popsugar.com/36306

It is a picture of Cundy Crawfords daughter for a childern's swimwear catalog.

I saw it and thought it wasn't right.

Wow, that's creepy. How do those little girls know how to pose like that? Eww.

she is soo cute.....but the whole looking sexy thing is weird!!!

Yeah I'm with Itty Bitty.

Adorable girls - but it's just WRONG that they're posing like that. It's really creepy actually. Eeks!

possibly, just possibly, I'm going out on a limb here, she learned it from mommy

what's with the tramp stamp on the child?
WAY outta line

Being a "child model"...WAAY long time ago, as well as being the child of a model...I have to disagree. This is a great catalogue photo shoot from two adorable girls that happen to have a super model mom. I don't think it is child porn, unless your really looking for that type of thing...

Yeah,and she had a back tattoo how wrong is that?

My daughter uses those fake tattoos all the time. She always puts hers on the back of her neck so she can "be like mommy".
I dont understand why the girl has no top on, but those other pics are not porn. The one with the girl posing with no top is questionable.

Anyone else see the Butterfly Effect?

yeah the one without the top is the one that is the weirdest, really creepy!!!  the tattoo is hilarious......!!

It's borderline. Eew.

Go to the website below and scroll a few stories down..it has the whole poop about this...
bricksandstones.blogspot…

i think so..
what about this one: esoteric.name/media/trap…
keep in mind that it's a boy

kids should be portrayed as kids...
i find the pics that started the thread to be exploiting them...
they could be wearing exactly what they're wearing with the same set, but if they had different postures that weren't slightly "suggestive", it would have been totally fine for a kid's swim suit catalog or whatever it was for...

yes kids want to play 'pretend' that they're adults etc.  that's cool and all inside the house when no one's 'directing' them...

but like portrayed above, is wrong i think....

It says "Insanely Addictive." in the title in the browser bar/tab.

it's not.

You people that clicked through are sick sick sick!!!

Just joshing y'all... but yes, that bricksandstones blog entry does mention that it's borderline.  not illegal, but definitely creepy, and even if it is faux exploitation, that kinda crap shouldn't be encouraged.  Are all celebrity parents such nightmares?

Porn, no, but when I look at it I think it's just creepy and wrong.  Another person (read: child molester) could look at it and think it's totally hot.  And that's exactly what makes it creepy and wrong.  Parents should be protecting their children from these kinds of predators, not putting their children out there like bait!

Excuse me, but what is wrong with a 7 year old girl walking around the beach without a top???

She has no more tits than a 7 year old boy.  There is nothing obscene about it.

Frankly I think that the fact that it is ILLEGAL for a woman (full grown) to walk around without a top, while plenty of fat men with breasts bigger than mine can go down the street and i have to see their ugly tits, is just wrong.

Someone needs to challenge the laws that restrict women's freedom to take off their tops

I'm sure most men would be happier too.

But back to the 7 year old... as far as I know, the law that says women have to 'keep their shirts on' doesn't apply to pre-pubescent girls

also, i see nothing wrong with those pictures.  "suggestive" is in the eye of the beholder.

i don't think it's kiddie porn but i do think it's wrong...it's too suggestive and soo not cute. why can't kids just be kids these days....?

"Kiddie porn"? No.

Sexualized photos of a child? No doubt.

It's not about the outfit per se, its about how the photographer chose to depict this child.

not porn but totally crrrrreeeeeeeppppppyyyyyyy!

it would have to pay bucks and I mean bucks for me to allow my daughter at that age to pose seductively.  Lots of buck mind you.

there is nothing sexual about the photo expect what you the viewer impose on it.   it is a picture of a little girl at the beach

Says you Rose, and says me.  What say John Mark Karr?

That's just it, Brenda.  John Mark Karr would see ANY photo of a little girl as pornographic because that is what is IN HIS MIND.   He was in love with all his "girls" when he was a teacher, and they weren't posing as photographers models.

It's not the photo.  It is the viewer who has the problem.

