Cindy Crawford's Reaction To Controversy Surrounding Kaia's Swimsuit Photos

Here Cindy was snapped with hubby Rande Gerber at a Laker’s game on November 10th.

Cindy Crawford
Cindy Crawford is reportedly furious that people are making her daughter’s swimsuit shots into a sordid affair.
Crawford came under fire from critics who labelled photos, in which her then four-year-old daughter Kaia posed for swimsuit shots, inappropriate.
The supermodel, however, is not amused with what people are saying, and has lashed out at them, insisting that people should think carefully before calling a four-year-olds’ pictures “topless”.
“My friend has a swimwear line and she makes little girls’ suits, so she had a bunch of her friends bring their daughters over and we did a little photo shoot, for a look book on their website. I was there and it was so innocent. Kaia’s wearing shorts and she is posed peeking back over her shoulder. Some blog site called it a topless photo. I can’t see how can you even call a four-year-old being topless!” Contactmusic quoted her, as saying.
“She’s a little girl, there wasn’t makeup involved or pageantry, it was truly just like little girls playing,” Crawford insisted.
And now the incident has left such a bad taste in Crawford and hubby Rande Gerber’s mouths that they’ve decided not to let their daughter pose for any more pictures.

“I will put it this way, they just had the shoot again and she didn’t do it this time. More because my husband was like, ‘Why do we want to put ourselves in that situation?’ It’s too bad, because one of my best girlfriends shot the pictures this time and she knows Kaia and it would have been great and I would have gotten great family photos,” Crawford added.

I personally think that the intense reaction to those photos reflected much more on the people reacting than on the photos themselves (which were quite innocent).



  1. says

    If u think about it the reason that perverts will see this picture is because everyone is amking such a big fuss of it!!!i do agree though if u saw a picture of this of a teenager such as a girl of 13 u would be very shocked (well i would)so it is even worse to see a 4yr old in that sort of pose but i dont see anything sexual about it either so why make such a big fuss i simply find the picture quite cute its the sort of thing of someone making a big fuss of someone posting a picture of a baby wearing only a nappy but i do think the pose is quite pomiscous!!!but it is only mi opinoin after all

  2. Zbella says

    I didn’t think it was a bad pic. I wouldn’t have imagined such an uproar. But, there are many perves in the world and Cindy is a famous, beautiful woman so she could have stalkers to worry about.

    Modesty? At 4? I guess I don’t believe in modesty for kids. I just want mine to love their bodies and not feel shame… feel comfortable and free.

  3. Karina says

    I can’t believe anyone could see those photos as obscene in any way. She’s just a little girl!

  4. Shea says

    Hey Sharon, Us americans?? wow racist or what ? Im sure there are alot of NON americans that think these pics are wrong. ALSO….make up our minds to what is important??? ok i guess a 5 yr old on the net in nothing is just NOT important. She should of kept them as what she said she intended them to be….family pictures, not a pervs fantasy. ALSO Its the perverts and pedifiles that turn innocence into perversion. Not the people that prevent things like that from happening…but I guess since we Americans have more to worry about then kids being exploited, Lets all just forget about them! your a ewoooo i just wanna call you bad names but i wont.

  5. Sharon says

    I remember the time when a baby’s first pic was topless with a pamper and simply nude. It is the people today that have turned such innocence into perversion. We have more important issues to deal with in America. As long as there is parental supervision to ensure innocence, it should be left to the parent’s discretion. If Cindy would have taken the pics at home and they were stolen for some reason, the people wouldn’t have made such a big deal. She would have been considered a victim. Make up your mind Americans as to what is important!

  6. KK619 says

    I dont really know what to say about these pics. Im kind of on both sides of the posts. The pics really are harmless, but at the same time there are alot of perverts out there who would see them as being something far from harmless. The one where Kaia is shirtless… I dont really get that one at all. What does that have to do with promoting and advertising for Childrens Swimwear?? She is just wearing a pair of shorts. That one is kind of strange to be posting on the internet I must admit.

