Georgia Jagger Controversy: Should Teens Ever Appear Topless In Ads?

At least she's getting paid for it. You hear about teen girls sending naked pics of themselves all the time. You cant see anything but her back anyway....No big deal

Barbaras-- is drop dead accurate. Afterall, it was her Mother, Model, Jerry Hall who likely had some push when it came to shove.(How Young was SHE when she started?) It's a short lived & very competetive market. Sex, Baby animals & Baby Humans sell...
What about the 'Voiceover Babies'? They make most people laugh. Ms. G.J. is a very lovely woman. Be gratefull when anybody has a job these days.

Well she's seventeen, she probably already think she's grown, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, people are too uptight.

This girl isn't old enought to vote, drink, or even rent a damn car - is there any reason she needs to make money with her breasts? I wonder why the adults that hooked her up with this job, took the pictures, and then made sure they got to print thought this was appropriate. While it would be much much worse if she were younger then 17, the fact is, she's only 17. She is still a child who still legally needs adults around her to help her make good decisions. Frankly, they failed her.

I think a bikini top or a bra would have been more appropriate. This is inappropriate.

Posted by Doktor Eevol 52 minutes ago

"Are any of you folks involved in any activist groups to help get say, marijuana legalized?"

Yes.

Nudity for minors should be really regulated. Lawmakers should create a resolution to forbid youngsters in exposing themselves to public.

Well, even though I agree that we make a big deal about this, still! It's terrible to expose an unstable teenager to that sort of thing.

sex sells and it really doesnt matter anymore. maybe 20 years ago it would have been earth shattering but now whats the difference, i might as well not have a shirt on because its not like the clothes they make/can sell now have much fabric anyway. i get how it might be a problem if they were full frontal or something but they arent so shut the hell up and leave it alone.

I thought the law was pretty clear. A MINOR can't! An ADULT can. Last time I checked, 17 is a Minor.

Seriously...the girl is 17 not 10...at 17 you are pretty much a sexual being - people need to lighten up. There are ALWAYS going to be predators out there, regardless of sexy ad campaigns. Take a look in any fashion magazine and there will be 17 yr old girls in the editorials and ad campaigns, you just don't know it because you haven't been told and it's not Mick Jagger's daughter - it's pretty much the average age in the modeling industry and has been for some time. I work in the fashion/beauty industry and we use 17 and 18 year old girls regularly, sometimes semi nude but always tasteful. The only problem is when people who are already f*#*ed up think that a 12 yr old girl is sexual fodder...but to the vast majority of level-headed, normal, healthy folks out there - this is a sexy image of a young woman and it sells jeans...nothing more

If you're techinically still a minor according to the law, then I think you should not be allowed to be in an ad like that. The issue then becomes how much is too much for minors? Can they wear low-cut tops, see through tops, short skirts, bathing suits, etc? It's a judgement call in each situation, but I think a minor being topless pretty much crosses a bad line.

Reminds me of the Miley Cyrus uproar. When I was a teen, it was the Brooke Shields/Calvin Klein ad that caused controversy. It's child porn in my opinion. Over 18 should be the rule as that's when society deems them adults. But you'll never convince Madison Ave ad execs of that. This is Jerry Hall's doing. Why don't these celebs send their kids to college to show them there is more to life than being on a magazine cover?

If I had looked like her at age 17, I would have realized my world domination plan long long ago.

Wasn't Brooke Shields 14 when she did her Calvin Klein ad in the 70's? I have to agree with what someone said above- it's a parental thing. Though, it's sad as a society we need to use these young girls in our advertising. Aren't a lot of models really young now?

Ifeel teenagers gonna do as they wish there is more going on in the world today. sex has been put around on cd's, movies and some homes. you can say or think what you will. but i am there for mine to keep them safe and give the right up bringing until they are off to college. lets all start at home first stop critizing other humans way off living and worry about yours.

WOW... this is ridiculous! I'm 23 and "ain't" no way is this positive for any young lady... it's actually scary and definitely a discrace to our society as women.

In agreement to kc 3: Just like guns don't kill people, people do.

we all have a responcibility to keep our children safe from peditors and petifiles, teaching them their limits and awareness is their best defense against being harmed mentally and phyically. this is a model and models have a different standard of what we consider normal.

okay...the pic is not THAT bad. At least she is covering up a bit and not fully exposed, it could be worse. 17 isn't a child so much. You're usually a senior in high school or maybe on your way to college. But at the same time it IS a bit innapropriate. Just imagine to all those ppl saying "loosen up a bit, USA is soo uptight". Then society is going to keep pushing and pushing the age lower and soon you'd see 10 year olds like this and 14 year olds on playboy. Can we at least keep a bit of morals in this country...do we always have to settle for everything, even if it is bullshiitz??? Noo, im not some elderly woman Im 16 years old.

she is not even the slightest bit cute-sorry to be so mean to a kid-but she looks just like her dad.....how'd she even get to be a model????? (the name of course, but seriously, not a cute girl...) I would kill my daughter if she posed like that before 18, and I am as free thinking as they come.....sexual-lizing kids is just wrong...