Amanda Holden Sparks Outrage After Dressing Her Nine-Year-Old Daughter Lexi As Julia Roberts' ‘Pretty Woman' Prostitute Character

Amanda Holden has come under fire after dressing her nine-year-old daughter up as Julia Roberts’ character from ‘Pretty Woman’, for a 1990’s-themed school day.
And in case you’re one of the three people on the planet who hasn’t actually seen ‘Pretty Woman’, then you might not realise that Ms. Roberts plays a prostitute in the hit romcom.

Maybe they were all out of Spice Girls’ costumes at Amanda’s local fancy dress emporium?
Amanda took to Twitter to post a snap of little Lexi in her outfit, which she captioned: "1990's day at Lexi's school today. Julia Roberts 'Pretty Woman'."


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/13/amanda-holden-daughter-lexi-prostitute-fancy-dress-twitter_n_6677736.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Talk about people over reacting again as per usual.
For a start she has dressed her daughter up of the character of one of the best love stories of the 1990's, where a woman who has fallen on hard times dreams come true. Second she is wearing an evening dress, which you will find many women wear to expensive restaurants and the Opera. Not the kind of outfit worn by prostitutes that work the streets. Yes the character of Julia Roberts is still a prostitute at this point in the film, but so what. Are people not getting the point of the film?
To me people are very much over reacting here to something very innocent..

Good grief, that child looks like a paedophiles wet dream.

risingsun wrote:Good grief, that child looks like a paedophiles wet dream.

If you look at children that way.

Any mother worth her salt makes sure her children aren't dressed in a way that would excite any peado's around, and know what is appropriate and what isn't. It's part of a mother's job.

risingsun wrote:Any mother worth her salt makes sure her children aren't dressed in a way that would excite any peado's around, and know what is appropriate and what isn't.  It's part of a mother's job.

So you are saying children can not dress a certain way in case it sexually excites some sick individuals?
I mean are you saying the school is full of Pedophiles as who as is going to see her dressed like this, other than teachers and school children?
A child should be able to dress in anything, they should not have to be restricted because there is some sicko's out there. More appeasement from the left to sicko's now
So you are saying an evening dress worn by many women, is now not appropriate when going out to dinner or the Opera?

When you are putting them on show, as she was, it is your duty to make sure they are dressed appropriately. That's parental duty, and if you don't know that, or think there is something wrong with it, you are putting your daughters in danger.

risingsun wrote:When you are putting them on show, as she was, it is your duty to make sure they are dressed appropriately.  That's parental duty, and if you don't know that, or think there is something wrong with it, you are putting your daughters in danger.  

So is wearing an evening dress now is not appropriate to you?
That is what you are claiming.
Daughter in danger? This is why you have no clue, what you are doing is seeing this as a child as a prostitute equating the dress worn by the actor from the film and equating the child to being one, which only a pedophile would also do. So because an actress is elegantly dressed for dinner, playing the part of a prostitute. Now any child dressing up as Julia Roberts from this clip is seen as a prostitute by you and others and not a beautiful elegant woman? This was just Amanda dressing up her child to look like Julia Roberts a famous actress, not to look like a prostitute.
WTF planet are you on, the only danger a child will face is if they are unaware of the danger of such sexual predators, not how they should be able to dress. What next, are you going to claim rape victims ask for it by how they dress? As that is the line you are going down by your view in how children should dress.
Who needs Stalin with people like Stassi stating how now children should dress.

that dress is actually pretty covering...
not sure if it is actually bad. Really it is a long red dress... half the stuff Kmart sells to young girls today is worse.

really 90's clothes are very modest compared to now.

Nothing wrong with that dress, at least her boobs and arse are not on show!

It's not just the dress though is it, and I would not put a dughter of mine at 8 in that dress, makeup, 'big' hair etc, pose her like that and plaster her on Facebook on a page that is open to the public - ever.

Well, the forums are about opinions aren't they, and we all have different ones. So lets agree to disagree

Hi Nicko, but surely the whole point is about exchanging opinions, and I'm explaining what planet I'm on lol. I'm on the planet of people who want to look after their children.

