Should Child Model sites be legal

There is a case currently going to trial in Alabama involving one of the largest Child Model site companies (Webe Web) which has now been taken offline. All their models were always clothed yet they are being accused of creating and selling porn and now face the possibility of 15-30 years in prison and fines of $500,000 or more. All these sites contained was galleries of pictures of young models in various costumes. Do you think any form of Child Model sites like this should be legal?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6139524.html

Quote:

---

Quoting Spiritof

---

There is a case currently going to trial in Alabama involving one of the largest Child Model site companies (Webe Web) which has now been taken offline. All their models were always clothed yet they are being accused of creating and selling porn and now face the possibility of 15-30 years in prison and fines of $500,000 or more. All these sites contained was galleries of pictures of young models in various costumes. Do you think any form of Child Model sites like this should be legal?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6139524.html

---

What's makes you think they were not making and creating porn with children?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010...915829/page/2/

I do not think the site you mention should be legal.

Quote:

---

Quoting Happy Trails

---

What's makes you think they were not making and creating porn with children?

---

Are you asking whether I think photos of young models dressed in various costumes is porn or if I think they were doing something else apart from that?

There is no evidence that there was anything apart from that - at least not in this case, with Webe Web. In some other cases there was more to it...

Quote:

---

Quoting Spiritof

---

Are you asking whether I think photos of young models dressed in various costumes is porn or if I think they were doing something else apart from that?

There is no evidence that there was anything apart from that - at least not in this case, with Webe Web. In some other cases there was more to it...

---

How do you know that?

Quote:

---

Quoting Happy Trails

---

How do you know that?

---

From news stories, court case results and from reading forums and sometimes talking to people there who knew what was (and was not) available.

Quote:

---

Quoting Spiritof

---

From news stories, court case results and from reading forums and sometimes talking to people there who knew what was (and was not) available.

---

Maybe the people you discussed it with did not see the same things the FBI did. They may have been only viewing the gallery that did not show the pictures that are in question.

(This first link is on the 80-count indictment that was unsealed on November 28, 2006.

http://birmingham.fbi.gov/dojpressre...6/bh112806.htm

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...l/16239766.htm

http://www.tidesports.com/article/20...00364/0/NEWS12

(This link is interesting also. Some of the people have viewed the site and as photoghraphers they felt it was inappopriate.)

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message...html?tid=22793

----------------

My opinion still stands that it should be shut down. Now whether or not the case will be successful is yet to be seen.

I base my opinion on the fact that the feds investigated for two years and believe they have enough evidence to prosecute.

Thanks for the photographers opinion link - that was new and interesting to me.

I think there is an issue of freedom here - not just personal taste. Sure, there are lots of things we may not like ourselves but if others like them and they are not necessarily harmful then I think they should be allowed. I say "not necessarily harmful" because there are many things that are legal to do that could be harmful... smoking, drinking, physical-contact sports - even driving a car. We have a responsibility to be careful about how we do things but we can't eliminate all risk from life.

Quote:

---

Quoting Spiritof

---

Thanks for the photographers opinion link - that was new and interesting to me.

I think there is an issue of freedom here - not just personal taste. Sure, there are lots of things we may not like ourselves but if others like them and they are not necessarily harmful then I think they should be allowed. I say "not necessarily harmful" because there are many things that are legal to do that could be harmful... smoking, drinking, physical-contact sports - even driving a car. We have a responsibility to be careful about how we do things but we can't eliminate all risk from life.

---

I'm sure a lot more about this case will be revealed.

It is in the "best interest of the children" that these types of cases be looked into, so that innocent children do not become victims.

I wish this was not the case with that site, but I fear that it is.

I haven't read all the presented links, but here's my overall opinion:

This is a gray area. Why technically from the looks of things there is no lavacious nudity and/or poses of minors, then that constitutes is as legal. But, even though this site seems legal, I can only imagine how many freaks visit the site and think of illegal acts they would like to do, provoking them to commit a crime against a child. I'm sure there are people out there who have good intentions, but I think the site is too big of a risk for our children. As it stands, from what you said in the first post, it looks legal. I'm all for modeling, but starting before 12, with funny lookin clothes and make up, is rediculous. This reminds me of the Jon Bennet Ramsey case. Let your kids be kids. Let them play basketball, and video games. Only dress them up for church or funerals, they need to know that beauty is on the inside not the outside. That's why society has gone to pot (ha ha pot, pass the bong). Anyway that's the end of my rant, I guess.

