Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

29,164 hits 4.0 (1 vote) Share Favorite | Flag 15 years ago by KikiPeepers

Do you think these pictures of Cindy Crawford`s 5-year-old daughter are inappropriate for such a young child?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 Next (showing 1-25 of 98)

Bottom Last Post

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 10/3/06 - 6:08:02 PM EST (GMT-5)
Early cinema for adult viewing star?
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 10/3/06 - 6:09:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
They are a little kiddie cinema for adult viewingish for my taste. But it's her kid. If she wants to exploit her own daughter like that, since there's nothing technically illegal about it (that I'm aware of) there's not much I can do about it.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 10/3/06 - 8:18:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
She looks cute, but it's still kind of gross.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 10/3/06 - 8:28:15 PM EST (GMT-5)
Is that a tramp stamp on her lower back?


New JonBenet?

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 10/3/06 - 8:28:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
the left one definetly
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 10/3/06 - 10:37:26 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/3/2006 8:28:16 PM AndDieNow wrote:
Is that a tramp stamp on her lower back? New JonBenet?

Yeah the article I read said that the tattoo was fake. That's something at least.

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:30:00 PM EST (GMT-5)
the left one is sorta but the arent really that bad i mean its not like cinema for adult viewing or anything
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:32:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
well it kind4 i5 cinema for adult viewing... and is kinda sick
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:35:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
The right one is okay, but the left one is a little inappropriate.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:37:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
Yeah, the one on the right is fine, but the one on the left is creepy as drat.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:40:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
The one on the left made me feel kinda sick...she's 5!?!
Wow.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:41:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
Oh come on. 5 years ago even the left one would have been an 'oh, look how cute she is' pic ... what has the world come to that everybody always sees cinema for adult viewing when looking at children's photographs?
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:49:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
There's just something about the look on her face, the adult model pose and the fact that she's not wearing a shirt that would've made it creepy at any point.(unless I were five, then I'd probably think it was hot. )
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 3:54:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
She's 5 years old, why the hell should she wear a damn shirt on a summer pic?
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 4:06:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
The pose in the one on the left is a little creepy, but other than that they don't seem too bad.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 4:34:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/3/2006 10:37:26 PM KikiPeepers wrote:
On 10/3/2006 8:28:16 PM AndDieNow wrote: Is that a tramp stamp on her lower back? New JonBenet? Yeah the article I read said that the tattoo was fake. That's something at least.


I was going to say....:-\

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 5:31:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't think there's anything wrong with those photos, although I can understand why some would think they may be inappropriate.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 5:35:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
There's nothing wrong with those photos.

She's five years old, they could take a frontal pic of her completely topless, and it still wouldn't be cinema for adult viewing, since she doesn't have anything to show yet.

We see naked toddlers all the time in diaper commercials, and even though some pedophiles might get off on that stuff, that doesn't make it cinema for adult viewing.

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 6:16:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/5/2006 3:54:13 PM Matthias wrote:
She's 5 years old, why the hell should she wear a damn shirt on a summer pic?

Exactly. I really don't see what the problem is.

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 6:20:52 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't understand why so many of you think these pictures are inappropriate.

Aside from the fact that it looks as though she has a little faux tattoo on the small of her back in the left photo, these pictures are just fine.

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 6:42:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
Years ago I probably wouldn't have thought much of these pictures, but now, having a daughter of my own, I see them as completely inappropriate, especially the one on the left. Maybe I'm a prude now, but a 5 year old "posing" like that is just plain wrong. Where are the pictures of her with some clothes on and in the sandpit? Riding a tricycle maybe? Playing with a dolly? You know, KID things.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 6:44:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
Eating fruit in the summer, and running around partially clothed, are all things that normal kids do.
15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 6:52:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
My daughter has never looked at me like that with wee panties on and nothing else........and if she did I wouldn't have taken a picture of it......and certainly would not have let anyone else see them.

Normal kids take baths and play with their privates, but who would photograph that for the world to see?

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Thursday 10/5/06 - 8:14:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
Actually, my Spanish teacher was showing us pictures of his niece and nephew, and one of the pictures should them in the bath tub, naked and wet.

And I have no problem with that.

They're little kids! It's fine if their naked or half-naked, since they have nothing that needs to be covered up by clothes!

Sure, some sickos might get off on those kinds of images, but that doesn't mean those images are bad.

The pictures accompanying the question are far less "graphic" than the pictures in my family's photo album.

15 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Friday 10/6/06 - 1:41:26 AM EST (GMT-5)
If the photo had stayed in Cindy's family album I don't think there'd be a problem with that. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. Good to read a different point of view though.

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next (showing 1-25 of 98)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Pixies or Sonic Youth?

2 Will you play a game of spades with me, please?

3 What is the most times you`ve seen the same movie in a theatre: more or less than 5 times?

4 Do you have a NalgeneĀ® bottle?

5 When the aliens come to rescue us from the pole shift on December 21st, will they only take world leaders and their families?

6 Is Michael Jordan the greatest sports star ever?

7 Does your favourite movie pass the Bechdel test?

8 Do people compliment your eye colour?

9 Do you think craft beer is hipster nonsense?

10 Do you live in a home that has been owned by your family for multiple generations?

More Questions
 
Edit