Underage and selling their sexuality

Evil Chris · 10-09-2002, 09:22 AM

I read Andy Dunn's sexswap newsletter (if you don't, you should) from cover to cover (almost) every time he sends it out, and this week he provided a link to an article that got me to thinking.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...icle_501.shtml

The general scope of these sites is underage models who have their own sites. Non-nude, of course. In principal, they're accepted and legal (for now).

There is and has been, however, a trend among adult webmasters in the past 18 months or so. Non-nude galleries of underage female models (clothed) which push upsells to fully nude and/or hardcore teen sites. What's your take on this, if any?

black torana · 10-09-2002, 09:49 AM

its still abuse plain and simple
what sort of site do they promote teen sites i bet even thought the models may be of age the punter gos there thinking or imaging there not
its sleazy i dont like it at all just another loop hole for kiddie porn i think
haveing two daughters i feel pretty strongly on this stuff
thats just what i think anyway
cheers robbie

Tafkap · 10-09-2002, 09:55 AM

Did u have a look at the websites mentionned in that article?

Just have a look, that's terrible :

http://www.maxwells-teen-angels.com/

http://www.select-a-shoot.com/

DrGuile · 10-09-2002, 01:41 PM

any monetary exploitation of minor's sexuality is wrong in my book.

no gray area, no non-nude is okay. If your trying to make money of minors and pedophile, you're a scumbag.

XxXotic · 10-09-2002, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrGuile
any monetary exploitation of minor's sexuality is wrong in my book.

no gray area, no non-nude is okay. If your trying to make money of minors and pedophile, you're a scumbag.

couldnt have said it better myself

Cathedra · 10-09-2002, 01:48 PM

Wow this looks like a very sticky situation. I think unfortunately this guy has found a loophole and is exploiting it. The girls are underage, no they are not naked, but they are definitely scantily clad, and in poses that are slightly suggestive in my opinion. He definitely covered his ass by calling them models, but..I dunno I don't agree with this and wonder what these girls' parents would have to say if they saw the kinds of sites their little girls are on. I'm curious is anyone in the up and up of the US government knows of this site.

Bottom line..this site leaves me feeling very uneasy.

Aly · 10-09-2002, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tafkap
Did u have a look at the websites mentionned in that article?

Just have a look, that's terrible ]

Jesus christ...

To go back to the more 'innocent' hypothetical question of clothed young girls... If they are presented or marketed or the images are used within a sexual context (which they are in these cases) then it's not only legally flawed, it's also fucking despicable.

My friend Gary and I have been discussing at great length what measures can be taken to shut this shit down. Obviously, certain measures are already in place and, of course, there will always be a certain amount of this out there, but ... there are ways to curb the profitability and feasability of this very hurtful stuff. We have some ideas of our own and are meeting with Joan from ASACP on Friday to brainstorm a bit. ... What are all your ideas? What can we do proactively that we are not currently doing?

Our industry's noisey about this a lot of the time, but I still think we are way too complacent. I, for one, intend to shake this up. A lot.

breaker · 10-09-2002, 01:59 PM

Underage "kids" shouldn't be allowed to pose sexy on the net i think but damn i'm i the only one who thinks the first girl in the article looked hot for a 13year old.. damn i feel a bit sick and worried.

There will be an program about this on swedish tv tomorrow. About the largest teenage community site in sweden where teens have their sexy photos and make connections with others to have sex etc.

adltbiz · 10-09-2002, 02:02 PM

i dont give a shit what this site says on their legal info.. this one site is pure illegal and should be taken down asap!

**edit: the URL was removed.

i hate child pornographers, they recently caught a few of them here in NYC and the worst part about all of it, was the guys arrested were cops!

gregtx · 10-09-2002, 02:03 PM

without looking at the article.. my blind opinion...

If the models are clothed... then it is no worse than a swimsuit catalog.. or a large advertisement of kids in bathing suits in the window of "The Gap"...

I can't recall the artist's name.. at the moment.. but she does picures of nude babies.. that are sold in forms of calendars and wall hangings... it is all a fine of line of child porn and art... all in the eye of the beholder... some pedophile would find this "art" sexually arounsing, where as a mother of kids finds it "cute"...

It is all about where the line is drawn... and who is the nut case who crosses that line...

as of now I believe child porn.. it when the kids are forced into a "sexual act"... not just being nude... there are several artists who make a living from shooting nude kids frolicking on the beach...etc...

i'm rambling now...

cheers
greg

twinkley · 10-09-2002, 02:03 PM

Yes, without a doubt, it is sick. Yes, they are somewhat suggestive poses and are scantily clad. Anyone who uses this as an upsell to a porn site should be shot. They are catering to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunatly, these sites are not going to go away. Why? Well, because these kids (and their parents) want to be genuine child models/actors and the internet is the perfect way to get exposure for themselves.

