|
|
|
timmy
|

 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13828
|
|
|
The UK has a fantastic teenage Olympic hopeful for Diving. His name is Tom Daley, he's 13, and he is a refreshingly normal and ordinary 13 year old except for his amazing talent. http://tinyurl.com/2njoz9 has some simple coverage of him. He's a sportsman, shown "at work".
Last Saturday, he made "Cover" status in the UK Daily Telegraph colour supplement. There was a picture of him, again "at work", standing on the poolside. The picture shows an athletic, aesthetically appealing, muscular child in swimming trunks, looking serious. It shows him as precisely what he is - a kid who is darned good at his sport, and deserving of recognition as such. Go Tom! I hope you do extremely well in Beijing. It's a good picture and does you justice.
Inside, there is an article about some other UK Olympic hopefuls. Tom is the top story in it, and there is another picture of him to introduce the article. But this picture is "arty". The boy is sitting in trunks on the end of a diving board, so he is, arguably "at work", but the photographic treatment makes it a "come hither" picture, as does the pose when given that treatment. And that's what concerns me.
This lad is not a pin-up, nor a sex object. He's 13. But he is being made into a pin-up. And the only audience I can spot, precisely because his form is pre-pubertal, is the paedophile audience. I find that objectionable. I was considering scanning the pictures, but I feel that would perpetuate the problem, not address the concerns. http://tinyurl.com/2wp7tw has a small version of the picture that concerns me.
Is it just the hairs on the back of my neck that are crawling, or are yours, too?
[Updated on: Wed, 02 April 2008 14:35]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: timmy on Wed, 02 April 2008 09:18
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: acam on Wed, 02 April 2008 10:57
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: timmy on Wed, 02 April 2008 11:35
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: acam on Wed, 02 April 2008 12:11
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: timmy on Wed, 02 April 2008 12:39
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: marc on Wed, 02 April 2008 11:20
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: Senne on Wed, 02 April 2008 20:08
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: saben on Wed, 02 April 2008 12:18
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: timmy on Wed, 02 April 2008 12:38
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: Roger on Wed, 02 April 2008 13:40
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: timmy on Wed, 02 April 2008 14:39
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: Benji on Wed, 02 April 2008 18:13
|
 |
|
Trust me, the photographers know EXACTLY what they're doing!
|
 |
|
Re: Trust me, the photographers know EXACTLY what they're do
By: saben on Thu, 03 April 2008 04:58
|
 |
|
Re: Trust me, the photographers know EXACTLY what they're do
By: timmy on Thu, 03 April 2008 08:29
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: Nigel on Thu, 03 April 2008 15:40
|
 |
|
Re: I'm not sure about some of the coverage
By: timmy on Thu, 03 April 2008 22:32
|
 |
|
For reference the front cover snap
By: Nigel on Fri, 04 April 2008 07:44
|
Goto Forum:
[  ]
|