Non Nude Teen Web Sites

[Rman]

Why do you market your sites as Non-nude, aside from the fact you are not naked?

there is no other reason. that’s the name of the category these sites fall into.

Exactly what demograph are you appealing to?

none. We are appealing to anyone who likes nonude pictures… I don’t know what age bracket that would include, but it would probably have people from 13 up to… ah… I don’t know…

If you are over 16, and not posing provocatively, then why label your site as non nude?

because if the site isn’t nonude it would be nude, therefor we would move into the “lolita” category… something I wouldn’t want to participate in.

Are you trying to discourage one demographic, or encourage another?

no.

---

TwistofFate

Just because there are kids (and yes, they are kids) wearing thongs dosent make it right.

what makes wearing a thong right or wrong?

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 )

Incorrect. If somebody is just sitting on the beach would they be arrested?

Let me use the term ephebo porn, sexually explicit material featuring sexually developed yet underage girls.

Sexually explicit huh? talk about trying to make your detractors appear to be extremists…

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 opportunity to look at older, naked women?

Yes. How did I, a fifteen yr. old myself, find out about it?

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 argument you may make.

Underaged girls are already sex objects!! what kind of dumbass are you?? have you ever been inside a middle school, or a high school for that matter? watch the HBO special “Middle School Confessions”, maybe that will enlighten you…

as for your call on godwins law… it looks like you’ve made a similar violation as well as a simple grammar error… poor you…

Once again, no one is calling for it to be made illegal.

actually, yeah they are. Have you read this thread at all?

No Deal. These are 3 different things and you know it.

Incorrect. In each situation, seeing or hearing something is supposed to make you take an action that is portrayed. They are all the same in that sense, and therefor: perfectly valid.

Can you see the irony of what you are trying to say, and using stars to censor yourself?

no. there is no irony, I just know that some of you are probably thin skinned enough as to edit my post, so I didn’t bother. Since you care so much… too fucking bad.

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…

sick? sick for looking at girls my own age? really? Then is it sick for you to look at 22 yr. old girls?

your arguments hold water like a sieve.
I’m sad to see that our educational system has dumbed down 22yr olds to the 8th grade level… sad ain’t it?

from a 15 year old to a college student or graduate: form coherent thoughts. Next time think before you go toe to toe with a superior mind.

[TwistofFate]

you know, I had a nice long reasoned arguement refuting some of your points, agreeing with some of your others and clarifying my position, y’know, tring to have a reasoned debate with you.
I did not invoke Godwin’s Law, regardless of what you think it might be.
I was not educated in the US, actually, but if you are going to make assumptions, just stop at “u”, ok? So claiming I made a grammatical error when in fact there was none just refects badly upon you.

then I noticed this little gem

from a 15 year old to a college student or graduate: form coherent thoughts. Next time think before you go toe to toe with a superior mind.

I think your egotism says volumes.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Rman *
**there is no other reason. that’s the name of the category these sites fall into. none. We are appealing to anyone who likes nonude pictures… I don’t know what age bracket that would include, but it would probably have people from 13 up to… ah… I don’t know… because if the site isn’t nonude it would be nude, therefor we would move into the “lolita” category… something I wouldn’t want to participate in.no.
**

I have some pictures of myself and friends on my website, and although we are all fully clothed in all of these photos I do not consider it a “non-nude” site, nor do I bill it as such. Why? Because most photos of most people are non-nude. The default presumption is that ordinary photos will be non-nude. No one would feel the need to say “Here’s some non-nude photos of my trip to Iceland!” or “Want to see non-nude pictures of my retirement party?”

The only reason to make a point of saying that photos are non-nude is if they fall into another category in which nudity might otherwise be expected, such as “non-nude erotica”. This is as obvious a use of the conversational implicative as I could hope to find in any textbook. It is disingenuous of you to pretend as though you aren’t implying what everyone who visits your site must know you are implying. I know damn well what sort of traffic I’d be getting if I had my page listed as “Non-nude photos of hot young girls”.

[Rman]

I think your egotism says volumes.

It doesn’t. I’m just in an egotistical mood

Nice attempt to try and compare your detractors as Extremists

I’ll admit. Its marginal.

if you are going to make assumptions

there are assumptions implied in almost everything.

