Friday, August 5th, 2011 – a what the fuck moment
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m enjoying all this controversy over Vogue Paris’s current issue featuring a ten year old model in sultry make up and sporting designer clothing while posing seductively for the camera. I mean it’s pretty ludicrous. Any normal person can see that. People are outraged! People are fretting. People are defending it. The French have no morals. The American media is full of puritanical prudes. Fight, fight, fight.
Seriously though, I’m a pretty liberal person. There are so many things people object to that I find perfectly reasonable and the American media half the time is too concerned with offending the religious element that they will scoff at almost anything these days, sometimes to the point of making me pull my own hair out and say bad words at the petty mindedness of it all.
But in this case, are the protesting media being unreasonable? Because I don’t think so. I’m not sure what sort of person out there thinks it’s a reasonable thing to do – making up a ten year old to act like a twenty year old and making her pose in a suggestive manner in an adult fashion magazine. Maybe those mothers that dress their four year olds up in tiny dresses and make up and make them shake their tiny booties on stage on “Toddlers and Tiaras”? I don’t know. I do know that that little girl probably saw it as a big game of dress up and has no idea of the impact photos like that might have on the less savoury members of society. We tell people all the time how wrong and sick it is to lust after underage kids yet we go right out and rub it in their faces by presenting them on a platter in a manner that suggests looking sexy at ten years old is okay. Therefore, it’s okay for a ten year old to look sexy but hey! Don’t you think about finding her sexy.
Plus what sort of message does it send to that ten year old girl? That this is how adult women are supposed to behave? Please.
Aren’t little girls already being sexualized way too early? I’m not even going to expect an answer to that, because OF COURSE THEY ARE. Shouldn’t that kid be climbing a tree or making dresses for a Barbie doll? She’s so young that even made up to the nines she doesn’t look remotely like an adult -she looks like a kid in make up, so what is the point they can possibly be making? That it’s okay to find a ten year old desirable? Surely not. That 15 year old models are now too old? I don’t think that’s it. That it’s never too early to get your daughter ready for the adult world? That can’t be it.
Or could it just be that Vogue magazine knew exactly what they were doing when they put a ten year old in their magazine. That they knew it would be provocative and invite publicity. Because really, what’s the bottom line for a magazine? Why, selling issues or promoting itself, of course. And really….job done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here's the What What
So. People have nudged me about my total ineptness at updating this thing and they are correct. It's just, I don't have a life reall...
Sighs.. yeah.. I hate whipped up controversy too. Talking about it only helps sales on this sad rag mag, so I'm not even clicking on any links to give them web traffic.
ReplyDeleteCan we start a Vogue Pity Party? You know some way of ruining the effect they're aiming for?
Agreed! However that is exactly why the link is to a news coverage piece not the actual magazine. I mean duh! :) They're the trashiest of the trash really, masquerading as high class. Hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I stay away from all those fashion magazines and asshole media that pushes images of how we should be on us. How are kids supposed to handle it? Seeing their mom shaving legs and pushing bras and putting on makeup before being able to go outside?
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm gonna be one of those moms that refuses to put my girls in a dress because dude, dresses are not playwear. Tight clothes for girls and "tough" wear for boys? Fuck that shit, kids are kids and not "cute girls" or "cocky boys". Blech.
With you all the way here!
ReplyDeleteAs a resident of France, though, I have yet to hear any outrage, or even debate, about this cover. Maybe I was on vacation that day.
Wynn: I know! I wouldn't even dress my kids (if I had any) in half the stuff I see for little girls at Wal*Mart! Trashy, tiny ho clothes. It's amazing to me.
ReplyDeleteNanU: Yeah, all the controversy is over here and outside of France itself. The French media are the ones saying it's everyone being prudish, and in many situations I'd probably agree with that but not this time. It's outrageous putting a seductive ten year old in your magazine, it's simple as that. :)
Well said, Veg... I was thinking along these lines yesterday! I think it's appalling, and inappropriate on all fronts to sexualise such a young child... kids get exposed to way too much, way too young already.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am a prude, as someone who grew up in a more innocent time, in a society that sheltered its young and let them just be children as long as possible. What really struck me is that the girl in question is a bit younger than my niece and I would be sick to know that less savoury members of society were lusting after her, and you can be sure there are plenty of pedophiles snapping up this issue of Vogue for their gratification.
Yuk!!
You can buy padded starter bras now. Thong underwear for children.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the commerical use of sex is a way to distract people...
Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? :-)
Pearl
Pearl has it right. The first few minutes of Idiocracy is frightening in its lunacy relative to the real world.
ReplyDeleteWe're doomed!
Veg, of course it's wrong, because of course my first thought was "Damn, she's hot" and not "What the fuck?"
As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Then again, they also say shit like, a stitch in time saves nine. Obviously they suffer from some sort of schizophrenic, delusional paranoia thing.
ReplyDeleteIt's sick and cannot just be limited to the French. Wherever there's money to be made, there'll be someone to do whatever it takes.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, it also plays to the peadophiles who are no doubt buying copies and passing the photo round on the internet.
Stuff like this just depresses me. Ugh. And the best part of it all is that we (the societal "we") dress little girls up suggestively...and then tell them when they're 16 not to have sex. Errrr...what?
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying but I get tired of people pushing the line all the time just for the sake of publicity.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that Americans will get outraged over this, then overlook Roman Polanski's rape of an underage girl just because he made a few good movies.
ReplyDeleteThis is so offensive. Who would pose like that without a glass of champagne in her hand?
ReplyDeleteI'm kidding. Ick.
Nat: No, I think you're right. I'm not a prude at all and I think it's scandalous. We spend so much time trying to instil a sense of importance into girls then immediately it's all about looks and sex all over again. Double standard much!
ReplyDeletePearl: I KNOW! I've seen some of that stuff for little kids and it's appalling to me. I never did see Idiocracy but you've just reminded me to get it as soon as possible so I can! I remember wanting to see it at the time because Mike Judge tends to do funny/interesting stuff.
Joshua: Yes, but honestly, that's probably what you're supposed to think, which is exactly the problem. Telling guys it's sick and twisted to find kids sexually appealing but then presenting kids in a manner that by their very nature, MAKES them that way. It's horrible. Obviously it's not going to effect normal guys like you but what about the pedophiles out there who can go buy this stuff legally? I don't know what i'm saying now but hell, it's horrible!
Elly: Exactly my point. Well the publicity thing. Plus dude, a stitch in time saves nine is one of the proverbs that DO make sense. :)
Martin: I agree there also, I just used the French here because it's a French magazine and child, but you're right, it's everywhere. We whine about sexualizing kids too early then go and do it anyway. Ridiculous!
Stephanie: Yep! We're a double standard society alright. What's up with kids' clothing that looks like it's meant for grown ups? Little girls in midriff tops and tiny skirts and even heels. Craziness.
Betty: Yep, that's exactly what I DID say! :) People don't care anymore. If it'll get them publicity/sales/fame they will do anything.
ReplyDeleteBeck: I know, double standards again. They should be outraged over both.
Brutie: Hahaha, well I laughed! Seriously though, I'm almost surprised they didn't GIVE her champagne or a cigarette to hold. The funny thing then is that's what people would be outraged about, never mind the sexualizing of a ten year old thing. SHE'S SMOKING, CALL THE AUTHORITIES!
I so agree with you, Veg, and I think Toddlers in Tiaras is disgusting as well!
ReplyDeleteAnd Becky, I don't think Polanski was ignored...he couldn't come back into the U.S. for fear of going to jail!
Eva - Yes, that's true but a lot of celebrities and even non-celebs who call themselves "movie lovers" seem to be willing to let him off the hook.
ReplyDeleteEva: "Toddlers..." is disgusting. For sure. Horrible.
ReplyDeleteBecks: I agree, lots of actors and directors and Hollywood types were all "It was a long time ago, leave him alone" which is kind of shocking. If time doesn't matter you might as well let Manson out right?
I think you hit the idiotic nail on the head with this:
ReplyDelete"...it’s okay for a ten year old to look sexy but hey! Don’t you think about finding her sexy."
One really can't be without the other, which is why, I just can't agree with Vogue here. Even in all my liberal glory.
This is just gross and wrong. No pedo.
ReplyDeleteI wish more people realized what you do. It's about selling and controversy sells. If we thought about that maybe it would not sell anymore. The fashion industry has an different way to look at things too.
ReplyDeleteSince this is similar to the what is over-the-line controversy about a Marilyn Monroe statue in Chicago, I'll leave you this.
if you have a moment -
MM in Chicago
I have to say I'm deeply unimpressed.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I never bought Vogue magazine in the first place.
Not sure I'm likely to change that anytime soon.
She looks ridiculous, just like the other older ridiculous women that pose on their covers and purport to be beautiful, the only difference is she's 10. And she's not old enough to know better. Exploitation comes to mind.
And in 10 years time the French tabloids will be talking about her wild sex and drugs and inappropriate relationships and everyone will be soooo surprised.
Isn't all that media exploitation of the kids old news? They should start dressing old people as carefree kids if they really want to shock their way to profits.
ReplyDeleteSorry just having a margarita and lost my comment. Have not read about this issue (we live in the US) but think it stinks. Just because it's in Vogue doesn't make it better, and more fabulous. Won't let my ten year wear a bikini as most of them sooo inappro you wouldn't believe it!! Here in the US its all part of the "Britney Spears is a sexy school girl and that's okay" culture...Yuk. Disgusts me. And thanks for bringing up the subject.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard anything about this either. But thanks for the link - the fact that there an organisation called 'Concerned Women for America' is hilarious! I want to start an org called 'Confused Women of Australia'.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the above - pretty sure you got it in one, Assassin - is it just another stupid publicity stunt?
Sarah xxx
Just Me: I know, right? We have so many double standards at play it's almost funny. We can defend making up a little kid to look sexy but then get vexed when someone FINDS her sexy. DUH.
ReplyDeleteNic: Correct. That said it all pretty much in one sentence. :)
Lisle: Everything's about selling and fame whoring. It's how things are now. It's like everyone wants to be famous nowadays and they don't care how they do it. Whatever! Doesn't mean we have to like it, right?
Roses: YES! It'll be all "She was a cute promising model and now look at her drug addicted messed up life. We never saw THAT coming!" Um...yes. We did.
Eric: Oh good god. :) Yes, put an 80 year model in seductive pose in VOGUE, I dare them!
ALW: Dude, having a margarita is MORE THAN ENOUGH excuse for forgetting your chain of thought. I applaud you! :)
Sarah: Hahaha, yes I am going to start an organization called "Concerned Veg for Lack of Tequila" and people better damn well donate to my cause. You in?
I think the real controversy this week was Austalian Vogue featuring a plus-sized model for the first time in the magazine's 52-year history. What's up with that? I'll take toddlers in dresses over fatties anytime.
ReplyDeleteShut your face, trouble stirrer! :)
ReplyDeleteIt's the marketing motto "sex sells" and they ran out of ideas, so a bad idea is better than no idea. Right?
ReplyDeleteTo me, it almost looks like this is an editorial photo trying to make a commentary on the over-sexualization of young girls. But I'm probably giving them way too much credit.
ReplyDeleteSarah: Highly possible. Or they just wanted something sensational that would grab headlines. Which is exactly what happened.
ReplyDeleteBrigid: You know, I have to admit I haven't seen the actual magazine (usually I'd rather eat my own arm than read Vogue) so you may actually be right, but not a single article has mentioned that angle so I have to agree with you, I think we'd be giving them too much credit.
Sounds like a gimmick to sell magazines.