Pornography is about people having sex.  It isn't about modeling bathing suits.

I definitely wouldn't date her.

NO...it's "fashion"....

It's kiddie porn if your mind is in the gutter...other than that I see girls playing at the beach, one with a fake tatoo.

Still, Rose, why play right into the hands of these creeps?  I think there is a certain cumulative societal effect to seeing children sexualized, the same way there is a cumulative societal effect to seeing women objectified, and a cumulative societal effect to images of violence.  I've never been about barring any of these things, assuming they are all within the confines of the law, but I think there does need to be a certain awareness of what these images do and hopefully a little more responsibility by individuals and the media to go along with that awareness.

um. wtf?

Brenda - why change your whole life around because of "these creeps"?  Why shouldn't little girls be able to play on the beach, and professional photographers take pictures of them, just because there are a few creeps out there?

Should I stay home every night because there are rapists on the street?  Or should I live my life like a normal person?

I do not believe these photos are "sexualized" images.  They are girls playing on the beach in bathing suits and running around with a cowboy hat on.  Plenty of little girls don't wear tops on the beach.  It's not a sex thing.  It is a BEACH thing.

You're projecting stuff onto those photos that simply isn't there.

Yeah, wtf?  It's just creepy is all.  I'm creeped out.  My mind's not in the gutter, but I get creeped out knowing other people's minds might be.  It just doesn't fall into an acceptable image of a kid for me.  I mean, the fact that this whole thread got started in the first place means that on some level a lot of us are thinking something's not quite right with the picture, and maybe I'm thinking out loud just trying to put my finger on it.

On one hand, yeah, it is a topless little girl modeling a swimsuit, but I think it's the combination of everything: the tattoo, the coy expression.  It's like looking at the pictures of Jon-Benet Ramsey with all that makeup and just having the gut instinct that this couldn't possibly be right.

And I think my point was that there are many things in this society that give me that "ewwww" feeling, but I think none more than when they involve kids.

Exactly, I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the pictures, if I were to go to a beach and see kids running around in a playing in a kiddie bikini, I'm not going to stop and say oooh that's nasty, absurd XXX ... that's just wrong.

Its farily obvious that  there's nothing wrong with a family snapshot of child in a bathingsuit bottom at a beach.

But it IS worth questioning whether it is appropriate to photograph said child in a sexualized way (be it ambiguous or overt) for a national media campaign.

For those of you who think that the photos are "just about a girl on a beach, geez!" I'm gonna have to disagree.

As a fashion photographer, you aren't being paid to just shoot a "girl at the beach". You are being paid for your ability to convey a message. And if you are unable to effectively convey this message, you probably aren't a very successful fashion photographer.

You can choose to depict your girl+bikini+beach in a million different ways, depending on what sort of message you wish to convey to your audience. Do I want the vibe to be...

Childlike?
Sexual?
Violent?
Abusive?
Innocent?
Playful?
Ethereal?
Industrial?
Intimate?
Isolated?

This is all accomplished through  the deliberate use of poses, facial expression, styling (props, etc), ligthing, and camera angles.

So no, in the eyes of a media campaign it's NEVER about "just a girl in a bathsuit". NEVER.

The elements of beach+girl+swimsuit are simply the raw material to convey a message the photographer/fashion label wishes to distribute to the masses.

But I suppose these points are all moot if you don't believe that  
(1) the  media is deliberately crafting the messages it spends billions of dollars to distrubute
(2) society as a whole is not affected at all by these billion dollar media messages


A good start when it comes to media literacy/awareness:
mediaandwomen.org

Good debate yelpers :)

Go media awareness!

Alfredo used the word "suggestive."  I think that's probably a good description.  Jenny said "sexualized."  And I think the word "creepy" comes up many times.  Like I said, just the combination of things bothers me.  If it is an ad for kid's bathing suits, why not just show her playing on the beach like a normal kid?  But seriously, this stuff's been going on a long time.  I mean, I think there's a photo of Brooke Shields sitting in a bathtub looking inappropriately seductive, and she was around 10 at the time (so before a lot of your time, I imagine.)  Of course, her mom/agent got her this gig, and I think maybe what bothers me most is as adults we understand a little more of the context behind images and so that's really your business if you want to star in porno flicks or pose nude.  We can ask ourselves lame questions like, "Is this defensible as art?" or "Is this good for society?"  However, the fact that these kids have parents who push them in certain directions without the children being old enough to understand how some people (not all) might view the images comes off to me as pretty irresponsible and selfish on the parents' part.

Sure, it's not porn.  It's not that bad.  Would you encourage your daughter to model for this photo?

What we're talking about here is called "early sexualization" and it's very psychologically harmful to expose children to situations like this. It's the tattoo and the "come hither pose" that make this a little more that a fun beach pic. To put am emphasis on their sexuality before they even hit puberty is shameful decision on the parents part. I have no problem with little girls being topless in a normal setting (i.e. goofing off on the beach) but this is not a normal setting to me. This is a posed, purposeful photo shoot.

And sure pornography is in the eye of the beholder, but I get very uncomfortable looking at the photo.

Yes, Jenny and Rose L., thank you for helping me put together some of my "This is kind of icky," thoughts a little more cohesively.  I think most of us have some pictures of ourselves as kids wearing very little, and they are only embarrassing, not sexual.  But you are both right in saying that this is a very different thing when it is an intentionally posed photo for a national media campaign.

How can you "put an emphasis on their sexuality" when you're talking about a 7 year old girl?  She has no sexuality, she's pre-pubescent and not conscious of sexual ideas, nor has her body developed secondary sex characteristics.

If you're saying that because she is looking over her shoulder at the camera, that the pose is somehow "suggestive" because that's the same pose you see all the call girls use in the back of the SFWEEKLY - i would suggest that you need to widen your frame of reference.  This pose has also been used by some of the greatest artists in the world, and of fully clothed models not in 'suggestive' situations.

I wish people would not lay these big trips on little kids.  Lighten up, people.

Rose Q., we are not laying the "big trips on little kids."  We are laying them on the adults involved, especially the photographers, the parents, and the media.

Incidentally, I think the first paragraph of your last response only serves to support the point behind my response previous to this one.

Clarification, I meant my 12:28 response.

If any one is up for it...(what are we doing yelping on a day like today?!?) read the article by Professor Diane Levin, she explains why images like this really are psychologically damaging...
commercialfreechildhood.…

and Rose Q. I also think that the reason why going topless as an adult female is illegal is because photographs like this are published in the media daily....there is such an emphasis on them as a sexual entity in the first place. When really breasts, and the entire female form is only as sexual as you view it to be but because images like this are thrown at us since birth, messages get mixed...but I feel a chicken or the egg argument ensuing...I'm going outside to enjoy what's left of the day. cheerio.

The main photo is too suggestive of a woman striking a fairly standard/model sexy pose. I hear that the photo shoot was very casual and non-directed. Children copy adult behavior. Kids try to be coy. My main objection is using a photo of a child that has erotic suggestions to sell anything. That is where is crosses to inappropriate.

A bad decision certainly but I don't feel there was anything nefarious about taking this shot.

Good for you Rose, L.  You have inspired me to do the same.  (Only I'll probably just move from the computer to the TV to watch some football.  Sad.)  Cheerio to you, too.

What I thought about when I first saw the picture was "Now look over your shoulder like you have a secret." I think I heard that in reference to a porn shoot (forgive the pun). It's creepy, indeed, but in the distance I'm sure someone's fapping off to it. Sick.

If you've looked at young girl's clothing lines, there is a definite turn to a more sexualized and grown up look to it. It bugs, but as long as people are buying it, it will keep being more and more popular.

I won't give the analysis, but from a legal standpoint the material is far from pornographic, nor does it fit any definition of child abuse.  It's just icky, creepy, exploitive, and sad -- obviously, not legal terms.

I don't know where Dr. Levin's views fit among others.  She's a media studies expert, not a child psychologist.

