Underage and selling their sexuality [Archive]

Evil Chris

10-09-2002, 09:22 AM

I read Andy Dunn's sexswap newsletter (if you don't, you should) from cover to cover (almost) every time he sends it out, and this week he provided a link to an article that got me to thinking.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_501.shtml

The general scope of these sites is underage models who have their own sites. Non-nude, of course. In principal, they're accepted and legal (for now).

There is and has been, however, a trend among adult webmasters in the past 18 months or so. Non-nude galleries of underage female models (clothed) which push upsells to fully nude and/or hardcore teen sites. What's your take on this, if any?

black torana

10-09-2002, 09:49 AM

its still abuse plain and simple
what sort of site do they promote teen sites i bet even thought the models may be of age the punter gos there thinking or imaging there not
its sleazy i dont like it at all just another loop hole for kiddie porn i think
haveing two daughters i feel pretty strongly on this stuff
thats just what i think anyway
cheers robbie

Tafkap

10-09-2002, 09:55 AM

Did u have a look at the websites mentionned in that article?

Just have a look, that's terrible :

http://www.maxwells-teen-angels.com/

http://www.select-a-shoot.com/

::-|

DrGuile

10-09-2002, 01:41 PM

any monetary exploitation of minor's sexuality is wrong in my book.

no gray area, no non-nude is okay. If your trying to make money of minors and pedophile, you're a scumbag.

XxXotic

10-09-2002, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by DrGuile
any monetary exploitation of minor's sexuality is wrong in my book.

no gray area, no non-nude is okay. If your trying to make money of minors and pedophile, you're a scumbag.

couldnt have said it better myself

Cathedra

10-09-2002, 01:48 PM

Wow this looks like a very sticky situation. I think unfortunately this guy has found a loophole and is exploiting it. The girls are underage, no they are not naked, but they are definitely scantily clad, and in poses that are slightly suggestive in my opinion. He definitely covered his ass by calling them models, but..I dunno I don't agree with this and wonder what these girls' parents would have to say if they saw the kinds of sites their little girls are on. I'm curious is anyone in the up and up of the US government knows of this site.

Bottom line..this site leaves me feeling very uneasy. :badcomp:

Aly

10-09-2002, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Tafkap
Did u have a look at the websites mentionned in that article?

Just have a look, that's terrible ]

::-|

Jesus christ...

To go back to the more 'innocent' hypothetical question of clothed young girls... If they are presented or marketed or the images are used within a sexual context (which they are in these cases) then it's not only legally flawed, it's also fucking despicable.

My friend Gary and I have been discussing at great length what measures can be taken to shut this shit down. Obviously, certain measures are already in place and, of course, there will always be a certain amount of this out there, but ... there are ways to curb the profitability and feasability of this very hurtful stuff. We have some ideas of our own and are meeting with Joan from ASACP on Friday to brainstorm a bit. ... What are all your ideas? What can we do proactively that we are not currently doing?

Our industry's noisey about this a lot of the time, but I still think we are way too complacent. I, for one, intend to shake this up. A lot.

breaker

10-09-2002, 01:59 PM

Underage "kids" shouldn't be allowed to pose sexy on the net i think but damn i'm i the only one who thinks the first girl in the article looked hot for a 13year old.. damn i feel a bit sick and worried.

There will be an program about this on swedish tv tomorrow. About the largest teenage community site in sweden where teens have their sexy photos and make connections with others to have sex etc.

adltbiz

10-09-2002, 02:02 PM

i dont give a shit what this site says on their legal info.. this one site is pure illegal and should be taken down asap!

**edit: the URL was removed.

i hate child pornographers, they recently caught a few of them here in NYC and the worst part about all of it, was the guys arrested were cops!

gregtx

10-09-2002, 02:03 PM

without looking at the article.. my blind opinion...

If the models are clothed... then it is no worse than a swimsuit catalog.. or a large advertisement of kids in bathing suits in the window of "The Gap"...

I can't recall the artist's name.. at the moment.. but she does picures of nude babies.. that are sold in forms of calendars and wall hangings... it is all a fine of line of child porn and art... all in the eye of the beholder... some pedophile would find this "art" sexually arounsing, where as a mother of kids finds it "cute"...

It is all about where the line is drawn... and who is the nut case who crosses that line...

as of now I believe child porn.. it when the kids are forced into a "sexual act"... not just being nude... there are several artists who make a living from shooting nude kids frolicking on the beach...etc...

i'm rambling now...

cheers
greg

twinkley

10-09-2002, 02:03 PM

Yes, without a doubt, it is sick. Yes, they are somewhat suggestive poses and are scantily clad. Anyone who uses this as an upsell to a porn site should be shot. They are catering to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunatly, these sites are not going to go away. Why? Well, because these kids (and their parents) want to be genuine child models/actors and the internet is the perfect way to get exposure for themselves.

The only reason this is a problem is because it is now being associated with our industry due to some scumbags. Having nothing to do with our industry, child modeling sites are legit.

People see child models all the time and don't think of it as abuse. They are on TV, in magazines, aw hell, you can open up your newest Wal-Mart flyer and they are all over the place modeling toys, clothes, sports equipment - everything.

The internet IS a great tool - if used properly. Unfortunately, there are some verry sick people out there that would warp and twist it so that people - children especially get hurt. It's everyones job (esp. ours) to keep an eye on it and report anything wrong.

There is a difference between child porn and child modeling. NO ONE has the right (in my book at least) to insinuate, imply, produce, sell, or create child porn. It is EVERY persons right to be able to use the internet to further their legal, legitimate goals for the future.

twinkley

Ounique

10-09-2002, 02:03 PM

This stuff doesn't sit well with me. I mean, we have barely-legal stuff like other content providers but using a minor, even fully clothed, in that way is just not cool. Plus, it makes the whole industry look bad. Sure, one person is able to find a legal loophole and make a temporary profit from it, but at what cost. Getting the powers that be who are already against us to tighten the control they have over what can and can't be viewed over the internet by consenting adults. They will find a way to get a victory over this one thing and then drag a bunch of other things along with it that will really screw us all! I'm sorry, I try to stay out of controversial subjects but this one really bothers me. On the one hand I'm against any kind of porn that involves minors in any way, and on the other hand I'm very stubborn when it comes to my rights and the fact that they may be at risk. Giving them an excuse to take away more of our rights is just stupid. :mad:

BTW, Evil Chris, you need a "soapbox" smiley.

Bruno Dickman

10-09-2002, 02:08 PM

I tottaly disagree with that kind of activity! As Dr. Guile said "any monetary exploitation of minor's sexuality is wrong in my book" and thats wrong in my book too!

Fuck, there's so many thousands of hot legal teens out there, why do these imbeciles want to have the illegal ones - the kids? Thats fucking sick - they are a bunch of sick and twisted loosers with no brains. I am against death penalty, but there's always an exception to the rules, and I'd say "Fry these motherfuckers!" :mad:

Take care,

Bruno

adltbiz

10-09-2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by twinkley
Yes, without a doubt, it is sick. Yes, they are somewhat suggestive poses and are scantily clad. Anyone who uses this as an upsell to a porn site should be shot. They are catering to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunatly, these sites are not going to go away. Why? Well, because these kids (and their parents) want to be genuine child models/actors and the internet is the perfect way to get exposure for themselves.

The only reason this is a problem is because it is now being associated with our industry due to some scumbags. Having nothing to do with our industry, child modeling sites are legit.

People see child models all the time and don't think of it as abuse. They are on TV, in magazines, aw hell, you can open up your newest Wal-Mart flyer and they are all over the place modeling toys, clothes, sports equipment - everything.

the difference between the wal-mart ads and these are the kids are naked and selling the "fantasy" of having sex with not just a minor, but a child. BIG difference.

Aly

10-09-2002, 02:17 PM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AVN IS FIRST CORPORATE SPONSOR OF ASACP

ASACP (Adult Sites against Child Pornography) is pleased to announce that AVN is its first Corporate Sponsor at the Title level. AVN is the adult industry’s dominant trade publisher and produces the largest adult tradeshows and events. ASACP is the premier organization helping the adult site industry to make a difference in the battle against child pornography.

“We are pleased to be ASACP's first Title Sponsor and encourage other leaders of our industry to do the same. ASACP provides an invaluable service to the adult industry in its ongoing efforts to combat child pornography. We fully support ASACP and its vital mission,” said Paul Fishbein, Publisher of AVN (www.avn.com).

Aggressively expanding to meet the demand for its services, ASACP is increasing its visibility at industry tradeshows, working closer with government agencies and other organizations, and building awareness of ASACP on the Internet. ASACP receives over 80 reports of suspect child pornography a day - a 60% increase over prior year. The ASACP logo is proudly displayed on over 2000 adult sites that are taking a stand against child pornography.

If you are interested in learning more about ASACP or helping in the fight against child pornography, please view the ASACP site (www.asacp.org). If you are interested in supporting our vital mission by becoming a Corporate Sponsor or a Founding Member, please email joan@asacp.org.

Tera

10-09-2002, 02:24 PM

I agree with Twinkley here, I have not read the article as I don't have much time today, but this subject is something that is constantly circling around in the industry.

Teen model sites are completely legal but, I feel you don't have to go as far as dressing your under age daughter in lingerie and black pleather dresses to acheive an early career for her. The parents and photographers for these sites should take more responsibility in how they portray these teens and underage models expecially with the pics being distributed over the internet. I took a look at one of the sites and the models are dressed very seductivley and suggestive, and I don't agree with that. Parents should take more control but, I can't blame them, I am sure not all of them are educated on the dangers of doing that on the internet.

On the other hand this industry needs to take responsiblity and think before you make galleries of these young woman to upsell to hardcore teen porn. There is enough of a bad image of us in regular society and with the US governement, we all have rights and they are quickly being diminished in a lot of ways. We do not need the government to take control of our own industry, but if we don't take responsibility and think before we try and make the big bucks, they soon will be breathing down our necks.

ALY - Shake shit up!

I could go on and on and say more, but there is work to be done and I rambled long enough.. sorry for the long post!

Evil Chris

10-09-2002, 02:26 PM

Some people say that the child beauty pagaents are ok, and the child model section of the Sears catalog is ok... etc..
I yes I think that these things are fine. I do say that the pagaents get a little out of hand... esp with the parents of these kids.

But the kids in the Sears catalog are there for the purpose of selling clothing or toys. Not adult material.

Sly

10-09-2002, 02:37 PM

Thanks for the link Chris. Just reading over the article right now, have been reading a fair amount of discussions about this throughout the last several months.

First off, in no way, shape, or form am I condoning child pornography.

But let me ask you something quick, what did you think of Bobbi Jo? Without looking at the age, what did you think of her? Seriously. No need to lie, I thought she was gorgeous and had a great body. Does that make me a pedophile? I sure hope not.

Bottom line, are these girls being exploited? Absolutely. Are the girls at Club Seventeen, iTeen, and Bang Bus being exploited? Absolutely. Hell, Club Seventeen the word "seventeen" in it. What does that imply? They have cute looking teens swallowing cock and putting toys in each and every hole they can find. Yet I see it being promoted quite a bit, and I hear it retains quite well.

And then we have our cute 15 year old busty blonde from Alabama showing some skin. Damn her! Damn her parents! How could they! She's doomed! She'll be doing porn in no time!

Doesn't anyone notice anything fishy about this? Who are you to tell a 15 year old girl that she can't wear a bikini and dress sexy online, all while promoting a site that can easily imply 17 year olds are sucking cock on camera?

I may be a hypocrite at times, but this case is just too thick for me to fall into the "that's just wrong!" routine. Would I let my daughters do this? Absolutely not. Am I going to stop your daughters from doing this? Absolutely not. You make that decision, not me.

I will say, though, some of the examples in this article were very extreme end of course those operations should be shut down immediately. Sex with these minor models? No way. Completely out of line. And about the girl who gave her mothers boyfriend a handjob, come on. Don't place that stereotype on these girls. Just an isolated incident that this author is using to sway you towards his cause. This same exact situation happens too many girls all across the country, again, this isn't just a "model" thing.

Anyway, I'm off to lunch. Have a good day all! :)

RedShoe

10-09-2002, 02:39 PM

Hey, they don't call him Evil Chris for nuthin'.

Nice contraversial topic by the way. First let me say, having a daughter myself, I'd kill (or at least seriously mame) anyone that posted a pic of her, EVER! I don't care if she's 18 or 53 she's never going online in a provocative way. Not if I can help it.

Now you know where I stand. So then this next part just adds to the intersting topic.

Robert Mapplethorpe took pics of naked children and put them on display in (I think Cincinatti.. not sure if that's where it was, but regardless) a museum. People went ape shit. They demanded that the photos be pulled immediately. The photos were used in a triptic ( I think is the style of art) It's where a message is made by using 3 objects to convey the message.

Well, people were not considering the whole work of art, they were just fixed on the photos of the naked kids.

One of the kids was interviewed years later as an adult and didn't think anything was wrong with them. A lot of other people found them lude. Does that make it ok to display nude photos if after they are an adult, they consent?

Then I read somewhere that a girl had taken photos of herself when she was younger, stuff she had done on her own, and was posting them on the internet. She was now an adult and the photos were of her naked self as a minor.

Since she was the one that took the photos of herself nude as a minor, and since she was the one posting them, could she be convicted of posting underage content?

Tera

10-09-2002, 02:41 PM

Chris.. You are so correct, child beauty pageants get WAY out of hand.

What makes them out of hand is the parents, just like child sports. I am wondering how parents could sign off on pics of their children like that and have them posted on the internet with free gallery options and the like. Parents get way out of hand with child modeling and money making schemes just like adult webmasters do, but the difference is, irresponsible adult webmasters can cause problems throughout our whole industry and cause problems for responsible business men and woman.

Electra

10-09-2002, 02:42 PM

I am coming across more and more articles on the web where states and local police departments are looking at the "teen model" sites. I am in agreement with those who have posted that parents should take more responsibility in how they allow their children to pose for various catalogs.

Magnus3x

10-09-2002, 02:45 PM

I don't care how this shit is packaged it's just wrong! Some of these people and parents need a clue and the back of me hand!

Evil Chris

10-09-2002, 02:49 PM

I have no clue what goes on in the mind of pedophiles, however there is something about these pics that I don't understand.

Take the first pic of Bobbi Jo. She actually looks like she's 20 or 21.
If the end target to a pedo is underage, then what's the deal with making them up to look like they *are* of age?

SweetDominique

10-09-2002, 02:55 PM

In a way I am glad my site is not big enough to get all that attention from the media. I am over 18 years old and have the right to run my modeling site.
I do agree that some of the models that they wrote about are not old enough to make there own decisions and that is wrong.