Its called Godwin’s law and it usually disqualifies any valid argument you may make.

“I did not invoke Godwin’s Law”. what is this? go ahead and post your “long reasoned arguement”. Not posting because of my perceived egotism doesn’t reflect on you very well either, its like surrendering because your opponent is gloating…

ps: since it bugs you so much i won’t point out the spelling errors…

[Rman]

why can’t i edit my own posts?

anyway… Lamia

It is disingenuous of you to pretend as though you aren’t implying what everyone who visits your site must know you are implying. I know damn well what sort of traffic I’d be getting if I had my page listed as “Non-nude photos of hot young girls”.

Actually you don’t. Very little of my traffic comes from search engines. The “nonude” is so that people know what to expect… as such it does not double as some devious “traffic magnet”. As with most overused terms, you can’t expect traffic to flock to your site just because of the word “nonude”…

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Rman *
**why can’t i edit my own posts?
**

Because that feature has been disabled. I’d think someone with your superior mind could have figured that one out.

**
The “nonude” is so that people know what to expect… **

Exactly.

[Rman]

Because that feature has been disabled. I’d think someone with your superior mind could have figured that one out.

sigh no… i mean what reason is there that I cannot edit my own posts. Since your original post ended up before mine, I was going to add my response to your questions to my original post.

Have you people ever heard of sarcasm? Its something fifteen yr olds these days have a healthy dose of. Maybe i should’ve put a nice “:rolleyes:” next to my “superior mind” comment…

[Guston]

HOW DUMB ARE ALL OF YOU STRAIGHTDOPERS???

These so-called non nude websites are not being operated by alleged 15 year olds. These sites are solely owned and operated by Ashcroft and the State Department. They exist simply to gather a database of “perverts”. Every time you follow one of these links, you too are in line to have the scarlet P sown onto your garments.

WAKE UP!!!1

[erislover]

OKAY!!!1111111111

[Guston]

WERD 111111

[TwistofFate]

Rman,

Lamia put into words what I was trying to say.

sigh no… i mean what reason is there that I cannot edit my own posts. Since your original post ended up before mine, I was going to add my response to your questions to my original post.

We do not allow editing of posts so that people can not go back and change when they wrote, when an arguement is turning against them.

And I don’t believe for an instant that your comment was intended as sarcasm, because is would make even less sense than it does at the moment.

Actually you don’t. Very little of my traffic comes from search engines. The “nonude” is so that people know what to expect… as such it does not double as some devious “traffic magnet”. As with most overused terms, you can’t expect traffic to flock to your site just because of the word “nonude”…

And why would people go to search engines to look for “No Nude” pictures of young girls?
If your 15 and do that, fair enough. if your 45 and do that, there is a problem.

[madmonk28]

I hardly ever post, but I have been a lurker for years. I’d like to address a couple of points raised here.

First off a child is defined by UNICEF as a person under the age of 18, unless his/her national laws recognize an earlier age of majority. This definition is as good as any. A child is a person who does not have the ability to fully access the levers of legal power and so does not have full control over his or her fate. While any attempts to put people into tidy categories is always difficult and can sometimes seem arbitrary, societies need to create categories of people such as “children,” so that laws can be created to protect the most vulnerable segments of our communities. These sites provide sexual provocative images of people defined as children by society and thus worthy of special protection.

Secondly, people have been making the assumption that these children are all deciding to post provocative pictures of themselves. I would argue that these websites allow for a venue for adults to post provocative pictures of children. While some of the pictures are undoubtedly self-posted by children, it is not difficult to imagine a creepy neighbor, uncle, father, whoever making children pose for some of these pictures.

Thirdly, many people have argued that it is not unnatural for a person to be sexually attracted to a teenager. I agree, but in viewing such websites, people are crossing a boundary from fantasy to action. For an adult to view one of these photos of a child for the purpose of sexual gratification is to take an action. It is often the first step taken by consumers of child pornography. In many ways, addiction to this kind of sexual material is similar to drug addiction; consumers of this type of material often have to increase their ‘dose’ to get the same effect.

Finally, part of my work involves conducting research on exploited children in the developing world. During my research, I came across the website of the Child Protection Society. I won’t post a link here, but the organization tracks child pornographers and cooperates with police organizations in investigations.

At their website they have posted their correspondence with child pornographers on chat sites. I was struck with how close the rationalizations of some of the people on this board sound to the rationalizations of these consumers of hard core pornographers.

Consumers of the type of material posted on these ‘non-nude’ websites are encouraging the sexualization of children.

Those of you who go to those websites should stop now, before you go any farther.

I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this posting, but sometimes you have to say what you have to say.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TwistofFate *
If your 15 and do that, fair enough. if your 45 and do that, there is a problem.

What problem is that?

[Rman]

*Originally posted by Guston *
**HOW DUMB ARE ALL OF YOU STRAIGHTDOPERS??? These so-called non nude websites are not being operated by alleged 15 year olds. These sites are solely owned and operated by Ashcroft and the State Department. They exist simply to gather a database of “perverts”. Every time you follow one of these links, you too are in line to have the scarlet P sown onto your garments.

WAKE UP!!!1 **

really? cool!! I work for Ashcroft.

Are you a conspiracy theorist?

madmonk28

in viewing such websites, people are crossing a boundary from fantasy to action.

I’ll call back on my original comparison: If watchhing a violent movie doesn’t make you kill people, how will viewing a nonude picture make you go out and molest children?

some of the pictures are undoubtedly self-posted by children, it is not difficult to imagine a creepy neighbor, uncle, father, whoever making children pose for some of these pictures.

the majority are webcam pictures or taken by friends…

You made some good points… but I’m trying to get finished with TOF, who seems to be unwilling to finish this argument…

TwistofFate

And I don’t believe for an instant that your comment was intended as sarcasm, because is would make even less sense than it does at the moment.

Good for you…
I guess my BS doesn’t convince you :rolleyes:

And why would people go to search engines to look for “No Nude” pictures of young girls?

I already answered this: “nonude” is the name of the genre… young is not implied.

Are you going to finish the original argument or not?

[Tsubaki]

madmonk28, thankyou for explaining coherently everything I’ve been thinking/feeling on this topic!

[TwistofFate]

if young isn’t mentioned in the name of the genre, why are there only pictures of young girls on the sites?

[Rman]

*Originally posted by TwistofFate *
**if young isn’t mentioned in the name of the genre, why are there only pictures of young girls on the sites? **

…

how much research did you do? Alot of the NN Webmasters ( including myself) are beginning to switch over to 18+ content… those sites make just as much money as those with just teen pictures. Its just the cost of liscensing all those pictures that is restrictive. With a teen site, all one would have to do is get different girls permission to post their pics on your site…

also: the “celebrity” & “babe” sites are part of the nonude genre as well…

[madmonk28]

*Originally posted by Tsubaki *
**madmonk28, thankyou for explaining coherently everything I’ve been thinking/feeling on this topic! **

Thanks, I think this is the first time anyone has every responded to one of my posts. Usually people either just ignore me completely (like I’m back in high school, sniff), or the thread just dies.

I was thinking about this thread this morning on the way to work, and I just want to ask people who go to these sites to stop and ask themselves if they are engaging in an activity which they are proud of. If the answer is no, then why do it?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by madmonk28 *
…I just want to ask people who go to these sites to stop and ask themselves if they are engaging in an activity which they are proud of. If the answer is no, then why do it?

Proud??? What the hell? In what way does viewing what one perceives to be pleasant images deal with pride ever? Are you proud to go to the art museum?

I simply do not understand.

[madmonk28]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**
Proud??? What the hell? In what way does viewing what one perceives to be pleasant images deal with pride ever? Are you proud to go to the art museum?

I simply do not understand. **

Perhaps pride wasn’t the best word to use.

How about this instead: the next time you view this time of material, look into the eyes of the child in the photo and ask yourself “am I completely certain that this child was not harmed in the taking of the photo?”

Also ask yourself: “am I completely certain that none of the children pictured on this page are being abused?”

If you answer both questions yes, then there is nothing else to say, but if you feel even a nagging doubt that children might be abused through websites like these, then ask yourself, “do I want to contribute to their existence?”

I for one, don’t think it is reasonable to endanger children (and that is what I believe these sites do, at least in some cases) in order to satisfy the puerile sexual needs of adults.