angels with tude'

July 9, 2005 2:54 PM

Is your child an angel with attitude? Time to win yourself some Angel Dollars. "Entries will be judged on facial beauty, expression & fashion, and overall appeal of photo. These should be professional pictures, but should not be extremely or overly retouched. (We are judging the child - not the retoucher!) Divisional Winners will receive 25.00 Angel Dollars, and 1 Overall Winner will receive 50.00 Angel Dollars."
posted by sharksandwich (66 comments total)

posted by sharksandwich at 2:58 PM on July 9, 2005

Ever see that episode of the Twilight Zone (or was it Outer Limits?) with the mannequins that came to life...?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
posted by tittergrrl at 2:59 PM on July 9, 2005

*vomits blood*
posted by hototogisu at 3:00 PM on July 9, 2005

It's like the faces have been completely erased and the new ones photoshopped on. Creepy. Jon Benet creepy.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:02 PM on July 9, 2005

It's amazing how angels can look so DEVOID OF SOULS
posted by tittergrrl at 3:03 PM on July 9, 2005

Not overly retouched?!?!? The hair is the only thing that doesn't look like it was retouched. And even then it's probably a wig.

The pix remind of the Mr. Show skit with the "Pre-natal Princess" fetus beauty pageant.
posted by mortimer at 3:05 PM on July 9, 2005

posted by sharksandwich at 3:06 PM on July 9, 2005

Ugh.
I thought these were dolls at first...
posted by almostbarefoot at 3:08 PM on July 9, 2005

Geessssus, some of those look like pod-people children. Utterly plastic and inhuman. Uncanny-valley unhuman. Ugh. Plus some of them have those awful anime-style eyes.

These are the children of nightmares.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:09 PM on July 9, 2005

WTF?

I thought they were dolls at first, too, almostbarefoot.

Many of those don't even look like photos of actual human beings. Are they supposed to be?
posted by teece at 3:10 PM on July 9, 2005

I thought these weren't supposed to be overly retouched... if that's the case, what do they consider photoshopped to death?
posted by idiotfactory at 3:12 PM on July 9, 2005

This one really creeps me out.
posted by sharksandwich at 3:13 PM on July 9, 2005

"Courtney" may even be a 3D model.
posted by abcde at 3:14 PM on July 9, 2005

They seem about as retouched as the muppets on the front of Stuff, FHM, Maxim, etc.

There's a possibly apocryphal Gore Vidal quote that comes to mind, concerning the pimped-up Olsen Twins: If it weren't for those two little whores, Jon Benet might still be with us today.
posted by meehawl at 3:21 PM on July 9, 2005

This is viral marketing for a new version of Village of the Damned. Right? RIGHT?

The names are like a who's-who of strippers from 2020. Brooklyn*, Carleigh, Sharady, Reagan, Meagan, Regan, Jazi, Shelby, Whitley, Kylie, Courtnee.

*I suppose I should be thankful she's not named Yonkers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:29 PM on July 9, 2005

Well. I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight. Thanks.
posted by Galvatron at 3:34 PM on July 9, 2005

Aren't all children, at least according to their own parents, angels with attitude? Weren't you? Just ask your parents.
posted by caddis at 3:40 PM on July 9, 2005

no via? Or did you happen across this on your own?

Share the love, folks. It's a big, wide web.
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:49 PM on July 9, 2005

Holy. mafarkin'. frak.

What planet is this here? This is just insanely freakish.

I do photorealistic character paintings as part of my job; these look like concept designs for dolls, not actual humans. My worst paintings look more like real people than these.

Guh. This makes me shiver.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:56 PM on July 9, 2005

NinjaPirate: Whoops. I got the link from a friend. I assumed it was probably from a posting on another site, but didn't bother to ask.
posted by sharksandwich at 3:57 PM on July 9, 2005

Those aren't kids, they're Keane paintings brought to life.
posted by Oriole Adams at 4:07 PM on July 9, 2005

Your judges for this contest will be Father Merrin and Father Karras of the Washington DC Archdiocese. Good luck to all contestants!
posted by sellout at 4:11 PM on July 9, 2005

Don't apologize, sharksandwich. via's are nice, but ultimately pointless. Are we supposed to believe b3ta summoned this link from the ether? The nature of the web is such that finding the actual "origin" of a cool link is generally too difficult to bother with.
posted by Galvatron at 4:16 PM on July 9, 2005

Seed of Chucky
posted by SPrintF at 4:45 PM on July 9, 2005

So, this is a site where you take random pictures of toddlers, and photoshop them to look like some pederast's fantasy realdoll? Meh, this still isn't as creepy as child beauty pageants.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:01 PM on July 9, 2005

Well, now I'm completely creeped out.