I do not trade traffic with any of the underage non nude sites, but as long as the models are over 18 and can make a responsible decision it is fine. My site is just like any other amateur site, but my niche is Non Nude. I am always categorized into all Non Nude sites. I think webmasters have to educate themselves and understand that Non Nude is just a specific Niche and should not be categorized with the "Pre- Teen" Non Nude sites.

I do not like to hear that models have been taken advantage of by there photographers or agents.

I have been lucky enough to team up with some really good webmasters and have full support from the great support from all the affiliates. The conversions are excellent and now that we have networked all the sites together the retention is amazing!

I am always updating the FREE content you need to promote my site. If you would like to take a look at it , you can find it here,

RedShoe

10-09-2002, 03:04 PM

Dominique, Did you shoot that photo set "RedShoes" just for me??? :D

Aly

10-09-2002, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by RedShoe

Robert Mapplethorpe took pics of naked children and put them on display in (I think Cincinatti.. not sure if that's where it was, but regardless) a museum. People went ape shit. They demanded that the photos be pulled immediately. The photos were used in a triptic ( I think is the style of art) It's where a message is made by using 3 objects to convey the message.

Mapplethorpe was indeed controversial in his actions, and purposefully so, I imagine. He was, however, pushing the envelope on nudity and art, not sexuality. Kids, clothed or unclothed, presented in a non-sexual way can be art or advertising or whatever. Pics of kids, clothed or unclothed, or even in their bloody snowsuits, that are used in a sexual context cross the line. It's a matter of context.

gregtx

10-09-2002, 03:30 PM

very interesting arguments... for sure..

IMHO

A. we all use images to promote sites... whether they were intended to be portrayed as "see this chick swallow ten 40 inch cocks"... and its a pic of an 18 year old girl topless... shooting her first "playboy" style shoot... I see it everyday on everyones sites... so before anyone calls the kettle black.. step back and see exactly what you promote yourself...

B. Why would you shoot material to portray underage girls??? Appereantly you want to promote the fantasy of underage girls on sites... No????

C. So now do we go after sights that have a picture of a horse and a girl.. on the tour.. even though there is no beastiality inside the site??? just because it portrays the ideals of beastyality???

Being in this industry... you should really watch what you want your government to censor and regulate... give them one step and they will take 10...

luke

10-09-2002, 03:31 PM

I don't agree with these kind of sites at all either. I wanted to watch that show that the article talks about but I missed it. If a 16 year old really wanted a "modeling site", why would they charge money and have a member's section? And the parents of these kids who agree with it should be put in jail. I've got a daughter and there is NO WAY I would let her do something like this or try to make her do something like this to make a quick buck.

Another thing that gets me are the cc processors that are processing for these sites. If I was a credit card processor, there's no way I would process for one of these sites. Being that I run an avs too, there's no way I'd let a site like be accepted. Like I would go and make a new catagory called "non-nude underage teens...ATTENTION ALL PEDOPHILES".

Just my 2 cents...

Sly

10-09-2002, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by luke
I don't agree with these kind of sites at all either.
And I don't agree with tranny sites. And gay sites. BBW sites. BDSM sites. And...

luke

10-09-2002, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Sly

And I don't agree with tranny sites. And gay sites. BBW sites. BDSM sites. And...

I don't personally surf or like sites like that but I don't see anything wrong legally with them.

sherie

10-09-2002, 04:02 PM

Just curious about (**edit: The URL was removed) I thought the word lolita was not allowed?

Just a couple of weeks ago there was a show on Dateline about parents helping out their underage daughters build and promote websites with the intent to gain members. These girls were in sexual poses with teddies, nighties swimsuits etc. These parents were and are literally pimping their children out.

1) Any site that is found using these teen sites to promote porn should be shut down and charged and publicly humiliated.

2) Parents who are aware and allow this behavior should be charged. ( and condemned to death, but that's just MO) and publicly humiliated!

3) Billing companies etc, should have a team going through all of these sites and investigating, hell knows they have enough money to hire employee's to do this sort of thing. Sure they say it's being done, but they obviously need more people and be more diligent in the fight to stop this shit!

There's more I could say, but I must get some work done!

Cyndalie

10-09-2002, 04:31 PM

I think this just signifies a generation of kids who are/will be discovering their sexuality in the eyes of the public on the net. Tell me that when you were 16 and you and your BF could chat online with a web cam what would you do?Still have phone sex? gimme a break

Ultimately it's their parent's responsibility to know what their kids are doing and be aware and involved and I dont think the links should be posted on an adult webmaster boards or places where sex is the usual topic, let's not give anyone ideas.

Horg

10-09-2002, 04:35 PM

I agree with everything that is being said in here 100%. These people are sick fucks and the little girls are either :
1. forced to do this, which is inaceptable
2. doing this for the money, in which case they are not worth more than the psychos taking pictures of them.
I can't believe what people will do for fucking money. The population is getting sickier (in the head) each year it seems. If sites like that exist it's because people look for content like that. It's not the people producing this kind of content which are the worse, it's the people looking for it, and it's them who should die long agonizing deaths (that applies to you too EvilChriss if you enjoy underage digital, not because you are the big boss here that you can do what you want, understood ? ;) ).

Horg

10-09-2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Cyndalie
... I dont think the links should be posted on an adult webmaster boards or places where sex is the usual topic, let's not give anyone ideas.

I think they should be posted and discussed, the best way to make sick people want to do these sites is to make them taboo subjects.

Sly

10-09-2002, 04:40 PM

It's great that everyone here is saying the same things about NON-NUDE sites that many members of the common public say about HARDCORE PORN. Very interesting.

Tera

10-09-2002, 04:50 PM

There is varied opinions.. and context has everything to do with it. Non nude sites are legal and so are modeling sites and the like. But, when using Non Nude underage girls to promote hardcore porn, you are using underage girls with the context being sex, and context means everything when dealing in porn. (from what I find anyways, correct me if I am wrong)

Evil Chris

10-09-2002, 04:51 PM

I would be willing to bet that the common public shares the same views on Non nude sites that we, in our community, do.

Ronaldo

10-09-2002, 05:02 PM

My take on this Chris?

Bobbi Jo IS a very attractive young lady. Being up there in age now (34) i find it harder and harder to tell the age of some of these young ladies. IF I DIDN'T KNOW HER AGE and stumbled across a site dedicated to her, I'd more than likely be taking a look. Does that make me a pedophile? Hardly.

I would class someone as a pedophile if he has an interest in CHILDREN. I would define a CHILD as an UNDERDEVELOPED person, both in mind and appearance. If a 13 year old girl looked like a woman, can you not be attracted to this person? Even if you knew her age. She LOOKS LIKE A WOMAN.

If this 13 year old girl (damn. young lady), had the body that a 13 year old girl is stereotyped to have, then I would think that this is what a pedophile should be classed as.

Now having said all of that and admitted that I find Bobbi Jo attractive, would I have sex with the same 13 year old girl. The answer would be an emphatic NO. This person might have the physical maturity, but doesn't have the emotional maturity to deal with intimacy or sexual issues.

Should these young ladies be allowed to pose in suggestive ways to induce a sexual reaction? Again, I say no. I don't consider a bathing suit sexually suggestive. You can go anywhere and see children and adults alike wearing bathing suits in public. Undergarments is a completely different matter. This in and of itself is sexually suggestive.

Those that produce and promote this material, have very low moral standards and one day, I believe it will come back and bite them in the ass. Unfortunately, some of these young ladies will also suffer irrepairable damage.

