Brooke Shields by Gary Gross
In July 1978, at the age of thirteen, Brooke Shields made front page news in Photo Magazine. The young American film prodigy was promoting the film Pretty Baby directed by Louis Malle. In the magazine, a ten-year old Brooke is shown wearing makeup, her glistening body posed naked in a bathtub. The picture comes from a series taken by Garry Gross, an advertising photographer from New York who was regularly employed by Brooke’s mother to photograph her daughter, then a model with the Ford agency. At the time, Gross was working on a project for publication entitled The Woman in the Child, in which he wanted to reveal the femininity of prepubescent girls by comparing them to adult women.
Brooke Shields posed for him both as a normal young girl and in the nude, her body heavily made up and oiled, receiving a fee of $450 from Playboy Press, Gross’s partner in the project. Her mother signed a contract giving Gross full rights to exploit the images of her daughter. The series was first published in Little Women, and then in Sugar and Spice, a Playboy Press publication. Large prints were also exhibited by Charles Jourdan on 5th Avenue in New York.
In 1981, however, Brooke Shields wanted to prevent further use of these pictures and tried unsuccessfully to buy back the negatives. A legal battle then began between Shields and Gross with Gross being sued for a million dollars. Brooke Shields claimed that her mother had agreed to give up her rights for one publication only and that the photographs caused her embarrassment. In addition, they had been published, and would probably be published again, in revues of dubious morality. Her lawyers immediately obtained a provisional measure forbidding the use of the pictures until the end of the trial. The case was won by Gross with the court considering the contract signed by Brooke Shields’ mother to be valid and binding on her daughter. Brooke Shields appealed and once again obtained a provisional ban on the use of the photographs.
Finally, after a procedure lasting for two years, the appeal court confirmed that Brooke could not invoke her right to annul the contract and that she was legally bound by her mother’s signature. The court once again reaffirmed Gross’s right to freely exploit the use of the pictures other than in a pornographic context. After the failure of their arguments concerning the validity of the contract, Brooke’s lawyers decided on a new strategy, attacking Gross for violation of Brooke Shields’ privacy. The actress claimed that the publication of the images caused her distress and embarrassment. Brooke Shields’ acting career, however, weakened the credibility of this argument since it had clearly been built by projecting an explicitly sexual image of herself. Whatever the case, the court considered that “these photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic, nor do they imply sexual promiscuity. They are pictures of a prepubescent girl posing innocently in her bath”. The court rejected all Brooke Shields’ claims and decided in Gross’s favour. The trial however, had ruined him financially and had tarnished his reputation. In addition, a change in attitudes towards the “politically correct” had sullied the photographs.
The story, nevertheless, had an unexpected development. In 1992, a contemporary artist called Richard Prince approached Gross about buying the rights to use and reproduce the image of Brooke Shields. In his artistic work, Prince appropriates pictures by rephotographing them, recontextualizing them and giving them a title. The picture of Brooke Shields, for example, is entitled Spiritual America. Gross was willing to retrocede his rights to Prince for a series of ten prints. Prince became a star of the contemporary art scene and his picture was sold at Christies in 1999 for $151,000.
– From “Controversies: A Legal and Ethical History of Photography” in the Bibliothèque Nationale
“Posing innocently in the bath”?? My God, these are almost pornographic..especially the first one. There’s nothing innocent about a little girl wearing make-up and posing like that. What did the parents think of??
Mir
June 29, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I completely agree with you. I’m not really sure how this is art or legal for that matter. What parent wants their daughter to do this?
Jamal
August 15, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I can see you have no idea what pornographic means…
...
October 1, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Or Art for that matter!
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 3:28 pm
perhaps you have no idea what ‘underage’ means? just if we’re getting all absolutist you understand…
gg
October 5, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Only sick people get a hard dick from these pictures. I like the art of the photos!
DrBukkake
October 1, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Really art???
There is nothing artistic about this, other than using the term art as a way to publish pictures of underage nude children and please a devoted group of pedophiles.
Harry V.
October 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm
It is art for people like me. I like the photo of a 10 year old girl naked looking like a prostitute. That is art with capital A!
DrBukkake
October 2, 2009 at 5:38 pm
this crap is SICK! This is doing nothing but promoting pedophiles which our government and law enforcement is FULL of. How can he do this without going to jail? Isn’t this considered pedophilism. There is NOTHING artful about this, and I am an artist. This is kiddie porn. How the hell are people NOT being fined for posting this? HUH? This is why I don’t have kids. and why come out with it now all these years later? UGH
sara
October 2, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Please stick to the essence. It is a picture of a naked girl with make up on. That’s all. Only a perverted mind combines this with other perceptions.
Thus not taking away that it is crazy to publish this open to those who have such a mind. Also this does not help in any way the development of well being of the child.
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg’rə-fē)
n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.
Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the … pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).
hein
October 2, 2009 at 10:10 am
I think the pictures are beautiful!!
Pete Hughes
November 2, 2009 at 8:23 am
my goodness… this is a very, very weird. it’s one thing to take a photo of your kids in the bath when they are babies but this seems to imply some sort sexual sickness. i’m not sure if the artist meant it this way but i don’t think it is appropriate at all. i also gasped when i saw them. good god.
robert l
October 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm
That is exactly the point. You admit that it’s okay to take pictures of babies in the bath? babies are still victims of sexual assault. how is that any better? that is literally just taking pictures of naked babies, this is taken an art image with a specific message. Though i think it’s art and the panic surrounding it is ridiculous given some of the other things going on that are far more important (like people actually molesting children) I think if anyone’s to blame it’s Brooke Shields’ mother at the time… But then that’s a whole new argument I guess.
X x X
elllle
December 10, 2009 at 8:23 pm
This phony “scandal” is a fraud perpetrated by the Tate gallery to drum up interest; it’s all public relations to bring in the crowds. These photos have been shown everywhere for decades, including PHOTO magazine when they were first taken, and nobody raised an eyebrow.
The film “Pretty Baby” which these shots are related to was much more serious as Shields acted a child prostitute who gets auctioned off. Even there it didn’t cause much of a ruckus.
Paul CometX NYC
October 2, 2009 at 9:08 pm
love to see her tight bare virgin pussy, so fresh
asscracklover
October 3, 2009 at 7:45 pm
It’s people like you that make a photo like this porn but I suppose you objectify like this clothed or not.
J E Geddes
October 6, 2009 at 4:24 am
You sick fuck, thats prolly cuz you cant get no pussy of your own, so disgusting shit like this gets you off. Go fucking die u pedophiliac fuck
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 3:43 am
Take a look at the girls going to school – they’re all made up at the age 8 or 9.
Been on holiday to the Costas?? girls the age of 5 plus topless or naked dancing around, swimming or just lazing about. She is all the girls you see there.
Do we rape them? No, because we know how to behave. We don’t attack little girls who drss up or down..
Steve P
October 3, 2009 at 9:42 pm
MONEY!!!!!
jim
October 6, 2009 at 2:58 am
WHAT IS ‘ARTISTIC’ ABOUT A LITTLE GIRL PLASTERED IN MAKE-UP OILED UP IN A STEAMY BATH ?!? THESE ARE SEXUALISED IMAGES FULL STOP – ALL THE WEIRDOS WHO THINK THIS IS ‘ART’ ARE SICK IN THE HEAD..THE SORT OF SCUM WHO GET HARD-ONS LOOKING AT CHILDREN….’ART’ HAHA WHAT A CHEAP EXCUSE TO PROMOTE SUCH FILTH – YOUR HAVING A LAUGH…..THE WORLD IS CRAZY.
THE SADDEST THING IS WHEN GROWN MEN AND WOMEN AGREE THAT THIS IS ‘ART’…..YOU COULD MAKE AN ARTY PICTURE OF A CHILD NAKED – BUT NEVER IN THIS WAY – A CHILD’S INNOCENCE IS BEAUTIFUL – THAT IS WHAT SHOULD BE PORTRAYED IF IT’S DONE ‘ARTISTICLY’ – WHATS ARTISTIC ABOUT A CHILD DONE-UP LIKE A HOOKER – WHATS THAT SAYING?! – PLASTERED ON MAKE-UP – RED LIPS?!?! STEAMY BATH??!? OILED BODY?!? – COME ON?!? WHOEVER THINKS THIS IS OK IS SICK IN THE HEAD.
Sarah
October 6, 2009 at 8:58 am
For one thing, this is the art of irony. It is intended to cause the kind of arousal that you have shown… outrage… It is definitely not pornographic except in the eyes of someone who can only see a naked body as being sexual. In that case, the statue of David is a gigantic pornographic emblem as well… not child porn by your definition, but porn none the less, because it depicts a naked person which someone somewhere might choose to sexualize.
This artistic piece is intended to point out something about the downturn of society. Funny thing is that, at the time of the original photos, the downturn was the over-sensualization of children. Now the downturn is that prudish fear has taken over American society, so much so, that a naked child is a horrific emblem of debauchery, instead of an asexual gangling.
The fact that these pictures embarrass Ms. Shields is more of the issue here in my opinion.
An Artist Foremost
October 15, 2009 at 2:54 am
You should post in all-caps next time. It will make your point seem so much more emphatic and thus you will persuade more people rather than, say, making them think you are a witless, clueless crazy person.
Jack
November 10, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Hi gyes…I think that her mother didn’t give a shit about exposing her little daughter like this.I think she solded herself out for the MONEY.It’s all about money.Everything is sacrified on the altar of money my friend
Jimmi
November 3, 2009 at 9:04 am
These photos are very sexy, I regulaly masturbate looking at them.
pedoman
November 16, 2009 at 4:17 am
I have 2 copies of “Little Women.” Bought them years ago. The photos are disturbing. They certainly make their point.
Davis
June 30, 2009 at 6:41 pm
that makes you a pedophile.PERVERT!!!
kelas
October 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm
nothing wrong with these pictures, my mom used to take pictures like this of me
gary
July 8, 2009 at 3:05 am
What’s the name of your mothers jail?
Mike Zipfel
July 8, 2009 at 5:44 pm
yeah im sure she did. and you probably still live at home, and have an incestuous relationship with you mother.
Matt
October 1, 2009 at 12:03 am
You’re mother took pictures of you as a child made-up like this, nude, and posing seductively? These are not the innocent photos parents snap of toddlers and babies in the tub. And her parents were not even the ones to take the photos!!! What were they thinking? What were the courts thinking? Disgusting.
val
October 1, 2009 at 12:16 am
And I have children. The whole nude snapshots are only cute up to a certain age, maybe like 4 or 5 at the most. After that, it’s just not right. And I really doubt most ten year old girls would be comfortable showing themselves like this.
val
October 1, 2009 at 12:18 am
Is your last name Glitter? That would make sence.
Tjeerd
October 1, 2009 at 9:33 pm
unbelievable, shame on you and your mother!
gaga
October 1, 2009 at 9:40 pm
these pictures are sick who ever took them is disturbed like r like child porn!!!!
annoyn
July 17, 2009 at 2:56 pm
What’s the big whoop! She’s a pretty little girl so what. I say make wallpaper out of it. What do you wanna bet she probably peed in the tub too.
-BdN-
Bozo de Niro
July 20, 2009 at 10:32 pm
You stupid espalda mojada. You are one disturbed mother fucker. Did your mom fuck you as a child?
Matt
October 1, 2009 at 12:02 am
I have found that the people who protest the most and threaten violence are usually the ones trying to hide their own perverted thoughts.
these people feel the need to use fowl language in a public forum,thus confirming to the world that they have an intelligence on par with neanderthal man
Steve
October 3, 2009 at 5:10 am
What’s the big whoop! She’s a pretty little girl so what. I say make wallpaper out of it. What do you want to bet she probably peed in the tub too.
-BdN-
Bozo de Niro
July 20, 2009 at 10:34 pm
well, what if i whack it to this photo? then will you say it’s art? If this is art, keep it coming. Thank you playboy for buying it! In my opinion, even if it wasn’t embarrassing to Brooke Shields, even if she was completely fine with these photos, the point is that her opinion or acceptance of these photos won’t stop people from masterbateing to her child form. I won’t masterbate for now, just because I feel kinda bad…however, i will be honest, it made me horny. Call that art, call it whatever.
mike
August 18, 2009 at 2:05 am
Oh my fucking God. Are you serious? It’s fucking sick fucks like you “Mike” that disgraces the human race. You are scum man. Either you were fucking raped and enjoyed it as a child, or more than likely never had sexual relations with a woman…. in which you never will. I will be honest, I’m not just saying this because i’m typing this on a reply page, but If i knew where you lived and ever met you i would personally paralyze you from neck down, then all you could do is watch as I cut your fucking balls off and sewing them to your forehead. Your sick.
Matt
September 30, 2009 at 11:59 pm
yeah man… um, mike. whether you agree with what these photos are & aren’t i think you crossed some lines there. what you wrote is kinda sick. you may need to see someone. it’s not normal.
Paul
October 1, 2009 at 1:35 pm
you know what matt? it’s you who sound like a disturbed motherfucker right here. but it’s alright, you’re just a depressed guy with an inferiority complex so i just feel sorry for you, more than anything else.
Fiend
Fiend
October 1, 2009 at 2:55 pm
O my dear god, you sick little bastard.
Matt’s comment did kinda describe what I felt, but for it’s worth : I do admire you for your honesty, but now admire me for my honesty : you’r a fucking sick person and you should be treated. I do agree with Matt about the woman part ; you haven’t had sexual relations with a woman. Because common dude if a 10 year old makes you horny, something went wrong when you came rolling out of your momma..
Justine
October 2, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Yeah, go fuck yourself Fiend, im sure your pretty use to it already.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 3:49 am
Mike and Matt, even though from opposing sides of the discussion here are both extremely sick. I am on the appreciation side of these photos and have posted before in favour of them. I do find them beautiful and also artistic. You are welcome to disagree. But I find Mike and Matt to both be extremely offensive. I’m not sure if Mike is just trying to bait, but it’s sick and perverted to even suggest what he said. Matt on the other hand also has a serious problem, and personally I find his attitude and behaviour much more concerning than the photos. I’ve read Matt’s posts here and Matt, I think you are overdue to see your shrink, you have a serious problem, but please take Mike with you.
Kelly
October 12, 2009 at 7:00 am
Brooke Shields will always be Brooke Shields.
She will always be remembered this way.
And I do not even mean negatively.
From an artistic perspective,
the photographs look perfect
and appealing to the senses.
From an ultra-conservatist view however,
well, people who don’t understand true art
will always say negative things.
Brooke probably reacted so much because of
conservative values of Western society.
She wouldn’t have minded
if only she wasn’t “embarassed” about it.
Conservative values “embarassed” her
and not the nakedness.
We are all born naked.
I do not understand what all the fuss is about
the nude form.
This artform will never go away because it is
part of us all.
Brooke shouldn’t be pitied.
She should be adored and glorified
because her Mom had the guts to show the world
how beautiful her daughter was.
All this crap that we’re debating will disappear
eventually because it’s a trend.
Sooner or later, public nudity will again
be the “in” thing.
Magoichi Saika
July 25, 2009 at 9:55 am
we aren’t born in suggestive poses and wearing makeup.
vyx
September 30, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Umm.. there is a huge difference between art and exploiting a CHILD. This is close, if not, child porn. Especially that first one. I would never, in a million years, take photographs of my children in that manner. Disgusting. There’s no telling what all the pervs in the world are doing AFTER viewing these. Sick.. just sick.
Mom
October 2, 2009 at 3:09 am
Pornography is in the eye of the of the beholder. If you see this as art, then you’re seeing them from the viewpoint of an artist. If you see these as pictures of childhood, then you’re seeing them from the viewpoint of a parent. If you see this as pornography, what view point do you have?
Alice Gale
August 1, 2009 at 5:27 am
I agree that it is in the eyes of the beholder. The make up is a little heavy, for dramatic affect, but I see it as art; if someone sees it as pornography, I think it says more about them than the photograph. And, yes I am a mother of two, 16 & 20, boy and girl, who both have normal lives, respect for others, themselves, their bodies, and healthy attitudes about nudity and sex. We need to see beauty in people and pull minds out of the worst-case-scenario mind set.
Momrah
October 2, 2009 at 3:54 am
THANK you!! Pornography is in the eye of the goddamn beholder. It takes a sick mind to see a picture as sick. Obviously there are artists out there that would see this as art and would not even think of child porn until it is brought up. Now everyone listen, just because you see this as art doesn’t mean you get a hard on for kids. It’s the opposite. I don’t know how people like Matt and Sarah came up with a perspective like that. The point if this photo was to promote an anti-child sex, key word “anti”, movie about a child prostitute, her mother and a pedo who fell in love with her. If you were to watch the movie you’d see why a picture like this was chosen as a preview to the movies content.
Necro
December 1, 2009 at 5:18 am
The fact that Playboy cashed in on it speaks for itself. But to some that is art too.
MEH
August 10, 2009 at 6:02 am
If you think Playboy is pornographic by modern standards, you might want to think about moving to the 21st century.
Alice Gale
August 20, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Also did you know that Brooke Shields posed like that, and in similated nude sex scenes in films such as Pretty Baby and The Blue Lagoon? And guess how old she was when she first had sex? 22 years old.
The average age then was 16–for those who didn’t pose like this.
Alice Gale
August 20, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I was sexually abused as a child and I did not choose to have sex until I was 21. It is not because the chance never came up, it was because I was humiliated that I had been used in such a way for my entire childhood and convinced myself that I would not give it up as easily as it had been taken from me. Perhaps Brooke Shields felt the same.
OnceAChild
October 5, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Where I and others see beauty, sick twisted minds see pornography. Don’t you think its time you stopped seeing people, especially children, in this sick way?
Lets put this in perspective. In the bible Lot offered up his child daughters to a crowd for their sexual and deviant entertainment in order to protect his home and was/is considered a righteous man by religions all over the world. But those same religions see the beauty of childhood and the human body as presented to creation by God, as pornographic.
How can anyone with an IQ greater than Forrest Gump take them seriously?
