Opinions: Are these photographs offensive?

Click to follow
Indy Lifestyle Online
SALLY BRAMPTON, fashion commentator: I don't think she looks very young. I think she looks knowing - not innocent and knowing, but like a 20-year-old woman. I don't like the pre-pubescent, androgynous look, it's not a healthy reflection of women. But to say that it makes women feel vulnerable implies that women are stupid - most women know what is image and what is fantasy.

JENNA WELCH, mature student, 31: She looks young - all models look young - but any image of a woman who's dressed in two pieces of lacy string is exploitative. Supermodels and waifs both make normal women feel bad.

TRACEY WEBB, marketing assistant, 28: No, it's not offensive. Models are paid thousands of pounds; if that's exploitation, I wish someone would exploit me. I can't believe there's a serious fuss about these pictures, she's paid to look young and pretty and of course that's how she looks.

TOM BLACK, sales assistant, 27: I find the pictures uncomfortable. She is very beautiful and you do fancy her, but feel you shouldn't. And the clothes are really ugly, not sexy at all - it all comes from her.

ANNE SMITH, insurance broker, 49: She looks absolutely dreadful, quite anorexic and ill. You don't look at the underwear, you just look at her - it doesn't even fit her]

JANE KILPATRICK, Kidscape child protection charity: The pictures don't strike me as offensive: I just looked at them and thought 'That's Kate Moss.' I definitely think she looks over 16, and our concern is when under-16s are used for sexual purposes to reinforce the idea of the child as a valid sexual being. Women have been portrayed in vulnerable situations before and I would count her as a young woman.

JOSE FONSECA, director, Models One: She looks like a teenager in cheap underwear and had they been in 19 magazine or The Face no one would have said anything.

SHERYL GARRATT, editor, The Face: I don't think you can mistake a 19-year-old girl for a 12-year-old. As for the editor of Cosmopolitan's suggestion that she looked like a junkie - she has obviously never met anyone who takes a lot of drugs, that was the most pernicious thing said. Those photographs are not going to make people want to go out and sleep with children, they are just quite real documentary shots of what Kate is like. They were shot in her house, that is what most 19-year-olds live like. I can't imagine anyone finding them sexy. What worries me is what is going on inside the heads of people who think the shots are paedophilic.

FIONA PITT-KETHLEY, poet: It's certainly not pornography, it's just scruffy, awful underwear, the sort of stuff my mother advised me not to wear in case I got knocked down in it. She is too thin - most women don't like her looks, it really is anorexic.

JOEL LACEY, technique editor, Amateur Photographer: I don't think they're any different to any other fashion photos. If she was in a bikini then they would have passed without comment.

PAUL URQUHART, off-licence owner: If this is Vogue then you can keep it. She does look very young, too young. I don't see why they want to use such a skinny little girl to model underwear - it doesn't show it off at all, it looks pathetic. Surely the point is the clothes - if they don't look good then doesn't it defeat the whole object?

TARA BARTLETT, waitress, 27: It's ridiculous that fashion people think a few pictures in a magazine will change the world. Most people ignore fashion except in a watered-down form. You can see little girls in their knickers any day in catalogues and no-one's bothered by that. I should think a potential child- abuser would be more likely to read catalogues than Vogue.

(Photograph omitted)

Comments