Non Nude Teen Web Sites

How curious, MrAndrewV is apparently able to not only read minds but perceive how people would think in a given hypothetical situation.

Here’s a test for you: imagine what I am thinking now.

The increased sexualization of teenagers is an issue with very real social and individula costs. Confusing the onset of puberty with the mental and emotional maturity to engage in sex is a common mistake–usually it is made by teenagers. Neither you nor I have any grounds to argue that any model on these sites has or has not been harmed by their participation. Now, I do not argue that the sites should be baneed, but I do argue that they are ethically suspect and potentially harmful. Your insulting and inaccurate assessment that such an opinion is based upon “how * feel” rather than “worrying about the kids” notwithstanding.

Your example of the Grahamstown Art Festival is, of course, off point unless you wish to deny that teh sites in question create a specific context of sexuality in their presentations of these images. Nice herring though, brilliant scarlett and all the right scales.

The age of maturity, as I noted originally, is nothing more than a social and legal fiction, but it symbolizes a truth about human development. Magic 18 may be “stupid” to you, but you have pointedly failed to provide any alternative measure by which society can judge individual competence. Physical capacity is a non-starter. A 5 year old can pull a trigger. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to hand one a revolver.

I will note, BTW, that we have in this country something known as an “emancipated minor”. If the girls on these sites have all gone through the process to have a court certify their competence to form adult judgments and determine their own course, then my objections would diminish accordingly.

Ah, but I haven’t claimed to know otherwise. :slight_smile:

MrAndrewV has claimed that there is nothing wrong with such sites because the girls involved were not harmed at all in any way. As he is in no position to know this, his argument falls apart.

That isn’t a fashion site. Its not a teen interest site. It is a site for people with internet access to look at explicitly stated underage girls in a sexual manner, regardless of clothes or not.

And Fashion and Modelling magazines do have rules concerning the ages of models used, and the manner in which they are portrayed.

these websites do not.

The people who run these sites are no better than child pornographers. They are not paedophiles, but Morally they are destitute and corrupt.

legally, we cannot touch them as they do not display underage nude pictures, but morally these people aren’t fit to lick Milosovic’s scrote.

If this is the case, then child/teen actresses like the Olson Twins, whose parents who allow their children to dress the way they dress would be considered child pornographers as well.

or no?

Spiritus Mundi pointed out:

Point taken. But just because, off the top of my head, I can’t think of a better measure of individual competence does not mean one cannot exist. It doesn’t seem like a good idea to keep a fairly arbitrary, absolute threshhold without even bothering to attempt to concoct a better one.

So why not replace the magic 18 with something similar? Some standardized method of determining said competence. It’d seem to make more sense than an arbitrary number.

This is diverging somewhat from the issue at hand, though–if you’re interested, it might be better to take this issue up in a different thread, if you’d be interested. :slight_smile:

Lamia remarked:

Strictly correct, yes; but the exact same failure would befall an argument that the sites must be shut down because the girls ARE being harmed in some unspecified way. Chances are, neither is completely true. The question is, which takes precendence? The girls there who do know what they’re doing, or the girls who are harming themselves?

Unless the potential harm can be demonstrated as fairly severe, I’m inclined to say the former, personally.

The OP asks if these sites should be illegal. This raises the question: “illegal where?”’s Web server is in Ontario, Canada. Even if they were outlawed in the U.S. it wouldn’t affect this site in the least. Of course, that brings us to the thorny question of U.S. citizens accessing such a site…

Funny, I could agree with your conclusion, just not your arguments.

Perhaps the fashion and modeling magazines just overlooked their rules when the Calvin Klein campaign came out a few years ago featuring underage kids in underwear posed provocatively. Perhaps they just didn’t know that Milla Jovovich (and many, many others) was underage when she appeared nude in their magazine pages, or practically nude on their catwalks.

You say these websites don’t have rules. Isn’t no nudity a rule? And isn’t that rule more restrictive than even that great in loco parentis, Jack Valenti and the MPAA?

How else can you explain Pretty Baby, with a prepubescent Brooke Sheilds, nude, playing a character being raised to be a whore, and receiving an R rating?

And what about Lolita, a movie about pedophilia, also receiving an R rating?

This is mainstream stuff, at a theatre near you, and on the magazine racks at your local retailer.

But clearly this site crosses the line. Due to context. Right.

I wrote the OP and I was referring to Non Nude teen websites, not specifically, although that site is a good exmple of a NN website.

AZ, thank you. I do believe that I was talking out of my ass. I was under the assumption that the Magazines had rules, but apparently not. Mea Cupla.

I see their No Nudity policy as being a way to present underage girls as objects of sexual gratification for older men. It is simply a means to an end.
I don’t know enough about the Jack Valenti issue to comment at the moment, but I will do some research and get back to you.

I havent seen the movie, so I won’t comment on what I don’t know about.

This one is murky water. Lolita is a study of a man who is at war with his own judgement. To me, and this is just my opinion, Lolita is the arguement between Passion and Morality, the interplay of a man at the mercy of his desire, and the torture of society’s Morals.

Here is the difference, which I think is what you are saying also. Lolita does not say, “Check it out! Underage girls! not naked but scantily clad and damn hot!”

I understand that, Markus, but just as your point can be inferred from a specific example, so can mine. If the Web server for a given site is physically outside the United States, it is unaffected by U.S. law. And if a type of site is outlawed in the U.S., what is to stop the Webmaster(s) from moving it to a server outside the U.S.? So my questions stands: illegal where?

It seems that I have read (I can’t recall sources) that the rest of the civilized world does not have the taboos against teenage sexuality that we have in the U.S., and that teens tend to turn into well-adjusted adults anyway. Perhaps teenage sexuality is not the problem, but rather our puritan taboos against it.

Er, um, what? You’ve got some kind of link showing the Olsen Twins in bikinis, posing provocatively? That would sure surprise me, as their image is almost aggressively squeaky-clean.

And a quick survey of all the Olsen Twin fans in the room here (La Principessa is home from school with the flu) reveals that no, she has never seen them in bikinis posing “like pinup girls”, although she does remember that in one of their movies, they were, like, at the beach? And they were wearing, like, swimsuits? And the bottom of the swimsuit was, like, a short wrap? Or something? And the top of the swimsuit was, like, a bikini top? You know? So does that count?

I told her I didn’t think so.

This is the best I can do by way of Olsen Twins Provocative Poses.

Are ya getting hot yet? :rolleyes:


Well, let me start by saying that I haven’t clicked any links in this thread, but I’ve seen their type and I have some opinions about this.

You may find these sites “disturbing” or “immoral”, but what they certainly are not is illegal. Underaged girls can be shown wearing next to nothing in overtly sexually suggestive poses. They can even be shown completely nude in semi-suggestive poses, so long as there is no sex occuring and no overt sexual behavior (i.e. no spread eagle gynecology-style shots, no shots of girls engaged in self-pleasure, etc.) How these pictures displayed and the demographic that views them has nothing to do with their legality

As an underage guy, I can browse webpages with underage girls on them and not feel dirty, I have no way of knowing if I’ll feel the same way in two years, five years, ten years, etc. I’m assuming that like a normal person I will continue to be attracted to people of about the same age as me.

I am perfectly aware that there is a large segment of the population that has a sexual attraction to underage girls. I don’t have a problem with this, in fact I’m sure that huge numbers of people have what we would call “depraved” sexual feelings that they would never ever think of acting on. If they do act on them, that’s hurtful to other people and that’s illegal.

It should not be illegal to have thoughts that someone else considers immoral. It should be illegal to hurt other people. The laws that are in place in these situations cover those bases perfectly well, and we don’t need to ban, censor, or otherwise mess with this stuff.

It’s silly to pretend that a person has no sexuality until they turn 18. It’s silly to pretend that girls under that (relatively arbitrary) legal age will not attract attention from those outside the age range within which they can legally engage in sex. It’s extremely silly to try to hide girls under the age of 18 from the rest of the world for fear that someone will see them and have dirty thoughts about them.


If the question is one of pure physical attraction, Lucki, then I would imagine that attractive post-pubescent girls/boys will always be that way. True, there is (for most) no actual desire to do anything about it, but I ain’t kidding myself that a 16 year old isn’t a ripe young thing.

Next time anyone happens to be driving down the road near a high school after it lets out, look and see how many heads turn from older gentlemen (actually, I notice this just driving around town when a girl happens to be walking down the street, but whatever). I was surprised to see how common it is to have older men checking the young girls out.

Oh, wait, no I wasn’t. It is exactly what I expected. Now, had I seen one try to pick one up, well, then I would have been surprised. And fearing for the young girl, too.

But that isn’t the issue here, is it? Or are we moving the “gateway drug” theory into the realm of physical attraction?

erislover- I think we agree completely. You just said it a little clearer and more concisely than I did.

There will always be young girls that are both very sexually attractive and out of the legal and ethical range of older men as far as actual sexual activity goes. That’s fine, just don’t freak out about the turning heads, they aren’t doing anyone any harm.


Sjoe! Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, hung over, rugby to watch, children to analyze, sure you understand.

Spritus Mundi said:

"The increased sexualization of teenagers is an issue with very real social and individula costs. "

True, whats your point? It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that you are implying that the increased sexualisation of teenagers is a bad thing. Oh well, thats your point of view. I happen to disagree but that is a thread of a different colour.
"Confusing the onset of puberty with the mental and emotional maturity to engage in sex is a common mistake–usually it is made by teenagers. Neither you nor I have any grounds to argue that any model on these sites has or has not been harmed by their participation. Now, I do not argue that the sites should be baneed, but I do argue that they are ethically suspect and potentially harmful. "

I thought that the website we were talking about (the first one) had been created using photos that people had submited: i.e. that these phortos had been taken by the teens themselves. If I was wrong and we are talking about teen sites in general then you areright: they might have been harmed and that needs to be investigated. However if the site really is made up only of photos that teens have taken of themselves then I really don’t see how it can be harmful.