Reggie
September 3, 2009 at 6:03 am
Listen here you holy rollin fuck. I’m sure back in Christ’s time there was no right or wrong involving sexual or explicit activities…. but, Its the 21st Century, times has changed, and shit like this is in my mind and more than likely 98% of the world’s considered child pornography. I don’t see how you can argue about this. And if you are wondering why i said 98%, it’s because the other 2% is made of sick fucks that think and act like you and the disgusting sex offenders out there.
Matt
September 30, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Are you saying that the Bible is irrelevant today, and that we should trash the out-of-date parts?
This is more troubling than any photo.
Toby's dad
October 1, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I say she looks totaly hot….. that picture is beauty for my eyes evendo I’m an adult, I can honestly say: these set of pics gets me horny, she was a young, sexy little woman. My God, this ain’t pornography, but she gets me so horny I could blow out.
Dan
September 5, 2009 at 1:51 am
Dan – Time for a very cold shower!
Aidybabe
September 30, 2009 at 10:49 am
Dan, u fucking sick fuck. If you arn’t a sex offender now, you are soon to be one. How the fuck can you say a picture of an 11 Year old Brooke Shields, or in that matter ANY child gets you horny. You are a sick-minded man. You’re only pleasure you’ve ever gotten was from you’re hand. Go die man, please.
Matt
September 30, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Matt,
shut up. you’re and idiot.
Fiend
Fiend
October 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm
oh Dan, youre a moron. not even a 10 year old would get with you.
lw
October 1, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Fiend, who the fuck are you, im guessing you agree with all these sickos who get off to this picture. What the fuck kinda of name is fiend… sex fiend???? Nah i doubt you have ever gotten pussy, if anything a sex doll..
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 3:52 am
I completely disagree with the court’s decision because Brooke Shields was a child when these photos were taken, and therefore unable to consent. Her mother consenting for her is in itself disturbing and a whole different debate, but once Brooke turned 18, she should of had the right to make decisions about these photos. If for any reason she consented to the publication or use of these photos, after the age of 18, then she wouldn’t have a case. But it appears this was all done when she was underage. I also disagree with the courts on the nature of these photos. Not inappropriate? – these photos make any rational adult uncomfortable. No person should have to pay as an adult for the fact that he/ she was exploited as a child.
Lene R.
September 6, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Are you saying that court determinations should be ignored if YOU don’t like them?
This is way more outrageous than any photo.
Toby's dad
October 1, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Court decisions are society’s decisions and whether we hold on to, or change them are dependent on such discussions and opinions. Even socalled gospel truths have changed with time.
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 3:58 pm
she is so cute. it shouldnt be counted as porn pic.
julio
September 19, 2009 at 8:54 am
I’ve looked at pornography, and I’ve looked at art. If you ask me these photos appear to have an artistic side to them. I would look at this as a problem if there were people or objects of an adult nature (ex: sex toys) involved in the photo. This is not child pornography, this is art at its finest. Case closed.
22rants
September 23, 2009 at 2:53 am
Oh, hi you doin 22rants, you four-eyed fuck. God there are so many child-mongers on the web, it sickens me. Don’t use the excuse of calling this disgusting portrait “Art”, when really you are probably getting off to this. You probably would like to see her using sex toys you fucking petifile. I’m 100% sure you are a virgin… and will remain so after saying shit like that. And ohh yessss… im sure you have a fucking computer just made to hold porn and what not, along with kiddie flicks im guessing.
Matt
September 30, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Matt, you are the one that seems to have the problem here. ‘22rants’ comments were rational, well worded and considerate. Just because you disagree with him you need to resort to that sort of language and abuse. You seem to have a serious anger problem. And to be honest, I would feel much safer leaving my daughter in the care of 22rant than with you. I think you are more a danger than ‘22rant’ or the photographer of these photos.
Kelly
October 1, 2009 at 1:13 pm
oh, matty-boy…your thinking is advanced as your spelling ability.
but thank your chosen god that the internet is an impartial place where aggressive morons like you can spout their ignorance to the world.
i shudder to think what lies in your hard drive.
now, back to k.p. duty
niles
October 1, 2009 at 2:17 pm
yea matt calling someone childish names really helps you make your point. oh wait you didn’t make any point, you just made people think your stupid. well done!:) pervert!
jase
October 1, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Thou dost protest too much!
In other words, don’t have Matt babysit your children!
I only hope that Matt isn’t a birthday clown.
Kelly
October 3, 2009 at 5:05 am
haha, like i honestly give a shit about any of you’r opinions, i stand by what i say, and the only reason i felt i should write any of that i said was because i was angered about the replies from people like him. So, if you want to call me ignorant, or and idiot, go for it, because i am a proud father of 3 and I very much have a happy life unlike most of you people.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 3:57 am
Proud father of 3 because they are all to yourself. Sounds like you got issues too. One thing to make a point and another to go over board with your statements. How would you like If I go all out and say you like to play with your 3 3 kids in an inappropriate way, thats why you take so much offense to people saying this is art. You like it , and you know it. It turns you on and you cant stand it, because you want to do things you know are wrong.
Ttio's Tissue
October 14, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I can’t believe the fuss about these photos. There is nothing ’sexy’ about them. She is only 10 years old, hasn’t even began to develop breasts, and not even full frontal. You can see more than this on a nudist beach. The world has gone crazy. To me these are just photos of youth, they are beautiful photos of an innocent child. We were born naked, whats the problem with being naked.
Kelly
September 29, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I’m with you on that Kelly, for SURE. People are so confused with using “Sexy” to describe this photo.
Matt
September 30, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Congratulations Matt & Kelly. You’re officially a couple of idiots. If this wasn’t supposed to be “sexy”, then why is she so heavily made up? The world has gone crazy? I think you’re the ones who are crazy! How’re you justifying the fact that this supposed ‘innocent’ picture was published in Playboy magazine. Let me guess: Playboy only features fine art, right? You’re obviously both a bit mentally challenged.
Really?
October 1, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Well, i guess i didn’t read the rest of her message… i just think Playboy is idiots for doing this shit
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:00 am
I almost want to cry after seeing those images of a 10 year old Brooke.What the hell was her mother thinking allowing her daughter to pose like that.Those pictures are not innocent they are highly sexual.They should not be displayed to the public.My god I’m speechless……just horrible.
Bailey
September 29, 2009 at 11:38 pm
[...] Maybe I’m nuts, but I swear that I saw raw material of the supposedly outrageous Richard Prince photo of a photo of the then-child star. It’s pretty memorable. [...]
Donnell » Blog Archive » Youthful Brooke Shields Photo Controversy
September 29, 2009 at 11:54 pm
[...] [From Brooke Shields by Gary Gross « Iconic Photos] [...]
nude brooke shields at the tate causing furor « Jennie’s Palette
September 30, 2009 at 1:40 am
Of course the images are disturbing — that’s their intent. Art has to be “disturbing” (look it up).
As to “seen as pornography” and “wanking material”: and that harms whom?
mb
September 30, 2009 at 5:37 am
Heard about the pictures this morning on LBC with Nick. I am speechless as to why a mother would take these pictures of her daughter. I have a son and have NEVER EVER taken a picture of him without a nappy on. If I was Brooke I’d be sueing my mother – what the hell was she thinking….?????
Yvonne
September 30, 2009 at 10:56 am
ALICE GALE: Playboy IS porn. It is SOFT PORN, but it is PORN nonetheless.
These photos are SICK!! To make up a 10 YO child like some red-light-district worker is DISGUSTING!
Brooke’s mother should be ASHAMED.
Is there ANY female “child star” who wasn’t abused and/or exploited?
John Smith
September 30, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Well her first film role WAS set in the Red Light District; Brooke Shields played a 12 year old prostitute in Pretty Lady, played a shipwrecked girl who has an incestous romance with her brother in Blue Lagoon. She had sex for the first time aged 22. Her film and modelling career continually emphasised her feminine sexuality.
Why is the human body viewed in such a negative fashion. Yes she is very beautiful. Sexy? Not really. She is too young – her breasts have not begun to develop, her hips are narrow and she looks (in photots 2 and 3 more than 1) like a playfulk child. Photo 1 is the interesting one, because she is half adult and half child – the childish body which is not attractive made up in the fashion of an adult (oiled and with lipstick) and her pose is more one that a seductive adult would use. This photo contrasts our usual social views of childhood (innocence, play, etc) with those of an adult (seduction, intimate play).
So, in conclusion, I think that this is a fantastic piece of art and I think the censorship of this photo by the Tate Gallery, UK in 2009 is a crime. It is part of a worrying trend which seems to be growing that says that the person with the narrowest view is correct. Since noone can be offended, only those works that offend noone can be displayed. This is contrary to one of the major purposes for art – to challenge people’s preconceptions.
Oh, and if you find this picture disturbing because of it’s sexual element, are you sure that you are outraged because you found yourself attracted to her? That is part of why this art works – the adult aspects attracting but then confusing/disturbing because of the collision with the aspects of the child – both from the aspects of the innocence, and the aspect of the forbidden.
It is art. I don’t believe this to be pornography, and I think I’ve argued pretty clearly why I don’t.
Steve
October 2, 2009 at 7:21 am
Best post so far! Totally agree with everything you’ve said.
Courtney
October 5, 2009 at 4:37 am
[...] Re: The ladies of Michael's life… Did you see a picture of Brooke when she was 10? WTF!!!! I actually gasped when I saw the picture. SMH Brooke Shields by Gary Gross Iconic Photos [...]
The ladies of Michael's life... - Page 916
September 30, 2009 at 5:55 pm
[...] } Hui he afegit un enllaç que anomene fotos icòniques si hi entres veuràs uns retrats que quan les van fer, i fins al dia de hui, ningú havia gojat dir [...]
fotos icòniques « Gaspar Sellés
September 30, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I don’t see ANY form of art in the first picture. Little girls don’t naturally pose naked like that! I am not as bothered by the rest as they can be seen as a child playing in the bathtub. Not that I agree with letting a child pose naked for pictures in the first place.
Ashley
September 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I don’t agree that little girls don’t pose naked like that. Little girls do, they also put on make up and pretend to be adults. They do pose. I certainly don’t see this as porn. If any parent has not seen their child, especially daughters, pose like that I would be surprised.
To be honest, it’s well posed and photographed, as the genital area is well hidden, and as she has no breasts, or even budding yet, I dont see how it can be called pornographic. Her figure at that age is no different from a 5 year old, so what’s the problem.
To me it is beautiful art!
Kelly
October 1, 2009 at 8:12 am
[...] you see a picture of Brooke when she was 10? WTF!!!! I actually gasped when I saw the picture. SMH Brooke Shields by Gary Gross Iconic Photos Umm, that is considered child pornography. Why are they still allowing that scum bag to post, [...]
The ladies of Michael's life... - Page 919
September 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm
yes its a little weird and personally i would never let my child do this, but i don’t think its pornography. its art. look in any art museum and you’ll find tens of painting with nude women, men, and children that show more than this. i do think, though, that if Brooke did not want these shown to the world, the photographer and her could make some sort of deal.
margaret
September 30, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Maybe Brooke could have done what Paris Hilton did.
instead of complaining about a sex video, Paris negotiated a cut of its earnings. Now that is the modern way. and it plays into the theme of these photos – the clash between puritan morals and a quick buck.
Toby's dad
October 1, 2009 at 9:28 pm
[...] 1981, when Shields was 16, she tried to sue Gross to get control of the images, and stop them being distributed – but was… (Why she also didn’t sue her own pimp of a mother I have no idea…) Gross later sold the [...]
Bad news week for rape victims « Hanging Around On The Wrong Side Of The World (still)
September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I do like that bathroom though. nice plants and composition
al
September 30, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Yes, I agree. Would that be Eau de Nile in the first one on the walls, or duck-egg blue. The fabrics look very lush. Taps in the first bath are rather ugly though, and could do serious damage should one slip.
Sue
October 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm
it actually scares me that some man get horny just becaus of these pics of a 10-year-old girl. it might lead to some conclusions!
Anyway, this photos are highly pornographic!
rachel
September 30, 2009 at 11:49 pm
rico rico que delicia de nena cuando era jovensita para chuparle la vagina y meterle suavemente la verga que rico me enferma esa mujer adulta como seria de divina de niña
raul peñalosa
October 1, 2009 at 12:27 am
Okay I just wanted to translate this for everybody…
yummy yummy how delicious as a child when she was such a young little girl to suck her vagina and enter slowly into her how delicious, she makes me (love/sexually) sick that adult lady how divine she was as a child.
Just to throw that in to the mix…
OMG!!!
October 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm
[...] you’re paying for it. So ultimately, I’m leaving that decision you. See them uncensored here. And may God have mercy on your souls. Sophie Monk Topless in The Hills Run Red Kelly Brook for [...]
Pornographic Images of 10-Year Old Brooke Shields Displayed in London Gallery | Vocley.com
October 1, 2009 at 12:36 am
and if there are no such things as gods?
Don’t need mercy. And I wouldn’t want any from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god anyway. He is the just about the most arrogant, evil, malicious, pridful, lustful, greedy, intolerant, racist, sexist, speciesist entity I have ever heard of. Maybe there were worse, but if there were, I never knew of them.
Yahweh sees it good that Lot gave up his daughters to be raped when a crowd came seeking a male guest. Lot is the only good and righteous man in Sodom and Gomorragh. Genesis 19:8. Yahweh also approved of the actions of a old man who lived in Gibeah, who took in a traveller and his concubine, and who gave his daughter and the concubine of the traveller to the crowd seeking to rape the man. Judges 19:24.
Fuck God, the Gods and any gods. They have never demostrated ethics – their morals make humans seem positively obessed by justice in comparison.
Our societies have moved on. These photos are art.
Oh, and if anything that can be wanked over is porn, guess what? Everything is porn and anything can be porn. Some people find animals attractive? Shall we ban Crufts and other dog shows.
This is not a series of pictures of Brooke Shields being abused. It is a series of pictures of Brooke Shields playing in a bath and posing in imitation of adult sexuality. How many girls don’t pose, and don’t try on make up. Most do get photgraphed doing so, but why not? It is a human behaviour, what’s so wrong in admitting it?
Steve
October 2, 2009 at 7:45 am
Steve, you’re bringing things into this that are wrong. This isn’t about Christians, or any other believers against non believers. I’m a Christian, and i’m also defending these photos as art. But yo’re way off the mark trying to pigeon hole the for’s and against here. BTW, try reading the New Testament. God is Love. And in answer to your leading question, “and if there are no such things as gods?”, I put a question to you. What if there is a God?
Kelly
October 2, 2009 at 8:46 am
“speciesist”
Whenever you see someone using that word, you know you’re dealing with a true nutbucket.
Joltin' Django
October 4, 2009 at 1:54 pm
[...] you see a picture of Brooke when she was 10? WTF!!!! I actually gasped when I saw the picture. SMH Brooke Shields by Gary Gross Iconic Photos WOW that is so inappropriate and disgusting! Who in the f*ck thought that was a good [...]
The ladies of Michael's life... - Page 929
October 1, 2009 at 1:21 am
Her mother should be embarrassed! What a horrific thing to do to your child. Can you even imagine the conversation… “Honey, I want you to take off all your clothes for this nice man so he can take your picture. And we’re going to cover your body in oil. Smile.”
And I’m completely freaked out by all the men posting that they’re turned on. I seriously I hope I don’t know you.
tt
October 1, 2009 at 3:40 am
The top pic is horrid! Her Mother should be ashamed!!!!
S
October 1, 2009 at 5:19 am
Americans are so damned hypocritical as can be seen in these comments.
Making films of people being blown up, decapitated, limbs flying around and brains getting splattered on walls is GREAT. Creating games where kids can use guns and shoot people and de-personalise war. How sick can you get.
Everyone can carry a gun to kill other people.
Americans think that killing foreigners (Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc etc etc) is good for the moral upbringing of their soldier kids.
But show a bit of cleavage and thet scream blue murder about porno.
Get a life you hypocritical stupid braindead puritans.
We need to put a big moat around that country and isolate them from the civilised world … ooops that already happenned.
Brian
October 1, 2009 at 9:04 am
Brilliantly worded I could not agree more. Maybe Put a wall around them just to make sure. Even better has anyone seen Space 1999? Now there’s a good reason for Americans to go back to the Moon.
Thanks Brian you have made my day.
Take care of you and yours.
Horus
October 1, 2009 at 10:29 am
Well not americans so much as conservitives, well christians/catholics, muslims jews actually pretty much anyone who bases their lives around organized religion. (ironically brook shields is a member of the Church of scientology.On the off chance someone doesn’t know why that’s amusing…it’s a religion that was started by L.Ron.Hubbard…A FUCKING SCIENCE FICTION WRITER.)
Americans are bad for for seeking out the terroists that crashed a couple planes into NYC skyscrapers, another into the pentagon, kidnaped and beheaded american tourists on live webcasts, bombed us threaten us and will die without hesitation to inflict harm on the american people because they think they’ll have 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven when you can’t 72 FEMALE virgins over the age of 18 in any city at any given time worth enduring a papercut for let alone dying for.
Since i lived right across the river from NYC and saw the towers burning, because some Zealots from the other side of the world came to the united states to go to school in order to have the required skills to kill thousands of random people because..why? women aren’t treated like slaves? women here Don’t walk around covered from head to toe, can’t torture them, or kill them in the middle of a busy street legally. Oh wait, it’s because we don’t believe in their god. I don’t really care where those people come from, death is far to good for them.
Bush Jr and anyone that voted for him are what’s wrong with this country. The way the war was gone about was bullshit, he’s a war criminal and should be locked in a dark pit somewhere with a bag of coke and the monkey from outbreak. That’s the problem with the faithful, they bielve what ever they’re told by the most famous person that shares their religious outlook.
Violent movies? So fucking what. It’s make believe, it’s part of a story. And no where near as violent as the news on any world wide media outlet.
Video games….that kids can get…and use guns, and shoot pretend people. Actually, our overprotective group of mommies and church officials brought about a rating system for games. Since you seem to be reffering to Left for dead 2, perhaps you’re an aussie. But the “somebody think of the children” is the most self indulgent shit i’ve ever heard. It’s parents really saying “won’t somebody else think of our children because we can’t be bothered to raise them” Aside from the fact that numerous studies have proven over and over that the average gamer does so to relieve anger or stress, ya know pretend to do something and feel get agression out in a safe way, rather than bottle it up until one day you try to rob a bank wearing a suit made out of ping pong balls while wielding a rubber chicken a demand that all the cows be freed to india. Also as gaming has increased among teenagers….actual teenage violence has decreased.
