Can you explain to me exactly what is wrong with men “getting their rocks off” to pictures of scantily-clad sexually mature teenage girls? I understand that you do not personally find it appealing, but what about it do you find so objectionable to condone censorship?
Remind me again which law is being broken.
Am I correct in assuming that despite your discomfort, you do not feel a site such as the one in the OP should be illegal?
I don’t see anything really wrong with these sites. I just don’t see any harm being done here. If some horny guy, regardless of his age, gets off at looking at these pictures, so what? I’m sure there are guys who get off watching underage girls at the beach, or watching the Olsen twins TV shows. Whether the intent to arouse is there or not should not matter. The result is still the same: the girls aren’t being hurt and some guys are getting horny.
Some people keep making a big deal over the intent–that a fashion magazine doesn’t intend to arouse, but these sites do. Again–who cares what the intent is? The result is still the same. And you then end up with a double standard: don’t let girls be shown in bikinis on a website, but let them go to the beach. It becomes a big mess of double standards.
Point is, there is no basis for making these sites illegal. And whether they’re immoral or not is totally subjective. The reason child porn is wrong is the same reason that rape is wrong–somebody is getting hurt. This is not child porn–it’s simply pictures of girls. If someone wants to get off looking at them, big deal. You can’t police someone’s thoughts. And in the case of this particular example, most of the girls here look hardly different from 18 year old girls. Why is it okay to fantasize about an 18 year old girl, but not a 17.99 year-old girl? It’s silly.
The Rman claims to be a fifteen year old webmaster making non nude websites.
Most fifteen year olds are veteran porn surfers.
You dont think they are fooled by filters, do you?
More power to non nude, I say.
Soitenly! I’ll admit it…I’m biased. I don’t want men leering at my daughter when she’s 15 years old, just because she may happen to have large breasts. I know, I can’t prevent it, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it or condone it. Just as I would be totally disgusted if I found my husband looking at those kind of sites in order to get his rocks off.
I hope that I will be able to raise my daughter to have enough common sense that she won’t feel the need to post pics to these kind of sites. But I’d feel a lot better knowing that those sites weren’t out there in the first place.
Sorry, my initial statement was a bit ambiguous.
I was talking about sites featuring nude teens, which others have mentioned as well. Some people feel that a 17 year old, while a minor in the legal sense, is old enough to make the decision about posing nude. I just wanted to say that breaking the law isn’t the best way to go about changing it.
So basically, I’m totally biased about the subject. Maybe I should stay off the thread…
Just because there are kids (and yes, they are kids) wearing thongs dosent make it right.
A pervert checking out kids on the beach is much more easily detected than a pervert checking out kids on the internet. ( I would hope )
Let me use the term ephebo porn, sexually explicit material featuring sexually developed yet underage girls.
Do you actually think that 14 and 15 year old boys will look at 14 and 15 year old clothed girls when there is the oppertunity to look at older, naked women?
No one is saying that, as well you know. What you are doing is portraying underage girls as objects of sexual attraction. While they remain clothed, it is not illegal (and no one is calling for it to be made illegal either, BTW ) but what you are doing is, to me, wrong.
Nice attempt to try and compare your detractors as Extremists. Its called Godwin’s law and it usually disqualifies any valid arguement you may make.
Once again, no one is calling for it to be made illegal.
No Deal. These are 3 different things and you know it.
Can you see the irony of what you are trying to say, and using stars to censor yourself?
Guess what? I don’t have kids. I’m 22. And I believe that what you are doing is sick. Not illegal (and I don’t propose making it illegal either), but sick none the less…
Yes.
It seems to me that those who are advocating that these sites be illegal are declaring them thought crimes: it’s OK for parents to allow their children to dress like that, it’s OK to take photos of them, it’s OK to post them on the Web. What’s not OK is to look at them and think about sex.
For those who think it should be legal, but it’s “sick”, I’d like to know what’s sick about it? Is sex sick? (I would guess the answer here is “no”.) Is masturbation “sick”? Is it still sick if the girls are over 18? If not, why is 17.5 so different? As other posters have mentioned, other countries have different rules - are Americans “sick” for looking at 16 yr-olds, but not Australians? Romeo and Juliet were 13 and 14 - does that make Shakespeare a sicko for “sexualizing” them?
Hello.
Okay formalities are done.
You all make good points for both sides of this. I’m freshly 18 myself i run one of these sites, and continually plan to. My girlfriend is 16 she is on my site, i find her incredibly sexy myself and so do many of my visiters. I find nothing sick about that myself. I myself am a christian true and devout. As many people such as rman up there would know. And maybe my morals are alittle loose but hell like Rman said go to a damn beach, more girls on one beach than on all the sites combined. Daytona, anyone been there? I’ve seen topless 15 year olds sun bathing on private property all in plan veiw.
