Shock: little girls in Vogue

The mind boggles.

And these are the tamer pictures. Want to be appalled?  Here.

UPDATE: The Anchoress rightly decries the “Pedophilia chic” on display and notes:

Look, I know the world is full of dark, evil places, none darker easily conformed to evil than the human heart itself, but I look at these pictures and I can’t help thinking, what the hell is wrong with the parents of these little girls? Some of these children are 6 or 7 years old!

Someone comes up to you and your beautiful daughter and says, “I will pay you to let me dress her up like a 24 year old and pose her seductively under a Christmas tree, as though she is a present to be opened,” and you don’t smack the crap out of that person?

Yeah, it makes you wonder…and shudder…

Comments

  1. “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!” Matthew 18:6-7

  2. Reminds one of the Jonbenet Ramsey story.
    If Vogue wanted to do an issue on age-appropriate kid fashions, that would be one thing. But this isn’t that, it’s just shock and sensationalism. I’ll boycott Vogue, of course I was doing that anyway. Their adult fashions are rarely anything I’d be caught dead in a dark alley in.

  3. Debra Corcoran says:

    It is actually becoming difficult to find suitable, attractive clothes in the stores to buy for our girls, ages 17, 8, and 4. Even in the youngest sizes, the clothing available for purchase is becoming more and more risqué. Classic styles are still available, but only at premium prices that are often unaffordable. I have found myself sewing more and more to keep myself and my girls appropriately dressed. Unfortunately, this is a skill few of our young women learn these days. I have assumed that the problem is likely to only grow worse instead of better, however, and have made sure that my oldest daughter knows how to sew. The younger two will be getting lessons as soon as they are old enough.

  4. Speechless and horrified.

  5. I had always thought of Vogue as sort of pornographic material for women — impossible fantasies for them, all that — but to turn it into getting near the boundary of kiddie porn? Wow.

  6. Debra,

    My daughters are 7 and 10, and I’m beginning to see the same thing. In the summer, they wear sundresses almost daily. They actually enjoy them. For those of us concerned enough, we need to raise our daughters in modest, but feminine clothes.

    When they’re old enough, I’ll explain the difference between feminine and whore, and the types of guys each manner of dress attracts.

  7. Young Canadian RC Male says:

    I’m not suprised at this. Some of the online Catholic bloggers have alluded to this being a sign of the “Great Chastisement” whereby humans are mere commodities or objects.

  8. Young Canadian RC Male says:

    Dr. Nadal! I’m impressed by your resolve to raise your daughters right. Furthermore I’m glad I’m not alone in this in noticing the difference between whore and feminine/anti-whore. Problem is if I tried to explain a difference existed in those terms no one would believe a young man in his late twenties.

  9. Pope Benedict had a statement recently about the growing acceptance of child pornography, which received a lot of criticism and denial from some sources. But we’ve seen a pretty blatant example here, of at least a “soft-core” version.

  10. Greg: Will you please delete my previous post? I pressed submit before I proof-read. I will submit a new post. Thanks.

  11. “When they’re old enough, I’ll explain the difference between feminine and whore… .”

    I would have rather seen you use the word seductive than whore. (Interestingly, the word, whore, can refer to persons of either gender who compromise principles for personal gain but I do not want to be political.)

    The pictures in Vogue Paris are disturbing. A year ago I watched all-I-could-take-of a documentary, Toddlers and Tiaras, which I think became a reality show on TLC. It shocked me to see how these young girls’ mothers and sometimes fathers where using their daughters. So there is a market out there. I am more concerned with the effect on immature adult males.

    Personal Anecdote:
    A few years ago I was asked to chaperone a prom at a Catholic High School. The young ladies were told that they would not be allowed into the dance if their dresses were too low-cut. So they went to the bathroom and covered their low cleavages with paper towels and in some cases toilet paper. Some were quite clever and passed. (I have seen such inventions in silk and lace sold online. They are called Modesty Panels or Cleavage Covers. I wish I had thought of it.)

  12. pagansister says:

    I have often thought the parents who put their little girls into “beauty” contests and “beautiful baby” contests are trying to live their lives through their little girls, because the mothers “didn’t get a chance to do this”. I have one daughter, now grown, but I would have NEVER even thought to do that to her. I’ve heard the excuse “she really loves to do this—we aren’t making her” etc. RIGHT! many little girls like to play “dress up” but this most certainly isn’t just “dress up”. Vogue has definitely gone over the deep end with this. BUT I most certainly blame the mothers (and fathers) who let these girls be photographed for this edition of Vogue. I’ve never read Vogue, but this is just wrong.

  13. The fact that this magazine/photo shoot even made it to the shelf I think justifies what Pope Benedict recently said about our culture and the unfortunate reality that the CC had sexually molesting priests.

    While Benedict made no excuses for the sins of our own church, he also made a valid point that we as a society “accept” what is unacceptable, and in a sense, all contribute.

