You know what, I’m just too old and tired for this level of unmoderated hostility and idiocy. I’ll keep my ten dollars (this post will probably be delete but whatever). I’m out. Enjoy your board.
Your “join date” is 2004. For what that’s worth.
He just returned a few days ago. Don’t ask me why I recognised the name from that thread, I just did…
I don’t agree with putting little girls in two-pieces, but hey, i’m the minority.
The girl is healthy.
Do you have a cite for this? I am guessing that the actual crime was not the age difference, but the fact that it was videotaped. It is not a crime in Florida for an 18 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. In fact, a 23 year old can legally have sex with a 16 year old. Just can make a video of it–then it becomes child porn.
Just can’t make a video of it–then it becomes child porn.
I’d hate to see what a large correction looks like. And it’s Wixson.
If you’re a model, this happens when you turn 24.
This is likely the case in question:
Yes we do. Not in all states, but we do.
Ah. So it was Georgia, not Florida. And she was 15, not 16?
15 would have made it illegal in Florida too, FWIW.
I really sympathize with the OP in this thread. There is a hypocrisy at work, and there are lines of morality that are very hard to draw. (Why is it immoral for a man to lust for a young woman the day before her 18th birthday, but not the day after?)
It would be difficult to write an essay even to introduce this interesting question, and much harder to propose solutions. OP did what I might have done were this topic of particular interest to me: link to videos of a 15-year old model which would clearly be considered pornographic in a different context, and therefore raise a disturbing question of morality; then ask Dopers to help connect the dots.
But Dopers failed the test. OP raises an interesting issue, but doesn’t fully connect the dots? Let’s just snark at OP, and ignore the legitimate issue he raises. Typical at SDMB. (One Doper, when losing a debate with me, resorted to criticising me for embedding parentheses (like this). :smack: ) Too lazy (or themselves hypocritical?) to help connect the dots, Dopers amuse themselves with snark and non sequitur. The linked-to site makes it difficult even to see the name of this underage model, so someone even has to snark about OP getting the name wrong, though he was first to correct it. :smack:
I’ll mention only one post, though several were annoying.
So companies seeking financial gain … seek financial gain! Is that your key insight, Krokodil ? But be aware that if we were to agree that exploiting underage models is immoral, your point would become isomorphic to “If I weren’t pushing heroin, someone else would be.”
HTH.
I think thats part of the problem. I don’t see anything in that video that comes close to being “considered pornographic in another context”. (also, FWIW, the model is 17 in the video).
So I think the problem people have with the OP is that it didn’t really appear to raise any interesting questions. Companies use models to sell the clothing from the same demographic as the people they want to sell clothing to. I can’t really see why anyone would have a problem with this, it seems an obvious way to market stuff, and I don’t see it damaging the models or the people being marketed to. If the clothing was somehow explicitly sexual I might have a problem with their using young models, but using a teen model to show off a prom dress seems pretty straight-forward to me. I mean, who else buys prom dresses? Should they have to use a 30 year old woman to show off a dress only a 17 year-old girl is going to want to buy?
The model parades in skimpy 2-piece underwear (of no fashion value), while the announcer voices “she started modeling at 15.” True, that doesn’t mean that segment was from age 15, but I won’t rule out that that moment was chosen for the “15” mention to arouse prurient interest.
I won’t say the model felt unfairly “exploited” (laughing all the way to the bank is probably more like it), but the same statement would often apply to the “models” in material which clearly is child pornography.
There are interesting questions about double standards and line-drawing. (Perhaps OP just has a lower pornography detection threshold than others.) The topic deserves a better hearing than it’s gotten in this thread.
I’m pretty sure its a swimsuit.
OK, but this clearly isn’t child pornography, its a fully clothed teenager. There’s no sexual suggestion or content. If you want to debate whether child pornography is OK, I doubt you’ll find anyone to take the “pro” side. But its not really relevant regarding teens modeling clothes in anycase.
There may be interesting questions, but I don’t think anyones asked them in this thread. We have a video of a girl selling clothes by wearing them, the same as clothing for adults is sold by showing pictures of adults wearing them, and the baby-gap sells clothes for babys by showing pictures of babies in them.
Hambil - Here’s a little exercise for you. Gather up as many feminist discussions, essays, arguments, etc. as you can from, oh, the past ten years or so. Ms. magazine, some flyers you found at college, a critique of Bill Clinton you saw on TV once, whichever. Make a list of the subjects they cover. Then tally it all up, and calculate the percentage that take any stance on “objectification”. (If you want to be thorough, you can work out “pornography” as well.) If it even sniffs 4%, I will be very surprised.
See, that’s the thing. Not all women have a problem with being objectified. In fact, a lot of them actually like it. Heck, modelling couldn’t exist if that wasn’t the case. And even feminists that despise the fashion industry (which they do for a multitude of reasons) realize that there are only so many hours in the day and so many battles that can be fought at once. As long as domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and inequality of pay in the workplace exist, protesting some Vanity Fair spread really isn’t on the agenda. (There have been uproars over cases like JonBenet Ramsey, but the issue there was exploitation, and it would’ve been objectionable regardless of her age.)
More to the point, though, it’s important not to confuse what’s legal with what’s ethical. See, laws have hard-and-fast lines and are absolutely rigid in what they determine. They have to be, otherwise they’re impossible to enforce. There’s absolutely no biological significance to the age of 18, much less the effin’ day someone reaches that age. It’s just that the law needs a number, and “the end of high school most of the time” makes as much sense as anything.
Questions of ethics are a lot grayer; taste (which is what you actually brought up) infinitely more so. In particular, you have to understand that there are degrees. Say, for example, a baseball strike. If it cancels no games, it’s a future curioisty. It if cancels fifteen games, it’s a colossal headache which screws things up for everyone involved with the league. If it cancels the championship, it’s a calamity and a truly dark era for the sport. Or something really simple: “Man has an affair; divorce looms.” If he’s some random schmoe with no kids, it’s an unfortunate lapse of judgment, nothing more. If it’s a random schmoe with kids, he’s a lousy jerk, and now complete innocents will pay the price. If it’s a high-profile Democratic presidential candidate or a world-class near-billionaire golfer with no prenuptial agreement who was about to challenge every record in the book…with kids, in both cases…he’s out of his bloody mind.
Now, Alina Cho. She started ger career at 15. Not 5, or 8, or even 13, 15. There’s no evidence that she was coerced or duped into this (and you can be sure that CNN would be all over it if this were the case). She modelled outfits that you can see on any public beach in the world, in many cases well before the age of 15. Swimwear is activewear; it’s tight and skimpy for comfort and freedom of movement; this has no sexual connotation whatsoever. From what we can see, she thoroughly enjoys meeting people, going places, and wearing beautiful clothing.
Not seeing the problem here.
Do you think that any “sexy” clothing for 15 year olds should be outlawed? If not, how can modeling them be considered exploitation?
We knew kids younger than 15 who modeled - nothing sexy, but they were far from being exploited. Their parents were fully involved, and they knew exactly what they were doing.
“You look really hot in that shapeless burlap dress.”
<Nick Danger>All those curves showing through that flimsy burnoose. </Nick>