|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: You wrote: (Reply to this comment)
by inspectedby12
Some of the comments here still make me want a clear legal definition of what child porn is. I see a noble desire to protect kids, and that's great. I also see people condemning a site that featured young girls dressed in ways that made them personally uncomfortable and distasteful. Folks, we need to understand that what is distasteful to us and makes us uncomfortable to see is not necessarily illegal, nor should it be. There wasn't any nudity, though legally even nudity by itself does not constitute pornography. There was no obvious sexual activity. No hands shoved into clothing or simulated 'self touching.' The cameras didn't seem to be focused on their private parts. So what's left? Is it really the content of the site? or is it our discomfort with a site that features young girls, clothed though they may be, that causes us to object?
|
Sep 29 '08
6:26 am PDT
|
|
children (Reply to this comment)
by ahmedabad
What is this obsession about children? The world is not as rich as the USA. There is extreme poverty. People cannot afford get a single meal per day leave alone clothes for their children.
It is as if the rest of the world does not exist. The famines many parts of Africa exposed the fact that people hardly have anything on - that includes men, women and children. In India there is such dire poverty - a small piece of cloth is a luxury. If it was a handful of people then something could be done about this, but it cannot be - because it involves millions of people.
When people are seen dressed it is considered unnatural and abnormal. It is the exact opposite of people who are required to have something on all the time. It is stifling. Clothes are the exceptions not the norm. The values of the world are bizarre - teenage pregnancy is generally accepted but a girl appearing in porn movie is not. A complete contradiction. Which is worse a young girl in a porn movie or her not appearing in one but becoming pregnant? Her becoming pregnant is perfectly alright - because what she did was off camera. But if she shows her body off she is jailed or fined. This does not make any sense. As I said earlier wearing clothes is a luxury and is perfectly unnatural - so if children wear clohes which are skimpy - they need to have clothes to make them look skimpy. Another reason why clothes are unnatural, a woman breast feeding her child is the best thing she can do for her child. But in countries where being fully dressed is mandatory, a woman cannot feed her child in public - people will be terribly offended.
What is offensive for a particular country does not apply to others. In poor countries 'nudists beach' have no meaning because everyone is undressed anyway. The more restrictions a society places on its people the more fascination the forbidden is, hence lots of people are arrested just looking at children, particularly on the Internet.
In most countries of the world you don't need the Internet for that. In societies where restrictions exist people are jailed. If people prefer to imagine that the whole wordl is exactly like them they are mistaken.
|
Sep 28 '08
7:45 am PDT
|
|
Re: Site is gone I think (Reply to this comment)
by inspectedby12
While I can understand and admire anyone trying to protect kids from abuse, I also feel that the cry "Child porn" is badly abused in some cases. This seems to be one of them. Since there is no really clear legal definition for child porn, we are constantly left to wonder where the line is between actual child porn, and images that are simply done in bad taste. Having only once seen the preview pages for a few of the models on that site before it was taken down, I am left wondering if this wasn't simply a matter of bad taste being mistaken for criminal activity. Yes, we may not approve of young girls dressed up like they're posing for FHM magazine, and would not allow our own kids to model like that but... was it really child porn? That is a tough question. Without knowing where the legal "line in the sand" is, anyone starting a site featuring young kids playing at being models could come under the threat of prosecution when someone screams "child porn" because they don't like what one of the kids is wearing.
|
Mar 20 '08
5:39 pm PDT
|
|
Site is gone I think (Reply to this comment)
by rasterizerman
As of right now it seems that childsupermodels.com is down or maybe finally taken off the internet...which is a good thing. I am a father of two young girls, and can't understand how any parent could let their daughter do this. I went to this site before it went offline and don't really see how it isn't just plain child porn (or very close to it). Of the 20 or so models there, a few were maybe semi-professional looking and the girls were at least close to legal age, BUT most were like middle school age or even younger. They also seemed to feature mostly young girls with very developed bodies (for their age at least), and I don't see why real pre-teen models would need to look like that if they were trying to get real jobs as young girl models. Is it necessary to put them in tops that show everything they have and skimpy panties? Why?
You really have to wonder what posing like this at that age is going to do them when they get older, and I also have to wonder if at least a few of these girls weren't being molested by their fathers (or probably stepfathers). Sure they did not look forced in the pictures but I doubt they would show us the pictures of them unhappy looking even if they were. Even if they aren't being molested, I doubt they have been told about all the men who will be looking at there pictures just for one reason (not worth mentioning). For every real modeling agent that looks at their site there is probably 100 pervs. Just my $0.02...
|
Dec 17 '06
2:07 pm PST
|
|
More to It's Just Not Right (Reply to this comment)
by monkey4811
The last post I did not completely go over what I wanted to. The Model that you see on the internet that seems so innocent shown at sandrateenmodel.com is also shown at this web address:pesquisa.sapo.pt/?chan=&channel=2003&barra=mundial&...&fs=10&limit=20 I don't suggest you go to look at it unless you can keep yourself from becoming very angry and smashing your monitor or breaking something else. These people are not as innocent as you may believe them to be. Save the children for the children's sake.
|
Nov 07 '06
11:27 am PST
|
|
More to It's Just Not Right (Reply to this comment)
by monkey4811
The last post I did not completely go over what I wanted to. The Model that you see on the internet that seems so innocent shown at sandrateenmodel.com is also shown at this web address:pesquisa.sapo.pt/?chan=&channel=2003&barra=mundial&...&fs=10&limit=20 I don't suggest you go to look at it unless you can keep yourself from becoming very angry and smashing your monitor or breaking something else. These people are not as innocent as you may believe them to be. Save the children for the children's sake.
|
Nov 07 '06
11:27 am PST
|
|
More to It's Just Not Right (Reply to this comment)
by monkey4811
The last post I did not completely go over what I wanted to. The Model that you see on the internet that seems so innocent shown at sandrateenmodel.com is also shown at this web address:pesquisa.sapo.pt/?chan=&channel=2003&barra=mundial&...&fs=10&limit=20 I don't suggest you go to look at it unless you can keep yourself from becoming very angry and smashing your monitor or breaking something else. These people are not as innocent as you may believe them to be. Save the children for the children's sake.
|
Nov 07 '06
11:19 am PST
|
|
It's Just Not Right (Reply to this comment)
by monkey4811
In all honesty I think that anything short of the type of modeling that JCPenny shows in their catalogue of children should be illegal. These children whether it imposes on freedom of speech or not should not be exposed in this manner. Any one even drawing pictures depicting children in this manner needs to not be around children. I don't see any reason that these sites should be allowed on the internet. While we spend our time on the war on terrorism and drugs, not a whole lot is being done to rid the internet and our own public streets of these perverts. We need to start the war on child exploitation. whether or not it is legal now, Americans should be fighting to make these types of sites illegal. I have done some researching of my own on these sites and found that one of the models that they put up on the internet has pictures of her on a japenese pornography site. Now as innocent as it looks on their site, Where else are they posted where it is not so legal. I mean if you really think these people are so innocent to post them in bathing suits and underwear, how do you know they are not posting them in even more provocative poses or skimpier clothes on a web site that you don't know about. This hass to be stopped for the safety of America itself. Do you want your child to be the next victim?
|
Nov 07 '06
11:13 am PST
|
|
Not really childporn......or is it? (Reply to this comment)
by glowplug
I have to admit to being a little confused and my reason is this. When I was young, around 14 or 15 I can remember my sister and her friends always dressing up,using our Mums makeup and wearing stuff far to old for them, but it was really just fun and nothing else. I find it really hard to understand how children wearing clothes and dressing up is child porn?!??
I guess if some sicko wants to view it that way, then so be it, but surely that applies to any type of image, regardless of the message (if any) the original image was intending to convey, the person viewing it can corrupt or twist it to represent whatever fantasy or idea they have in their head.
|
Apr 05 '06
1:55 pm PDT
|
|
Something else to think about? (Reply to this comment)
by sithlore
Why is it that we feel so strongly about subject like this? Its because we know that children are a vulnerable group and need our protection. But let us imagine that the law was changed, and it was legal for a adult to have sex with, say, a ten year old, and lets pretend that there wasnt the stigma of pervert and pedo nonce ect. associated with child sex/rape ...how many men do u think would find it wrong to have intercourse with a kid? I get the feeling we would all be surprised!!After all, in some countries it is acceptable of men to marry 10 year olds. From what I read, the virgin marry was between 10 12 when she marrid joseph. This isnt Bible studies so please dont feel free to correct me! Personally, I find that amazing, and more that a little sick, but thats my westernised upbringing kicking in.
In England (where I reside) the age of concent is 16, if a man had sex with a girl an hour before her sixteenth birthday, her would be arrested and be labeled a pervert & pedo, but if he wait 1 hour it would be perfictly legal. What has happend in that hour that would of changed that young girl into a young adult?? Absolutley nothing! But the law says it ok so...its ok! I guess. I have two daughters and if when she's 16 I caught her with a man any age, I'd get the death penalty, and we dont have it here! Nuff said!
I think the one of the things that keeps many men (I wount say most) LEGAL is the law, the morals of the issue comes in a poor third after, what would people say.
Now a question to all the men maily in the uk, HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE TAKEN THAT SNEEKY SIDEWAYS GLANCE AT THAT CURVACEOUS 15 YEAR OLD WEARING THE SHORT SKIRT AND THE LOOSE BLOUSE,ON HER WAY TO/FROM SCHOOL? BE HONEST!!! If she was a woman, you would stop and turn you head and watch her without shame, but we know that society dosen`t accept men looking at young girls in that way, so we do it on the sly. This may come as a shock to many women, but women, ARE YOU REALLY SURPRISED? You know what men are like, show em a bit of flesh, and the last thing on the`re mind is, THIS IS WRONG. But this is only undestanderble with females worthy of the title JAILBATE!
The differnct between the peadophile and the rest of us, is the peado, doesnt give a damb, he will take it further. Hers that word again Jailbait, doesnt this tell you that men are looking! After all we dont give 'things' words unless there is a need to!
It is a fact that the legal teenage porn sites do vary well, and there are a number on porno magazine which focus on teenage girl and have headers like "The younger, the better" or "Get em while there Fresh" ect, but there is a vary clear and distink line between what is young, and what is kiddie!
Here in the UK one of the most popular outfits for young womnen to wear out clubbing is the school unform, the girls wearing these know men find it atractive. Sexed up versions of these uniforms also sell well, you see them in sex catalogues. So why do men find school uniforms attractive?? Hhhmmm! Thats a difficult one to answer?
Whilst browsing the net, or the "devil portal"as I call it I ocasionally look around some of the softcore sites, to my amazmentI hav seen some of these child modle site banners mixed in with the adult stuff, Why? There are more than a few of them, so someones paying to veiw its contents. I think a lot of men who veiw these sites are the one who take "THAT SIDEWAYS GLANCE" but pedos, no.
A curvaceous teenager is bordering on the dodgy, but some of the kids on these banners are bairly out of nappys! Thoose sites are the real peodos food! I be even more weary of the men that visit thoose sites as these kids have nothing that is faintly reminiscent of a woman.
|
Sep 21 '04
5:28 am PDT
|
|
Re: A Review of your Editorial (Reply to this comment)
by dakarsport
Could the dilemma be that in attempting to determine what images of children are 'sexually provocative' for the purposes of legality, we reveal an ability to find images of children sexually provocative?
How does a non-paedophile 'know' what a paedophile finds stimulating?
|
Jul 13 '04
11:24 pm PDT
|
|
A Review of your Editorial (Reply to this comment)
by narlo
RE: Probably popular with pederasts, but is it child porn?
In general terms I agree with your conclusions that there remains a gray area between "artistic" interpretation and "eroticism" and changing our constitutional laws to fit the current “moral attitudes” would not seem to benefit anyone in the longer term.
Everyone has an opinion about this subject - whether they decide to voice it or not. The opinions can range from "I don't know" to the extreme who call for our 1st Amendment rights to change, and worse. What also seems evident to me in most of the discussions around this topic is the prevalence of verbal confusion.
For example whether the "girls" or "young ladies" were actually "doing" "provocative poses" or "frolicking in the fields" is a matter of your personal interpretation - not necessarily what was actually happening. "The girls elegantly pose in a manner suggestive of getting undressed or about to masturbate..." is again your personal interpretation and perhaps the interpretation of many thousands of others - but it doesn't make it the "reality" of what was happening at the time.
It does seem to me your genuine social morality is reflected in your comments. However you are making meaning of an "abstraction" (the photo) of an event(s) you were not directly witness to. This is the point where some of the arguments appear to become verbally confused.
For example what evidence is there that supports your assertion that the only career this type of modelling can lead to is stripping and pornography?
What evidence supports your assertion that the girls are “fairly apparently being exploited” or that the modelling organisation is “shady” or that paedophile fathers are trading their girls off for weekends”?
These seem to be your opinions yet they are stated as if they were fact. I know “as a fact” that there is any number of possible outcomes for these girls and one of them might be stripping. However I also am aware that another possible outcome is becoming elected the first female president of our country.
These sites might be “objectionable” to you but it appears that they are not objectionable to the parents of these children and teens. Why these sites are objectionable to you and not to others I cannot say specifically why. I can only really comment on why they are objectionable to me. If I were to hazard a “guess” it seems that a number of factors can be sited including how the images are interpreted and meaning-making process at work in each person.
I really enjoyed the citations you made of Brooke Shields and Tracy Lords. Whilst I’m not familiar with the Tracy Lords or her movies I remember feeling “uneasy” about the marketing of Pretty Baby and questioned the reasons for promoting the film as it was. So I went to see the film. My opinion at the time was that the marketing people responsible for the ads focused on the sexual theme of the child character which represented only a few short moments of the film rather than other possible themes. To me the ads said more about the people responsible for marketing than the content of the film. How did they decide to concentrate on this aspect of the film character? What discussions did they have about it? Who was the person or persons responsible for approving the campaign?
