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

First topic message reminder :

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..

Brasidas wrote:

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

now then didge...I think you are being a bit silly, not to mention hysterical here and THAT is making you miss a more important point.

it is a characteristic of BOTH the far left and far right to be overly censorious and especially to try to "micro manage peoples lives" what better way than to take a very REAL and present danger (the paedo") and use it as a bogeyman and a means of censure to control how people raise their kids....

the left have been very active in this area over many years......(look at the ridiculous "no losers" lefty philosophy, along with their multiple failures in other educational areas)

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


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

now then didge...I think you are being a bit silly, not to mention hysterical here    and THAT is making you miss a more important point.

it is a characteristic of BOTH the far left and far right to be overly censorious and especially to try to "micro manage peoples lives"   what better way than to take a very REAL and present danger (the paedo") and use it as a bogeyman and a means of censure to control how people raise their kids....

the left have been very active in this area over many years......(look at the ridiculous "no losers" lefty philosophy, along with their multiple failures in other educational areas)

Point 1) Conjecture based on babble

Point 2) Makes no utter sense and going off tangent to the topic at hand.


The point is here a mother has dressed her child to look like Julia Roberts. Most children want to dress up and look older. This was an event of the 1990's and she dressed her and I have no doubt to make her daughter look like a "pretty women" which no doubt many agree Julia Roberts is.
Sadly people have taken not that Julia Roberts is pretty or somebody to look up to, but that because she once played a prostitute, that any child dressing like her in this film should be associated not with happiness and dreams come true but with prostitution. 

How fucked up some parents are, they see only the negative in everything.

here is a real spanner....
why is prostitution any different than any other profession?
If we all accept that particular dress is not that bad (personally I agree with Ed's on the Make up thing, but that is preference I guess) then what is the issue? is it the profession and is it right to stigmatise all sex workers?
(honestly I never seen the film so don't really know how it portrays prostitution is she a legal or illegal prostitute?)

Also 90's themed seems a bit weird...  the kids are too young to know most 90's references. and the only I can think of that are child appropriate are power rangers and Pokemon..... Melrose place, 90210 most of the 90's 'classics' are not really child appropriate.

for what its worth I think that this was inappropriate of the highest degree - you do NOT dress up a 9 year old to portray an actress who is portraying a prostitute. and then to put it out in cyberspace where some sickos can access it? dumb very dumb.

^veya- its not at all down to how prostitution is portrayed in the film. its about dressing your child up inaporopriately.

what next? heroin ddicts complete with needles an track mark makeup from Reservoir Dogs?

Cass wrote:for what its worth I think that this was inappropriate of the highest degree - you do NOT dress up a 9 year old to portray an actress who is portraying a prostitute. and then to put it out in cyberspace where some sickos can access it? dumb very dumb.

^veya- its not at all down to how prostitution is portrayed in the film. its about dressing your child up inaporopriately.

what next? heroin ddicts complete with needles an track mark makeup from Reservoir Dogs?

Train-spotting was Classic 90's film

Brasidas wrote:

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.

I came on here as a father of a daughter to give my opinion on this and you try and twist it round to make out I am a pervert with something to hide. Anyone with common sense would see that picture of a 9 year old dressed up to imitate a hooker from the movie as inappropriate but not you. You really are a twisted soul trying to paint everyone who thinks it is wrong as some sort of pervert and I'm beginning to think that you are defending the publication of young 9 year old girl dressed up as a the hooker portrayed in the film because it's something that floats your boat, not mine.

I would have thought that you would prefer the older variety of a woman in a Red dress as something that turned you on. Something like this for example



Anyway, I'm asking Ben right here to delete the images of Amanda Holden's daughter in that dress on here as she wants them all deleted from all sections of the media and will use copyright laws to enforce it.

irn for the record I do not think you are in any way shape or form a pervert. nor is anyone else who happens to agree with you as I do.

as to taking them down she is now realising how incredibly tasteless and stupid she was but she is probably in for a shock since she herself put it into the public domain. That horse has bolted.

Cass wrote:for what its worth I think that this was inappropriate of the highest degree - you do NOT dress up a 9 year old to portray an actress who is portraying a prostitute. and then to put it out in cyberspace where some sickos can access it? dumb very dumb.

^veya- its not at all down to how prostitution is portrayed in the film. its about dressing your child up inaporopriately.

what next? heroin ddicts complete with needles an track mark makeup from Reservoir Dogs?

Really based on the world view of Cass?
She dressed her child up as Julia Roberts.
I am sure it did not entertain her mind of her child being a prostitute accept of course to those who like yourself do.
You are also now talking loads of nonsense because the dress is an evening dress and again the other picture would you have objected to?
Of course not?
This is about the character and the poor stereotype you have of women who are prostitutes.
That is what it really is about. If this child was in the same dress and of any of character not Julia Roberts you would not bat an eyelid on this, showing it has everything to do with the poor views you actually hold of prostitutes.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


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

I came on here as a father of a daughter to give my opinion on this and you try and twist it round to make out I am a pervert with something to hide. Anyone with common sense would see that picture of a 9 year old dressed up to imitate a hooker from the movie as inappropriate but not you. You really are a twisted soul trying to paint everyone who thinks it is wrong as some sort of pervert and I'm beginning to think that you are defending the publication of young 9 year old girl dressed up as a the hooker portrayed in the film because it's something that floats your boat, not mine.

I would have thought that you would prefer the older variety of a woman in a Red dress as something that turned you on. Something like this for example



Anyway, I'm asking Ben right here to delete the images of Amanda Holden's daughter in that dress on here as she wants them all deleted from all sections of the media and will use copyright laws to enforce it.