ReplyDeleteAs a mom of a 14 year old, I would never want my daughter to see that magazine cover simply because I wouldn't want her thinking that is what normal girls look like and, thus, concluding that she is not normal and feeling bad about herself for not looking like she's a 20 year old hooker.
ReplyDelete*sigh*
I hate fashion magazines anyway. As far as I am concerned, all they do is shove a completely unrealistic, unhealthy, unattainable standard of beauty in the faces of women which causes people to mistakenly think that if they aren't a size 0, they are fat and ugly.
Do we really need to start doing this to ten year old girls too?
That being said, I won't be picketing or crying or throwing a tantrum over that magazine with the ten year old tart on the cover. I just won't be buying it.
Those pictures are absolutely ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteYou pretty much said everything I was thinking when I saw them.
This situation with this poor girl is very disturbing. No one should let any child do that :(
ReplyDeleteUgh. I actually hadn't heard about this, but I agree with you 100% on every point. She does look like a little girl playing makeup, but what the hell, Vogue? WHAT THE HELL?!
ReplyDeleteThis post had nothing to do with Madonna. That is sad. But what isn't sad is the term "made up to the nines." That reminds me of The Cure ,which then makes me sad again because Robert Smith is so weird, but then I become happy again thinking about music.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I'm Hapsad.
My first question was "where are her parents"? And then I remembered what passes for parenting now.
ReplyDeleteEd: Of course it is!
ReplyDeleteCora: I really think there ought to be some legislation that states that magazine models, actresses on covers, etc., either have to appear without airbrushing or unreasonable manipulation or else it should clearly state the work that has been done to the photo. Girls everywhere must think all these people have flawless, lineless skin and are the perfect shape. It's awful.
Tracie: I know, so dumb. But we're talking about it which maybe was their intention in the sense of publicity. Damn i hate that. :)
Olga: I'm sure the kid thinks it was fun dress up session and nothing more, and I can even see how her parents would be led to believe it was all lightness and games but the magazine should know better. It's bad enough they have pouting sexy 14 year olds without 10 year olds factoring in.
Stethoscope: I know! She's obviously a kid, no one is fooled into thinking she's 18 or whatever, but that in itself is the problem maybe...
Rahul: I love how you worked not one but two musical references into this comment and I'll ignore the Madonna thing (she scares me) but you go on and backcomb your hair and sing the entire "Boys Don't Cry" album till the cows come home. :) I wonder what R. Smith is up to now? Does he still have that hair and dubious make up technique at 50 something? I must know.
Libby: Who knows. They probably thought it was harmless. OR didn't care.
I try not to jump on my horse too often, but that is seriously perverted. And I mean perverted in both the pedophile way as well as perverted in just meaning "warped and brain fucking" because my brain is just not processing it at all.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that kids are encouraged to grow up so quickly anymore. I remember being eleven and playing with Barbies. Nowadays if a five year old plays with one she's teased by her "sophisticated" peers.
I know, you are so right! Same with me, I remember still climbing trees and playing childhood games at 10 or 12 and you'd have to have paid me to wear a dress. It's scary how sexualized young girls are these days and how early they seem to be wearing revealing clothing and heels and so on. It's sad. You only get one childhood and soon that will be over when you hit kindergarten.
ReplyDeleteVogue knew. They knew. Magazine sales are in the shitter, and they did it to stir the pot, make the sales.
ReplyDeleteI foresee another drugged-out supermodel death, in about 8 years.
It just goes to show you that many big companies will do ANYTHING to make money. I'm not at all surprised at the "lack" of an outcry in France.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it looks sexy in the slightest bit, but what is most sick about the thing, is that some people DO think it's sexy. sick sick sick...
I saw the whole set of pics on the Daily Mail. Some aren't bad, there's one of her putting on lipstick in a mirror wearing a decent black dress that she looks just adorable, but some of them are just appalling, like the one of her in a gold top that is slit with a V-neck down to her WAIST. That kind of bullshit invites pedophiles to the girl's doorstep. Just awful.
ReplyDelete