So, for Didge:
What an absolute load of bunkum that is. You are obviously not a parent of a 9 year old innocent girl and never have been. Her daughter is dressed up as Vivian Ward, a prostitute, not Julia Roberts who played the part. Do you think that Amanda Holden let her daughter see the movie so that she could understand the character she was going dressed up to look like and that the theme of the movie was about a prostitute, I’d be very surprised if she did as it’s classified 15 or over by the BBFC so not suitable for children of her age.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/pretty-woman-2

Here’s the parental guidance published by IMDb:

Sex & Nudity

Rated R for strong language, sexuality and brief drug use.

The main character and a supporting character are prostitutes, and both sex and sexuality are repeatedly depicted as well as discussed (though not "coarsely"). The protagonists are sensually involved throughout the movie.

The opening scene includes a lingering pan up a woman's body - she is provocatively dressed in lingerie, but no nudity is seen.

After a man comments that a prostitute's price is "pretty stiff," she grabs his crotch and replies, "No, but it could be."

A man and woman are implied to have sex on a piano following sensual foreplay.

A woman is seen in a bubble bath - the bubbles obscure any nudity.

A woman is implied to be wearing nothing but a necktie, which she flips over her shoulder when a man approaches. Nothing is seen.

A woman is depicted preparing to perform oral sex, and it is implied the man and woman have sex in his penthouse hotel suite. They later lie in bed talking. Their naked backs are shown.

A woman wears a pair of fetish latex boots for most of the film.

A man and woman kiss while reclining in bed. Breasts are very briefly visible as he undresses her, and they kiss.

A man forcefully attempts to solicit woman, though another man intervenes before anything sexual takes place.

Violence & Gore

A man attempts to rape a prostitute (no nudity) and punches her in the process. Another man arrives and throws the would-be rapist out of the hotel room; his nose is shown bleeding mildly.

Profanity

A few occasional F-words, asshole and several sexual innuendos.


Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking

Some mild drinking a few times, as well as smoking in a club scene.
Characters reference drug use, but nothing is depicted.

Frightening/Intense Scenes

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100405/parentalguide



And:
Common Sense Media says

Parents need to know that this film contains adult themes, strong sexual references, and sexual imagery. Prostitution is one of the main issues dealt with in the movie. There are scenes of scantly-clad women, drug dealing, tobacco and alcohol use, and an incident of attempted rape. There is also occasional profanity.


https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/pretty-woman


The common-sense bit should be obvious even to you and it prevailed with Amanda Holden as well as she realised she had made a mistake and removed the picture after just 5 minutes blaming her husband so even she thought it was inappropriate.


It’s fine for adults and I enjoyed watching the film myself which had a happy ending but there is no way I would have allowed my daughter to go to a school theme as 9 year old dressed up as Vivian Ward and if you can’t see how inappropriate that is then you lack the very basic parenting skills required in bringing up a daughter. Prostitution may be glamorous in a Hollywood movie but in real life it’s a terrible life for girls and the parental guidance should give you a clue why that is.


If you want to know what ‘Mums’ think about this then go on to Mumsnet and have a look at what they think. There are certainly a few that see not that much in it but the overwhelming majority of Mums think was inappropriate and so do I.

Its not about the dress IMO its what it represents.
The film is about a prostitute and I cant imagine in what universe that
is appropriate for a child.

Nems wrote:Its not about the dress IMO its what it represents.
The film is about a prostitute and I cant imagine in what universe that
is appropriate for a child.

The dress represents an evening dress, which many women wear out. What is wrong here is you are associating the dress to now prostitution, because it was worn in a film by Prostitute?
That is an absurd association.
So you are saying the Mother Amanda set out to dress her child as a Prostitute?
And that is just the poor stereotype people do have of Prostitutes.
The film is about a young woman sadly drawn into prostitution that gets out of this by falling in love with a Prince Charming.
So again the child has been dressed up to look like Julia Roberts and wearing an evening dress used in the film.
Because the character in the film was a prostitute you associate that to the child.
That is sick and twisted on any level, as most would associate the child as looking like Julia Roberts.
This is why some people take things so out of proportion.

Had to laugh at the crap Stassi posted, it was beyond even worthy of a reply it as that stupid mind.

risingsun wrote:It's not just the dress though is it, and I would not put a dughter of mine at 8 in that dress, makeup, 'big' hair etc, pose her like that and plaster her on Facebook on a page that is open to the public - ever.