I’m not sure who subscribes to these child modelling sites or their reasons for subscribing. Do some people subscribe who have more than a “fleeting” interest in children and teens – most likely. Do others subscribe for other reasons having nothing to do with paedophilia – most likely.
“The meanings of words are inside people, not in the words themselves. There is not such thing as the “true” meaning of a word.”
Narlo
|
Nov 27 '03
3:08 am PST
|
|
Re: wow (Reply to this comment)
by lapuer1
Do you have any pictures of your kids bathing ??????? Or chageing there clothes????? You may be breaking the law . May get you oh ten years or so. Just a little picture. I know that this far off in left feild, but Hitler didn't kill anyone till the law was changed.
|
Oct 07 '03
5:31 pm PDT
|
|
This reminds me (Reply to this comment)
by lyoness913
of a documentary that HBO has going on called 'Beauty Queens' or something like that, I can't remember the exact name. Anyway, this young girl named Swan and her mother go to these little-kid beauty pagents and the little girls wear fake hair, makeup, little teeny costumes, etc. The parents SWEAR the 4,5,6 year old girls do this 'all on their own' and 'want to do it.' While reading your essay, I wonder how many of these children really 'want' to do this modeling and how many are 'made' to. I agree, there is a very fine line in this situation, perfect analogy with the JCPenny catalogue situation. Nice essay, something I wouldn't have otherwise thought about.
Summer
|
Aug 07 '03
5:47 pm PDT
|
|
... (Reply to this comment)
by headlessparrot
- Yeah, you know he's a pederast, though.
- What's a pederast.
- Donny, shut up. Yeah, served eight months in Chino for exposing himself to an eight year old girl.When he moved into the neighbourhood, he had to go door-to-door and tell everyone he was a sex offender.
Eight year olds, Dude. Eight year olds.
(- The Big Lebowski)
An excellent essay.
- Brian/headlessparrot
|
Aug 06 '03
7:48 pm PDT
|
|
:) (Reply to this comment)
by updateghost
Quite good, my friend, quite good.
|
Aug 06 '03
12:58 pm PDT
|
|
@[xxxx]:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> (Reply to this comment)
by flamepillar
I can think of nothing else to add. You've pretty well covered the bases and I'd have to say I agree with you. If parents are willing to make the choice to have their own children depicted in such a distasteful way, it's still a choice. Can't really take it away from them, but I feel inclined to wonder how any parent could be that neglectful of a child's basic integrity. It's a tough call!
|
Aug 06 '03
9:51 am PDT
|
|
I'll admit it ........ (Reply to this comment)
by susidee34
I browsed one of the pages from the link you provided. I was astounded, clearly I live in a cave and I thought I was broad minded.
Certainly we can't stop such things, nor I guess consider them against the law, but I can still feel like they are wrong and that the parents have to know they are wrong. There are many wonderful poses and shots a young prepub girl could take and still appear model material. I guess the old saying, Sex Sells, holds true.
Frankly I feel sorry for the children.
Outstanding piece
Susi
|
Aug 06 '03
8:08 am PDT
|
|
Re: wow (Reply to this comment)
by minorthreat78
I'll admit that I've always thought the age 18 cut-off was a bit too arbitrary, but I really can't come up with a better plan.
My response to this website was not unlike my response to pro-ana (people who advocate anorexia) and Nazi sites; namely, abject shock and horror. Unfortunately, there's no real way to get rid of these things, as with 100% real child porn. For one thing, laws aren't the same in other countries (for instance, in some European countries, "women" are allowed to pose topless as young as 12). For another, I can't think of any law that could really resrict this. Are we going to outlaw taking photographs of girls in bikinis?
I'm confused.
|
Aug 05 '03
10:45 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: You wrote: (Reply to this comment)
by theresaro
I have to admit it is sad but I agree with you on this.
Teri
|
Aug 05 '03
11:33 am PDT
|
|
Re: You wrote: (Reply to this comment)
by minorthreat78
Fair enough. But I still wonder how likely the average 11 year old in a tube top is to get a contract when she is already semi-labelled as a slut.
Sad, but true.
Nevertheless, you are right. Not all of these girls will be porn stars and strippers, this was a bit of hyperbole on my part.
Nikita
minorthreat78
|
Aug 05 '03
11:25 am PDT
|
|
You wrote: (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
In this strange foreign land of which I saw a mere peek, these girls (and presumably their families) sincerely believes this is the way to get themselves a career in "real" modeling. This is kinda sad, since the only career this can lead to is stripping and pornography.
Actually, I'd differ with you on that one. I might say that the most likely career it would lead to is stripping and pornography, but there are a few professional models. Some of them may have a short-lived career without getting into stripping and pornography.
But that doesn't detract from your review.
|
Aug 05 '03
11:09 am PDT
|
|
|
|