Remember "Babies In Makeup" on SNL? At least that was SUPPOSED to be effed-up.
posted by BoringPostcards at 5:02 PM on July 9, 2005

Hoax.

What was that site where photos of animals were photoshopped with human eyes?
posted by gwint at 5:25 PM on July 9, 2005

Wow, somebody's introduced a range of RealDolls for Paedophiles?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:29 PM on July 9, 2005

Those pictures are of children in beauty pageants. I have a former friend that is obsessed with putting her children in pageants (hence the "former") and have seen those same pictures of her own 4 year old daughter. They are retouched by the photographer, but even in the original portraits the child has some makeup on. Almost all of the kids wear extensions and/or full wigs when competing or having portraits done.

Really really creepy. Oh, and they all wear that much makeup when competing (because of the lighting is what I'm told) and often travel with a makeup artist if mom isn't all that talented.
posted by hollygoheavy at 5:31 PM on July 9, 2005

Is your child an angel with attitude?

Dang, with that much retouching I can be an angel with attitude.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:01 PM on July 9, 2005

Who would've thought that child abuse could be soooo sexy!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:14 PM on July 9, 2005

People are idiots.
posted by fungible at 6:42 PM on July 9, 2005

Oh shit. Just noticed it's at "faithweb.com." Har har.
posted by fungible at 6:47 PM on July 9, 2005

Those pics are airbrushed to the point where the models don't even look human anymore. It doesn't take much talent to overdo something like that.
posted by clevershark at 7:40 PM on July 9, 2005

Yeesh, some of these look like 3d models before people realized they had to add lots of "imperfections" in order to make things look real.

So bizzare.
posted by delmoi at 8:17 PM on July 9, 2005

Reminds me of an old Onion headline, Your Kids: Are They Sexy Enough?
posted by Kloryne at 8:35 PM on July 9, 2005

This is truly the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.

PLEASE promise me this is a hoax.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 8:51 PM on July 9, 2005

This is truly the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.

You havn't been on the internet long, have you?
posted by delmoi at 8:53 PM on July 9, 2005

[This ruined my life]
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:28 PM on July 9, 2005

What people can buy with "Angel Dollars" concerns me . . . .
posted by mikeinclifton at 10:22 PM on July 9, 2005

Sick sick sick shit.
posted by arse_hat at 10:40 PM on July 9, 2005

has anybody else here ever gotten hooked on the shopping networks' 'gallery of dolls' shows? they are the scariest shows ever to be broadcast on television. this takes me back.
posted by troybob at 10:51 PM on July 9, 2005

Damn my kid is fugly. I'm going to go glue some fake eyelashes on her before she wakes up...
posted by jrossi4r at 11:05 PM on July 9, 2005

"I'm going to go glue some fake eyelashes on her before she wakes up" Don’t forget to spackle and spray paint!
posted by arse_hat at 11:11 PM on July 9, 2005

It's a little jarring to see the kids' hands in some of the pics, maybe because they're not as retouched as the faces. Whatever shine effect was used on the eyes makes it look like tears must have spilled out of their eyes as soon as the shot was done. These portraits make typical kids clothing catalog models with their stiff action poses look like natural, near candid shots.
posted by PY at 11:18 PM on July 9, 2005

Finally, a cure for my narcolepsy.
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:45 AM on July 10, 2005

This has got to be a hoax.
posted by pterodactyler at 6:06 AM on July 10, 2005

(sung) I'm proud to be an American...
posted by Busithoth at 6:33 AM on July 10, 2005

From the policies page:

"Angel Dollars: Gift Certificates to be used to pay entry fees to AWA Pageants. There are "Anytime" Angel Dollars- which are pink, and "Mini-National / National" Angel Dollars- which are blue. Redemption is limited to per prelim, per Mini-National, and per National. Are valid for 12 months, have no cash value, and are non-transferable. "

They don't even get ACTUAL prizes out of this! All they get are gift certificates that let them destroy their childrens' lives more cheaply!
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:48 AM on July 10, 2005

They ain't human.
posted by deborah at 9:00 AM on July 10, 2005

Someone needs to design a webapp that lets you do this to any headshot.

...i want to be beautiful, too...
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:24 AM on July 10, 2005

Real? Fake?... ???

