Not only is it creepy, it's kind of dumb.

It's not really targeting pedophiles, it's targeting statutory rapists - and those typically aren't the ones going after 10-year-old girls. Usually, they're having sex with 15/16/17 year olds, and often, aren't much older than them.

I completely agree that this is off target. It is also saying-"don't view girls as sex objects like you do women."

Who is this targeting? I'm not sure how effective dressing young gyrls provactively is making the point the ads want to. Also, anyone notice what is written behind the African American gyrl? Rather inappropriate.

I find when we do what we don't want others to do, we've made our complaints null and void...so these photos just seem to advocate for dressing gyrls in a sexualize matter to me. Not good at all.

~GoGo

I think this ad is targeted towards men who believe sex with young girls is wrong, but think that if the girls are developed and look like adult women that it is somehow not pedophilia anymore and that it is o.k. to have sex with them. They don't get that even if the girl is fully physically developed that she is still only 12.

It is definitely attention getting, but the first thing I want to do when I see it is turn away and not even read the writing behind the girls heads. I agree with SoupChef that they are off target with this one. I thought it was an ad for pedophiles and even if it was for pedophiles this really wouldn’t change their actions because many need serious therapy and help before there is any hope of pedophiles changing their actions.

Even apart from the creepy pictures and all the problems that come with them, the text is just as terrible.

Ad #1.
I think for the most part men who have sex with children know that it's wrong, or at least understand that society views it as wrong. This isn't going to help anything.

Ad #2.
I agree with GoGo. The text of this ad is the equivalent of saying "Oh yeah, she's hot, but don't hit that yet." Awful. And it's a complete contradiction to Ad #1 which says you shouldn't even be viewing children sexually. I guess, as always, it's okay to sexualize black women and girls.

"Just because she has the body, doesn't mean she has the brains" -- um WTF mate?

I think the ads would have been more effective had they used less suggestive clothing. Dressed in a baseball tee, maybe a sports cap, would have still shown their mature bodies but without the overt cleavage. What ten year old dresses like that anyway?

This is why I stand by what I say about the Target ad and such: at some point the ad agency responsible for this ad did a critical review of the message and decided that it was both too fucked-up and/or too contradictory and they shelved it. It's disturbing that someone considered it in the first place, but at least someone put the brakes on it. You sort of understand the sentiment that they were trying to work with (now that girls are beginning to enter puberty at younger ages), but it was just such a poorly-thought-out campaign.

Using the adult female body as code for "sexually available" is one of many problems with this campaign. I'm glad to know it was never actually used.

Maybe I misinterpreted what everyone is saying, but these girl's heads were definitely photoshoped onto well endowed women's bodies. These bodies are not their own.

I agree that men who go after girls of that age- are more interested in their age and their controllable factor than what their body looks like. There are a few pigs out there who say things about developed girls and their sexual availability, but I don't think they are the "typical" molester.

And while I think the posters are really creepy, and am very happy they didn't make it to distribution, I think the "just cuz she has the body doesn't means she has the brains" on the second poster has good sentiment. I was pretty developed when I was ten. Just cuz I had the boobs didn't mean that I had the emotional or mental capacity to know what to do if someone else (other than another 10 year old) was sexually attracted to them. They're not saying that girls have no brains, they're saying that they don't have the "brains" to say, consent to sex with an adult or to have fully gotten to understand their own sexuality.

Reminding men that girls who *look* like women "don't have the brains" of women is pretty stupid. That's the appeal!!

When my brother was jailed (rightly so) for sexual assault of a minor, part of his rehabilitation program involved group therapy, with family/support people encouraged to take part. One of the topics discussed was how adult men are taught to sexualize/fetishize young girls. There are all kinds of examples where women are encouraged to look little girlish. Pigtails, adult sized underwear made to look like the old underoos, shaving pubic hair (hairless = prepubesent - somehow I hadn't made that particular connection until sitting in group therapy with a room full of sex offenders), and the list goes on. This is not to say that a women who wears any of these things is in any way inviting rape. When people are bombarded day after day with media images of little girlish looking images of adult women, I think it sends mixed messages of what is sexually appropriate.

I think with young teenagers who have developed women's bodies, it *is* a problem, and possibly a more pervasive one than people who sexualize children's bodies (though no more or less disturbing). Even so, I find it unsettling that a campaign designed to stop associating children with grown women have chosen to pair childrens heads with women's bodies. It's attention-getting, but I don't think it will ultimately be effective.

Flat out creepy. I dont understand how they are trying to portray its wrong if they have smiling girls with women's bodies. Surely that is what a sex offender might actually see in a girl-if we cared to try to see how they might objectify a child. Secondly, arent they just highlighting the alarming statistic that children are maturing earlier and faster than ever?? All this appears to be showing is this. Erm, where is the logic??

This is going to give me nightmares.