Quote:

---

Quoting Raditude

---

...I can only imagine how many freaks visit the site and think of illegal acts they would like to do, provoking them to commit a crime against a child. I'm sure there are people out there who have good intentions, but I think the site is too big of a risk for our children.

---

The law is not currently concerned about our thoughts. There are many people who think they would like to kill someone at various times - they aren't punished for that unless they convey that intention (seriously threaten) or start to act on their intention.

The other side of the coin here is that sites like those (child modeling) may stop or reduce the need for viewers to go looking for girls in real life - it is much easier, safer and cheaper to do it online. Most people can distinguish between fantasy and reality and don't wish to act on fantasies they may have that are enjoyable in themselves - e.g. like fiction books and movies. Looking at modeling websites is no more dangerous to the models than watching movies is to the actors.

Quote:

---

Quoting Raditude

---

I'm all for modeling, but starting before 12, with funny lookin clothes and make up, is rediculous. This reminds me of the Jon Bennet Ramsey case. Let your kids be kids. Let them play basketball, and video games. Only dress them up for church or funerals, they need to know that beauty is on the inside not the outside.

---

Many kids love to play dress-up. Many love to model - it makes them feel good. I think it's important that they do enjoy it too. However many parents push their children to learn various skills (music, sport, etc). Is that OK?

Thanks for the replies. :)

interesting topic

let me ask you these(to all of you as it pertains)

1- are some of the videos(made by the girls all by themselves) in youtube legal?
1-a if you say they are legal, why are they legal, yet the ones in "some"(not all of them, as some defitnely go too far) of the web modeling sites would be considered by you illegal(even if they could be considerably tamer than ones in youtube)

2- why is it ok for "top models" who could be between 14 and 17 to model lingerie in a fashion show? yet are against web models of the same age to dress normal underwear that is "less sexy" than the lingerie of the top fashion shows of the world

3- who is more protected? a web model?(we talking sites that don't go into nudes or worse) or a top fashion model who could get into the drugs and the pressures of being very thin so prominent in that world?

4- how you feel about regular entertainment who allows young actresses and singers(like Cristina Aguilera, Britney Spears, TLC, 3LW, Vanessa Hudgens, and countless others) in the past or in the present when they were/are younger than 18 to sing and pose in a sensual(sometimes almost sexual) manner?

5- what is worse?

a web model that is 17 or less in photos were is non-nude, and spotlighting her personality, and beauty(as in face and her expressions)

or a site where

a girl that is 18 years old and 1 day old, in photos where she is doing bestiality, golden shower, and other stuff, and all considered legal because she "just became" an adult?

6- in the case of a pedophile, do you think that the problem is solved by closing sites that are willing to follow guidelines of decency? as they would start getting stores catalogs with pictures of girls in them, and reading(and going to the sites) of teen-beat, Disney channel, Nickelodeon and such, and becoming fans of the top-models who are not 18, of the gimnastits girls and figure skaters, and more likely to go to the public beach and to the school grounds to watch the girls? and to continue going to the real trash of underground sites, where the girls are simply nude(at best) or doing hardcore CP?(at worse); and the USA govertnament can't truly do anything since they are done in other nations?

7- how all of us know what are the pics they talking about? you truly know how the photos are? or you imagining how they are by the words the prosecutors are using? and how would they compare to pics of high fashion models(that I mentioned already), and to pictures of actresses and singers in teen-beat, maxim(don't be shocked, some of the girls in there have been 16 or 17 years old), cosmopolitan and such?

all I want to make you realize, is that we can't judge things by what we imagene, or by word of mouth of others

I can say

"Linda was too provocative in her dress*

and no one of us would have the same image, and if we saw her, many of you would say

"what you talking about? she is dressing in more decent clothes than what my daughter is allowed to wear"

Quote:

---

Quoting Happy Trails

---

My opinion still stands that it should be shut down. Now whether or not the case will be successful is yet to be seen.