So what IS the magic age? For consent it is generally regarded as 15-16 I believe. For legal issues it is 18. But, it is 16 in Holland. Who's right? And what's the difference in 2-3 years? Maturity? Yes. Physical attributes? Not in every case.

Age is not subjective, but neither are physical attributes.

Damn, Chris you bastard. I was busy enough already today and you go and throw a thread like this at me where I could ramble on forever.

P.S. Young ladies develop a lot earlier than they did 15-20 years ago. I read that it had something to do with the contents of some of our fast foods. Fast food has been one of the biggest growing industries in the past 10-15 years. Coincidence? Perhaps.

gregtx

10-09-2002, 05:09 PM

Hmmmm...

So exploiting kids in foreign countries to get illegal drugs to webmaster functions is "ok'...

its always wrong if you aren't benefitting from it... No???

NOT that I condone this... but come on...

"kids in full clothing"... kids being raped by adults.. totally apples and oranges....

I do not agree with these peeps marketing ideals... but again... where do you really want to draw that line???

-=HUNGRYMAN=-

10-09-2002, 05:38 PM

Whether the models are nude or not ... it is now illegal to portray a child under 18 in any scenerio that is sexually suggestive ... and ASHCROFT will have your number eventually ...

That is just wrong, and anybody who is profitting from putting minors in sexually suggestive poses to arouse men old enough to be their fathers and even grandfathers, should have their nutz ripped off using a rusty piece of barbed wire !!! :mad:

SweetDominique

10-09-2002, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Evil Chris
I would be willing to bet that the common public shares the same views on Non nude sites that we, in our community, do.

You cannot generalize all Non Nude sites with "Pre Teen" Non Nude sites.
The Non Nude webmaster community has it's own rules and regulations. They police there community and work together to make the Non Nude Niche is working with in the law, not outside the law.

That means NOT trading or supporting "Pre Teen" non nude sites and blacklisting webmasters.

I am sure some of the common public is not educated to the fact that all Non Nude sites are NOT "Pre teen" Non Nude sites.
Our community and the common public need to understand that NOT all Non Nude sites are "Pre Teen" .

gregtx

10-09-2002, 06:05 PM

Fuck it...

I'm now boycotting Barnes and Noble for selling
"Teen" , Seventeen, "Bop", 'YM", "teen YM".....

gadzooks, the gap, Just add water.. b/c they have young girls in suggestive poses....

DONE...

I feel better.. and the world will be a better place.. I"M SURE OF IT...

Shann

10-09-2002, 06:17 PM

i am almost speechless after reading that article. What chance will these girls have at a normal life when they ARE 18? What is left for them to do next? And this is all with parental consent? Are these parent's giving consent for these girl's to be molested by sleazy photographers, give them hand jobs or WHATever???

I was in shock when i read that the girl in the first picture, was just 13. Is it that she looks so much older or is it the way she is posed? Don't see poses likethat in the Sears catalog do you. For good fucking reason too.

I have looked at sites and questioned the age of the women depicted on the tours with some companies. If I don't like it, i will not promote it and I will not keep my mouth shut either.

As far as this non nude modelling being a gateway to mainstraeam modelling............ sounds like women in porn looking to break into mainstream Hollywood. NOT fucking likely. I don't recall Traci Lords being nominated for an Oscar, did I miss that somehow?

And thank you Aly for posting that info about ASACP. It is something I definately want to be involved in.

I have a daughter, and over my fucking DEAD BODY would i allow that. She too looks much older and at 11 years old and 5'6 I see grown men looking at her and it makes me want to tear their heads off. She has told older boys that show interest in her "I am only 11". Any parent who allows these seductive pictures to be taken of their children, and no matter how fast they grow up now and how the media is twisted their minds, they are STILL CHILDREN, should have their kids removed from their homes and be charged with abuse.

Is there anything anymore that is sacred???

Tam

10-09-2002, 06:36 PM

I'll just hit this very briefly. If I don't then I would be here for hours on this subject as it is a very tender subject for me as a mother of 4 kids, two of which are girls. One age 4 and one age 18........

If I EVER caught one of my kids, male or female in a situation like this I would come unglued. I can't IMAGINE these girls parents allowing this, I know they do but they are some sick sick fucks in my opinion. ANYTHING being of a sexual nature to girls under the age of 18 is just sick and their parents should be shot.........

If their parents do NOT know they are doing this, then they need to be a bit more involved with what their kids are doing on these damn computers. My kids ALL have access to the internet but know without a doubt that at ANY given time I will go and see what they have been doing and if I even catch a hint of them doing anything like this, they lose access to a computer. The younger kids computer is in main line of traffic, so I can see what they are doing.... my 18 yr old has her computer in her room.... which still makes me a bit nervous, but she is 18, I worry more about men fucking with her head than her looking at porn......

These parents that allow this or "don't know" to me one is just as bad as the other..... this is just plain wrong. I realize at the age of 16 they are experimenting with sex and such...... but they should be taught the right way and the wrong way to go about things, and making it viewable on the internet is NOT the right thing to do at that age.

This just makes me sick all the way around.... and SOMEONE should be teaching these girls more than what they are teaching them!!!!!

gregtx

10-09-2002, 07:35 PM

Is there anything anymore that is sacred???

__________________

KICK MIDGETS MIDGETS MIDGETS

=============================

hypocracy knows no bounds
:eek:

love ya Shannon.... ;-))

again.. that distinction of art vs kp.... who wants to draw it... this is a great argument... not that I have a firm stand on either side yet...

but I have already now decided to boycott.. Barnes and Nobel... Gadzooks... etc.. b/c I konw that those magazines.. and ads in their stores... lead to SATAN... child porn.. and teenage pregnancy and cancer....

Darin

10-09-2002, 08:41 PM

Theres only one thing that will stop these assholes.

Thats a bat up their ass, so they know what it feels like. Putting logos on your site aint gonna do shit, anyone want to help find these bastards and knock on their front door with me?

:badcomp:

LeeNoga

10-09-2002, 09:11 PM

As disapointing as this whole concept of exploiting underage children as a front end to selling "porn" will not be something that will be easily erradicated. Our industry struggles to combat actual infractions of pedophilia and CP [those things that are regulated by law].

Yup, this is with great ethical compromise but ethics has not always turned the wheels of justice.

Our industry is not as strong of a community as we once were for several reasons, and our industry cannot police the bad decisions of others. However, each webmaster can decide what lines they cross and focus on navigating their own careers, [ie-chosing of "ethical" alliances, not supporting traffic avenues that accept these dispicable sites, drop sponsors that accept these kind of affiliates etc. etc. etc.]

As the dollars become laborious to make, you will continue to see erosion in some webmasters moral fabric in hopes of capturing a niche that pays well with little time investment and effort [ "unusual content"].

All YOU can do for this situation posturing of minors to sell sex is:

a) DON'T resort to this to make a fast back
b) DON't enable any webmaster engaging in this practice [traff swaps]
c) REPORT to sponsors sites that carry this content
d) Alert traffic TGP's. linkgs, toplists, AVS proggies that carry these sites

Lastly:

Visit a dentist for a bite plate for those times when we grind our teeth knowing this child explitation problem has no real solution.

For every CP shutdown it pops up somewhere else...and clearly this is the worst of the 2 situations in this thread [actual CP vs exploitation clothed], and its still with us.

Vid Vicious

10-09-2002, 10:15 PM

Oh my god ... I felt like I should be arrested for just clicking on those links ... I'm clear my cache .. I suggest that y'all do the same ...

