Real nice parenting Cindy part 2
-
Pleakley — 19 years ago(September 23, 2006 08:16 PM)
Photo #3 is a broken link. BTW, use
[u
rl][/u
rl]
to make the links clickable. Here are new, working links:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/mugga/cc1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/mugga/cc2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/mugga/cc3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/mugga/cc4.jpg -
NickiDrea — 19 years ago(September 25, 2006 08:42 AM)
Here, in the United States, we have very stringent laws concerning child porn. The topless could be considered child porn; the pose is extemely suggestive and not appropriate for a child of 5.
Because of the umber of sex crimes committed against children, the US is taking child porn very seriously. In fact, many parents here are afraid to take photos of their naked children (i.e., in the bathtub) because stores are required by law to report ANY suspicion of child porn pictures. Tere was even a case where a mom took NORMAL naked pictures of her young child (I think she was about 4 or 5) and was arrested for child porn after she got the pictures developed. An obvious overreaction, but I'd rather by safe than sorry.
We do not need pictures like this floating around that show children in a highly sexualized manner. Think this is bad? In law school, I wrote a research paper on these so called "child models" and found this website where PARENTS put their daughters' pictures online advertising them as "models":
WARNING: These pictures are not "porn" per se, but they show children in suggestive poses.
http://www.childsupermodels.com/
Cindy's picture of her topless daughter would be right at home on this site.
Websites like these are the reason why we need to watch our children carefully. Like it or not (and I certainly hope NOT), there are people who are sexually attracted to children, and pictures that are seemingly innocent can be fuel for these perverts. Cindy should be ashamed for allowing her child to be represented in this manner. I am 24 and I know better! My mom had raised 3 successful daughters (24, 24, 36) and she was horrified at the topless picture!
I survived the PA and NJ Bar exams, July 25th, 26th, and 27th 2006!! -
canadasbest — 19 years ago(September 25, 2006 07:18 PM)
I think it's important to note that the photos WERE NOT MEANT for modelling purposes, they were just some nice pictures Ciny had a friend take of her daughter.
I'd consider them tasteful, although the girl is a bit young to be posing like that. Child pornography though? that's a stretch. -
fbueller-2 — 19 years ago(September 26, 2006 03:30 AM)
Are you saying I am tastless? I took a pic of my niece the other day she had no shirt on. She is also five. She was running around in the sprinkler.
I don't know. Let's compare. Pay special attention to pics 1 and 3 Sin-dy had taken of her daughter. Did you pose your photos so that it appeared that the string of your niece's 2-piece bikini was about to come undone? Did you pose your niece to stand in a provocative manner so that she had her back turned to the camera but looked over her shoulder in a seductive manner with 'come f!5b4ck me' eyes? In general, did you set up full lighting and put makeup on your niece and pose her before taking your pics to make her look like she was an adult? If so, then you are as sick as Sin-dy.
If not, then I'm sure your pics are harmless and represent a true 5-year old. Either way, you aren't planning to exploit your niece in marketing ads across the country like Sin was.