I find nothing wrong with nn sites. although i myself refuse to post pictures of girls under 15 on my sites.
Sorry about the double post i can;t edit, and your having some sever problems.
Hey people
I am an 18 year old girl who runs a NN site that started about 2 weeks ago. IN these two weeks it has had over 10,000 hits to it. I also have my own pictures as well as my sisters pictures on the pages and they are very popular. We started taking pictures about 2 years ago when we were 16 and those pictures are on our site also. Some of our pictures are taken of us just doing everyday things or of us together doing silly things but NONE of them are sexually preovocative in any way yet people want more. Though I could never pose in underclothes like many of the other girls who take pictures, I won’t say anything bad about them either because it is a decision these girls have made using their own minds.
NN sites are not illegal, will never be illegal. I did have one girl email me to take her pictures off my site. The pictures that I had posted on my site were the no nude ones, she actually had several where she had nothing on but a t-shirt yet they were freely available elswehere, that’s how I got them.
Go after the people sexually abusing 5 year olds or murderers. Looking at girls in t-shirts and jeans or an occasional thong showing isn’t illegal.
Kim
Aren’t chicken hawks birds of prey?
It should be illegal because you don’t like it?
I once ran a heavily popular NN website for two years. I was once second in traffic to the leader teenplanet.org. The sites success came back to hurt them when my provider raised their hosting rates due to the massive traffic it was getting. I completely shut it down last year.
From my experience it is a fast growing genre. Last year almost all of the sites were run by money making scamers who published the same images on the same sites with misleading blind links. Now i see a lot of girls starting their own (pay or not). Not all of these sites will succeed. You cant just put a girl on a site, it must be marketed properly. And some of the girls are not even photogenic, let alone attracitve enough to sustain a successful site.
With the morality issue on the table I will have to say that NN sites are not illegal. Of course it can be low brow and immoral, but look at it differently. We are all perverts in a way. (at least us males) We like to look at what looks good.
I dont care how old she may be, but if your 15 year old daughter wears something provoacative. I’m going to look. You can curse at me all you want, but when she puts something like that on she’s attacting attention. I think girls in general use their sexuality as a powerful vice. Attention is a need of many women, especially if they have low self esteen. They dress this way to excite us and maybe get something out of it. (money, promotion etc)
One should not be called a pedophile when they look at this. Dont get me wrong. I’ve had a crazy cast of characters visit my page requesting nude versions of the girls i featured on the site. Sometimes they mistaken me as the girls. Looking at a underaged girl who dresses sexy is not a crime. Harassing them, and trying to have sex with them is. I made it pretty clear that i did not have illegal material. But I think many people went to my page to sexually grafify themselves. Earlier I’d thought they wouldnt do that, but apparently i was wrong when i got feedback from some visitors.
Last thing. The person who runs teenplanet is atomic frog. He is a pretty good guy. He’s taken as much crap if not more than me over the past few years his site has been up. I hope he comes and puts his two cents. It would be pretty interesting to hear what he says.
Honestly? My feeling is yes. I know its unreasonable, and I know its never going to happen , but that’s how I feel.
But not JUST because I don’t like it, but because I don’t want my daughter to ever be tempted to post her pick on those kinds of sites.
See, I told you I should stay away from this thread.
Maybe you didn’t understand the question.
I’m not concerned with whether you condone it, or what you personally find disgusting, though I must admit I am intrigued by the fact that you find male masturbation so troubling.
What I am interested in is how you logically support censorship of completely legal speech.
I find many things disgusting, including literature from the KKK and the bile that emanates from the likes of Jack Chick and Jerry Falwell. Pictures of septuagenarian sex kinda weirds me out. I would never purchase photos of male homosexual activity (but oddly enough I seem to have no problem with the female variety).
Yet in none of these cases would I support their suppression from those who wish to indulge themselves, provided said items were obtained legally. So I ask again, how can you justify calling for censorship in this case?
Upon preview, I see that you have realized your position is unreasonable. It would seem that you favor freedom of speech only when the opinions expressed agree with your own.
Ok… let’s discuss that for a moment. Earlier you stated:
This has me very confused. You do not object to pictures of naked teens, yet add in the element of sexuality and suddenly it bothers you? What is it about sex that so thoroughly disgusts you?
Firstly, males masturbating is fine. I never said there was anything wrong with that. I don’t care. My HUSBAND masturbating to images of UNDERAGE GIRLS is not fine.