Again this is why you are a pervert.
Only because the character in the film is a prostitute do you associate the child also as a prostitute, which means you are one sick pervert. The fact is the child is wearing an evening dress and without the association of the film would you class the child as a prostitute?
No, again which goes to my other point in does this child look like a prostitute?




This is what is wrong with the world today the fact sick perverts like yourself Irn are allowed to dictate how are children should be, where you in fact sexualize them.
The only reason you have shown the utter most stupidity as others have done is all based around the character that Julia Roberts plays. Even worse it is your poor views you hold of the character not even understanding how many women are sadly drawn into this profession.
She dressed her child to look like Julia Roberts. It took though parents to sexualize her child, you being one of them.
Okay lets place as to why you are sexualizing the child.
If the theme had been biblical and she had dressed her child to look like Mary Magdalene, would you be objecting to her being dressed as a prostitute of which the Christian world depicts Mary Magdalene?
Or how about the biblical character Rahab?

Can she get them taken down when she put them in the public domain?

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.

I find that comment quite interesting generally. Are you suggesting that the way little girls dress, or the way that women dress can incite men to grope them or whatever?

Cass wrote:for what its worth I think that this was inappropriate of the highest degree - you do NOT dress up a 9 year old to portray an actress who is portraying a prostitute. and then to put it out in cyberspace where some sickos can access it? dumb very dumb.

^veya- its not at all down to how prostitution is portrayed in the film. its about dressing your child up inaporopriately.

what next? heroin ddicts complete with needles an track mark makeup from Reservoir Dogs?

Spot on. Spot on and spot on.

Like I've said, my friends hubby dressed as Jimmy Saville for halloween and took numerous pics with his arm round his daughter.
I thought it fucking tasteless and said so.

My friend missed the point, as most people do and started accusing me of calling her hubby a paedo.
No matter how much I insisted that I wasn't saying HE was a paedo only his poor humour was what I objected to, she just didn't get it.

I think points go over people's heads when they are guilty/angry/ignorant.
Needless to say I deleted her fat arse off my facebook friends list and I don't speak to her anymore.

Cass wrote:irn for the record I do not think you are in any way shape or form a pervert. nor is anyone else who happens to agree with you as I do.

as to taking them down she is now realising how incredibly tasteless and stupid she was but she is probably in for a shock since she herself put it into the public domain. That horse has bolted.

Of course he isn't a pervert.
How ridiculous to imply that the people who don't agree in this instance are perverts.
Another way that the word is being overused.

eddie wrote:

Cass wrote:for what its worth I think that this was inappropriate of the highest degree - you do NOT dress up a 9 year old to portray an actress who is portraying a prostitute. and then to put it out in cyberspace where some sickos can access it? dumb very dumb.

^veya- its not at all down to how prostitution is portrayed in the film. its about dressing your child up inaporopriately.

what next? heroin ddicts complete with needles an track mark makeup from Reservoir Dogs?

Spot on. Spot on and spot on.

Like I've said, my friends hubby dressed as Jimmy Saville for halloween and took numerous pics with his arm round his daughter.
I thought it fucking tasteless and said so.

My friend missed the point, as most people do and started accusing me of calling her hubby a paedo.
No matter how much I insisted that I wasn't saying HE was a paedo only his poor humour was what I objected to, she just didn't get it.

I think points go over people's heads when they are guilty/angry/ignorant.
Needless to say I deleted her fat arse off my facebook friends list and I don't speak to her anymore.

Which is a seperate issue to how people are sexualizing this child based off her mother dressing her up as Julia Roberts. It is then the people who view this child sexually that have the issue at the end of the day. This is just a fun day out and for a child to have fun dressing up and is as seen blown out of all proportion by people claiming some ethical or higher moral ground, which they never had from the start. Again what we have here is also people with a poor stigma of prsotitutes. We also are having people view the story of the film to thus also be wrong for where a woman sadly drawn into this kind of work is in some way seen as immoral. The mother never intended her child to be perceived as a prsotitute, yet it took the minds of others to look at the child in a sexual manner how she was dressed to perceive this. At the end of the day, like here some have not even seen the film, did not come to any conclusion due to what she is wearing to associate prostitution.
That is the sad reality here that people always look negatively on something that was innocent and fun from the start.

eddie wrote:

Cass wrote:irn for the record I do not think you are in any way shape or form a pervert. nor is anyone else who happens to agree with you as I do.

as to taking them down she is now realising how incredibly tasteless and stupid she was but she is probably in for a shock since she herself put it into the public domain. That horse has bolted.

Of course he isn't a pervert.
How ridiculous to imply that the people who don't agree in this instance  are perverts.
Another way that the word is being overused.

Just as bad as those implying the child looks like prostitute for wearing makeup and an evening dress. That is acceptable of course to you and others, claiming some illogical moral high greound. Hence why the use of pervert was to show how ridiculous some of you are to condemn something based on the way a child is dressed up to look like Pretty Woman, Julia Roberts.

Sigh.

I never said she looked like a prostitute.

Please didge, if you're going to debate MY points with me, then read and reply to MY points when replying to me.
Thanks.

eddie wrote:Sigh.

I never said she looked like a prostitute.

Please didge, if you're going to debate MY points with me, then read and reply to MY points when replying to me.
Thanks.

I am debating points which many have associated her to a prostitute due to Julia Roberts playing the part of one, a film most people loved.
At the end of the day you think something fun of a child dressing up for a school event is wrong because she is wearing make up and an evening dress.
I find that silly beyond belief, where the mother is being condemned and all off one event. She is not letting her child loose on the street like this but at school hence why it has been blown out of all proportions.