But the pictures, certainly fucked up that her mother enlisted such a thing, but not quite porn. Not seductive or attractive, a kid in the tub playing dress up. Lots of people walk around naked a good deal of the time in some parts of the world, could prolly even take pictures of them doing so. I’m sick of all you whiny republican bible thumping control freaks saying everything is bad. Tv is bad, words are bad, video games are bad, right to privacy is bad, freedom of speech is bad. If it’s all so bad, just go away.
Insomniac
October 1, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I should point out that when it comes to terrorism, NYC and Bston were amusing choices for the aircraft departure, as they were the two key cities used to funnel money to the IRA..
Second, the majority of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. There was absolutely no link to iraq at all.
Third, in the month of September, 2001, more people died on US roads from traffic incidents, than in that attack.
Fourth (and finally) the majority of the actions taken to ‘prevent’ terrorism are, under the US definition of terrorism, actually terrorism. The threat, or implied threat of an attack is terrorism as much as any actual attack.
Oh, and the vast majority of child abuse comes from within the family, and usually from those that protest the strongest against it. Lets not forget Mark Foley for instance, who was Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, and who was responsible for introducing a lot of the legislation that dealt with child abuse. As with kids, the strongest protestations are the ones trying to cover their ‘guilt’.
flobert
October 2, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Good Grief Man! Will you just run for President already. I read this thread from the beginning. It started out with the horrifyingly Evil IM-moral UN-majority types beating their drum in the oh so too familiar fashion to their all time favorite melody “Think of the Children”.
Then, sanity started to creep in. To which “Matt” became more irrationally insane with each passing post to the point where he almost degenerated into a “fuck you you fucking fuck” level of pseudo-communication. No kidding, he impresses me as the type of man likely to walk into his office and gun down his co-workers or perhaps blow up a woman’s health clinic. More disturbingly his last post seemed to be a 180 degree turn around. Perhaps his meds kicked in? Or perhaps he has chosen a target? Scary stuff this!
Anyhow, I could not agree with you more. I could make some points of my own but your post has sated me. There are lots more problems in the world, but if the points you made could be addressed the others would probably take care of themselves.
My only addition will be one of my favorite observations that “Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with God”. Kelly, you Rock, you (seem to) get it. But sadly we are a statistically insignificant minority.
Religion is not new evil. Look at the inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and the dark ages. From the Muslim world, well their barbaric proto-civilization probably won’t survive to learn the error of its ways. If not for attacking us it would have already genocided itself in a fit of white hot rage. As it is, sooner or later a world power will probably decide they are unacceptable and end the problem once and for all. My money is on Russia.
Most of the time religion has just been a way for evil corrupt men to enforce their will on a group who should, by rights lynch them in the streets. I prefer to think God has a few rather nasty surprises in store for that crowd. Until then sign me up for the “just go away” platform.
Terry
October 2, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Uhm…I would like to know what the USA has to do with anything THIS time. It’s not like THEIR museum pulled the pics, nor did THEIR police pursue legal action to have them banned. I fail to see the relevance of this reply. Are any of the pictures seductive? Yes, the first one. The others not so much. As such, the first photo particularily is inapporiate, to say the least. The artist quite clearly wanted to establish that children can not only BE seductive, but hints that they do so purposefully. As such he promotes the idea that with consent, there is nothing wrong with seeing seduction within the child, and therfore falling victim TO that seduction (having sexc with the seducer) and therfore the implication is clear that it should be viewed as pefectly acceptable to have sex with 10 year old children, and not regarded as deviant behaviour. As such, this photograph is, in fact, pornographic in nature because it, in all actuality makes a villain of what would otherwise be a child victim and makes the victim the other (adult or otherwise) seduced. In other words: she asked for it.
Nettie
October 14, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Beautiful pics, plain and simple. No, they’re not porn. People are way over the top now about this stuff.
Fleur
October 1, 2009 at 9:41 am
Hallo all, I have to say I can see the Art and the exploitation of a young girl. From an artist background you can get away with almost anything but sometimes the thought and ideas will be twisted by the viewer.
I have read some replies talking about masturbation, that is not the point of the pictures. I truly worry about anyone who could even consider these pictures as a sex aid. They are great shots and disturbing but what would you want from art? If art does not emotionally charge you then it is not art.
Other comments I read were also disturbing i.e Yvonne ‘I have a son and have NEVER EVER taken a picture of him without a nappy on.’ That is even more disturbing.
I have thousands of pictures of my son, and several hundred of him in the bath, running around the garden playing in the house naked and enjoying him self. These are not disturbing pictures but they are a great weapon of torture when he starts bring Girls home or when he gets to 21 and they will make the same impact (embarrassment) as the same kind of photo’s my Mum & Dad took of me.
The problem we have is that some people are sick and need help, others are too innocent of mind and yet more worrying are the prudish, stubborn, conservative Christian type. Take care all.
Horus
October 1, 2009 at 10:11 am
There is a huge difference between the pictures taken of our children playing in the bath or running naked through the sprinkler in the garden and pictures of a child with her body oiled, face painted heavily like a woman of the night and posing like this in the bath. It makes me wonder who rubbed this childs body, completely, down with oil. This makes my heart ache to see. I couldnt imagine the desperate position a mother would have to be in to actually allow these pictures taken in the first place and then to accept a payment (in any amount) for them.
Kim
October 2, 2009 at 3:13 am
The photos are innatural, there is nothing of genuine spontaneity, innocence, of childhood (you see, she wears also a golden collier, she has full make up…). Not because she wasn’t true and shy, or because taking a photograph of your daughter nude in bathroom is a crime.
The reason is that in those photos you can see the photographer’s malice that is a reflection of the spectator’s malice. She was true, the photographer was totally hypocritical. In this fact is the pornography
pippo
October 1, 2009 at 11:58 am
Sorry, but I really can’t see the photographer’s malice. Nor am I viewing them with malice.
Perhaps it’s your views on what these photos made you feel that has inspired you to think that the photographer was malicious…
What do you mean ‘She was true’ true to what? I’m confused because you haven’t asserted anything for her to be true or false about. In the same way, what do you mean when you say “the photographer is hypocritical”? In what way.
You then assert that these two prior oberservations are valid despite your total lack of explanation as to how you reached that conclusion, and they somehow demonstrate the fact of the pornography. Pornography isn’t about hypocrisy or innocence. Pornography is a graphic dipiction of sexual activity that is intended to stimulate sexual feelings. This means that diet coke ad was porn, because when I watched the lady with the can I wasn’t thinking about the coke.
Steve
October 2, 2009 at 8:15 am
It’s great that so may people took time out to search the Net to find these pics, then spent even more time writing BS “holier-than-thou” comments. The pics are great. Fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of you need to get outta the house more ffs!
SJ
October 1, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Funny, you did the same crap as everybody else. “holier-than-thou” ?
TM
October 1, 2009 at 4:35 pm
TM – you need to get outta the house more too, lol.
SJ
October 2, 2009 at 7:25 am
[...] auf dem Hollywoodstar Brooke Shields als Zehnjährige zu sehen ist. Das Problem: Das Bild 'Spiritual America' von Richard Prince zeigt Shields 1978 nackt, eingeölt und stark geschminkt in einer Badewanne. [...]
klatsch-tratsch.de » Brooke Shields: Kinder-Nacktbild aus Ausstellung entfernt
October 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm
EVERYONE WHO SAYS THIS IS SICK – IS SICK THEMSELVES!
If you see this as porno you are SICK!
This is a beautiful girl and there is nothing wrong
with looking at a human body it perfectly natural at any age.
If you see anything other than innocence you are ill.
Indigo
October 1, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I agree, it is the people looking at it that are the problem. I admit I came to this site to see what the fuss was about, and to be honest, I couldnt believe the way most of you are carrying on. These photos are beautiful. They are the human body, and the human body is beautiful. If you are shocked and disgusted by these photos, or if you get off on these photos, you all have a problem.
As I stated earlier, Little girls do pose like that, they also put on make up and pretend to be adults. I certainly don’t see this as porn. If any parent has not seen their child, especially daughters, pose like that I would be surprised.
To be honest, it’s well posed and photographed, as the genital area is well hidden, and as she has no breasts, or even budding yet, I dont see how it can be called pornographic. Her figure at that age is no different from a 5 year old, so what’s the problem. She hasn’t even hit puberty yet (in the pic’s). Leave it alone. The natural body is beautiful.
To me it is beautiful art!
Kelly
October 1, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Hey Matt and others. I bet the reason you’re so pissed off about this is because you got a hard on and it scared you. Have you ever seen real porn?
Dirk
October 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Well I agree – Page 3 of The Sun these aint….
Sue
October 1, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Dirk my thought exactly!!
However I think the first picture is a bit overdone. I wouldn’t take such pictures of my children. But these pictures are far from porn… There is a difference between pictures, art, nude, and porn. You can give these pictures any label but not porn. Lets call it inappropriate nude if you are offended by it’s nature.
I think that especially the heavy reactions of Matt with the uncontrolled name calling says all about the thoughts of Matt instead of the other repliers.
Pascal
October 1, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Roman Polanki would have sure thought it was porn. His favorite type – little girls right as they are about to hit puberty. I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money, that he jacked off more than a time or two to that (top) picture. Might well have tried to set up a “session” to shoot pics for Vogue, also.
To the average person that top pic may well be rather disturbing, because it takes a nude child and poses her like a seductive woman, makeup, come-hither look and all. To pedophiles, it’s pure gold BECAUSE she has not hit puberty and ‘ruined’ their fantasy.
Marcy
October 1, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Oh yeah Dirk, you sound real fucking smart. You must be one retarded fellow… have i ever seen real porn? What does that have to do with this photo? You are probably one of those losers who cant have a relationship because you beat off 5 times a day.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:02 am
It is all about the face. Brooke Shields has a face. I can see where perverts will lust over these images, but they do not show pornographic acts being committed. On that, I will have to agree with the court, in spite of my reservations.
Ms. Shields has the facial structure of a grown woman, in these images. Her mother played her daughters face for money; a lot of it! A signed contract is binding. Her mother willingly promoted that face.
Who ignited this inferno? Who is responsible, for the outcome, by signing a contract? If it is pornographic, why not jail Brooke’s mother, for promotion of child prostitution? Outlandish, you may say, but objective, none the less. Seek a warrant, for her mother’s arrest, prosecution, conviction, and very long prison sentence. That will be subjective accountability, not misappropriated blame.
If Ms. Shields and her mother want to stop further publication of future images, why not pay for the negatives, and the rights? It is called, paying for your mistakes, and no one can plead ignorance. Again, who wanted to exploit their daughter, for financial gain?
It be it.
Ronin Kannushi
October 1, 2009 at 1:26 pm
So this is what is called ART?!
Lina
October 1, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Kelly, Dirk, you are sick, people! A normal man can not call this beautiful.
Allisa
October 1, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Ah, this is exactly the problem isn’t it. A “normal man” in Allisa’s autocratic society cannot call this beautiful. He dare not.
Net effect Allisa gets her say, and is he gets labeled a pervert. The most chilling effect on society however is that Allisa, all 20 million of her, are just fine with that.
And yes, I suspect it is a lot closer to 20 million than 300.
Terry
October 2, 2009 at 3:50 pm
human body bla bla bla. this is exactly what those men who molest children says. if it can cause some trouble, so it must be removed. btw, why nude?! who wants to see the kid in this way?
think again
Feinf
October 1, 2009 at 2:51 pm
[...] OFFENSIVE According to The Guardian, the Tate Modern in London removed a photograph by Gary Gross of Brooke Shields at the age of 10, naked and with heavy make-up, which was used by Richard Prince [...]
here & now › ART OFFENSIVE
October 1, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I absolutely adore the last picture. it’s a really wonderful shot! of course it IS art. And it’s true – art should be disturbing or it wouldn’t work. that’s what art is all about, isn’t it?
but I don’t get why anyone can see them, if she doesn’t want that? In the end, she was underage, when they were made, so I think she must get the chance to use her rights after she turned 18. It’s her privacy in the end.
But guys…when you really get hard after looking at these pics…take a very very cold shower and think about seeing a psychologist. that’s NOT okay.
@Matt: Calm down. You’re unobjective. I think you’re the one with the problem, too. Were you tangent to it that much? please overthink you’re position.
Rita
October 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm
What do you mean, you artistic “people” take shit wayyyyy out of proportion when it comes to problems like this.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:04 am
Yes these pictures can be seen as disturbing. It unnerves us because of the society we live in. To the label it ‘porn’ is rash. Yes, she is posing, with full make up but this shows the desperateness of the a girl when she wants to explore the changes in her body, Gross is showing in these pictures the type of feelings a girl of that age feels. Some do this. Some do put on tons of make up. Stand naked in mirrors. Others with strict upbringing probably don’t and its from these people and their upbringing which brands these pictures as ‘porn’. There are people who are sick and see these as provocative. That’s what happens, people are different. But these were not intended pornoogrphically. To see them like that is only because you are looking at them like that. I would never let my daughter do this because frankly I do want to protect my child from those who dont see the art and see porn. It’s disgraceful, but then Shields has always sent out a sexual image so I cannot be sympathetic. I appreciate this as art. I pity those who find these pronographic and cant see past the young girl finding adulthood.
Hazel
October 1, 2009 at 3:41 pm
i think there beautiful. and so is the girl..that does not mean id like to have sex with her or think shes in anyway sexually attractive. i see beautiful cars, trees, dogs, cats…the list goes on. i think we have forgot how to look at children nowadays. beauty has become a taboo subject in a child.
also when you see something like this it is your brain telling you how to view, nothing else. if you see something here sexual, then that says more about you than the photo. we have got to a stage almost where it is wrong to see beauty in a child under the age of 16. pathetic!
jase
October 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Mabey there’s nothing wrong with the human body and taking pictures of it. That aside 10 YEARS OLD WITH MAKEUP DUDE! Just a little bit wierd, but if your into 10 year olds I guess you wouldn’t see anything wrong with it. Some people just will never get it.
TM
October 1, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Her body looks unatural like shes been working out…actually looks like a 15 year old boys body.In the top photo she looks like a 25 yr old woman…camera work is careful to do this..wouldn t go a miss in Bangkoks seedier kind of bars. Mums prob her pimp.
Matty
October 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm
10 year olds dude! 10……….count them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, & 10! Can you guys smell the that. It’s the freaks lying in wait for more 10 year olds!
TM
October 1, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Dirk, you sick puppy. Matt might have gotten hard, gross. We all know you got hard and I’m sure you would love to share your 10 year old collection with us, but I don’t think we should go there. Well, we shouldn’t go there at least until civilization is crumbing all around us and all hope is lost in the world.
TM
October 1, 2009 at 4:47 pm
So if you thought civilisation was crumbling and you thought all hope was lost then you would ‘go there’?
This is an photo of a young girl. Whatever you see in there, remember, it is you who is interpreting it. You can guess at the interpretation(s) intended by the photographer, but we each can only see the photo through our own eyes.
If you can only see this as sexual then maybe you are unable to separate the idea of being nude from sex. The two ARE different – the problem is that Judeo-Christian-Islamic morals treat them as one and the same, and people raised in these traditions may not be able to see past their cultural conditioning.
This is the point of all such art: to challenge and disturb our assumptions, attitudes and prejudices and make us think again – look anew at things familiar and reach new levels of understanding.
No, this picture did not arouse me. Sure the girl in it would be very attractive in a few years once her body completed its changes, but not yet. I think if you were aroused by this picture then you might need to think about the way you think. Same as if you view this as porn – just because you aren’t aroused doesn’t mean that YOU are focussing on the sexual element to the detriment of any other aspects of the work.
Oh, and can people please stop the adhominem attacks: “You’re sick! Because I think you are and I’m right! No-one normal could ever do something like that!”
If you think people are sick, try to justify and explain your position in order that other people may understand your point of view. Pointless namecalling gets no-one anywhere.
I have dl’d those pictures – anything attracting censorship interests me as I believe in freedom of thought, belief, information, speech, expression and association. Due to current political correctness a work of art has been censored in the Tate in the UK. This is fundamentally wrong. You can disagree with the work, but let others see it and decide for themselves. We should not force our views on others, and banning something forces people to be deprived of something. As such this work should be protected from those who would ban others from seeing what they have seen. Talk about hypocritical.
Steve
October 2, 2009 at 9:27 am
Yeah… no shithead. I was the one agreeing with you.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:06 am
These are just innocent pics of a little girl. Anybody else that sees it different is either really uptight or a perv. I bet the same people that object to this pic, are the same ones that want people to go to jail for developing pics of their toddlers in the bath tub. Lighten up, people.
FreedomFirst
October 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Anyone who sees these photos as pornographic has been sexually repressed and is socially misadjusted. She’s a beautiful (and innocent) little girl in a bathtub and the photos are tastefully done. There seems to be 3 viewpoints to this.
1. It is art. Appreciate it
2. It is porno. Fear it.
3. It is porno. Crave it.
Obviously those who obsess over it have problems… one way or the other.
Hermes
October 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm
That first picture is gross. You can call it art but when you paint a child like a hooker and oil her up, it’s not right. I didn’t have as much a problem with the last ones, she looks like a pretty LITTLE girl not like a mini hooker. Aren’t there enough other sources of “art” that children don’t have to be the subjects of things like this? The vast majority of mothers would NEVER consider doing a photo like that with their child to make money. Sad.
