Picket Fence Post

Your latest issue may sell like gangbusters because of the hype generated by the hub-bub over the semi-naked photo of a 15-year-old celebrity you have published inside your magazine, the one where a sad looking girl has a bed sheet wrapped around the upper portion of her body, revealing her back. That will certainly be great for the magazine’s bottom line in a difficult market.

The parents of and the marketing machine surrounding this 15-year-old may or may not have agreed to allow the girl to pose in a way that makes her look as if she’s topless, but for that sheet. Maybe it’s a calculated ploy to nudge the multi-million-dollar franchise that is this child from the tweens-market to a slightly older demographic by having the under-aged girl pose provocatively, with a sheet . . . which belongs on a bed . . . evoking a bed-like scene.

But you decided to publish and post online photos of an under-aged girl, thereby sexualizing her. True, earlier this year a sexy photo of the girl flashing a glimpse of her bra to the camera wielded by a friend was posted on a social networking web site. However couldn’t one argue, that, in an era of fallen and seriously troubled young female starlets, that having a 15-year-old girl pose with simply a sheet wrapped around her upper torso indicates adult approval for being photographed in sexy poses?

This is where the damage is sustained. It’s up to you, as a responsible magazine, to not help take advantage of a 15-year-old, even if she is a mega-celebrity, beloved by millions of tween-aged girls who see her as an idol and want to mimic whatever she does.

If you want to run sexy photos of consenting adults, go for it. Run all the button-pushing photos and articles you want. But in the future, maybe you should think twice before contributing to the exploitation of a child, even if she or her handlers are willing participants.

Signed,

A concerned mom of a 9-year-old girl