I would guess that a psychologist will tell you that children are sexual creatures from birth.  Not in some Freudian incestuous sense but in their real-world behaviors.  So I agree with at least one point Dr. Levin makes, that the problem isn't so much that kids are exposed to sexual content, it's the message they are getting from the content.  Gender roles and expectations are taught to kids from an early age -- and these do include the idea that women are supposed to be sexual in a certain way.  Plus all of the other messages they get from adult content. . . or even worse, from very sexist childrens' programming and commercials.  Companies understand psychology and they're trying to boost sales.  A few take the long view.  Get a consumer when they're young and you have a consumer for life.

Where I get off the train is where people say that children should be shielded from healthy images of sex, that adult sexual expression should be restrained for fear that children might see it, that adults and their body parts are something to hide or something not sexual, or that information about sex, protection, sexual preference, and reproductive choice should be restricted.  Perhaps not so much in this group but in American society as a whole you usually find those with the most conservative agenda on all these issues are the most vigilant defenders of children.

Not to nit pick Gil S., but Professor Levin has B.S. in Child Development from Cornell University, an M.S.Ed. in Special Education from Wheelock College, and an interdisciplinary Ph.D. from Tufts University in Sociology of Education and Child Development. No, she is not a psychologist but she speaks with the proper knowledge of child development to know that images like this can send a child a confusing message.

I agree whole heartedly that children should experience a healthy idea of sex at every age. I came from a  home where from the start it was "penis and vagina" not "wee-wee and hoo-ha". And certainly as I glance over at my Folsom Street outfit for tomorrow should I think that adult sexuality should be not restrained in a healthy, adult environment.

It's just that to me, images like the one of that child set us back so far in making sex a healthy part of our lives. It should be natural, consensual and fun, and the sexualization of children is none of those to me.

and crap. I said I was going out. damn you yelp.

I think ya'll are still just reading way to much into that picture.

There's nothing sexually suggestive about it.  You're making the assumption that the photographer specifically posed her that way, but you don't know if that's true or not.  Perhaps as someone says she was mimicking poses she'd seen in magazines - perhaps not.

The fact that people are so stressed out over a picture of a girl in a bathing suit looking over her shoulder has way more to do with your own hangups about sexuality than on anything that is being "imposed" on the child.

Why is it so wrong for a little girl to be happy and comfortable in her body and wear whatever she wants to wear, or enjoy wearing what she is given to wear?  She isn't being pimped out, it isn't an ad for sex.  

This is our culture.  Girls grow up into women.  Women want to wear stylish clothes.  You're going to have to unravel the very fabric of our culture in order to stop little girls from wanting to dress up like there mothers.

That is why parents set up rules for their children and dress them in what is considered "age appropriate" ways.  This is why your mother told you "You will not go out of this house wearing that outfit young lady,you are only 15 years old."  They wanted their children to not grow up too fast, to be able to understand and grow into their developing sexuality.  Unless they were Catholic, and then they didn't want you to have any sexuality at all.

The point is, though, that not everyone agrees on what is "healthy" for a child.  If some people feel comfortable in allowing their children to wear bathing suits to the beach instead of covering them up in long pants and long sleeved shirts, there's nothing wrong with that.

I simply fail to see anything particularly "suggestive" about that photograph, except to suggest that the little girl has a model for a mother and has learned to pose like one at an early age.  She's not "asking for" sex in the photograph.  She's just engaging the camera.

It would be different if the CONTEXT were different.  If the ad was for PlayBoy Bunny Camp, I might find it offensive.  But as it is an ad for swimwear, i see nothing wrong with it.  Swimmin is not sex.  Children can swim without having it destroy their budding sexuality.

Okay, sorry.  I should have read her credentials more carefully.  When I grew up there was almost no exposure to sex, and no sex education from parents or schools or anyone else other than the occasional R-rated film, wavy scrambled softcore channels on cable TV, teenaged camp counselors telling dirty stories, and the occasional girlie magazine.  So kids learned by rumor and experimentation, leading to a lot of perverts, backwards attitudes, pregnancy and STD, not to mention bad sex.

