Pictures of Cindy Crawford's daughter Kaia to be removed

Pictures of model Cindy Crawford‘s daughter Kaia Jordan, 5, modeling beachwear will be removed from its original site. Spokesperson for Melissa Odabash website said: "We’ve gotten calls from all over the place – from Access Hollywood, all over the place. Unfortunately, we are not able to release any of the pictures or info on the Melissa Odabash shoot. The pictures are actually no longer going to be on the Web site."

Crawford’s spokesperson also commented on the photos: "Oh my God, that’s ridiculous. It’s a stick-on tattoo!" As for Cindy’s comment: "Cindy’s friends own this company. It was just a fun little photo shoot they did in Malibu one day. Kaia is not modeling."

Source: NY Daily News

Thanks to CBB readers Amy and Mary Beth.

Comments

nance on September 26th, 2006

I have to say I’m glad they took those pictures down. I can’t believe they are being so naive about this by implying its no big deal – in this day and age, with all the online predators and pedophiles out there, I would hate to think that there was even ONE person in the world looking at a picture of my little girl and thinking innapropriate thoughts…and I’m sure there are plenty…

Nors on September 26th, 2006

Glad to hear it!

Yonni on September 26th, 2006

People need to get over it! Goodness! I hate when people say that posing children etc leads to child molestation etc…Let me tell you that kids are molested every day on the way home from school, at friend’s houses etc, and they are wearing normal kid clothes. I took pictures of my kids at the beach and they “posed”. People have nothing better to do than attack others. look at the new adds for Children’s place the children are wearing make up..attack them!

jing on September 26th, 2006

“Oh my God, that’s ridiculous. It’s a stick-on tattoo!”

???
i don’t think that people believed it was a real tattoo.

the issue isn’t about wearing bathing suits or tattoos… it’s about pictures that are *sexually suggestive*, which is completely inappropriate for a five-year-old.

Lauren on September 26th, 2006

“Oh my God, that’s ridiculous. It’s a stick- on tatoo!”

NO, seriously?? I thought it was real! Those photos were totally inappropriate, and if she can’t realize that they were sexualizing a five-year-old girl, she’s an idiot.

Autumn on September 26th, 2006

When I first saw the pics I’d though Crawford’s daughter Kaia was modeling for a new swimsuit line to be sold at Abercrombie & Fitch or something, since the B&W/sepia-toned pics were similar to how they pose their models…plus I wouldn’t put it past them to have pics like that even of their kids’ lines.

Anyway it’s fine they removed Kaia’s photos, although from a purely artistic POV they were beautiful photos.

Alicia on September 26th, 2006

Yonni, you do have a point but I think that putting picture’s like that of your child out there is only that more inviting to creepy people. I would never do it. But that is me. To each thier own. But honestly how could Cindy not think that was going to get out and people would have a fit!!??!! Come on you are a celbrity!!! People will always have a oppinion!

lynn on September 26th, 2006

Seriously, my god, the pictures weren’t of her naked.
She is in a bathing suit.
I had a bikini for my daughter, it had boy shorts for the bottoms, and a cute top.

Sure there are pedophiles out there, but what’s going to stop them from daydreaming over the kids in regular clothes, much less a bathing suit.
It is not like she took Kaia out in this, it was a friendly photo shoot.

Jaime on September 26th, 2006

Yonni- Do you really see no problem with those pictures and why they were online? I do not remember anybody saying that because she posed for those pictures she was going to get molested. Those pictures are going to be used by sick pedophiliacs as fantasy material though. I, for one, do not post similar pictures of my girls because I do not want them to become internet fodder for any sickos out there. *That* is the problem with the pictures. They are completely sexualized poses, and inaapropriate for a child.