So now Stassi believes Amanda is dressing her child as Vivian and not Julia Roberts
Hilarious on any level, the fact is she dressed her child up to look like Julia Roberts, because it was an event set on the 90's film. Second the film eludes to the Character Vivian being drawn into prostitution and of wanting to get out of this, all of which goes above your pay grade as per usual. As a parent of girls I have never hindered them over what clothes they wear. They were intelligence enough to wear sensible clothes, though again this is an evening dress the child is wearing and you now associate evening dresses to prostitution, sums up your lack of intelligence. Where again it is people like you that blame rape victims for what they wear. Fourth both dresses are beautiful and clearly you have not gone away from the film understanding its meaning or how people wrongly look at prostitutes. Clearly it is obvious to most sane people she dressed her child to look like a famous actress.

There you have also in writing that she has dressed her child up as Julia Roberts, as plain as day.


Prey tell Stassi what is wrong with the Character of Vivian portrayed in the film?

So would you have objected to the child dressing up to look like Julia Roberts again, with for example this outfit from the film also?
Would anyone associate the child to be dressed like a prostitute here?

I hope that Dodge doesn't have daughters. If he can't see the difference in appropriateness between the picture above and the picture of Amanda's daughter he is dangerous to little girls.

risingsun wrote:I hope that Dodge doesn't have daughters.  If he can't see the difference in appropriateness between the picture above and the picture of Amanda's daughter he is dangerous to little girls.

ahhh...so it IS the dress as much as anything, rather than what you consider it "may" represent?????

No, it's the dress, the make-up, the hair, the pose, what the picture projects.

The second pic lookds like a little girl dressed up as mummy.

so what you are saying is, that how people dress (since this argument CANNOT be held to only apply to "children") should in some way be controlled and those that fail to conform are "wrong" ?

so in fact those women that go out at night looking like "tarts" deserve whatever they get?

Or should we in fact, be looking at other issues that are the root cause of both this and other problems (like rochdale)?

shouldnt we be pushing for a society where (assuming they wished to do so )ALL, regardless of age and gender could if they wished to, walk around starkers ...with NO risk of "consequences"???

perhaps THAT would be a better world than one where people choose to pass sanctimonious commentry upon others.....
(it would also be better if the culture of "celebrity" was destroyed)

Don't be ridiculous. I'd say the same thing whoever's child had been paraded on the media looking like that, the fundamental duty of a parent is to keep their child as safe as possible while allowing them to grow, and to foresee anything that might put them in particular danger or hold them up to ridicule. It is known that paedophiles use Facebook to find and groom children (who shouldn't be on there in the first place but are).

risingsun wrote:Don't be ridiculous.  I'd say the same thing whoever's child had been paraded on the media looking like that, the fundamental duty of a parent is to keep their child as safe as possible while allowing them to grow, and to foresee anything that might put them in particular danger or hold them up to ridicule.  It is known that paedophiles use Facebook to find and groom children (who shouldn't be on there in the first place but are).

isnt the same true on a personal level.....

which leads back to

"so in fact those women that go out at night looking like "tarts" deserve whatever they get?"

No of course it doesn't, the women can go out dressed as whatever they want because THEY are old enough to make the decision. The child isn't, doesn't know what she is protraying and is doing so at the behest of her mother.

ahhh...ok ...so what you are saying is that "you " know best...

I'm willing to take a bet here......


those shouting the loudest in condemnation of this will be either far left or far right

I'm a Dad and I have a daughter and there is no way I would approve of her going out as a 9 year old dressed like that let alone the connection to a movie about prostitution. The young girl isn't even old enough to watch the film. I asked my wife what she thought and she was of the same opinion - completely inappropriate for a girl aged 9.
Amanda Holden had better choices to make than that, surely.

risingsun wrote:I hope that Dodge doesn't have daughters.  If he can't see the difference in appropriateness between the picture above and the picture of Amanda's daughter he is dangerous to little girls.

Yet again you prove why you are so vile Stassi. You bring into the equation my ability to be a parent on a matter of conjecture of how to raise children. As if your conjecture of raising a child is beyond critical rationalizing. You have not the fist clue what you are talking about her. You have wrongly decided in your head a child dressed to look like Julia Roberts is now dressed to look like a prostitute. Not off any stereotype view on  how prostitutes dress but how a film of a beautiful actress dressed playing the part of a prostitute would dress wearing something elegant to the opera and dinner. Do you not see how daft you are being?
Do you not see how it is idiots like yourself that make these unfounded daft associations.
Most rational people would view a child dressed that way as being Julia Roberts.