Kids still learn by rumor and experimentation.  Do you expect fewer "perverts" (your word) in the next generation because of greater exposure to sex information?  And by the way, sex education is on a steep decline.  Kids are getting less formal sex education that I did when I was a child, but getting more information from movies and television, which really amounts to "rumor" since fictionalized sex interactions are not particularly instructive when it comes to educating children.

I worked at a industrial photo lab a long time ago and worked for diff photographers that did some "artsy" stuff, including shots of semi-clad kids. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder and the fact that this stuff titlilates is as weird as our obsession with turning kids into adult-like beings.

Is this the reason that the Coppertone Girl is no more?  Was having the little dog tugging at her bikini bottom and thereby showing her tan line too "suggestive" - even in cartoon format?

Oy vey.

I always thought that bikinis for prepubescent girls was a little weird to begin with.  Agreed that the photoshoot was probably not harmful to the girl, but i's more than just a casual day at the beach.  Isn't it a commercial photo shoot with a professional photographer, branded clothing, even makeup perhaps?  This one time is not a big deal but it could be exploitive and it adds to the overall background level of commercializing and sexualizing childhood.

That's a good question -- does information about sex lead to more or less perversion?  You have to define your terms but I'll bet someone's done a study.  I used the term in a silly way but you could ask whether people with less access to sex information are more likely to indulge in uncommon, fettishized, and/or disapproved sexual practices.  Bondage is probably a good test case because kids are always tying each other up, and sooner or later they figure out there are other fun things to do with tied up playmates.  Some probably know from the start that it's a common adult kink but others invent it on their own.  If you consider the two groups separately, do kids who think it's an accepted, even healthy, part of sexuality engage in more or less than those who think it's a secret they've discovered. . . or perhaps it's their first and only overt sexual expression.  It's an empirical question that could go either way.

Overall, more information probably leads to healthier attitudes about sex, both individually and as a society.

It really depends on context.  If you find this site and the pics on a convicted pedophile's computer, it would probably be enough to get them in trouble.

On anyone else's computer?  Not really.

I think even convicted pedophiles can look at swimwear without "getting in trouble."  What kind of "trouble" do you think it would get them into?  Would they be charged with Too Much Online Shopping?   What would the charges be?  Could they get a conviction for a man looking at legal advertising for swimwear?  The fact is, this is NOT child pornography, and no one can "get in trouble" for looking at advertisements for legal products.

Gil - how is photographing children in swimwear "sexualizing" childhood?  She is not having sex.  She's not diddling herself or sucking on a cherry popsicle.  She isn't kissing anyone.  She is at the beach in a swimsuit.

Most people who look at those particular pictures of Cindy Crawford's daughter seem to find something uncomfortable to do with sexuality, something in the combination of poses and clothes and context.  

Bikinis used to be scandalous on anyone.  Even now they're sexy on the right person.  That much skin anywhere but the beach or locker room is a personal, intimate thing -- and the location here is not a beach but a magazine website.  

Maybe that's just a cultural hangup, but the photographs play to the hangup.  Are you saying we should get over our hangups?  I agree  but the media is probably not trying to set us free.  They're just  exploiting people's prurience, playing to the eyes of millions of beholders.

The old suntan ad did tread on the territory but in a lighter, humorous way.  Back then there was a whole cartoon genre of children in adult situations.

The hard part is that we're on a continuum.  Nobody would say we should ban all sexy pictures or pictures of children.  If anything is worth taking pictures of it's sexy girls and cute kids.  And kittens, canyons, sunsets. . . Because they fascinate and move us.  

Children grow up, adults act like children, and there's no magical age, or limit, beyond which it is completely okay or completely uncomfortable.  Depicting real children engaged in actual sexual conduct is clearly bad, but frolicking around the beach isn't.  The middle ground is hard to find when people have such different attitudes and expectations about sex.  What flies in France is not going to fly in Saudi Arabia.