Barnums
October 1, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I think she looks beautiful and I can see the “artsy” side to it. Unfortunetly we have as many pedo bear huggers as we do artistic individuals. That also being said, I have a daughter who is almost 10yrs old. I would never take these kinds of pictures of her. Nor would I ever release them out into the public for 1 publication or 30. It does show the woman in the child and that is the problem with pedo bear huggers. They see little girls and think it’s ok to treat them as if they are grown women. It is not ok. My opinion is that they should have never been taken and Brooke should have been able to have them destroyed.
missycaro
October 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Interesting is that the people here who say it’s porn use a lot of foul language to condemn those who say it’s art. “Art is in the eye of the beholder,” said someone here, I agree. Everybody who says “makes me horny” or “turns me on” etc. needs a shrink. Even if this picture is not really that innocent considering that BS wears make up and was apparently oiled, but that doesn’t make it porn. Girls all over the world use mammies make up at that age. BS lost all court cases against the photographer, read it, there are still sane people in the US. Look at all the sex scandals of the US politicians in high offices; many of them demanded sexual morale and sexual decency and all that nonsense while paying at the same time high-class hookers. The biggest laugh was Mrs. Palin and her daughter getting pregnant at 17 years while she was preaching her daughter and the public to be abstinent. The poor girl didn’t even know what birth control is. There are some 250 million fire weapons and shotguns in private hands, violence seams to be ok but not this picture, says a lot about the society. I am glad that there are people in this forum who think its art; we are not completely lost – good! It’s a said thing that all this violence in TV, movies and other media in the US are tolerated but when it comes to a picture like this there is an outcry. There is a double morale in the US and elsewhere too. Anybody who gets turned on by looking at this picture might look at “kids underwear mail order catalogues” or watching little girls at the playground too, should we ban that too? I agree of what the judge said in other words. The picture is a fine piece of art – period!
Jim Dakota
October 1, 2009 at 6:24 pm
These photos are not pornographic! At least not to me and millions of other mature individuals. Only someone who is dangerously sick would see these as something arousing.
The photos are glamourous and, frankly, over the top with the make-up, but there is nothing pornographic of even suggestive about a young girl’s bare chest prior to her beginning to “develop” unlewss, of course, you think a man’s bare chest is also pornographic. We see soap and shampoo commercials on television every day that are often more frank and suggestive.
When is our culture going to learn to relax over such matters? Bare skin and nudity does not, and should not, have to suggest anything sexual unless you WANT it to.
We all tend to forget that the only truly important sex organ is the one between our ears. Based on many of the comments in here, there are a lot of people who seem to be afraid of their own bodies and sexuality. That’s too bad for them and for the rest of us who are exposed to their constant howls of offense over things that are often mearly natural and beautiful..
HermansBoy
October 1, 2009 at 6:46 pm
If it makes you feel any better, I’m pretty certain she isn’t nude in that first picture. Look at it very carefully (zoom in if necessary) and she appears to be wearing a sanitary towel. You would still never catch me allowing my daughter to be photographed like that though.
Cezza
October 1, 2009 at 6:59 pm
The first picture is supposed to shock, it isn’t porn. The body looks wrong, as is from Alian Autopsy. I don’t see anything sexual about it, it is too ‘wrong’, which I am sure is what the artist intended. The other two photos are just pretty pictures, what’s all the fuss about? If perverts want photos of naked little girls, they only have to get a package deal to a Spanish beach and use a video camera with a 500x zoom, it wouldn’t cost much. We have entered an age where everyone (Male) is a pervert and all children should be protected from them.
Mark
October 1, 2009 at 7:35 pm
can’t believe anyone would make a child pose like this i know it was a while ago so maybe the world wasnt the same then but it is disgusting.
Ross
October 1, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I.M.O totally inappropriate. This reeks at childabuse
Tony
October 1, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Anyone who sees these images as pornographic has a few problems and probably shouldn’t be left unsupervised with children.
OK, so they’re a bit of a shock for some people but that’s the whole point of Art isn’t it, to challenge one’s perceptions and to make one think?
I think that there is a growing issue with the sexualisation of young children in society, and especially girls, but doesn’t make these images pornographic any more than Tom & Jerry cartoons turn people into violent serial killers.
These photos are artistic; they show off the skill of the photographer and the beauty of the subject. Her parents obviously didn’t have a problem with them being taken and neither should we.
Lazydog
October 1, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Why should this surprise us when people in hollywood are defending a directer after he drugged raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl back in 78 and then fled the country. Just look at americas role models for the answer as to why this is accepted. Sick, twisted bastards. I’m boycottin the movies…
joel
October 1, 2009 at 8:23 pm
@Matt and others: why don’t you go scream in the hospital “oh my god, that newborn baby is nude, oh my god oh my god I need to cry I need to torture the doctor to death cause he said the baby was pretty omfg omfg omfg whoever likes pictures of babies is sick, die die die!”
You twisted people have lived for too long amongst zombie worshiping creeps longing for the middle east to be blown up so the Magical Master Zombie will finally appear in mushroom clouds and pools of blood, bringing billions and billions of death people back to life to have public hearings and burn heretics on the stakes forever for i.e. believing in a slightly different zombie master. Boy, you seriously need help.
Oh, forget about screaming at hospitals. Enough zombie fans there, willing to kill doctors for saving lives because i.e. you deluded hypocrites make life a living hell for people who don’t fit in your magical mystery tour trip. Like unmarried teenage mothers. Except if they are willing to buy the BS that makes you feel big, proud and just because power and money hungry wolfs dressed like sheep acting as shepherds tell you so (and please donate).
This is not porn. Religion is porn. Now go read your version of the bible and leave other people alone with your dirty craving thoughts.
Doctor Robert
October 1, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I kinda doubt ure an M.D. you fucking retard, shut up.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:08 am
… What the hell are you even trying to say here? You have way too much time on your hands and you just might be a necrophiliac considering you mentioned zombies a lot
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:09 am
People, this is no porn! ok, its not my cup-of-tea but hey; in a public swimming pool or a beach you see that all the time, relax. You Americans should go to a liberal country (such as the Netherlands) and learn. in Europe they sometimes call Americans crazy. for the people shouting things like “sick” , “child pornography” and (this is my favourite) “Did your mom fuck you as a child?” get real! you see her “breasts” that’s it.
Stan
October 1, 2009 at 9:19 pm
If I were some people here I wouldn’t say that these pictures get me “horny” cause threads like this might end up being monitored by the gov. However, I think that there are many ways of looking at the pictures and I want to add that our psychology is inherently sexually based. So there is no denying that this “porno” in some regard.
st.
October 1, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Dear Matt, maybe it’s time to be less eloquently put. I have read more pornography in our comments than I’ve seen in these pictures…..
Nescio
October 1, 2009 at 9:42 pm
mhm
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:11 am
What’s the fuss? just some pictures of a naked kid. Since when is nudity a sin?
taxplanning
October 1, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Did someone manage to shut up Matt’s foul mouth or did he just go to bed?
His means of expressing himself is more offensive than any photo and I personally don’t see these are remotely sexy.
Why not ban sick individuals like Matt who have to resort to multiple expletives rather than express their thoughts and feelings in a mature and adult manner.
Haggis
October 1, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Oh shut your mouth, what are you some proper person who never grew up around swearing. Give me a break. How the fuck am i sick for defending the fact that this picture is of an exploited child? GO FUCK YOURSELF! YOU CUMGUSSLING BITCH! There is that enough profanity for you?
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:13 am
This isn’t supposed to be porn, people. These are artistic nude photos. Human body, and all. Just becaus you have repressed dirty thoughts about kids doesn’t mean other people are like you.
Just like people who insist on little girls using bikinis on the beach. Their bodies aren’t supposed to be erotic, if you feel the need for them to cover themselves, it probably means you see them as potential mates, therefore they should cover their “shames”. In short, DENIAL
Will
October 1, 2009 at 10:26 pm
How horrific! I really doubt it was considered art at the time too.
london
October 1, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I’m with Matt all the way! This picture is sick. Brooke Sheilds mother shlould be ashamed of herself and anyone who finds this ‘horny’ should get help. Not that you will because I say it but really, you should GET HELP.
Geronimo
October 1, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Thank you, heres one right minded person. Jeez.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:14 am
Ya know, if any of us was found with this on our computer or tried to have this photo developed, we’d be arrested for child porn.
Without a doubt.
delphine
October 1, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I really cannot believe her mother let her pose like this. She really did exploit the heck out of her kid didn’t she? I have a beautiful daughter too. There is no way I would have exposed her to the disgusting people who are now looking at these pictures and making their lewd and gross comments. No way on earth for any amount of money. Her mother should be shot. Poor Brooke. I also can’t believe when she became of age the courts did not hand these negatives back to her.
Jaxon
October 2, 2009 at 12:52 am
I think they´re hot!
Phil
October 2, 2009 at 12:56 am
This is fucking sick photos…
I got young girls and i will never let them see this photos as it will be a bad sample for them.
Brooke Shiled!!! your mother is a fucking sick person for letting her young child pose for nude photo and sell it just to make money, Why not her pose for nude instead of you…
This is a really disturbing photos for young girls and for all parents.
This photos should not be release anymore as it just create more child sex offender, it just give the child molester an excuse to take more photos of a naked young girls and post it in the internet.
This is child abuse!!!
Maria
October 2, 2009 at 1:09 am
This reminds of me of this 10 year old girl stalking me and wanting to show me her “big breasts” while holding oranges under her shirt.
Would you please go away? You’re making me uncomfortable!
YES THEY ARE BIG OK??
Hendrik
October 2, 2009 at 1:54 am
Was her mother ever committed?
Dawn
October 2, 2009 at 2:12 am
Thanks for posting these pics, love your blog. So disturbing to see them…I read about the pictures just now on another blog. Brooke should be given the negatives or at least granted the right to stop publication of these disturbing images. Her mom signed the contract, not Brooke herself.
Polyethylethylene
October 2, 2009 at 2:16 am
I feel there is nothing wrong in the picture as the American court rightly pointed out and whether it should be displayed in an exibition is upto the concerned governments.
kedar
October 2, 2009 at 4:54 am
the only thing i can think when i see this, is “money”, brooke didnt do this for the love of art…(or her parents) they did it for money, so they took a picture of a 10 year old girl for money… is this art?… (i watch porn regularly, so i guess since now… porn is an artform)
MYLTON
October 2, 2009 at 4:57 am
THANKS FOR POSTING THEM. I´M WACKING OFF LIKE CRAZY WITH SUCH FINE SKIN. ONLY WISH THERE WAS ONE WITH HER MOUTH OPEN…
mikeD
October 2, 2009 at 4:58 am
Your fucking stupid.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:16 am
I don’t really have a problem with these pictures at all. But! I’m kind of disturbed by the scenery… Hasn’t anyone notice the difference in the setting? Innocence and playfulness in the last two, and maturity and seduction on the first. And I’m not talking about posing, I’m talking about the setting… Something to wonder about, and it makes me want to see the rest of the photos…
Nana
October 2, 2009 at 6:11 am
whats wrong in being aroused by watching the first pic ?that pic was definitely taken with an intention to titillate .FFS this project was funded by PLAYBOY.This is fucking child porn.The mother should be arrested.What kind of a dumb judge would rule against Brooke .Anyway i dont have any respect for hollywood or their stars.It just a big fucking bordello full of whores,pimps and perverts.Remember Woody ALlen the sick pervert who raped his own adopted daughter and then there is Polanski guy.SICK FUCKS
kelas
October 2, 2009 at 7:05 am
Ridiculous hypocritical commotion about a complete innocent picture of a naked human, young female, body. Your completely oversexed if you can see anything pornographic in this picture. Go and live with the Taliban and start headscarving and Bourka woman!
The Prophet
October 2, 2009 at 7:41 am
i think there is no wide childp0rn problem in 1978 , so at that time , this pictures are not so disturbing. but today , humanity has a big pedoplia problem and this pictures should not be published like in this page. please remove them.
Cenk Yaman
October 2, 2009 at 8:20 am
Its no more a problem now, as then, or 100 years ago.
The change is because of media companies, ‘bigging it up’ to sell more copies, or get more viewers. Moral outrage sells, especially when you’re the one whipping the outrage up.
flobert
October 2, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I attended art school as a visual arts major. In a perfect world, I guess these pictures could be considered artistic expression. Unfortunately, we DON’T LIVE in a perfect world. Are you reading some of the comments that are being posted? Regardless of the intentions of the photographer, these photos are obviously turning some of these guys on…and that’s sick. I’m not trying to call anyone out, it’s just disgusting. What’s worse is there are others on here sticking up for them, and that’s disturbing, as well. We have laws in place against these kinds of media NOT to stifle anyone’s creativity, but because there are some people out there who apparently ARE turned on by this kind of thing, and if it in any way, shape or form may lead to the harm of a child, it cannot be tolerated. As much as I DON’T like the idea of ANY kind of government interference regarding our personal freedoms, I really do believe that these photos should have been confiscated and destroyed about 34 years ago. I feel that if those pictures had been taken in this day and age, the parties responsible would be charged with child pornography, and I myself wouldn’t have a problem with that AT ALL.
Art is what it is, but if we try to say that anything goes for the sake of it, it becomes a dangerous enabler. I’m sure that there are many parents of molestation victims that would consider the splattered blood of their children’s assailants “art”. Would that make “mob justice” okay in the eyes of those who see no problem with these photos?
The Truth
October 2, 2009 at 8:32 am
Whats with all the idiots saying these photographs are pornographic? Those claims along with their horrible spelling is down right funny to say the least. Even if she was standing straight ahead or had her back to the camera it wouldn’t be pornographic. Yet she is completely covered down there and you sick insecure uptight pricks who are most likely the pervs are throwing a shit storm. The last two are so completely harmless, and the first one which it seems is the one causing the biggest outrage is also completely innocent. Brooke is just standing there, off to the side, exposing nothing, and with her arms up on the ledge of the tub. Thats it! She is not exposing the vagina/anus. She is not spreading her legs open. She is not touching her genitals or doing anything inappropriate. There are no donkeys, midgets, or erect penises anywhere in the photographs. All she has in that first one is some make up on. A little lipstick and mascara maybe, thats it. Child beauty pageants have way more make up plus fake eyelashes/hair/teeth on the kid and they have em provocatively dance around in skimpy clothes in front of a crowd while the hick moms cheer them on. Nothing is wrong with these pictures. But judging from a lot of the comments from people on here, there is definitely something wrong with a lot of you.
Most u ppl r tards
October 2, 2009 at 9:35 am
Im guessing you “get – off” to them then??
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:16 am
please remove this photos! it’s no natural neither artistic in a 10 year old baby in an sexy poses
nikema
October 2, 2009 at 10:06 am
I agree, Nikema – the fact that some people on here have made comments about finding these pictures sexually interesting should be enough to remove them.
I only have issues with the heavily made up picture as it is visually sexualizing a child – the others make Brooke look more like an innocent child. I am an art lover and have no issues with nudity per se but putting heavy make up and oil on a child’s body, asking her to pose with a hip thrust out looking into the camera in such a way will indeed titilate those out there who have issues with seeing children in a sexual light. So do the right thing, PLEASE REMOVE THEM. Many thanks
UK art lover
October 2, 2009 at 10:39 am
In case some people wonder why a lot of the reactions are spiteful or downright moronic, It was mentioned on the Dutch rightwing website Geenstijl.nl.
A lot of its members proudly call themselves beroepsmongeaulen (Professional retards) and the just love to troll any site that does not share their point of view.
Hans
October 2, 2009 at 10:44 am
Have just seen a seriously offensive comment from mike D on here that requires immediate action from this website – you need to notify the police about a couple of the comments on here from Mike, Phil, mikeD. REMOVE THE COMMENTS NOW!
UK art lover
October 2, 2009 at 10:51 am
Thankfully you’re here to monitor the internet. Where would the world be without you?
It’s vitally important that while on the net, everyone does what you say. That’s the only way we’ll get through this together, as a people.
Any other infringements on free speech you’d like to try?
Look Mr. UK art lover, just because your country turned into a police state doesn’t mean we all have. Some of us still live in places where the goverment is afraid of the people, and not the other way around.
Terribly sorry, old chap, that you lost that right. Deal with it.
Roger
October 7, 2009 at 3:03 am
make up or no make up this is child porn!!!
oh my god
October 2, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’m very sorry, The Truth, but I believe that fundamentally you are wrong. I know we don’t live in a perfect world but we will not create a better world unless we remove barriers and tabboos not support them with legislation.
If you want to ban anything if it turns some people on why not ban Harry Potter? Emma Watson is a very pretty young actress. It has been claimed that paedophiles have become…aroused by HP and bought the film on DVD with pretty much one thing in mind. Should Harry Potter be banned? Of course not.
All laws are in place to protect a majority from a minority. Laws against child porn are there to ensure that people engaging in pornography are doing so of their own free will and are capable of giving informed consent. I think the legality is complicated by the fact that Brooke is underage and her parent gave permission, but that is allowed within the law. The photos do not show her genitals, she is not posing in an explicit position (seduction is implied sexuality, trollers), she is not engaged in a sex act. I don’t think that this is child porn. I don’t think that Brooke was abused by the photographer or by her mother.
I don’t think that creativity will ever be caged by law. Nor should it. The point of art is to challenge contemporary values, which these photos did and still do. Child sex is not more common these days, we’re are just made more aware of it through constant media exposure. I don’t think that media expo is such a bad thing – the numbers and proportion of girl and women who receive abuse of a sexual nature is shocking in all human societies, and the so called developed nations still have very hight rates of rape and child abuse.
Current thinking about paedophilia is on the verge of causing ‘allergic’ reactions to some things. Not all men see women as a set of walking genitals. I can find women beautiful but not sexually attractive or arousing. I’ve found some women sexually attractive and arousing but not beautiful. I can look at young girls and tell that they will be gorgeous when they grow up, but for now they are children and not sexually attractive. We need to get past our body tabboos not reinforce them.
Maybe it’s how we gorw up? I grew up seeing my parents and my sister naked often when we washed or showered so to me, its just a body. We all have them. As my sister grew older she started to cover herself and so did I, but prepuberty we didn’t notice or care. Mum and dad weren’t exactly flashing, but it’s not like they tried to cover up much…why should they? As a result I’m not as confused about body tabboo nor as easily outraged as so many other seem. If you grow up with any glipse of flesh being forbidden then any revelation is going to excite and it is likely that you will have many supressed aspects of your psyche, including supressed sexuality.
If you see someone in a sexual way then you see them as a potential mate. People saying they’d whack off to these pictures are disturbing but people who say that anyone viewing the picture is sick are just as disturbing because it would seem that they are unable to see the picture in any frame of reference that is not sexual – suggesting they have suppressed sexual issues/desires themselves. Some of the strongest emotion responses are given when people are presented with something the desire, but feel a social need to refuse. Just like very macho men who flick each other with towels in the changing room (locker room) who tend to also act ina homophobic fashion often have repressed homosexual desires themselves, so many of those condemning ambiguous photos may benefit from some serious self-examination.