The fact I introduced this picture left you looking such an ignorant fuckiwit. It proves it because if you portray a child in such an outfit as a representation of prostitution, is not based on how it looks but by who wear it. By your own logic you then defend the methodology against the burka, because of what it represents based on where some Muslim women are forced to wear it. Now you do not believe that, so why here do you identify this red dress with prostitution?

Irn Bru wrote:I'm a Dad and I have a daughter and there is no way I would approve of her going out as a 9 year old  dressed like that let alone the connection to a movie about prostitution. The young girl isn't even old enough to watch the film. I asked my wife what she thought and she was of the same opinion - completely inappropriate for a girl aged 9.
Amanda Holden had better choices to make than that, surely.

Who said she watched this film?
She dressed her to look like Julia Roberts.
She even states that, so what the fuck is your problem?
Either you look at children with a sexual excitement concept, where you view a 9 year old as a prostitute because she is wearing a red dress or you have no conception of what is morally right, because as seen your views is to view a 9 year old as a sexual object?

This is why the left allowed for Rotherham to happen.

What we see here is the left decide that a young girl dressed to look like an actress is wrong because the part she played was a prostitute. Not understanding that many women and even girls sadly are drawn into prostitution to be looked upon as wrong and a stain on society. How fucked up is that? These same people not understanding their plight. 

She dressed her child as an actress and to say how as a parent you would act is absurd beyond belief, because you are not going off what the dress looks like or even make up, but on the fact the character was a prostitute in the film. That is why those who associate with a child dressed as an actress with sex, are as sick as fuck. They are the idiots that make the same association as child sex offenders. Nobody else does. So are we now to ban every child picture in the world because some sick fucks get off on it?

The facts is the left wing twats are trying to make the view a child dressed in an evening dress is going to make her more vulnerable to child sex abuse. How fucking absurd is that. Kids love to dress like grown ups and if there was no association to prostitution from the character played in the film, nobody would have given a shit over how a child looked dressed up in an evening dress with make up.
It only takes the left to come up with something daft, which actually appeases the child abusers

Are you responsible for a daughter Dodge? I bloody well hope not.

You've been drinking again haven't you, it shows.

risingsun wrote:Are you responsible for a daughter Dodge?  I bloody well hope not.

You've been drinking again haven't you, it shows.

I rest my case
Stassi claiming to be the ethical concept to what is right or wrong.
She now decides to attack me and not my points.

So fucking easy it is an embarrassment to have to constantly show up how stupid the left are.
As proven she believes her views on parenting are the best and based on what?
Not a child dressing up like an adult, but on how she looks like in a film, who is a prostitute.
That is why the left are fucked up in the head.
So lets see Stassi for once not attack the poster an answer my points from before?
What odds will you give me she will fail?

Like you attacked me.  Your points are nonsensical and you chose to say to Irn 'Either you look at children with a sexual excitement concept' which has an extremely nasty connotation and i do hope you will have the morals to retract it.  When looking after a child you have to look at everything that might be a danger to them, if you don't you are not doing your job properly.  The child would not have known why she was made to look like that and would have taken it as fun, the mother should have known better and put the protection of her child first.

As it's perfectly obvious you have been drinking and and are going to be abusive as you always are when you get like that, I won't be replying to you again. Perhaps tomorrow you will be sober.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:I'm a Dad and I have a daughter and there is no way I would approve of her going out as a 9 year old  dressed like that let alone the connection to a movie about prostitution. The young girl isn't even old enough to watch the film. I asked my wife what she thought and she was of the same opinion - completely inappropriate for a girl aged 9.
Amanda Holden had better choices to make than that, surely.

Who said she watched this film?
She dressed her to look like Julia Roberts.
She even states that, so what the fuck is your problem?
Either you look at children with a sexual excitement concept, where you view a 9 year old as a prostitute because she is wearing a red dress or you have no conception of what is morally right, because as seen your views is to view a 9 year old as a sexual object?

If she watched the film or had explained to her the character she was imitating she would know it was a prostitute. At that age she probably wouldn't know much about what kind og life that is - not the fairy -tale of the film.

I'll leave you to stew in your self-proclaimed expert on how to bring up a child of 9 years and the values we should be teaching them.