  7. Lourdes Lozano says

    I have three daughters of my own and i definetly would let my daughters pose in a bikini. We have too many perverted people out in this world.

  8. Stacey says

    Oh. My. God. Just clicked on the link someone had. I had already seen the Cindy pictures, but the link to that little girl at the Ashley Scott runway show….wearing a string bikini that is barely covering her….I mean barely….that is sickening and that designer is f’ed up in the head to be trying to dress a child like that….I’m f’n pissed off right now, that’s absolutely abhorrent. And yes the pics of Kaia were also completely inappropriate. Why do these people have to go too far? It’s never appropriate to sexualize children. It makes creeps think it’s ok for them to do it. Parents who do it are just asking for trouble with their kids. And yeah, I am a counselor who works with kids, and sexual abuse happens a lot more often than people might think….I was surprised at how much.

  9. carleigh says

    HEY GUY’S here’s something that has nothing at all to do w/ this topic but I found it while surfing around and didn’t know if anyone has seen it (shame on the webmistress, it seems us posters are the one’s posting more on the TOMKAT front–still don’t like TC but had to post this)

  10. Julie says

    Carleigh, fair enough and well said. You must really care about your children and they are lucky. Whatever all of our opinions are of the public display, I hope all of us as moms can appreciate the beauty of these photos and that, for her family, they’ve captured precious moments in her young life.

  11. carleigh says

    Julie, if you read above Cindy said this friend of her’s was doing a “look book” on her internet website, so it was done with the intent to post it on the net. As we all know if you look around you can stumble across just about anything on the net…..some digusting things out there too! If Cindy had thought this through completely she might have conceeded the thoughts and opinions of some of the other people posting on here. The pic’s are cute and her daughter is beautiful w/o a doubt…but the risque one should have been kept as a private family cheesecake shot for them only. I do agree with you about celebrating ourselves and our bodies as humans and sexual beings and I do think it can be made to seem dirty or illicit to celebrate those things so society aside, care needs to be taken to raise up your own kids to love and accept themselves and not to rely on society’s concept of what’s acceptable concerning their body type, self love and acceptance. These are things a parent instills by allowing their kids to grow up secure and happy w/ themselves no matter what anyone else or society states to differ.

  12. Julie says

    Let me be clear, before anyone gets angry, that when I said that the sexual health of children is dependant on society’s celebration of sexuality, I in NO WAY meant that I condone anything that involves child pornography, or any other form of sexual explotation of a child.

  13. Julie says

    Labeachbird- I’ll concede to that, given that we are all sexual beings from infancy. What I meant by “no concept…of sexuality” was that I don’t believe at that age she has a concept of herself as a sexual being in society. I don’t believe that while she was posing for those pictures she was thinking about how alluring she may seem to perverted men. We are, as adults, projecting our views of sexuality on a child. From the way you wrote, you must be aware of research that supports that the sexual health of children as they grow into adulthood is dependant on society’s repression or celebration of sexuality.
    Kathy- I don’t think the intent was to post them all over the internet, it was to post them on her friend’s obscure website that not many people would be aware of. I would chastise her if her intent was to exploit her child, but I realize you could argue that she should have known it could happen.

  14. minnie says

    Mrs D. I’m sorry I didn’t mean to be rude!
    From what I’ve read people who think of children in that way will think it no matter what the kids wear. I mixed up that thought and what you’d said and the way you said it and produced the logical outcome that the only way to protect children from people like that is to keep them at home. I also believe that paedophiles should be steralised (for their own good as well as childrens’ – many of them hate themselves for what they are doing).
    My little ones are both young enough to be topless at the beach (well, the baby is normally bottomless too – some kids take off their sun hats, mine takes of his shorts and nappy) and I wouldn’t post pictures of them like that because I’m a private person and don’t think they’d be happy about it when they got older (privacy again) but not because I worry about the sick people who’d see the pictures. If that were the case I’d never let them be in anything less than a mini-burka outside the house.

