"Classy" Photographer Slammed for Pictures Sexualizing Young Girls
Our culture has changed…dramatically.
It’s ironic that progressives still complain about the objectification of women so much, because they’ve been wildly successful at completely destroying social norms that used to protect women–and young girls–from inappropriate treatment at the hands of predators.
Of course, they’re entirely selective about when it’s OK to sexualize women and girls, and when it’s an outrage. I haven’t quite figured out the formula yet, but it seems to be that whenever someone wants to destroy someone else’s career, it’s wrong to sexualize or objectify women and girls, but otherwise, it’s totally cool.
Does that seem right?
It certainly seems to be the case with photographer Meg Bitton, who no doubt justifies the highly inappropriate poses in which she arranges her pre-pubescent subjects as “art”.
Check out her work:
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1035185739355619328
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1033579785241468928
Yes, that is money stuffed in the back of that girls already incredibly short shorts.
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1033579348144611328
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1035185601664954369
On her website, you can also find pictures of a gaggle of girls approaching a young man, highly suggesting prostitution (as if the young woman with money in her pants wasn’t already inappropriate), young girls smoking pot, and children who look no older than 8, posed in a way that suggests they are entirely nude.
These are all scattered in between completely tame photographs of pregnant women, newborn babies, and smiling families.
This is smut, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter how well you can focus a lens or brighten up a digital print.
Although I’m sure the people trying to get pedophilia included on the LGBT spectrum think this is perfectly fine.
