I don't think it's right to say that "girls should be sexual". The statement is prejudiced against asexual people. Better to say that it's good for sexual people to have their sexuality as children.

Off topic, but it has to be asked...

What is she wearing in the third picture? Am I really seeing Native American culture co-opted by a ten year old fashion model?

You rock, Sarah!

Focusing on the first 1/8 of this post, I'm not sure I'd characterize the Toddlers & Tiaras (and toddler pageants as a whole) as "sexualization" --  I'd simply characterize it as totally CREEPY.  I stand in full judgement of these parents.  They should all seek psychological help.

The other thing at issue here is context: would the interpretation here be different if presented in the context of a gallery exhibit as opposed to in a fashion magazine?

Are fashion magazines at liberty to present things purely as art, or are they always bound by the expectation that their audience will be measuring themselves against the images on their pages?
Do people, especially women and girls, measure themselves against images they see in art galleries?

I think it is interesting that there has not been much discussion of the publication her images were published in: Vogue Enfants. There are many more images of other children (boys and girls) in sexualized poses.

"I do not take the paternalistic view that girls should be “protected”
against sexualization. Instead, we should work with girls (and boys) to
discourage sexualization and to encourage strength, intelligence, and
sexual agency."

I agree with the first sentence but would diverge on the second.  This is, I think a type of reverse corruption of Freud's corrupt view that children are sexual predators. 

Instead I would say:

1.  Children do not know what sex is and what it means.  They need to have this mediated.  For example, if the little son says to his mother, "Mommy, I want to marry you," perhaps the mother should say "Johnny, oh, I appreciate that but I am alreay married to Daddy.  Someday, when you're a grown-up you'll find a good woman and I imagine you'll want to marry her."  

2.  Children may be sublimating other needs for sexuality, particularly in our overly sex-saturated culture (in which sex-positive feminism, for all its pluses, has also played a role).  The drive to self-actualization (knowledge of the full range of one's thoughts and feelings) often gets linked to sexuality for a number reasons, certainly in adults and probably even in children.  When children do not have good parents, who model self-awareness, who have healthy psychological boundaries, and who nuture and set appropriate boundaries on a child's developing self-awareness, the feeling of disempowerment and insecurity this creates in the child, may mean the child tries to get power or even dominance however he/she can, including in sexuality.

As someone else posted below:  I do not find this sexy, or inviting in any way.

I still wonder how much of the "sexualization" comes from the viewer looking @ the image, or the viewer looking @ the image after hearing or reading about how it's a sexualized image.  I think a reasonable person would not instantly think "sex" when they see this.

In a debate with friends, a friend brought up, as Kat below, that lipstick is supposed to make the lips look like a turned-on-vagina.  Or something.  Perhaps that WAS the case back in some day long ago, but I hardly think any girl is putting on lipstick today and thinking, "I sure hope Bobby in math notices how much my lips look like my vulva..."  Just because something DID mean something doesn't mean it still does.

I'm of the mind that there is absolutely nothing wrong with these images.  I would imagine that with education as to what sexuality is and isn't from an early age, very very few people would be negatively affected by these images.

Are we not sexualizing children every time we socialize them into their gender roles?

I mean, if you dress a little girl up in clothes that your culture identifies as Female, you're already announcing her sex to the world and communicating to strangers that she has a vagina. If we were genuinely interested in not over-sexualizing children, we would start by shifting the norms away from gendering them straight out of the womb. 

But that's not the case. I think what most people find disturbing here is that the kids are adultified, exhibiting behaviors that we don't identify as childlike. It immediately strikes us as exploitative to cast them into that role. But personally, I can't look at these images without immediately thinking "this child is at work!" My opinion is that all child labor - including modelling and acting - should be regarded as no less exploitative than sending kiddies to work in a factory. Whether the kids are dressed "sexy" is hardly even a factor. 

"These pictures of Blondeau push the envelope by explicitly promoting the prepubescent thin ideal, a body type that is wholly unattainable for women.  The normalization of beautifying a 10-year-old’s body type can have potentially disastrous consequences for women’s body image."

THIS is what I take issue with.  First and foremost, I want to know if she is ever pictured in magazines that aren't for children.  Second, yes, you're totally right.  What many people don't realize is that most high-fashion models are NOT unusually thin young women, they are typically girls in their early to mid teens.  I think the average age for a fashion model is something like 14 years old.  No matter how "tall for her age" and "looks grown" a 14 year old girl is, she does NOT look like an adult.  No matter how tall and gangly she is, she will not have that same body in 4 or 5 years.  Most clothes advertised in publications like Vogue are for women in their twenties and thirties, possibly even older, not for teens (hence why they have "teen" versions of different fashion magazines; even wealthy teens aren't buying 15,000 dollar ball gowns).  I have barely gained any weight since I was 14, but by 17 or 18, and certainly now by 21, I look COMPLETELY different, a difference that doesn't come from simply gaining 10 pounds.  We're I a fashion model, I would be retired.  The "thin" ideal is not the primary issue, IMO, because they are not presenting the ideal of a thin adult woman (which is a possible goal, if only for some), they are presenting an ideal of barely hit puberty (an ideal completely impossible for a grown woman).  In addition to all the other unfortunate implications of presenting a 10 year old's body as a representation of adult sexiness.

I wonder if it's possible to do a similar photoshoot, but instead as fashion or art, as commentary on the sexualization of youth.

Thanks so much for this excellent yet disturbing article. Those of us at Sexual Violence Free Austin (www.svfree.org) would love to get in contact with Sarah McKenney, could you give our information to her so she could contact us? thanks! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sexual-Violence-Free-Austin-SVFree/202701176432504

For me the only picture in which the 10 year old model seems sexualised is the one where she is wearing the black t-shirt and jeans. With the grown up hair style and her head slightly tilted forward so she has to look up to the viewer. That is such a blatant imitation of a million of such pictures in advertisements where the model is supposed to look "hot".
I'm probably a debauched European but just naked skin is not the same as "sexy".

The other aspect that comes up here is, this is finally a model that looks from the get go like hi-fashion magazines, fashion designers, and advertisers have been trying to make models looks for decades. It must save them a ton in retouching. I feel the publishing of these pictures in an magazine aimed at adult women more heinous than the actual photos.

Is she exploited? I would say yes.

Just because it is art, does not mean it is without reproach. There is plenty of sexist art out there.

The topless picture of the the girl makes me unconformable. i think it is seeing it in a magazine is what is doing it. I dont see anything wrong with young kids running around naked (back in the day i played in the back yard naked with my sister) it is  part of being a kid and not having any shame about your body.

also, i think that the pix could use a jump since some could consider it NSFW

Sexualization is projected, and serves to limit expressions by attaching sexual consequences to them. The topless image, with the necklace and the headdress, really stood out to me---she looks confident, and comfortable, and beautiful---not sexy-beautiful, but person-beautiful, child-beautiful---and yet because we sexualize female toplessness, that is less acceptable for her to appear that way as it would be for a boy to appear that way. Sexualization of female bodies is shaping how we see her---we should, by rights, be seeing nothing more than a child playing dress-up, and yet the clothing, the positions, the looks, have connotations that prevent her from simply being a child exploring her abilities to shape her appearance (I know, some adult stylists picked these out, but they are invisible in the context of the shoot), an "innocent" young person with whatever nascent sexuality a ten-year-old might have, and only that. A woman, and by extension, a female child if her mode of dress resembles an adult's rather than prominently and specifically indicating her status as a child, cannot, in present society, exist visibly just for herself, but is forced to exist in the context of sexuality projected onto her.

We should be able to see that she is a child, and that, rather than her mode of dress, should be enough for people to see her as a child. Instead, clothing creates a context of sexuality around her, and she is stuck with it. The same is true for adult women, to our oft-lamented inconvenience and misfortune. Sexualization is the replacement of a person's value (type and amperage at a given time) of sexuality with whatever an observer projects onto her. Topless becomes something other than a convenient comfortable mode of dressing on hot days, and becomes a statement of sexual availability which spills over onto any female who is not wearing a shirt, even one whose other characteristics, such as prepubescent age, makes that particular type and level of sexuality inappropriate or objectively nonexistent.

With the beauty-pageant beauty ideal, meanwhile, the level of blatant artifice says something different than the more natural and matter-of-fact aesthetic of the Vogue model. The whole concept and the culture surrounding it are revolting in their overtones of beauty-is-status message; at the same time, it is very blatantly a performed femininity . . . it is something that could, if society were different, be thought of the way drag is, and could be a stylized ritual performance in the way some cultures' classical dances are, with people of both genders elaborately performing a certain highly-aestheticized expression of femininity. It could be this, but it isn't---instead, they have the worship of conformity to a singular restrictive beauty ideal, and the artistic elements that could have been the star of the show are either window dressing or are stunted, taking a backseat to how flawless the child's face is and how thin and shapely her body is, and the whole thing is structured around a vortex of competition: be the best, or you're worthless. Win or lose. Your fellow competitors are not friends, they're rivals. Hate them, be better than them, or they'll be better than you and that is humiliation and your own shortcomings.

Once again, though, there's the projection of what that sort of appearance tends to mean on an adult woman---model, living doll, someone who puts on a performance and works at beauty, for what other reason than to attract men? Who does that, in the eyes of so many people who don't conceive of women going to beauty-related effort for their own aesthetic satisfaction, but women who feel a desperate need for validation from others, for hierarchal achievement? And these are not women known for their strong sense of self-reliance and self-confidence. Such is the image, the persona, the sexual identity, projected onto the beauty pageant girls.

We live in a world where it is very hard for female people, even pre-adolescent ones, to be authentically themselves for themselves, because so many of their choices have baggage attached by the people who view them. Girls who like high-femme glamour, women who want to wear certain part of their own skin as clothing, it all says something we don't want to say in a language we never asked to speak, to people we don't want to talk to, and we don't have the option to not say it without silencing far more than the unwanted message.

To be honest, I agree with Brinylon, the only one that seems overtly sexual to me is the picture of her in a black t-shirt, leaning on the car. That's the only one that seems a little too Taxi Driver for comfort. But the others - and yeah, even the one of her in the headdress - to me just seem really natural and childlike. And this is coming from me, generally a prude about these things. I don't know whether it's the airy, light photography coupled with the white of the clothes etc, but it just seems really innocent and like how you would imagine an idyllic summer as a rustic country kid.

I must say I don't consider that picture from toddler's and tiara's "undeniably sexualized."  I mean, really?  They're 6/7 year olds with curled hair, in make up and poofy skirts.  Are we going to call 6 year old ballet recitals sexualized as well?

That picture may show young girls as objects of their looks, yes.  It may show them being taught principals of beauty and femininity that you do not agree with.  That does not mean it portrays them in a sexual light.

the thing that is currently unsettling me about these images is the fact that (debate over sexualization aside) if i put my thumb over her face in all these pictures, i (and i bet almost anyone) would assume it was a photo shoot for any number of adult fashion magazines. meaning, the average size/look of a fashion model's body is almost identical to that of a 10-year-old girl.  it would be interesting, in fact, to do a side-by-side comparison with some adult vogue images, just to make the point even stronger about how the fashion industry promotes this 'wholly unattainable' pre-pubescent body type as the 'thin ideal.'  it makes me shudder. 

It's to be noted that the pictures are from Vogue Enfants (children) and not from Vogue...

not only is there sexualization of a young girl, but there is also native culture appropriation in that picture with her and the feathers. two strikes.

There are many things to consider here: 1) Children are being taught very early that their worth is based on appearance 2) That appearance is often sexually based 3) Childhood exists for a reason-adulthood is the majority of life, and sex can wait until then. Adults that force children not only to participate in, but simply learn the ways of sexuality early on, are in a way stealing that childhood.