  15. Ms D says

    #35. No need to be rude.
    But in answer to your ridiculous question, of course she leaves the house. But not dressed like that.

    You (and anyone else) can do whatever they feel is right for their own kids, of course.
    I choose not to let my child run around in a string bikini with a fake tattoo on her backside. Let alone photograph it and put it out there for the world to see, and thus, pass judgement on me or her. If you let your daughter dress like that, and post it, go ahead!
    I don’t.

  16. labeachbird says

    A little girl, topless, with a tattoo at her backside, looking over her shoulder carries the same suggestion as a teen, as a woman. She is not an infant or a toddler, she is a little girl who wil grow up into a woman. To suggest that little girls are not aware of sexual energy is to be absurdly naiive about the psychosexual development of children. To enage in this type of photography at this age is inappropriate and potentially harmful.

  17. Julie says

    I’ve seen many celebrity baby/child pictures and Cindy’s daughter is the most beautiful I’ve seen. As I looked at those pictures, I did not see a sexual little girl. I saw lovely photos that her parents must be thrilled to have. If I had a friend who was a photographer and some money to throw around, you bet I’d have photos of my children like that. It doesn’t rob her of her innocence, it think it’s a gorgeous depiction of childhood innocence and beauty. It represents a time in everyone’s life when we had perfect skin and no concept of negative body image or sexuality. I think we’ve all been to the beach and seen babies running around in just diapers or even naked with just a hat on and, to me, that’s just adorable! And none of you with daughters put them in a bathing suit to go to the pool or the beach? Or change diapers on your babies in public? I think the pictures are beautiful, Cindy!

  18. minnie says

    Jill – don’t worry – that statistic is entirely false! God, can you imagine if it were true – there would be one in ever family.

    You may be mixing it up with the 1 in 9 American men like to cross dress one…

  19. joanna says

    everything were wrong with them pictures, the tattoo, the necklace, the way her arms were covering her chest and the way she were looking over her shoulder doing that pose! there may aswell have been a sign saying PEADOPHILES COME AND GET ME!!! and if cindy crawford cant see that then she is not fit to be a mother, there is no way u should post pictures like that on the website! is cindy dumb seriously? there is probably some guy out there now wacking off over that pic, i just hope her mother realises this

  20. Diana says

    I do truely believe that children are loosing their innoncence and growing up too quickly. They are no longer children for long, and I do believe that these shots were provocative and there was something quite seedy about them. Children should be portrayed as children, not as teenagers or young adults in photographs that were to me completely senseless and not worthwhile in any way

  21. Jill says

    I believe I heard a statistic that 1 in 9 men are pedophiles(I think this was on Oprah a while ago). This is a whopping number!

  22. Ms D says the original pics we saw here, there WAS one of the little girl in a string bikini, if I remember right–she was running across the beach.

    And if Cindy Crawford doesn’t want to show pics of her daughter any more, or whatever she was saying, fine by me. And I don’t care who the webmistress is..I think she had a lot of nerve calling people out for disagreeing with the pictures. We are entitled to our own opinions, even if they don’t agree with what she (or anyone else) thinks.

    And I do stand by my original thoughts–I still feel the pictures we saw to begin with were ‘inappropriate’, or at least very, very tacky. I sure wouldn’t want MY daughter being seen that way, even now–and she’s older than Cindy Crawford’s child.
    If Cindy Crawford wants to take pictures like that of her daughter and her friends, fine–but you’d just think she might not post them all over the internet, because you never know who might see them. Overly worried or not, as I saw one poster saying, I wouldn’t like to think of even a REMOTE possibility that some sicko could be looking at my daughter that way. ICK!!

