Heh. What were D_Odds of that happening.
ouch I’m sorry. I must be punished.
Heh. What were D_Odds of that happening.
Duck Duck Goose,
Interesting perspective, but I find it a bit scary. Is it “almost” kiddie porn because it explicitly says “underage girls”? Again, what about fashion magazines? Just because they are selling a product, then that context is OK?
Also, you say “it deliberately caters to KP tastes.” How so, exactly? At least the girls are already past puberty. As Guinastasia mentioned, perhaps they are actually 18 and over. I struggle to reconcile these two perspectives.
Society values youth in sexual partners. Should it be surprising that a market for this exists? Should either the teens or the website operator be held responsible for that market demand? If such sites weren’t allowed to exist, would it push more eyeballs to the Candy Man style groups?
As for a teen in a bikini, I can go down to my neighborhood pool and see those all day long. When did that become dangerous? Last summer, there was one young girl, definitely in high school, probably sixteen (maybe seventeen), that showed up in a thong. She certainly got the attention she desired, most obviously from the teen boys, less obviously from the adult males. The adult females looked a bit stressed, but I wonder if they were simply jealous? Don’t most women, and alot men, wish they still had the bodies they had at sixteen?
even sven seems to take a more reasonable perspective (the context perspective). Otherwise, where will you draw the line? Is it just the marketing you object to? Or do we simply deny that teens are also sexual beings?
BTW, father of two, one in kindergarten, one toddler.
I also agree with Spiritus Mundi’s post, but I wonder if he/she meant to say:
If not, I didn’t follow that exact point.
I am suspicious that they could exist . . .
because I suspect that they could not exist . . .
OK. Then what does the phrase, “such a person” refer to in the second sentence of the portion I quoted? Are you referring to the teen there?
Questions of free speech should always be evaluated in context, and certainly the legal standards of the US have long been such. The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theater. The word “fire” is not the problem.
I cannot think of any way in which a word or phrase might be deemed objectionable/actionable/illegal which does not take context into account. Context is necessary to establish meaning. Without meaning, a word is simply a signifier (either a written structure or a sequence of phonemes or, in this case, a pattern of electronic bits). Extending “speech” to “visual representations” does not change this fact. Meaning is still derived from context. Artists have been using that fact to great (or not-so-great) effect for a number of years.
The antecedent of “such a person” is “an adult presence”.
Do you people think that it makes any difference that the web site is being created and run by teens, and guys in their early 20’s? Also, if you feel inclined, take a look at the website’s policy on nudity and child pornography. Many people involved are way against child pornography. Hell, often the people running the sights are children. Also, what role do you think web-cams have in this whole thing. Undoubtedly a huge portion of pictures on these websites come from webcams that girls in college use to create these pics.
Also, to whom was interested, these sites also exist with pics young men on them. However, they are more geared towards gay guys than women.
I’m sorry-I meant it was against the rules! I’m sorry!
You’re right, it’s not illegal, but prohibited on this board.
I guess I saw all the “illegals” mentioned above, and typed it without thinking. Nevermind. I am so freaking STUPID!!!
No, I think it makes no difference. Because the target audience (ie. randy men) is the same.
Currently, Japan has a real problem with child prostitution. The problem is the children are PROSTITUTING THEMSELVES. Girls are having sex with older men for money, clothes and other brand-name goods, and they see nothing wrong with it.
Should we excuse this because the girls are doing it of their own free will?
I have to admit that I’m quite amazed at the number of SDMB posters who want to restrict free speech by banning something that doesn’t meet any conceivable legal definition of pornography. I find the willingness to ban things you don’t like more disturbing than the teenie booty sites, which are, I freely admit, tasteless as all hell.
Are these sites tasteless? Yes. Should they be banned? Good Lord, no. If these people want to look at tasteless pictures they should be free to do so.
The Supreme Court definition of obscenity:
) A thing must be prurient in nature
2) A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value
3) A thing must violate the local community standards
If it meets all three of these things, it is obscenity.
