chanel
Silver Member
It's amazing what they can do with airbrushing and photoshop.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Brooke Shields was 15 when this ad was run. Calvin Klein is certainly not the only advertiser to use underage models in sexualized poses, but the company is among the most notorious for it.
Calvin Klein: A Case Study | Handout
The ads are not illegal, but nonetheless I found them disturbing.
(Just in case anyone wants to continue this convo.)
At 15, Brook's mother was the ultimate deciding factor in this.
Three actresses, all in their 20's, who portray high school students on the television show "Glee" have done a highly sexualized photo shoot for GQ@ magazine that has parents in an uproar.
If these actress and the magazine had not been trading on the "Glee" story line, I'd have no problem. But given the images....yes, this is further pop culture sexualization of minor girls and it was over the line.
Shame on GQ@, these actresses and the "Glee" show for this series of photos.
What say you?
Parents Group Rips 'Pedophile' Glee Shots - 'They're old enough to do what they want,' says GQ editor
I'd say that few men on America don't have fond fantasies of the girls who got away in HS.
Stuff like above merely stokes that forbidden (to adult men, at least) fire.
Pedophilia is attraction to children, not High School girls.
If attraction to HS girls was pedophilia, then every healthy heterosexual young HS boy in America is a pedophile.
Now does that really make sense?
Let's call that attraction what it really is shall we?
It's the norm, not a deviation from it.
It is still perfectly reasonable that we have laws against against having sex with teenagers.
But let's not kids ourselves that teenagers (male or female) are CHILDREN.
We all went though high school and we ought to know better than that.
I would consider a picture of a girl's nipple getting tongued to be porn, even though there's no penetration.
The pictures are obviously neither pedophilia nor porn.
One mans porn is another mans art and third mans trash. It is all a matter of opinion... and that's what puts a subject into the realm of 'politics'.
Opinions are like faces and fannys - everyone has one and no two are precisely alike.
Reminds me of that one Supreme Court opinion where the Justice wrote something like "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it".
Now just for comparsion
Was this ad aimed at men or women? Which is worse?