Funbrunette

10-09-2002, 10:35 PM

This is all very disturbing. I actually watched this on a talk show the other day (I think it was the John Walsh show...) I honestly think these people need to be stopped and arrested. We need to report them and the last thing we should do is encourage them by posting their links JUST REPORT THEM ASAP!!!

It's obvious the world we live in isn't perfect, but why would someone exploit children?!? It really makes me sick and sad...

And how about the parents of these little girls? Are they crazy? Don't they realize what's going on out there?

Well, were not going to change the world, but we can start to make a difference!

Toolz

10-09-2002, 11:19 PM

Lee,

It's a shitty thread to jump in on but I haven't talked with you in awhile, hit me up when you get a chance, 92440098 on the icq or shawn@tooley.us You know I love it when you're on your knees ;)

Anyways my take on the thread, this shit is detrimental to our industry as a whole, one bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch. Greg, I love ya but as a content provider I would have hoped you made a clearer statement on how detrimental to our industry this shit is.

Police ourselves or wait for a 60-year-old bald guy on Capitol Hill to do it for us, me I choose us as the better judge.

Shann

10-09-2002, 11:20 PM

The first time I saw KP I was working in an office for a major co and clicked in a webmaster sign up. I went into the bathroom and almost vomitted and quit my job on the spot. I stood in that bathroom and re-evaluated my job. These were very young girls being exploited. You can't vote, you can't drive, you cant' drink but you can pose nude or in suggestive poses? That is ALL wrong.

That was 2 years ago, and I now have decided to be FAR more pro-active in drawing lines of distinction. Emailing MTV about banning Britnety Spears videos ain't gonna cut it. These people need to be stopped in a big way. Everyone has a cause, and fuck this seems a damn good one. I can get over some women being exploited and pretending they like spunk in their eyes, but THIS is not acceptable.

Darin

10-10-2002, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Toolz
Lee,

It's a shitty thread to jump in on but I haven't talked with you in awhile, hit me up when you get a chance, 92440098 on the icq or shawn@tooley.us You know I love it when you're on your knees ;)

Anyways my take on the thread, this shit is detrimental to our industry as a whole, one bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch. Greg, I love ya but as a content provider I would have hoped you made a clearer statement on how detrimental to our industry this shit is.

Police ourselves or wait for a 60-year-old bald guy on Capitol Hill to do it for us, me I choose us as the better judge.

Like I said, a Bat and a knock on the door. Works wonders.

sherie

10-10-2002, 03:42 AM

Well we all agree that it is ALL fucking wrong!

Ladies, remember when we were approached by all those loser, older scumbag, pedophile sick fucks?! Ya you do! (sorta like now but a wee bit different)

I will tell you what, I am so much more aware now than I ever was...My brother, nephew's, my bestfriends daughter ( who can kick ass!) If ANYONE ever did anything I would have to take matters into my own hands. A steak knife can do wonders!!

12clicks

10-10-2002, 10:49 AM

This is kinda old news in the mainstream world. (at least for us)
When we first started buying per click traffic in mainstream, we got a lot of these non-nude sites sending us traffic. At first we just thought they teen sites made by other teens. Since they WERE NOT pushing porn, we didn't have a problem. Once we took a closer look though, we realized that this was more a pedophile front type of thing and not a "teen" thing.
So long ago we stopped doing Biz with them.

To those of you arguing that its ok and making dopey comments about teen magazines, I hope its just Chris paying you to be controversial on the board because if you're really that clueless, I feel sorry for you.

gregtx

10-10-2002, 11:03 AM

I'm now anti Britney Spears and Christina Aguilara...

Their marketing of music via sex appeal when they were underage is just unfathomably... disgusting Britney's mother should be soooo ashamed...

I'll find more...

gregtx

10-10-2002, 11:42 AM

For the record.. "No I do not agree with taking suggestive pics of kids and using them to market anything"...

But... Yes... Britney, Teen magazine.. etc.. is the same thing... sexually suggestive pictures of underage models... used to sell products...

Was dressing britney in suggestive attire for concerts and pictures... when she was just 15 any different??? Have any of you ever promoted a site to see pics of "katie holmes... Britney... Christina Aguilara... Anna Kournakova.. have you ever cashed a check promoting any of these sites??? what is the difference... PLEASE EXPLAIN to me... b/c i'm missing it...

twinkley

10-10-2002, 11:48 AM

It's not the site that is wrong, or immoral or illegal. It's the way it's marketed.

If these kids and their parents choose to dress them scantily and take pictures of them in hopes of it helping their future in modeling, so be it. They have every right to do so.

They should not be marketing a child as "the next playboy bunny" or as a teaser to get into hardcore sites. that is just wrong.

Someone had brought up the way we market "barely legal" and "teen" sites. Yes, we are marketing them as young, but not underage.

EvilChris - you mentioned the sears catalog was used to sell clothes or toys - not adult material. Okay, lets take this one step further....

How about seventeen magazine? teen magazine? cosmo girl? all of these magazines ARE selling sexuality to teen girls. Most of the models are underage, dressed to impress, often in the SAME clothes you see the girls in this article in. They talk about sex, boys, getting boys to notice you, how to "be an aggresive woman" etc. etc. etc.

Yet no one seems to have a problem with it. Why? Because it is MARKETED to teen girls for teen girls. Does this mean that the scumbag pedo. doesnt pick up the new issue each month? NO. Hell, most of these mags, you can even find male celebrity (scantily clad) centerfolds in!

It's sad to see that the girls in this article were/are being taken advantage of by their parents and photographers. But that doesnt mean that anyone should come in and shut down all the modeling sites because of some bad apples. If that were the case, we would have all been out of jobs a looooong time ago, because the entire business would have been shut down due to real CP.

In the end, its really the PARENTS job to protect thier children. The girl in the article who wants to quit and her mom wont let her.... I would love to get her mom in a room alone for 5 minutes and beat the hell out of her. That is abuse. A true "modeling" site would not be charging a recurring fee to see a portfolio.

twinkley

Darin

10-10-2002, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by gregtx
I'm now anti Britney Spears and Christina Aguilara...

Their marketing of music via sex appeal when they were underage is just unfathomably... disgusting Britney's mother should be soooo ashamed...

I'll find more...

Britney played the LOLITA bigtime, and it worked. Well, at least it worked for me :D

Evil Chris

10-10-2002, 02:49 PM

I hate to censor, but you'll notice that the few URLs in here for the lolita site have been removed.

Ronaldo

10-10-2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Evil Chris
I hate to censor, but you'll notice that the few URLs in here for the lolita site have been removed.

Removed. But bookmarked eh Chris :D

Horg

10-10-2002, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by gregtx
I'm now anti Britney Spears and Christina Aguilara...

Their marketing of music via sex appeal when they were underage is just unfathomably... disgusting Britney's mother should be soooo ashamed...

I'll find more...

You should be anti-MTV then. Popular culture right now is based on sex and violence. I have nothing against sex, and nothing against violence in medias, as long as they are used with a purpose, but that's another very big debate. Most of the video clips we see on tv are from rappers with dozens of nameless babes in bikini (and with hard titties to be more suggestive), sluts like Spears and Aguilera, and violent wannabees like Limp Bizkit. Whether they know it or not, they are influencing a lot of people, the same way public radio was influencing people listening to it when it first appeared. They don't have any responsabilities anymore, and what's even worse is that teens follow the trend like sheeps. My kids will only be able to watch Star Wars me says !

barryf

10-10-2002, 05:22 PM

That shit is sick and wrong.