It does bother me that a real pedophile is probably going to enjoy those pictures for all the wrong reasons.  Makes me wonder if the pictures are playing to the inner pedophile in everyone, which is probably what makes it creepy.

pass the cheetos

Is there an inner pedophile in you, Gil?

The pics do nothing for me, so I don't see anything wrong with them.

For those that do feel "something" looking at those pics, well...

Likewise, we in the west may not find women in bra advertisements in a sears catalog as sexual anymore, but to a saudi that's a different story.

On a similar note, do you people think victoria secrets catalogs depict women in a pornographic way which can appeal to rapists and freaks?  Would you let your little boy or girl browse through a victoria secrets catalog?

Takes one to know one.  No, Collin, you don't have to be a jockey to spot a horse.

I wouldn't want anyone browsing a victoria secret catalog, much less my children.  Scientific American, maybe -- some of their graphics are really hot. . . in a child-safe way.

If I had to draw a distinction, it is that the child pictures potentially appeal to the very thing that makes someone a pedophile, whereas the victoria secret ads would only appeal that way to, say, a lingeree fettishist.  I don't think we should dumb down pop culture to the level safe for our most vulnerable or perverse individuals, which is why I call it mildly creepy and stop there.  If people want to take those pictures and look at them and sell clothes with them, fine.  Free country.  I'm just adding my two cents because I'm bored.

09/23/2006 10:22AM Brenda W. says:  " Another person (read: child molester) could look at it and think it's totally hot.  And that's exactly what makes it creepy and wrong.

09/23/2006 12:46PM Rose Q. says: "How can you "put an emphasis on their sexuality" when you're talking about a 7 year old girl?  ..If you're saying that because she is looking over her shoulder at the camera, that the pose is somehow "suggestive" because that's the same pose you see all the call girls use in the back of the SFWEEKLY - i would suggest that you need to widen your frame of reference.  

=====}I guess opinions basically break down into these two camps.  Personally I can't see misinterpreting motivation and methodology based on the lowest common denominator of intent and intellect.  Do we tell women to stop wearing mini-skirts because a potential rapist may lust after them?  I can understand that there are photogs who may intentionally pose children in ways that may seem inappropriate or too "adult", but there is no such thing as a sexy 7 year old. There is no such thing as a child "posing sexy".  Whenever I hear that comment made I have to think the "sexy" is being inserted by the viewer. All that being said...I hope the judge and every official that allowed Karr to walk will be held accountable when he eventually acts upon his impulses.

09/23/2006 04:24PM Collin J. says: The pics do nothing for me, so I don't see anything wrong with them.
======}Then again...they're mostly pics of little "girls" ;-/

Phoenix wrote:  " Do we tell women to stop wearing mini-skirts because a potential rapist may lust after them? "

Just a note - most experts on rape and sexual assault suggest that rape is generally not about "lust" but about power and control and/or anger.  Stranger and acquaintance rape is often a crime of opportunity.  Not passion.

Fuck you, pheonix.

Stop quoting others and say something original for once, dickhead.

Gil, it doesn't take a jockey to spot a horse, like it doesn't take a pedophile to spot a child.  But it does take a jockey to spot the potentials of a race horse in a pony.


Beauty and sexiness are in the eyes and imagination of the beholder.

Wow, you guys can find controversy in almost anything.  Not even close to kiddie porn.  I'm sure I did lots of similar poses when I was a child, not even close to thinking about sex.  I didn't even know what sex was, but girls are taught explicitly and implicitly from a young age to be modest and cover their chests, which is I guess what this girl is doing, while acting coy and cute.  It's not sexual, unless you impose that on the image.  I find those pageant girls with big hair and lots of makeup way more disturbing than these images.

09/24/2006 09:07AM Rose Q. says: Just a note - most experts on rape and sexual assault suggest that rape is generally not about "lust" but about power and control and/or anger.

