The most beautiful girl in the world, is eight

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Are you suggesting that This is sexual?
How about this?

No. These images are unlike the images mentioned in the article.

Because honestly, if you find those images sexual, then I'm going to go ahead and suggest you seek therapy because there is nothing sexual about them. If you think they are sexual, your dick must get hard at absolutely everything.

And I'm going to report you to moderation.

For your education, however, there is a difference between being aware of sexual content or sexual context in an image and being sexually aroused by that image.

Are you implying that everyone in this thread who has found those images disturbing has "a dick that gets hard at absolutely everything" and "should seek therapy"? Are you implying that the authors of that article should also "seek therapy"?

Those images are just as innocent as the ones in the article. And, yeah, basically. You are looking to sexualize this child - whether it's because you want to or whether you are just looking for something to get pissed off about, I don't know. But I am someone who staunchly opposes the sexualization of children and someone who has an extreme maternal instinct. You are forcing sexualized connotations where they do not naturally exist. You are the one making images feel sexual when they are not.

[Chungking]

Then why are you bothering to comment on something that you sincerely do not care about?

I'm not.

You just did it again.

Actually, I'm reading exactly what you said:

So where did I say you "find young children sexual"? Do you not know what the word "exactly" means?

Do you know what the word "pedantic" means? How about the expression "distinction without difference"?

Show some intellectual honesty, avoid dismissive personal remarks, or this conversation is over.

That's exactly the problem. The child is being put into a context that a child has no business being in.

No they aren't. YOU'RE putting them in that context. They're being put into a different context and you're creating nonsensical outrage because you've placed them into a context convenient for you to whine over.

Actually, the photographers and model agency and her parents are the ones putting her in that context. I, and the many other people who find this picture to be disturbing, are simply picking up on that.

But I guess anyone who disagree with you is "whining", and "see[s] young children as being sexual because of vague concepts" (your exact words).

[Northern Canuckistan]

Definitely not the most beautiful girl in the world to me. Good looking for an eight year old, but no.

Poor eight year old is subject to sexualization, she can't even live the regular life of an eight year old. Pedos oughtta back off and let her be with her barbies, eh?

[Natapoc]

I think it's really creepy that people are sexualizing this little girl.

I agree with her mother: If you are an adult and you have sexual thoughts when you see a little girl you should probably talk to a psychologist and get treatment.

[Chungking]

Those images are just as innocent as the ones in the article.

I, and many others, would disagree. It's an issue that's come up internationally in recent years.

And, yeah, basically. You are looking to sexualize this child - whether it's because you want to or whether you are just looking for something to get pissed off about, I don't know.

That is quite an accusation.

[Mavorpen]

You just did it again.

No I didn't.

Do you know what the word "pedantic" means? How about the expression "distinction without difference"?

Yes, and yes. Neither of which apply.

Show some intellectual honesty, avoid dismissive personal remarks, or this conversation is over.

I don't think you, the person grasping at imaginary statements to use as an excuse to be offended over, should be talking about intellectual honesty. Nothing I said painted you in any way as a pedophile.

Actually, the photographers and model agency and her parents are the ones putting her in that context. I, and the many other people who find this picture to be disturbing, are simply picking up on that.

No they aren't. There's no indication whatsoever that they are. I find innocent and "cute" girls attractive. That does not, however, mean that if I see a child that has been told to be innocent and "cute," in a television show, I'll stand up and shout "SEXUALIZATION OF CHILDREN!!!111!!!" Because I'm smart enough to understand what context actually means.

But I guess anyone who disagree with you is "whining", and "see[s] young children as being sexual because of vague concepts" (your exact words).

No, you can disagree with me. Just make actually legitimate arguments.

[Chungking]

Curious to see how this study would rank the images in the OP:

"In a 2008 study of 1,988 advertisements from 50 well known American magazines, researchers from Wesleyan University found that half of them show women as sex objects. A woman was considered a sex object depending on her posture, facial expression, make-up, activity, camera angle and amount of skin shown."

(Source)

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Those images are just as innocent as the ones in the article.

I, and many others, would disagree. It's an issue that's come up internationally in recent years.

And, yeah, basically. You are looking to sexualize this child - whether it's because you want to or whether you are just looking for something to get pissed off about, I don't know.

That is quite an accusation.

Have there been very sexual images of children put out?
Yep.
But not of this little girl. None of her pictures are anything but innocent.

And considering that the images are not sexual, it's not an accusation as much as it is a fact.

[Twilight Imperium]

Those images are just as innocent as the ones in the article. And, yeah, basically. You are looking to sexualize this child - whether it's because you want to or whether you are just looking for something to get pissed off about, I don't know. But I am someone who staunchly opposes the sexualization of children and someone who has an extreme maternal instinct. You are forcing sexualized connotations where they do not naturally exist. You are the one making images feel sexual when they are not.

Honestly, to me they look more like glamour shots than racy pictures. I can see where people would draw their borders differently, though.

SAT, are you saying that the fact that it's a child makes it impossible for the image to be sexualized, or simply that these aren't?

EDIT: Just saw your last post. Disregard

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Those images are just as innocent as the ones in the article. And, yeah, basically. You are looking to sexualize this child - whether it's because you want to or whether you are just looking for something to get pissed off about, I don't know. But I am someone who staunchly opposes the sexualization of children and someone who has an extreme maternal instinct. You are forcing sexualized connotations where they do not naturally exist. You are the one making images feel sexual when they are not.

Honestly, to me they look more like glamour shots than racy pictures. I can see where people would draw their borders differently, though.

SAT, are you saying that the fact that it's a child makes it impossible for the image to be sexualized, or simply that these aren't?

Simply that these are not. None of this little girl's photos are sexual in any manner, and anyone finding them to be sexual are either looking to make them sexual to get pissed off, or they are a pedophile.

[Twilight Imperium]

Simply that these are not. None of this little girl's photos are sexual in any manner, and anyone finding them to be sexual are either looking to make them sexual to get pissed off, or they are a pedophile.

There's always been a fair amount of crossover between glamour shots and racier ones though, at least with adult models. Given that cultural context, it's a little _lot disingenuous to state the above.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Curious to see how this study would rank the images in the OP:

"In a 2008 study of 1,988 advertisements from 50 well known American magazines, researchers from Wesleyan University found that half of them show women as sex objects. A woman was considered a sex object depending on her posture, facial expression, make-up, activity, camera angle and amount of skin shown."

(Source)

The researchers themselves outright stated that their system is not appropriate to use for children.

[Chungking]

The researchers themselves outright stated that their system is not appropriate to use for children.

Where do they say that? I couldn't find that in either the article I linked to or the original paper.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The researchers themselves outright stated that their system is not appropriate to use for children.

Where do they say that? I couldn't find that in either the article I linked to or the original paper.

IN the images they analyze, there is an image of a child, where they say it may or may not be sexualized, but their coding scale cannot accurately analyze photos of children. You cannot compare an image of a child to an image of an adult, nor can you use the same scales on children.

[Twilight Imperium]

This:

The researchers themselves outright stated that their system is not appropriate to use for children.

does not match this:

IN the images they analyze, there is an image of a child

Not to mention part of the impetus for the study was a Vogue spread with ten year olds in it.

[Chungking]

Not to mention part of the impetus for the study was a Vogue spread with ten year olds in it.

According to SAT, those researchers probably need therapy. Or else they're just whining.

[Twilight Imperium]

Not to mention part of the impetus for the study was a Vogue spread with ten year olds in it.

According to SAT, those researchers probably need therapy. Or else they're just whining.

Let's not make this about bickering. I think we can all agree that the sexualisation of children is incredibly creepy and possibly indicative of a greater societal decay. Let's also agree that calling someone a pedophile or insane for being even more sensitive than you are about such things is kind of silly.

[Chungking]

According to SAT, those researchers probably need therapy. Or else they're just whining.

Let's not make this about bickering. I think we can all agree that the sexualisation of children is incredibly creepy and possibly indicative of a greater societal decay. Let's also agree that calling someone a pedophile or insane for being even more sensitive than you are about such things is kind of silly.

I can agree to all of this.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I'll probably be kicked out of the NSDAP for saying this, but I prefer Asians or white/Asian mixed race.

Hi there. I have a thing for leather.

Leather is awesome!

[Udinia]

I'm usually against modeling young children (especially those horrid "glitz" competitions), but after looking up this girl on google images , I find the majority of her photos to be quite tasteful and cute actually.

[The Transcaucasian Democratic Republic]

I dunno, the images appear appropriate to me. The second one is not as tasteful as the first one but both images are fine.

[The Sotoan Union]

Where do they say that? I couldn't find that in either the article I linked to or the original paper.

IN the images they analyze, there is an image of a child, where they say it may or may not be sexualized, but their coding scale cannot accurately analyze photos of children. You cannot compare an image of a child to an image of an adult, nor can you use the same scales on children.

Guys your entire argument rests on an inability to see this from someone else's point of view. Can you admit this is subjective and get over it?

[Revanta]

I think she is a very pretty little girl. ive seen many girls just as pretty walking down the street.

it is actually reasonable to call her the most beautiful GIRL in the world because she is a girl.

its just a gimmick.

its no more wrong than putting a 4 year old into modelling and having her spend her childhood working instead of playing.

Girls I see walking past me are often more beautiful than her. Seriously, she looks meh, and that's it, I don't know who the hell would call he "most beautiful girl in the world". That's just purely exaggerated.

[Arcanda]

https://www.yahoo.com/style/is-8-year-old-kristina-pimenova-the-most-beautiful-104422161308.html

Children have worked as models for a long time, but my problem with this is how sexualized this is. This is inherently sexual, and they are looking at an eight year old this way. Child models shouldn't be subjected to this kind of treatment. If you don't think that sexualization of children is a problem, or that this is just harmless, know that this girl has received a lot of attention from adults who talk to her as if she was a grown woman. She has even received marriage proposals. This kind of portrayal of child models seems to encourage pedophilia. That doesn't mean that the way she is portrayed is inherently pedophilic, but that it will attract this kind of attention more and more towards child models if this becomes more prevalent, regardless of how the child is portrayed in their modelling. Furthermore there is a belief that children, especially the models themselves, will come to view themselves as sex icons to be judged by their physical appearance, or to have anxieties for not meeting standards of beauty. There is also sexism in this portrayal of young girls as boys aren't at all subject to this same kind of attention in modelling. Furthermore the title of most beautiful girl in the world is the most subjective thing ever.

What does NSG think?

To say those kind of contests aren't sexualized is a little bit hypocritical.This look in her eyes, those positions are often adopted by older models who do it in order to arouse desire in the person looking at it.It is suggestive.

Not only is it distasteful for us adults/pubescent beings, but think about her.First, her education.Unless her parents are really good at it, chances are it'll be built on money and outside appearance.Secondly, her ego.Don't you think that being idolized as the world's most beautiful girl, at an age where the brain builds itself and character is being made, will cause he trouble later in life?

[Ripoll]

For an 8 year old it's fairly disgusting. I think the child should at least be 16 to receive attention in this manner ( UT pedophelia is wrong no matter what, they should rot in prison)

I like trends and fashionstyles, I see nothing wrong with how the media encourages American capitalism as long as it is not inappropriate or illegal.