I base my opinion on the fact that the feds investigated for two years and believe they have enough evidence to prosecute.

---

I see it as just the opposite. Two years of investigation seems to indicate to me they were having an awful hard time finding anything they could show to a judge that a judge could ever consider being even remotely boarding on anything illegal.

I've followed Webe Web's child modeling sites from when they only had two child web models. BTW One of the models (Lil Amber) had done adversing modeling prior to becoming a web model.

I've also been a moderator (one of several moderators) of their forums for a few years.

Two things that always made Webe Web stand out from all the other child web modeling sites (Aside from the fact that they were the first & have always been the largest.) was;

1) They were always consider tame compared to their competitors. And were vigilant about keeping up with staying well within the boundaries of what's considered legal.

2) They always demanded that fans respect the models on their web model forums. (Which is why the had so many moderators.)

I believe the motivation is (and has always been) if they can make a child pornography case against Webe Web stick, they can make a case against any under age model site, or under age model agency stick. If a case can be made against Webe Web, all U.S. based under 18 web modeling sites can be quickly & easily prosecuted for distributing child pornography.

Eric, being a moderator of that site doesn't mean you are aware of everything that is happening at that site or what was happening through the USPS.

Two years to gather evidence is not very long; the feds were getting all the information they could to insure a solid case.

As I said, there will be more revealed about this case.

If there are other sites that are doing illegal activities, then those sites should be shut down and prosecuted as well.

Eric

as you seem to be part of that world(web modeling, at least as a fan and costumer)

is it possible that pics exchanged between the photographer and the web site owners could be more explicit than ones shown on actual site?

and from what I have gotten from brief visits to the sites(ones open to public as I never joined any site) or in the case of webe web to the archives(as the sites are not accesible anymore since the DOJ closed them), it seems that Cindy is much more tamer than webe web; and webe web even thought it looks like is between the boundaries of what is allowed under law, it is near those boundaries

and happy


"Two years to gather evidence is not very long; the feds were getting all the information they could to insure a solid case.

As I said, there will be more revealed about this case."

you talking like you know what exactly are the pics the DOJ has

yet in earlier posts you state you based your opinion on what DOJ says, and in word of mouth of others, not in the opinion of what you saw

as I posted earlier

Quote:

---

I can say

"Linda was too provocative in her dress*

and no one of us would have the same image, and if we saw her, many of you would say

"what you talking about? she is dressing in more decent clothes than what my daughter is allowed to wear"

---

if I traveled through time and got any person from 1905, they would very likely to be outraged about the pics in sports illustrated swimmsuit issue, and about what teens and preteens are wearing at their Jr High and High schools

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

and from what I have gotten from brief visits to the sites(ones open to public as I never joined any site) or in the case of webe web to the archives(as the sites are not accesible anymore since the DOJ closed them), it seems that Cindy is much more tamer than webe web; and webe web even thought it looks like is between the boundaries of what is allowed under law, it is near those boundaries

---

I followed some of the pictures early on when the company only had a few models, but haven't paid much attention to them for a few years now. I don't know who Cindy is, so I can't comment.

As far as being near the boarder, that might be possible since so many competing sites always tried to push the boundaries as far as they could get away with. But I do know Webe Web never crossed that boarder & put the models & the customers ahead of profits, other wise they would have been shut down a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

and happy


"Two years to gather evidence is not very long; the feds were getting all the information they could to insure a solid case.

As I said, there will be more revealed about this case."

you talking like you know what exactly are the pics the DOJ has

yet in earlier posts you state you based your opinion on what DOJ says, and in word of mouth of others, not in the opinion of what you saw

as I posted earlier



if I traveled through time and got any person from 1905, they would very likely to be outraged about the pics in sports illustrated swimmsuit issue, and about what teens and preteens are wearing at their Jr High and High schools

---

I agree, but since you and I have not seen the evidence that the feds have gathered, I can't compare it to a swimsuit issue. Besides, we are talking about "child exploitation" not women in swimsuits.