    I think this is an excellent example of his point.

    Rest assured, the same people who promote this kind of stuff are the same ones who will on their next self-serving agenda, trying to convince us it’s “For the children.”

  14. Maybe I’m deaf or something, cause I’m not hearing the cries of “PEDOPHILE, PEDOPHILE” by the anticatholics that I heard when the abuse scandals in the RC church became known worldwide. Hollywood and the “entertainment industry” is PROSTITUTING children and abusing them in multiple forms, and i’m not hearing ANY of these “very concerned” people complaining; much on the contrary…

  15. Paula Gonzales Rohrbacher says:

    I agree that this is shocking and disgusting. However, I found the comment made above that wearing immodest clothing is some sort of invitation by the wearer to molest, abuse or otherwise exploit them to be disturbing. It is important to teach our children, both male and female, to be modest and moderate in their manner of dress, but also to teach them that there are those who have a disordered attraction to children, regardless of the way that the children dress, and to help their child to stay safe. Blaming someone for their own rape or molestation because of their dress is just another way of saying that they “asked for it”.

    Vogue Magazine should be ashamed of themselves for publishing this photo spread. The parents of the models and the modeling agents should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their children and clients to pose for the photos. And the readers who are offended by the spread should make their views known to the magazine.

  16. Maybe you’re not hearing cries of “pedophile” because this is not a situation where people who claim to represent God are raping children and then having it covered up by their bosses. If you can’t see the difference, then you need professional help.

    And if you think the above statement means I condone these photos, then you need to learn to read.

  17. BTW, in addition to my comment above, speaking as the father of a four-year-old girl, what the Anchoress said.

  18. Joan in Colorado says:

    I thought of JonBennet Ramsey immediately, and became very sad. That’s still a raw subject for me in Colorado. I used to sometimes pass their house on the way somewhere from time to time.

    I can’t tell you how many times I see little girls dressed like grownups with dads who seem like they think it’s great. And moms who don’t see anything wrong with it, or who encourage it. Even at church. I long for a time when children were allowed to be children.

  19. HMS, even if you had “thought of” the “modesty covers”, the idea is hardly new. Ladies of victorian (and earlier) times would have “tuckers” to wear. A kind of tulle scarf that would have weighted ends. They would wear them around the neckline of their gowns and “tuck” the ends into their cleavage to make the neckline more modest. I think that we need to take a look at the “seductive” side to dressing. Yes, if you dress like a prostitute, you look like a prostitute. However, you can dress like a num and still look slutty. How many moms who dress their daughters “modestly” meaning covered shoulders, high neckline and nothing tight, but still let them have painted toenails and fingernails, flipflops (in church) and lip gloss? Add to that tarty jewelry and mature hairstyles. Modesty is so much more than revealing clothing. The truth is that men (no offense, here, gentlemen) can and are turned on by whatever they are turned on by. For some, it’s slutty clothes. For others, it might be very modest clothing, and the allure is to wonder what’s under all those clothes… Some are more obvious than others. There are some radical right people who bemoan that women even wear pants because they are “suggestive”. My argument is that anything is suggestive, it just depends on who is looking. But seriously, those Vogue photographs are vomit-inducing. I have a tween daughter. She wears stylish clothes that are modest. Nothing too tight, no bare shoulders, no makeup, no nail polish, and her favorite hairstyle is long pigtails. I started when she was old enough to pay attention praising young girls who were dressed appropriately, and pointing out how sad it was that others were not. Personally, I am thankful for the young girls and teenagers (and some moms!) who show up to church in tank tops, short shorts and flip flops. They serve me very well as a bad example for my daughter.

  20. I have three daughters and find this utterly disturbing. Never would I agree to have our daughters participate in this sort of dress rehersal for pedophilia and prostitution. This proves my point, yet again, that while the exposure of the child abuse in the Catholic Church needed to be done and has led to necessary reforms and a cleansing of the Church, there’s no question that, at least with secular sources, the motive was a desire to attack the Church, not protect the children.

    Recall the reaction to Roman Polanski (sp?) raping a thirteen year old. He’s allowed to continue to work, even being awarded an Oscar for “The Pianist” and, when he’s arrested, such a staunch feminist and attacker of all things Catholic like Whoopi Goldberg, offers the defense that his attack on a minor child “wasn’t rape rape”. There are different standards for different abusers.

    I’ve said again and again over the years that males are taught in our culture, as sure as they are taught that 2+2=4, that females exist for the purpose of meeting their sexual desires. Here’s proof positive!

Trackbacks

  1. RT @TopsyRT: Shock: little girls in Vogue. This is…disgusting. http://bit.ly/hefIo1

  2. The Pope's Christmas address http://tinyurl.com/23z4yml and an example of what he was talking about http://tinyurl.com/268fg6a

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X