"Your insulting and inaccurate assessment that such an opinion is based upon “how * feel” rather than “worrying about the kids” notwithstanding. "

Geez you are responding as if I had singled you out. I did not intend that at all. I said that it seems to me that many people are guilty of caring more about their own moral agendas than what is good for the kids. I didn’t mean it to seem that it was aimed at you and I am sorry if you thought it was. :-I

"Your example of the Grahamstown Art Festival is, of course, off point unless you wish to deny that the sites in question create a specific context of sexuality in their presentations of these images. Nice herring though, brilliant scarlett and all the right scales. "

LOL! :smiley: It wasnt meant as a defense of the sites but as an example of people letting their agendas blind their judgement. Glad to see you still have your sense of humour tho.

Thing is that living in a country where the age of consent is 16 (South Africa) and a few members of parliment are pushing for it to be dropped even further it is hard for me to get uptight about 16 year olds shagging or being on porn sites. I assume that many of you recognise that 17yo’s are fairly close to available in your countries and are probably doing things that could get them arrested? Well down here in RSA that is how some feel about 15yo’s.

I personally think that 15 is just too young but the point of this side track is just that it really is highly relative. Obviously there is a line that should not be crossed (no I don’t know really what it is) but there is much freedom of movement. The ‘kids’ need to look to their own morals and parents need to talk openly with their kids. I cant think of any other ways.

Personally I feel that only allowing people to have sex at 18 is puritanical and only allowing them to drink alcohol at 21 is laughable. Totally IMHO, obviously.

-Andrew V

It seems to me that a lot of you are missing the point (or the point as I see it, anyway).

These sites aren’t there to show how cute these girls are, or how good-looking. And they aren’t there in the hopes that a modelling/acting scout will see one of the girls and discover a new star.

They are there for men to get their rocks off. And THAT’S whats wrong. Regardless of whether the girls are posting the pics themselves or not.

Ads on TV and in magazines depicting half-naked children that I’ve seen have been to advertise children’s underwear or swimwear. Their intent is NOT catering to people’s sexual fantasies, which is why they are acceptable.

Naked children/teens in themselves also are acceptable as far as I’m concerned, but I think nudity for all is fine. So artworks depicting nudity don’t bother me. Its when the nudity becomes sexually suggestive that I think its wrong.

The current law in America says a minor is anyone under 21. I agree, the law sucks. The 18 years in Australia is a bit much too, as far as I’m concerned. But until the law changes, we are bound to follow it. I don’t think breaking the law is the way to go about changing it.

Actually, in the U.S. of A. a minor is anyone under the age of 18 </nitpick>

I think that those of you who are throwing the term “Kiddie Porn” into the discussion of these websites are confusing the issue. These types of websites do not feature children. They are composed of pictures of post-adolescent, sexually developed females. Men who enjoy looking at these sites do not really qualify as pedophiles, IMO.

And I guess I’ll have to be the first one to state the obvious: Men are hard-wired to be physically attracted to young sexually developed women. Teenage girls who are fully developed send a message to the primitive, reptilian part of our brains: Fertile!. While most normally developed men do not view children in a sexualized manner, when we see a mature teenage girl, our brains are evolutionarily programmed to make us think dirty thoughts!

Seriously, I agree that psychologically it is not healthy for a man to have sexual relations with a female under 18. That’s why our society has laws against that–and rightly so. But to act as if it’s completely immoral and sick for a man to have lustful thoughts about young women is denying our own genetic programming!

I like to think that we humans are capable of keeping control of our actions, though. Just because you may have lustful thoughts doesn’t mean you should act on them, which includes searching out such sites to ogle the pics.

I’m the fifteen yr old webmaster of one of these “terrible” ( :rolleyes: ) sites. I used to live on the coast where you could see 13 yr old girls in thongs, which would arguably be much more provocative than any of these nonude sites which some of you refer so eagerly to as “kiddie porn”. Are teens going to be disallowed from walking the streets? are we going to imitate the middle east and force women to wear shrouds? maybe we can stone them when they don’t wear their shrouds!!
wouldn’t that be fun?

there is no reason for nonude sites to be illegal. Seeing a violent movie doesn’t make me go out and kill someone, listening to hard-core rap (Rakim, Nas, Big Pun etc…) doesn’t make me go out and “fuck bitches” and “hos”. Looking at a nonude site won’t make people go out and victimize underaged girls. nuf said. If any of you are offended by my post, too f***ing bad. Guess what? your kids - when they aren’t around you - act just like me.


I have a difficult time understanding the logic of “it’s bad because it’s intended for horny guys to look at.”

Even assuming that the site is directly marketed to pedophiles… why should that matter? It would still attract the same audience either way. Pedophiles aren’t going to pass over a site of hot young girls just because it doesn’t explicitly say “these girls are underage!”

But it’s not specifically targeted at adults; kids like underage girls too. I know when I was 16, I was interested in girls my own age, and if I were to look at clothed girls on the web, I would have preferred to look at girls my own age. Just like I would pay more attention to 16 year old girls at the mall than 20 year old girls.

The exact same pictures could be posted on personal homepages and no one would pull a Maude Flanders, even if the majority of hits were from pedophiles. (Or would they?) Why is the potential for “misuse” - for people over 18 to look at young girls and actually enjoy it (horror!) - more important than the legitimate use?