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!"

In a nutshell.

Out of all the people I could dress my child as, for dressing up at school or anywhere else for film day or book day, would I like her to dress as a character who is a prostitute?

No.

I don't think its an appropriate character, or profession to introduce to my innocent child.

End of.

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!"

So it is about then prostitution based off again.
Again as far as I see she has dessed her child to be Julia Roberts. As this is based on the film Pretty Woman, you are thus claiming she has dressed her child as a prostitute. I see her child made up as Julia Roberts.
I see her mum going I am going to dress you up as a famour pretty actress.
So why is it you and other ssee the negative of this, where I see the positive?
I see the child dressed as Julia Roberts, you though after claiming you did not, view this as wrong because of the part Julia Roberts played in the film.
There does not have to be any association to prostitution, yet you and others have negatively decided so based olff the film and not as Julia Roberts as an actress.

eddie wrote:In a nutshell.

Out of all the people I could dress my child as, for dressing up at school or anywhere else for film day or book day, would I like her to dress as a character who is a prostitute?

No.

I don't think its an appropriate character, or profession to introduce to my innocent child.

End of.

So are saying you would not dress her up as Julia Roberts from any film? Even though even if it is Pretty woman she is still dressed up to look like Julia Roberts no matter the film character chosen.
Hence why your view is illogical and over the top.
She has dressed her up as Julia Roberts, you and others wrongly associate the child to prostitution because of the character portrayed in the film.
What ever film she would have chosen, the object was for the child to look like Julia Roberts, not a prostitute, hence you miss the whole point.

Julie Roberts wasn't dressed as a prostitute in that red dress though - she was having a posh dinner wasn't she?

I don't care who she was dressed as.  The photo showed a little girl posed and dressed in a sexualised way, the dress was a tiny part of it, the hair, the make up, the pose, were much more important.  And you can call me anyname you like Didge, I'm the mother of daughters and the grandmother of grandaughters and I would never, ever, under any circumstances, have pictures like that of them posted on the internet.

risingsun wrote:I don't care who she was dressed as.  The photo showed a little girl posed and dressed in a sexualised way, the dress was a tiny part of it, the hair, the make up, the pose, were much more important.  And you can call me anyname you like Didge, I'm the mother of daughters and the grandmother of grandaughters and I would never, ever, under any circumstances, have pictures like that of them posted on the internet.

Dear me, gets worse by the minute. She was dressed to look like Julia Roberts.
It showed her dressed in an evening dress to look like Julia Roberts. An incon look of Julia Roberts, not an icon look of a prostitute which is what people are wronly suggesting.
The fact of the matter here is you and some others are trying to come off as some higher ethical and moral view of parenting based on a child dressed up to look like an actress. That is what this is really about in regards to the views I have read, the way you are over the top. As this was nothing more than  an event at school where Amanda was to dress her up as a famous actress and as we see it is blown out of all proportions by the "I am a better parent brigade" based on nothing rational but your own conjecture.
So you would not dress your daughters up as an actress, that is your choice. Which it is also the choice of any parent to allow them to dress up as famous people.

Raggamuffin wrote:Julie Roberts wasn't dressed as a prostitute in that red dress though - she was having a posh dinner wasn't she?

Valid point, she is still technically a prostitute still at this point, even though the story is about two people who fall in love, which escapes many posters here. But she certainly does not look like a street walker dressed in an evening dress for the opera and dinner.

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!

I think you are on the right track, it's not about what she is wearing.  But it's also not about the child, either.  The single component that everybody seems to react to is the element of prostitution.  Lat's face it, that is the stain in the matter.  When you involve the child it's just a way of saying: Horrors, it's a prostitute that child is dressed as!

To say that an adult can handle dressing that way, but a child must still learn what it's all about, avoids the issue.  Focus on the difference, and what the child learns as she matures, that makes such dress all right for the adult? Is there really a danger out there, or are you just sad to see daddy's little girl grow up?

Raggamuffin wrote:Julie Roberts wasn't dressed as a prostitute in that red dress though - she was having a posh dinner wasn't she?

No, that was the black cocktail dress Héctor Elizondo helped her get from the Hotel women's shop on the second night (after the bitches on Rodeo Drive--actually, it was Boulmiche Boutique, on Santa Monica Boulevard--wouldn't sell to her).  The dinner was over business at Cicada restaurant in downtown Los Angeles, with Ralph Bellamy and a young Alex Hyde-White, who played his nephew David.

Original Quill wrote:

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!

I think you are on the right track, it's not about what she is wearing.  But it's also not about the child, either.  The single component that everybody seems to react to is the element of prostitution.  Lat's face it, that is the stain in the matter.  When you involve the child it's just a way of saying: Horrors, it's a prostitute that child is dressed as!

To say that an adult can handle dressing that way, but a child must still learn what it's all about, avoids the issue.  Focus on the difference, and what the child learns as she matures, that makes such dress all right for the adult?  Is there really a danger out there, or are you just sad to see daddy's little girl grow up?

Quill this is the point I'm making! A mother dressing her a "proostitute character" is just weird.
She's now saying she was dressed as Cindy Crawford....hey ho.

I think childrn dressed as adults is just bloody yuck anyway. I hate make up on little girls, I'm not even keen on piercings or tattoos on young teens either.

Perhaps I'm just classy

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are on the right track, it's not about what she is wearing.  But it's also not about the child, either.  The single component that everybody seems to react to is the element of prostitution.  Lat's face it, that is the stain in the matter.  When you involve the child it's just a way of saying: Horrors, it's a prostitute that child is dressed as!

