Non Nude Teen Web Sites

Should web sites like this :

be illegal? Are they immoral, or otherwise just bad? :confused:


I think it’s pretty scummy and immoral to present minors in such a sexual way. Just because they’re not nude doesn’t mean it’s right. I’m not a prude, but I don’t think people should be posting pics of minors on the net for nefarious purposes.


What if the site is run by teenagers and is geared towards teenagers? Does this make these websites OK?

Check out this one: NNtalk

On this site there are like 4 girls who regularly post pictures of themselves and about 20 guys who oogle for their attention. It is a situation where if the proper information was released about one of these girls, it seems like it could be a dangerous situation.

However, I must admit that as a 23 year old there are some hottie late teens, early twenties women who are not supermodels.

Does the fact that the girls themselves are posting the picture mean anything?

Markus, do you really need to post links in order to ask whether pictures of scantily clad minors are illegal or immoral?

Illegal? On what basis?

Immoral? Depends on your morals.

Bad? Another judgement call.

Clearly, these sites prey on the prurient interests of society. This site appears to subsist on having the teen girls submit their own photos. Does that make the girls “bad”? Aren’t they just trying to imitate the “grown-up” world they are about to enter, and strive to be? Are they to blame?

The point is that the problem is more societal than specific to these website operators or the girls posing for the pictures.

What about women’s fashion magazines? Frankly, they are filled with underage girls in less attire, but there is no outrage. Why the double standard? Because they are paid* well?

yo Robb,

I never asked if scantily clad minors are illegal or immoral. I asked if web sites like this one: [link removed – MEB]

There is no nudity and the link directly relates to my question. If you don’t like the link, don’t press it!

How about I change my question around a little bit:

How might these sites effect the future attitudes of teen girls and guys who partake in this activity. I mean, it is entirely possible that in 20 years I meet some girl who has pictures floating around on the internet of her half nude when she was 17. Or an employer may be able to do the same thing. Maybe this belongs in the IMHO section, cause I just want to know what other people think about this stuff.;j

Um, excuse me, but I was under the impression that posting porn links on this board was, um, illegal?
BTW, how do we know for sure these girls aren’t actually 18 and over and just look really young? I’m 23, but some people think I’m as young as 17.

I don’t know about illegal, but certainly against the rules. However, not one of the links have any nudity, which would normally be a prerequisite for “pornography”. Or maybe not, if you are of the “I’ll know it when I see it” type of person.

If they were 18 or over, I suspect they would be nekkid, otherwise, they wouldn’t be getting any hits! And after all, the sites are making money through advertising.

Disgusting? Sure. Illegal? I would love to hear someone explain how.

Wait a minute. Teens are supposed to be never seen and never heard? Then ban the teens from participating in pro sports. Have everyone be over 18 to be in any sport on TV. Figure skating, gymnastics, anything.

And the women magazines are much worse in showing teens being scantily clad. Ban them too. Or is it that the teens in the site in question are not selling some cologne or sneakers or dancewear. Probably that’s the reason for the angst: they aren’t being used as commodity.

Jeez. Some kids will show off. That’s how they are.

Ok, I’d admit: some of the photos are tasteless.

I’ll leave it to the mods to decide whether the links violate board policy. For myself, I found the cites linked to be very obviously capitalizing upon the sexualization of underaged girls. I find that very disturbing.

Is it illegal? I couldn’t say. Certainly they seem to be trying to “live in the cracks” of child pornography definitions.

Is it immoral? Maybe(assuming that the girls pictured actually are underaged). While the cut-and-dried legal distinction between a protected minor and an emancipated adult is little more than a societal fiction, the principal that adolescents in general lack the experience, maturity, and perspevtive to inform their decisions is not. While these girls might feel in control and insulated from any repercussions of these photos, I fear that they are not.

Whether my fear is correct, I hope never to learn. In fact, I hope that I am wrong and that none of these girls is ever troubled by the actions they are taking or by the actions of others upon seeing these photographs. These are the types of risks that adults must be allowed to take in a free society. They are also the types of risks that we try to guard our children against.

Without knowing the specifics of each individual case I cannot say for certain that moral bounds have been violated, but I am deeply suspicious that such cites could exist and prosper without an adult presence willing to encourage/cajole/manipulate the girls’ participation. And I doubt very seriously that such a person is acting under a moral code which I would find acceptable.

I’d like to think that by the time my daughter hits puberty, I would have taught her something about respecting her body and herself.

I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, these girls are MINORS, and although they aren’t naked, their pictures are certainly suggestive. Guys aren’t looking at these pics thinking “Aaww, isn’t she cute?”. So I think they shouldn’t be allowed.

But basically I think the parents of these girls are pretty slack in their parenting.

Oh, and if these kind of sites aren’t nefarious, then why aren’t their sites of half-naked teen boys catering to teen girls?

I can’t help thinking that some of these girls are going to be pretty embarrassed in five or ten years time.

Moderator’s Note: We have enough links at this point to sustain a debate–possibly too many links, and I have in fact removed one link which seemed to really be pushing the line.

Please proceed with the debate. Do not proceed with posting links to websites featuring ever-more prurient pictures of teenage girls.

Thank you.

After scrolling through the main link in the OP I must comment… perhaps we should ban Hooters, too, den of iniquity that it is.

Ah, I love it! Moderate moderators moderating in moderation!


I don’t think these sites should be illegal.

Heck, I’ve got plenty of picturesof myself in my teen years that fit the content of these sites. All from my everyday life. The difference here is the context. And try as I might, I can’t see perfectly legal speech rendered illegal by context.

Yeah, it probably isn’t the best thing for these girls, but the world is full of bad things. It doesn’t seem like the conceivable harm that these sites present are pressing enough to make major exceptions to protected speech.

Mother of three here, two teenagers and one pre-teen.

“Free speech” considerations aside, yes, I think sites such as border dangerously on kiddie porn, because the whole point of the website is, “Underage Girls!!” It’s plastered all over the page, with a big red arrow no less, pointing to a teen in a bikini, “She’s under 16!”

If not actually “kiddie porn”, still it’s deliberately catering to KP tastes, and yup, I’d say “ban it”.

Given the brevity of your OP, how would I know what the link is without seeing where it goes?

You can have pictures of pretty girls in bikinis posted on a Website without making an issue of their extreme youth, their “underage-ness”, their “jailbait” qualifications, their “forbidden-ness”. That’s the thing that I object to.

Here Spiritus, I agree with you completely.