+ + + 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 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 03:16 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  7.671 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/06/2011 07:29 AM ID: 90372 Permalink   

Vogue Paris Stirs Controversy With Racy Photo Shoot of 10-Year-Old Model


Fashion-watchers are questioning whether Vogue Paris crossed a line with a recent pictorial featuring 10-year-old model Thylane Loubry Blondeau giving the camera seductive looks and in suggestive poses.

The shoot has fueled the ever-present debate over the sexualization of underage girls, with Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, saying Blondeu´s parents should be punished. Others agreed that the girl is sexualized in the pictorial.

Jenna Saurers of asked in a blog post, "Is she aware that, to people older and more familiar with the commonplaces of fashion photography than she is, the way she is being portrayed reads as somewhat adult, somewhat sexualized?"

    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Not my usual beat  
... but I saw the headline and figured Tetsuru Uzuki might be interested ... :)
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/06/2011 07:30 AM     
  Photo here  
Photo ..

[ edited by key2000 ]
  by: key2000     08/06/2011 09:41 AM     
  even worse pic:

^ they did this to a little girl? and got away with it?
  by: Rokkumon   08/06/2011 02:41 PM     
"... but I saw the headline and figured Tetsuru Uzuki might be interested ... :)"

Don´t forget shannon. He likes ´em young, too.
  by: Lurker     08/06/2011 03:58 PM     
  Before you start bashing..  
Remeber Brooke Shields.. (to quote from the Wiki)

"Shields began her career as a model in 1966, at the age of 11 months. Her first job was for Ivory Soap, shot by Francesco Scavullo. She continued as a successful child model with model agent Eileen Ford, who, in her Lifetime Network biography, stated that she started her children´s division just for Shields.

In early 1980, the 14-year-old Shields was the youngest fashion model ever to appear on the cover of the top fashion publication Vogue magazine. Later that same year, Shields appeared in controversial print and TV ads for Calvin Klein jeans. The TV ad included her saying the famous tagline, "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing." Brooke Shields ads would help catapult Klein´s career to super-designer status"


"Shields´ first major film role was her 1978 appearance in Louis Malle´s Pretty Baby, a movie in which she played a child who lived in a brothel (and in which there were numerous nude scenes). Because she was only 12 when the film was released, and possibly 11 when it was filmed, questions were raised about child pornography. This was followed by a slightly less controversial and less notable film, Wanda Nevada (1979)."

When I saw the pics I thought.. There is another Brooke.. besides the more the controversy the higher her career will go.

[ edited by CaveHermit ]
  by: CaveHermit   08/06/2011 06:11 PM     
"fueled the ever-present debate over the sexualization of underage girls"
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/06/2011 11:01 PM     
while i have no problem with either picture for arts sake, i´d say the one you posted isn´t as "bad" as the other one. the first one linked to could be construed as being sexualized but I don´t see how the second one could be. looks like national geographic level photos.
  by: vash_the_stampede     08/07/2011 02:40 AM     
I don,t get it, why?
it is not like they can sell the stuff to other 10 year olds.
And do ADULT women actually care what a dress looks like on a 10 year old, it hardly gives them an Idea of what it looks like on them.

Anyway they should just charge the magazine with making softcore child porn and be done with it. Stop these Stupid Gay fashion designers portraying STUPID ideals of beauty. No one should look like the girl in the picture, because no 10 year old should be wearing Women´s clothes and no woman old enough to wear those clothes has the skin and body of a 10 year old.
  by: veya_victaous     08/08/2011 04:55 AM     
but this isn´t national geographic. this is a society that knows better than to promote sexuality among children. the kid´s topless, with only beads covering her. What 10 year old dresses like that that´s not in a 3rd world country?

[ edited by Rokkumon ]
  by: Rokkumon   08/08/2011 02:01 PM     
Well in america for one, in particular the south. It is common for both boys and girls to run around shirtless especially during the summer time. And you say that this magazine is promoting sexualization of children - i don´t think that is the case. While some clearly see it as such and even i would say tha picture of her in the bed is pushing the envelope the rest seem harmless to me. But i guess with like so many things i comes down to the mind of the individual rather than actual content.
  by: vash_the_stampede     08/08/2011 05:38 PM     
I am afraid you are wrong on your train of toughts, it´s true that art can and have take children and show them on sexual positions but thats in order to make an statement or to protest against something, and it´s true that national geographic have shown children topless or naked, but thats photojournalism and in order to accurately describe a particular culture and/or society.

This picture does have great quality but it´s because it was made to sell an item, the complete fashion industrie has been built in order to sell things, and exploit everything they can in order to make the sell, they explote models making them put their healt at risk, exploit workers making them work in hellish conditions, explote people making them believe they need to buy their stuff to be important in the society, and right now they are exploting this child in order to sell clothes.
  by: demonh8   08/09/2011 05:49 PM     
Sorry but i don´t agree with you that she is being exploited. If she and her parents agree to the shoot then how exactly is she being exploited? Are child actors then also being exploited according to your logic? At what age does one then stop being exploited?
  by: vash_the_stampede     08/09/2011 10:58 PM     
  @ vash  
You really need to read more than internet News.

First, the child explotation could be on form of work, sexual, or even monetary, and it´s against the law in most countrys, and depends on how the society of that country understands the situation on wich the child was involved and if the society approve it or not.
Parents can approve the child involvemnt on a situation or action, but that does not make it legal if the country laws mark it as an against the law action or situation, and parents can even be involved in the situation or action therefore being part of the explotation.
Child actors where a very exploited sector of society, that´s why today many countrys have very specific laws to protect them from explotation from their employers and their parents, those laws even protect the child from being involved in sexual situations, altought it´s true that european countries have more relaxed laws when it come to art forms, but again, this wasn´t an art form, was pure comercialism.
What age you stop being exploited? You can be exploited at any age, everybody can be decived or forced to do something that can be cataloged as an exploit, thats why every country has some laws against it, altought going from writen words to real actions it´s another matter.
Maybe you was thinking about age of consent. Consenting to an action takes away the exploit, only if the consent come from free descition, and when you reach an age when law determinate that you are able to take those descitions, must countrys put that age from 14 to 18, some requier to be 21 others even at 12.
  by: demonh8   08/10/2011 06:16 PM     
no, I wasn´t thinking of age of consent. given that the parents consented for her that "takes away" the exploitation (at least legally in this case) which is the only thing I would ever be concerned with. exploitation via morality or other social constructs are primarily irrelevant to me.

as for "pure comercialism" - no, i don´t think so. while the intended desire is obviously to sell merch / content, at the end of the day that has little bearing on the content being art or not. art doesn´t cease being art just because it is used to sell a product/service, etc.

i´d say the content in this case very much meets the criteria of art (well, as if that is a hard critera to make in the first place lol).

have a good day fella!
  by: vash_the_stampede     08/12/2011 12:26 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: