Diddy and daughters in L’Uomo Vogue photo stirring controversy

Sean “Diddy” Combs is featured in the L’Uomo Vogue music issue, though he talks less about music than politics, the color black, and fashion. Diddy, who is the founder and creator of the Sean John fashion label, sets a theme for his feature with “Black on Black,” dressing himself in all black, in a black room, on black furniture, and in one picture, sitting with his 2-year old twin daughters on a black fur throw.

L’Uomo Vogue is a men’s version of Vogue, very fashion and style driven, and October is the Music Issue. To that end, Diddy’s feature in the magazine is about clothes, his businesses, some politics, and his music.

Famed photographer, Mark Seliger, shot Mr. Combs in a variety of styles from a variety of designers including Tom Ford, Roberto Cavalli, Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren Black Label and Sean John, among others.

Sean “Diddy” Combs said, “The concept of “Black on Black” in this story represents a level of strength, a level of beauty, a level of sexy and chic that I really want to portray. It’s the future. And it’s not just a race thing; it’s almost a redefinition of the color. Think about how ignorant people actually make the color black represent something negative. Black is so beautiful, I see it in everything I am, as a person, as a man, as a fashion professional. Black is beautiful.”

[From WSJ MarketWatch]

It’s a wonderful statement, and it deserves to be heard. But it’s not what’s getting the attention. The photo of Diddy with his twins, D’Lila Star and Jessie James, is stirring up controversy because the girls are completely unclothed except for a black bowtie. People are upset that the girls are (un)dressed like boys, with the ties and nothing else, instead of bows in their hair or something. They are complaining about the poorly posed babies, saying it’s below normal Vogue standards. But mostly people are peeved that the girls are naked.

I have to agree that there is a time and place for naked-baby photos, the family photo album, for instance, but Vogue isn’t one of them. Especially a men’s issue. I mean, men who read a fashion magazine don’t do it for the cute baby pictures. It was just an ill-advised shot, bottom line, right down to the bowties and the little one on the right left in the I’m-tired-of-being-here pose. Plus, some clothes on those poor girls would probably save them some embarrassment in about 10 years.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

57 Responses to “Diddy and daughters in L’Uomo Vogue photo stirring controversy”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Yourself says:

    I agree naked baby girls in a men’s magazine is not a brilliant idea. But babies sell these days and P- Whatever is cashing in on that.

  2. Megan says:

    Don’t see anything wrong with it, you can’t see any private parts.

  3. heehee says:

    Well, you have to look at a baby with perverse eyes to see it as perverse however clothed or unclothed it is. But yeah, some people do that so in terms of their safety it isn’t brilliant.
    There’s nothing ugly about them (any baby I mean) and maybe thats what he’s trying to impart- along the lines of the ‘beauty’ he’s talking about. But hmm. I also “get” the ties thing– he would like to raise strong girls? (ie embodying ‘male’ aspects as symbolized by the ties LOL) But whatever… I would have looked at the picture, then moved on- were it not for being told that people were actually UPSET about something…

    And its just beyond gross that not even infant girls are protected from potential sexual smearing like that! Dont’ people see any female as a female and not a piece of meat? Even infants? Geez! 8o

  4. xiaoecho says:

    Western society is becoming more prudish than it was in Victorian times when they covered up piano legs lest mens sexuality become inflamed looking at them. We have just had a huge controversy here (Australia) about one of our top artists – Bill Henson- photographing children naked; despite them being beautiful sensitive depictions, in no way prurient, the Prime Minister declared them ‘revolting’. It seems that sexuality is becoming the ONLY context where nakedness is acceptable. These two little cuties in the photo are not there for sexual consumption – their nakedness is appropriate to their age, as is the pose with their fathers arm protectedly around them. What is the world coming to when the sight of a naked toddler is considered obscene?

    heehee….you said it

  5. ER says:

    Such cute little girls though!

  6. Wif says:

    Come on. There’s nothing in the world more beautiful than a baby, I think it’s a lovely picture. Any parent knows that there’s potential for the expensive stuff in that picture to get peed on at any moment, so to have them naked indicates that THEY are the priority and that THEY are the thing of beauty we’re to be noticing. (Incidentally there’s nothing indicating their gender except for the mention of it, so I don’t understand how them being girls is any less safe than them being boys.)

    To consider the picture inappropriate is puritanical.

  7. Rachel says:

    The girls mostly just look like props. It’s all about Diddy, really. He would probably agree, wouldn’t he?

  8. Daily Reader says:

    I love that picture, those little girls are so fat and cute!! I do not see one thing wrong with that photo. They are cute and they are babies…only a pervert would find something sexual about that picture.

  9. bc says:

    oh brother. there is absolutely nothing wrong with this photo – it’s beautiful!

    …people are stupid.

  10. CandyKay says:

    In general, I just don’t like celebrities using their kids to sell things – or sell themselves.

    This photo is tacky, and it has nothing to do with the clothes or lack of them.

  11. vdantev says:

    I see a man sitting with two babies. So what’s the controversy?

  12. Ling says:

    The picture’s adorable, but the girls now have eternal grudge material. Any arguments at all between the girls and their father will inevitably result in them screaming about the picture and how much they are humiliated by it.

    Good lord, Diddy is handsome.

  13. Shay says:

    I think there’s a place for it, probably not in a mens magazine.

  14. xiaoecho says:

    Wif….good point!

    I love the way the girls’ different personalities are evident in the photo

  15. geronimo says:

    What would have made me really love this pic would be if he was looking at his little girls and smiling. This is all about Diddy and nothing to do with him making a statement about anything other than his shallow, prissy, vain, egotistic self. :roll:

    But the babies are gorgeous.

  16. Annicka says:

    They’re just babies! Baby girls look the same as baby boys from the waist-up, and there’s nothing to see from the waist-down. Infant girls do not have breasts, so it’s hardly obscene. I don’t see why they’d be embarrassed about these pictures anyway. They’re babies, it’s not like daddy put them in Vogue naked when they’re 12. Babies are born naked, they run around naked, and I would assume that most people have seen a naked baby before now.

    I think it’s kind of stupid and pointless to put his baby girls naked on a fur throw while he gets to sit there fully clothed, though.

  17. Wif says:

    Ling, you really find him handsome? I think he’s hideous (the weak jawline bothers me.)

    I like me those girls though, cute cute cuties!

  18. Kathy says:

    Those babies need diapers on, so that they don’t pee all over that blanket. Plus, I hope that they had the heat on so those little sweeties didn’t get cold!

  19. aleach says:

    why would the girls be embarassed by this picture in 10 years? nothing is showing, they look adorable, and theyre babies!! i have plenty of pictures of me when i was little without a shirt on, and im not embarassed at all. thats so wierd to say they wont like the pics when they grow up.
    i really like the picture and love how he is posing with them. they are toooo cute.

  20. Nova says:

    Yes…babies are cute but the whole photo is set up weirdly and the girls really should be wearing something cute. Not just bow ties. It just looks wrong. There are too many sicko’s out in the world, for me to pose my babies like this.

  21. Elizabeth says:

    I don’t see what the problem is… They’re babies, there’s nothing perverse about it.

  22. AP says:

    It seems Ho-ification starts early in hip-hop/pop world these days.

  23. KPod says:

    AP – that is just out of bounds. In no way are those babies being “ho-ified”. Naked babies are not sexual, they are adorable.

  24. kate says:

    don’t see anything wrong with the photo, but it just seems kind of pointless to have them there at all.

  25. jennifer says:

    The only thing “wrong” with these photos is Diddy’s presence. Otherwise there’s not thing one wrong – babies are the definition of innocence. People just have too much time on their hands. There are real problems out there, this is not one of them. :roll:

  26. Jeane says:

    There is nothing wrong with this picture, but it was a bit ill-advised maybe…
    He should have taken a hint from Miley Cyrus: unclothed minors don’t go down well with the public.

  27. Kaiser says:

    *shrug* It’s a cute pic. Whatever.

  28. Holly says:

    You people are nuts. OK great, so YOU don’t see it as pornographic. Awesome. Good for you. But there are those out there who use “innocent” pictures for nefarious purposes.

    I’m not saying that these images shouldn’t be created because of the perverts out there, but I in good conscious could never ever ever do so. For Christ’s sake if you’re going ot make them DONT SHOW THEM TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC where God knows what whacko could get a hold of them. I could never put a picture out there knowing what some whackjob might do with it….especially knowing that maybe, just maybe, one day an image of an unclothed child will inspire him to actually touch a child.

    You all may think its a calculated risk, or nothing you can control so why bother trying. But I bet the next time you hear about a child molestation case, you’ll foam at the mouth. How do you think those guys start? Not with full on sexual acts on children, let me tell you.

    But go on being proud of yourselves for being so PC as to think a child’s nakedness is beautiful. Who cares if its beautiful–we have CHILDREN to protect. Or did you forget that in your quest to be PC superior?

  29. elisha says:

    Cute babies. I think I might be echoing another commentor in saying if you look at that pic and think it’s pervy, than you’re the perv. It’s fine.

  30. RReedy says:

    The man has no class..no chin and no class.

  31. xiaoecho says:

    Holly….that was the very definition of a shrill kneejerk comment.
    You must live in a terrifying world..

  32. aleach says:

    @xiao-LOL yeah good point! sounds pretty terrifying to me!

  33. layla says:

    xiaoecho: it is a terrifying world. Do you not live in it? I agree with you Holly.

  34. Charlene says:

    It would have been nice if they’d got a picture where the girls didn’t look utterly pissed off, but I suspect that was Shot No. 329 and they were all ready to go home.

    Never work with babies or animals, even your own.

  35. Nova says:

    not appropriate.

  36. Whatever says:

    There is nothing wrong with these pictures. Those babies are cute and healthy. Only a perverse mind would see something perverse here. And worrying about what perverts might be jerking off to is ridiculous. Some perverts are turned on by shoes–should we ban shoes because some weirdo somewhere will want to sniff them while jerking off? These pics are in no way pornographic! You can’t worry about what some weirdos will think. If you start thinking and acting for them, you let them define your world.

  37. Rio says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with it. I was talking to my heavily pregnant girlfriend the other day and we agreed that being a baby/young toddler is the one time in your life where it’s socially acceptable to run around naked.

  38. what says:

    when i look at this picture, i see diddy staring at us saying “look what i have” as though he were posing with a new car.
    he looks like he probably was not in the delivery room and doesn’t involve himself with taking care of those kids at all.

  39. Babs says:

    The bows around the neck are a little too playboy bunny. Babies are cute but not in the mens fashion mag.

  40. daisyfly says:

    Oh dear lord, the world is a dangerous place no matter what you wear. Ask the women in Afghanistan who were raped wearing Bhurkas, or the children who were molested wearing jeans and sweaters.

    If you’re obtuse enough to think that a pedophile cares if a baby is naked or fully clothed, I hope to God one day you’re never personally proven wrong. I, for one, know first hand that it doesn’t matter what a child wears – being a child is all a pedophile needs for it to be attractive.

  41. clare says:

    I believe it wrong to pose his naked girls with him in a men’s magazine.
    What was the point?

  42. Nova says:

    Exactly Babs!!

    I’m not thinking in terms of a perv!!…its just the whole setting of the photo that sets me off. He looks as if he’s showing off something material…the way they are presented like a new diamond watch or something. …AND in a mens magazine? Not appropriate.

  43. Miss Miranda says:

    I really feel bad for people who think that one picture in a magazine is going to lead to these girls being molested later on. Really, if a pedophile (or infantophile in this case) wants to look at naked babies, all he needs to do is a quick search on Google. And even if the babies were placed differently, i.e. in his arms, there would still be a witch hunt of some sort.
    The world isn’t a scary place unless you make it scary. Yes, one boy being molested is horrible. But what about the millions of others who weren’t? I think we have too much of “it’s going to happen to me/my kids” belief. I was reading in NYC Parent that people would rather let their kids sit in dirty diapers than change them in a public restroom “because you don’t know what perv is looking at their privates”. Please, get a grip and change your kids.
    I don’t like how the photo was taken, because the girls look uncomfortable. But they were also probably tired and hungry and whatnot.

  44. VIP says:

    pedophilia n. an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including taking sexual explicit photographs, molesting children, and exposing one’s genitalia to children are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder.

    In this father’s case rather than mental illness it’s being treated as “I’m a celibertiy and can do anythingism.”

  45. Kylie says:

    WOW! What a beautiful picture! Its gorgeous! A father and his two princesses! Its just YOUR dirty mind that is making it rude. What is the problem with it being in a mens mag? Dont men adore babies too or are only women allowed to? Far out!
    And.. If that was me in that pic.. in 10 years I would be as proud as punch to be in Vougue with my Dad.

  46. Yadira says:

    The only thing wrong that I see with this picture is that “Diddy” is in it

  47. JaundiceMachine says:

    What beautiful baby girls! I don’t see how these two little buttons can cause an uproar. They’re just babies, let them be babies – stop sexualizing their nudity.

  48. aspen says:

    Honestly…if THAT causes controversy…a daddy sitting with his toddler daughters.

    Holy crap on a stick.

    What a gorgeous picture! BABIES are not sexual. People who jump to that when they see a naked toddler butt are the ones who need to check themselves…not Diddy for making this photo.

    It’s darling.

    Some people are just sick. Sick, sick, sick.

  49. Wif says:

    “especially knowing that maybe, just maybe, one day an image of an unclothed child will inspire him to actually touch a child.”

    Holly, I know very little about child pornography, but the one thing that I have heard is that these people are not interested in innocent pictures of children. By and large the bulk of child porn material is children being tortured sexually. This is an image that would not appeal to them in the first place.

  50. Buttercup says:

    And people give other high profile celebs grief for selling their baby pics to avoid papz hounding and profitting from the pictures, but isn’t putting your babies in a fashion type layout/article and using them as ‘props’ to sell yourself/products worse?

    :? :twisted: :roll:

  51. sasha says:

    I saw a movie awhile ago… true story… where a woman was arrested for taking “innocent” naked pics of her children, and then bringing the roll to a Wal-Mart to be processed.

    I thought it was illegal across-the-board to take pictures of naked children?

    Don’t understand the attitudes displayed here. It’s “fine” to display your naked daughters to the world, no matter what age? I’m liberal, but that seems totally out of control! The girls in the pic look terrified and unhappy, by the way.

  52. cakes says:

    Woooow we really are a nation of puritanical hippocrites aren’t we?
    If you can look at a baby and even begin to see anything sexual about him/her you have serious issues.
    This picture is of a father and his two daughters.
    Nudity can be beautiful and tasteful for people of all ages.
    I know several couples that would have professional pictures taken of them and their babies and they (the kids) were nude. The children were coverd appropriately just like Mr combs’ daughters.
    There is nothing perverse about this photo. The only thing perverse and sexual about this picture is what you are creating in your own minds.

  53. mojoman says:

    Cute babies, dont see the fuss but the father is a tacky, narcissistic, waste of space. That is all.

  54. Jeanne says:

    Cute girls, I’m just wondering why they couldn’t have dressed the girls in something black and sleek, like satin or silk because Daddy is all dressed up? I’m thinking too if Britney Spears was celebrating her whiteness in Vogue and was posed in an evening dress sitting on a couch with her two little guys naked in bow ties, the public would be screaming.

  55. me says:

    Gorgeous babies, they should be naked, they look like little black cherubs. The most offensive thing about the pic is their idiotic tool of a father.

  56. Tibie says:

    I absolutely HATE diddy, or whatever his name is these days, but there is NOTHING wrong with this photo. Do you think that he, nor anyone else like maybe a Nannie and close friends, don’t see these babies naked all the time? Their babies, most of the time they are naked!

  57. Bluegrape says:

    He is definitely showcasing them; wearing diamond studs no doubt…

    Trust me, this public image of them will resonate with them later in life! I’m sure it was a spur of the moment idea, unbeknownst to mother Kim!! But then again, what say has she?!