=====}Your point is well taken Rose Q but my use of the word lust wasn't an attempt to quibble about the what inspires rapists or child molesters.  I'm more interested in everyone NOT patterning their own behavior as a reaction to someone who is so fucked around that they engage in rape or child molesting.  If Cindy Crawford wants to pose her daughter in a topless bathing suit pose with a come hither stare (although I'd rather see Cindy in that pose), no one should have a problem with that "simply" because it may arouse the interests of a child molester.  After all, this is what propelled Cindy to the top so it's not unatural that she try to start a career off for her daughter...if that's what she's actually intending?

What we should be focusing on is getting rid of the child molesters not curbing behavior we think may bring them out of the woodwork.  That being said, I'm clearly against all the makeup, lipstick and bathing suited bump and grind dancing that occurs in kiddie pageants...I just think that idiocy is forcing an adult concept upon a child for no reason. Why does a 4 year old even NEED a dance routine unless they're auditioning for a performance or a play or maybe a commercial...?  WTF is wrong with some of these parents?

Wait, now you're against 4 year olds taking dance classes?

If a child has an interest in being a professional dancer, the sooner they start, the better.  Plus, dance classes are a good socializing experience and give the child good coordination.  I see zero problem with kids learning dance routines.  I have never seen a kiddie pageant so i have no idea what kind of "bump and grind" routine you're talking about, but having participated in ballet recitals as a young child, i can tell you that they are all a little silly and the fun thing is watching the one kid who turns the wrong way or wanders off stage in the middle of the routine.

I like the Phoenix round-up.  He does say things that are original, but it's easier to know the context of what he's responding to when he quotes the source in his posting.  Rock on, Phoenix.  I just dread the times when I'm included in them.

Oh, and don't bother this time cause I find this topic really not that interesting, so I won't respond.  I found Collin J's post Phoenix telling him to fuck off the most interesting one of the bunch.

(yawn)

09/24/2006 09:26AM Dawn M. says:"...I'm sure I did lots of similar poses when I was a child, not even close to thinking about sex.

====}Thanks Dawn M...sorry to drag out the dread - but for your safety I just though you should know - Everyone who PMs you for copies of those pics you took as a child...probably a pedophile...;-(

09/24/2006 09:35AM Rose Q. says:"Wait, now you're against 4 year olds taking dance classes?

====}Hmm...it's important not to "read into" comments. Rose - can you find anywhere in my post where I said I was against anyone taking "dance clases"?  This country was founded on Apple Pie, Cornbread and Little Girls taking Dance Clases.  I said I wasn't into a certain type of dance routine I've seen on some of the kiddie pageants. If I don't want to see my 9 year old niece doing the doggie style hump and grind with one of her classmates do you think that would also mean  I'm against her taking dance classes?  Come on now...;-)

"09/24/2006 09:50 am Phoenix .. says:
Rose - can you find anywhere in my post where I said I was against anyone taking "dance clases"?  

======== Phoenix - It was a simple jump to make.

09/24/2006 09:29AM  Phoenix writes:
That being said, I'm clearly against all the makeup, lipstick and bathing suited bump and grind dancing that occurs in kiddie pageants...I just think that idiocy is forcing an adult concept upon a child for no reason. Why does a 4 year old even NEED a dance routine unless they're auditioning for a performance or a play or maybe a commercial...?  WTF is wrong with some of these parents?"

Why does a 4 year old need a dance routine?  Why does a 4 year old need a dance class? Why does a pig need a poke?

That was uncalled for.

Thanks, Phoenix.  I guess I should take down my suggestive baby profile pic now.

Dawn -- what the hell?  That baby has her shirt unbuttoned almost to her breasts!  And her mouth is hanging open with a finger in front of it!  That is so pornographic.

Hmm.  Maybe my profile pic is suggestive too.... baby humps pussycat.

Just look at this.  Disgusting!
images.yelp.com/photo?id…

And this!  Vile!
images.yelp.com/photo?id…

Yes...Good God!  Someone stop the madness...;-)

6 yr old with bare back and tramp stamp
DISGUSTING