[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Viridiana

That's an amazing pic of Kate Moss. I remember when that came out and thinking FINALLY someone in a fashion mag that actually looks like an everyday teenager, like i was at the time. It made fashion History and changed the perception of beauty.

And no i do not find the ad at all pervy, it's just a stupid cheesy ad, the kid is meant to be cheeky, or kids cannot be cheeky around adults now? And numerous little girls have been filmed hanging around with men. Kristen Dunst even got to kiss Brad Pitt.

I know, you'd think Romeo Beckham was the first kid ever to feature in a fashion ad campaign. With OMG adults!!

All this faux concern over his welfare is really quite hilarious albeit a little disturbing with the attempts to suggest something a little unsavory behind the imagery.

[dee123]

Originally Posted by lexi22

What I find questionable is anyone who would describe this ad campaign as 'pervy'.

Yep. Pretty much.

[Azura's Star]

Originally Posted by lexi22

I know, you'd think Romeo Beckham was the first kid ever to feature in a fashion ad campaign. With OMG adults!!

All this faux concern over his welfare is really quite hilarious albeit a little disturbing with the attempts to suggest something a little unsavory behind the imagery.

The fact that anyone could call the ad "pervy" says alot more about them than the actual ad.
I don't know which is worse though-the pretend concern over Romeo's welfare,or the people hiding behind their keyboards making disparaging comments about a 10 year old's physical appearance.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Azura's Star

The fact that anyone could call the ad "pervy" says alot more about them than the actual ad.
I don't know which is worse though-the pretend concern over Romeo's welfare,or the people hiding behind their keyboards making disparaging comments about a 10 year old's physical appearance.

Horrible, innit? But apparently he 'put himself out there' so it's ok.

[Daisy Bennyboots]

Originally Posted by lexi22

I know, you'd think Romeo Beckham was the first kid ever to feature in a fashion ad campaign. With OMG adults!!

All this faux concern over his welfare is really quite hilarious albeit a little disturbing with the attempts to suggest something a little unsavory behind the imagery.

But there is something a little unsavory about a 10 year old hanging around a feet of a woman wearing red heels tiny shorts. I understand some people's viewpoint on this even thought I don't entirely agree myself. I would say his welfare isn't affected by any of this either...but then his parents have put him in a position whereby he's become needlessly objectified (and therefore put on a pedestal of criticism) as a model. Can see both sides here I guess.

Considering he's goofing around and wearing shades, there's not much feelgood about this campaign. IT all feels a bit unneccesary and nepotistic..but then we're discussing Burberry so job done I guess.

[lozenger]

Baffled by the reaction

To me it just looks like a cheeky fun p*** take of the fashion industry

Must be my filthy mind

[Daisy Bennyboots]

Originally Posted by Azura's Star

The fact that anyone could call the ad "pervy" says alot more about them than the actual ad.
I don't know which is worse though-the pretend concern over Romeo's welfare,or the people hiding behind their keyboards making disparaging comments about a 10 year old's physical appearance.

In what way? I think parents are perfectly entitled to criticise using a boy to model clothes with sexy women without accusation of anything prudish or that they only see it as unsavory because they are perverted themselves, no?

[Viridiana]

Originally Posted by Daisy Bennyboots

But there is something a little unsavory about a 10 year old hanging around a feet of a woman wearing red heels tiny shorts. I understand some people's viewpoint on this even thought I don't entirely agree myself. I would say his welfare isn't affected by any of this either...but then his parents have put him in a position whereby he's become needlessly objectified (and therefore put on a pedestal of criticism) as a model. Can see both sides here I guess.

I do not understand why would find it unsavory. . Would you forbid all kids to model or to act? 10 Year olds in films do all sorts of things around and with adults, and is seen as fine, in here he's doing even less, he's just there.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Daisy Bennyboots

But there is something a little unsavory about a 10 year old hanging around a feet of a woman wearing red heels tiny shorts. I understand some people's viewpoint on this even thought I don't entirely agree myself. I would say his welfare isn't affected by any of this either...but then his parents have put him in a position whereby he's become needlessly objectified (and therefore put on a pedestal of criticism) as a model. Can see both sides here I guess.

Considering he's goofing around and wearing shades, there's not much feelgood about this campaign. IT all feels a bit unneccesary and nepotistic..but then we're discussing Burberry so job done I guess.

I just find it really odd that that's what you're seeing and getting from the imagery. No idea what Testino's storyboard was but I would quess that Romeo's love of fashion and the fashion world was the starting premise, and the idea behind it was the equivalent of letting a kid loose in a toy shop.

Like I said earlier, I don't like the aesthetics of the shoot, and I think it could have been better executed but I see absolutely nothing remotely iffy or unsavory about it.

[Daisy Bennyboots]

Originally Posted by Viridiana

I do not understand why would find it unsavory. . Would you forbid all kids to model or to act? 10 Year olds in films do all sorts of things around and with adults, and is seen as fine, in here he's doing even less, he's just there.

No

But I will defend people/parents who voice their discomfort at primary school kids posing at the feet of microshorts wearing models because they are free to do so without accusations of being a prude or a pervert!

[Daisy Bennyboots]

Originally Posted by lexi22

I just find it really odd that that's what you're seeing and getting from the imagery. No idea what Testino's storyboard was but I would quess that Romeo's love of fashion and the fashion world was the starting premise, and the idea behind it was the equivalent of letting a kid loose in a toy shop.

Like I said earlier, I don't like the aesthetics of the shoot but I see absolutely nothing remoterly iffy about it.

I'm sure it might have been the premise - very badly executed, you know. Are we supposed to believe Romeo is looking at shoes in admiration? Ok,because that's what little boys like..high fashion shoes. Hmm. But like Pru said, the whole campaign is "awkward".

[Azura's Star]

Originally Posted by Daisy Bennyboots

But there is something a little unsavory about a 10 year old hanging around a feet of a woman wearing red heels tiny shorts. I understand some people's viewpoint on this even thought I don't entirely agree myself. I would say his welfare isn't affected by any of this either...but then his parents have put him in a position whereby he's become needlessly objectified (and therefore put on a pedestal of criticism) as a model. Can see both sides here I guess.

Considering he's goofing around and wearing shades, there's not much feelgood about this campaign. IT all feels a bit unneccesary and nepotistic..but then we're discussing Burberry so job done I guess.

Is there?
What exactly is unsavoury about it?
If Romeo was standing next to a load of models gyrating suggestively in skimpy underwear,then I could understand why people would be suggesting that it wasn't the most suitable environment for a 10 year old,but I genuinely cannot see the problem.

The fact that (in my opinion) it's a pretty poor ad is irrelevant.

[Daisy Bennyboots]

Originally Posted by Azura's Star

Is there?
What exactly is unsavoury about it?
If Romeo was standing next to a load of models gyrating suggestively in skimpy underwear,then I could understand why people would be suggesting that it wasn't the most suitable environment for a 10 year old,but I genuinely cannot see the problem.

The fact that (in my opinion) it's a pretty poor ad is irrelevant.

It doesn't have to be overtly sexual to be a bit unsavory. I'm not even committing to that viewpoint, I'm just saying I understand some people's discomfort with some of the shots, that's all.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Daisy Bennyboots

I'm sure it might have been the premise - very badly executed, you know. Are we supposed to believe Romeo is looking at shoes in admiration? Ok,because that's what little boys like..high fashion shoes. Hmm. But like Pru said, the whole campaign is "awkward".

But that's just one still! Out of 100s! Why would you focus on that, that's really the bit I don't understand, interpreting a still image as if it has some deep significance when all it is is just one moment. It's almost like people are looking for something to find suspect!

Full video here - gives a much better perspective -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=87556Xu5nnU

[lesleyanne]

Originally Posted by lexi22

What I find questionable is anyone who would describe this ad campaign as 'pervy'.

My thoughts exactly.