The only reason this is a problem is because it is now being associated with our industry due to some scumbags. Having nothing to do with our industry, child modeling sites are legit.

People see child models all the time and don't think of it as abuse. They are on TV, in magazines, aw hell, you can open up your newest Wal-Mart flyer and they are all over the place modeling toys, clothes, sports equipment - everything.

The internet IS a great tool - if used properly. Unfortunately, there are some verry sick people out there that would warp and twist it so that people - children especially get hurt. It's everyones job (esp. ours) to keep an eye on it and report anything wrong.

There is a difference between child porn and child modeling. NO ONE has the right (in my book at least) to insinuate, imply, produce, sell, or create child porn. It is EVERY persons right to be able to use the internet to further their legal, legitimate goals for the future.

twinkley

Ounique · 10-09-2002, 02:03 PM

This stuff doesn't sit well with me. I mean, we have barely-legal stuff like other content providers but using a minor, even fully clothed, in that way is just not cool. Plus, it makes the whole industry look bad. Sure, one person is able to find a legal loophole and make a temporary profit from it, but at what cost. Getting the powers that be who are already against us to tighten the control they have over what can and can't be viewed over the internet by consenting adults. They will find a way to get a victory over this one thing and then drag a bunch of other things along with it that will really screw us all! I'm sorry, I try to stay out of controversial subjects but this one really bothers me. On the one hand I'm against any kind of porn that involves minors in any way, and on the other hand I'm very stubborn when it comes to my rights and the fact that they may be at risk. Giving them an excuse to take away more of our rights is just stupid.

BTW, Evil Chris, you need a "soapbox" smiley.

Bruno Dickman · 10-09-2002, 02:08 PM

I tottaly disagree with that kind of activity! As Dr. Guile said "any monetary exploitation of minor's sexuality is wrong in my book" and thats wrong in my book too!

Fuck, there's so many thousands of hot legal teens out there, why do these imbeciles want to have the illegal ones - the kids? Thats fucking sick - they are a bunch of sick and twisted loosers with no brains. I am against death penalty, but there's always an exception to the rules, and I'd say "Fry these motherfuckers!"

Take care,

Bruno

adltbiz · 10-09-2002, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by twinkley
Yes, without a doubt, it is sick. Yes, they are somewhat suggestive poses and are scantily clad. Anyone who uses this as an upsell to a porn site should be shot. They are catering to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunatly, these sites are not going to go away. Why? Well, because these kids (and their parents) want to be genuine child models/actors and the internet is the perfect way to get exposure for themselves.

The only reason this is a problem is because it is now being associated with our industry due to some scumbags. Having nothing to do with our industry, child modeling sites are legit.

People see child models all the time and don't think of it as abuse. They are on TV, in magazines, aw hell, you can open up your newest Wal-Mart flyer and they are all over the place modeling toys, clothes, sports equipment - everything.

the difference between the wal-mart ads and these are the kids are naked and selling the "fantasy" of having sex with not just a minor, but a child. BIG difference.

Aly · 10-09-2002, 02:17 PM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AVN IS FIRST CORPORATE SPONSOR OF ASACP

ASACP (Adult Sites against Child Pornography) is pleased to announce that AVN is its first Corporate Sponsor at the Title level. AVN is the adult industry’s dominant trade publisher and produces the largest adult tradeshows and events. ASACP is the premier organization helping the adult site industry to make a difference in the battle against child pornography.

“We are pleased to be ASACP's first Title Sponsor and encourage other leaders of our industry to do the same. ASACP provides an invaluable service to the adult industry in its ongoing efforts to combat child pornography. We fully support ASACP and its vital mission,” said Paul Fishbein, Publisher of AVN (www.avn.com).

Aggressively expanding to meet the demand for its services, ASACP is increasing its visibility at industry tradeshows, working closer with government agencies and other organizations, and building awareness of ASACP on the Internet. ASACP receives over 80 reports of suspect child pornography a day - a 60% increase over prior year. The ASACP logo is proudly displayed on over 2000 adult sites that are taking a stand against child pornography.

If you are interested in learning more about ASACP or helping in the fight against child pornography, please view the ASACP site (www.asacp.org). If you are interested in supporting our vital mission by becoming a Corporate Sponsor or a Founding Member, please email joan@asacp.org.