Its only sexual if you make it. The beauty and innocence of life is diminishing.

Beyond the fact that she is a young girl who is hypersexualized, it highlights the fact that media narratives concerning women (whether those narratives are fashion magazine spreads, TV shows, ad campaigns, movies, music videos, youtube videos, etc.) ALWAYS portray the female character as a hypersexulized beautiful to-be-looked-at ageless creature. This is the bigger picture issue. The media only ever shows us one type of female and she is always presented in a way that highlights her "to-be-looked-at-ness", to quote Laura Mulvey. The viewer of the narrative is invited to scan the image of a woman's body in a sexualized way. The viewer is invited to see the image as a sexual object there to be possessed.

This creates a whole host of problems in individuals and in society. These images are used to sell us products made by wage slaves in China and sold by wage slaves in department stores. These images encourage us to throw out perfectly good items in favor of the flavor of the week, which is JUST great for the environment. These images encourage us to buy cosmetics that are full of harmful chemicals that lead to premature aging, cancer, infertility. These images lead to body dysmorphic disorder, Objectified Body Consciousness, anorexia, bulimia, depression, anxiety, shame, guilt....on and on. It is no wonder why giant corporations that are making billions upon billions of dollars want us to believe that this is "just art" and join in the fun.

My question to the entire planet is when are we going to stop doing this to ourselves? When are we going to start treating women with integrity and respect by giving them images of themselves to look up to that don't make them want to throw up their breakfast and buy a whole new wardrobe every season? That don't make them want cosmetic surgery by the time they are 25? When are we, men and women, all going to start waking up and realize the power of images like this?

Art or not, these images are telling stories to all of us and stories can be very powerful tools of indoctrination into one's society. Images and the stories they tell have the power to re-structure perception and subjective experience. If they didn't, corporations wouldn't spend more on their ad campaigns than they do on product creation and employee salaries and Government parties would spend the billions they spend on their campaigns on actually contributing to the society they are supposed to represent.

These things are more than just images, they are more than just art.

after reading the comments i don't think i can really respond to some of this diatribe. but regarding the post, thank you for exposing this. i am a woman, a mother and a grandmother. i abhor the sexualization (or whatever you want to call it) of our children, especially our little girls. i fear for this world that my granddaughter will be growing up in. i fear because of all the evil that lurks out there toward our children. this type of imagery does not help our children it hurts them, makes them more of a target for unstable minds. grown women add to this problem by also trying to look like our children do. and men add by preferring women who look more like little girls, thin, hairless and submissive. 

There is nothing wrong with the model or the photographer. The problem is with those pseudo-prude perverts who feel horny and try to cover their erection by screaming "childporn"!

I am offended that you think a child should be able to be seen as sexual. That is a perverse, pedophilic view. The primary thing that defines an adult from a child is sexual maturity. At 10 you don't know even what sex is (at least if you have decent parents, as decent parents won't tell you what sex is until you are at least 13). I do not think being topless for girls is any worse than topless for boys. However I think I may diverge on your idea when it comes to full nudity. Images featuring full nudity must be done very carefully to avoid accidentally being made in a way that sexualizes the child (especially if it sexualizes the child in the eyes of pedos, for then they will become the targets of pedos who will stalk them until they have caught them and have had their way with them and likely killed them and dumped the body to hide the evidence). I believe a young child like Thylane is, is not sexual. I believe the body characteristics that make a person appear sexually attractive begin to develop at puberty. This girl is prepubescent, so it would take a pedophile to in any way be "turned on" by looking at a picture of her, even a full nude picture of her. I am disgusted by the terminology you use in your post here when you say that, "I think that children are – and have a right to be – sexual beings". Those sound like the words of a full-blown pedophile. I would agree with you if you limited your comment to teens who happen to be under the legal age of consent (preventing people over that age from having sex with them) as there is no reason that you should be ashamed of being sexy until you reach 18 or something. But you shouldn't try to be sexy before you hit puberty, and in fact a person isn't sexy naturally before puberty. So while the sex acts should wait until you are 18 or whatever the age is in your country, you should be able to feel comfortable with being visually sexy before then but AFTER puberty. However if you have these traits before you hit puberty it means you have some medical condition and should NOT be comfortable with it, and should instead seek medical help as soon as possible.