I would be more worried about the thought processes of someone who found these pictures 'pervy'. Very strange way to see things

[i4u]

I believe in the 1980's there was a Channel 4 programme called MiniPops where young children dressed up in adult outfits and pranced around singing hits of the day.

This was children with children and I'm sure they and their parents plus the the 2m viewers saw it as fun but others saw it as disturbing and wrong.

The series was dropped after one series, at the time this appeared in the Observer...

"Is it merely priggish to feel queasy at the sight of primary school minxes with rouged cheeks, eye make-up and full-gloss lipstick belting out songs like torch singers and waggling those places where they will eventually have places? The final act of last week's show featured a chubby blonde totlette, thigh-high to a paedophile, in a ra-ra skirt and high heels; her black knickers were extensively flashed as she bounced around singing the words 'See that guy all dressed in green/He's not a man, he's a loving machine.' Kiddie porn, a shop-window full of junior jailbait? And does the show thrust premature sexual awareness onto its wide-eyed performers?"

[The Prumeister]

The main thing I get from the campaign is that Burberry's clothes are shockingly tacky and they have no idea how to conduct a credible campaign. This is an awkward, amateur mish mash of crud.

[lesleyanne]

Originally Posted by i4u

I believe in the 1980's there was a Channel 4 programme called MiniPops where young children dressed up in adult outfits and pranced around singing hits of the day.

This was children with children and I'm sure they and their parents plus the the 2m viewers saw it as fun but others saw it as disturbing and wrong.

The series was dropped after one series, at the time this appeared in the Observer...

I saw that programme in the eighties, and this ad campaign is NOTHING like it!

[i4u]

Originally Posted by The Prumeister

The main thing I get from the campaign is that Burberry's clothes are shockingly tacky and they have no idea how to conduct a credible campaign. This is an awkward, amateur mish mash of crud.

Well there's that as well, I see the Financial Director has resigned over other matters.

[Kiko H Fan]

It's the Daily Mail.
There's no way the Daily Mail would publish anything 'pervy' when there's a child involved.
Oh no, there's no way. The paper is a bastion of British family values.

[Daisy Bennyboots]

Originally Posted by lesleyanne

My thoughts exactly.

I would be more worried about the thought processes of someone who found these pictures 'pervy'. Very strange way to see things

I'm sorry but the OP has the right to have a protective or conservative opinion about an image of a child posing at the ankle of a scantily clad model without being basically branded as someone with certain tendencies because they see it as inappropriate. I am also sure that labelling posters is against the T&C and this is a whopper. Everyone has different ideas of what is proper, appropriate and decent -it doesn't mean they have tendencies in that way, just that perhaps they see exploitation or indecency where you don't. Can't you see that?

[Big Boy Barry]

It's a Daily Mail link, so I presume it's much ado about nothing.

[lesleyanne]

Originally Posted by Daisy Bennyboots

I'm sorry but the OP has the right to have a protective or conservative opinion about an image of a child posing at the ankle of a scantily clad model without being basically branded as someone with certain tendencies because they see it as inappropriate. I am also sure that labelling posters is against the T&C and this is a whopper. Everyone has different ideas of what is proper, appropriate and decent -it doesn't mean they have tendencies in that way, just that perhaps they see exploitation or indecency where you don't. Can't you see that?

Eh?! I haven't said that the OP doesn't have the right to their opinion!

And where have I 'branded (him) as someone with certain tendencies'? Have you quoted the wrong post, or are you reading invisible words that I didn't write?

I just think (and I'm allowed an opinion too by the way) that there is nothing 'pervy' about these pictures, and to me, it is strange to think that way.

[BMLisa]

Originally Posted by Azura's Star

I don't know which is worse though-the pretend concern over Romeo's welfare,or the people hiding behind their keyboards making disparaging comments about a 10 year old's physical appearance.

Ditto!

Also he's absolutely adorable!

[DiamondDoll]

Originally Posted by BMLisa

Ditto!

Also he's absolutely adorable!

He'll be a stunner once he gets the braces sorted out.
I cannot see anything untoward in those pics.