10 Year Old Exemplifies Sexualization of Children?

[Giambattista]

Is This Gorgeous 10-year-old French Model the Next Big Thing, or is it Just Creepy?

Judging by the sheer number of photographs of her on the internet, she must be booking modeling jobs left and right. However, we have to call out a few of them that seem just a smidge mature for the pre-teen. For example, in a few of them she’s reclining seductively in stilettos and evening gowns and more makeup and jewelry than anyone under the age of 30 should be wearing. In the above photo, she is inexplicably holding bunny rabbits. But most of the photos are pretty normal and age-appropriate.

Rabbits. Symbol of fecundity. Or something. Except she probably isn't menstruating yet. Yet. Give'er a year or two, with proper Bovine Growth Hormone, she'll come of age in no time.

Gorgeous 10 Year Old Model. Hmmm. What to say? If you click the link above, you'll see more photos of this 10 year old sex object model. If you have a pre-teen daughter, would you have her photographed like that?

I think the name of this site, dedicated to her, is, well, enthusiastically named. It seems kind of appropriate at least.

Doesn't this remind anyone of that little dead girl? You know, Jon Benet?
"You're gonna be a beauty queen like yer mommy!"

Oh. Excuse me for being morbid here.

Am I a close-minded prude for thinking this is a tad excessive for a girl her age?
Is this just a rare aberration, or something that is becoming more commonplace, specifically, the sexualization of children, in this case, pre-pubescent children?

I'm not a parent, so I don't have a strong parent's protective instinct, and although of the few pictures I saw of her, only a few were "provocative" or what have you, it strikes me as inappropriate. Why does a 10 year old girl need to be paraded around like she's a porno model who has yet to undress?

Is this just silly? Is it harmless; inappropriate; obscene?

 

[Giambattista]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/thylane-blondeau-10-year-old-model_n_918066.html

How young is too young?

That's the question being batted around in reference to Thylane Loubry Blondeau, the 10-year-old model whose suggestive photo spreads have ignited a debate over the sexualization of young girls.

"Good Morning America" took a look at some of Blondeau's recent photo spreads for Vogue Paris, which feature the young girl in lipstick, high heels and tight dresses, and a slew of smoldering "come hither" stares.

Although Blondeau, the daughter of soccer player Patrick Blondeau and reporter-turned-fashion designer Véronika Loubry, appeared in the Vogue Paris shoot with other young models, her looks were more mature and for many readers, more discomforting.

A little research shows that little Blondeau has been at this for a while, frequently photographed for editorials (Fashionista has several here), the cover of Vogue Enfants (see pic below) and even walking in Jean Paul Gaultier's Spring 2006 runway show as a child extra.

Reactions to the recent, jarringly-adult editorial have ranged from perplexed to utterly appalled, with most questioning the appropriateness of a child consistently photographed like an adult and sexualized in the process.

Some comments from... uh... HuffPo... Yeah...

SuzyScorp

20 minutes ago (11:37 PM)
They asked what's next to come... How about the shock factor of a Vogue spread of a 2 year old toddler girl, decked out in high fashion clothes, as her diaper peers through.... Very creepy.. Please stop!!
Permalink | Share it


lizmcq

2 hours ago (9:54 PM)
Has anyone ever seen "Toddlers and Tiaras"? totally CREEPY. They dress up 2 year olds in make up, false eyelashes, wigs, even fake teeth!! Swim suits, party dresses and costumes that are totally weird for a BABY. This story is not news. Besides, the kid ain't all that...
Permalink | Share it


AhoyWarschawa

2 hours ago (9:33 PM)
I think this is perfectly fine, honestly. The girl wasn't naked, and from what I saw, she was actually covered quite well. This is an art, and one that some people don't really understand and perhaps take the wrong way. French Vogue, and most Vogues in Europe actually, are well known for having "racy" spreads in America. And unless you are informed and aware of how our cultures differ, you probably will think this is inappropriate. But I, for one, think it's fine as long as they aren't purposely displaying her in a pornographic way. What is normal and acceptable in Europe is quite different from what we think here, and that's just the bottom line...

abrellis

02:01 AM on 8/16/2011
They just need to restrain from dressing her up as an adult in what is being viewed as risque. Heavy makeup for a kid is not natural nor appropriate. Using it makes it seem they are trying to market her body as an adult.

Is heavy makeup natural and appropriate for anyone female, of any age, other than... Maybe "grown up" women should be better role models to begin with.

 

[wynn]

Compare:

What's the difference to the one in the OP?

 

[Tiassa]

Disgusting

What's the difference to the one in the OP?

What is the similarity? Your sexual presumption?

Dude, that's entirely on you, and that's entirely disgusting.

I mean, really, dude. That's pedophiliac.

 

[wynn]

What is the similarity? Your sexual presumption?

Dude, that's entirely on you, and that's entirely disgusting.

I mean, really, dude. That's pedophiliac.

The Hindus don't think it is.


My question was not rhetorical; I am genuinely asking what the difference is between those young dolled-up Indian girls and the one in the OP.
Both are representing the sexual motifs typical for their cultures respectively.

Even in the Western world, it is not so long ago that marriage arrangements were made already when people were legally still children. Royal marriage arrangements were not rarely made already at birth.
Even nowadays, children are taught from early on to think about sex and relationships. Kindergarden children are asked what kind of spouse they would like to have.
It is still the norm to raise children according to the social ideals for their biological sex (starting with pink for girls and blue for boys).

In that sense, children have always been sexualized, everywhere, in one way or another.

 

[Tiassa]

Apparently, it really is a subtle difference

My question was not rhetorical; I am genuinely asking what the difference is between those young dolled-up Indian girls and the one in the OP.

Both are representing the sexual motifs typical for their cultures respectively.

Well, in the first place, a midwestern dairy queen in a gingham dress can be described as representing a sexual motif typical for her culture.

I do, however, think there is a difference between Freudian symptoms in a cultural neurosis and a calculated presentation for advertising purposes.

That's a clear difference. An obvious one, in fact. It's actually kind of hard for me to figure out how someone would miss it.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Well, in the first place, a midwestern dairy queen in a gingham dress can be described as representing a sexual motif typical for her culture.

I do, however, think there is a difference between Freudian symptoms in a cultural neurosis and a calculated presentation for advertising purposes.

That's a clear difference. An obvious one, in fact. It's actually kind of hard for me to figure out how someone would miss it.

Does it make a difference if the parents are pocketing the money or putting it in the child's college fund?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Urban Outfitters is being sued for $28 million by the parents of this model for putting this image of their 15 year old daughter on T-shirts:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/nude_teen_outfitters_suit.php

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Urban Outfitters is being sued for $28 million by the parents of this model for putting this image of their 15 year old daughter on T-shirts:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/nude_teen_outfitters_suit.php

And the parents and she had no idea. (I wonder if they tried a shake down before starting the law suit)?

The parents ask that their names and the girl's identity not be revealed because she is well known in the modeling industry and "her image and identity have been exposed on national TV and in other media to the general public."

Gee! I wonder how that happened. (What a scam)

 

[milkweed]

Its just creepy.

Searching Google Images, there is page after page of what looks to me like an unhappy kid. 2 pics with a smile.

I like seeing happy kids.

 

[chimpkin]

And the parents and she had no idea. (I wonder if they tried a shake down before starting the law suit)?

Gee! I wonder how that happened. (What a scam)

I imagine UO had a blanket consent to use her image...and decided to put her image on a t-shirt looking like a slut.
I can see the parents possibly deciding they want more money...I can also see them seeing that image of their 15-year old on the chests of adult guys and crapping bricks.

:shrug:
Now if there was a specific consent signed to use this specific image in this specific way? then I have 0 sympathy, and they'll get to pay for a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

that is what i am talking about . This is all o.k legally yet we make a big deal out of other things of smaller concerns that don't concern us like aborting an unwanted child . To mE all children should have the guidance of a parent that is looking out for there best interest . I don't think this is quite it , by putting children in compromising pictures . Now in all fairness that Indian child ( Think she was Indian ) is not spread eagle like. You know that is the shit that turns on the child molester . Imagery in America is so geared to younger and younger sexuality and yet we make laws that say it is wrong . That is mixed signals we send to the youth. It does ! It amazes Me what we pay for to keep propagating as an industry. It sells and that is why it is . The value system is what is all so screwy in life

 

[Gustav]

Well, in the first place, a midwestern dairy queen in a gingham dress can be described as representing a sexual motif typical for her culture.

I do, however, think there is a difference between Freudian symptoms in a cultural neurosis and a calculated presentation for advertising purposes.

That's a clear difference. An obvious one, in fact. It's actually kind of hard for me to figure out how someone would miss it.

so signal is still a male pedophile?

/frown

 

[wynn]

I do, however, think there is a difference between Freudian symptoms in a cultural neurosis and a calculated presentation for advertising purposes.

I think we would generally like to believe that such a difference exists, yes.