Secondly, I said I was being unreasonable. I know that censorship isn’t going to happen, and its probably not a smart thing to do. But I can’t help feeling so strongly about this topic. If I was ten years younger, I’m sure I’d feel differently. Its funny how things change once you have kids. I know that sounds like a convenient excuse, but too bad.
As for sex…it does not disgust me. Hey, I’m pregnant with my third (which was unplanned, BTW). But I was raised to consider sex as something which should be done with someone you respect, and who respects you. My teenage friends who were having sex with their boyfriends of six months didn’t bother me because they had a mutual respect for each other. I was disappointed in friends who had a bonk at a party and then didn’t speak to the guy ever again, because to me that’s not what sex is about. I didn’t have sex until I was 19, and then it was with my husband.
Its really hard to write what I feel. Sex between teenagers is happening, no matter how I feel about it. Fine. But I don’t think that its necessary to display teenagers as sexual beings. And I don’t think they should be given encouragement.
Nude pictures…I guess we’re not going to see photos of nude teens in magazines, so that’s a moot point. I guess we could even get away with not having teen underwear models in K-mart catalogues as well. So now that I think about it, there’s no real need to have nude pictures of teens anywhere.
I DON’T want men looking at my (future) teenage daughter in a sexual way, even though I know its going to happen. But there are SOME things I can do to prevent that. One is teaching her fashion sense. Another is making sure that she won’t post provocative pics on the net (nude or otherwise). That job would be a lot easier if those sites weren’t out there.
I get the impression I’m repeating myself…
Friend Rob
I dont believe this should be an age of consent arguement, as that varies from country to country, and indeed, state to state. As such, we will never reach a consensus, so debating the legality issue would only be a waste of our time
Personally, I believe that at 16 and over, a female is mature and educated enough to make her own decisions regarding her body. I believe that it is wrong to promote ephebophilia of pubescent teenagers under 16, clothed or unclothed.
Have I explained myself sufficiently?
Anyway, Shakespeare, if anything, “romanticised” Romeo and Juliet. Plus his characters were older. The original R+J were 13 and 14, but Shakespeare based his play on their story, and took Artistic licence with a few details 
Baz Lhurmann sexualised them, and made the characters older. Its not like Shakespeare wrote
J: Romeo, Romeo, where for art thou, Romeo?
R: Right here babe. Wow! for a 13 y.o. Baby got Back!
I have Three questions for the NN webmasters.
Why do you market your sites as Non-nude, aside from the fact you are not naked? Exactly what demograph are you appealing to?
If you are over 16, and not posing provocatively, then why label your site as non nude? Are you trying to discourage one demographic, or encourage another?
BTW, I’m not attacking you. These are just some questions that this debate has brought up.
Your imput to this would be greatly appreciated.
I very much agree with most of what you said Tsubaki and with this in particular. Young girls and boys are being bombarded with images that ask them to grow up before their time. Young girls will have enough confidence problems about their bodies as is. Do they really need boys now comparing them to a world-wide sample. Do we need nearly naked recording stars influencing pre-teens? Do we need to make young girls sex objects before their time? Or should we provide a healthier environment for them to mature in.
Short of renting Ted Kazyncski’s cabin, you can’t shelter yourself from the images being marketed to children. Times and attitudes are changing, the physical maturation process seems to be quickening, but I think soceity should self-police itself and not promote underage teens as sex objects.
I’m not saying that we should officially censor this, as that’s almost as wrong. I’m saying that the people who make these sites work, both those who create and those who consume, and people who market singers dressed in what I call prostitute-chic, should reconsider their stances. While I’m an avowed capitalist, and there is a ready market, and what they are doing is technically legal, it still feels wrong.
I don’t know what it was like at your school growing up, but underage teens were sex objects. As far as I can tell, it was the same way in my mother’s time. My grandmother was engaged to be married before she finished high school. Young girls are sexually inquisitve, aware (as they inquire), and, in fact, quite often attractive. Society is not going to get better by denying this very plain fact of reality. I think it is extremely unhealhty to do so. I see no rational motivation for doing so.
Perhaps a remote mountain cabin is more appropriate: it certainly provides the shelter and developmental stunt some have a desire to seek (not stritcly anyone in this thread, who have all admitted that this shouldn’t be illegal, before anyone flies off the handle at this, but for every doper who finds it repulsive but still legal there are three non-dopers who want to ban it and kill the perps-- hell, I bet there are some dopers who wouldn’t mind taking a crack at them).
About my name…hell if i know… I just A JAy-Bird is.