689 users online (80 members and 609 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,471

    What are your thoughts on this?

    http://dlisted.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-this-wrong.html

    I personally wouldn't allow this.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,387
    No way in H-E-double hockey sticks would I allow my daughter to pose like this. She is a beautiful little girl, but she needs to be in a lacy frilly dress, fully covered, or a cute pair of jeans and a FULL shirt. This is just too much IMO, FWIW.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,748
    Wrong, wrong, wrong!

    clear and present danger in doing this, i can just imagine the worst types 'pleasuring' themselves over such a picture of this little, little girl.

    what the hades was Cindy thinking?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,954
    I personally don't care for the top photo - it's unnecessary imo. The rest of it's fine imo because it's a swim suit campaign.

    I don't like the tatoo - I doubt it's real but I don't even like the fake ones especially on little girls.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,471
    It's the "topless" one (ewww I hate saying that in context to a child) that I'm referring to, the rest IMO are fine as it's for children's swimwear. The seductive pose without a top is just wrong and I don't care for the tatoo on a five year old, fake or not.

    I would have thought Cindy would have better sense than that.

  6. #6
    2luvmy's Avatar
    2luvmy is offline RIP Ragdoll. You don't get to choose how you're going to die, or when. You can only decide how you're going to live now.
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    1,219
    Yeah.. I agree. Not right! She's not a baby. She's a little girl and some sicko is salivating over that photo.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,748
    It's the look on her face; the way her shorts are falling off her (non-existent at her age) hips; the (fake, i hope) tattoo.

    i don't like the string bikini (don't care if it is an advertising campaign) and i especially don't like how the photo of the girls' hugging would be what a paedophile would think of as an invitation to party with the pair of them.

    for a family album, a different perspective. out there in public? a big fat NO!

    my cousin put his young (7) daughter's pictures up on the internet (such a pretty, pretty girl, we, as a family are so proud of her, but we (the family) kicked his head in for making access for just anyone to see! we still talk about it! even my 74 year old cousin talks about it cos she's not an idiot!

    he, on the other hand, although deservedly proud of his daughter, is sooo naive.

    Edited to add: I hope Cindy Crawford and her husband are castigated in the press for doing this to beat some sense into them!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, TN
    Posts
    1,221
    Her Mom has zero values in my opinion, posing nude in playboy, modeling scank clothing and now this. This child is beautiful, never would I have her pose for this. She looks like a little girl that would do well modeling for Gap.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    A tattoo on her lower back? shorts 'hanging' on her hips? Good grief!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,333
    I'm sorry I feel this way because a picture of child whether topless or whatever should be viewed as innocent. My first thought when I saw the top pic was that it was a pedophile's dream. Then I got down to the bottom pics and the one of her and the other little girl hugging each other bothered me too. No way would I have pictures like that on the internet of my daughter.

    Have I just become too cynical from reading about all the abuse done to our children today?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Floh
    It's the look on her face; the way her shorts are falling off her (non-existent at her age) hips; the (fake, i hope) tattoo.

    i don't like the string bikini (don't care if it is an advertising campaign) and i especially don't like how the photo of the girls' hugging would be what a paedophile would think of as an invitation to party with the pair of them.

    for a family album, a different perspective. out there in public? a big fat NO!

    my cousin put his young (7) daughter's pictures up on the internet (such a pretty, pretty girl, we, as a family are so proud of her, but we (the family) kicked his head in for making access for just anyone to see! we still talk about it! even my 74 year old cousin talks about it cos she's not an idiot!

    he, on the other hand, although deservedly proud of his daughter, is sooo naive.

    Edited to add: I hope Cindy Crawford and her husband are castigated in the press for doing this to beat some sense into them!
    I have friends who have family websites, with their pictures posted and little updates on whats going on. Completely innocent and IMO it's an easy way to share what's going on in your life with family members or friends who live far away. But sometimes I just get the creeps thinking about what perverts may be looking at the kids pictures. I guess you have to decide if it's worth it. I thought about having one when I have my baby, but I think that I may just email any pictures to people I trust instead of a website, for anyone to stumble onto.

    Sorry to get o/t.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,908
    Quote Originally Posted by shopper
    It's the "topless" one (ewww I hate saying that in context to a child) that I'm referring to, the rest IMO are fine as it's for children's swimwear. The seductive pose without a top is just wrong and I don't care for the tatoo on a five year old, fake or not.

    I would have thought Cindy would have better sense than that.
    I agree. I mean dont these people know how many pervs there are in the world today, or are they so into their own world they dont see it. It is not right to have your daughter pose like that for the whole world too see.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, TN
    Posts
    1,221
    It's not like they need the money. Also, she is cute but not super model cute. Maybe Cindy is pushing too soon.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,705
    That is disgusting even in a family album.

    WTH is Cindy thinking???
    There is absolutely nothing cute about it.
    And I want to know who are the parents buying string bikini's for their 5 yo??

    There is something seriously wrong with these people.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,471
    Quote Originally Posted by lizzybeth
    I'm sorry I feel this way because a picture of child whether topless or whatever should be viewed as innocent. My first thought when I saw the top pic was that it was a pedophile's dream. Then I got down to the bottom pics and the one of her and the other little girl hugging each other bothered me too. No way would I have pictures like that on the internet of my daughter.

    Have I just become too cynical from reading about all the abuse done to our children today?
    No, I don't think you're too cynical. If this was something that was taken on a family vacation, caught in the moment and not staged, then that would be one thing. But it's too grown-up for a small child and knowing pedo's would love this, it's just wrong IMO.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. My thoughts
    By blefuscu in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 03-07-2013, 06:22 AM