Oh, and if these pictures were taken today I would hope that they would be classed as art, but I doubt it. But what would be the logical justification for such a conviction? There wouldn’t need to be any logic – people are easily swayed by emotion in the Court of Opinion.
Making legislation on the ‘enabling’ principle is very very dangerous, because many actions can be said to enable others. Art should not be curtailed – this is fundamental constition stuff in the US, in the UK we don’t have a constitution but there are laws protecting freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Freedom is the freedom for me to do what you don’t agree with.
e.g. If I am free to smoke, it means I can smoke even if you don’t want me to, though I could be polite and not choose to do so.
e.g. If I am free to use recreational drugs it means that I could smoke weed like I could have a drink, but I can choose not to go into drinking dens or hash bars
e.g. If I am free to make a work of art, provided I harm no-one without their explicit informed consent it is no-one elses business how I choose to create or display my work.
You talk of exchanging freedom for security – you deserve neither. You advocate See No Evil, Here No Evil, Speak No Evil – a slave mentality that encourages rapacious attitudes. And you confirm this in your final paragraph where you imply that you believe that mob justice is okay because ‘anything goes for the sake of art’. How does that follow? And while some art can be considered porn and some porn may be art that is not to say all of it is.
I disagree with your ‘enabling’ argument too – such arguments are logical falacies along the lines of ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ – current child pornograpghers have attempted to argue that their photos are art with little success because the children are engaged (often unwillingly) in sex acts. These photos do not show Brooke in such a fashion. The Tate censored the image because of the potential for people to be offended, not because this is a picture of child porn, so basically the Tate are a bunch of moral cowards.
Why can’t someone being turned on be tolerated? – you sound like a Catholic preaching about impure thoughts!
If they act out their fantasies then they should be imprisoned, but to try to control people’s fantasies? To say some things cannot or must not be thought? Seems a bit anathema to a society built on freedom.
One must consider performing an action before rejecting such action as wrong.
Steve
October 2, 2009 at 11:03 am
Holy fuck you wrote way too much.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:17 am
I have now alerted the BBC and a UK newspaper about the comments I have mentioned. A serious, open discussion should always be encouraged about items in the news but these people have way overstepped the mark and need to be monitored.
UK art lover
October 2, 2009 at 11:31 am
You americans are so god damned uptight and frigid. What is wrong with these pictures? They show a girl in the prime of her youth without genitals being exposed. When you see a birth program with a baby being born genitals exposed nobody says a thing, yet when they show a little girl like this you’re all up in arms.
It’s so stupid. These pictures are beautiful and I fail to see whats wrong with them.
Bertus
October 2, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Hey, I’ve got a couple pics of your kid in the same position sitting on my desktop. Don’t call me an uptight American. No, call me an art lover.
John Franklin
October 15, 2009 at 5:45 am
If you find this offensive/sick – you are a closet pedophile.
Oil and makeup does not make a photo any more pornographic than if she would have been eating a banana.
A pedophile will surely become aroused by this. But so what? They get aroused seeing your children play in the playground, or on the beach, as well. We can’t legally define porn based on what a few people think… else pictures of trees would be porn.
The only thing that would have made that image pornographic is if she would have spread her legs wide open while she touched herself.
jonas
October 2, 2009 at 12:41 pm
You know what, you’re right! I think that because pedophiles will be aroused by this we should simply disband all forms of decency, declothe our children, and allow them to jump and play in the streets. It’s not OUR fault if we arouse them. This was for the sake of ART people! Can’t you understand that! Much in the same way that playboy utilized professional models! Sheesh.
John Franklin
October 15, 2009 at 5:48 am
I remember it well: these photographs sollicited much less hypocritical moral outrage from retarded bigots when they were first published, in 1978.
Jack
October 2, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Ah yes. The 70’s. Let us allow that period of moral standard be the beacon for centuries to come.
John Franklin
October 15, 2009 at 5:50 am
I dont understand the big hype. Im reading some of the comments to this opposition and they are so violent. Its Ghandi’s birthday today, you know. Its been removed from the museum and dealt with. Some call it art, some call it sick, but I highly doubt that many called it pornography. People need to calm down and relax. Most of the people who are posting lewd comments towards this are trying to get a rise out of you and your falling right for it. Let it be…
Almonds
October 2, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Even then she was a whore
hs
October 2, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I read some comments which state these pictures are not pornographic, but art.
I do not agree. If this is art, it would mean that all the pictures of naked underaged children could be stated as art.
And off course children shouldn’t be ashamed of their body.
However, as the fact is that there are people on this planet who get a rush of naked children. Children should be protected from these people. We protect this children due to laws against child-pornography. The brains of children aren’t yet fully grown and due to naivity of these children and the fact they hardly can defend themselves against these people this kind of pictures is stated as child pornography in my opinion and therefore should be banned.
I find it rather ironic to be honest. That guy (I forgot his name) who is suspected to have sexualy abbused a child in 1977 is being prosecuted (32! years after the suspected crime) and the mother and photographer get away with producing and publishing child pornography!
I truly do not understand these kind of inconsistencies.
Tim
October 2, 2009 at 3:40 pm
My dear friend, how nice our world could be if all of us were as honest as you. But progress is an individual aspect. Lets hope your example gives others more courage next time.
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 9:22 am
uh. progress being limited to individuality? hmmm. So, culture, society, technology…these elements are unable to progress? Are they unable to influence one another outside of human involvement, as if all progress is at the hands of man? No synergy? I disagree. Often times man only pushes the “ball of progress”, but once moving, that “ball of progress” often effects far more than one could have ever thought. I think it’s called the Law of Unintended Consequence. Sort of like….not intending to excite pedophiles, but it happening anyway. Be careful what one initially pushes, eh?
John Franklin
October 15, 2009 at 5:56 am
How many things in this world do you know that are consistent? Not even this blog. For e.g. the comment I typed for ‘Mike’ has appeared in your column.
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 9:26 am
Very well said Tim! Thankyou.
Sarah
October 6, 2009 at 9:04 am
You know what I think is very funny about all the people who say, this is bad?
Why did they come here for in the first place? :0)
They read somewhere in a paper or hear on the news (just like me) about banned nude pictures of Brooke Shields in a museum and they start googeling to SEE those pictures.
And then they comment it is porn, that it’s wrong etc etc.
It is clearly stated that she was 10 years old and that she’s totaly naked …
if you find this disturbing? How the hell did you end up on this site lol :O)
Don’t tell me, you had to see this so you could warn other people to keep an eye out for your children…
The answer is: YOU WHERE CURIOUS AND WANTED TO SEE THOSE PICTURES
Did I made my point?
Ow… and to give my opinion?
)
It’s over the top with the make-up, totaly not sexy and frankly … I don’t even think it’s a beatiful picture…
So it MUST be art
Greetzzzzz from Mike
Mike
October 2, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I personally sought out the article because I heard bits and pieces of it through conversations. There was also a story in the news a couple of years ago where parents were charged with child porn for taking photos of their children in the bathtub. In that situation it was nothing more than a parent capturing the silly and innocent moments of their young children playing in the tub. There was nothing exploitative about it. I was curious to see if these were similar pictures as I have seen people blow things out of proportion before but in reality this is much worse. The only innocence in these pictures is that being stolen. Even if her genitals are hidden by her leg, the act of photographing Brooke Shields in this manner is teaching her at a young age that she is a sex symbol despite her childishness. By allowing these photos to be displayed we teach other young children that they can be the same because unlike adults they are not yet able to understand that both their bodies and minds have a great deal of developing to do before they are ready to be portrayed or act in this manner.
OnceAChild
October 5, 2009 at 5:29 pm
This actually has validity! lol
I can’t help but look at all these people calling everyone who thinks they’re fine “pedophiles” and think to myself, “Isn’t it always the ones that shout the loudest about anti-gay rights who turn out to be gay?”
Or the guy that organizes the crime watch in his neighborhood who turns out to be a criminal.
Or the political figure who gets elected on a morals platform that ends up in a sex scandel?
Interesting….
Roger
October 7, 2009 at 2:59 am
wow. i think you’ve just hit a new standard of gross over generalization.
John Franklin
October 15, 2009 at 5:58 am
No you didn’t i just didnt believe the story. And you are really contradicting yourself by commenting this…
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:19 am
very nice photos.ı love brooks .very very sexy pics
michael
October 2, 2009 at 6:44 pm
As a photographer who has taken pictures of very young girls, and women (a few are linked in my wordpress blog), I found the Gross pix of Sheilds amateurish and disturbing.
Really horrible portraits technically as far as posing and lighting goes, let alone the focus on the ‘child prostitute’ theme.
Yes, these are not innocent ‘nudes’ of children . . . they are aimed at salacious perversion of young girls, and boys it seems too.
paralegalnm
October 2, 2009 at 8:16 pm
The first photo is definitely disturbing. Her naturally boyish body has been posed, and light and shadow used to make her lower portion look much more adult. The tacky glycerined body and facial makeup doesn’t help either.
However, the next 2 photos of her more covered up in the bubble bath are quite lovely and much more innocent and tasteful, because again, at this age, she has a more boyish/unisex looking upper body.
Bottom line, Brooke Shields had quite THE most extraordinarily beautiful face ever seen on a young girl/actress, rivalling a young Elizabeth Taylor.
Even though she remains a beauty today, her young beauty is unmatched and any more photos surfacing, hopefully tasteful, of a young Brooke Shields is a good thing.
warra
October 2, 2009 at 9:52 pm
MMMMmmmm… very nice, very sweet, very hot. I want to suck her whole wet body. I´m drooling my shirt
PenetratorX
October 2, 2009 at 11:19 pm
PenetratorX, you seem to be the only one here to have a sense of humor! ha ha!
It’s funny to see how many people are uptight and puritanical, especially in anglo-saxon countries (like in muslim ones by the way).
I would bet that all the ‘offended’ and ‘outraged’ ones cannot stand having an erection…
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:13 am
Ohhh of course, “XXX” what a good name, if you think that is humorous, then you have more problems than your doctor prescribed. May i recommend Ecstasy… you know you can Overdose the first time you take it.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:21 am
I can see why people would question this, but I also see that it is art.
Would I encourage it? No. But it’s already been created—therefore, we can’t unmake it. It’s there—it’s art—and it reflects a nasty reality—whether this picture exists or not.
I don’t wan’t to live in a world controlled by perverts OR prudes.
Who in the hell allowed these pictures to be taken in the first place?
Kelly
October 3, 2009 at 2:14 am
All these varying opinions! I guess it’s a matter of who you ask..some call it sick, others call it art…I say, it’s just a picture of Brooke Shields —- period…
JR
October 3, 2009 at 2:26 am
i think all those defending these pictures are really PEDOPHILES.I mean wouldn’t it be natural for a pedophile to try to defend and protect his SICK interests?Whats so artistic about a pre-pubescent girl posing naked in a bath tub ? sick fucks. I feel UK ART LOVER IS A PEDOPHILE,HE SHOULD BE ARRESTED.MOST PEDOPHILES ARE FROM UK AS IT IS.THEY COME TO MY COUNTRY ,SET UP ORPHANAGES BUT BEHIND THE SCENES THEY INDULGE IN INTERNATIONAL CHILD PORN AND TRAFFICKING.SOME OF THESE GUYS WERE RECENTLY ARRESTED IN MY COUNTRY BUT THE UK GOVT GOT THEM RELEASED.THIS JUST GOES TO SHOW HOW DEEP THIS ROT HAS GOT INTO
kelas
October 3, 2009 at 3:21 am
I suspect you come from the same country as I, where child marriage is still quite rampant inspite of the Brits having tried to stop it. Have you heard of Foras Road in Mumbai check it out if you want the real situation in our beloved ‘cunt’ry.
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 9:07 am
Ooooo!!! I bet she was sewww Tight down there then. Look, even the hard core kiddie porn snuff etc is done for money! Just pirate it and the wise guys won’t make money off it. So what if she was young she’s still (sigh) hot and female. I promise I’ll be gentle…
shorteyes
October 3, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Your comment is great because it’s honest and I’m glad that they printed it. Keep it up, both of you.
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I understand why the initial reaction to these photographs is shock and disgust. Truly I do.
But, once we get our breath back… Take another look. The photographer has gone out of his way to emphasise this: She has the lithe and utterly un-female body of an athletic ten year old BOY.
In terms of “porn”, there is none. She’s alone, holding a sponge, with her vagina completely invisible. And (once again) she has the body of a boy. Disconnect the body from the head and neither image is disturbing.
But yes, this IS a disturbing image. Because it makes us examine ourselves…
Rob
October 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm
images of nude children are disgusting vile and obscene
and anyone who thinks otherwise is odd, every nude photo
of a child is a paedophile photo even those taken by
loving parents they should know better, when they grow
up they will want to kill their parents for doing it
nolly
October 3, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Have you ever seen your children naked, and helped them taking their bath? I suppose they do not take their bath dressed!
If so, you have now in your (therefore dirty, according to your stance) mind “disgusting vile and obscene” images of nude children…
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:16 am
[...] oben). Um ihre Karriere zu beschleunigen, liess ihre Mutter sie vom Werbefotografen Gary Gross nackt in der Badewanne fotografieren. Bezahlt wurde die Session von Playboy Press. Um mal gleich das mit dem künstlerischen Aspekt aus [...]
Pretty Baby « Der Feuilletonist
October 3, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Du hast ganz recht! Aber vileicht meine Deutsch ist nicht so, was?
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 8:59 am
TERRORIST
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:22 am
can’t wait to crack one off to these babies later…
perv
October 3, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I look at these photo’s and all I see is a nice looking young girl. There is nothing sexual or inappropriate about these photo’s to me. Why is everybody so uptight? Who was it that said “The world needs a drink”?
Darrin
October 4, 2009 at 1:23 am
Could the photographer NOT have made the same statement: a child examining or displaying her beauty – while keeping the too young Ms. Sheilds clothed?!?! Seems to me he could have. Her mother should have, and Ms. Shields could have told her mom “No. I’m stripping to nothing for a photos shoot”.
Believe it or not: it IS possible to make a statement without resorting to shock tactics.
Craig
October 4, 2009 at 4:07 am
My dog Gilbert sniffed a puppy’s bottom.
Sandra
October 4, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Sandra, you must have had your suspicions about Gilbert
have him put down before he does more damage.
Pam
October 4, 2009 at 4:05 pm
‘Pornography’ or ‘Art’ is in the eyes of the beholder. And then again they are just words.
Most people don’t even have an opinion of their own but only that given to them by their immediate society. Humans are hippocrites with double standards beyond comprehension.
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 8:54 am
All those little comments are very funny.
I like this one a lot :
” I will be honest, I’m not just saying this because i’m typing this on a reply page, but If i knew where you lived and ever met you i would personally paralyze you from neck down, then all you could do is watch as I cut your fucking balls off and sewing them to your forehead. Your sick. ”
I find the more violents comments come from the people trying to say those pics are not right. Makes me wander who is really sick ?
The pictures were shown last year in Paris, nobody cared !
tyuiop
October 5, 2009 at 9:06 am
That is the difference between an enlightened society and (usually the English speaking majority) the rest.
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm
You’re so right!
Nobody cared in Paris: this makes an echo to anglo-saxon puritanism
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:19 am
read about it in paper,this is not art,it should be band ,full stop !!!!
col
October 5, 2009 at 9:52 am
You are right it should be practiced by a big BAND!
Ronald Almeida
October 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm
That’s my son!
bob
October 5, 2009 at 10:43 am
I find it interesting how easy it is for some of you to say this is art but I have to wonder if your artistic natures have kept you in a fairy tale world where you were never exposed to the reality of child abuse and exploitation. This situation is not a joke by any means and while I myself appreciate art in many forms I cannot consider this art no matter how hard I try to find the non-sexual, purely artistic value of it. Gross admits that he was trying to show the characteristics of women in young girls and part of being a woman is a seductive nature at times.
I can understand exactly why Brooke Shields would be embarrassed and want the pictures back. I was sexually abused as a child for years until my early teens and if there were any photographic recollections of myself looking as Brooke does in this photo I would be humiliated beyond belief and desperate to retrieve and traces of my past experiences. Children do not ask to be treated as sex symbols. Children do not ask to be taken advantage of or put in a vulnerable situation. For those who say that this picture would have had no developmental issues for Brooke Shields growing up, imagine being a 10 year old girl and showing up to school and sitting in a classroom where not necessarily your classmates (if they were sheltered) but possibly your teacher has seen you naked. Even for those who say this is art, I am not accusing you of anything, but there are those in this world who will call it art while enjoying the purely sexual nature of it. We were all once children, please do not consider the photo as just a lover of art, or by considering the subject to be nothing more than a stranger. But try and consider it as a photo of yourself at that age, in a situation where you had no say, where you mother allowed a stranger to interrupt your privacy for her own personal gain and to make you question yourself. You might say its ok for Brooke Shields but ask yourself if it is ok for everybody else. For parents, ask yourself if you would ever put your children in this situation.
OnceAChild
October 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Very well said. I couldn’t agree more.
Nat
November 1, 2009 at 4:50 pm
There is nothing sexual about this image of a ten year
old girl, it is your perverted adult minds that see
it as such and then impose it on others including your
own children and then the police have to get it banned.
Stan
October 5, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I think what also needs to be remembered here is that Brooke Shields possibly owes her career to these photos. She starred in Pretty Baby 2 years later, but I believe it was these photos that put her in the spotlight. We would probably never have heard of her if not for them. She is now a multi millionaire with a still thriving career.
Despite what some say about the photos, she has still managed to grow up into a decent and sensible woman. Having the photos taken does’nt seem to have done her any harm. Considering the low morals and promiscuity of many celebrities in Hollywood, Brooke has managed to live a decent and respectful life.
So how has this supposedly immoral and atrocious behaviour of her mother and photographer damaged her, how have the photos harmed her?
Kelly
October 6, 2009 at 3:40 am
YOu all are a bunch of paedofiles. I hope u get in jail asap.
