What are your thoughts on this?

New Posts

What is Cindy thinking off?:doh:
All you need is a sex pervert to see that and want to grab her....
 
Wow, what is Cindy thinking????

The top one where she is topless, is totally inappropriate. And I really don't like the one with the sting bottoms. It's way too mature for a little girl that age. The ones where she is hugging the other girl, and eating...seem okay. But really, who in their right mind would have their young daughter pose like that???

I hope the tatoo is fake. But even if it is, it's not something that should be on a little girl of that age.
 
Wow, I think they're all bad except for maybe the one where she's eating the fruit.
The top one is wrong in every way and no little girl belongs in a string bikini.
And the one with the two girls, somehow they made that one seem nasty too.
 
montana_16 said:
Wow, I think they're all bad except for maybe the one where she's eating the fruit.
The top one is wrong in every way and no little girl belongs in a string bikini.
And the one with the two girls, somehow they made that one seem nasty too.
Click to expand...
And we all sit and wonder why predators are sooo abundant??

Some scum bag will see these obviously sexually explotive photos of 5 YO's and molest the first child they have access too.
What is more disturbing is that ANYONE would think it was ok to pose children in this manner or to put a bikini on a 5 Yo???

It to me SCREAMS volumes about their mindset.
 
Unbelievable.

I don't think it's just Cindy. What is the company trying to do? Get enough hits to sell ad space???

Posing those two little girls hugging and the one eating fruit was not an accident. Yes, those are adorable things little girls do, but they didn't choose those particular pics just b/c they were cute!!!

Do you remember the A&F catalog a few years ago that had cherries all over it? And very young models? That is what this reminds me of.

Who the hell puts a string bikini on a 5yo??? I won't even let my 6yo DD wear a 2 piece unless it's a very modest tankini! YUCK!!! So tacky!!!

And what exactly is the top picture trying to sell? I didn't see any swimwear. Again, it reminds me of A&F or Victoria's Secret. Trashy.

Cindy should have her head examined.
 
luvbeaches said:
Wow, what is Cindy thinking????

The top one where she is topless, is totally inappropriate. And I really don't like the one with the string bottoms. It's way too mature for a little girl that age. The ones where she is hugging the other girl, and eating...seem okay. But really, who in their right mind would have their young daughter pose like that???

I hope the tatoo is fake. But even if it is, it's not something that should be on a little girl of that age.
Click to expand...
My goodness! Those pictures are bait for pedo's! What message is Cindy sending to her dd? What seems cute to Cindy now won't be when her darling daughter dresses inappropriately in her teens. Clueless Cindy will wonder what made her daughter so promiscuous.
 
It's so sad the way society/manufacturers/etc. are pushing little girls to grow up. My daughter and I went shopping for my cousin's granddaughter a bathing suit. Would you believe they had a little bikini that looked like it would be for a four or five year old that had padding in the bra? This was in a well-known dept. store. What's even sadder is they wouldn't have them in there if there weren't someone buying them.
 
Yes the worrying thing is that these 'risky' bikinis are becoming more and more popular meaning people are buying them arent they?

I think the 'look' that she was doing over her shoulder was also taught as it doesnt really look shy, more an attempt at seduction, sadly.

I think if I hadnt seen the topless shot I wouldnt have thought a problem with the other photos but after seeing them the 2 girls together seems negative too.

Very sad indeed.
 
The pic of the 2 little girls hugging looks like they made them stick their rear ends out and the cut of the swimsuit bottoms is trying to make them look like they have a shape and older. These people are sick twists in my opinion. If most of us regular people let a little girl at age 5 run around topless, we'd be turned in to the CPS by someone. Who is influencing these goofy stars and taking these pics. I hardly ever buy a newspaper but recently did before school started and was very disturbed by some of the sales ads with pics of kids modeling the clothes. It looked as if the boys were being made to look sexy or at least some strange expressions on their faces. Must be alot of weird and strange photographers running around or the world is going completely nuts.
 
I wish I could see it - I can't get "personsal pages" at work!

Eve
 
Well, we all know things are different now, but I seem to remember Jodie Foster's coppertone ad in which she was nearly naked and a dog was pulling her panties down. That was the start of her career.

Brooke Shields was also naked in the media at a young age.
 
BirdieBoo said:
Well, we all know things are different now, but I seem to remember Jodie Foster's coppertone ad in which she was nearly naked and a dog was pulling her panties down. That was the start of her career.

Brooke Shields was also naked in the media at a young age.
Click to expand...
You raise a good point.

While I am in the vast minority and respect the posts I've read, I didn't find any of these photos to be sexually provocative or inappropriate. I saw 5-year-olds in bathing suits - a little pudgy, a little awkward, a little posed, very cute.

It's a not a choice I would make for my own daughter because the modeling-thing doesn't appeal to me. But this little girl's mother is a model, so it may very well appeal to her.
 
I think the picture is beautiful.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, sicko pedophiles will look at
it as sexual, so I would not have allowed it.

If the picture was just to be framed for display in the Crawford/Gerber
home, than it is perfectly appropriate.
 
Tristan said:
I think the picture is beautiful.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, sicko pedophiles will look at
it as sexual, so I would not have allowed it.

If the picture was just to be framed for display in the Crawford/Gerber
home, than it is perfectly appropriate.
Click to expand...
Where do we stop it, though? Pedos are going to find any public pictures of children a turn-on. We don't know enough about pedos to know if they prefer very innocent looking child photos or more sexualized child photos. Probably, it's different from pedo to pedo.

To me, these pics are no more sexual than ones that you see in flyers advertising kids clothing, etc...

I just don't think this child's parents should be castigated. If her child wants to model, pictures are going to be taken. Then the pictures are going to find a public forum because that's why they are taken.
 
southcitymom said:
Where do we stop it, though? Pedos are going to find any public pictures of children a turn-on. We don't know enough about pedos to know if they prefer very innocent looking child photos or more sexualized child photos. Probably, it's different from pedo to pedo.

To me, these pics are no more sexual than ones that you see in flyers advertising kids clothing, etc...

I just don't think this child's parents should be castigated. If her child wants to model, pictures are going to be taken. Then the pictures are going to find a public forum because that's why they are taken.
Click to expand...
I have been told that there is a large segment of pedo population that loves pictures of boys' bare feet. I know a lady in California that has done a ton of research on that.... a couple of years ago, if you googled "boy's feet", you got all kinds of sicko stuff...:hand:
 
I don't know, i am probabably blowing it out of proportion but it just felt wrong looking at the pictures. They struck me as too sexual for a little girl, that was always my main problem with the Ramsey's (aside form the did they didn't they do it thing) that Jon benet was sexualized at a young age.
 
That little girl is beautiful! I didn't see anything wrong with the bottom pictures, but she is both too young and too old at the same time, for a topless photograph. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 3,579 (members: 71, guests: 3,508)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
3,508
Total visitors
3,579
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,547
Messages
17,970,814
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top