The interesting part is that it's not only the Adult Internet community that's doing it... Calvin Klein got in trouble a few years ago for a series of ads that featured underage models (male & female) in provocative poses that revealed their underwear. He had to pull all the ads. Also it is impossible today to flip through a fashion mag without seeing 15-year-old models posing like 21-year-old porn stars.

And yet when the hammer falls WE are the ones who will pay.

B

Hashishan

10-10-2002, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Horg

You should be anti-MTV then. Popular culture right now is based on sex and violence. I have nothing against sex, and nothing against violence in medias, as long as they are used with a purpose, but that's another very big debate. Most of the video clips we see on tv are from rappers with dozens of nameless babes in bikini (and with hard titties to be more suggestive), sluts like Spears and Aguilera, and violent wannabees like Limp Bizkit. Whether they know it or not, they are influencing a lot of people, the same way public radio was influencing people listening to it when it first appeared. They don't have any responsabilities anymore, and what's even worse is that teens follow the trend like sheeps. My kids will only be able to watch Star Wars me says !

very true

"get all you can today kids, dont leave anything for tomorrow"

color me pessimistic, the future looks pretty bleak

LeeNoga

10-10-2002, 05:27 PM

Well of course we are gonna pay Barry our business uses underage clothed minors as a front end for teen sex [even if 18+], in these times I doubt Calvin Klein would be challenged...and their models were front ended for undergarments which does not provoke public reaction like front end to sex will.

Horg

10-11-2002, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Hashishan

very true

"get all you can today kids, dont leave anything for tomorrow"

color me pessimistic, the future looks pretty bleak

I think that a very big reason why kids are so damn stupid nowadays is because of their parents who don't care of what they watch and listen to. When I was a kid I could not watch TV during the week or watch violent movies. It took forever before my parents let me watch the batman movie. Of course I was not very happy about it but now I am. My parents thought me good values I think. Even then I don't watch much tv (but lots of movies) and I find that most violent medias are totally wrong.

barryf

10-11-2002, 04:54 AM

Lee you are right. And as an industry we should work together against individuals who run sites like that. But as the article states these sites exist with full parental approval. They are the ones who could shut down these sites immediately but don't because they are just as greedy as the webmasters and they know they will never face any legal liability.

Modeling portfolios for 13-year-old girls do not need to include provocative poses in string bikinis.

B

12clicks

10-11-2002, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by gregtx
Have any of you ever promoted a site to see pics of "katie holmes... Britney... Christina Aguilara... Anna Kournakova.. have you ever cashed a check promoting any of these sites??? what is the difference... PLEASE EXPLAIN to me... b/c i'm missing it...

Having never had to stoop to this level, I wouldn't know and can therefore (as usual) cast stones.

Raya

10-11-2002, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Aly-Python

Jesus christ...

To go back to the more 'innocent' hypothetical question of clothed young girls... If they are presented or marketed or the images are used within a sexual context (which they are in these cases) then it's not only legally flawed, it's also fucking despicable.

My friend Gary and I have been discussing at great length what measures can be taken to shut this shit down. Obviously, certain measures are already in place and, of course, there will always be a certain amount of this out there, but ... there are ways to curb the profitability and feasability of this very hurtful stuff. We have some ideas of our own and are meeting with Joan from ASACP on Friday to brainstorm a bit. ... What are all your ideas? What can we do proactively that we are not currently doing?

Our industry's noisey about this a lot of the time, but I still think we are way too complacent. I, for one, intend to shake this up. A lot.

I am all for shaking things up. As a photographer and webmaster well all I can say is just tell me how to help. This is horrible. I am not surprised but I am sickened by this. Sigh! Allie let us know what we can do.

gregtx

10-11-2002, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Horg

I think that a very big reason why kids are so damn stupid nowadays is because of their parents who don't care of what they watch and listen to. When I was a kid I could not watch TV during the week or watch violent movies. It took forever before my parents let me watch the batman movie. Of course I was not very happy about it but now I am. My parents thought me good values I think. Even then I don't watch much tv (but lots of movies) and I find that most violent medias are totally wrong.

and ya ended up being a pornographer... hehe ;-))

LeeNoga

10-11-2002, 11:15 AM

Yeah, we all turned to porn, how ironic and back in the old days when the net first became profitable, alot of interesting backgrounds, like engineers, accountants etc....

As for this underage thing, nothing can surprise many that have been thru this adult net evolution from beginning. We realize we can only fight the battles we can "win", and not support those entities that rub us the wrong way such as the clothed underage models. If it were me I would not associate with any company that supports these sites, and would accept that as my voice in protest, short of that nothing we can do.

gregtx

10-11-2002, 11:22 AM

Love ya Lee... ;-))

Did ya have a nice visit with Faye??? heard she was heading your way after Curacao???

LeeNoga

10-11-2002, 11:28 AM

Hey'a Greg, Fay had less than 24 hours with me and I took her pier fishing in Daytona area, and she caught 1 grouper [undersized] but was still arounf 15 inches and one keeper mangrove snapper. Fishing is my love and my 4 grouper and 3 Snapper did not count because they wer all undersized...

Bottom line, Fay out FISHED me! Argh :-)

How ya been my friend?

Horg

10-11-2002, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by gregtx

and ya ended up being a pornographer... hehe ;-))

Yup hehe
But notice that my parents did not stop me from watching sexy stuff. Of course they would not have let me watch a porno at 12, but they were pretty open minded when it came to sexuality and thought me all I needed to know and explained it too. They were not the ones shy about talking about it, it was me hehe
I remember when I was a teen, maybe 15 or 16, my mom took a book about teens at the library and it was refering to masturbation in it and she asked us (my twin brother and I) if we started doing it already (with a big smile cause she knew we were shy about it, and was not expecting an answer from us anyway), and my dad yelled from the other room "I HOPE YOU GUYS DO". hehe
I think that day I figured that masturbation was not a bad thing.

gregtx

10-11-2002, 11:49 AM

haha nice... horg...

Lee.. sounds like fun... i'm workin on my fly fishin' techniques... tell ya its a challenge... !!! especially when ya only do it once a month...

cheers

PattyeCake

10-11-2002, 01:16 PM

Ounique

10-11-2002, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Horg

But notice that my parents did not stop me from watching sexy stuff... they were pretty open minded when it came to sexuality and thought me all I needed to know and explained it too.

Horg, you have no idea how lucky you are. I grew up in a house where sex was seen as something dirty. I even got yelled at for watching Benny Hill!!! Add that to the fact that I'm gay and my parents were Catholic made things even harder. I had major issues as a young adult. It took me a long time undestand what sexuality was all about, especially my own. Wow, there's an interesting side to this conversation. From too much sexuality to not enough. I guess there is a line that you follow as a parent. I think it's best to be open about it without being exploitive. What do your parent's think of you working it this industry?

Platinum Dave

10-12-2002, 02:42 PM

You see some of those girls, hard to believe they are that young, Breasts like a full grown women on a few of the girls.

These sites are fine, shit they are not nude and if someone wants to look at these pics he can pick up many magazines to see the exact same pictures.

At least its controlled, and its the girls willing and wanting to excell their careers in modeling.

Horg

10-12-2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Ounique

Horg, you have no idea how lucky you are. I grew up in a house where sex was seen as something dirty. I even got yelled at for watching Benny Hill!!! Add that to the fact that I'm gay and my parents were Catholic made things even harder. I had major issues as a young adult. It took me a long time undestand what sexuality was all about, especially my own. Wow, there's an interesting side to this conversation. From too much sexuality to not enough. I guess there is a line that you follow as a parent. I think it's best to be open about it without being exploitive. What do your parent's think of you working it this industry?

