Just yesterday, I was browsing for a pic of Yasmeen Ghauri to be used for my desktop wallpaper. I was browsing around the web when I hit a “young models in sexy attire” site. So I go there…lemme tell ya, they weren’t kidding about the model being young. The girl posing couldn’t have been a day over 13, yet they were posing her in very revealing outfits and smiling seductively at the camera, looking for all the world like a bizarre blend of Jenna Jameson and Shirley Temple. I won’t tell you what she was wearing, but suffice it to say that NO child should dress/act that way.
Was it child porn? Yes, in my opinion. The fact that the girl was dressed (well, her privates were covered, at any rate) doesn’t change that. The fact that the site was legal doesn’t change that. You don’t pose a child in a skintight miniskirt, have her gaze at the camera with a fuck-me-now look on her face and tell me that ain’t child porn. It is.
Don’t even bother giving me the free-speech excuse. Suffice it to say that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend the First Amendment to allow the sexual abuse of children. You say this is meant to be artistic? Fuck that too, a child’s right to be a child comes ahead of your sick “art”.
Want a link to that site, fellow Dopers? Too damn bad, I’m not giving that site any free publicity.
Not having seen the photographs to which you refer, I can’t comment on their content; however, US Code : Title 18, Section 2256 disagrees with your definition.
If the main bits are covered, a link shouldn’t be out of line. Let’s see what you’re talking about before we start a witchhunt, shall we? How do you know the model was thirteen?
I don’t need to see a link, I am fairly sure he is at best referring to the sort of sites I have heard of before, where parents claim to be trying to launch a modelling career for their pre-pubescent kids. These models have fan clubs of older (like that would be difficult) men who as well as paying to see the photos can buy clothes and send them and pay to the child to pose in, and can also pay for private cam sessions with the kid. Legal maybe, good, no.
Please run all your children’s outfits by htns for approval or suffer his wrath!
Out of curiosity, what image if Yasmeen Ghauri did you settle on for your wallpaper?
From the description, it sure doesn’t sound like child porn. It does, however, sound skeevy as hell. Reminds me of last Halloween, when I saw some parents wandering around with a six year old girl in a see-through harem outfit. God damn, but that was creepy.
I don’t see how you can make it illegal to post pictures of kids wearing clothes… what legislation would not be so restrictive it would be illegal to post family vacation photos of kids in bathing suits? Would the JC Penny catalog be considered child porn? I think it’s easy to be personally against child modeling sites, but more difficult to propose shutting them down without really restrictive legislation.
If other people want to whore their kids and/or pay for the privilege of watching kids whore themselves, that’s their business. Just count me out of the game.
I agree with htns. Not that I can do anything about it, except avoid it, but I do agree. I also think that parents, who push their kid into this kind of activity are some kind of creeps themselves.
Well, it’s not illegal, so I’ll go ahead and post a link that supports the htns side of the argument. I figured, feh, how bad could it be? Well, I certainly felt dirty after viewing this site. Workplace safe, but if your coworkers catch you looking at it, they may have a far lower opinion of you.
I don’t really see any purpose to that site than for the pleasure of dirty old men with kleenex at the ready. None of the young models seem to be modeling evening wear or winter clothing. Every picture is of tight underwear and bikinis. With the models in what can disturbingly called seductive poses. We aint talking about the latest KMart flier here. They call marijuana a gateway drug, I figure sites like that are gateway child porn.
You know, it would not be nearly as disturbing if it did not appear to be a “gateway” activity, like people said. Not true in most cases, but if the part about personal contacts is correct, it could lead to facilitation of much more creepy activities.
I would like to say I was thoroughly revolted by the site, but it’s hard to feelanythinganymore.
[/sub]