If you read the links I provided (you can also research other information about this case) you will see it was a 12 year old girl and her mother (who asked to remain anonymous) that went to the feds in the first place.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010

Cindy is the Texas? girl that is run by curt newbury studio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_(erotic)

is shown in the last part of this page

and it is interesting to note that the laws of the USA and the UK about child modeling are vastly different than the ones of most nations around the world

about Curt newbury, as I did a small search, I found out he was at one time the photographer of Tamera and Tia Mowry(the twins of the TV series sister sister )

about the anonymous model

it could be his against her word, because she changed her mind; and didn't want to simply tell him, no more

or might be speculation on her part(as in as an example, he allowed her to see him taking the pics, but not to see her kid, because he knew the kid would be uncomfortable seeing her mom watching her; and she saw the gun, and she speculated he was ready to use it)

about the pics style

the pics themselves don't influence how other people act

some people might act on themselves while watching a program like Hanna Montana, or High school musical, or a few years ago on the Amanda show in Nick, or while watching All that

it is basically like saying is a girl's fault if she was dressing sexy, that she got raped

even if a girl makes out with a guy, if the guy takes complete action and rapes her, it would be stupid to say it is the girl's fault for flirting with the guy

we could take pics like these as unlawful, because some guys would get hot watching them

http://www.i12bbq.strana.de/jamiespe...s/jamie032.jpg
http://www.i12bbq.strana.de/jamiespe...s/jamie033.jpg
http://www.i12bbq.strana.de/jamiespe...s/jamie034.jpg
www.teamgsb.com/05apr/05/spears201.jpg

Verdad, did you read the entire article?

You need to scroll past the advertisings and read the part where the mother went in and saw what her daughter was wearing.

The charges against these people are not a "he said, she said" case; that only triggered the investigation.

happy

I ilustrated the swimmsuit issue as a way to ilustrate how the mind of a person in 1905 is different than one of 2006

not to equalize a girl in a swimmsuit to someone taking advantage of a female

and I am dissapointed on how women are exploited sexually(talking all ages)

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

and why so many people that say they hate seeing the 17 yr old in a non-nude picture, yet they don't see a problem with watching the 18 year old(and remember, we talking 3 months difference) in a hardcore site?

that is the biggest hypocrisy I see.

the same person could say

"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"


and later

"I saw the new actress that is 18 do a scene where she was doing an orgy with 4 men that were 30 or older, and it was great"

I am trying to keep this thread on topic.

"Should Child Model sites be legal"

you talking "since the DOJ investigated and charged them, than they must be guilty" mentality

I could go to any school, stay for a few minutes and than phone a police station, and say

"I overheard teacher John Smith tell a student that she was hot, can we meet after class at my classroom, you should investigate him but I want to keep this anonymous"

it could be a lie, but it would start an investigation, and they see that the teacher is very friendly with the students(but he respects them, doesn't do anything inappropiate)

the police could easily see how friendly the teacher is, and decide to look at every possible angle so they can make a case against him, because they feel there must be something inappropiate happening

Quote:

---

Quoting Happy Trails

---

I am trying to keep this thread on topic.

"Should Child Model sites be legal"

---

I think you making a judgement already, while I am trying to keep an open mind and see what exactly is happening; and ilustrate what are the different mentalities of different persons

I find gross movies of girls in hardcore movies(I am not puritan, I find appealing the movies that are soft porn), but I know others could find them nice, and right now they are legal

you know how many sites are there where they show actresses and singers who are 16 or less, where they show pictures of them?

in order to get an answer to "should child model sites be legal" we need to establish what is legal and not legal

some sites of child modeling could be perfectly legal, while other sites could be illegal

some sites could be legal in the nation they are on, but be illegal if they were done in another nation

there are some nations where is legal to have nude pictures of 17 yr old girls, but those would be illegal in the USA


as far as I know, in the USA is legal to visit Naturist sites, and a lot of nudist camps are open to people under 18 (but I don't want to join any of those places)

there is no white and black answer for "should child model sites be legal"

it can't be simply yes or no

I read some more through the web, and I have a problem with way the Sierra model site was ran a few years ago, but don't see any issue with Cindy model site

I also recently saw that in many cases the models are more likely to be harrassed by the news media, not by their "costumers", who usually respect the privacy of the model

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

you talking "since the DOJ investigated and charged them, than they must be guilty" mentality

I could go to any school, stay for a few minutes and than phone a police station, and say

"I overheard teacher John Smith tell a student that she was hot, can we meet after class at my classroom, you should investigate him but I want to keep this anonymous"

it could be a lie, but it would start an investigation, and they see that the teacher is very friendly with the students(but he respects them, doesn't do anything inappropiate)

the police could easily see how friendly the teacher is, and decide to look at every possible angle so they can make a case against him, because they feel there must be something inappropiate happening

---

I don't know what evidence they have, but they charged them with an 80 count indictment, and Jeff Pierson of Brookwood, who took many of the photos used on the site, has reached a plea deal and is cooperating with the government. :eek: (That tells me something.)

