 
Glockd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,702
Thanks: 12
Thanked 533 Times in 277 Posts
These motherfuckers are the primary reason god made bullets. No judge, no jury, just shoot them in the lips and press.
__________________


"When the enemy is in range, so are you!" - Murphy
كافر & Proud
Glockd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 12:19 PM   #10
Dietrich
Niche player
 
Dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,483
Thanks: 153
Thanked 291 Times in 186 Posts
Have to agree with Glockd. Sexualizing children is like killing them. They never recover. There's no excuse for these kinds of ads, or modeling by 4yr olds (or 8yr olds). It's unnacceptable. Period.
Dietrich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 07:00 PM   #11
rudolf
Member Level 2
 
rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Berlin,Germany
Posts: 280
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
What i don't like about this discussion is that it puts the focus on how the child is dressed. While women demand the right to walk around however they wish without this giving men any right to sexually offend them, here obviously children are to be dressed so grownups can't see them as a sexual object.

Dressing someone up so nothing looks sexual is the logic behind the arabs confining their women in scarfs and burkhas. They see men as so weak that the men cannot do ther than sexually offend the sexy dressed women.

In the civilized cultures men are expected to behave themselves and not to offend women sexually. We also expect grownups to do NOTHING sexually with a child.

Here in Germany it is quite common to let children swim nude. This in no way has any kind of sexual aspect.

Daughters always wanted to walk around like mommy. If Mommy walks around like Madonna, her little princess also wants to walk around like that. Should she not be allowed?

I prefer to live in a society where kids can walk around how they like and it is the grownups responsibility to keep sex away from children. I don't like the Burkha mentality, neither for women nor for children, as this shifts the responsibility for sexual offence away from the offender to the victim.

If I see a young girl all dressed up i consider it cute or funny. Only when a woman is dressed do I see it under a sexual aspect. So i don't think kids need any special clothing, I think some grownups need special housing (=jail).
rudolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 07:17 PM   #12
Glockd
5.56, faster than 911
 
Glockd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,702
Thanks: 12
Thanked 533 Times in 277 Posts
Let the baby's swim nude. I dont have a problem with that. They are babies. But clothing them to look like a 20 something is fuckin depraved.

And yes, there is a difference. Nudity is not the issue, dressing them as sex objects is.
__________________


"When the enemy is in range, so are you!" - Murphy
كافر & Proud
Glockd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 07:51 PM   #13
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 27,152
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 1,064
Thanked 3,385 Times in 1,905 Posts
I'm with glock. Look I think most of us have seen little girls playing dress up. They borrow Mommy's clothing & shoes - what she'll let them use! - other accessories & 'makeup'. I know some moms who let their little girls use makeup they no longer use or buy them a tiny selection of makeup for such play times.

When you look at the finished product, what you clearly see is little girls playing grownup. The clothing is too large, they totter around in shoes twice the size of their feet & the makeup is garish, heavily & badly applied & looks clownish. Here's just one example of what I mean:

http://www.fotosearch.com/BLD007/jg0222221/

What we're speaking of here is quite different. These girls didn't dress themselves. They spent a long time in hair & makeup - it can be over two hours for such shoots - & were styled by ADULTS in a very adult fashion. They're not styled to look like little kids playing dressup, they're styled to look like adult women old enough to indulge in sexual behaviour.

Such clothing choices, hair & makeup is appropriate in ADULT women, not children. I look at the photo I yanked off Google & think it's cute - it's a tot doing what little kids do - imitative play. The lingerie ad, the young model - my reaction is very different. I see young girls dressed in a way that makes me uneasy - my core tells me this is WRONG.
__________________
"Most of what you did with Ebola was go to Africa and count corpses after the fact." - CJ Peters
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 08:06 PM   #14
occupant
Infosponge
 
occupant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,750
Thanks: 338
Thanked 139 Times in 83 Posts
Hasn't this basically just evolved over time? Its not going to stop, yet it may evolve further! Right now the hot commodity is litle kids as prostitutes. Maybe not so much in this country but definately overseas. The fast pace of television, movies and the internet have all combined to make this world a disgustingly filthy place for a child.I'm thinking if the demand for sexy looking girls wasn't there, it wouldn't be. My own 3rd generation nieces(9-14) all blatently talk sex, try to look sexy, and gol darnit they are sexy. I'd like to smack em upside the head but they would prolly like it
occupant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 08:08 PM   #15
Dietrich
Niche player
 
Dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,483
Thanks: 153
Thanked 291 Times in 186 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadaSue View Post
These girls didn't dress themselves. They spent a long time in hair & makeup - it can be over two hours for such shoots - & were styled by ADULTS in a very adult fashion. They're not styled to look like little kids playing dressup, they're styled to look like adult women old enough to indulge in sexual behaviour.
I've been involved in professional modelling on and off for decades. The 10year old model, Thy Blondeau, spent about 2 hours having her hair done up in that severe 1930's style bun top. She spent an additional almost 2 hours having her makeup applied--this included foundation, lipgloss, eyeliner, mascara and bright red fingernail polish. All designed to look like a 20year old woman on the prowl. She was fitted for a diamond ring, diamond earings, and a diamond studded anklet.

Nothing about the Vogue spread with Blondeau smacks of children playing dress-up. She was tarted up by a professional modelling team, and made to look precisely like a woman expressing sexuality.

Want to see how things have changed? These are covers with Brooke Shields at 12, taken in 1978:




Last edited by Dietrich; 08-22-2011 at 08:13 PM.
Dietrich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 08:27 PM   #16
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 27,152
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 1,064
Thanked 3,385 Times in 1,905 Posts
I remember even those ads creating contraversy... a lot of jealous cats because at 12 & 13 she LOOKED sexy, naturally. If you look at her clothing - save for the first shot where she's wearing a camisole, she's fully covered up. Of course she has makeup on & I'll bet it took more than a few minutes to achieve that natural look. Her look is age appropriate, fresh faced, there's no over the top hairstyle or jewelery. She's styled in a way I'd have no issues with - were she my child. She was simply a beautiful child & if you've seen her lately, she grew up to be a stunning woman.

Maybe these babies in the lingerie ads, baby beauty pageants etc. will grow up to be physically lovely young women, maybe not. But surely at their very young age, there's plenty of time for that without it being pushed by adults looking to create contraversy.
__________________
"Most of what you did with Ebola was go to Africa and count corpses after the fact." - CJ Peters
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2011, 08:31 PM   #17
Dietrich
Niche player
 
Dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,483
Thanks: 153
Thanked 291 Times in 186 Posts
Exactly. And in my view, even Shields' shot with the camisole is age-appropriate. It's meant to convey a sense of innocence and unsophistication, not at all sexuality. Rather, the shot is supposed to give a sense of youth and hope, in an outfit that might be worn by a typical 12/13 yr old at the time.
Dietrich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 01:07 AM   #18
AndreaCA
one of those hopelessly disorganized people
 
AndreaCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,033
Thanks: 2,231
Thanked 478 Times in 290 Posts
jon-benet-ramsey?

google her if you don't remember the images. just goes to show you one of the possible outcomes of sexuallizing a six-year-old.
AndreaCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 01:19 AM   #19
AndreaCA
one of those hopelessly disorganized people
 
AndreaCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,033
Thanks: 2,231
Thanked 478 Times in 290 Posts
When dd was two, I let her run around on 100+ days with the two year old boy next door. It was hot, they were naked, so what. can you imagine how hot a pampers can get on a triple digit day?!? they played in an inflatable pool and I even sacrificed a section of the flower bed for "mud pies." Nothing inappropriate happened, I know, I was watching them but that still didn't prevent the old crone form next door from complaining that I let my 2 year-old run around naked. Despite Freud, not everything is sexual. But, maybe because of Freud, everything Can be sexual? At two, there was nothing sexual about my daughter. At fifteen? Geez, I wish she were two again . . .
AndreaCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 02:14 AM   #20
Ought Six
Dismember
 
Ought Six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 35,164
Blog Entries: 15
Thanks: 178
Thanked 390 Times in 326 Posts
Arrow