Tera · 10-09-2002, 02:24 PM

I agree with Twinkley here, I have not read the article as I don't have much time today, but this subject is something that is constantly circling around in the industry.

Teen model sites are completely legal but, I feel you don't have to go as far as dressing your under age daughter in lingerie and black pleather dresses to acheive an early career for her. The parents and photographers for these sites should take more responsibility in how they portray these teens and underage models expecially with the pics being distributed over the internet. I took a look at one of the sites and the models are dressed very seductivley and suggestive, and I don't agree with that. Parents should take more control but, I can't blame them, I am sure not all of them are educated on the dangers of doing that on the internet.

On the other hand this industry needs to take responsiblity and think before you make galleries of these young woman to upsell to hardcore teen porn. There is enough of a bad image of us in regular society and with the US governement, we all have rights and they are quickly being diminished in a lot of ways. We do not need the government to take control of our own industry, but if we don't take responsibility and think before we try and make the big bucks, they soon will be breathing down our necks.

ALY - Shake shit up!

I could go on and on and say more, but there is work to be done and I rambled long enough.. sorry for the long post!

Evil Chris · 10-09-2002, 02:26 PM

Some people say that the child beauty pagaents are ok, and the child model section of the Sears catalog is ok... etc..
I yes I think that these things are fine. I do say that the pagaents get a little out of hand... esp with the parents of these kids.

But the kids in the Sears catalog are there for the purpose of selling clothing or toys. Not adult material.

Sly · 10-09-2002, 02:37 PM

Thanks for the link Chris. Just reading over the article right now, have been reading a fair amount of discussions about this throughout the last several months.

First off, in no way, shape, or form am I condoning child pornography.

But let me ask you something quick, what did you think of Bobbi Jo? Without looking at the age, what did you think of her? Seriously. No need to lie, I thought she was gorgeous and had a great body. Does that make me a pedophile? I sure hope not.

Bottom line, are these girls being exploited? Absolutely. Are the girls at Club Seventeen, iTeen, and Bang Bus being exploited? Absolutely. Hell, Club Seventeen the word "seventeen" in it. What does that imply? They have cute looking teens swallowing cock and putting toys in each and every hole they can find. Yet I see it being promoted quite a bit, and I hear it retains quite well.

And then we have our cute 15 year old busty blonde from Alabama showing some skin. Damn her! Damn her parents! How could they! She's doomed! She'll be doing porn in no time!

Doesn't anyone notice anything fishy about this? Who are you to tell a 15 year old girl that she can't wear a bikini and dress sexy online, all while promoting a site that can easily imply 17 year olds are sucking cock on camera?

I may be a hypocrite at times, but this case is just too thick for me to fall into the "that's just wrong!" routine. Would I let my daughters do this? Absolutely not. Am I going to stop your daughters from doing this? Absolutely not. You make that decision, not me.

I will say, though, some of the examples in this article were very extreme end of course those operations should be shut down immediately. Sex with these minor models? No way. Completely out of line. And about the girl who gave her mothers boyfriend a handjob, come on. Don't place that stereotype on these girls. Just an isolated incident that this author is using to sway you towards his cause. This same exact situation happens too many girls all across the country, again, this isn't just a "model" thing.

Anyway, I'm off to lunch. Have a good day all!

RedShoe · 10-09-2002, 02:39 PM

Hey, they don't call him Evil Chris for nuthin'.

Nice contraversial topic by the way. First let me say, having a daughter myself, I'd kill (or at least seriously mame) anyone that posted a pic of her, EVER! I don't care if she's 18 or 53 she's never going online in a provocative way. Not if I can help it.

Now you know where I stand. So then this next part just adds to the intersting topic.

Robert Mapplethorpe took pics of naked children and put them on display in (I think Cincinatti.. not sure if that's where it was, but regardless) a museum. People went ape shit. They demanded that the photos be pulled immediately. The photos were used in a triptic ( I think is the style of art) It's where a message is made by using 3 objects to convey the message.

Well, people were not considering the whole work of art, they were just fixed on the photos of the naked kids.

One of the kids was interviewed years later as an adult and didn't think anything was wrong with them. A lot of other people found them lude. Does that make it ok to display nude photos if after they are an adult, they consent?

Then I read somewhere that a girl had taken photos of herself when she was younger, stuff she had done on her own, and was posting them on the internet. She was now an adult and the photos were of her naked self as a minor.

Since she was the one that took the photos of herself nude as a minor, and since she was the one posting them, could she be convicted of posting underage content?

Tera · 10-09-2002, 02:41 PM

Chris.. You are so correct, child beauty pageants get WAY out of hand.