Your views are not my views and thank goodness for that. The sheer weight of opinion defeats you anyway.

risingsun wrote:Like you attacked me.  Your points are nonsensical and you chose to say to Irn 'Either you look at children with a sexual excitement concept' which has an extremely nasty connotation and i do hope you will have the morals to retract it.  When looking after a child you have to look at everything that might be a danger to them, if you don't you are not doing your job properly.  The child would not have known why she was made to look like that and would have taken it as fun, the mother should have known better and put the protection of her child first.

So you have just admitted you look at this child in a sexual way then?
The child has no conception of how they are dressing at that age, only an adult would, thus you are looking at her sexually. Where as many adults would still look at her as a child.
Thus you are the sick fuck, because you are looking atthis child in a sexual way.
Again if she was wearing this same dress with no association to the film, you would say fuck all. Because the character was a prostitute, you now associate the child to look like a prostitute and a sexual object.
You sick fuck

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Who said she watched this film?
She dressed her to look like Julia Roberts.
She even states that, so what the fuck is your problem?
Either you look at children with a sexual excitement concept, where you view a 9 year old as a prostitute because she is wearing a red dress or you have no conception of what is morally right, because as seen your views is to view a 9 year old as a sexual object?

If she watched the film or had explained to her the character she was imitating she would know it was a prostitute. At that age she probably wouldn't know much about what kind og life that is - not the fairy -tale of the film.

I'll leave you to stew in your self-proclaimed expert on how to bring up a child of 9 years and the values we should be teaching them.

Your views are not my views and thank goodness for that. The sheer weight of opinion defeats you anyway.

What the fuck are you talking about you idiot.
So a child now playing the baby Jesus has to understand they are not the son of god to understand the meaning of what they where and portray?
Stop talking utter shite.
Why does she need to watch the film to look like a famous actress she may have watched in other films like Peter Pan?
It is sick fucks like you that associate children in a sexual way.
Which after Rotheram is no surprise really.
How is a child looking like Julia Roberts in an evening dress a sexual object to you?

Can it Didge me old mucker.....

you are getting emotive and out of line here.........leave that to the rest

Right here it is in a nutshell:

This story isn't about what she's wearign but about the inappropriateness of the choice of character for a nine year old girl to dress up as.
When your child goes to school,dressed up for book day or theme day etc, you discuss, with your child, what they may want to wear.

So. Has the girl watched Pretty Woman?
Doubt it.
So that's her mother's choice for a costume then, clearly.

Secondly here's the conversation:

"Mummy, what shall I go as?"
"How about a prostitute in one of mummy's (obviously) favourite films?"
"What's a prostitute mummy?"
"A woman who has sex for money darling....you look bloody fab!"


See where I'm coming from?

Inappropriate, clearly not even the girl's choice and bloody stupid of her airhead mother!

Let's hope Dodge doesn't brand you a peadophile for thinking that.

eddie wrote:Right here it is in a nutshell:

This story isn't about what she's wearign but about the inappropriateness of the choice of character for a nine year old girl to dress up as.
When your child goes to school,dressed up for book day or theme day etc, you discuss, with your child, what they may want to wear.

So. Has the girl watched Pretty Woman?
Doubt it.
So that's her mother's choice for a costume then, clearly.

Secondly here's the conversation:

"Mummy, what shall I go as?"
"How about a prostitute in one of mummy's (obviously) favourite films?"
"What's a prostitute mummy?"
"A woman who has sex for money darling....you look bloody fab!"


See where I'm coming from?

Inappropriate, clearly not even the girl's choice and bloody stupid of her airhead mother!

In other words you are looking at the child in a sexual way.
Is it in appropriate?
Who made you the person to sanction  such rules?
Nobody
The child sees this as fun, there is no harm but it is only adults that make it wrong.
Think about that Eddie, this child was dressed as an actress, you though are thinking of whatshe wears sexually.
That is really fucked up

darknessss wrote:Can it Didge me old mucker.....

you are getting emotive and out of line here.........leave that to the rest

Mate just getting warmed up and you know my points ring true mate

I said "this isn't about what she's wearing..." In my very first line.

I fell out with a friend recently becaus her husband dressed as jimmy SAVILLE and thought it was hilarious - so yes, I think it speaks volumes about what we say about ourselves when we dress.

Would I put my three year old daughter in a tracksuit that's says "Juicy" across her bottom?
No I fucking wouldn't.

