This is cute. she has a donut on her head. There is nothing sexy about that... the stockings maybe but not that. In all seriousness though there's nothing overtly sexual about the picture, There would only be an issue if it were designed to titilate or exploit which is not the case in either way because she's covered in all the places that matter.
comment #9995 You obviously didn't grow up in the days when Sears sent its catalogs out for free. It was very common for them to show kids, teens, preteens, and adults in the underwear they sold. I believe they still do, it's just you have to pay to get the catalog so most people don't see it nowadays.
Even in the most extreme cases where courts have ruled that videos/images of fully clothed children were child pornography there was considerable focus on the covered genetalia of the child(ren). This girl's crotch area cannot be seen at all, her chest is obviously not the focus of the image either. She's not even in a sexually suggestive setting, she's posed on what looks to be a rug, something that's quite common in professional photography.
Basically, if you think this is illegal then _you_ have a problem. Obviously you thought it was sexually stimulating and that offended you. The rest of us are able to look at it and see a cute girl wearing a biscuit on her head. I've seen girls out in public wearing clothes more revealing than this.