What makes them out of hand is the parents, just like child sports. I am wondering how parents could sign off on pics of their children like that and have them posted on the internet with free gallery options and the like. Parents get way out of hand with child modeling and money making schemes just like adult webmasters do, but the difference is, irresponsible adult webmasters can cause problems throughout our whole industry and cause problems for responsible business men and woman.

Electra · 10-09-2002, 02:42 PM

I am coming across more and more articles on the web where states and local police departments are looking at the "teen model" sites. I am in agreement with those who have posted that parents should take more responsibility in how they allow their children to pose for various catalogs.

Magnus3x · 10-09-2002, 02:45 PM

I don't care how this shit is packaged it's just wrong! Some of these people and parents need a clue and the back of me hand!

Evil Chris · 10-09-2002, 02:49 PM

I have no clue what goes on in the mind of pedophiles, however there is something about these pics that I don't understand.

Take the first pic of Bobbi Jo. She actually looks like she's 20 or 21.
If the end target to a pedo is underage, then what's the deal with making them up to look like they *are* of age?

SweetDominique · 10-09-2002, 02:55 PM

In a way I am glad my site is not big enough to get all that attention from the media. I am over 18 years old and have the right to run my modeling site.
I do agree that some of the models that they wrote about are not old enough to make there own decisions and that is wrong.

I do not trade traffic with any of the underage non nude sites, but as long as the models are over 18 and can make a responsible decision it is fine. My site is just like any other amateur site, but my niche is Non Nude. I am always categorized into all Non Nude sites. I think webmasters have to educate themselves and understand that Non Nude is just a specific Niche and should not be categorized with the "Pre- Teen" Non Nude sites.

I do not like to hear that models have been taken advantage of by there photographers or agents.

I have been lucky enough to team up with some really good webmasters and have full support from the great support from all the affiliates. The conversions are excellent and now that we have networked all the sites together the retention is amazing!

I am always updating the FREE content you need to promote my site. If you would like to take a look at it , you can find it here,

RedShoe · 10-09-2002, 03:04 PM

Dominique, Did you shoot that photo set "RedShoes" just for me???

Aly · 10-09-2002, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RedShoe

Robert Mapplethorpe took pics of naked children and put them on display in (I think Cincinatti.. not sure if that's where it was, but regardless) a museum. People went ape shit. They demanded that the photos be pulled immediately. The photos were used in a triptic ( I think is the style of art) It's where a message is made by using 3 objects to convey the message.

Mapplethorpe was indeed controversial in his actions, and purposefully so, I imagine. He was, however, pushing the envelope on nudity and art, not sexuality. Kids, clothed or unclothed, presented in a non-sexual way can be art or advertising or whatever. Pics of kids, clothed or unclothed, or even in their bloody snowsuits, that are used in a sexual context cross the line. It's a matter of context.

gregtx · 10-09-2002, 03:30 PM

very interesting arguments... for sure..

IMHO

A. we all use images to promote sites... whether they were intended to be portrayed as "see this chick swallow ten 40 inch cocks"... and its a pic of an 18 year old girl topless... shooting her first "playboy" style shoot... I see it everyday on everyones sites... so before anyone calls the kettle black.. step back and see exactly what you promote yourself...

B. Why would you shoot material to portray underage girls??? Appereantly you want to promote the fantasy of underage girls on sites... No????

C. So now do we go after sights that have a picture of a horse and a girl.. on the tour.. even though there is no beastiality inside the site??? just because it portrays the ideals of beastyality???

Being in this industry... you should really watch what you want your government to censor and regulate... give them one step and they will take 10...

10-09-2002, 03:31 PM

I don't agree with these kind of sites at all either. I wanted to watch that show that the article talks about but I missed it. If a 16 year old really wanted a "modeling site", why would they charge money and have a member's section? And the parents of these kids who agree with it should be put in jail. I've got a daughter and there is NO WAY I would let her do something like this or try to make her do something like this to make a quick buck.

Another thing that gets me are the cc processors that are processing for these sites. If I was a credit card processor, there's no way I would process for one of these sites. Being that I run an avs too, there's no way I'd let a site like be accepted. Like I would go and make a new catagory called "non-nude underage teens...ATTENTION ALL PEDOPHILES".

Just my 2 cents...

Sly · 10-09-2002, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luke
I don't agree with these kind of sites at all either.

And I don't agree with tranny sites. And gay sites. BBW sites. BDSM sites. And...

10-09-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly

And I don't agree with tranny sites. And gay sites. BBW sites. BDSM sites. And...

I don't personally surf or like sites like that but I don't see anything wrong legally with them.