Yes I heard a lot of guys like you kill themselves because it's too hard with conservative parents and conservative neighborhoud to be a young gay male (or young lesbian I guess).

My parent's don't really like me working in this industry because it is a sexist world with exploited women. I personally never met any exploited porn girl but I'm quite sure there are lots of them. This whole thread for example is about almost exploiting kids I think. "Hey kid, how about making lots of money if I take pictures of you in your underwear?". Kids don't know what they are doing at that age... But on the other hand they know that I am only doing graphics and am not getting into trouble so they still talk to me and everything hehe. Thinking of it, I bet if I was an independant photographer doing erotic pictures (not hardcore) and creating my own picture books with my name on it they would be ok with it.

Shann

10-12-2002, 03:05 PM

DAVE OMG! Girls develop physically early then ever, emotionally they do not. There have been studies conducted on how differently young girls are treated due to their breast size, everyone from friends, to teachers to strange men leering at them cripples their self esteem.

Non nude but WHAT is the target market? Is it Elite modelling, Ford perhaps? Is that where Madonna looks for her extras in her videos? Or no wait, her CASTING agent does riht??? Is that how Linda Evangelista and Christy Turlington were discovered? Posing scantlily clad on the internet while underage? I think not. These non nude sites are a gateway for pedophiles. Girls that young, don't need to be worrying about becoming playboy bunnies. These are not decisions to be made by young girls. The article that started all this had 7 and 11 year olds in suggestive poses. Fully clothed. THAT is ok?? Would YOU show your friends that and say "hey isn't this cool?".

Yet again, the parallel I draw on "the girls wanting to get excel their careers in modelling" is SUCH a load of shit. That is like porn stars saying they started sucking cock to make it into mainstream. I don't see any Meryl Streeps who started out sucking cock, have you? Please don't bother mentioning Jenna in a couple vidoes and Traci Lords in Melrose where she actually got to speak! GASP

Talk to any reputable modelling agent or agency. I have. They do NOT recommend these bullshit sites to enhance careers, not to mention that any reputable agency, doesn't put 7, 11 and 13 year olds in those suggestive poses. Hence the Calvin Klein ad drama a few years back.

Parent's exploiting their OWN children for a quick buck are worse then the photographers. 7, 11 and 13 year old girls can't vote anywhere as far as I know and sure as fuck not in North America. They can't even drive. Should they be allowed to decide if they should spread their legs or not and look coy??? Should they be allowed to stay out after 11:00 is what the question SHOULD be.

Could not find that soapbox icon for this though it needs it.

BuggyG

10-12-2002, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Cathedra
Wow this looks like a very sticky situation. I think unfortunately this guy has found a loophole and is exploiting it. The girls are underage, no they are not naked, but they are definitely scantily clad, and in poses that are slightly suggestive in my opinion. He definitely covered his ass by calling them models, but..I dunno I don't agree with this and wonder what these girls' parents would have to say if they saw the kinds of sites their little girls are on. I'm curious is anyone in the up and up of the US government knows of this site.

Bottom line..this site leaves me feeling very uneasy. :badcomp:

Gotta agree with ya on this. Am surprised to see what peopel can get away with. Loophols always are there, but I'd think somethign like this would have been looked into.

http://www.joinrightnow.com/images/advertising/join_120x60_b.gif (http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=912732-0000&PA=347904&HTML=http://www.joinrightnow.com)

BuggyG

10-12-2002, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by breaker
Underage "kids" shouldn't be allowed to pose sexy on the net i think but damn i'm i the only one who thinks the first girl in the article looked hot for a 13year old.. damn i feel a bit sick and worried.

There will be an program about this on swedish tv tomorrow. About the largest teenage community site in sweden where teens have their sexy photos and make connections with others to have sex etc.

Ok I forgot who wrote it in their post, but have to agree with it. UNDERAGE kids as you say so too, should not be be allowed to show their stuff. Ok, some miight look older then they are but the bottom line is...they still UNDERAGE. Which in my book, all comes down to being a pedophile. I mean like it or not, they still KIDS.!!! And that is somethign I never did understand and will always be against. The exploitation of minors.

Ok...sorry for the rant there. But had to get out. I feel much better now. WOOHOO!! :hippy:

http://www.joinrightnow.com/images/advertising/join_120x60_b.gif (http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=912732-0000&PA=347904&HTML=http://www.joinrightnow.com)

Evil Chris

10-12-2002, 10:01 PM

My feelings on all of this "non-nude" stuff are still developing, as I believe the feelings of a lot of people out there.

Those underage model sites are legal. We don't have to like them, but there they are. It's like a lot of free speech in society. Some things we don't like and so we don't have to listen, but it's still legal. Parents making these kinds of decisions for their children are being irresponsible.

The what bothers me to no end is the (typically anonymous) webmaster who will create underage non-nude sites in an attempt to lure in pedophiles and then upsell them to legal teen sites.

Izzy

09-24-2003, 09:08 PM

I AM EXTREMELY TRAUMATIZED!!!!!!

MY OWN DAMN FAULT, I SHOULDN'T HAVE LOOKED BUT I DID!!!!!

THAT'S JUST WRONG AND I HOPE THE PERSON WHO MADE THAT SITE AND IF THERE ARE ANYMORE PEOPLE WITH SITES JUST LIKE THAT, I HOPE THEY 1. THROW THEIRSELVES OUT IN TRAFFIC OR GET SHOT TO DEATH!!!! PLEEEEEEZ!!!!!!!! THAT IS JUST SICK AND TWISTED AND FUCKED UP!!!!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST I SAW A 7 YR. OLD!!!!!!!! ANY AGE IS NASTY BUT 7 AND 9 OMG OMG HOW HORRIBLE!!!!

AND JUST BECUZ SOME OF THE 12 YR. OLDS LOOK 21 DOES NOT MAKE ANY OF THAT SICK SHIT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

NASTY FUCKING BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Izzy:bad mood:

Panky

09-24-2003, 09:59 PM

Oh my EC! What did you start? I leave the board for a few hours and this thread is already on page 3! I definitely have to read this article.

I must say this though... I'm proud of the XNations members who have contributed to this thread!<img src="http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/9/biggthum.gif" width="33" height="15"> You are soooo kewl! You have taken a very controversial topic and have managed to discuss things like adults! You, the members are why XNations is soooo kewl!

I admit when I read EC's introductory post and saw some replies, I thought "Oh no. This could get ugly." But you ladies and gentleman are adults who have actually responded like educated, professional adults! That's rare on some msg. boards! <img src="http://www.adultisubmit4u.com/Smile/grinning-smiley-002.gif" width="49" height="19">

Mpegmaster

09-24-2003, 10:13 PM

Whatever people argue about this being legal and stuff....i dont think its Right!

7 Year and 8 year old girls posing in Bikini's on the Net!...It might affect their Life in wierd way!

We know a lot of Sadastic bastards who live out there....what if One idiot sees his Neighbour's daughters pic on the net posing in a bikini.....and does something wrong! I guess thats more the worry the parents of the girls will be concerned!

Anyway this thread made me sick early in the mornin.....and i dont think i will come to the board for sometime now! :(

Evil Chris

09-25-2003, 09:13 AM

Panky, this thread is months old! Still a hot topic though...

dyonisus

09-25-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Aly-Python
Mapplethorpe was indeed controversial in his actions, and purposefully so, I imagine. He was, however, pushing the envelope on nudity and art, not sexuality. Kids, clothed or unclothed, presented in a non-sexual way can be art or advertising or whatever. Pics of kids, clothed or unclothed, or even in their bloody snowsuits, that are used in a sexual context cross the line. It's a matter of context.

