No.. I would try to give my child a very normal life. What Cindy did was wrong. I would take Gwens approach minus the kunfoo grip on the little guys face. Strollers with blankets.. what is so hard about that?

I would just go about my day, if u get a pic of my little guys ok thats fine, but when its time for me to leave let me leave. We will smile an give u a wave I might whisper to one of em to flip em off jsut for fun. But why make a big deal out of it? Pose for photos right after birth no. Definetly not! That is what attracts all this excess attention. To the mags: Stop paying people to get photos of there kids.

I wouldn't go out of my way to have photo's of my children like Cindy Crawford or selling my baby pics. I think Rachel Weisz, went about it well, privately, but not over the top woth it.

I can imagine there are times when they don't have a choice. Paparazzi are insane. But I'd try to shelter them as much as I could.

As long as they are not exploiting my child.

I really hate that pic of Cindy Crawford's daughter is makes my stomach turn!

I'd try to protect them as much as I could, without going overboard. They didn't ask to be born into the celebrity world, so children shouldn't have to be stalked by the paps.

_____________
GEAUX SAINTS!

The difference is were seeing two very different types of pictures here, even if Gwen wasn't covering her baby's face, they would appear very different.

I would never let my child, if I had one, pose like the one in Cindy's picture...I mean really for the whole world to see. Just plain stupid.

Very true, Wynter.

I would live my life just like Gwen Stefani. She doesn't hide Kingston, but she's not exposing him.

look up the artwork of Sally Mann.
this is not peverted...shouldn't You be worried that you look at an innocent child and think sex?

dont you remember being 5 and running around the beach naked, or around the house after you took a bath? nakedness is natural for children...I work at a daycare and over the summer while we changed them out of their bathingsuits, the 4 year olds would dart around the room, laughing.
our society is over sexualized and thats a pity, because you can't appreciate a photo, of which is NOT pornography, if you look at the other photos taken that day. I find more of a problem with that upcoming rape movie with dakota fanning.

Are you saying that Cindy's pose is meant to be an innocent pose? I'm not really grasping how the exact same pose is meant to be sexy when done by an adult and meant to be innocent when done by a child.

oh and PS the kids in sally mann's art were her own.

She's not running around the beach! They have her mimicking her mother's famous pose.

The other pics - where she's running around the beach and playing - those are darling. This pic, disturbing.

its supposed to be a cute "oh look its cindys daughter we are going to play up her famous pose".

why should we judge cindy on ONE photo of many?

Oh, I see. So if its Jenna Jameson's daughter, its a cute "look at her daughter on that pole" kinda thing? Whatever.

i agree this is disturbing. if this was kept in the privacy of their house then it's ok, i mean my parents have pics of me in the tub when i was little all over the house (thanks mom!) but not for the whole world to see

And BTW, Sally Mann's photography is a perfect comparison. Most of it is cute kids doing little naked kid things and some of it is vaguely disturbing. The one of the little boy spreadeagled in the dirt with just his underwear on, his not exactly a little boy doing a little boy thing. Maybe its, just me, but I've never caught my son spreadeagled in the dirt waiting for a picture.

Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't come in here and accuse other people of being pedophiles because they don't agree with you.

You are using slippery-slope logic. Cindy was not a porn star, and the photo of her daughter is of her BACK wearing long underware. Jenna has Nothing to do with it.

All I did was present an alternative point of view and you attacked me. I suppose we all have to agree to what the mainstream says and can't think for ourselves. Forgive me.

I'm off to the rest of my day, I don't want to argue with someone who won't at least take my point in and think about it.

woaw, people need to chill out!

lmao @ Nick Nolte.

Jinx, Nick Nolte says "Arrest all the Trolls"

Maybe a few photos. Not naked or half-dressed.

You know, it depends on how you look at it. On one hand at that age kids can be innocent, they havn't gone through puberty yet which sort of defines sexuality. You get a cute-sy photo taken mimicking mommy and if it was kept in the household as someone else mentioned it may not seem so bad. But on the other hand there ARE sick people out there and when you put a photo like that up for the public you don't really know what everyone is thinking about it. But thats pretty much with everything. I found it in ill taste, ill admit.

I think these photos are reeeaally close to crossing the line. I think it is too acceptable for little girls to dress in "sexy" stuff like mom or big sis. To me, this is too much, or rather, too little.

its not something I look at and go " Awww how CUTE!"
what happened to anne geddes?
has it gone this far?

How do we know that they "copied" Cindy's pose. This photo and the other ones could have been inoccently taken and then someone went and pulled up and archive of Cindy's old photo's for shock value. Would you be as offended by the photo if you did not see Cindy's picture next to it? Something to think about...

It doesnt matter if they copyed Cindy's or Barney's pose the child is half naked and is disturbing to watch.

wow Cindy Crawfords kid is adorable!

No I would not let my child be photographed. In france childrens faces are blurred out and I wish it would be the same everywhere, not just france.

I think it is completely okay to sell your babies picture. Especially to the magazine of your choice. You get to control the pose, the article, and anything else related to the article. It makes it especially appealing that you get to completely circumvent the whole stalkerazzi profitting from hounding you and your family for the first picture of your new baby. Imagine how much the first pictures of Shiloh or Sean Preston would have sold for. Also, those magazines immediately sold out, so imagine the profit and exposure the magazines received. Why let someone else profit from you family? Especially some sleazy photographer, or some trashy magazine? Britney rec'd a nice sum from People, who is a very respectable magazine, and they in turn profitted greatly also.

^^My comment above is in regards to selling first baby photos. If I was a celebrity and they would get the shot anyway, why not? As far as Cindy's daughter--distasteful, disturbing. For a private citizen, I don't see any situation in which I would have to sell pictures of my baby, unless I was pursuing a modeling career for them, and they were cute innocent poses.