– Police act on naked photo of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields at the Tate Modern in London [Bild]
– Trouble Is Over for ‘Vampire’ Flashers [PopEater]
– Matt LeBlanc Returns to TV [Television.AOL.com]
– Will Ferrell to Be a Dad Again [Moviefone]
– Michael Lohan Says TLC Exploiting Jon Gosselin [Radar Online]
– Mariah Carey Nipple Slip Gallery [Cityrag]
– The Biggest Loser’s Sean Algaier & Wife To Name Baby After Trainer [Celebrity Baby Scoop]
– Kelly Brook For Ralph Lauren [MoeJackson]
– Katie Price’s Outfit Isn’t Edible [Hollywood Rag]
– Rihanna does Vanilla Ice [The Blemish]
– Letterman Said to Pay Assistant’s Law School Bill [Defamer]
– Vince Vaughn is an affectionate man. Jason Bateman, not so much [Agent Bedhead]
– Lauren Conrad says her acting is offensive [Evil Beet]
– 2016 Olympics Announcement: Chicago Eliminated in First Round [Bitten and Bound]
– Kylie Minogue Out Grace-Joneses Grace Jones [Best Week Ever]
– Kim Kardashian shows off her best asset [PopBytes]
Interesting how the Brooke Shields article completely fails to mention her controversial role in “Pretty Baby,” which came years before “Blue Lagoon”. That’s the movie that first made her famous and sexualized her as a child.
Though I don’t agree that the photo is necessarily kiddie porn, I still find it to be inappropriate and disturbing and am gobsmacked that her own mother arranged it.
In response to Pea below; I need to refine my remark to say that while I do not find nudity inherently inappropriate in art (I almost exclusively paint fine art nudes myself) the appropriateness of nudity of children is entirely contextual; and a naked 10-year-old with a full face of makeup, oiled skin standing in a bathtub I find to be a difficult context to justify in the name of art.
I don’t think it’s porn. My mom is a photographer, and she’s had to defend her work before social services before because there were naked children in some shots and some over-sensitive soul lodged complaints.
This is an issue that really gets to me. Nakedness is not inherently dirty. The people who look at pictures of naked children and find them arousing are sick. That does not mean the pictures are. (obviously, I am not talking about actual kiddie porn)
Naked photos of kids for money=WRONG!
I think it’s pretty clear that the photo is art in this situation. Child nudity is not necesarily expolitative.
Hard to argue that an oiled child in full makeup standing in a bathtub isn’t sexualized in any way.
Another stage mother pushing her daughter into showbiz.. remember “Pretty Baby”? Fortunately for Brooke, she wasn’t victimized (at least that’s what we know). But I wouldn’t be surprised if she has issues stemming from her childhood stardom and early sexualization.
why aren’t there any naked pictures of little boys oiled up in bathtubs?
It really bothers me how much less shit you have to deal with being born with a penis… you can rape a 13 year old and get away with it apparently because you made some crappy movies… you don’t have to worry about people looking at you as a sexual object when you haven’t even completed puberty and then trying to pass it off as “art”
give me an effing break… when are we going to start protecting our women and little girls??!?!?!?!?
I agree, I’m so sick of the art excuse. If it were little boys, people would flip the hell out ’cause they would see it for what it was right away. But if its a little girl, well, you know…
i think it’s time for authorities to draw a distinct line between pictures of naked kids and child pornography. I keep hearing horrible stories about parents who become registered sex offenders because they had photos of their kids in the buff…and there was a case last year in Australia when a photographer had his gallery pulled because the subjects in the photos were nude children -but the photos weren’t sexual in nature at all.
I haven’t seen the Brooke Shields photos, so i won’t speak for it. Maybe they were sexualised, and i guess that is wrong…but seriously, are all photos or drawings of naked children considered child pornography now?
it doesn’t matter whether it is sexualized or not… if there are naked photos of a child floating around, some sick fuck will use it “inappropriately” to put it mildly… So, the line is clear, unless you are a parent taking pics of your child while they bathe, you should NOT have any photos of a child naked…. and those photos should be very well guarded…
The photos of shields is OBVIOUSLY crossing that line… it’s sad that we have to be so strict on this matter, but the reality of the situation is such that this is an appropriate response…
I am so sick and tired of hearing innocent lives being ruined by sick fucks!
What I don’t understand is why men find little girls arousing? When I look at a 10-13 year old little boys naked in a bathtub , it would do nothing for me. And those who argue that those pictures of Brooke are just “art” are insane. Like some one else here has pointed out, she’s oiled up in a bathtub with a full face of make up on looking at the camera. Surrounded by steam. It’s would be kind of a cool picture if it was a grown woman in that shot. But, that’s not just an innocent little girl pic in a bathtub. If the little girl was fully clothed playing dress up but that’t not what this was. . I guess if you consider mild kitty porn a type of “art” But it’s sick, and not morally correct to sexualize a child.
Lastly I just want to say those pics of Brooke Shields prove that you can be a very pretty little girl, but that doesn;t mean you’re going to look as pretty when you grow up. Sure Brooke Shields is still attractive, but she peaked at like 16. Brooke has looked very masculine for most of her adult life. .
Oh, but it wasn’t a “picture” picture.
What evs, there are many woman who abuse you boys too. It’s horrible unreported actually.
It’s not just a male thing.
🙄 Give me strength.