Cindy Crawford's 5 year-old daughter poses for swimsuit catalog

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Angela Harlem said:
i think both photos are repulsive. there's something wrong with the second one which is not as obvious as the first.

The thing about the second one for me is the outfit she is wearing. It's totally wrong.
 
I suppose for me what I find disturbing is not only the poses but also that I'm nearly desensitized to it in the sense of well, what else is next? There don't seem to be any lines or limits these days, especially with celebrities. It's like nothing is a surprise anymore. What a beautiful little girl and she probably has no idea what the rest of us see when we look at a picture like that. :down:
 
[q]Crawford's Kid Controversy

Supermodel Cindy Crawford has caused controversy by allowing her 5-year-old daughter to model a new swimwear line.

Kaya, Crawford's daughter with Rande Gerber, poses topless and in a string bikini, showing off a tattoo on her lower back in the ads for Melissa Odabash beachwear.

Odabash has been inundated with so much criticism, the company has removed the pictures of Kaya from its Web site.

Spokesperson Roberta Correia says, "We've gotten calls from all over the place. Unfortunately, we are not able to release any of the pictures or info on the Melissa Odabash shoot. The pictures are actually no longer going to be on the Web site."

But Crawford's representative insists the issue has been blown out of proportion, telling Page Six, "Oh my God, that's ridiculous. It's a stick-on tattoo."

She even claimed the pictures weren't meant to be used in ads, adding, "Cindy's friends own this company. It was just a fun little photo shoot they did in Malibu one day. Kaya is not modeling."[/q]
 
So wrong. Just because the tattoo is fake does'nt make the concept much less disturbing...and so what if it was'nt an official modeling shoot...she knew the pics would be posted online for all to see. Is that any different from publishing them in a magazine? Do celebrities not have a sense of self-respect/privacy anymore?
 
Sometimes I think celebrities live in their own dimension, in their own reality. Another reason why those pictures are disturbing is not only because of their content, but they seem exploitive. As in, Cindy was exploiting her own daughter to...I don't know, gain publicity, put her daughter in the same business so she would be like mommy, or help a friend out. Its just disturbing knowing that Cindy was allowing her to pose like that and think nothing much of it, and then she comes up with that defense as if ordinary people don't know what they're talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom