I love debate, controversy and sexual discussion, so I thought I’d bring this item up. For those not familiar, Maxim magazine is like Esquire or GQ, but for guys a little younger and with shorter attention spans. I subscribe; here’s the website link with pictures: http://www.maximmag.com/
The current issue’s cover girl, Kim Smith, of Guess? jeans fame, looks very sexy in her little bikini. When you look inside, a couple of the pictures of her are see-through, showing nipples.
This would all be very cool, except that she’s young, as in she turns 17 next month! I checked her bio at the Guess? models page because I remember hearing about her in the media last Fall. Maxim makes no mention of her age in the magazine or on the web page.
I somehow thought that there were limits placed on (semi-) nudity for those under 18, right? Is the magazine legal but not the web page? If I travel on vacation, can I take the magazine with me, or will it be a violation of the Mann Act?
I like the link, too. And I have to admit, I stayed longer than I intended (and I’m at work right now).
But I think the original question was interesting. I had similar thoughts while watching the movie American Beauty. Both young actress had topless love-making (or almost love-making) scenes. I don’t know the age of either actress, but I would have to guess both were under 18 at the time of the filming.
On top of that, I was aroused by both women, so I should probably be in jail right now–or at least registered with my local police department.
real quick before I have to actually do some work.
I believe nudity is allowed if parental consent is given - at least for movies. Remember young Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon? Her Mom gave the okay. Now, for mags, I would assume same is true
later.
Never give a sword to a man who can’t dance.
– a Celtic motto
careful with that web site. Spend enough time there and you’ll find a link to a picture of Shannon Doherty. I am terrified to click on it; I’m still getting nightmares from the time I bothered to investigate the claim someone made on this MB that Shannon’s left eye is higher than her right.
It does raise some questions. Most of the pictures are nothing you wouldn’t expect to see on a 16-year-old or younger girl down at the swimming pool or beach, but that one photo of her in the semi-transparent shirt raises some innnnn-teresting questions, wouldn’t you say? On the one hand, I don’t believe that age-of-consent laws and such really do much to protect teenage girls from exploitation, but if I was her mother, I’d definitely think twice about signing that particular waiver. Anyway, if parental consent were given, wouldn’t that need to be on file somewhere for the edification of any concerned parties, such as the OP?
An infinite number of rednecks in an infinite number of pickup trucks shooting an infinite number of shotguns at an infinite number of road signs will eventually produce all the world’s great works of literature in Braille.
While there are laws against underage performers performing in porno films, I believe there are no laws to prohibit the use of nude models or actors under the age of eightteen. Admittedly, underage nudity is a controversial topic and rarely encountered, but it is legal. Gauntlet (a free speech magazine) ran some articles last year about photographers like David Hamilton, Sally Mann, and Jock Sturges who have used models under eightteen in nude shots. And actresses like Brooke Shields, Mena Suvari and Melanie Griffith have appeared nude in films before they were eightteen.
The age of consent in GB is 16 (18 for gay men) and I think that it’s perfectly legal to publish topless pictures of 16 year old girls. (Whether it is in good taste or not is another matter.)
A couple of our more down-market “newspapers”, The Daily Star and The Sun publish a daily topless photo and I seem to recall that The Sun has, in the past, published pictures of 16-year-olds.
This is the U.S. Maxim, I subscribe to it. It was started by the British Maxim people and the magazines are very similar in format.
Last year they ran a picture of Kate Moss, the little waifish model, with her back to the camera and wearing panties, thigh highs and heels, turning her head back around while hugging a big teddy bear. It made her look like she was about 13 or so. It is actually a little disturbing, but at least you know she’s really 25 or so.
I’m wondering if their editor is an ephebiphile? (sp? - sexually attracted to teens).
Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 makes it illegal for any person to have a minor engage in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction. But “sexually explicit” has a very specific meaning, and it doesn’t sound like this magazine crossed the line; the most tame of the meanings is “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.” Apparently, ordinary exhibition of the genitals or pubic area is insufficient to qualify as sexually explicit; a fioriti, a semi-transparent top is probably legal under Federal law.
“Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 makes it illegal for any person to have a
minor engage in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of
producing a visual depiction”
Oh no, not the law thing again. But I guess
we can never say it enough.
I just looked on ebay & PRETTY BABY video is
only $8.00…also was told she is actually 16 in that flick. She looks much younger than she really is.
Little Nemo, i just open a new browser window, run a search at ebay.com for this crap & there it is…That don’t mean looking for porno. I wouldn’t watch & have never watched, Pretty Baby. It’s not captioned anyway Little Nemo.