Naked infants playing are not sexual (to normal people, anyways). But when children are made into sex objects, and that kind of thing is broadcast throughout our society, it does not just harm the child. It changes the way adults think about children on a subconscious level. That is the really dangerous part; propagandizing and promoting pedophilia. The media is a powerful and insidious tool. Misusing it in this way is positively insane.
__________________
* I have the right to live, thus I have the right to defend my life from attackers who would take it from me.
* I have the right to my private property, thus I have the right to defend my property from thieves who would take it from me.
* I have the right to self-determination, thus I have the right to defend my liberty from tyrants who would take it from me.
* The only usable tools for these tasks are guns, and thus I have the right to shoot anyone who would take my guns from me.
Ought Six is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 05:25 AM   #21
LvDemWings
Wingy Spud
 
LvDemWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,282
Thanks: 15
Thanked 689 Times in 397 Posts
The sexualization of little girls has always been there. It has just morphed as styles have. In the 70's when tube tops were all the rage they also were available for little girls.
__________________
Federal lands, monuments, and waterways belong to We The People... not we the government.
LvDemWings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 03:56 PM   #22
rudolf
Member Level 2
 
rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Berlin,Germany
Posts: 280
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by LvDemWings View Post
The sexualization of little girls has always been there. It has just morphed as styles have. In the 70's when tube tops were all the rage they also were available for little girls.
An just look at the "good old" coppertone ad:
http://www.americanartarchives.com/b...ppertone59.jpg

But what I really was after is the focus shift from the offender to the object/victim.
A grownup has to know a child is not available for Sex, period.
No matter how they dress. The way a child looks or acts, is no reason or excuse for offense.

And seeing a "sexy" dressed little girl makes me on no way want sex with her, just like reading gun magazines doesn't make me violent.
rudolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 07:20 PM   #23
Dietrich
Niche player
 
Dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,483
Thanks: 153
Thanked 291 Times in 186 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudolf View Post
An just look at the "good old" coppertone ad:
http://www.americanartarchives.com/b...ppertone59.jpg
That ad was not sexualizing a child, it was reflecting an innocence in which naked babies are not sexual. Hence the dog.

Unfortunately, in a post-jean benet ramsey world, people cannot see such ads for what they were anymore.
Dietrich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:44 PM   #24
rb.
Hey, USA, you're not the boss of me!
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,768
Thanks: 707
Thanked 802 Times in 523 Posts
During the late 60s and early 70s, all of us girls ran around topless on hot days, up to age 5,6, or 7. Was it because our parents were sexually revolutionized hippies? Nope, they were all pre-boomers...straight-laced children of WW2. We were also put in baths with opposite sexed siblings, cousins, etc. But none of us were thinking about sex, we were CHILDREN. Our parents didn't put tassles on our nipples, they didn't buy us G strings, they didn't cover us in professional makeup...they cut our hair using BOWLS, fer chrissakes! Why? Because we were CHILDREN! Dressing a child up to look like a woman on looking to hook up is not too many steps from pedophilia, IMO. That crap shouldn't start until the teen years, when they ARE thinking about sex, and learning how to attract and interact with the opposite sex, for natural purposes of procreation. And guess what? They don't think about it until they have the hormones TELLING them to, not because Mom or Dad is trying to make them Lolitas. Doing it before they want to do it on their own is unnatural, and that is what most of us see and hate. Let children be children, teens be teens, and adults be adults.

If you really want to see how young girls play dress up without sexual influence, I'll dig out a pic of my girls at about 3 & 6. You'll wonder what freakin' planet they're from.
rb. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:58 PM   #25
Dietrich
Niche player
 
Dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,483
Thanks: 153
Thanked 291 Times in 186 Posts
Indeed, one of the symptoms of child abuse is a child at 5, 6 or 7 who IS aware of sexual thoughts. It's unnatural, and if you see a child at that age making sexual comments or suggestions or acting out, it is almost always the result of exposure to an adult or older child who has done something sexually innappropriate to or in view of that child.

In the natural state, children that age can run around naked on a hot day and swim in a pond, and bathe with their cousins, and it's not sexualizing anything or anybody. The jean-benet ramsey (and I daresay Thy Blondeau) ads in which children are shot in seductive poses with seductive inappropriate clothing RUINS EVERYTHING. Everything good and innocent about childhood. It's so damn unnecessary. And destructive.
Dietrich is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
4yo, girls, lingerie

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.