Strollerderby : Annie Liebovitz

Naked Kid Pics: Porn or Art?

Madeline Holler — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:54:00 GMT

Hmmmm. Clearly there's a difference between nakey pics of your kids running around the house and the cover of this publically funded Australian magazine. For one, nudie shots in the tub are hardly this well composed. Also, your own kids' shots are pretty much just for the family (oh, and the blog).

Plus, I don't know about your kids, but my girls rarely sit and pout like subdued -- "it's what you can't see" -- fashion models.

Still, I wouldn't exactly call this kiddie porn. What do you think?

The prime minister of Australia says he's "disgusted" and is reviewing funding of the magazine for running what he thinks is a provocative photo -- shot, incidentally, by the topless/pantless subject's mother. (Lots of the outrage centers aruond the girl's exposed nipple.)

Some background: the cover shot is a protest of the government shutting down an art exhibit that featured many, many nude kids as the subjects. The artists and curators claim those pics were art, not porn, but seems the country's very religious leader feels otherwise.

From The Independent [via Jezebel]:

The Australian Childhood Foundation said parents had no ethical right to consent to nude photographs being taken of their children, as it could have a psychological impact in later years.

But Nelson and her father, art critic and professor Robert Nelson, defended the photo in a press conference outside their home in the southern city of Melbourne.

"I love the photo so much. I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused, and I think nudity can be a part of art," Olympia Nelson said.

Rudd last week met with the leaders of Australia's six states and said he would forge a national child protection system following a spate of shocking cases of child neglect and abuse.

What do you think? Kiddie porn or art? Little of both?

Attack of the Strippers

Photo: The Independent

More Outrageous Than Miley? Disney Bra and Panty Billboard

Madeline Holler — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:28:00 GMT

Disney breathlessly defended the innocence of their virginal cash cow Miley Cyrus (aka: Hannah Montana), describing her topless Vanity Fair photo shoot thusly: "a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines." For shame!

So how did the spokeperson for all things Disney react when a Slate writer sent photos of a billboard he saw on a recent trip to China? The billboard features a girl in pigtails wearing nothing but a Mickey Mouse bra and underwear set and Minnie Mouse hand puppets. The Disney signature is stamped prominently in the corner.

Well, the spokesperson said Disney had nothing to do with it.

From Slate:

"It has caught us totally by surprise," [Company spokesman Gary] Foster told me by phone from Guangzhou. He explained that Disney contracts with a host of licensees, who produce and market products for the Disney brand. Foster said that licensees are contractually bound to clear all advertising with Disney's corporate offices. "We have literally hundreds of licensees making our products. They are supposed to submit any kind of imagery to us before it is used, but it's hard to enforce that sometimes," he said.

He assured Slate that the billboard would soon be removed, but also pointed out that the age of consent in China is 14 (compared to 18 in California, the land of Disney). He said Europe also tolerates a little more sexy-sexy from its girls, as well. (American prudes!)

Personally, I see quite a difference in the pictures. Namely, in the Chinese ad the girl is smiling and holding hand puppets. In Vanity Fair, Miley's pouting with half-opened sultry eyes and wrapped in a bed sheet. Those pictures are telling two different stories (though supporting the same thesis: we have a right and a duty to look at naked-ish girls!!!!).

You tell us: what's the best way to (1) sell kiddie undies and (2) artistically interpret the inner-life of a teen pop idol? Obviously, doing neither is simply not an option.

Photo: Slate

Did VF "Groom" Miley Cyrus?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:01:00 GMT

All joking aside, this business of Miley's half-naked pictures in Vanity Fair is raising quite a kafuffle. And this fills me with great hope. In a culture where young girls are modeling at 12, and being pushed into adulthood by age 13, it starts to feel like fighting to keep our girls Bratz and low-cut jeans free and innocent might be a losing battle.

But Gawker suggests that something even more evil is going on here.

They argue that in fact Miley Cyrus was effective 'groomed' (the method used by pedophiles to make the victim and the victim's caretakers comfortable with the molester)...

Even though Miley's parents were at the shoot (witness the creepy photos with Dad), it is clear a boundary was crossed.

The outrage and finger pointing aside (Disney blaming Vanity Fair is RICH), what the hell kind of world are we living in? This girl is not the first to be exploited (remember "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins? See below)

Nor will she be the last. In the end, nothing stands between kids and exploitation but their parents. And it's clear in this case that Miley's parents failed her gravely. Hopefully none of us will make the same mistake.