- Yes, the website in question is definitely prurient in nature.
- Yes, the website in question is completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value.
- As far as “community standards” go, I will repeat my point, which is that it’s not the pix of the teen girls in bikinis as such that I find offensive. It’s the studied appeal to the needs of those who get their jollies from looking specifically at underage girls. I understand that there are probably millions of teen girls out there who are busy posting bikini-clad pix of themselves on their websites. I don’t have any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the way this particular website is organized so as to feed the needs of “hubba hubba Lolita lovers”.
And in the community where I live, community standards do not permit “hubba hubba Lolita lovers” to have their needs fed.
If they were just pix of girls in bikinis without any particular big deal made of their being underage, I wouldn’t give the website much more than a big " :rolleyes: ". Eh, so it’s Pinup City, BFD.
BTW, I’d like to warn everybody that if you put DotCom after teenplanet instead of DotOrg, you get a definite porn website, so be careful when you’re typing it into the Address window, as happened to us. When the Better Half came home from work, I told him to go look at the OP’s website and see what he thought, and not listening to instructions, he typed in DotCom instead of DotOrg, and we both got a nice closeup look at a (presumably over-18) teen girl’s mons veneris as she pulled down her bikini bottom for our viewing pleasure. :rolleyes:
For anyone who might be under the impression that this is simply a website created and run by late teens-early twenties without a clue:
Linked comment: teenplanet.org is an affiliate of teenbeauties.net and teenplanetnude.com. Teenplanet is an atomic frog production and part of the atomic frog network. 1999-2002 atomic frog / Teen Planet, Teen Beauties, Teen Planet Nude - All Rights Reserved. Atomic Frog Media, INC. 1999-2002. ]
These are porn providers in search of a different customer base.
I wonder how many of the people who want to ban the sites like in the OP also want to shut down the kiddie beauty pagents?
That being said, there seems to be an under-current of “Its a gateway thing.” Like how pot is supposedly a gateway drug which leads users down a slippery slope to crack, heroin, and other things. The thinking is that by looking at underage girls scantily clad, you’ll soon switch to looking at them totally nekkid (and worse).
There are worse things in the world than these sites. Anybody see the pro-anorexia sites? Those are truly disgusting and vile things.
As for why the sites are making a big deal out of the fact that the girls are underage (and I do believe that there are sites of underage boys as well), let’s not forget that old saying, “Forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest.”
I’ve actually wondered about these sites myself on occasion. I stumbled onto one some time back–a rather more tasteful one than some other people seem to have encountered, as well; it played up the “non-nude” aspect more than the “under 18”. I will admit freely that I browsed the site and it didn’t even occur to me until later the dubious nature of it. But then, I’m not that far beyond the age of the girls on the site myself, so they were still mostly perceived as being in my general age range.
There’s no dispute these sites are aiming for a perceived loophole, and it’s quite plausible they really AREN’T doing anything technically illegal.
But the main thing that strikes me aside from that is, with a few exceptions, all the pictures on the website are either:
a) Taken from everyday context–bikini photos, etc.
b) Taken and provided by the girl in the photo
IOW–nobody was being forced into this. And they ARE all past puberty as well, so the sexualization is if nothing else biologically unsurprising. These girls have reached the age where they ARE sexual, as much as some people like to pretend teenagers aren’t.
I do find the idea of horny 50 year old guys getting off to these sites disturbing. OTOH, I wouldn’t give a damn if some horny 15 year old guy was drooling over them. But what are you gonna do, implement some sort of reverse age-check system? Yeah, sure.
So, given that the pictures are volutary or from everyday context, I see no reason to ban these sites just because the idea of SOME people viewing it makes me uncomfortable.
[ul]prurient: marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to unusual sexual desire[/ul]
Pardon me, but does that seem to anyone else like a little question-begging?
2) Meet Conan the Barbarian.
3) Um, huh? No community ever wants something like a legal pornography shop in it. Does this mean we should ban pornography shops? They certainly contribute to what many would consider to be (1).