You couldn't have read all the links that I provided or researched this case.

I gave my opinion after researching, if you do not share my opinion, that's fine.

Ultimately, it will be up to a jury to decide, not me.

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

I think you making a judgement already

---

Yes, I decided that if a child modeling site is doing illegal activities, then they should be shut down and prosecuted.

It is my opinion, that site got caught doing things that were illegal and now are in trouble for it.

It is also my opinion that the feds have enough evidence to prove it or they wouldn't have charged them. (They may not win on all of the charges, but they think they have a good case.)

You can agree or disagree, it doesn't matter to me. :D

There are some pretty creepy critters in this thread!

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

There are some pretty creepy critters in this thread!

---

Yes.

There is no debate about photographing children in provacative poses being legal or not. It isn't legal.

The charge of Jeff Pierson is his photographs of minors being photographed in provacative poses then put on the www.ChildSuperModels.com.

The reason it is illegal is implications "illegally provocative".

How can anyone think that is NOT black and white?

This is just the beginning of displaying children in provocative poses for photos that are intended to SELL? Sell photos? I don't think so. I think it has more to do with trading children. Buying and selling children for the purpose of illegal activities.

I guess I should think I am one of the "critters" you refer to?

it is up to the court to decide if the pics were between the grounds of legality or not

I am simply want it to have the truth of the matter, not judge thing on subjectivity

let me ask this

what you think of maxim, Playboy and hustler? not to mention the real hardcore magazines in adult stores

I think even thought maxim is very provocative, it is between legality

Playboy is something that I got not too much of an issue with, but don't consider it as something nice, and it is between legality, and there a lot of people who feel it should be illegal, while others feel it is fine

Hustler is basically real close to hardcore(if not hardcore), I feel offended by them, but again is betwen legality, may people feel offended by them, but have to accept is legal(even if they wish was illegal, as I feel)

the hardcore magazines are IMO trash, most people feel offended(or at least say that), should be illegal, but are legal, and has a huge number of profit(both as mags and online)

the question in this thread is not so much about webe web itself(which has to be decided on court) but about child modeling(which you are equalling as ALL OF THEM being provocative)

is it ok as long as it is between the guidelines of decency?

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

I guess I should think I am one of the "critters" you refer to?

it is up to the court to decide if the pics were between the grounds of legality or not

I am simply want it to have the truth of the matter, not judge thing on subjectivity

let me ask this

what you think of maxim, Playboy and hustler? not to mention the real hardcore magazines in adult stores

I think even thought maxim is very provocative, it is between legality

Playboy is something that I got not too much of an issue with, but don't consider it as something nice, and it is between legality, and there a lot of people who feel it should be illegal, while others feel it is fine

Hustler is basically real close to hardcore(if not hardcore), I feel offended by them, but again is betwen legality, may people feel offended by them, but have to accept is legal(even if they wish was illegal, as I feel)

the hardcore magazines are IMO trash, most people feel offended(or at least say that), should be illegal, but are legal, and has a huge number of profit(both as mags and online)

the question in this thread is not so much about webe web itself(which has to be decided on court) but about child modeling(which you are equalling as ALL OF THEM being provocative)

is it ok as long as it is between the guidelines of decency?

---

This comment is about adult sexually explicit stuff; that's covered by the first amendment.

The talk about kids in this thread creep me out. Disgusting.

Quote:

---

Quoting Verdad

---

the question in this thread is not so much about webe web itself(which has to be decided on court) but about child modeling(which you are equalling as ALL OF THEM being provocative)

is it ok as long as it is between the guidelines of decency?

---

I don't know who you are talking to...

No one is equalling ALL OF THEM as being provocative in this thread.

Decency isn't illegal.

At no time is it acceptable to pose children in provocative positions and photograph them either for personal or public display. Children are to be protected until they are of age to make choices about what they choose to do.

The questions about pornography & magazines- (hard or soft porn) are about adult magazines. They are not for children nor is there any discussion about those magazines in the thread.

Our society dictates law on this issue and it isn't about 1st Amendment-

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-sale.htm

Quote:

---

Quoting deadlock

---

Yes.

There is no debate about photographing children in provacative poses being legal or not. It isn't legal.

...This is just the beginning of displaying children in provocative poses for photos that are intended to SELL? Sell photos? I don't think so. I think it has more to do with trading children. Buying and selling children for the purpose of illegal activities.

...Our society dictates law on this issue and it isn't about 1st Amendment-
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-sale.htm

---

That's great that there are (very ambitious) plans for children to be protected worldwide. Child model sites are NOT about "trading children. Buying and selling children for the purpose of illegal activities." They ARE about selling photos - that's ALL that Webe Web was about - photos and the occasional video - all showing clothed and happy models.

By having model sites for them it can help them. They can explore their talent. People can see that they are happy and healthy (hopefully) - they have reason to stay happy and healthy because that's what most people want to see - most viewers care about their welfare - they don't want them to be harmed in any way.

If they don't have a website do you think they will be safer and happier? In many cases I don't think so. I think it's better if they have a good website to express their talents.

Quote:

---

Spiritof
Do you think any form of Child Model sites like this should be legal?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6139524.html

---

No. I think Child Model sites that have photos of children in provocative poses should not be legal.

Quote:

---

Quoting deadlock

---

At no time is it acceptable to pose children in provocative positions and photograph them either for personal or public display. Children are to be protected until they are of age to make choices about what they choose to do.

---

Britney Spears was 15 or 16 years old in her first video (...Baby One More Time) which I would think was far more provocative & sexually suggestive than probably anything ever put out by a 16 year old American web model.

As far as the photographer, I don't think he's really part of this debate. If there is any merit to the accusation, it sounds like something fishy in how he conducted business. The whole point of requiring a parent or guardian to be present at photo shots, is to protect yourself against molestation accusations, or other wrong doings. If for some reason he did want to photograph a model with out a parent in the room, why wouldn't he have a two way mirror, or closed circuit camera for the parent to watch the photo shoot?

But Webe Web was in Florida, not in Alabama, or Arizona, or where ever that photographer was at. So they would have no way of knowing about this photographer's photo-shooting practices.

Now if Child Web Modeling were to become illegal, how could it be done? The Olsen Twins had photo galleries for fans on the web for years & were quite aware that many pedophiles were viewing those photos. (In an interview on E! a few years ago they were asked what they didn't like about fame. They said when some middle aged man would keeps bugging us to sign a photo & it ends up being some photo from when we were like 12 years old... EEEWWW!).

I'm sure if you did a Google on Dakota Fanning, or any other famous child, or teen, there plenty of photo galleries of them on line.

So how would you make sites like Webe Web illegal, without making sites like YouTube, or celebrity fan sites illegal?

BTW
Webe Web's child modeling business was started by a child (Jessi The Kid). Webe Web was a web hosting company. A friend of theirs had a birthday party for her daughter & being from a military family posted photos from the party on a web page for them so all their relatives could see the pictures.

When the page received so much traffic, the girl asked her mom; If so many people want to see photos of me, why don't we start charging money for them? That's exactly what they did & a whole new industry was born, Non-Nude Child Web Model pay sites. (Nude Child Web Model pay sites "Lolita sites" had already been around prior to Non-Nude Child Web Model sites.)

I can only repeat what I said before, as I responded to the question about that particular web site and the question "like this one".

I answered that question with "no". Any ideas about magazines and videos of minors was NOT what I thought the debate was about. We went off topic with other suggestions and assumptions.

I repeat that I do not think they should be legal websites if there are photos of children in provocative poses. It is the responsibiltiy of the web host to screen inappropriate statements; lewd photos and/or avatars; etc. And it is the host who is fined and or shut down.

