To put my comment I'm about to make in perspective, I'd like to tell a little bit of why I'm commenting in the first place.
I'm a young photographer, just starting out making my bones (not even 24 yet). I'm writing this post from a hotel in Hong Kong. I travel through Asia/India/Wherever taking photos that many would consider exploitative. I make images of the destitute and impoverished in areas of the world that most people have never even heard of. I don't do this to profit (yet), I do this for me. I hope one day I have books and stuff like that. I give each subject a nominal token ($10-$15 - which to them is often 2-4 weeks salary). I struggle with my own conscience, but I'm at peace knowing that what I'm doing is bringing a story back to a very jaded place.
So, as someone who does quite a bit of this type of work (feel free to view it on my website - I don't hide who I am), I feel I'm qualified to comment.
A travel photographer/documentarian/whomever has a responsibility to their subject to cast them in an honest manner without prejudicing the viewer. Moreover, a connection should be made with your subject (In my case, if it is a child, I will not photograph them without their parents permission - which is the only time I'd even ask for permission - my subjects either go with the flow or shake me off, we don't need to verbally communicate). I have never taken a portrait from more than a meter or so away from my subject. I look them in the eye and my biggest fear is that the connection I do make with my subject does not come through in the final image. I take one shot and that's it - the moment is fleeting and cannot be replicated. I'm not going to blow smoke and say that the photo is a work of art - it looks like a snap shot from a distance with no real connection (Of course I'm biased against those who choose to work in a different manner than I do - I can't help that, but I also won't hide it). The one thing that does impress me about it is the girls eyes. I've always found that my subjects (who I rarely, if ever, can verbally communicate with) tend to look directly into the camera. However, it also makes me wonder if the girl even knew she was being photographed (I have no clue how many tries it took to get it, what focal length, or where the photographer was who shot it...it looks like it was at a distance though).
I see the photograph and I see a girl holding a water jug behind her head (a very common thing for young children in 7th world countries to do - they work too). Looks like a natural kid's pose - ever go to the beach and see an infant walking around with the belly sticking out? (On a side note, I always find it precious that when you photograph children and you're bending down that they bend down as well). I don't find it sexual at all - I saw the photo from another board without a title and didn't think anything further.
The entire reason we're discussing this is because of the context it was put in with the title. This conversation does not happen if it isn't titled "Lolita." I was down in San Miguel in November and went to a show for David Alan Harvey and another photographer whose name escapes me. That second photographer was presenting photographs and narrating along (Harvey just let his work speak for itself). Afterward a discussion ensued about how this woman spoke through her lens and put such a negative light over all things Mexico. I was with Chuck Jones and he was damn near ballistic expressing his displeasure.
Doing what I do and what many others do, we tread a fine line between telling OUR story and telling THEIR story. I try my damnedest to be neutral (but compassionate) towards my subjects and let their stories come through in their faces (I can only remember one instance when I purposefully tilted the story in a negative direction and that was at a bullfight in Quito - and I still didn't title it, I tried to let my lens do the talking). I don't title my work, I have my own thoughts and beliefs about some of the people I photograph, but in the end, I'm not an artist - I am the medium. It is not my story to tell or offer an opinion on. I do what I do to bring an awareness towards these people and if I can help a little bit along the way, I do it.
So, I won't get into the debate whether the title is pedophilic or whatever. But I will say that it is not necessary. There is a story in that photo and it is up to the viewers to read that story (some may see what I see, a young girl holding a jug [maybe she isn't, I dont know], others may see a little girl in a sexually suggestive position - who knows), but it is up to the photographer to convey that story without adding their own opinions - that's not what this type of photography is about.