I think this is a solid description of the lines and where boundaries get crossed. Unfortunately there are scumbags out there who will exploit and utilize any means to the end, whatever the end may be...

As people who have active careers in a sexuality based industry it is almost our duty to protect our industry from the kind of people who would be involved in any way with this type of shit!

Panky

09-25-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Evil Chris
Panky, this thread is months old! Still a hot topic though...

OMG! LOL! Serious? I never even noticed! :bonk:

666

03-29-2006, 11:58 AM

this may be changeing the subject.........but i have stood quite in this world for long... allready in the end all of you will end up dead .. what all of scumbags did to my people is nothing compared to what im going to do to all of you / i will see all of you in three months untill then..

MorganGrayson

03-29-2006, 12:19 PM

I skipped to the end of this rather long thread after reading most of the first page.

DrGuile pretty much said it all, succinctly and well.

Back in the day, another webmaster and I began a dedicated attempt to assist in the fight against cp. He hunted down some members of law enforcement, explained we were adult linkmasters and in a particularly unique position to help, because all we had to do was sit here and the shit was submitted to us. Well, said law enforcement agent went happily berserk, contacted his supervisor - who also went happily berserk - until the suggestion worked far enough up the food chain and we were told to merely submit the urls to customs. In other words, we got shut down.

It was a learning experience in many ways.

I learned that many disgusting sites aimed at pedophiles were in fact quite legal. That didn't make them moral, just legal. The wide gap between legality and morality is something of which I had long been aware.

However...and this is one big, screaming "however"...using sites that are "legal" in and of themselves to "upsell" to porn can't be. It just can't be. (OK, I'm shaking and screaming and may be wrong, but I'm going to keep shaking and screaming.)

If you read the TOS of every legitimate sponsor out there - note to new webmasters: READ THE TOS (Terms of Service or simply, the rules) - they mention how fast you WILL NOT BE PAID if you screw around like that.

I'm working on a new linksite, and was considering a "nonnude" category, because I think clothed people are sexy. However, in my innocence, I was thinking of some of the content that I already own - a lovely black woman, mid-20's or more, in white lace, nonnude. Very sexy stuff, but she's a grown-up for heaven's sake. Will including a nonnude category get me submissions of children wearing clothing? I do not believe I will be able to cope with that.

There's an old Irish saying that my mother was fond of: "dirty money brings a curse." That's how she explained the Kennedy family's tendency to get bombed with assassinations, etc. Their original fortune came from liquor, which was considered "dirty money" back in the day. (My Mom had a lot of these.) Well, I like money and I'm willing to bend a lot more rules than I used to be willing to bend. Life does that. However, I still believe that "dirty money brings a curse." Anything made off exploiting a child is the ultimate in dirty money...and I hope the curse hits these people hard and fast.

Nice thread topic, Chris. Good to see so many angry on this topic.

The feeling of helplessness sucks, though.

pushpills

03-29-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Evil Chris
I have no clue what goes on in the mind of pedophiles

sure ya do ;)

http://www3.littleapril.com/images/littleapril_15.jpg

I agree that pushing xxx sites with 13yr old model stuff is kinda messed up, but so is just having the 9 - 13yr old etc model sites themselves. Don't the parents have to sign a release or something?

MorganGrayson

03-29-2006, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by pushpills
sure ya do ;)

http://www3.littleapril.com/images/littleapril_15.jpg

I agree that pushing xxx sites with 13yr old model stuff is kinda messed up, but so is just having the 9 - 13yr old etc model sites themselves. Don't the parents have to sign a release or something?

Any kid with a digital and half-assed html skills can build their own website and learn fast how to make money from it. And, sad to say, so can their parents.

There was something on the news way back about *parents* who had a site for their kid...little one, too...and didn't see anything wrong with it. She had "fans," you see, certainly not perverts...the parents were the totally sick ones, and it was all legal. As long as the "model" was dressed and covered, it didn't matter *how* she was dressed, how much makeup she wore, or whether or not she was bouncing on her own bed.

Hi, Lee Noga! LTNS! http://www.porn-sex-adult-xxx.com/smilies/wavey.gif
Still remember that wonderful dinner! :)

I was raised by Irish Catholic parents who managed to keep sex a well-guarded secret from me. I vowed - with my husband - not to do the same with our own kids. I had the first "masturbation talk" with my daughter when she was four. (Bless you, Parent's Magazine, who told me how to do it without scarring the kid for life.) I dragged the two year old along hoping something would sink in. (It did, too, she still remembers it.) I always said "we can talk about *anything,* and we did...even if Mommy had to take a rather deep breath first. The time my middle kid (high school age) plopped down in a chair, rested her chin on her hand and said "explain anal sex to me" took two deep breaths...but I explained it to her. (What the fuck would those other parents advise? Let some horny teenager explain it to her the difficult way? The painful, damaging, ruin-her-for-life way? Oh, sure, they'd say "tell her never to do it." Like "don't do that" has *ever* worked on a teenager about *anything.* Cave parents were trying that one and it didn't work THEN.)

To Ounique...I took care of a lot of my own kid's gay friends. They got the simple things ("I'm proud of you," "you're a great kid," "way to go on that math test!," etc. from me and my husband rather than their own parents. My surrogate son, who was a great drag princess, got "Father and son time" out in the driveway under the hood of our car, just like fathers and sons have done since time immemorial. My husband didn't even blink the first time Steven walked into his room as a boy and walked back out as a girl.

I can't even get my head around rejecting your own kids because of their sexuality.

Nickatilynx

03-29-2006, 09:11 PM

umm 666 , why did you bump a 3 yr old thrread?

And Moragan why are you saying "hi" to people who haven't posted here in three years?

;-)))

MorganGrayson

03-29-2006, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Nickatilynx
umm 666 , why did you bump a 3 yr old thrread?

And Moragan why are you saying "hi" to people who haven't posted here in three years?

;-)))

Well...ya see...I have a long standing habit of never reading the dates on posts. It's actually more of a flaw. One could even say...stupidity.

But it's long standing so I guess I'd better get used to it. :(

MorganGrayson

03-29-2006, 09:26 PM

I just went back and read the dates on the posts. *sigh* :blush:

xxxmalouxxx

03-30-2006, 01:41 AM

qwebecexpo

03-31-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Cathedra I'm curious is anyone in the up and up of the US government knows of this site. [/B]

They sure do, but even if this is 'IMMORAL' it is unfortunatelly not 'ILLEGAL'...

But I think this is just plain wrong....

MorganGrayson

03-31-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by qwebecexpo
They sure do, but even if this is 'IMMORAL' it is unfortunatelly not 'ILLEGAL'...

But I think this is just plain wrong....

Sadly, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, while "illegal" is in questionable black and white.

We also live in an amazingly hypocritical society that blazes the arrest of those involved in cp across the nightly news that is interrupted by commercials that blatantly sell the sexuality of the young. Check out the clothing that's sold for the young. The music videos. The list goes on.

I had two rules for my kid's clothing. "Clean" and "COVERED." My Goth kids went to school with little Buffy-types who had their ass cheeks hanging out of their short-shorts, which also showed their navels because the tops were cut off short, too.

Who got in trouble for how they dressed? My kids, covered from the neck to the ankles in black.