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

[Niamh_Saoirse]

I totally think these pictures are inappropriate. The sexualization of children is spinning out of control. She is a 5 year-old and therefore she shouldn't be posing suggestively.

 

[JCOSTER]

Totally agree w/u! on Cindy.

 

[yeter]

That's pretty sad.

 

[Pearl]

What catalog is this? Is it European or American?

But yeah, , either or, not appropriate at all. She is acting far too old for her age.

 

[starsgoblue]

That first picture is just so not right. It would have been a great pic if it didn't have the illusion of her being topless...and what's with that fake tattoo on her lower back?

 

[trevster2k]

That is so wrong.

She probably wears cutoff shirts too,

 

[one4u2]

What a beautiful child, but very inappropriate

 

[U2Girl1978]

wtf. That is completely wrong.

 

[vaz02]

What a shame , no wonder company's are in the market for thongs for girls under the age of 10

 

[Bono's Betty]

That is so wrong! I can't believe the parents wouldn't see that.

 

[~LadyLemon~]

That's absurd.

 

[MacHat]

That's just wrong .

 

[Westport]

Blah.

 

[Justin24]

All the Stars are loosing there minds. This is a Pedophiles best dream!

 

[elevation2u]

 

[Babydoll]

I agree! Gorgeous, just like her mom, but this is totally inappropriate! Esp the first pic, the whole illusion of being topless with a tattoo on her back. She's 5 and prolly doesn't even know that boys are different at this stage of her life....

 

[Carek1230]

I also agree, this is wrong parading a 5 year old like this in suggestive attire and poses. Let her be a child. She is a beautiful little girl though.

 

[Lila64]

can't see the first pic...

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

All the Stars are loosing there minds. This is a Pedophiles best dream!

 

[Lila64]

the pics might be fine for their own personal photo album, but not for the purpose they were taken (I can now see both photos)

 

[SpaceOddity]

Yikes... Well, that's disturbing. I can't believe her mom approved these photos.

 

[Laura M]

I saw these earlier.

The pose and fake tattoo in the first picture is a disgrace.

 

[Tilli]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what everyone has said. The pose in the first picture is a little disturbing.

 

[Liesje]

the pics might be fine for their own personal photo album, but not for the purpose they were taken (I can now see both photos)

Exactly what I was thinking. I have similar photos of myself, because I didn't wear a suit until I was about five and I also had this yellow terrycloth bikini my mom and grandmas thought was hilarious. But just the fact that they're using those photos to sell something makes them suggestive and inappropriate.

 

[U2girl]

Why is a 5 year-old doing a photo shoot?

She is a cute girl, and at least the second picture is playful but the first one...too suggestive pose.

 

[the soul waits]

i agree with Justin. Pedophiles are gonna love this. How utterly creepy.

 

[U2democrat]

 

[Bonochick]

That first picture is completely inappropriate. What is disturbing about the second picture is that such a sexy little bikini is available in that size. If she was wearing a regular one-piece suit you'd expect to see a child wear...that picture would be fine.

 

[AchtungBono]

i agree with Justin. Pedophiles are gonna love this. How utterly creepy.

I agree with everything that has been said.

I first saw these pictures in the paper yesterday and was utterly appalled. I immediately thought of JonBenet Ramsey and how she was glamorized from such a young age.

Without a doubt, Cindy's daughter is pretty but posing her in suggestive poses is highly inappropriate and morally reprehensible.

 

[Angela Harlem]

i think both photos are repulsive. there's something wrong with the second one which is not as obvious as the first.