First off, I’d like to thank Stoid for starting this thread and posting the article in question (wassamatter? Nothing else in the cupboard for lunch but this big ol’ can of worms?). I hadn’t seen it, and as it addresses an issue which I feel is of tatamount importance, you have my appreciation. As we’ve seen, it can be difficult to discuss it rationally without a lot of hostility spewing forth, which is what makes it all the more necessary to take every opportunity given to work it out a little more completely.
Freedom: Because I’m decent guy, I’ll go ahead and answer your questions in your most recent post; but I am still waiting for your answers to the questions that I asked you: How do you know Amber’s name is fake? (Granted, it’s likely, just for safety reasons; but you stated that it was). What’s your source for this information? Also, you made the statement that “all [her] fans were pedophiles jerking off behind a computer.” This is Great Debates, not the Pit. You are expected in this forum to provide proof of your assertions. You have been asked to do so. Please provide proof of this statement. You want to piss about personal attacks, follow the rules yourself.
Onward. Formatting for reasons of space and brevity:
Freedom: “What the hell is a “model website”?”
Dijon: It’s a website done by/for a model to promote her portfolio and help land her modelling jobs. In some cases, it evidently becomes the modelling job. In others, it’s apparently intended to be from the beginning.
Freedom: “Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a pay-per-view adult model website that isn’t a porn site.”
Dijon: Cite, please. :rolleyes:
Freedom: “A traditional model is used to sell a specific and seperate product. A singer is selling her voice. An actress is selling her talent. All these people may use parts of their sexuality, but it is not their actual sexuality that they are selling.”
Dijon: If parts of their sexuality are being used to enhance the sale of their product, then indeed to that extent it is their actual sexuality that they are selling. Unless I’m not getting your distinction.
Freedom: “A porn star is selling her own body. She is selling herself for the sexual gratification of others. There is nothing wrong with this at 18, but it is a big problem at 11.”
Dijon: I wasn’t aware of the sale of porn stars’ bodies. Videos of those bodies, certainly; but not the bodies themselves. Do they auction on Ebay? My landlord won’t let me get a cat. 
Besides, these kids aren’t porn stars to my knowledge, so I’m not sure there’s a valid connection here. I can understand what prompts the comparison, though.
Freedom: “Can anyone point out any adult with a similiar pay site that is non-pornographic?”
Dijon: Not according to you. (Freedom: “Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a pay-per-view adult model website that isn’t a porn site.” Remember?)
Freedom: “Is there a web business here that I missed?”
Dijon: Could be. True enough about their sale of Amber’s videos. I posted the link you referred to. Still, I don’t see a lot of difference between getting hired for modeling jobs and simply marketing your output yourself. Kicks out the middleman, and you’ve always got work. I just don’t see how that constitutes her parents “selling her down the river”. The Olsen Twins parents have been selling videos of their kids for years. Is that “selling them down the river”? They presumably also are purchased by pedophiles. Does that consitiute deliberately marketing to them?
Freedom: “Accepting for a second that her parents started out with just the intentions of giving their daughter a free “model” website for her to play around with, I would have to ask what the intentions of Molli’s parents were. They started out as a pay site with a video to sell.”
Dijon: I can’t speak to the intentions of Molli’s parents (or indeed anyone elses). What the situation seems to be in Amber’s case is that the original intent of her website was to shop out her portfolio. It evolved to its present state when it was realized that the site itself was marketable, thus eliminating the need to get modeling jobs. She had created her own.
I agree with someone upthread that what this discussion really needs is participation by these parents, so we can get some facts instead of settling for speculation. However, given how they have been tried, convicted, and impaled on pikes in this thread; if I was them, I wouldn’t really expect anyone to listen to me.
Freedom: “Will one of you guys who keep claiming that pedophiles are only a “part” of her customers please tell me who you think the rest of her customers are?”
Dijon: I don’t believe I have claimed that pedophiles are only part of her customers, but what I did say is that they are most likely only part of her audience. Other components of that audience IMO would be talent scouts, modeling scouts (the legitimate kind; she has contact info for people/companies who want to hire her for shoots such as department store catalogues), photographers, other girls her age with modeling aspirations of their own, parents looking for fashion ideas for their daughters, classmates, teenage boys, former teenage boys, the list could go on. Oh yes, and pedophiles. And rabid antipedo zealots, which in my opinion are just as much a danger to someone like her as the people they hate.
Freedom: “Who besides a pedo(p)hile would pay for access to these sites?”
Dijon: Can’t say. Don’t know. That’s one reason I’m uncomfortable with the sites being paysites. Still, they’re her pictures; it’s not for me to tell her what she may or may not do with them. If she wants to sell them, and people want to buy them (whoever those people might be) that’s a decision she must make with her parents. It’s not my call, whether I like it or not.