But when individual people are dressing up etc. according to their "Freudian symptoms in a cultural neurosis" - how is this not a "calculated presentation for advertising purposes"?

Mass media advertisements are just acknowledging what people have been doing all along anyway.

The revelations of the common and the obvious can be disturbing, of course, and mass media is capitalizing on this revelation in ways not possible before in recorded history.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

so signal is still a male pedophile?

I wouldn't guess so. I'm just making a growly point about perception.

In truth, I'm not even sure what they're dolled up for. The notorious child weddings? A religious ceremony?

The former is a cultural issue not quite the same as pedophilia. The latter is another issue entirely.

Both, however, are separate issues from this sort of advertising.

• • •​

But when individual people are dressing up etc. according to their "Freudian symptoms in a cultural neurosis" - how is this not a "calculated presentation for advertising purposes"?

Well, for one, neuroses aren't usually calculated.

Mass media advertisements are just acknowledging what people have been doing all along anyway.

That's a bit cynical, don't you think?

Commercial advertising, in my opinion, has lost much of its connection to reality.

English comedian, historian, and author Mark Steel has been known to joke that were it not for Freud, the best we could do for someone with, say, a compulsive cleaning disorder (e.g., OCD), would be to help them set up a housecleaning business.

And, of course, he used an advertisement to make his point.

In that case, though, stop and think about the people we see in advertisements. None of them are normal, and the more the advertisers try to calculate normal, the more awkward things look.

Commercial advertising often looks like a twisted idyll of the sort that even Satan would envy. I think of Crowley in Gaiman and Pratchett's Good Omens; he would very much admire the perversity of advertisers. At one point, he sent a copy of the warranty and disclaimers from a personal computer back to the offices in Hell, with a note attached telling people to learn from the example. Seriously, a bunch of demons sitting around trying to come up with some way to draw people into sin? If one of them said, "How about we dress up prepubescent children in order to make adults want to buy clothes in order to look that sexy?" Satan would have laughed his ass off.

Compared to people calculating their conformity to neurotic traditions they never stood a chance of resisting, it seems to me that advertising is a whole separate beast unto itself.

 

[Gustav]

I wouldn't guess so. I'm just making a growly point about perception.

i'll make one too
fathers tend to have a heightened sense of awareness that borders on paranoia.

and another
signal is a girl

/shocked

 

[wynn]

Commercial advertising, in my opinion, has lost much of its connection to reality.

In some aspects: certainly.
In others: not at all.

If commercial adverstising would truly be out of touch with reality, we could not relate to it in any way. But we usually do.

In that case, though, stop and think about the people we see in advertisements. None of them are normal, and the more the advertisers try to calculate normal, the more awkward things look.


Commercial advertising often looks like a twisted idyll of the sort that even Satan would envy.

I agree.

Seriously, a bunch of demons sitting around trying to come up with some way to draw people into sin? If one of them said, "How about we dress up prepubescent children in order to make adults want to buy clothes in order to look that sexy?"

I think that what that commercial in the OP is actually advertising is the ideas and values of provocation, art against all odds and such.
I think it actually has nothing to do with prepubescent children and implications of pedophilia as such.

There is a social stratum, often considered the "elite" that makes a point of valuing provocation and displays of wealth, fame and intellectual (?) achievement.
They are just looking for different ways to express this.

Whether it is a prepubescent girl dressed up like an adult in sexually-suggestive clothes, or marketing shoes beset with diamonds, or toilet paper with thread of real gold in it. Old Romans, for example, considered it a delicacy to present a roasted young pork, into which live birds were sown before serving - so that when the roast was cut open, the birds would fly out.

This is what the working class people call decadence.
But to the class that can readily afford it, it is a necessity, a right, a means of expression - but they do not view it as decadent or something to avoid or otherwise find repugnant.


I think the pictures of Indian girls I posted earlier, and the one in the OP are both examples of people acting according to their "Freudian symptoms in a cultural neurosis" - but not the same ones.

The Indian might be about sex; the European about provocation.

 

[Tiassa]

Well ....

and another
signal is a girl

To borrow a phrase, well, God damn.

(Apologies to Signal.)

 

[Gustav]

The Indian might be about sex;

damn indian pedophiles

garcon!
bring sam before me!

 

[Orleander]

...

...

I think people are overreacting. I have pics of me like this when I was little. I wore my mom's clothes, heels, and make-up. I just didn't have it as well pulled together. I have pics like this of my daughter as well. Some she's striking a pose in her rocket football cheerleading outfit when she was in 3rd grade (younger than this girl) Nothing sexual about it.