Now about the other issue, if it is conveyed that a 10yo girl has the ideal woman's body that will hurt the body image that older teens and young adults have of themselves, and lead to extreme cases of anerexia as these older people try to have the body of a 10yo which is IMPOSSIBLE.

As for toplessness on beaches? I think it should be ok, and in the US where I live, the law for "indecent exposure" requires that a complaint be sent in before the police can legally take action. A policeman can't arrest a woman for being topless just because she is topless. Now while it might make a distubance if an adult woman (or even teenage girl) was topless, it probably wouldn't for a prepubescent girl. Now if a little girl or even boy was fully naked that would probably make a disturbence and the police would be called.  However if the kid were just shirtless, I doubt anybody would call the police for "indecent exposure", regardless of the gender of the kid. I for those of you who think that it's ok for girls to be topless on a beach on a warm summer day, don't try to stop them just to conform to "societal norms". I bet if you try allowing it, you'll see that it won't attract as much attention as you think.

Well this is just my view on the issue.

And yes I think the idea that toplessness (or even nudity in some cases) is ok for kids (as long as they aren't old enough to have sexual characteristics developed) is becoming a more acceptable idea, even in the US. Take a look at the famous Guggenheim museum of art in NY City. Sally Mann's topless and nude child photos are on display in that museum http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/show-list/artist/m/?search=Sally%20Mann
Yes it took a criminal investigation to find her images were indeed NOT child porn, but now they are accepted as art in one of the most prestigious art museums in NY City.

I believe it is more likely now than ever before that we are fast approaching the day the that overly strict view that nude always equals sex will become a thing of the past, and nudity/toplessness for women and girls (and also nudity for men and boys) will be specifically allowed at beaches across the US, just like in many countries in Europe (even if such nudity isn't permitted off of the beaches such as walking down the street or in a restaurant).

I just hope that when this does happen, it doesn't become a more dangerous world (at least for a time). I predict it will happen, but that since in the US such repression of the allowing the human body to be unclothed has gone on for so long, that the women will be in danger of sexual assault by the perves who are now sexually stimulated by seeing so many women and girls nude that they will be unable to control them selves and literally go crazy. However that will likely quickly pass, and as the human mind becomes addapted to the new norm, it will no longer be sexually exciting to simply see someone nude who's not also in a sexual pose. Any abrupt change will likely have bad consequences, but after those have passed, the society will be better off than it was before. I predict that since the nude female body will no longer be a symbol of sexual promescuity, that there will actually be fewer rapes, etc. However American society must be willing to go through a brief period of increased sex crimes if they want to get to the ultimately better state on the other side of this tribulation, and it will be worth it too, for after the human mind has addapted to the new norm, I believe there will be far FEWER sex crimes that we are even currently having. I believe it may be the cure for perversion. But as with any cure, there will be a brief bad time before the cure has taken effect. In all honesty it will be worth it though, to make sure that sex crime will for ever after that be all but nonexistent.

There is nothing wrong with these images.  What is wrong is the unnatural obsession amongst many Americans with sexualising infants.  The symptoms include an obsessive interest in sex, assuming all photos of children - clothed or unclothed - are taken for immoral purposes, believing that infants and children as well as older women should wear bras or bikini tops, the unnatural exercise of entering made-up babies in "beauty contests", and increasingly active and perverse dominence of prudery in an increasingly permissive and immoral society.  You people are sick - the French are normal.

Isn't this a French issue? Then why not let the French deal with it themselves? Maybe their age of consent is 9.