Should Child Model sites be legal

Quote:

---

Quoting deadlock

---

I never heard this "old joke". What's the point of this? Are you suggesting that pornographic material showing lewd poses of minors is just in the eyes of the beholder? You should seriously consider continuing your education with some psychology and sociology courses.

There is very little humor about using children in pornography to sell products or to sell themselves.

---

Quite simple. Any cover of an Olsen Twin video, or Shirley Temple video can be seen as provocative, sexually suggestive & any of the other vague terms used in this case that are widely open any interpretation, depending on who's doing the interpreting.

By your logic, all of Shirley Temple's videos & photos & the Olsen Twins' videos & photos are child pornography, since obviously there are a LOT more pedophiles masturbating to those photos & videos, than were ever masturbating to Webe Web's photos & videos.

many people see this picture of Miley Cyrus

i57.photobucket.com/albums/g205/SexiiDork/Miley%20Cyrus/miley-cyrus_dot_com-modelingset1-2.jpg

and say, oh is the famous daughter and now actress in Disney, the picture is ok

but if it was an unknown girl in a web model site, they will be ready to say, it is pornographicas it shows prominently her legs and is wearing shorts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVLPAQc3dUk
this one is nothing bad, but look at the title for it that the poster used

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bNqX9JZkk4

this girl dancing is a form of art, but many of you, because she is a young girl, would say it is too sexual and only pedophiles would enjoy

many of you will cry wolf because in this music video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58E74YWQa8A

not just because they show 2 young people dancing this dance, but some because it shows a white girl dancing with a black boy

silly isn't it?

Quote:

---

Quoting Eric Cartman

---

Quite simple. Any cover of an Olsen Twin video, or Shirley Temple video can be seen as provocative, sexually suggestive & any of the other vague terms used in this case that are widely open any interpretation, depending on who's doing the interpreting.

By your logic, all of Shirley Temple's videos & photos & the Olsen Twins' videos & photos are child pornography.....

---

The market for their products and videos might include pedophiles, but their target audience is anything but. There's a huge difference between an incidental audience and a target audience.

The courts have addressed "pandering" as it relates to photographs which, taken on their own, might not be illegal, and have found that if you pander to a particular market (e.g., pedophiles) that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the legality of your venture. Ultimately, that appears to be what a leading issue for the defense will be - because, as others have suggested, it's darn hard to argue that your pictures are not designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles when you market to pedophiles and the only people who are intersted in your pictures are pedophiles.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

The market for their products and videos might include pedophiles, but their target audience is anything but. There's a huge difference between an incidental audience and a target audience.

The courts have addressed "pandering" as it relates to photographs which, taken on their own, might not be illegal, and have found that if you pander to a particular market (e.g., pedophiles) that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the legality of your venture. Ultimately, that appears to be what a leading issue for the defense will be - because, as others have suggested, it's darn hard to argue that your pictures are not designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles when you market to pedophiles and the only people who are intersted in your pictures are pedophiles.

---

Aaron, you will never win a pissing match with a skunk! :wallbang:

Quote:

---

The market for their products and videos might include pedophiles, but their target audience is anything but. There's a huge difference between an incidental audience and a target audience.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

The courts have addressed "pandering" as it relates to photographs which, taken on their own, might not be illegal, and have found that if you pander to a particular market (e.g., pedophiles) that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the legality of your venture.

---

Interesting. There are many websites that feature pictures of female celebrities. Essentially, they gather "public domain" photos and offer access to a concentrated bunch of them. Suppose such a site featured a preponderance of under-age celebs --- could that be construed as "pandering" to a particular audience?

I suppose there are a few components to this: the "pandering to prurient interests" and the legality of that pandering...??? I'm asking, not offering an opinion because I'm not familiar with legalities other than as an "average joe".

I always wonder who are the major number of the cheerleader contests in ESPN?

I mean, one understand maybe other cheerleaders or people related to that type of things(cheerleading), the parents, maybe the school or city the contestants are

but somehow I get the idea that most people watching them might be men wanting to check out the girls

should we outlaw the cheerleader contests? since there is a likelyhood that most of the ratings are thanks to men and boys attracted to the girls? are the girls doing something illegal?

I guess that also means we should outlaw any type of cheerleaders at JR high and high schools, unless they start wearing bukas, and they only do voices and clap hands

Again, there's a huge difference between an incidental audience and a target audience.

this thread is creeping me out!

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

what is so different about a girl that is 17 and 3/4 years old and another that is 18 yrs and 1 day old

---

No people don't wake up 18 years old and have all the sense they need to make decisions. We have to have something though and setting an age is the best that can be done. Same goes with driver's licenses.

The same arguement comes too contracts when it allows a minor to disafirm for a reasonable about of time after turning 18 even though they probably understood the contract when they signed it (minor).

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

"it was awful that the 19 year old man had sex with the 17 year old, no matter if both say they love each other"

---

That's legal in my state. Thankfully too since I'm 19. :D