Although, as someone who had big boobies at an early age, I can understand how weird it is to be objectified at a young age. Even if it was by boys in my class, it's still incredibly uncomfortable to have the body of a woman (or at least the beginnings of one) while still having the brain and life experience of a little girl.

But I'm not sure if that's what the ad was saying. I'm actually not sure exactly what message it's trying to send...which I guess means it isn't a very effective ad.

You know, I'm glad this never was actually used, because there's too much potential for it to be misinterpreted, but I can definitely see what the designer was going for.

Thing is, I don't think anyone is supposed to be attracted to these pictures. They are creepy. And that's the point. Statutory rapists would repulsed if a developed 14-year-old girl had the face of a 5-year-old. And pedophiles aren't interested in girls who have already developed.

The ad is targeted towards the former, as a reminder that, while 14-year-olds with breasts look like women, they're really little girls, and no matter what you tell yourself, it's not okay.

I would imagine part of the issue is that folks sexualize girls' bodies, not women's.

I'm with androidqueen, I think it's directed at statutory rapists and the Dateline perv type, not actual pedos. It targets the type of man who takes advantage of underaged teenage girls, and defends it on the basis that they were physically mature.

I think that this ad also forgets that sexual abuse is about power, not necessarily about sex. Perpetrators want to gain power and control over their victims and that is often times why they do it.

Though not as outright creepy as this one, an increasing proportion of high-gloss public awareness ads give me an eh feeling nowadays. The advertisers' useless cleverness overwhelms the message; their prime directive, to get attention by any means, grows more eerily unchecked because of the Good Cause. The overall effect is that of a very nasty person hitting you on the head with a "message" ... and enjoying it a lot.

I can't find the mother lode, but here's a few:

http://www.adverbox.com/tags/social/

A number of these leave me pretty ambivalent.

"But officer, she said she was 19!"

Unfortunately, regarding young women who have more mature bodies, I think the media tends to handle their sexuality and appeal as a joke. How many times in TV shows and movies have we heard the above statement? For me, a lot. Something should be done, but these ads are just not the right way to do it.

I read the one one the right first (without really looking at the picture) and thought it was a crack on black women. Then I saw the picture and REALLY didn't get it.

I agree with Liza - if you don't understand the ad, it isn't working.

It's interesting, I hadn't really realized the potential for misinterpretation in these ads -- I immediately got what I assume the intended message was, that statutory rape is not made okay by the fact that a girl has a mature body. It didn't occur to me that it might be taken otherwise, and I thought the ad was effective. Creepy, yes, but it's an ad about how going after underage girls is creepy. That's fitting.

Now, the use of sexualized images of adult women's bodies . . . well, it's less than ideal. But in this case I'm inclined to be forgiving because they're using that imagery to get a good point across.

I thought it was an ad for pedophiles and even if it was for pedophiles this really wouldn’t change their actions because many need serious therapy and help before there is any hope of pedophiles changing their actions. --devine

As long as "therapy" includes locking them up for the rest of their lives, yes they need it.

Thing is, I don't think anyone is supposed to be attracted to these pictures. They are creepy. And that's the point. Statutory rapists would repulsed if a developed 14-year-old girl had the face of a 5-year-old. And pedophiles aren't interested in girls who have already developed.

The ad is targeted towards the former, as a reminder that, while 14-year-olds with breasts look like women, they're really little girls, and no matter what you tell yourself, it's not okay. --androidqueen

I know they didn't actually use these ads, but does anyone know where they were going to be used? Billboards? High schools? Colleges?

I ask because these ads, while creepy, might work when it comes to convincing Mr. Frat Slob that screwing underage high school girls counts as sex with a minor.

"When people are bombarded day after day with media images of little girlish looking images of adult women, I think it sends mixed messages of what is sexually appropriate."

Well, nothing should prevent these confused men from asking "how old are you?"

The person who did this ad was sick. I'm going to bet this individual knew it wouldn't go through and thought it was amusing.

Sick, sick, sick as if it's ok to look at a woman in sexual way, but only if "its" legal...

So many problem there...

Browne

One problem with that is someone who lies about his or her age (something teenagers have been known to do) and/or produces a fake ID or an ID belonging to an older sibling (another thing teenagers have been known to do). Of course someone who doesn't shag total strangers in the first place wouldn't have to worry about jailbait, now would they?

I think it's important to keep in mind who the ad is targeting and what the actual message is. The disturbing nature of the images clearly tells the target audience that simply because she "has the body," doesn't mean she is old enough to be having sex. The issue in general should make people uncomfortable, so why sugar coat the severity of the issue with a cushy ad?

Here's some video I found on Youtube of a focus group done regarding the ad. The target audience agrees that the message will be effective and that's really what matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZer-TLhew

Here's another piece regarding this ad.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bnznnXww-w