    Just my opinion! 🙂

  23. shea says

    This says it all …”it was truly just like little girls playing”

    “just like” ??? im not a perv nor am i aposed to childrens pictures that are nude. I think there the cutest pictures. however, that picture was wrong and sexual in manner. IMO, she should of kept them JUST family pictures and not posted her kid everywhere in that manner.

  24. says

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t go as far as Team Aniston, but I do believe Cindy has realized there is a bit of truth in the inappropriate nature of some of these photos. The one that I find disturbing is the one where she’s turned around with no shirt on. It’s NOT that she’s not wearing a top, and it’s NOT that she’s in a catalogue for kids’ swimwear, and it’s NOT that it’s on the internet. It’s the too-grown-up look on her face, one that a photographer might ask her MOTHER to make, that is so wrong. Sure, there are pervs everywhere, and parents need to take precautions. There will be magazines and ads and internet articles about kids all the time, but why TEMPT those pervs to look at YOUR daughter?? It’s as if Cindy just can’t wait for her kid to be just like her and she’s making her feel comfortable doing adult things at such a young age. And for whoever couldn’t stop talking about how HOT her husband is, where is HIS responsibility in this? What sicko dad would allow his daughter to be photographed this way and then splashed all over the internet??

  25. says

    I said it before and I will say it again, Cindy is a stupid stupid woman,
    she has the worst judgment in the world, cuz she was a super skank (jk) I mean super model, does she have to put her daughter at 4 yrs. through crap too just to prove a point?
    Cindy is a rotten mother .
    Sounds like a nerve was hit, she knows it was wrong and know she is just trying to convince herself.
    She is an Ass, with a captial A!!!!!

  26. carleigh says

    Yes like with a swimsuit TOP on at least…that little girl is too exposed to be photographed for a catalog that was splashed across the net. I do agree that everyone probably has PERSONAL pic’s of their kids in various stages of nudity (i.e. in the bath tub like 1st bath, or making funny shapes with kids hair out of shampoo i.e. horns,etc., etc. or maybe your own kids bathing together that sort of innocent thing), however, that being said we as parents do not want to those pic’s posted on the net for all the world to see. Save the cheesy kiddo shots for the family album and use it to embarrassed them later on in the face of a perspective spouse or bf/gf…those are personal “family” photo’s and if Cindy Crawford wants these sort of pic’s she can take them herself or use some of her millions to parlay into personal family photo’s she doesn’t think about things clearly. She should have known as a former supermodel what kind of reaction this could have gotten her and obviously she didn’t use good parental judgement as far as releasing these pic’s to the general public. I know I for one wouldn’t want pic’s of my beautiful daughters half dressed splashed across the net and I don’t care how many bikini’s it would sell…it was BAD taste and BAD judgement…JMO, JMO, JMO.

  27. Paula says

    I agree with the modesty thing. Let kids dress like that now and don’t expect them not to want to dress like that when they are teens. I showed that site to my husband and he got embarrassed. He said he felt like he shouldn’t be looking. But then again he runs when I change my grandaughters diaper.

    The thing is, children need to stay children for as long as they can and some of the clothes these days aren’t letting them do that. And some of the dance teams in our town go way over the top with the hip gyrations and bumping moves. That disturbs me alot. Guess I’m just old fashioned when it comes to that. And people say pediphiles will get off on a kid dressed in any thing. Yes, that’s true, but why feed their disgusting desires with pictures like this? Go into the grocery stores and watch the young girls with the low jeans and crop tops. Then watch some of the men, old and young. I wouldn’t want them looking at my daughter bad thoughts are not.

  28. Erin says

    It just all comes down to a thing called MODESTY. Do I think its appropriate for a little girl to wear a string bikini – no. I looked at the link that Carleigh posted and, wow, that just seems not right for little girls wear such skimpy bikinis. I’m sure the photo shoot was all for fun and the little girls probably had fun doing it, they just could have done it in more age appropriate swimwear – just my opinion!

