In my shock and dismay, I didn’t even notice the clothing. All I saw was that the   December 1st New York Times was showcasing underage girls in scenes that would titillate men with a propensity to be attracted to children.

All I noticed, when my eyes glimpsed the two-page spread in Sunday’s Magazine section was two young girls with expressions that screamed Kiddy Porn. Pedophiles fantasize over girls that have this youthful, come hither look.

Only later, when studying the photo more closely did I notice the casual beads, bright purses, different prints next to one another and the flashy high-heeled CFM (come fuck me) shoes. The models were completely covered. No nudity here.

I’d never heard of Miu Miu, part of the high fashion Prada group or the two girls, who I assumed were about thirteen. My instantaneous revulsion for what I thought was soft kiddy porn, calmed down after I checked out information on the models. Lea Seydoux is twenty eight and Adele Exarchopoulos just turned twenty. It appears they’ve been over eighteen for some time and weren’t personally being exploited. I also learned that they’re stars in the French movie,

Blue is the Warmest Color, that won the Palme d ‘or prize. The movie is about lesbian sex, explicitly shown and is banned in Idaho.

So, I’ve been educated. My righteous anger settled down, somewhat.

However, my initial reaction counts for something. Even if the models are significantly older than they look, appearance matters. I believe the ad industry intended that the expression on the girls’ faces invite men to sexually fantasize about them and that the two-page color spread has three purposes. The first is to promote their movie, Blue is the Warmest Color and the second is to advertise Prada’s fashion line, Miu Miu. Those reasons are fine. It’s the third that I object to, which is to cater to men who have a predilection towards pedophilia, to get their attention and to generate desire.

The ad may be perfectly legal but I question the judgment of whoever placed it. An ad that costs as much as a Rolls Royce has been carefully designed and planned. It’s no accident that the models look childish as well as sexual.

It makes me think of ordinary girls, perhaps picked up at a mid-western bus terminal after running away from home, who aren’t dressed in such expensive clothing and have become sex slaves, owned by pimps, photographed against their will, even in this country. This ad does them a disservice because it continues the dream, dramatizing and romanticizing the sexual life of a young girl.

It may be legal, but, to me, it’s wrong.