10-Year-Olds Are Now High Fashion, Too
Monday, August 01, 2011
We get that Jac Jagaciak broke onto the scene at 13 (though she didn't get really, really famous until three years later), but don't you think ten is a little too young to start a modeling career? Well, Thylane Blondeau set out to prove us wrong. If you've been on Tumblr recently, you'll notice that a certain precocious pre-preteen has been making the rounds of reblogging. There's even a few sites named after her, although one eponymous fanpage inexplicably featured thousands of Leighton Meester gifs.
We do have to admit she possesses a peculiar charm, and while fashion values youth, has it pushed the limits too far? While she is the very definition of Nabokov's nymphet, we can't forget that Lolita centers around the yearnings of a 30-something pedophile. And though we don't object to child modeling, Blondeau isn't being marketed according to those standards.
Remember that huge fuss when 14-year-old Jac revealed her (underage) underboob in Jalouse? Well, Blondeau posed completely topless four years before the Polish supermodel did. And while we understand that the whole wild-island-child look has its own charm, ten is simultaneously too old and too young to go sans-shirt.
Whether applying lipstick or cavorting around the city in Kate-Moss-esque ensembles, Thylane is always chic - a bit too chic for a 10-year-old.
In addition, she's being posed provocatively like an adult. Who had the genius idea of leaning her against the bumper of a car in jeans, one hand on her belt loops? This looks way too much like an over-greased Armani Jeans ad for my liking. And then there's the Cartier-like spread where she's sprawled upon a tiger rug with her feet in the air, sporting a bouffant and dripping in diamonds. In the same editorial, she also wears a ton of makeup and a pink slip that reveals a whole lot of underage leg (and is it just me, or did she get a spray tan?). What with the sultry pout, the whole effect is very drunken-child-prostitute (this time, an expensive one). What (and to whom) exactly are they trying to market? It's obviously aimed towards a male audience, but I don't think the majority of men reading Vogue are 12-year-old boys.
By advertising Blondeau in a certain way (as nubile and sexually desirable), the fashion industry is blatantly promoting pedophilia. The media plays a prominent role in what we find attractive, and oversexed 10-year-olds should not be a part of that image. I'm hoping that most males over the age of 13 don't find a child lust-worthy, but condoning and encouraging underage attraction is an egregious error.
We do have to admit she possesses a peculiar charm, and while fashion values youth, has it pushed the limits too far? While she is the very definition of Nabokov's nymphet, we can't forget that Lolita centers around the yearnings of a 30-something pedophile. And though we don't object to child modeling, Blondeau isn't being marketed according to those standards.
Remember that huge fuss when 14-year-old Jac revealed her (underage) underboob in Jalouse? Well, Blondeau posed completely topless four years before the Polish supermodel did. And while we understand that the whole wild-island-child look has its own charm, ten is simultaneously too old and too young to go sans-shirt.
Now this is really pushing it too far, to the point that it screams vulgar. Hello, third-world child prostitute?
What's going on here? This is weirdly sexual, especially considering that both subjects couldn't be more than 12 years of age.
Leave Lip Smackers to less classy preteens, because Thylane's already moved on to lipstick (preferably Chanel).
In addition, she's being posed provocatively like an adult. Who had the genius idea of leaning her against the bumper of a car in jeans, one hand on her belt loops? This looks way too much like an over-greased Armani Jeans ad for my liking. And then there's the Cartier-like spread where she's sprawled upon a tiger rug with her feet in the air, sporting a bouffant and dripping in diamonds. In the same editorial, she also wears a ton of makeup and a pink slip that reveals a whole lot of underage leg (and is it just me, or did she get a spray tan?). What with the sultry pout, the whole effect is very drunken-child-prostitute (this time, an expensive one). What (and to whom) exactly are they trying to market? It's obviously aimed towards a male audience, but I don't think the majority of men reading Vogue are 12-year-old boys.
By advertising Blondeau in a certain way (as nubile and sexually desirable), the fashion industry is blatantly promoting pedophilia. The media plays a prominent role in what we find attractive, and oversexed 10-year-olds should not be a part of that image. I'm hoping that most males over the age of 13 don't find a child lust-worthy, but condoning and encouraging underage attraction is an egregious error.
A little too Brigitte Bardot, no?
0 comments