Puhleez, not that completely discredited attempt at logic. Marijuana leads to heroin, firecrackers lead to pipe bombs, pranks leads to terrorism blah blah blah.
What next pearl of wisdom? Spanking your monkey makes you go blind? Gives you hairy palms?
Are you certain that none of the actors on your favorite TV show were harmed in the making of the show? Maybe the producers of Friends got Ross hooked on heroin, and they’ll only give him another fix if he signs on for another season… :rolleyes:
Meanwhile, back in reality, I see no reason to assume that clothed photos of people in everyday situations (regardless of age) were taken through force or coercion.
Somewhat Relevant Story from MSNBC
Thought might be worth posting for everyone
Disclaimer:The views of this article do not necessarily represent the views of Novus Opiate or his subsidiaries.
Well, it seem that that reporter certinaly wasn’t ready to prosecute. Good for him.
Not to jump into what has almost become a personal argument (rather than one about the thread topic), but I couldn’t help pointing out that
“Its called Godwin’s law and it usually disqualifies any valid argument you may make.”
does contain an error, and it’s one of my pet peeves. “Its” is possesive; “it’s” stands for “it is.” Also, that is a run-on sentence most of the time. You should have a comma before the “and,” since you actually have two complete sentences connected by a conjunction. However, sometimes if both sentences are short, it is acceptable to skip the comma. As you can tell, I like commas. 
Anyways, the article posted deals exclusively with pre-teen sites. I agree (and I think everyone almost on this board would agree) that those sites are morally, ethically, and in most ways besides legally, wrong. Why? Because these sites clearly cater to grown men with a sexual preference that has been deemed wrong and illegal by society.
Many of the people on this board agree with that, and want to extend that reasoning to all NN sites. However, I think the sexual maturation of the subjects in the pictures is very relevant (as far as morals goes, leaving the legal question aside). People are (and should be) sexually attracted to healthy teenagers who have developed primary and especially secondary sexual characteristics. That’s the way the human race works. It’s natural and healthy.
Of course, this assumes that a subject (I’ll say girl, since most sites feature girls) is not harmed by having her pic on the site. I’ll venture to say (and I don’t think it’s unresaonable) that at least 95% of the girls willingly submit their pics, or have pics taken just for this purpose. So should these sites with 16 year-olds who have the bodies of 21 year-olds be shut down?
I realize that the line I am attempting to draw is very fuzzy… but I insist that a line does exist there, and we should all at least recognize it. (Again, I’m not talking about the law. I realize the law needs a clearly defined line to work well; hence the age rule - 18 in the US, etc. )
I hope I didn’t violate any board etiquette by replying to a thread that was on the second page of the forum (and therefore bring a “dead” thread back to life).
and what do you think about this site? without nude photos
http: //cutegirlsgallery.com
Reported.
Right, 25-30 year old teens. The title “Teens” is only a hook, brother. I’m pretty late to the party, but even if there are 18/19 year olds on those sites, that is the global standard for consent.
On the plus side, all the teen aged girls in the original post are now at least 25!
lol, now the zombie thread is resurrected so we can all see the homemade porno vids on the link.
The community thanks your righteous outrage.
The report was of a separate, now deleted, post that linked more explicit porn.
The “Reported” post did not revive the thread that had already been brought back.
Your smug attempt at condescension is misplaced.
Indeed, I thought the reporting was for the OP, thus reviving a thread with links to homemade sex videos.
I apologize for my misplaced condescension.
In any case the original links from the early 00’s either are dead or have changed content by now.
And for update: yes, “non-nude model” sites do still exist; as in the past some are more “modelling”-like and others are clearly an appeal to prurience trying to skirt the edge of legality. The arguments pro and con also remain largely the same. No I am not going to give ya new links, have fun getting Big G to record your search for the appropriate terms 
Some of the required annual training I am required to take (as a contractor working for the US Govt) includes “human trafficking awareness” type stuff.
That training course (put together by Uncle Sam) is replete with anecdotes of minors forced in to the sex trade.
Maybe I’m too cynical, but I would not be surprised if some of the mature looking minors ended up in the “just turned 18” style videos.
See Dawson Casting.
They’re a bit more careful about that ever since Traci Lords, I think.
Perhaps the “smug attempt at condescension” wouldn’t have existed if you (or whatever mod) hadn’t just “disappeared” the inappropriate post, but had maybe just changed it to “post removed due to inappropriate content” or the like. It certainly did look like a zombie thread was being resurrected just to report it.
Usually, the mod also removes the “reported” post, thus allowing the zombie thread to revert to the last post time and sink into oblivion(no longer shows up as a current thread).
I think the new mods are forgetting that step as I’ve seen several threads like that since the newbies came on board.
The new Mods did not forget anything.
The old Mod took a computer hit just as the offending post disappeared, then had to address some pet issues and the thread had already picked up additional posts before he could get back to eliminate the reporting post.
in Stringbeans defense, it would be nice if people added why they reported a post. Maybe I’m thick but sometimes I can’t figure out why a post is reported.