  29. MissyMama says

    I agree with Minnie and the others. I saw nothing wrong or sexual when I saw that picture. I saw an adorable little girl.Now, having that said, I do understand the others concerns over perverts, but honestly, like said before, they get aroused by kids dressed in anything, it’s the child that turns them on, not what the child is or is not wearing.

  30. Robin says

    what a gorgeous couple – her husband is HOT! HOT! HOT!
    and those kid pics could have been shot differently…I mean geesh Cindy, if your daughter didnt have such a come-hither-look and pose I dont think people would have been so freaked out! but like mother like daughter…
    at least we get to see her daughter unlike Suri Cruise, who I’m still not sure exists…

  31. j says

    I agree that there is nothing sexual about a child her age….

    however, (and this is a big however) there is a thing called modesty that would do a lot of girls a lot of good. Allowing little girls to model skimpy bikinis will only encourage them to show off their bodies and teach them young that they are objects. Did you guys know that thongs for 4 year old girls are available in stores? We have to remember that these are NOT little women, they are children. Simply shrinking women’s clothing down to fit girls isn’t right. As for my girls, they will have just as much fun at the beach in a one piece as the girls in string bikinis.

  32. minnie says

    KellyMay (plese bear in mind that this is not a personal attack – you get a lot of those but this truly isn’t! I’m sure I’ll get grief for saying thing but I want to state even if people ont listen that this is not personal)

    If you feel that “it?s a whole other thing to have them posted all over the internet for the world and the perverts to see.” then surely you should take the pictures of your children that you have up down?

    Also – temporary tatoos are now marketed with chocolate for children – the taboo has been broken and history tamed. At least in semi-Liberal Europe.

  33. minnie says

    Peddling flesh??? Read why she said she did it and how she viewed what you clearly think was a debauched photoshoot.

  34. minnie says

    My god. Do you watch too much Fox News or something? Do you truly believe there is a paedophile behind everydoor and checking out every website. Lets not overdramatise the problem. Arguing that you thought there was something wrong with the pictures because of what someone else might thing of them is some seriously specious logic!

  35. Heather says

    ~Lisa~ is right – Those of you overreacting would probably be more comfortable not letting your children leave the house.

    Face it – Pedophiles are going to get off on JC Penney catologs that contain children in PJs with teddy bears in their hands. They’re sick freaks and you can’t live your life worried they will see a picture of your kid in there swimsuit because…quite frankly – your neighbor could be looking out his window at your kids swimming next door.

    That’s reality. It sucks but you can’t live your life in fear, just use common sense.

  36. ~Lisa~ says

    Are you kidding me??? We’re really going to go back into this people??? Let’s just stop all clothing lines of children then so as to stop any type of catalogues from being distributed because honestly… a perv is a perv is a perv. Some of them spank off to children in formal dresses and suits! Stop already… grow up….. get your minds out of the gutter. If you don’t like the pictures, don’t look at them. Kaia is Cindy’s daughter, and if she felt comfortable with releasing the photos, then let her be. On my own personal level, I too would have released those photos!!!! If you look at those photos as Kaia as a child which I have, as well as many of my friends have…. You would see that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!!!!!!

    Take your minds out of the gutter and all the what-if’s… What if you step out of your house tomorrow and there’s a big hole leading to nowhere where your front step used to be….

  37. says

    Ok, it worked with your link,Carleigh, thanks. I can definitely see the issue here. This photo is sexualizing a little girl. Of course little kids will go without tops, even pants around the house! But on the internet, selling “swimwear”?? Is that what they’re calling it? The one little girl on the “runway” is also a tad young to be strutting her stuff that way I think. so it’s not only Cindy Crawford who’s to blame…the other moms belonging to those girls are too. Keep it at home! Actually, I don’t even think if I had a photo like that of my little girl (I have 2) I’d post it on my wall. It’s too suggestive and would make people uncomfortable. I can just imagine grandma’s reaction!