To say that an adult can handle dressing that way, but a child must still learn what it's all about, avoids the issue.  Focus on the difference, and what the child learns as she matures, that makes such dress all right for the adult?  Is there really a danger out there, or are you just sad to see daddy's little girl grow up?

Quill this is the point I'm making! A mother dressing her a "proostitute character" is just weird.
She's now saying she was dressed as Cindy Crawford....hey ho.

I think childrn dressed as adults is just bloody yuck anyway. I hate make up on little girls, I'm not even keen on piercings or tattoos on young teens either.

Perhaps I'm just classy

Well I guess you do not believe kids should wear fancy dress then
Also Amanda is stating she dressed her up as Cindy Crawford
Even if it was Julia Roberts, itwould be dressing her up as Julia Roberts not a prostitute which you claimed earlier was not the issue to now backtrack and claim it is.
The fact is you and others are not looking at her dressing up to look like an actress of which is all she is doing but a prostitute which you have to ask how warped. It is again a kid dressing up and if she had dressed her to look like any other role, you would not say a beep, even though she is still going to going to her event as Julia Roberts. You have to ask why are not people associating with the actress with how she was dressed in an evening gown, but to associate it to a character, a prostitute. Which really makes me wonder what is going on in the mind of some people.
The fact is she dressed her to look like someone famous and people take this all out of proportion playing some sad moral high ground so they can judge another parent

To be honest believe what you want, as to me I think there is some very wrong with how people have viewed a child dressed up in fancy dress as an actress is somehow dressed as a prostitute.

I have said my peace, the replies are just getting worse.


Amanda Holden released a statement today which said: 'The truth is that Lexi went to school as Cindy Crawford for her school '90s Day - not Julia Roberts - as anyone who heard me yesterday at BGT - and indeed the teachers at Lexi's school - will confirm.
'However my husband thought she looked more like Julia Roberts, without any thought to any interpretation. Although given that she is a nine year old girl it seems completely unbelievable and disturbing that anyone could or would put such an interpretation on it.
'Julia Roberts, is one of the most beautiful and iconic women in the world and so, as a proud father, he wanted to post the similarity on his own private Facebook account. He hit the wrong button and posted it on my twitter account- but removed it as soon as he realised. The first I knew about it as I was contacted by the media whilst filming today. Needless to say my husband is mortified.
'And just as an aside, on the school run this morning we bumped into 'Mia Wallace' from Pulp Fiction and 'Mr Pink' from Reservoir dogs!'

I agree with a lot you say, didge.  And whether Cindy Crawford or Julie Roberts is of no consequence.  Both have played prostitutes.

I think the issues comes from an element we are reluctant to admit: that adult women take steps to attract men, and provocative dress is one such step.

However, we are not willing to put prepubescent females in that position...just yet.  It will come, but not yet.

It is all part of neoteny (in mammals: the learning or education stage of the sub- or barely-mature).  All animals appear to have it.  We love watching nature shows on TV in which lion cubs frolic and polar bear mums teach their cubs to hunt...we are watching neoteny. Technically, it is the attainment of maturity during the larval stage, only mammals don't have a larval stage.

Original Quill wrote:I agree with a lot you say, didge.  And whether Cindy Crawford or Julie Roberts is of no consequence.  Both have played prostitutes.

I think the issues comes from an element we are reluctant to admit: that adult women take steps to attract men, and provocative dress is one such step.

However, we are not willing to put prepubescent females in that position...just yet.  It will come, but not yet.

It is all part of neoteny (in mammals: the learning or education stage of the sub- or barely-mature).  All animals appear to have it.  We love watching nature shows on TV in which lion cubs frolic and polar bear mums teach their cubs to hunt...we are watching neoteny.  Technically, it is the attainment of maturity during the larval stage, only mammals don't have a larval stage.

Your views make it a very interesting topic to debate Quill, but some debates just go around in circles, of which is happening here and to me this is more about some people wanting play the higher moral ground to judge another parent, to make themselves look good.

As I say, your views is a topic for another time I guess, unless others want to expand on this and have to say is the only interesting matter on this topic stated so far. As I say I have said my peace on the matter.
Cheers Quill

Oh my god. BUUURGGEEERRR!

I actually said that dressing up a a girl as a "character prostitute" was bad not as a fucking actress!!!

That's the trouble didge. You don't read anything properly becasue the only person you listen to is you.

Original Quill wrote:I agree with a lot you say, didge.  And whether Cindy Crawford or Julie Roberts is of no consequence.  Both have played prostitutes.

I think the issues comes from an element we are reluctant to admit: that adult women take steps to attract men, and provocative dress is one such step.

However, we are not willing to put prepubescent females in that position...just yet.  It will come, but not yet.

It is all part of neoteny (in mammals: the learning or education stage of the sub- or barely-mature).  All animals appear to have it.  We love watching nature shows on TV in which lion cubs frolic and polar bear mums teach their cubs to hunt...we are watching neoteny.  Technically, it is the attainment of maturity during the larval stage, only mammals don't have a larval stage.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Julie Roberts wasn't dressed as a prostitute in that red dress though - she was having a posh dinner wasn't she?

No, that was the black cocktail dress Héctor Elizondo helped her get from the Hotel women's shop on the second night (after the bitches on Rodeo Drive--actually, it was Boulmiche Boutique, on Santa Monica Boulevard--wouldn't sell to her).  The dinner was over business at Cicada restaurant in downtown Los Angeles, with Ralph Bellamy and a young Alex Hyde-White, who played his nephew David.

She wore the red dress to the opera then. It's a long time since I watched that film.

