Leon.... 17 is a kid! Nobody at 17 years of age is mature enough to make these decisions. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

There is no nudity in the photo. Leon

Of course there is. She is naked from the waist up. You can see part of her left breast.

You accuse CT of calling you a pedophile. Does that mean that you would consider someone who allowed questionable photos to be take of his children as a pedophile? Then how can you defend this?

Oh, I forgot, they did it during the Renaissance, so it must be OK.

RJ,

It's artistic photography.  Art is art.  Sorry girlfriend.

Or are you arguing that all fashion photography should not be considered art (esp. considering that much of it is for the explicit intention of advertising)?

Airforce,

1)  Glad to see you back.  Thought it was crazy for you to leave simply because some strangers were mocking your religion.  As I always say, if I don't know them, I couldn't care less what they think.

Granted I was one of the people mocking Mormonism, but that's because I kept learning new, and scary things about it.  You know, like racism is part of the teachings (you know, Cain being cursed with black skin and all that jazz).  No black priests allowed until 1978?  Aggressive.

It's just the more I learn about Mormonism, the less I like about it.  I'm not speaking to you specificially, just the religion in general.  To think of all those polygamists living in Central America to this day to escape US Laws is just downright creepy.

2)  I take my shut the hell up black, like my men, so no cream or sugar please

3)  I am one of the most prolific posters on this site.  I certainly have to be near the top in terms of post count.  No doubt about that.

4)  I'm not a legend in my own mind yet, just working my way there.  That's my goal, but it's going to take some time.  Need a few more accomplishments and few more years under my belt, but it will happen.

5)  I don't remember personally attacking you anywhere.  I simply questioned your integrity considering you made a huge fuss about leaving to defend the honor of your wacky religion and now you're back.  Not a very strong stand eh? 

6)  If you were a true capitalist you wouldn't care about how old the girl in the ad was.  It doesn't matter.  The market will take care of it on its own.  If people find the age of a girl in an ad to be offensive, they won't buy the product, and the producers of the ad will not feature young girls anymore.  It's basic economic theory.  All this ruling about who is an adult and who isn't is silly.  Companies wouldn't use a 13 year old girl b/c it would be detrimental to their business.  You're complaining about a 17 year old girl.  It's weak.  Have you ever watched any of the shows on MTV?  There are 14, 15, 16 year old girls running around in bikinis, scandalous dresses, etc.  Nobody cares about that.  You all just got hype this time b/c you see it as an opportunity to go after your number one enemy.  The NYT.

7)  I fail to see how age of the subject has any impact on whether or not it's art.  You might find it inappropriate, but in no way does it affect it's art classification.  Again, their  are plenty of pieces of art that feature underage girls in various states of undress.  See Edvard Munch's, "Puberty".  By your definition, this is not art and should be censored.  I disagree.  If you don't have a problem with Munch's painting, than you shouldn't have a problem with this ad.

8)  People are free to put up whatever they want.  That's what's great about America.  Freedom of expression.  B/c something offends you doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to do it.

9)  I don't understand what you mean about feelings concerning a fake, racist, child abusing religion whose fundamental prophecy was changed several times in order to elicit the most positive crowd response and what is art.  Why would I be outraged by that photo?  I really don't get it.  Please, in your religion this 17 year old girl would be considered old.  She would have already been married for 4 or 5 years.  Probably already have kids.

10)  You're right.  I don't have daughters.  But I can tell you one thing.  When I do have children I will let them follow their dreams.  This girl at 17 already has a strong modeling career from which she can earn a ton of money and set herself up for a prosperous and comfortable future.  Isn't that what all parents want for their children?  If your daughter really wanted to be a model, would you stop her because YOU thought it was indecent?  Wouldn't that make you insanely selfish?

11)  People like me don't damage morality.  We live in a capitalist society Airforce.  Sadly, there is no room for morality when all of our choices, principles, and realities are dictated by the marketplace.  What is decent or indecent is really only determined by whether or not it will sell these days.  If it sells, it's all good. 

12)  Tempt fate?  Where have I tempted fate?  I don't get your vague threat at all.  Saying this ad isn't offensive is tempting fate, or mocking your fake departure is tempting fate?  Which one is it?

Then I would be telling my daughter to find another line of work. If she wanted to do it at 18, when I couldn't stop her, that's another thing. I wouldn't be helping her by OK'ing this at 17.

I don't hear you all complaining everytime a 16 or 17 year old walks down the runway in a scandalous dress,

What the heck does that mean? How do you know what any of us complain about, nevermind all of us?

And oh, is that what it's called now? "Edgy"? You're right; it sounds better than "borderline porn" or "soft porn."

Ok tell us your opinion ...at what age cutoff does it become kiddy porn?

The whole Blue Lagoon issue is non germane as that was in a rated movie category restriction of admission.

The ad in a paper becomes available to all without restriction as long as they gain access to the paper or see for example a billboard it is presented on.

As I said before the legal issues are one thing but your bringing other items into the discussion is pure deflection.

After all back in the historic timeframe of child paintings and such the accepted punishment methods were the guillotine and drawing and quartering. Both of which have little validity to today.

Just because something was historically done even once does not present a case for if it should be handled in another way or not today.

"Something artistic" or is your criteria?  Another ridiculous statement.   Fortune-telling bone-casters can have "something artistic" about their personalities.   There can be "something artistic" about the way a woman dresses.  A 17 year old girl can carry herself with "something artistic" about her bearing.   The way a cat walks can have "something artistic" about it.  The list of "something artistic" to the eyes is endless, balboa.  

That's the great thing about art: you can find it nearly anywhere. So, yes, whether or not something is "art" is in the eye of the beholder. 

Love the way you casually reject the "something artistic" about the girls of SI and the Ambercrombie catalog.  What, the NYT has a higher purpose (of selling things), so it can't be soft-porn?

There is "something artistic" about the photos in SI. But that's not their main purpose, nor the photos in A&F. I can't imagine you'd characterize the NYT photo as soft-porn.