If you want to debate that the websites should be able to post whatever they like without censor, including pornographic photos of minors I will respond comments.

But the issue is about the morality of websites and responsibility to protect children, minors who pose on a Modeling Website to attract business, whether the business is in illegal trade or modeling clothes it is morally wrong. Using children for sex appeal to sell a product (even if is to sell THEIR own photos) is wrong. Has it been done a million times in tv ads, plastered on bus signs & billboards, movies? Yes. By well known business owners such as Calvin Klein, Abercrombie & Fitch, etc.

I think children may present photos on any website they choose, but it is the issue of provocative poses that is objectionable. I would be interested in your answer- why you think it is not objectionable?

deadlocked

in some sense, provocative is a subjective matter

as I wrote earlier

*****
I can say

"Linda was too provocative in her dress*

and no one of us would have the same image, and if we saw her, many of you would say

"what you talking about? she is dressing in more decent clothes than what my daughter is allowed to wear"

******

someone could see a girl that might still be in high school, wearing the normal jeans teens wear now, and think "she looks provocative"

and another person could see a high school girl in a mini skirt and a sport bra(like one the soccer player chastain was wearing) and think, "is no big deal, don't find anything provocative about it"

30 years ago, people would say we are an evil society because of what we allow teens to wear today, those same people(of 30 yrs ago) would think, "what is the big deal about what people thought as indecent during the 1920's?"

and as I indirectly referred to before

in Europe(taking aside UK) the mentality about this issue is vastly different than what it is in the USA

Quote:

---

Quoting deadlock

---

I think children may present photos on any website they choose, but it is the issue of provocative poses that is objectionable. I would be interested in your answer- why you think it is not objectionable?

---

Some "children" make provocative videos of themselves and put them on Youtube, just to show off, get attention, maybe fame (they hope), etc. Is it objectionable? I don't see why it should be, especially if you have a choice whether to view it or not. I know that the "puritans" want to repress the sexuality of young people until they are at least 18 (and preferably after that too) but that just goes against nature, doesn't it. :p

in some ways deadlocked and others are right

preferably

everything sexual and such should be completly private(2 consenting adults can do whatever they feel comfortable with, even if I dislike what they do)

having it public wise can be offensive to lot(if not all) of the public

my main issue again

is that people get outraged by some under 18 girls in sensual(but not pornographic) pictures, but are fine with a girl that is 18 doing sex with a dog, or getting peed, or having 40 guys enter her in an orgy in every manner possible

and most of all, girls thinking that doing that is fun(doing hardcore)

In Western society woman can go out in public wearing not very much. In Islamic societies that is considered very objectionable - they want all woman to cover up in public. For some of them no skin is allowed to show. At the other extreme, France has many nudist resorts for the whole family. Which group do you think has more respect for their women?

Quote:

---

Quoting Spiritof

---

In Western society woman can go out in public wearing not very much. In Islamic societies that is considered very objectionable - they want all woman to cover up in public. For some of them no skin is allowed to show. At the other extreme, France has many nudist resorts for the whole family. Which group do you think has more respect for their women?

---

I was the only person in a one piece on beaches in Tahiti. If you label me Puritanical it would be funny. I am not advocating sensorship of young people (minors) nor modeling nor presenting photos of themselves.

Provocative is the term I'm discussing with the issue of minors advertising to sell a product or themselves (as models) on a website. Specifically, it has to do with perception and it will always be an opinion, majority rules.

Here's the deal- how is a 9 year old or a 15 year old able to handle themselves in a sexual situation? I am not talking about social "learning" with peers. I am refering to "sex appeal sells". The minor is in a situation where provocative behavior could be perceived as an invitation or experience when they have no experience with advances in an adult situation.

That's my bias. I am not saying that kids don't or shouldn't experiment with sexuality. It is normal and if they are latent they might end up with some dysfunction! ;) But that is normal everyday behavior and they are learning how to use their assets to their advantage but not sex for sale.

I remember very well when Britney Spears changed her persona from cute to sexual. She was not 15 years old. And if she appeared provocative prior to that is was a girley thing.

In my opinion, Jon Benet Ramsey was cute little girly-girl way. She did not appear provocative nor did her films or pictures invite an intruder. Again it's perception and that's mine.