Real nice parenting Cindy part 2
-
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. -
Melon420 — 19 years ago(September 29, 2006 03:11 PM)
While ITA that the third pic was kind of off, there is nothing wrong with a 5 year old hugging her little friend or running @ the beach or eating in a bathing suit. Even with her topless, if she were just running in a sprinkler or something it wouldn't be a big deal.
I think with the rash of sex crimes in the world, people are looking for a scapegoat and they blame pagent moms, parents of child models, etc instead of the actual culprit, pedophiles. THEY are the ones who do these terrible things and children who model could just as easily be snatched off the street on the way home from school!
I think people are looking to make a big deal out of nothing. These pics were taken by a friend, not for profit or a modelling campaign. I think instead of throwing your minds in the gutter, just leave it as a little girl playing with her friends @ the beach.
I have tons of photos of my 5 year old in her 2 piece Tinkerbell bathing suit @ the beach, the sprinkler, etc. I'm pretty sure I have a baby picture of her toddling through a sprinkler in a diaper. Am I negligent too?
Melon
"There Is CLEARLY A Typo Here, Because You Ain't No Champion Sweetheart" Trish Stratus -
Sweetestsixteen — 19 years ago(September 30, 2006 12:24 PM)
Nothing wrong with 1 and 4 in my opinion. But no2 is disturbing. I don't see why young child wear bikinis full stop, let alone string like bikinis. The topless one would have been fine if she hadn't posed like that (children go topless at that age since there's no breasts).
Dance?-I am! And I'm Wild And Dancing!! -
wendoid — 19 years ago(October 04, 2006 12:41 PM)
I think the photos are super cute.
My daughter has 2 really cute string bikins, she is 2. She looks adorable in them IF a peadophile gets attracted by this then he is sick.
She usually just wears the bottom as she has nothing to hold the top on. I don't see anything wrong with this. Those photos are tastefull! The rest of you need to CHILL OUT a little.