Brasidas wrote:

Cass wrote:for what its worth I think that this was inappropriate of the highest degree - you do NOT dress up a 9 year old to portray an actress who is portraying a prostitute. and then to put it out in cyberspace where some sickos can access it? dumb very dumb.

^veya- its not at all down to how prostitution is portrayed in the film. its about dressing your child up inaporopriately.

what next? heroin ddicts complete with needles an track mark makeup from Reservoir Dogs?

Really based on the world view of Cass?
She dressed her child up as Julia Roberts.
I am sure it did not entertain her mind of her child being a prostitute accept of course to those who like yourself do.
You are also now talking loads of nonsense because the dress is an evening dress and again the other picture would you have objected to?
Of course not?
This is about the character and the poor stereotype you have of women who are prostitutes.
That is what it really is about. If this child was in the same dress and of any of character not Julia Roberts you would not bat an eyelid on this, showing it has everything to do with the poor views you actually hold of prostitutes.

last time I checked I was allowed an opinion. perhaps you need to take that on board instead of putting people down or insinuating horrible things about other posters or do you think by writing words like you have on this topic you hope to "stir things up"?

I made my point of view known as a mother. this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my views on prostitutes or the legal and/or moral arguments therein.

I still stand by my point that allowing/helping her daughter dress as a character who is a prostitute is very inappropriate or even of a super model (if what her statement says). Disney princesses, Dr. Seuss characters etc....is where they should be getting their ideas from.

as a mother of 2 boys I helped them dress up as ninjas turtles, postman pat, and later on as footballers, cricketers etc... there is no way that I would allow them to dress up as pimps, drug addicts, serial killers whatever - not caring 2 figs about which famous actor/model was portraying them. I do not believe in rushing children to be adults whether it be in dress, reading/television/music/movies. Let them be children not mini adults.2 figs

Nems wrote:Can she get them taken down when she put them in the public domain?

that was one of my views to irn. once its out there regardless of whether or not its a mistake and especially if you pressed the wrong button is it still considered private?

as to her explanation sorry it sounds like damage control to me. I could be wrong but it has PR spin written all over it..

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, that was the black cocktail dress Héctor Elizondo helped her get from the Hotel women's shop on the second night (after the bitches on Rodeo Drive--actually, it was Boulmiche Boutique, on Santa Monica Boulevard--wouldn't sell to her).  The dinner was over business at Cicada restaurant in downtown Los Angeles, with Ralph Bellamy and a young Alex Hyde-White, who played his nephew David.

She wore the red dress to the opera then. It's a long time since I watched that film.

correct. its a good film. I still watch every once in a while. She's a very good actress.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, that was the black cocktail dress Héctor Elizondo helped her get from the Hotel women's shop on the second night (after the bitches on Rodeo Drive--actually, it was Boulmiche Boutique, on Santa Monica Boulevard--wouldn't sell to her).  The dinner was over business at Cicada restaurant in downtown Los Angeles, with Ralph Bellamy and a young Alex Hyde-White, who played his nephew David.

She wore the red dress to the opera then. It's a long time since I watched that film.

Correct.

risingsun wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I agree with a lot you say, didge.  And whether Cindy Crawford or Julie Roberts is of no consequence.  Both have played prostitutes.

I think the issues comes from an element we are reluctant to admit: that adult women take steps to attract men, and provocative dress is one such step.

However, we are not willing to put prepubescent females in that position...just yet.  It will come, but not yet.

It is all part of neoteny (in mammals: the learning or education stage of the sub- or barely-mature).  All animals appear to have it.  We love watching nature shows on TV in which lion cubs frolic and polar bear mums teach their cubs to hunt...we are watching neoteny.  Technically, it is the attainment of maturity during the larval stage, only mammals don't have a larval stage.

Not for prepubescent females, but every female when she gets older. The last time I tried to have a say in it, I was told to MYOB in no uncertain terms...and that's by her mother as well.

At some point they are old enough to make up their own minds and you just have to let them go.

Cass wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Really based on the world view of Cass?
She dressed her child up as Julia Roberts.
I am sure it did not entertain her mind of her child being a prostitute accept of course to those who like yourself do.
You are also now talking loads of nonsense because the dress is an evening dress and again the other picture would you have objected to?
Of course not?
This is about the character and the poor stereotype you have of women who are prostitutes.
That is what it really is about. If this child was in the same dress and of any of character not Julia Roberts you would not bat an eyelid on this, showing it has everything to do with the poor views you actually hold of prostitutes.

last time I checked I was allowed an opinion. perhaps you need to take that on board instead of putting people down or insinuating horrible things about other posters or do you think by writing words like you have on this topic you hope to "stir things up"?

I made my point of view known as a mother. this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my views on prostitutes or the legal and/or moral arguments therein.

I still stand by my point that allowing/helping her daughter dress as a character who is a prostitute is very inappropriate or even of a super model (if what her statement says). Disney princesses, Dr. Seuss characters etc....is where they should be getting their ideas from.

as a mother of 2 boys I helped them dress up as ninjas turtles, postman pat, and later on as footballers, cricketers etc... there is no way that I would allow them to dress up as pimps, drug addicts, serial killers whatever - not caring 2 figs about which famous actor/model was portraying them. I do not believe in rushing children to be adults whether it be in dress, reading/television/music/movies. Let them be children not mini adults.2 figs

Oh please spare me the moral high ground Cass as that is what this has always been about and still you wrongly interpret this as dressing a child as a prostitute and in my book that is daft on any level and is born out of the "I am a model Mary Poppins parent club", wishing to look good by bashing others on parenting"

That is what it really is about. The fact is she dressed her as an actress, yet sadly it is some of the warped parents that take the view she was dressed as a prostitute and not an actress, and I find that utterly absurd and poor on any level. Yes you are entitled to an opinion, just as I am entitled to berate people for being way over the top as you and others are being. Just as you are able to be highly critical of her, so as I can of you and others, so take a leaf out of your own book before even attempted to again play some pathetic moral card on me. What you are saying is that I cannot be critical of you and others and yet you can bash the mother Amanda

That is bullshit on any level and you are talking utter bollocks.

As I say this is more about posters self importance over being able to play some infantile card to judge a parent, to make themselves look better, as if they are the model parent. She dressed her child up for an event, it was of an actress, no matter what character of a film Julia played, it still would have been Julia Roberts, the point so far above you it seem, where you can only fixate on the sexual side of a child dressing up. I find that warped on any level, because this is  just a child dressing up having fun. It took idiots to sexualize the child, when she was only dressed to look like Julia Roberts

The fact is you are looking at this all wrong from the start and this as always about parents playing some moral high ground. You think you can go free being highly critical of people but nobody calls any of you out for this, showing the complete double standards some of you show. That you should be immune to ridicule for claiming absurd things. That just does not cut it. I find the reasoning here utterly pathetic and nothing more than a cheap shot by some to attack this parent, from the "I am the model moral parent brigade!".
This was nothing more than a child dressed up in an evening dress to look like Julia Roberts, it took some warped parents to turn her into being dressed as a prostitute.

This is the really joke of the matter, I am sure no parent has ever given a second thought to dressing their boy as Darth Vader, a fictional character mind, but one that commits genocide to children in the films, based on something as very evil. Do we view Darth Vader as this or do we view this as just a child dressing up as a popular character from a film?
Hence why it is people themselves that turn something innocent, a child dressed up to look like an actress, into something sexual themselves.

Well ... it certainly seems the Ms. Holden has gotten the attention she was looking for ... oh yes, it happens: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/celebrities-call-paparazzi_n_5175348.html

I think it's cute when kids dress up in grown-up's clothing, like when you put a hat on a dog



I recently put on my Mick-looking cap on one of the family Boston Terriors:



... she broke into a huge grin, but that dog has more sense of fun than most people I've met

Cass wrote:

Nems wrote:Can she get them taken down when she put them in the public domain?

that was one of my views to irn. once its out there regardless of whether or not its a mistake and especially if you pressed the wrong button is it still considered private?

as to her explanation sorry it sounds like damage control to me. I could be wrong but it has PR spin written all over it..

Oh I agree, Ms Holden realises she made a mistake posting that picture. I wonder what happened to asking the child what she wants to dress as ?
I too have done all the Disney princess and superhero things. Never would I countenance dressing a child up as any thing other than a childs fictional character

Original Quill wrote:

risingsun wrote:

Not for prepubescent females, but every female when she gets older.  The last time I tried to have a say in it, I was told to MYOB in no uncertain terms...and that's by her mother as well.

At some point they are old enough to make up their own minds and you just have to let them go.

Not at 9 years though Quill.

Hellooo BTW x

The point this is wrong in all this is ask yourself this. If this was a prom event at the school of which such events at that age happen and you saw Amanda's daughter dressed as she is an evening dress, quite normal for such an event. Would you claim she looks like a prostitute?

No

In fact I have no doubt if this was just a picture of her child going to a prom dressed like this, and was called by someone as to looking like a prostitute, all hell would have broken loose by the "I am a model Mary Poppins parent club"

If you saw Julia Roberts dressed in the dress from Pretty Woman, with no knowledge of the film, would you associate her as looking like a prostitute?

No

It takes parents taking some absurd moral high ground to perverse what the child is wearing and sexualize it. The child whether dressed as Cindy Crawford or Julia Roberts was dressed to look like an actress, not a prostitute. The fact is this is children just dressing up and it takes some parents to blow things out of all proportions.

The fact is it is posters sexualizing the child. In no way does she look a prostitute and no way does Julia Roberts looks like a prostitute wearing such an elegant dress, which you can even buy online from the film to wear. Again no way does she in anyway like a prostitute. Only the association of the film has made people visualise something that they would never dream of claiming looks like prostitute decide this child now looks like one. Again that is sick and perverse on any level.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


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

I came on here as a father of a daughter to give my opinion on this and you try and twist it round to make out I am a pervert with something to hide. Anyone with common sense would see that picture of a 9 year old dressed up to imitate a hooker from the movie as inappropriate but not you. You really are a twisted soul trying to paint everyone who thinks it is wrong as some sort of pervert and I'm beginning to think that you are defending the publication of young 9 year old girl dressed up as a the hooker portrayed in the film because it's something that floats your boat, not mine.

I would have thought that you would prefer the older variety of a woman in a Red dress as something that turned you on. Something like this for example



Anyway, I'm asking Ben right here to delete the images of Amanda Holden's daughter in that dress on here as she wants them all deleted from all sections of the media and will use copyright laws to enforce it.

Again this is why you are a pervert.
Only because the character in the film is a prostitute do you associate the child also as a prostitute, which means you are one sick pervert. The fact is the child is wearing an evening dress and without the association of the film would you class the child as a prostitute?
No, again which goes to my other point in does this child look like a prostitute?




This is what is wrong with the world today the fact sick perverts like yourself Irn are allowed to dictate how are children should be, where you in fact sexualize them.
The only reason you have shown the utter most stupidity as others have done is all based around the character that Julia Roberts plays. Even worse it is your poor views you hold of the character not even understanding how many women are sadly drawn into this profession.
She dressed her child to look like Julia Roberts. It took though parents to sexualize her child, you being one of them.
Okay lets place as to why you are sexualizing the child.
If the theme had been biblical and she had dressed her child to look like Mary Magdalene, would you be objecting to her being dressed as a prostitute of which the Christian world depicts Mary Magdalene?
Or how about the biblical character Rahab?

I’ve just highlighted where it shows where you have now descended into the pits of despair with your desperate efforts to characterize someone as something awful. It’s a new low even for you but all it shows is that you are incapable of taking part in a debate without being able to resort the insults and smears when your argument hits the buffers.

As for that picture of the little girl in the polo dress; how many times have you uploaded it now? Must be about 4 so I guess it must be from your ‘favourites’ folder then. I clicked on the image to see where you picked it up from and here’s where you got it;

Starcasm - Toddlers and Tiaras. http://starcasm.net/archives/119255

That is truly awful and I won’t put up the first picture as it almost made me puke with disgust. You see, it’s the same girl as you are putting up and it’s the same mum as well  – a star from the world of American child competition in dressing up their children. In fact it’s even worse that what Amanda Holden did. So what the hell are you doing hanging around stuff like Toddlers and Tiaras? Does it float your boat?

And you have the cheek to call me a pervert when you’re hanging around Toddlers and Tiaras you slimy little vile man. Get a life FGS.

Next time try and pick a better example just as Amanda Holden should have done.

So that’s you goosed.

Note: Anyone want to comment on that first picture? Feel free

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Again this is why you are a pervert.
Only because the character in the film is a prostitute do you associate the child also as a prostitute, which means you are one sick pervert. The fact is the child is wearing an evening dress and without the association of the film would you class the child as a prostitute?
No, again which goes to my other point in does this child look like a prostitute?




This is what is wrong with the world today the fact sick perverts like yourself Irn are allowed to dictate how are children should be, where you in fact sexualize them.
The only reason you have shown the utter most stupidity as others have done is all based around the character that Julia Roberts plays. Even worse it is your poor views you hold of the character not even understanding how many women are sadly drawn into this profession.
She dressed her child to look like Julia Roberts. It took though parents to sexualize her child, you being one of them.
Okay lets place as to why you are sexualizing the child.
If the theme had been biblical and she had dressed her child to look like Mary Magdalene, would you be objecting to her being dressed as a prostitute of which the Christian world depicts Mary Magdalene?
Or how about the biblical character Rahab?

I’ve just highlighted where it shows where you have now descended into the pits of despair with your desperate efforts to characterize someone as something awful. It’s a new low even for you but all it shows is that you are incapable of taking part in a debate without being able to resort the insults and smears when your argument hits the buffers.

As for that picture of the little girl in the polo dress; how many times have you uploaded it now? Must be about 4 so I guess it must be from your ‘favourites’ folder then. I clicked on the image to see where you picked it up from and here’s where you got it;

Starcasm - Toddlers and Tiaras. http://starcasm.net/archives/119255

That is truly awful and I won’t put up the first picture as it almost made me puke with disgust. You see, it’s the same girl as you are putting up and it’s the same mum as well  – a star from the world of American child competition in dressing up their children. In fact it’s even worse that what Amanda Holden did. So what the hell are you doing hanging around stuff like Toddlers and Tiaras? Does it float your boat?

And you have the cheek to call me a pervert when you’re hanging around Toddlers and Tiaras you slimy little vile man. Get a life FGS.

Next time try and pick a better example just as Amanda Holden should have done.

So that’s you goosed.

Note: Anyone want to comment on that first picture? Feel free

Never seen the other picture, I just googled Julia roberts dressed up by child and came to the other picture, so nbice try and your warped perverions that you found that.

Read again

The point this is wrong in all this is ask yourself this. If this was a prom event at the school of which such events at that age happen and you saw Amanda's daughter dressed as she is an evening dress, quite normal for such an event. Would you claim she looks like a prostitute?

No

In fact I have no doubt if this was just a picture of her child going to a prom dressed like this, and was called by someone as to looking like a prostitute, all hell would have broken loose by the "I am a model Mary Poppins parent club"

If you saw Julia Roberts dressed in the dress from Pretty Woman, with no knowledge of the film, would you associate her as looking like a prostitute?

No

It takes parents taking some absurd moral high ground to perverse what the child is wearing and sexualize it. The child whether dressed as Cindy Crawford or Julia Roberts was dressed to look like an actress, not a prostitute. The fact is this is children just dressing up and it takes some parents to blow things out of all proportions.

The fact is it is posters sexualizing the child. In no way does she look a prostitute and no way does Julia Roberts looks like a prostitute wearing such an elegant dress, which you can even buy online from the film to wear. Again no way does she in anyway like a prostitute. Only the association of the film has made people visualise something that they would never dream of claiming looks like prostitute decide this child now looks like one. Again that is sick and perverse on any level.

So you think a girl in an evening dress is now a prostitute, which means you are sexuaslizing her.
Sick as fuck

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Again this is why you are a pervert.
Only because the character in the film is a prostitute do you associate the child also as a prostitute, which means you are one sick pervert. The fact is the child is wearing an evening dress and without the association of the film would you class the child as a prostitute?
No, again which goes to my other point in does this child look like a prostitute?