Sensible guy
October 6, 2009 at 7:37 am
WHAT IS ‘ARTISTIC’ ABOUT A LITTLE GIRL PLASTERED IN MAKE-UP OILED UP IN A STEAMY BATH ?!? THESE ARE SEXUALISED IMAGES FULL STOP – ALL THE WEIRDOS WHO THINK THIS IS ‘ART’ ARE SICK IN THE HEAD..THE SORT OF SCUM WHO GET HARD-ONS LOOKING AT CHILDREN….’ART’ HAHA WHAT A CHEAP EXCUSE TO PROMOTE SUCH FILTH – YOUR HAVING A LAUGH…..THE WORLD IS CRAZY.
Sarah
October 6, 2009 at 8:49 am
With uptight people like you, painter Gustave Courbet would have ended in a jail for lifetime…
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:21 am
Sarah, I’m sure if you lost weight and cleaned yourself up and dressed better, you wouldn’t be so jealous of beautiful females and feel the need to try to control men’s behavior and sexual preferences on the internet.
JamesRiskee
January 1, 2010 at 10:47 am
WHAT IS ‘ARTISTIC’ ABOUT A LITTLE GIRL PLASTERED IN MAKE-UP OILED UP IN A STEAMY BATH ?!? THESE ARE SEXUALISED IMAGES FULL STOP – ALL THE WEIRDOS WHO THINK THIS IS ‘ART’ ARE SICK IN THE HEAD..THE SORT OF SCUM WHO GET HARD-ONS LOOKING AT CHILDREN….’ART’ HAHA WHAT A CHEAP EXCUSE TO PROMOTE SUCH FILTH – YOUR HAVING A LAUGH…..THE WORLD IS CRAZY.
THE SADDEST THING IS WHEN GROWN MEN AND WOMEN AGREE THAT THIS IS ‘ART’…..YOU COULD MAKE AN ARTY PICTURE OF A CHILD NAKED – BUT NEVER IN THIS WAY – A CHILD’S INNOCENCE IS BEAUTIFUL – THAT IS WHAT SHOULD BE PORTRAYED IF IT’S DONE ‘ARTISTICLY’ – WHATS ARTISTIC ABOUT A CHILD DONE-UP LIKE A HOOKER – WHATS THAT SAYING?! – PLASTERED ON MAKE-UP – RED LIPS?!?! STEAMY BATH??!? OILED BODY?!? – COME ON?!? WHOEVER THINKS THIS IS OK IS SICK IN THE HEAD.
Sarah
October 6, 2009 at 8:59 am
Just wondered what all the fuss was about. The first photo is distinctly uncomfortable, especially if she was uncomfortable herself with it.I can see why it might be sensible to take that off display. The other two look pretty innocent. I’d photograph my own daughter in the bath, but would be horrified at a fully made up nude of her in the public domain. Her mother must have been on drugs or something, but then those were different times.
Bob
October 6, 2009 at 12:51 pm
It is the ‘knowing’ look in Shield’s over made up eyes and adult pose and attitude that strips the image of any pretense of innocence. It that way the first image is unsettling.
By transferring the picture from the pages of a Playboy funded publication to walls of an art gallery maybe a question is being posed. Is the American culture sexualising girls at a very young age – like Britney’s teenage come on – Hit Me Baby One More Time? And more frighteningly are mothers complicit in that in their search for vicarious fame and fortune?
sasha d
October 6, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Kim, please don’t talk to be of suspicions Gilbert
was in the police force with recommendations for
the drug squad.
Sandra
October 6, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Please note Kim should read Pam,——-
Sandra
October 6, 2009 at 5:24 pm
You know what i find particuarlly funny.
The purpose of “art” is to incite emotion and feeling. To make the viewer feel something, anything, good or bad.
More then 30 years after these photos were taken there are 1000’s upon 1000’s of people talking about them.
I think at this point wether you enjoy them, or find them disgusting you can at least say from that perspective, they served their purpose.
Roger
October 7, 2009 at 2:56 am
Who the hell would call this art? It is not “art”, when you make up a LITTLE GIRL to look like a cheap hooker and then take disgusting pictures, like these. Personally I think the photographer AND her parents should have been arrested for producing child porn!
Becca
October 7, 2009 at 4:02 am
BEAUTIFUL girl, as evidenced by enormous spawning of jealously from millions of ugly people. Laws in society have been created by these same jealous zealots to cover up their genetic inferiority and to help level the playing field so ugly people have an opportunity to reproduce as well. These people are refered to as ordinary fatheads. Mentally ordinary, physically fatheads. As a leading international geneticist, I feel it my duty to assure the more intelligent amongst us their eye for beauty is not going unappreciated.
benjaminP
October 7, 2009 at 5:07 am
Democratic societies cannot stand easily art, as it is perceived as an outrage to equality. You’re right regarding the laws. Their main purpose is to serve and consolate ugly and jealous masses.
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:27 am
BenjaminP….’As a leading international geneticist, I feel it my duty to assure the more intelligent amongst us their eye for beauty is not going unappreciated…..’
JUST GOES TO SHOW ALL THE EDUCATION IN THE WORLD DOESN’T OPEN THE EYES OF SOME DAFT PEOPLE,…WHAT AN IMBECILE!!….A VERY IMMATURE POST – JUST SHOWS HOW DUMB YOU ARE TO SAY ‘IT’S THE UGLY PEOPLE WHO PROTEST’ – WHAT AN IDIOTIC COMMENT?! – NO, IT’S DECENT FOLK WHO KNOW WE AS A SOCIETY MUST PROTECT CHILDREN – NOT SEXUALISE A 10YR OLD. TUT TUT,…SAD TO THINK THERE’S PEOPLE LIKE YOU,…BUT THEN, IT’S ALWAYS THE ONES LIKE YOU – TOO MUCH MONEY AND NO SENSE WHO HOLIDAY (ON THE PRETENCE OF BUSINESS) IN ALL THOSE POOR COUNTRYS – ALA GARRY SH*(GL)ITTER JUST TO ABUSE THEIR CHILDREN FOR 10P OR LESS…THEN BACK HOME TO FAMILY.
YOUR UGLY,…VERY UGLY INDEED.
Sarah
October 7, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Well then Sandra do you think it was because of this
that your Gilbert sniffed the puppy dogs bottom?
Pam
October 7, 2009 at 5:33 pm
It is definitely art. This is the kind of art I would like to put up in every room in my house.
Art Expert
October 8, 2009 at 1:08 pm
So do I
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:27 am
And masturbate to it by candle light.
Matt
October 12, 2009 at 4:24 am
imagine that playboy published it back then… so what does that tell you all!!
her mom got paid 450.0 back then for this!
local
October 8, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Generally, people see what they want to see. I can see a young girl who wants to be grown-up. Nothing new – I was just the same.
And only those who have dirty mind can see a sexual context here.
Thanks heaven I live in France where this kind of photos are considered art!
mini
October 8, 2009 at 10:46 pm
well it isn’t surprising that most pedophiles come from france.Roman Polanski was living in france;your french culture minister had sex with little boys in Asia.You people are sick
kelas
October 9, 2009 at 6:09 am
France invented the best erotical and flirty writers in the world: Ronsart, the marquis de Sade, Verlaine, Beaudelaire, Boyer d’argens, Brantôme, Marivaux, Appolinaire, Pierre-jean Jouve, Pierre Loüys, etc.
The English had Swinburne (but seemingly tend to forget it).
The only American erotical writer was Henry Miller, but most of his inspiration came from Paris.
Anglo-saxon people have a stick up their ass… completely uptight, mostly because of Victorian education; that is why they have those pathetic binges in order to try to overcome their Victorian psychological conditioning.
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:41 am
At least a normal woman! I also live in France (and am French).
How pathetic are these uptight anglo-saxon people!!
How many of them have read Algernon Charles Swinburne?
No one I would bet.
The more cultured one is, the more eager to appreciate erotism one is.
Where do you live in France?
XXX
October 12, 2009 at 1:44 am
i’m fine with erotica but this is fucking child porn you idiot
kelas
October 12, 2009 at 6:30 am
wonderfull
obaid
October 9, 2009 at 9:48 am
Yes of course it was Pam, Gilbert was sniffing for drugs
and is not a perv, just like the nit nurse that came to
our school looking in us hair for lice for the health
and safety of all mankind or so it seemed.
Sandra
October 9, 2009 at 2:29 pm
[...] sourced from here, here, here, and here. Share this ArticleClose Bookmark and Share This Page Save to Browser Favorites / [...]
Nude Brooke Sheilds Causes a Stir at Tate Modern (Caution: article may be offensive) | The Photo Playground
October 9, 2009 at 9:07 pm
No se porque se extrañan o escandalizan, en una cultura como la de ustedes (norteamericana) venderse por un puñado de dolares es lo normal, creo que ya deben abandonar sus posturas hipocritas y mostrarse tal y cual como son, esto es apenas una muestra de lo que sucede a diario y eso pr que es una estrella, pero cuantos niños son explotados sexualmente incluso con el consentimiento de sus autoridades? reflexionen y miren bien lo que hacen
El critico
October 11, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Considering how provocative these photos are and the change in context over 35 years, several things occur to me.
No matter how absolutist we would like to be, the sexual context changes over time. These photos are more shocking today than they were when first published, and that is not primarily because of their legal history.
While they were controversial at the time, it is amazing how much less civil this on-line discourse is than the contentious discussion was back then. Many comments made here surpass the “obscenity” of the pictures for many discussants.
These pictures are nowhere near the limit of sexual diversity that can provoke sexual responses from a hypothetical viewer. How responsible can we make a photographer that takes a picture that might arouse a small proportion of the expected audience? (If you have a quick answer for that question, it is probably a weak one.)
Finally, it might be reassuring to recognize that it is highly typical of humans of all ages and genders to act on only a small proportion of the perceptions they recognize as sexually provocative.
Russell
October 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm
you’re the only person who commented with any broader sense of historical contextual awareness, and not simply from a contemporary gut reaction. I appreciated your comment. I did a lot of art and research about the sensualization/sexualization of children for my BFA, and my opus was an image of Brooke Shields in make-up, topless (a promotional image for Pretty Baby that I found online). I also had an image of Jody Foster, as a prostitute in Taxi Driver, the Olsen Twins, and River Phoenix (his, of course, being the least controversial. Though sexualized, nothing was considered ‘obscene’ about this young boy giving seductive looks without a shirt on. And, of course, images from the film Lolita. Most of which were images from the 1970s. Obviously times, and sentiments, have changed. Why is that? I think it is the jobs of artists, often times, to explore these changes in sentiment, context, and attitude throughout history. And it always seems to be the majority that will throw their stones first, and ask questions later.
Hailey
October 14, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I was on a brief photo holiday in a town in South India last week. As often happens, local children got ecited at the appearance of a stranger and queued to have their photos taken. I obliged. One was a small boy who was naked. Afterwards I suddered at the thought that had this been in the UK I might have felt a cold hand on my shoulder. A few years back I was in a London park with my wife and she gave me her new videocom to hold. I started filming a group of (clothed) children tumbling down a small hill. Their minder/teacher approached and asked me what I was doing. I said I was filming children tumbling down a hill. I should have said “what are you doing with these children in a park?”
Is there no innocence in the world today.
I do find these images disturbing and thought provoking. Obscene. Pornographic. No. Children being burned by white phosphorus. Yes.
Rod Hudson
October 16, 2009 at 3:56 am
Как бы это не называли, а юное тело всегда прекрасно…
Savar
October 11, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Sandra, that was truly humiliating, them looking in hair for bugs, but I suppose its lucky they didn’t do
what Gilbert did.
Pam
October 12, 2009 at 5:44 pm
what the hell??
didnt she thought before doing that??
o my god!
thats so embarrasing!
now she wants it taken off?!!
her parents were crazy duh!
meonly me
October 13, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I have to say I think these photos are hideous!
This is plainly sexualization of a child, and should never have been taken, let alone published.
I can certainly see what the fuss has been about, and I’m glad the British police acted the way they did.
And I can’t help but wonder why Brook Shield’s mother allowed it to happen in the first place.
Jack Lee
October 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm
There is nothing artistic about these photographs. These photos are pornographic. It is not an innocent pose of a child. She has got make up on and she is posing in a seductive manner (If you can say that about a child). The photographer is obviously a pervert and absolutely gross by name and by nature. I would have thought Brooke Shields would have banned the publishing of the photos. I am sure she as an adult can herself see they are inappropriate.
Del
October 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm
people said the same thing about Sally Mann’s work. I think everything makes sense in the context in which it is created.
Hailey
October 14, 2009 at 8:44 pm
and if anyone has ever seen the film ‘pretty baby’, of which these images are promotional items for, she was a 13 year old playing a 9-year-old prostitute. Why doesn’t anyone talk about that? The whole movie is about this 9-year-old girl losing her ‘flower’ to a 60 year old man. This is considered ‘quaint early film-making’ but then everyone jumps all over the promotional images which were commissioned by her mother. Dig a little deeper, people.
Hailey
October 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Well, if she were my daughter I would not have approved of the first photo because it makes her look too enticing, like an adult with a child’s body, a very pretty body to boot. The other photos are more or less OK in the context that she is a professional model and involved in a provocative film. That’s the way it goes, some people are not conventional.
The fact that Matt cannot stop coming back for more comments and insults drives me to think that he likes the naked girl a little more than he would admit.
canario
October 14, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Mmmmmm…I’m beating my dick off right now.
John
October 15, 2009 at 12:56 am
I can’t believe that these images are so widely available as they only encourage paedophiles. The images of Brooke Shields may have been with her mother’s consent and from a less aware age, however the question any parent should ask is whether they are exploiting their child for their own gain (which was clearly the case in this instance). The wider issue seems to be that emotionally (and sexually)retarded individuals can come on to a site like this, post alarming comments and get away with it. Hopefully someday technology will be developed to prevent people from using the internet in this manner. In the meantime, I hope the authorities use all existing means at their disposal to pursue those responsible. Even if they are not convicted, at least their details will be held on an intelligence database and their activities can be monitored. There are certain messages and images that “artists” don’t need to convey so obviously. I’m all for pushing the boundaries but there are certain lines that cannot be crossed (Is filming a murder art?). Brilliant artists use suggestion and the human imagination can do the rest.
Frank
October 15, 2009 at 2:47 am
Matt might be hostile but his intentions are good. What I see in those pictures is a naive 10 year old girl whos mother saw dollar signs. It may not have been staged as porn at the time they were taken, but porn or not, its a naked little girl and we just dont do that anymore, not for art, not at all. Times have changed.
Walmart will call the cops on you if you so much as turn in a film strip with your 1 year old splashing around in the tub. I thought it was a bit extreme but there were parents on the news facing charges and had their child removed from their home, for what most of you call innocent bath tub pictures.
Boo
October 15, 2009 at 6:23 am
keep up the good work i enjoyed reading your blog
dalena johnson
October 22, 2009 at 1:31 am
[...] Art Brooke Shields Nude [...]
Free Womens Blogs » Blog Archive » Brooke Shields’ Childhood Nude Replaced
October 15, 2009 at 7:16 am
well, now i see what all the fuss is about.
that first picture isn’t simply of a child naked in the bath. it’s of a child made to pose like a woman, oiled like a woman, standing in a steam bath like a woman and looking lustily into the camera like a naked oiled woman enjoying a steam bath while standing up.
this is unquestionably erotic, and highly immoral. how can a 10-year old girl even understand what it means to pose like that?
i can understand the appeal of ephebophilic (post-pubescent/adolescence) art, girls who are already showing signs of womanhood: breasts, pubic hair and proper curves…ephebophilic preferences and art is morally borderline, and can be discussed.
hebephilic (pubescent) and paedophilic (pre-pubescent) art forms are clearly damaging to children as well as needy, unstable men. any sexual attraction to women during or pre-puberty is unnatural, for they can not bear children. to claim otherwise is not right.
unnatural sexual themes like homosexuality, or protected sex, is completely fine, as they involve adults, and all adults should be free in this world.
children before the end of their pubescent phase are not free, they require nurturing. we are naturally predisposed to nurture children because they are the future. portraying them as sex objects is hardly going to help them later in life.
yes, art may do what it likes…but we, the consumers of the art, are the ones who decide if it should survive or not.
elseedy
October 16, 2009 at 5:14 am
A very well-informed posting, and I think this captures many of my thoughts. I wonder if the 10-yo Shields was even aware of what she was posing as?
The photographer was trying to demonstrate the femininity of youth, but does so in a highly erotic manner. You (some folks) can blame ‘perverts’ for making this image perverted, but there is absoultey a (in my opinion, not so) latent sexual imagery in many of these photos.
In fact, Shields has been trying for years to get these photos destroyed, but continues to lose this battle in court.
bowmanspartan
November 4, 2009 at 4:34 am
A lot of you don’t seem to realize that there are is a whole series of these photographs taken during this shoot which show her fully nude.
You can see them by clicking on the link in the article.
Lisa
October 17, 2009 at 3:16 am
To fully understand why you must be aware of the venom in the statue of the Aztec goddess Coatlicue, and let me summarized thus : The Church, better naked than “snaked”!!
The “move” was defensive and protective and masterful one in the Chess of Armageddon.
It took me a while to realize it, and before that I was quite upset.
Jorge Vargas
October 17, 2009 at 9:25 am
To fully understand why, you must be aware of the venom in the statue of the Aztec goddess Coatlicue, and let me summarized it thus : The Church, better naked than “snaked”!!
The “move” was defensive and protective and masterful one in the Chess of Armageddon.
It took me a while to realize it, and before that I was quite upset.
So remember to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
Best,
“Quetzalcoatl”
Jorge Vargas
October 17, 2009 at 9:27 am
I see only beauty-God doesn’t design this as porn.
jimc
October 20, 2009 at 1:27 am
If this is art. There is a lot of it on the internet.
ollee
October 20, 2009 at 3:59 am
Another day in America… Leave children alone guys!
Sergio
October 20, 2009 at 2:57 pm
this society is quite sick
the censure does not solve problems, but will exacerbate it
this society panics fronting its devils
but art doesnt have to be consensual
and it ’s quite absurd, anyone can look at this pic on internet
the moral will always condamn artists
this society has to cure its sickness, but art has to be free
celine
October 21, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I can’t see what all the hoopla is about. She is so young and flat-chested. The pictures don’t show her pubic area. I personally just see this as a form of art.