Sabina on September 26th, 2006

I think this is political correctness gone mad. Both of my parents were fairly conservative, my mother was a primary school teacher, but I had a little pink bikini when I was five years old that I used to love wearing- and there were always children running about on the beach in just shorts or no clothes at all. There are albums of photos at my grandma’s house of myself, my sister and my two cousins when we were children, playing quite happily in the garden or in the bath with no clothes on. Those pictures are no different to these ones. Those two little girls look perfectly happy with being photographed, children do not pose naturally in ‘sexy’ poses, and it’s evident that the photographer wasn’t forcing them to pose in any way that made them uncomfortable. (Plus, hello, it’s Cindy Crawford’s daughter, what photographer would even try, even if he was perverted!)
I was also allowed to have stick-on glitter tattoos if they came free with a children’s magazine or my sister brought them home from school for me, and my mother always dressed me up if she was going to have pictures taken of me to send out to relatives. If my child was going to be photographed for a children’s swimwear line I wouldn’t mind her having a little transfer tattoo or stick-on gems put on either.
Obviously there are huge concerns these days about the safety of children, but I’m worried that our kids are being raised as robots, taught to cover their bodies completely at all times and that things like dancing are inappropriate, because parents are so hyped up on tabloid fodder they can percieve innocent activites as ‘oh my god, my four-year-old just moved her hips like JLo- off to the nunnery!’ No wonder kids are going off the rails before they leave school.

Doreen on September 26th, 2006

I believe they did right in taking those photos down! Who knows–I’d hate to say it but all it takes is 1 creep to hunt down that lil girl, seek her out and something tragic happen to her. It happens in this day and age now more than ever!! I definitely think that those pics were quite provacative for a child to be apart of.

HollyCatherineSlavic on September 26th, 2006

It’s not so much just wearing a bikini, or even that some on-line predator is lurking,(which is more possible unfortunately than most people realize) but there was a topless photo (back showing) with Kaia giving a provocative look over her shoulder. Straight out of Sports Illustrated or Victoria’s Secret. Sorry, but that is sexualizing a child and it is exploitation and totally inappropriate!

millie on September 26th, 2006

Well, some people obviously have different standards–I’d never put my daughter in a bikini or have her pose with a stick-on tattoo and I call myself very liberal. It’s not just about predators lurking there (which, of course is true) but about her growing up to think there is more to life than pretty clothes and she can offer more than her beauty to the world. Femininity is wonderful and should be enjoyed, nothing against pink, frills or Barbies etc. but little girls should be allowed to be little girls instead of being prematurely sexualized. Sabina_- I have nothing against just shorts or no clothes at all for little kids but we’re talking about posing a little girl for a catalog (not just family photos) to look like a Victoria Secret model, that’s a huge difference. I’m glad they took it down.

gargoylegurl on September 27th, 2006

I’m really torn on this…

On one hand I can see why these photos might be inappropriate. I saw the photos in question, and in my opinion, the only one that struck me as a bit “off-putting” is the one where Kaia was topless (from the back) and had that “look” on her face. Honestly though, I don’t think it was the fact that she was topless, or the tattoo, or whatever – it was the pose – there was something distinctly adult about it. That was what hit me as a bit off, and it made me uncomfortable because it seemed like an innocent child trying to be sexy or suggestive.

I think all of the other photos were fine, and I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with a little girl wearing a 2 piece swimsuit. Seeing a little girl in a swimsuit shouldn’t conjure such thoughts in anyone, and if it does, well I’m afraid they probably have “those” thoughts about kids already.

Paulie on September 27th, 2006

I must disgree with the earlier comment that this issue is political correctness gone mad. That statement would be entirely correct if concerns were being raised about personal snapshots of kids intended only for the family album. But when the issue involves pictures clearly intended for public consumption it is a different matter entirely. Having had a look at those pictures, it is pretty plain to see that the child in question was clearly encouraged to pose in an adult and frankly sexual way. No responsible parent should have allowed this to happen, particualarly as those same pictures managed to find their way onto the internet which has sadly become the hunting ground for those who like to view children as sexual objects.

Carly on September 27th, 2006

It’s only sexual if you make it sexual, and I guess some of you can’t help yourselves.

Heavenly_Hibiscus on September 28th, 2006

Those photos were no different than any other advertising childrens swimwear. I don’t see the fuss. Is it because Kaia had a celebrity mother? I think it’s just celeb bashing gone mad. Those are the kind of clothes kids wear at the beach, pool, or in the garden under the sprinkler. Do the people who were offended not venture out in public in summer?! It’s also not unusual for 5 year old girls to be topless. Are you realy going to tell a young girl to “cover up”? That would only cause confusion with the young boys who are merrily running around topless enjoying the sunny weather!

Heavenly_Hibiscus on September 28th, 2006

I mean in terms of the young girls looking at the young boys thinking “how come they can run around topless when we can’t?” That would actually be classified as sexism. I wouldn’t want to place that kind of senseless restriction on a child.