Apropos of Litbrit’s post below, here (via my girlfriend Miller) are some shots of Cindy Crawford’s five-year-old daughter getting an early start in mama’s business by modeling bathing suits.
FWIW, I don’t find anything wrong with what’s the kid’s wearing or the pictures themselves, if she were running around in her backyard and the snaps were from the family photo album. But I must admit, I’m a little squicked out by the thought that these have been published. This image in particular strikes me as eerily reminiscent of the bralettes designed to hide a child’s lack of breasts. The coquettish pose suggests that there’s something to hide, as her arm is placed in a way familiar to anyone who’s viewed a sex scene in a film trying to avoid an R rating. “Suggestive” is hardly an appropriate word to describe any photo of a five-year-old.
And the fake back tattoo immediately evokes a line from Wedding Crashers: “Tattoo on the lower back? Might as well be a bullseye.” The truth of the line is not that all women who have tattoos thusly placed are obviously "looking for it," but that men like the odiously predatory duo in the film interpret the tats that way nonetheless.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus