That girl does look all of 12 years old. Her parents ought to be tracked down and given 200 lashes for pimping her out for such an overtly sexualized photo shoot.

Personally I do not want to see the side profile of an emaciated girls breast especially if it is being pawned off as high fashion. And what are with the photos of her face with her mouth slightly open. DISGUSTING!

It is absolutely outrageous to label any image of a late adolescent as "child porn", especially images of a female who would be above the age of consent in an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in the world.

"Child porn" relates to pre-pubescent children, and there are two important reasons for banning it:

1. protecting the "models"; and

2. guarding against contributing to faulty thinking on the part of pedophiles that their sexual desire for pebuscent children is somehow "okay".

If I was ever pussy-whipped to the point where I felt guilty about being aroused by images of 17 year-old girls, I would hope someone would take me out and shoot me.

These photographs would barely be noticed anywhere in Europe - they're hardly cutting-edge art. More young model skin is on display on your average Parisian street advertisement. So, other than obscure religious-conservative-right argments, where exactly is the controversy?

it's absurd to call a picture of a 17 yr old kiddie porn. Any age of consent over 16 is about public control of sexuality, not protecting children.

She's practically 18 and it's the fashion industry. I think high fashion is very out-of-touch with reality and, generally full of sh*t, but this didn't particularly register on my indignation meter. But then again, I don't have kids. Maybe if I had a 17 year-old daughter...

Climb into the wayback machine: we did have Brooke Shields in Louis Malle's Pretty Baby at quite a young age in very mature sitations back in the 70s. This is just more of the same. Everything old is new again.

I wouldn't exactly call a 17 yr old a child. When I was 17 and 18 I really resented the people who were a few years older than me calling me a baby at my place of employment, like oh yeah you 22-26 yr olds are so much more mature than I am, was that you puking your guts out last night after the bar closed?

I just don't really understand the use of nudity to sell couture clothing. While the naked body in itself isn't sinful or obscene, our culture is still pretty touchy about nudity so it seems that using nudes, the nudity will get more attention than the clothing at least here in the USA.

Nor can we control what goes on in someone's mind when viewing a half naked picture, so someone like me will probably just look at the clothing or the pictoral scene, while someone else might jerk off to it. I would find my brother using my Cosmo's for his um "pleasure" from time to time.

So while I wouldn't necessarily view a nude in a sexual way, someone else might and I really don't think 17 is that big a deal, if she had been 12, then yes I would agree that it's inappropiate to use a 12yr old model to sell adult clothing, but I have a problem with that already. If you are selling clothes to well heeled adult women, use models who are well past their first menses. Leave the 10-16yr olds to model tweener and junior clothing.

Be careful what you wish for, there are plenty of people who think you should be shot if you AREN'T prepared to regard a 17 year old as a child.

Let me get this straight:

1.) In your opinion: The only people who should be allowed to model in various states of undress MUST NOT ONLY be over age 18, but also must "look" over age 18 (according to YOUR arbitrary evaluation)?

So then Scarlett Johannson, Topher Grace, Elijah Wood, Alessandra Ambrosio and many other actors & models - who are actually adults but can easily pass for 16 year-olds - are photographed in, say, in semi-nude states -- then this is all automatically child porn??!?!

I am 29. When I am clean shaven, I'm so 16-ish I could get carded for frickin' cigarettes. If I post a photo of my shaven/babyfaced self in swim trunks on the Net, am I posting kiddie porn (and should therefore be arrested)?!?!?

2.) Why exactly is the 18th birthday automatically the Mason-Dixon line for child porn versus legitimate photo, anyway?

Is a picture of, I dunno, Kristin Kreuk in a bikini at age 17 years, 364 days perverted child porn while a picture of her 3 days later a legitimate photo of a woman?

She looks like a povocatively posed nearly naked kid.

She IS (as a matter of law) a provocatively posed nearly naked kid.

Voluminous concerns of "unatainable ideals" "what is art" "puritanical americans" "emaciated models" "underaged models" and the rest aside, a competent photo editor should be capable, upon seeing what looks like a provatively posed nearly naked kid, ask "Is she eighteen?"

These photographs would barely be noticed anywhere in Europe - they're hardly cutting-edge art. More young model skin is on display on your average Parisian street advertisement. So, other than obscure religious-conservative-right argments, where exactly is the controversy?

Since when is Europe the arbiter of social mores for America. If I wanted a European lifestyle, I'd live in Europe.

BTW - I'm not even remotely religious, but these pictures are vulgar! They display everything wrong with fashion and apparently, Europe as well. I don't want my daughter or son exposed to this child porn/eating disorder "snuff" photography. I don't want the fashion industry telling my daughter that who she is isn't good enough if she weighs over 115. I dont' want my son thinking that that is what women are supposed to look like and be valued for. I don't want the plastic skeleton industry to fail because there are so many real-life studies walking the streets of NYC. What I really don't understand is women pimping other women to a system that feeds into this whole beauty as definion of self plague. Take one look at Janice Dickenson and you will see that "fashion" does nothing good for young or old women!