Yeah. you're reading too much. The girl is cute and what you see there is called art. It's just her back. There is nothing sexual about it. Relax.

It doesn't look that way to me. But this raises a question in my mind, why are you viewing it in such a way? That is what truly disturbs me. I see an innocent little girl and is a lovely picture. What you see is the cover of playboy, get your examined and find out why you feel this way, seriously. This is a very big problem these days, any supposed adult can analyze anything and make it bad, well except what is truly bad. Look how Child porn went from actual porn to "you can't take a picture of your baby's first bath" without worrying that someone cries porn. It is sick individuals who turn the innocent things into well, your article. People like you should be watched, not the parents of this photo.


C

She is, in fact, not naked but as a six year old she can walk around naked if she wants. In most places the cut off age for that is 10 or 12. When will we stop imposing our own insecurities, negative body image and sex-phobia on our children. As is it she can certainly be topless as she has no female breasts to hide. Furthermore, in many US states and Canadian provinces it is completely legal for her to be topfree at any age. A womans (or girls) naked breasts are no more indecent than a mans naked breasts. Anything less in just gender discrimination. I had hoped that, in the 21st century, we had successfully put that sort of thing behind us.

The reviewer is indeed not only reading far too much into an art shot, but is proceeding from the assumption that nudity, at this or any age, is a bad thing. It is the viewer, and reviewer, who sexualize natural innocence. Children playing nude (which this child is NOT by the way) is fine, in fact children are natural nudist and have no problem with any aspect of it, until they are taught the shames and hangups of society. You can bare your body, and still respect your body. One has nothing to do with the other.