This is what is wrong with the world today the fact sick perverts like yourself Irn are allowed to dictate how are children should be, where you in fact sexualize them.
The only reason you have shown the utter most stupidity as others have done is all based around the character that Julia Roberts plays. Even worse it is your poor views you hold of the character not even understanding how many women are sadly drawn into this profession.
She dressed her child to look like Julia Roberts. It took though parents to sexualize her child, you being one of them.
Okay lets place as to why you are sexualizing the child.
If the theme had been biblical and she had dressed her child to look like Mary Magdalene, would you be objecting to her being dressed as a prostitute of which the Christian world depicts Mary Magdalene?
Or how about the biblical character Rahab?

I’ve just highlighted where it shows where you have now descended into the pits of despair with your desperate efforts to characterize someone as something awful. It’s a new low even for you but all it shows is that you are incapable of taking part in a debate without being able to resort the insults and smears when your argument hits the buffers.

As for that picture of the little girl in the polo dress; how many times have you uploaded it now? Must be about 4 so I guess it must be from your ‘favourites’ folder then. I clicked on the image to see where you picked it up from and here’s where you got it;

Starcasm - Toddlers and Tiaras. http://starcasm.net/archives/119255

That is truly awful and I won’t put up the first picture as it almost made me puke with disgust. You see, it’s the same girl as you are putting up and it’s the same mum as well  – a star from the world of American child competition in dressing up their children. In fact it’s even worse that what Amanda Holden did. So what the hell are you doing hanging around stuff like Toddlers and Tiaras? Does it float your boat?

And you have the cheek to call me a pervert when you’re hanging around Toddlers and Tiaras you slimy little vile man. Get a life FGS.

Next time try and pick a better example just as Amanda Holden should have done.

So that’s you goosed.

Note: Anyone want to comment on that first picture? Feel free

Read again

The point this is wrong in all this is ask yourself this. If this was a prom event at the school of which such events at that age happen and you saw Amanda's daughter dressed as she is an evening dress, quite normal for such an event. Would you claim she looks like a prostitute?

No

In fact I have no doubt if this was just a picture of her child going to a prom dressed like this, and was called by someone as to looking like a prostitute, all hell would have broken loose by the "I am a model Mary Poppins parent club"

If you saw Julia Roberts dressed in the dress from Pretty Woman, with no knowledge of the film, would you associate her as looking like a prostitute?

No

It takes parents taking some absurd moral high ground to perverse what the child is wearing and sexualize it. The child whether dressed as Cindy Crawford or Julia Roberts was dressed to look like an actress, not a prostitute. The fact is this is children just dressing up and it takes some parents to blow things out of all proportions.

The fact is it is posters sexualizing the child. In no way does she look a prostitute and no way does Julia Roberts looks like a prostitute wearing such an elegant dress, which you can even buy online from the film to wear. Again no way does she in anyway like a prostitute. Only the association of the film has made people visualise something that they would never dream of claiming looks like prostitute decide this child now looks like one. Again that is sick and perverse on any level.

Yap yap yap.

Toddlers and Tiaras Didge - honestly. That first picture is enough to make me want to puke.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Read again

The point this is wrong in all this is ask yourself this. If this was a prom event at the school of which such events at that age happen and you saw Amanda's daughter dressed as she is an evening dress, quite normal for such an event. Would you claim she looks like a prostitute?

No

In fact I have no doubt if this was just a picture of her child going to a prom dressed like this, and was called by someone as to looking like a prostitute, all hell would have broken loose by the "I am a model Mary Poppins parent club"

If you saw Julia Roberts dressed in the dress from Pretty Woman, with no knowledge of the film, would you associate her as looking like a prostitute?

No

It takes parents taking some absurd moral high ground to perverse what the child is wearing and sexualize it. The child whether dressed as Cindy Crawford or Julia Roberts was dressed to look like an actress, not a prostitute. The fact is this is children just dressing up and it takes some parents to blow things out of all proportions.

The fact is it is posters sexualizing the child. In no way does she look a prostitute and no way does Julia Roberts looks like a prostitute wearing such an elegant dress, which you can even buy online from the film to wear. Again no way does she in anyway like a prostitute. Only the association of the film has made people visualise something that they would never dream of claiming looks like prostitute decide this child now looks like one. Again that is sick and perverse on any level.

Yap yap yap.

Toddlers and Tiaras Didge - honestly. That first picture is enough to make we want to puke.

So nothing to refute my points and you find a website that I never used, which shows how sick and twisted you are and a pervert.
I found that picture of the girl in the nice dress on google pictures.
We need to take such perverts like you off the streets that you picture a 9 year old girl wearing an evening dress as a prostitute.
So is that all you have to ---- with?

Try again

The point this is wrong in all this is ask yourself this. If this was a prom event at the school of which such events at that age happen and you saw Amanda's daughter dressed as she is an evening dress, quite normal for such an event. Would you claim she looks like a prostitute?

No

In fact I have no doubt if this was just a picture of her child going to a prom dressed like this, and was called by someone as to looking like a prostitute, all hell would have broken loose by the "I am a model Mary Poppins parent club"

If you saw Julia Roberts dressed in the dress from Pretty Woman, with no knowledge of the film, would you associate her as looking like a prostitute?

No

It takes parents taking some absurd moral high ground to perverse what the child is wearing and sexualize it. The child whether dressed as Cindy Crawford or Julia Roberts was dressed to look like an actress, not a prostitute. The fact is this is children just dressing up and it takes some parents to blow things out of all proportions.

The fact is it is posters sexualizing the child. In no way does she look a prostitute and no way does Julia Roberts looks like a prostitute wearing such an elegant dress, which you can even buy online from the film to wear. Again no way does she in anyway like a prostitute. Only the association of the film has made people visualise something that they would never dream of claiming looks like prostitute decide this child now looks like one. Again that is sick and perverse on any level.