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!

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.

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 ? ;) ).

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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???

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:

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" .

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...

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???

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!!!!!

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....

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:

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.

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 ...

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!

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.

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.

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

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!!

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.

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...

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...

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

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

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