If it's a hoax, it's a good one. Raegan looks real (the name seems fake, but he looks real), but the rest all have the glassy eyes. "AWA pageant" turns up nothing on Google ..
posted by mrgrimm at 8:26 PM on July 10, 2005

Aren't angels just dead humans?
posted by ColdChef at 8:45 PM on July 10, 2005

damn coldchef, good point.
and I'm going to back myself out of the uncanny valley of the dolls now...
posted by Busithoth at 9:15 PM on July 10, 2005

I'm horrified.
posted by FormlessOne at 10:41 PM on July 10, 2005

Oh.
My.
God.

Somebody plucked that baby's eyebrows.

I mean, seriously: when you're busy doing that to your baby, and she's squirming and crying and being held down and her eyelid area is turning pink -- unto the point where she just gives up beneath your stern, oblivious determination and looks back up at you with shocked, glazed muteness
... does it ever occur to you to wonder if this might be ... oh, I don't know ... WRONG?!?
posted by thewhynotgirl at 12:35 AM on July 11, 2005

this hideous display brings to mind "Beauty Kit for Little Girls" - though I'm sure this Quicktime nightmare is old news to this crowd...
posted by PrincessRue at 7:18 AM on July 11, 2005

Somebody plucked that baby's eyebrows.


No, they didn't, I promise. It's airbrushed to look like that. The woman I know that is big into pageants has pictures of her daughter just like those and believe me, the pictures look NOTHING like her daughter does on a daily basis. Her brows aren't plucked and she doesn't wear false eyelashes. For her pageants and portraits she wears fake hair and crap like that.

Pageants are really really horribly expoitative, I would NEVER put my daughter in one after seeing one in person.

This family is a huge pageant family, the link will show how far they take it.
posted by hollygoheavy at 8:07 AM on July 11, 2005

With love like this at home, I'm sure these girls won't go looking for it in the wrong places later.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:13 AM on July 11, 2005

Is this whole kiddy pageant thing a uniquely US American phenomena?

I've never heard of it being a big business/serious competition in Canada, but I'm the last person who would know.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:47 AM on July 11, 2005

"They wore the latest colors of lipstick and matching eyeliner. Some had fake hair and even fake teeth. They pranced on stage in sequined gowns and rhinestone-studded jeans.

Occasionally there was a problem. One girl in a pink sequined dress began to cry. The tears carried streaks of mascara down her face. Her mother grabbed her and tried to get the girl to stop crying. When she didn’t stop, her mother dragged her off the stage by the hand.

Meanwhile, an unfazed announcer told the audience that the girl was 2 years old, from Massachusetts, and her life’s ambition is to bring happiness to all who come into contact with her.

The girl stopped crying and began to eat Cheerios with the other beauty-pageant contestants. Her mother began laying out her rhinestone-studded jeans for the next phase of the competition – modeling." [Harvard University Gazette | June 08, 2000]

posted by ericb at 10:23 AM on July 11, 2005

"Pageants can be costly. Entry fees range from $100 to $200; there are travel expenses; a pageant dress can easily cost $150--or sometimes as much as $1,000--and the more competitive parents also invest in makeup and hair stylists (used by about 40 percent of entrants), wigs, false teeth to cover gaps from missing baby teeth, and beauty pageant 'coaches.' (Embellishments like the false teeth and hair indicated that the contests 'weren't just judging natural beauty,' Levey says.) One subject told her, 'I know people who have spent so much on pageants, they have lost their [house] trailers.'

The payoff, many parents say, is that their children learn social skills--interacting with others, making friends, not being shy....One mother declared, 'Competition is very healthy. It's the problem with today's educational system: there is none of it. We need competition to keep the idiots out of the workforce (emphasis added).' [Harvard Magazine | January 2001]

posted by ericb at 10:28 AM on July 11, 2005

Need more competition to keep the idiots from breeding, is more like it.

These moms sound like they have Manchausen-by-proxy syndrome.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:36 PM on July 11, 2005

More Scary Plastic People!

There's one in there with alien eyes. And I'm pretty sure they're not intentionally alien, it's just that they were 'shopped by someone who has lost all perspective on what real humans look like.

(link courtesy of, I think, Boingboing.)
posted by five fresh fish at 9:16 AM on July 12, 2005

Jon Benet anyone?

*shivers*
posted by amberglow at 9:18 AM on July 12, 2005

Funny, the site's all gone now. I don't feel as if I've missed anything that I needed to see in any case and I bet I sleep better than some of you who have been exposed.
posted by fenriq at 4:36 PM on July 20, 2005