+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 1 Users Online   
                 02/25/2018 10:50 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  10.490 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/03/2003 11:36 PM ID: 33794 Permalink   

French Issue of Vogue Arrives with Nude Preteens


November's issue of Vogue in France arrived in the mailboxes of subscribers with something extra. In the issue was a supplement featuring the photography of David Hamilton who photographed nude girls in the 1970s, many of them under 13.

L'Oreal printed the supplement, and the word is that executives had no idea these photos were included in the supplement. The execs wanted the supplements destroyed but it is now too late. Future supplements will be more mainstream.

Newsstand versions of Vogue do not contain the supplement. L'Oreal saw the supplement as a way to see if subscribers would want more done. Now this supplement may end up a collector's item to some. A survey will be done to see what people thought.

    WebReporter: JFURY Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
"L'Oreal saw the supplement as a way to see if subscribers would want more done."???..they want to see if readers wanted more done?..What as in more nude photos of little girls?..

"Now this supplement may end up a collector's item to some." YEA I BET! Some sick pervert will go out and get him/her self a copy of this to "collect".
  by: Whipd+Kreem     11/04/2003 02:52 PM     
Look at the context. These are preteens without clothing. In a modeling sense, and David Hamiltins work is art, the beauty of youth. I am just as against kiddie porn as i'm sure you are, but this is not pornography.
  by: yomasta   11/04/2003 03:03 PM     
seems like there is a VERY fine line between porn and art.

personly i don't think they should be exposed, even with their consent (& perants) etc etc

If you want art, paint a F'ing picture lol
  by: Fort   11/04/2003 04:56 PM     
  Have you even seen these pics?  
Hardly what anyone but a religious nut case would call porn. They are pretty boring, actually. If these stimulate you then you are truly warped.
  by: Arthur Phrain   11/04/2003 06:50 PM     
  times have changed  
These photos are from the 70s which was a time that these photos were considered art and apparently were taken in an artistic manner.
It is scary how society has changed since then to the point that everyone is "sexualized." I understand we must do everything we can to stop pedophiles but I think we make it worse when issues like these pictures are actually an issue and you see these teen stars dressing like strippers.
  by: JFURY     11/04/2003 06:57 PM     
  Whats the difference between porn and art?  
A Government grant! :D ... sorry I got that off of Family Guy.

But as JF said times have changed and certain things have changed, and naked pictures of preteens aka children, are taboo and shouldnt really be shown... arty or not :\ Yell freedom of speech all you want, still aint right imo :/

  by: Koultunami     11/05/2003 02:29 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: