Girl, 16, Poses Nude on Magazine Cover :((

Way way too young...If I were her parents... oh boy.. There would be hell to pay.

Replying to #21

Way way too young? At that age she could be legally married and living on her own in most of the world and in quite a few states in the United States.

this is what i dont understand with nudity.. if its underage and she is covering her privates with her hands or arms, or legs...it is still disliked by people and other beliefs... but if its in legal age and they are covering their privates with small dots and a line it can be posted in posters in houses and malls legally and not abhored by people?

Society works in a retarded way. That's why I tend to stay away from people.

TirithRR · #22Way way too young? At that age she could be legally married and living on her own in most of the world and in quite a few states in the United States.

True but 16 is still considered too young for many people.I know in australia you could technically move out-but having nude shots is frowned upon.

Replying to #24

Same here-anti social FTW :)

Society does not own that girl's body; she does, so she can do what she likes with it.

Syrex · #21Way way too young...If I were her parents... oh boy.. There would be hell to pay.

I guess you're one of those people who think they own their children. Good parenting is not based on property rights.

hYpNoSThere is far worse than this dear...

yeah . i even saw 6 year olds . . . :o

Replying to #27

And I seen a 2yr in the bath tub counting...naked.Though people don't consider that bad...espeically on funniest home video show...that show is getting worse though with some of the stuff...

i see people younger than ..never mind.anyway, she wasnt nude. :)

1. like everyone said it wasnt nude..... the way she pose, its not much differ from posing in bikini.2. like it or not, nude posing is art.... there is alot of nude model out there, not to mention in American's next top model, there is 2 season IIRC they require the "future model" to model in nude, one with only wig and make up, while the other with candy and ice cream dressing. (before you ask, my mom is a fan of that show....)

I don't think this is wrong. I think all of modern-day society is wrong on this one. Historical society allowed men and women as early as age 12 to get married off and pro-create. I blame over-sensitive people and jackarses that just want to sew people for a quick buck and ruin stuff for everyone else.
Come-on guys, you know if it was not against the law, you would smurf her. I am sure a good number of teens that got that mag that never looked at a single p0rn image in their life pawed off to that image. Goes to show you how predigest our world has become, eh?

Honestly if she's got the maturity for it and is willing to pose for the magazine cover then I don't see the problem at all. Yes she is 16 and yes she's completely nude but they're not exposing her sexually in any way and it's not pornographic at all so there's no child pornography case, it's simply a tease magazine cover to catch people's attention, and as TirithRR said, she doesn't look any older than the other models. If they hadn't mentioned her age, only those that know her personally would have any idea she's 16.I think society needs to grow up and stop obsessing over things such as a 16yr old being nude but not exposed sexually and start worrying about matters of actual importance.

Replying to #32

While a good thought there is one slight problem...Society is going down hill-next 12yrs old will be "acceptible".Or the polically correct people will outlaw anything below 20, take your pick.All I know is, 16 doesn't bother me, though I worry about her development in future careers.

I believe slippery slope arguments are a fallacy.

Replying to #34

[me=hYpNoS]doesn't know what that word means[/me]I spoke to a few people on this matter (OLD people) and they think the standard's are slipping...Some reckon 18 was bad at some point.And to be honest I can see it happening...those baby t-shirts (my moma has more milk than yours) and the fashion they make for kids (g strings for 10yrs...WTH!)...I won't even get started on some of the clothes I see some of the 13yr's that my brother goes to class with.

Replying to #36

[me=hYpNoS]now knows both meanings[/me]I guess mine are more of the opinion of the 50+ generation rather than my own age group.That is what happens when you work with people of these age groups-you take on their veiws. I still dislike the concept of this though, that is just my opinion though.

This is sad but nowadays it is acceptable....I'm so old-fashioned that way. My daughter is 11 and there are 2 girls in her Middle School that is pregnant! And this is a really nice, safe and "uppity" school!!! It sickens me.

Replying to #38

Underaged pregnancy is due to ignorance. Hiding children from sex will not, and has been proven again and again to just plain not, work. This girl posing like this is not going to make her more likely to get pregnant, or anyone else for that matter. What puts her or anyone else in danger is the lack of knowledge when it comes to how to protect yourself.Teach them about safe sex, even if you believe in abstinence. Safe sex is important even to a married couple if they are not prepared for parenthood. Even if you are married, an unexpected or unwanted child can be a disaster financially, socially, and emotionally. Being married doesn't magically make a person prepared for parenthood.

I agree 100%. I am totally open with my kids. I have an 11 year old and a 15 year old and both of them are super comfortable about discussing sex with me. Thank God for that! Children, people, will only be MORE curious about the "forbidden" if it is in the hidden.