I do think though that some might see more into her nakedness. But you can’t protect society from every aspect.
Rape shot up tremedously after playboy came out and put porn in the hands of men everywhere. Should we have shut it down as well?
DDMAN
October 21, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Самое отвратительное – быть американцем, создавать детскую порнографию, использовать детей для наживы, разменивать их будущее на ежеминутные собственные удовольствия. Дети вам отомстят.
Свой
October 22, 2009 at 4:16 am
Я согласен с вами = Таков путь в мир своей одинаковы во всех странах, включая Россию
For those that do not speak he condeming America Prat the exhibtion is in England – My reply its the same in Russia if not worse
Black
October 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Да и в России тоже имеет место данный отвратительный факт. Но эта гадость поселилась там с прогрессивных полей так называемого цивилизованного мира после развала Советского Союза.
Свой
October 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Мусор русской мафией, и все другие Русский Pimps были Thorn в России еще до распада communnism – Могу ли я предложить вам читать преступности за кулисы написанные КГБ очень показателен = всех обществах одни и те же независимо от того, кто правит преступление является преступлением
Still blaming the west – should read exiled KGB Crime stories – will not enter into anymore replies
Black
October 23, 2009 at 1:20 am
I can see why people object – My question is why was the Film that she appeared as the child star NOT BANNED – Is this not a case of bolting the stable door ….etc
Black
October 22, 2009 at 3:03 pm
you guys are stupid, u dont know what art is, even porn is art, nothing is wrong, its not like brooke shields is a virgin, she is a slut that fu*k lots of guys gang banged. so, with picture like this, its nothing. its not like she is still a child. cant u see the expression on her face in the picture? she loves it, i bet naked infront of several weird old fat bald guys turns her on, its exhibitionist. why dont u guys try to go to russia? there, many little girl like this is sold off by parents for prostitution, thats why u can see many child “porn art” come from russia. America should learn to respect art, learn from russia, thats why they go to space first.
Azzhat
October 24, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Its not art, its not porn, its a kid in a bath, jeez
People are so dumb that they cant see the wood for the trees. If it turns you on, you have a problem, if you think its art, you have a problem, if you cuss and swear abuse at other contributors, you have a problem, if you respond to someone with such a obviously limited vocabulary, you have a problem, if you think its just a kid in a bath, no, problem.
Caroline
October 24, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Just skimming through this comments, i found something interesting. One of the commentors, matt, has actually posted about 40 comments over the period of about 3 weeks. WHY? And who could be that obsessed with a bunch of photos that you have to come back again and again and again to talk about them? Either he really, really detests them, or he secretly like them. Either way, matt has a problem!
Rebsicle
October 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Frankly, the most disturbing thing here is not these photos but the freak- show that has erupted on this blog. Thankyou to every RATIONAL person here for your thoughts on this matter, I have found your comments very thought provoking. As for everyone else, well frankly many of you are so past the bend that I actually split a gut laughing at the insanity/innanity of your posts, they are utterly hilarious (not intentionally I am sure) and I hope many of you (Matt, Mike, and co.) recieve straight- jackets for Christmas.
Cassandra
October 29, 2009 at 3:34 am
Very disturbing pictures, more disturbing that people would want to see them and most disturbing is her mother allowed this to happen for money. Her mom and the photographer should be in jail.
Ted Normal
October 30, 2009 at 1:31 am
thank you guys for giving me something to read when im bored. i guess i could give my opinion though wile im here. i was looking for brook shields nude as an adult, like i said, im bored and thats some times the best way to pass the time. anyway, as soon as i saw these photos, i immediately lost my hard on and lost the urge all together. the first photo “i think” is like porn a little. the rest, i could see people calling it art. im no artist, so i wont say, but art or not, sickos will touch themselves to this and thats sick. ive already said more than i planned so i bid you a due. one more thing, some of you are really sick and i hope your joking
tycobb
November 3, 2009 at 6:16 pm
i also agree with rebsicle about matt. matt you loser. ha ha
tycobb
November 3, 2009 at 6:20 pm
wat language are some of you speaking? it looks funny
tycobb
November 3, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Gross’s intention to publish these photos was to “reveal the femininity of prepubescent girls by comparing them to adult women.” I wonder…why?
I’m still very much torn on whether or not this is obscene. I wonder to myself, what is the non-pruient intent of showing this?
As somebody who dos not consider myself a pedophile or an uncultured person – in fact, I am a professor of media psychology – it is difficult for me to justify this photograpy as something more than child pornography. I’m interested to see where this discussion goes.
bowmanspartan
November 4, 2009 at 4:28 am
I have seen the pictures and definitely they are not pornography but I think it is something I will not display on my living room or use as a desktop picture, in my personal oppinion I found the pictures as simply bad taste and some sort of child´s explotation. I understand why some find them disturbing and I wouldn’t allow any kind of commercial explotation of pictures like this of any of my future kids because I find them slightly unappropiate but definitely it is not pornography, although I don´t understand what the photographer tried to express.
Rodrigo
November 4, 2009 at 4:56 pm
This first picture is completely pornographic. Most men commenting here call it “art”. Tell me, would you subject your daughters to such filth? Brooke is in a suggestive pose,oiled up and made up like a woman.she is a 10 year child. Anyone clear headed would see it as offensive.anyone with a perverted mind would see it as art.
sienna
November 4, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Matt, I TOTALLY agree with “what you say” your point of view is on this whole god awful mess.
But you don’t know how t express yourself, or talk to people man.
Either you’re just a dick, or you don’t have the words to say what’s on your mind.
Guilty conscience dude? You keep cussin at people, tellin’em that they’re “gettin off” to the pics.
Your over aggression towards and obbsesion with this sounds like a mask for a truth that has you bookmarking theese pictures for your own “personal use”. I’m just sayin what a lot of people are thinkin dude, (deal with it!).
You can talk shit to and insult me as well if you like, but, I would fuckin en
anti-matt
November 5, 2009 at 4:50 am
Matt, I TOTALLY agree with “what you say” your point of view is on this whole god awful mess.
But you don’t know how t express yourself, or talk to people man.
Either you’re just a dick, or you don’t have the words to say what’s on your mind.
Guilty conscience dude? You keep cussin at people, tellin’em that they’re “gettin off” to the pics.
Your over aggression towards and obbsesion with this sounds like a mask for a truth that has you bookmarking theese pictures for your own “personal use”. I’m just sayin what a lot of people are thinkin dude, (deal with it!).
You can talk shit to and insult me as well if you like, but, I would fuckin en
anti-matt
November 5, 2009 at 4:50 am
FUckin end you!
(to finish my post)
anti-matt
November 5, 2009 at 4:52 am
I think it is a sad day when naked pictures of a UNDERAGE girl is considered art. Especially when she is fixed up to look sexy as is the case in these pictures. I do agree the naked body of a woman is art. Notice I said the word WOMAN!! I do not agree with the violent terms used by Matt, however I do appreciate the intent behind them. I do not want anyone taking naked pictures of my daughter for any reason. And I am sorry if I offend anyone but if any of you think these pictures are “art”, “hot”, “sexy”, etc. I think you need to evaluate yourselves. It is not my place to judge anyone, but come on dudes an 11 year old girl painted up and posed to look like a whore is gross.
kentuckymetalrebel
November 6, 2009 at 10:43 pm
oh god.. this is not art for the simple reason that those photos are pornographic, this little girl was obliged to make photos that are obviously malicious, and she wasn’t aware of this.. it’s a very bad thing and I don’t understand why they are here on the internet, where bad people can use them in the way they want.. it’s really sad.. poor brooke
romina
November 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Hi there,
I’m a third year Fine Art student and i’m currently writing my dissertation based around themes of censorship in art, and am using the piece Spiritual America as a case study. I’ve found your article very intriguing and thought-provoking.
I wondered if you know the sources for a couple of the quotes you have included;
“..photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic, nor do they imply sexual promiscuity. They are pictures of a prepubescent girl posing innocently in her bath”
“..right to freely exploit the use of the pictures other than in a pornographic context”
It annoys me how in art we always have to ‘censor’ and be aware of those individuals and select groups that lay outside of society; the paedophiles. When did the world become focused on the minorities opposed to the majorities? Nudity is impossible to censor as it’s context plays a significant role in it’s portrayl. Where do the boundaries lay? Perhaps Shield’s mother should be the focus of attention. What sickens me most is HOW a mother could allow such an event to take place; surely this is more questionnable than the photographs themselves?
Many thanks! Look forward to reading more!
Gemma
November 12, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Whether or not this is art doesn’t matter. After all some people might get aroused at children in a winter coat on a Macy’s catalog. I honestly can’t see any benefit from something artistic or comercial that outweighs exploiting a child… even if its just modeling or acting, either way its exploitation. Granted I’m of the mind that children should not be in photos, videos, etc. Nor should they be working until they are adults, period. The only reason parents take nude pictures of their kids, is to embarrass them as adults. Heck they shouldn’t even have children in plays or literature, after all someone can sexualize them there… and honestly most works of art involving children are utter crap anyhow. We’d be better off without Romeo and Juliet, Alice in Wonderland, or Wizard of Oz… less sappy pick up lines, hippies, and parades.
bloodycelt
November 14, 2009 at 7:21 pm
^^ why won’t all of you just calm down.
It’s really fun to read every mind-washed idiot here going all crazy over this.
This all suggests that you are nothing but regular people with the fucked-up sexual sence wich everyone seem to have these days. But seriously. There’s nothing wrong with this picture. It’s just the society going all crazy over things that are stamped with *tabo*.
I’m pretty sure this is what the artist wanted to happen. It just shows how you all see a naked 10-year-old. Sexually. You’re just trying to deny your sences because it’s labeled wrong to think that way.
Supdawg
November 14, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I hope you don’t mind. I used this as a source for my Incest Rape Essay. I will be posting in in my word press shortly.
aprofoundhatredofman
November 17, 2009 at 9:49 am
Anyone who calls this “art” is a pedophile.
Chris
November 23, 2009 at 6:29 am
paedophiles are in the eye of the beholder
foggy
November 23, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I dont see how anyone thinks these pictures are sexy. Just because she is wearing make up doesn’t make her a sexual being. The make up was supposed to be a comment on the grown woman inside her, cause if you know little girls, especially all you parents of daughters should know, every little girl has a grown woman already in her and it is a beautiful thing. That is what this photo is supposed to represent. If you look at the photo and you call it child porn that means you see child porn and you are the one with the sick mind. She isn’t posing provocatively at all. She’s just standing, her legs are closed, the pic is not focused on her private parts, and she looks just in a natural pose. Any girl standing in the bath may for a split second stand in that pose, there is nothing suggestive about it. Just bacuse she is nude doesn’t mean its porn. Sure maybe others might get off on the picture but just cause some do doesn’t make it porn. I could easily argue the image of Christ on the cross is pornographic. But it would not be fare cause it was not meant to be. I may have offended some closed minded people and I hope I did.
Necro
December 1, 2009 at 5:37 am
the matt guy is fucked in the head. No one is allowed to disagree with him and he has everyone fugured out. Just by the two lines people write he knows if u r perverted or not, if u r a virgin or not, etc etc. Insightful or just plain stupid? i’d put my money on the latter PS: normal people see this as art, perverted ones as porn. I see this as being art, how about u matt?
Costas
December 1, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Well! lets see here. when i was six yo my babysitter who was 16 gave me oral sex and tought me to 69 her and i liked it and wish i could go back in time. she was very hot. she even brought her little sisters friend over who was 10 and both of them would suck me for hours 3 days a week for about 1 year until my stupid older brother told on her when she tried the same thing. god my brothers an idiot! i asked her the first time why she was doing this and she said why? if you dont like it ill stop but when i was your age an older man did this to me and she said she liked it because he didnt hurt her. she told me how he would put it in her and everything. she said she wished i was old enough to cum. she also said now she has to be careful because thats how you make a baby. on another occation i went to her house and 2 high school boys came over and she wanted me to just watch and believe me i watched and i learned. now it is natural for a young girl to want to touch and be touched. some people are naturally perverted and when not forced perversion is good. Now when i was molested by a man who happened to be a deputy sheriff when i was 13 I began having anger problems because i new man on man is wrong. i was drunk of coarse. He ended up in prison for molesting someone else but I never told on him fuckin bastard. truthfully if you grow up as a child having sex the problems you face mentally are usually caused by others who embed the rights and wrongs they want you to have in your head. it is opinion! law, whatever. People follow all to well. they say girls are not mentally ready but really if that is societys fault. I trully believe girls and boys in other countries other than the U.S are way more intelligent, not all but I find it strange when im looking for a legal porn sight and a child porn page gets thrown up most of the kids are smiling and look like they are having fun. I know how I felt. I have never molested anyone but let me tell you i think of going on vacation to the philipine islands. No I guess that sex slaves and trafficking are fucked up things. Really! it didnt hurt me at all when the girls took hold of me and when the cop molested me it didnt hurt all that bad but it made me take a good look at myself. I didnt feel like I was molested until when I 25 I told my family. the horror of it all was everyone around me feeling sorry for me and thinking about me all the time. seriously if everyone thought molesting children was o.k. the odds are the child would think nothing of it. Its the terror syndrome everyone has. Most nations are addicted to terror and thats a fact! Most of you want people to feel sorry for you for whatever the reason. You want attention. I can here it now Mommy he put his thingy in my everywhere. will you love me more now I need a hug. I tell ya just about every person looses virginity before 16 and most woman posing nude these days have been ripped so many times its sick. woman are sick and the snail has a long path. big tits are sick fat looking. If people dont like these pics and if your not aroused your conditioning throughout your life has taken a toll on you. I dont find a woman who has had cum spilt all over her all her life attractive at all. Most of you guys are fucking slop. No class mother fuckers. Gays should be illegal and sex with girls around the age of 12 should be legal. no matter how old the guy is. whos sick? You people have got it backasswords. Its ok to buttfuck another guy but not girls right out of puberty. What the hell is going on but yes god can fuck a forteen year old. I seriously think the virgin mary was touched and molested and thats why you say sex and lust is sin. well will just say its a miracle in order to save ones reputation and through our hands, our ways, you can find salvation. The miracles of Jesus credited to the romans. The kings of this world knew it. only the young can create such a miracle as Jesus. the young in purest form, naked! if you want the best and purest children to be born it will have to come from a girl like this. But dont fuck your own. Its too bad people have to ruin everything. this is art in its most powerful form. My opinion nude pictures of children not engaged in sex should be legal like pot. Some like sugar in there coffee some dont.
tod
December 3, 2009 at 7:32 am
these posts are proof that such photos are inappropriate and exploit kids. I can not believe Brooke Shields had no say in the matter to have them put in her possession as an adult to decide what to do with them. Childhood is a time of rapid learning. Children are not naturally interested in sex. They are interested in their bodies out of a curiosity and awareness of themselves. To say anything else is sick and naturally precoucious children are very rare, most are the result of grooming by sick individuals. Their time and learning is not be wasted on the pleasure of sickos, it is for their intelligence and skills to be developed and when they are mature and ready they can choose their own sexual partner. As for those of you who say the kids want this sort of unnatural attention, you are wrong and this is how the paedo justifies his own sick behaviour. Sorry you are like that.
esta
December 9, 2009 at 3:01 pm
She is hot! and for you Tod, you somewhat of a lucky guy I just wanted to say Ya and how do you think infants survived back in the cavemen days when mom dies and it has no boob to suck. they had to live on something. I dont know what it was but I think our bodies are made to nurture and im pretty sure life dosn’t just come from a woman. As sick as it is I can only wonder why god gave man tits without milk. Its man milk and thank god we made it out of that era. I hope this pisses you off! but people are so busy these days trying to dehumanize. We are animals not robots and im afraid we are living in bullshit overload. traditions with tunnel vision and television.
derek
December 3, 2009 at 11:07 am
Anyone knows if you can buy a copy of this poster somewhere?
maty
December 6, 2009 at 5:51 am
When I was 27 I was partying at my friends house and got wasted and they told me I could crash in the kids room. The kids were gone except the 9 year old daughter. She was in another room. It must have been 3 or 4 in the mourning and I woke up with her giving me oral. I could not believe it! She kept going and I asked what are you doin? She told me she had always wanted to do it and never had a chance to. She took my pants off and got on top of me and said if I didnt do it she would tell her mom. She put me inside her and she was definitely a virgin. I was in shock! when we were done she stayed there with me till it was about time for her mom to get up. A few weeks later my friend and the kids came over and she acted like nothing happened and when knowone else was looking she gave me a look and put her index finger up to her lips. I had never ever thought of doing anything like that before. It felt so good and I had never in my life felt such perversion. She eventually started riding her bike over and we continued where we left off. She never said a word to anyone and to this day we are friends. I think Brooke Sheilds knew exactly what she was doing. Some call it sick but until you meet the right little girl you will never know. Human nature indeed! Do you know where your children are! What they are really thinking! Her dad is now my best friend. If they ever need anything Im there!
nick
December 7, 2009 at 3:42 am
cool story, bro
DrAwkward
December 20, 2009 at 6:35 pm
you’re disgusting also, this is no cool story you had sex with a 9 year old. you should be ashamed
genevieve
December 24, 2009 at 7:57 pm
uhm look people this was a movie made in what like the 70’s , its brooke shields, as a child, playing a young girl living in a brothel who can not avoid become a prostitute and he had a natural ability to captivate men even as a pre-adolescent. the idea was to show that there are some dynamics about humanity in which many of our species humans are not privileged to enjoy a lengthy child hood and are destined to engage in adult hood early, and out of that group some of us will naturally be able to grab life by the horns at such a young age and own it.
Bigsat
December 7, 2009 at 7:41 am
I can’t believe the retards on here. It started out as closed minded jerks and now it is a bunch of foolish pedophiles telling fake stories about horny underage girls that don’t exists. I can’t believe they (Tod derek and nick) expect anyone to believe that bullshit. It sounds like its just their fantisies and they feel the need to share it with other pedos. Also, they are totally blowing it for the artists who support this type of art by making the people against these pictures look like they have a point. Thanks you pathetic pedophiles.
Necro
December 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm
The story is true! If you want to know why people that get molested start molesting its because they didnt see any harm being done. Like whats his name says here somewhere. I think you were molested and liked it! Not to take anything away from the art or add to it. I agree the naked body of a young girl is art, period. I understand there is nothing perverted here. Like I stated before I have never molested anyone! But I will say after watching Pretty Baby it turned me on. Brooke went a little beyond the arts! So label everyone as you will and direct your hatred toward something you dont understand. Its a big world out there and it happens. The truth is simple! Many young girls who get involved with older men regret it! They face a so called majority rule and sometimes give in. Some regret that even more. I Know a girl that was molested by her stepfather and she had him prosecuted for it. Today she is 19 and she only dates men much older. Why? Do you think Hugh Heffner dating 18 year olds is gross? If a girl 12 years or older wants to be sexually involved with an older man I say let her but don’t force her. This shit has been going on for years and now the people want to stop it. Parents hold on to children for way to long and keep them younger than what they are. What do the people know? The U.S. cant even stop buying shit made from China but yet they still keep asking why cant I find a job! History shows us that the majority is usually wrong. Proned to error. I rather live life with a girl knowing she has been mine from the start before error. Why would anyone want a girl who has already been touched? Because everyone else is doing it why not you? What is right? what is wrong? who are you to say or call people names. Follower! I hope you blend in well. Ruin What? Its art! the body of a female that is. But I still find it funny she played the roll in Pretty Baby. I guess certain seens are more artistic than others if you know what I mean. Just kidding!
tod
December 12, 2009 at 4:37 am
You made some good points and you have obviously had time to think about it. But your a fool if you think I can believe that story you told. That wasn’t about real sex at all. That is the fake stuff people do in porn for looks only. It’s not all your fault but it does insult me that you would try to lie about it because I was actually molested by my babysitter when I was 8 years old and she was about 16 and there is nothing glamourous about it. 8 year old boys don’t have fun with that, it is infact very traumatizing. It took me years to get over it and I’m proud to say I did and I did not come out a pedophile. I would also like to add 18 years of age is probably too old to tell girls not to have sex with who they want but girls have no clue what they are doing at age 12 and that needs to be stopped. Your nuts if you think 12 year old girls have the mental capasity to decide things like that especially with some older horny guy breathing down her neck begging her to hurry and decide. It can be seen as forced even if she says yes cause yes doesn’t mean she enjoys it and there are easier, safer ways for girls to learn better. Also I see nothing wrong with being with a girl that’s been “touched” before. Purity comes from within. Physical purity is not important to me. Find someone that can say that with a strait face. I am actually far from a follower. I agree with the majority that you say says no one should molest kids. But the majority actually disagrees with many to most things I say. I’ll tell you what I don’t blend in at all. My whole neighborhood hates me for my obvious obsession with death and darkness and I have no intrest in blending in. You call me a follower? You fit the exact discription of every pedo I have had the “pleasure” of meeting. I do hope you get over your need for pure girls, cause there are many girls out there that are wonderful and a pure girl is 10 times more likely to dump a guy like you.
Necro
December 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm
What’s the problem? I’d fuck her.
James Phillips
December 13, 2009 at 9:35 pm
you’re DISGUSTING saying such a thing about a 10 year old girl.
genevieve
December 24, 2009 at 7:53 pm
i know this picture is wrong in so many ways but you guys know your complaining over a picture that has been out there for more than thirty years now right.
jtmdiesel
December 16, 2009 at 10:38 am
So many comments, so many people missing the point.
If you travel in europe, scandinavia, you will see naked children playing by the sea, on the lakeside, you’ll see the parents too, and you know what? It’s not a pervert’s paradise, we understand that nakedness and eroticism are two different things.
Beneath our clothes, we all have naked bodies, the problem is that some of us, and definitely a lot of the commenters above have been taught that nakedness is shameful, that our bodies are “dirty”.
The pictures are of a young child in a bath. Yes, there’s make-up, the artist’s interest was in the emergence of the future adult, seen in the child. There’s no overt sexuality whatever, if you see it, that tells me far more about what’s in your head, than what was in the photographer’s.
As for whether paedophiles will be aroused? who knows. there are perverts who get excited by shoes, by rubber, by horses, for heaven’s sake. Victorians were so aroused by a naked ankle that they would swoon.
So lets ban pictures of shoes, rubber, horses, and ankles.
For the record, I do think it was wrong for Ms Shield’s mother to exploit her in this way, but I don’t think the pictures, or the photographer deserve all this ire.
soubriquet
December 19, 2009 at 9:39 pm
It’s only porn if you think it’s porn. Which makes you a prevert in that case. Look at it as Art and it’s diferant.
George
December 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm
pedobear approves
DrAwkward
December 20, 2009 at 6:31 pm
O.K. I am for sure alot of people already know this! Don’t think for one second that everyone thinks the same. there are so many different genes and mindsets in this world. Some people starting at very young ages including young girls that are perverted even though they have never been molested. Why the hell do you think some children play with themselves over-excessively. Different cultures with many variations of type. Dont deny the fact that some people enjoy sexual exploration and engage, children included. I understand being an adult and letting it happen with a child you are playing with fire. I read a story about a girl who was turned on by her dog humping her leg when she was six years old and she thought it was cool and eventually started to encourage the dog to do it. She is now twenty something and she wanted people to know about it for some reason. Thats sick! One time I took my children to a friends house and my son was playing with some girls down the road. They came over and took my 5 year old son in the bedroom and they tried to do all kinds of stuff. The girls were 7 and 8. My son came running out crying(to each his own). I asked him what happened and he told me so I took him home. I then went back a few days later and my friends daughter was outside and she said her dad was gone and mom was sleeping. I told her I wanted to borrow her dads ratchet set. She said she would get it out of the garage. I told her I would just wait until her dad came home. She insisted it was o.k. and we went into the garage. We walked up to the workbench and she grabbed my belt and slipped her fingers down the inside of my pants with one hand and felt me with the other and said she wanted to see it get big. She squeezed me pretty hard. Now I told her she was a little too young and she should’nt be doing that. She got mad and I went home to my wife. This kinda of stuff seems to follow me. For one thing I was married at the time and all these rules seem to be stuck in my head along with other things. I have never thought of touching my own children or doing anything sexual with my own so forget that shit. I was turned on when I had sex with my babysitter at six. And I liked it and I was turned on when the girl grabbed me and I know she felt it. I didnt want her to know that though. Now that I’m divorced (imagine that) I think back and I should have let her. I find it strange that when I was younger I liked older girls and now that I’m older I like younger girls. I didn’t want to get burned and I didn’t know her that well so I believe I made the right choice. Don’t get me wrong. Out of all the history in this world and looking at the people of today you people in majority would be the last I would look to for what is appropriate in age or anything. It wasn’t because she was too young. A little young for me maybe. It was how she was raised. You can’t trust most Americans, especially the flag flyers. These people dont have a clue in what they want or how to get it without screwing someone over. They call themselves patriots. Patriots of what? You can see how well they plan things just by looking at the engineering of their cities. Every school has to be rebuilt every ten years because they can’t see 2 inches in front of there faces. Watch out they will build a Wal-Mart in your backyard and put all your little countries out of business greasing the politicians wallets. Its the greatest place in the world to live. It would be the perfect place for a group of pedophiles to take an elementary school hostage. The news people would love that. They would act like they care then Nancy Grace would cry. they could gather more accurate statistics on what real abuse really does to people when actual rape accurs. Sex with certain children and rape are not the same. Not all pedos are monsters. And truthfully if you love your kids you would put G.P.S. on them instead of your dogs and pedos. They would eliminate the majority of abductions along with worthless law enforcement that couldn’t run fast enough to save anyones lives. Not all but some. Anyway I consider myself an earthling with no bounderies only loyal to my humanitarian appetite. Going to start my own church someday with no god in particular. Dont want a war just an orgy. I have been all over the world and witnessed many types. Lived in many households and witnessed many ways people raise children. A 10 year old girl in Russia is like a 20 year old in America in many ways. Hell I was shocked when I was in Iraq freezing my ass off in the desert with tons of clothes on and saw a 6 or 7 year old boy standing outside his shack barefooted with shorts on, no t-shirt smoking a cigerette. Conditioning indeed. Americans are a bunch of winey fucking brats that haven’t been through shit for the most part. I look at all the people of this world. Even the people who have earned the respect of other peers are fucking up in there own way. Opinion after opinion. Who made who and who is to say what to do and what not to do. Every government is corrupt and most are hipocritz. Most live for the day and do what the majority of humans do in that era. Killing is justified for some not for others. Why is it legal to watch murder of all ages on tv in most places but you cant watch them have sex (all ages). More stupid people = more stupid laws. I love people dont get me wrong! but the laws of today allow for more growth and soon every region of this world will be over-populated and we will all suffer because the biggest powers of the world want everyone to care for one another in peaceful harmony, or do they? More comfort allows for more offspring. Who is to say which population should grow and which one should be put away. I read a story in the paper awhile ago. A nineteen year old guy had sex with a thirteen year old girl and someone found out. The girl would’nt testify against him so they put her in jail. Not old enough to have sex but old enough to be punished like an adult. The governments have the people trained to tell on everyone. Dont take matters into your own hands. What business is it of the courts to get into these matters. The family should have delt with this. The courts only care about appropriating funds not the girls virginity. The real predators. Its a big money making machine for those in power. The greatest actors in the world. You are all abused and people have grown into one mass of stupidity. Everyone so caught up in your work, sports, nintendo, on and on you have all grown up to fall away from yourselves. busy, busy, busy in a hurry to get nothing done but make a mess out of this world. Sit your asses down and think! Too much structure! Believe me everyone was free on this continent until this government settled here after a bloodbath but now we are here dont kill us or each other because you are all worth something to someone and dont forget you are the property of the state. The west is the best get here and we’ll do the rest Tangent and beyond. This is art! could be sexual, maybe not. In my eyes Brooke Shields looks better here than what she looks like now. She is still very pretty though. Why anyone would want to see a grown woman beats me. I look at them as done deals, no work in progress, mission already accomplished several times. Like a rotting out garbage disposal with more food passing through it. You know how many times I have heard stories of men cheating on wives with young girls. Jealousy! Face it woman your days are numbered. We dont need laws to keep your husbands in line. Grow up and be big girls. I dont remember ever hearing sacrifice the woman. Its sacrifice the virgin. No wonder god left this place along time ago. No more new thrills! The purity thing does count and I want someone to grow with, not die with. So follow the leader and hang on to your young because you know dam well you cant hang on to your spouse.
tod
December 27, 2009 at 7:51 am
This isnt really art! She is 10 and posing naked like that is just wrong! What is it supposed to show? That her mother and now photogrophers are sick minded? I dont agree their art, just the works of someone without a life
♥Jasper_Whitlock♥
December 27, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’ve read the comments here, only today hearing of this story …. I tripped over it in a “Top 10″ list.
Now as a matter of full disclosure, let me say that my family and I are nudists so unclothed children, as unclothed adults, in a domestic or beach setting is not too out of the ordinary for me.
Having said that, I think these pictures (at least the first and third) would be as objectionable were she fully clothed than as nude as she is.
It is, I think, difficult to ascribe erotic content to an image we are not aroused by, but I also think here that Gross’s intent was to portray Sheilds as an object of erotic interest.
Was Gross’s point to explore some wonder at the state of a youngster on the cusp of puberty, with all that that involves? Remember, these photographs were taken in 1975, and the fundamental assumptions (taken to even more inane conclusions now in 2009) of the “sexual revolution” were still being explored. Do human beings have value outside their sexual desirability/availability? Sometimes we have to wonder, anymore.
The larger issue, I think, with regards to pedophilia is how to the assumptions we’ve come to accept without question help rationalize pedophile’s action.
Bill
December 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I have read a few stories on guys who have interviewed girls who were in the C.P. business and the majority of them stated they willingly wanted to share first experiences with sex on film and thought it was cool, especially if they could make money at it. Most of them had fun. The real young ones not so much fun! Look at non-nude preteen models these days. They pose because they want people to see them with hardly anything on. Some change but alot of them keep going. Sierra model(usa), Ciarra model, Sandra model, Dasha-models, Katy-model, Cherrish and sister Peach so on and it goes on and on. You can see they like it and they do as much as possible to show you what they can legally. Then the famous LS Models(nude) these girls are the most beautiful girls in the world so I hear. Dont get me wrong they will pop up in a search from time to time just by looking up model. These girls had parental consent and in 2004 international efforts closed them down. The girls were upset and some went on to model elsewhere like Karina World, BD Company and many more. When they got older they couldn’t make as much money like they did as children 8yo-16yo. I read the interviews. They wanted to be seen and they wanted you to want them. In many other cases the kids film themselves with the help of others they manage to get them onto the web. The fact is most people really dont understand children or themselves yet they are so content in their beliefs of right and wrong. You would be amazed how many of your children would pose nude for money if they could. Trust me on this! If C.P. were legal the kids would be doing this kind of thing more and more. Some are just afraid to learn how to swim. Manipulation works both ways. Some don’t need manipulation at all. Someone here stated something about culture. Its true people who are influenced and witness more of the variations of societys tend to appreciate pictures of youth and art more. Some are just born with it and some not. Not everyone! There are alot of people out there. Have some fucking respect for others who do not think the way you do. Not every pedophile is a murderer. Not every pedo goes out and masterbates to every kid they see. I gather and find it to be no joke. America produces more sick minded fucks than anybody. The stiffer the laws the greater the number of murdered children you will find or will come up missing. These pictures are like loaded guns. You choose to pull the trigger. Too many people with no control over their own minds. They see it and then they want to act out what they have seen on t.v. or just plain no love in the home. This is what happens when you depend on government to regulate education. It all starts in the home! This world would be a better place if everyone quit their jobs and home-schooled the kids. Really! Why punish your kids for getting bad grades. Are you afraid they wont become productive in the majority eye. Building a world of factorys and more mass production is destruction. If we didnt have insurance people would learn to drive at own risk and granny would learn to stay off the road. The odds are you will all be too doped by anti-depressants to even realize what you do. I can see you now doing the thorzene shuffle when you people walk around. Lighten up! If child porn were legal you could all become investigators and probably find more missing children. People put to much faith in the ones who have corrupted you. Look at Russia. Pornography is illegal but yet its the worlds biggest porn producer. Why? If people dont get it now they never will. What I still dont understand is why you people think sex with a 12yo is sick. Its simple you are conditioned that way. Try to think inside of your head without using your fluent language. You cant do it! You are use to what you know and become more close minded as you grow. Some say pedos will find ways to justify sex with youngsters and some will find ways not to. Its really whats right for you and for them and we are all different starting at birth. You say kids dont really know what they want and cannot possibly know right from wrong. Do you? One persons drug is a dream come true for others a nightmare! Hell when I was a kid before being molested I dreamt of girls vaginas all the time. I was fascinated with them. I would go to a basketball game and run out on the court pinching every cheerleaders ass and you know what! most of them thought I was cute. Some thought I was a brat. I ended up with one of those cheerleaders as my babysitter and she played doctor everyday with me for a whole year. I loved that girl and it turned her on knowing I was naturally perverted. I know some little girls are the same way. You would be amazed what some people would do if they found out about the real you. I was eating in a diner one day and I seen a really cute 11 yo girl staring at me. I thought what the hell I’m going to let this girl know I would do anything she would want me to do. If I were wrong about her and she told her parents what I was about to do oh well they would probably think she was imagining things. So I placed two fingers in a v shape and did the eating out thing to her and pointed to her. She laughed and pulled her dress up under the table and spread her legs so I could see and kept smiling. She was with her grandparents! which is usually the case. Girls in households with both parents with strict guidelines usually turn away from things like that. Most of the children who grow up with broken homes with freedoms do what they really want to do. Some regret it, some don’t. Then you have the rich another story. I’d prefer the rich little girls myself. Never had one, but they seem to be the most perverted from what Ive seen but I’m for sure not always the case. Spoiled they are. The bottom line is just because you dont understand it doesn’t make it wrong. If you can imagine it you better believe it is happening somewhere in this world and yes some children do like it and if you search hard enough you will see for yourselves the smiles on the faces. Every picture says a thousand words. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean throw it away. That just tells me you don’t want to understand and never will. This shit will never stop! Its like a war on drugs and the best thing for the people is, well you decide. What do you have to do with me? and really it was never supposed to be about us as a whole. Its all about our kind. Just don’t ever touch my kids you fuckin pedos.
tod
December 28, 2009 at 9:43 am
[...] The Gary Gross original photo can be found HERE. [...]
The Photography Blog » Transgressive Photoshop
December 29, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Aside from the argument or whether this is actually pornographic, I think the ruling of the court is uncalled for simply because these picture, I believe, would cause anyone in embarrassment in later years. Enough so that I would have taken the same actions Brooke Shields did.
They say that her career in doing sexy pictures, films, etc. hurt her case, but I personally think it’s irrelevant. By that time she was grown, self-aware and mentally developed enough to make the decision to pursue that career. I highly doubt that was the case with these photos, but couldn’t be certain without actually hearing her side of it. I don’t believe any one person of legal age should be bound by their parent’s signature to exploit them when they were younger. It just feel unjustified to say the least.
Immure
December 31, 2009 at 8:32 pm
These pictures are very beautiful. Thank you. By the comments on here, I’m shocked at how many people think that the human body is sick and evil. I see a very beautiful young girl turning into a woman, it’s the most beautiful thing I can imagine. Am I a pedophile and thinking sexual thoughts? No, not at all. I admire the beauty of the girl and the transition in her life and I even remember my own childhood. Quite moving pictures. I wish more photographers had his nerve.
JamesRiskee
January 1, 2010 at 10:06 am
OH lighten up people. I got a blowjob from my babysitter when I was 8 years old and it was the greatest day of my life. I still look back in fond memory of that day. God Bless her.
Joe Knapf
January 1, 2010 at 10:52 am
If people are so disgusted with these cute pictures then why are they here?
how in the world did you end up finding pictures of brooke shields naked when shes a preteen?
I can understand if you googled ” brooke shields 10 years old ” or something. but how did you end up finding preteen art/porn pictures if you don’t like them? Just doesn’t make any sense.
J
January 2, 2010 at 2:56 am