Yeah, pornographers are bad
 

This just pisses me off.

I took a quick look at the cover of this month's Rolling Stone magazine http://www.rollingstone.com/features...n.asp?pid=1904 and what's the heading? America's favorite fantasy! Christ, they JUST turned 17.

But, yes, pornographers prey on the youth of today.

You know what? I'm with you... that's a very good point.

Biggest double standard I've seen in a very long time.

Yes i find things like sexualizing young stars very distrubing. I heard from someone at least a year ago they had a counter on their site that was counting down til the Olsen twins were 18. Perv is what i said then and say now.

Whether we like it or not sex sells (isn't that how we make money?!?)...I don't agree with it, but I bet they become twice as popular now! :rolleyes:

I agree completely. Sex does sell.

But, if I put up a site with revealing pictures of 17 year old girls on it (which I'd NEVER do, by the way), people would be screaming pedo and saying my site should be closed down.

IF however, a mainstream magazine does it and puts it on THEIR site, so be it. It'll be written off as good marketing or "gack" good JOURNALISM. :badcomp:

You read my mind! Mainstream sensationalizing young stars when porn is not allowed. Should not be allowed period. My daughter loves the Olsen twins, and once they turn 18, i know they will be fair game for these pervs who have been watching them for years. Grosses me out.

Sex sells, or we wouldn't be here! But willing participants are different then child idols, as they said in their interview, they want to appeal to their younger fans as well. That is who buys their DVDs and clothes, and magzines.... I've seen it all, they are marketing machines for tweens. Shame on mainstream IMO.

Yeah Shame on them , but let someone in our industry try that type of promo , see what they get. Ridiculous double standard

This isnt anything new ....

Seen "Teen People" lately?? How about "Seventeen"

It's all over the place - movies, tv, billboards ....

Yes, its a total double standard - but not a new one :(

twinkley

Yea that is kind of creepy now isn't!

I can't believe all the people that have the count down going on. Pretty much disgusts me, and that quote is disgusting as well.

yup i see teen people and 17, cosmo for girls, you name it. Who is policing them and all of the mainstream is what I'd like to know.

:confused:

What I REALLY don't understand is why they haven't put me on the cover or RollingStone yet?!?!?!?! :nyanya: Hell, they can sexualize me all they want!

I don't know...
nothing wrong with an 18 year old, nothing wrong with 38 year old.
If I fell head over heels in love with a teen who was 17 i wouldn't think twice about it, does that make me a pedo? of course not. heck, it's legal in canada to have sexual relations with a 17 year old, 16 and fifteen too so long as it invloves consent & mutual desire and the older person isn't in a position of trust like a teacher or coach.

double standard is in place to keep the pornmongers from exploiting young women by making it illegal to associate them with the sex trade / being naked for money etc, I think that's fair and very legit.

clearly I hold the disenting view however, feel free to trash talk me, I like it ;)

I dont get how these guys who were probably adults when the Olsen twins were toddlers on TV could sexualize someone they knew as a child. Whether a TV movie whatever adults should not look at children and sexualize them! PERIOD!

We are scrutinized because we are assumed gulty as porn people before we are innocent. Rolling Stone Does it and they are reveered for being innovative and cutting edge!!

There double standard is crap. "Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it."

They did the same crap with Britney Spears when she was 17.

"Inside the heart, mind, & BEDROOM of a teen dream."

http://www.privateline.com/archive/britney2small.jpg

how is the commercial world not exploiting young women as well? it's the same thing, except they don't have a dick in their mouth. it's not right, for any side to do that, imho.

when you're selling with sex, it doesn't really matter if you're selling a box of smut flicks or a box of razors. you're still exploiting the sexuality of young people.

i don't see how it's just "okay" simply because someone isn't selling porn. you're still basically aiming for the same goal, so why does it make it any better if some scantily clad 16 year old girl is selling a crock pot?

I agree sex is used in advertising the world over, no doubt about that.

The difference in my opinion is very simple, one is advertising, the other is taking girls or guys and having them sexed on camera, on web, etc etc or anything else to make a pornographic product that is eligible for people either 18 , or 21 and older.

The only thing that is the same is the use of an attractive model to lure eyeballs, after that there aren't many analogies. The sex acts themselves make it perfectly legitimate to require strict laws to protect young women from being sexually exploited on camera, because they are engaging in sexual acts. it's one thing to hype a tv show, or magazine articles by wearing a skimpy bikini, another thing entirely to sell & market hardcore sex, full frontal nudity, masturbation etc. I don't think that's a double standard as the scale does not balance imho.

what is the debate, whether its wrong to use attractive people & natural sexual impulses to sell any products & services, or whether appearing on maxim magazine is the same as appearing on the cover of an xrated dvd? To the first question I think everyone agrees, it is widely used across the advertising world. To the second question I think there's room for opinion, the laws just happen to fall on the side of maxim is not the same as being dp'd on camera for what i think is legitimate reasoning.

It's just too damn bad that we didn't evolve in such a way that we went from being children to instant adults.

I don't think they are "all that," personally, but I can't be too critical of guys who find them hot. These little tarts, or the management that controls them, are working their asses off to inspire exactly what people are thinking.

OLSON TWINS!
 

O.K. for starters they are hot, and when they get to be in their mid twenties they'll be gorgeous! But the thing about these two is when they were little they could be on television as cute little kids saying silly things. But as they got older they got involved in crappy movies and they're acting skills never developed and went to shit! So now they have a clothing line and that's going to work!? Hell no it's not gonna work! They'll both be in playboy before they're 21st birthday! DOWNHILL from ther everyone!

Re: OLSON TWINS!
 

I do agree that they are hot.

I've never watched an Olsen girls movie, so I can't and won't comment on their acting abilities, other than to say that they cater to the preteen niche and obviously they're very successful. Their clothing line I would assume would cater to the same crowd and will probably be at least moderately successful.

Even if their careers go in the toilet, neither one of these ladies will EVER pose nude, UNLESS it's to remove themselves from their current goody-goody image.

Re: OLSON TWINS!
 

these two have net worths of over $150 million dollars EACH. They aren't doing anything resembling nudity unless THEY control it and WANT to do it...I swear half the shit at Wal-mart has their faces stamped on it...

COOL!
 

Those are all excellant points my webmaster bretheran.

Want to take bets on which one will be in the news with a drug problem first?
Mary-Kate or Ashley?

To be honest I think this world puts to much value on celebrity. Why does everyone feel the need to know what everyone else is doing. I say "If it doesn't effect you don't worry about it."