  38. Anne says

    After going to that link, I understand why people made a fuss, I know she is a young kid, but there is something about the picture that is not right, kind of like those child soft porn magazines. But Cindy looks nice with her husband.

  39. says

    Wow, she still really can’t see why people reacted? It’s one thing to have personal pictures of your child in which you have control over whom can see them, it’s a whole other thing to have them posted all over the internet for the world and the perverts to see.
    I reacted strongly to the tattoo on her back, the origin behind those tattoos is not appropriate for any child because it is a sexual thing. Somewhat surprised Cindy wasn’t able to look at it objectively, more defensive if anything?!? Keeping our children safe was the concern here and I don’t believe it was anymore then that,

  40. says

    Ok, I’m in the dark…I have never seen these photos. Does anyone have a link or something they could forward? The controversy has made me curious about how I’ll react to the pictures. Thanks!

  41. carleigh says

    I, for one, saw the pictures (which were posted on this very website) and I thought there were a bit risque. I don’t think no matter who’s child it is that it is appropriate to put those kinds of pictures across the internet. Even if it is in the realm of “advertising”. Cindy Crawford made the decision to put those photo’s out there for the whole world to see and if she doesn’t like the bad press or comments it garnered than maybe she didn’t think this decision through w/ every angle considered. Those pic’s were not frontal “topless” persay but there was a topless photo as was described and I think it was very highly suggestive considering the little girls age. Women adopt the same poses in Victoria Secret catalogs for grown men and perv’s to oogle and google at….did this not cross MISS SUPERMODEL’S mind? These pic’s while taken for a child’s catalog were clearly deemed by some to be inappropriate and I for one agree. Next time Ms. Crawford should think about things completely before peddling flesh w/ her 4 y/o daughter…shame on her! Shame on her even more for coming back and whining about the reactions she got….it’s America and everyone has a right and entitlement to their opinions and Cindy clearly was left w/a bad taste in her mouth and parental remorse. Don’t blame America..blame yourself Cindy!

  42. Think About It says

    How can you say a four year old is topless? Usually it is if she doesn’t have a shirt on…..

  43. babyhates says

    She had a “TRAMP STAMP”……….. Please i think Cindy was drunk when she gave this statement !

  44. Erin says

    It was the fact that it was a five year old girl wearing very skimpy swimsuits and having that tattoo on her back. Who knows how many sickos got a kick out of seeing that? Yes, its fine for mom and dad to have cute pictures like that, but keep them to yourselves!!!

  45. Psychlori says

    It wasn’t the topless part, it was the “deer antlers” that made the picture over the top.

  46. Diva says

    The unfortunate thing is that those pictures are not VIEWED innocently and a parent needs to be aware of that. So they were innocent to you, and innocent to the photographer, the sad truth is there are sick people who will look at those photos and see something more, and there are ALOT of those people in this world.

    I would much rather go without having professional photos of my daughter in swimsuits than know that there are people out there doing horrible things while looking at those pictures of MY DAUGHTER!

    As for your comment, webmistress, on the reaction reflecting more on those who reacted, while it was meant to imply something perverted in those who reacted negatively, I’m going to say I’m proud that my concern over the photos reflected on me, because what it reflected was the awareness of reality and the concern for not only this child, but this child’s mother.

    You cannot have a child in this day and age and be so naive.

  47. IMO says

    I agree, everyone has pictures of their kids with only their bottoms on. But I don’t think they post them on the web for just anyone to see. I wouldn’t want some pediphile looking at my daughter whacking off. Sorry!!

  48. pat says

    That ‘s a shame that people would make such a big deal out of innocent photo’s… Who doesn’t have a photo of their little one in only their bottoms, it doesn’t matter if its a boy or a girl..And as I understand it these were little girls only…Leave it to some piece of scum to make it into something it was never intended to be….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.