I cannot abide children in make-up, beauty pageants are vile and selling sexy lady bras for ten year olds is just horrid.

I like children to be children.

If that makes me weird then I'm very, very, VERY glad I'm weird thanks very much.

risingsun wrote:Let's hope Dodge doesn't brand you a peadophile for thinking that.

I have enough sense and self-knowing to realise that when this debate has gone beyond people listening to each other, my time is done lol

Second point of Eddie;s question

Choice of character.
Is the choice being a beautiful actress or prostitution.
Does this not show how some people thus look at children sexually?
I look as this child dressing up looking like Julia Roberts.
So what you have to ask is why others because the character in the film was a prostitute sees the child as of the same?
That is as sick as fuck if you see the child as a prostitute.

eddie wrote:I said "this isn't about what she's wearing..." In my very first line.

I fell out with a friend recently becaus her husband dressed as jimmy SAVILLE and thought it was hilarious - so yes, I think it speaks volumes about what we say about ourselves when we dress.

Would I put my three year old daughter in a tracksuit that's says "Juicy" across her bottom?
No I fucking wouldn't.

I cannot abide children in make-up, beauty pageants are vile and selling sexy lady bras for ten year olds is just horrid.

I like children to be children.

If that makes me weird then I'm very, very, VERY glad I'm weird thanks very much.

Simple question.
Do you view Julia Roberts as a Prostitute?

Brasidas wrote:Second point of Eddie;s question

Choice of character.
Is the choice being a beautiful actress or prostitution.
Does this not show how some people thus look at children sexually?
I look as this child dressing up looking like Julia Roberts.
So what you have to ask is why others because the character in the film was a prostitute sees the child as of the same?
That is as sick as fuck if you see the child as a prostitute.

Erm didge?
The mother said she was dressed as the character from Pretty Woman???
If she'd said she was dressing her as "Julia Roberts at the oscars" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Im not keen on the make up but I haven't questioned the dress.
I suggest you,read my posts when you've got your sensible reading head on

eddie wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Second point of Eddie;s question

Choice of character.
Is the choice being a beautiful actress or prostitution.
Does this not show how some people thus look at children sexually?
I look as this child dressing up looking like Julia Roberts.
So what you have to ask is why others because the character in the film was a prostitute sees the child as of the same?
That is as sick as fuck if you see the child as a prostitute.

Erm didge?
The mother said she was dressed as the character from Pretty Woman???
If she'd said she was dressing her as "Julia Roberts at the oscars" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Im not keen on the make up but I haven't questioned the dress.
I suggest you,read my posts when you've got your sensible reading head on

Erm Eddie Amanda clearly stated dressing her as Julia Roberts as "Pretty Woman"
So points need to be answered here, is being a prostitute not being pretty or you should be seen as vile for?
The pciture of what she said is on this page.
I suggest you look back
Would you question if she looked like this?

[/quote]





Her daughter as Julia Roberts.

Now can you see you are being silly Eddie?

I come on here as a father of a daughter to give my opinion and next thing I've got someone acting like a flaming lunatic pretty much telling me I'm a pervert.

Catch you all later when sanity has been restored.

Irn Bru wrote:I come on here as a father of a daughter to give my opinion and next thing I've got someone acting like a flaming lunatic pretty much telling me I'm a pervert.

Catch you all later when sanity has been restored.

Well as seen your view was of the view to look at young girls sexually.
I would try and hide if I was you.

Don't particularly like either pics as both are children wearing make up

So Holden dressed her child as a character proostitute then as Id assumed?

Nope. Don't feel,silly.
My other posts still,stand.
We will,agree to disagree and be happy we didn't have kids together as we would be disagreeing wholeheartedly on this lol


Night night

eddie wrote:Don't particularly like either pics as both are children wearing make up

So Holden dressed her child as a character proostitute then as Id assumed?

Nope. Don't feel,silly.
My other posts still,stand.
We will,agree to disagree and be happy we didn't have kids together as we would be disagreeing wholeheartedly on this lol


Night night

I think you should feel silly after that answer as it was utterly stupid.
Your reasoning to view the child is based off the character played by Julia Roberts as a prostitute.
any children dress up and put on make up to look grown up for events. 
Are you claiming this is wrong based on some stupid Eddie ethic?
When knowing full well that is stupid Eddie.
This child dressed up as a film actress nothing more.
It took sexual perverts to think overwise