I think this definition is just vague enough to apply to whatever anyone wants to stretch it to be.
I can’t see why you don’t, seeing as it meets the same qualifications above. You’ll note that the above definition of obscenity has little to do with who it caters to.
This makes no sense to me. The content doesn’t change when we remove the words. The audience would doubtfully change. It being SCOTUS-defined “obscenity” wouldn’t change.
I don’t see how this makes much of a difference. If there were a site that featured graphic nude photos of underaged girls, would it be given a pass if all the photos were submitted by the girls themselves? Of course not.
The claim that “nobody was being forced into this” would be important in a case involving adults, but it is difficult to determine the truth of this when the participants are underaged. A seventeen year old may be as capable of making an informed decision about what to do with her body or pictures of her body as an eighteen year old, but what about a fourteen year old? A twelve year old? Even if it were proven that the girls were not coerced in any way, they are still too young to be able to make these sorts of decisions on their own. They can’t understand all the implications and potential consequences.
To those who feel that the original web site SHOULD be made illegal:
I think that we need to pause to see why it is that we have such a strong reaction to the idea of young girls/boys having sex or being seen in sexual poses.
See I was under the impressoin that the reason why having sex with minors was bad was because it would cause grievous psychological harm to them and not because it SEEMS to be ‘just wrong’.
Cause the thing is that if it can be shown that none of the girls in the photos have been psychologically scared by their actions would you then be happy to let the site go on? Of course not. It would still offend your morals and make you feel uncomfortable. That is of course the problem: somewhere along the line we stopped worrying about the kids and instead started worrying about how WE feel.
There was a really great art exhibition at the Grahamstown Art Festival a few years back that almost got the artist arrested. Basically it was a series of photos os very young boys and girls doing normal boy and girl things in playgrounds, on the beach etc. None of the photos were posed or staged they were just snaps of the kids playing. The problem? All the kids were completly naked. Naturally there was an outcry. People were braying for the guys head, screaming that it was pornography and they completely missed the point.
The artists point was that the in order to be pornography there would have to be a sexual angle to the art correct? Well kids weren’t doing anything sexual. They were just being kids. If anyone found the photos to be sexual in any way then that element of sexuality did not come from the childern and it did not come from the photos, it came from THEM the viewer and THAT is where the problem lay.
Nowadays people are so stirred up against kiddie porn (and rightly so!) that they seem to want to perceive any image of a young person as being porn. Now I know that the web site featured above is clearly aimed with a sexual angle but none of the girls who submited the photos has been harmed by them.
With this in mind I feel that there is nothing wrong with the web site at all.
I don’t see how you could possibly know that.
Legally? No. But who ever said the law was necessarily right? I wasn’t arguing the law, but what I would consider ethical. And if the person in the photo is submitting the photo willingly, I don’t care WHAT the photo is, nude or otherwise.
The problem is the chronological age has about diddly squat to do with any of it, I’m afraid. The magic number 18 is wishful thinking. I’m sure there are plenty of under-18 year olds with the mental maturity to know what they’re doing; there are also “adults” in the world who don’t have the mental maturity to manage their own lives, nevermind anything else.
Bottom line, if the person is mature enough to decide and is willing, I have no qualms whatsoever, regardless of age. Unfortunately, there’s no good way to measure mental maturity that I’m aware of. But the magic 18 number seems utterly stupid to me.
Furthermore, I’ll also agree with what MrAndrewV had to say, as well as noting that overreaction to sexualized pictures of kids who have passed puberty smacks of self-delusion. Once those hormones kick in these teenagers ARE sexual beings. Deal with it.
(Deliberately sexualized pictures of pre-pubescent children, OTOH, is disturbing because the sexualization must have come from OUTSIDE, implying coercion and potential harm.)
**Lamia ** objected:
I don’t see how you could possibly know otherwise.
The question, I suppose, is which is more likely, or which should be the default assumption.