Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
pamela mars wrote:
that is disgusting!
no clue what the hell is wrong with those people! What website are you making reference to? The link to the banner site of Super Child Models or what ever has been taken down. The links to pornographers who are on OMP should be reported if they have under 18 year olds in sexual acts. That is what REAL child porn is. Otherwise we are wasting time going over this again after a dozen other threads that I posted about have already been here on Model Mayhem about these same sites. It's disgusting, but not illegal. You want to put them out of business, then stop bringing attention and more "hits" to their sites.
Another thing that we can do is create websites that are far better in quality, upholding to such standards as those running Model Mayhem have, and market the hell out of what you find to be more tasteful. Problem is the majority of people who go running to those fringe sites that cause controversy are the same people who pick up National Enquirer and believe it! Oprah and Dr Phil already have done shows about teen models on the net because it brings them big ratings, and more money!
It's a shame that children are sexually exploited all around the World. So if you have a daughter, hold her close, give her your attention and love that she needs. We can "save" everyone ... but you can start by saving one child at a time. I know of some celebrities personally who are doing exactly that ... but you don't hear about it because they are not doing it for media spot light or publicity.
I even posted about a missing child lost from the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Missing Children! Also I've asked if Tyler could run a special section as a public service for finding and helping Missing and Exploited Children. There are organizations that do such good work and they need volunteers like you and me. I've even produced a Children's Festival back in Sept. 26th, 1992. I wont forget that day because I blew $20,000 on that day for production of the event. We had vender booths, music and food. I'm proud to have done it, but it sure hurt me in the bank account ... back then and even today, that's a lot of money! But I've learned how to produce events and have done so after that learning experience. Guess what? I can break even, and in some cases make money now. It's GOOD to give back!
If you see a website accidentally that is what you believe to be child porn, DO NOT post the link here! I repeat ... DO NOT POST THE LINK HERE! You want to get us in trouble? What you do is report it to the FBI or any Internet police agency responsible for going after such things. Let them be the judge of if it is truly Child Porn or not. You and I are not a judge and jury. The website company called Webe web has been in the spot light many times. They still have not been shut down ... and should not be if they are not doing anything illegal.
So let's work towards doing positive things. Posting controversial links "here" to get people looking then fired up and angry about it is not helping. We don't know the parents, the children, the photographers or webmasters who own those sites ... the hatred and negative energy will eat you up inside and it wont do any good. Remember that great movie "Play it Forward"? Let's do it!
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
kT Imaging wrote:
This site has been around for a long time. I think the authorities already know about it. I would also caution MM's from going to this site, even to see what all the fuss is about.
Chances are it is being monitored by the Feds and it would be sad that one of us gets innocently caught up in this... Oh, you paranoid, paranoid people!
Good going, Ashcroft. He's got Ameircan's so afraid of accidentally becoming felons that they look over their shoulders at every turn, fearing the FBI.
Innocently caught up? Heck, you know what this thread was about and still went and looked. That shows intent to view the stuff. Bam. Go to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Jeepers, creepers. The site is legal. It has been up since 1999 and has hundreds of girls on it. It has been reported to law enforcement left and right. The domain name owner is listed with internic, U.S. phone number and address. News articles have been written and broadcast about the site. We sit here, all of we good MMers, reporting the site, wasting valuable law enforcement time that could be better used going after real offenders.
As one FBI agent said a year ago: "We had to take agents off of terrorism investigations because Ashcroft wanted us to take a look at the internet porn industry. During the investigation, we found just one site not in compliance with the law, but had several dozen terrorist incidents."
A quick on-off. What are you afraid of? You think time matters to your computer cache? Oh...you went and cleared your cache. Did you remember to clear your event logs? You know, the multiple redundant diagnostic histories that windows runs in the back ground of everything you do on your computer?
You have until morning. Not many judges are going to issue the search warrant for your computer on a Sunday night. Man, you are giving them a reality check!  Why is everyone so fasinated with this subject to begin with?
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
MichaelHaynes wrote:
"Sick" is in the eye of the beholder. One might consider you 'sick' because you, and the majority of the posters, consider those images sexually explicit. You telling me that you saw a minor posing for a photograph and immediately sexual thoughts sprung into your head? Where others see art and entertainment, you saw sex?
See how open to interpretation this matter is? If those pictures don't make you sick then my interpretation is that you are a sick man yourself.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
What got me involved with producing a benefit event for raising money to help find missing and exploited children? I had met the young parents of a well publicized case where a woman walked in and stole their new born baby right out of the hospital. The baby was found shortly before the festival. That WAS the HIGH POINT of the whole day, and made it worth while to me. I do things differently now. There were plenty of bands who were willing to play for free, but my business partner and I felt it was necessary to get a "headliner" ... big mistake! The business manager of that headliner would not let her volunteer or even lower her price or down grade the "riders" to make her more affordable. I would have saved so much more money, maybe would have made some to make a donation, but "oh well!" We live and learn! I look at it as the cost of education. Anyone here who has produced events knows what I'm talking about! Here ARE some WEBSITES YOU should ALL keep in your favorites list; Missing Kids Vanished Children's Alliance Child Quest International These three are special to me. During the period of time that I produced the festival, one of those organizations was to benefit. Another had been fighting with the one our childrens festival was to benefit. They were even in court. It's a sick and disgusting thing for adults to be fighting while children are dying! Well as a result of the scolding the judge did to both "parties" they got together and are ALL now connected. Working together "We will succeed!" My motto for team work! -Patrick
Model
ash smith
Posts: 327
London, England, United Kingdom
eeew... i modeled as a child... professionally with legit reason... this is just gross!
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Ashley Belle wrote:
eeew... i modeled as a child... professionally with legit reason... this is just gross! A good friend of mine is a former child model and was in a number of ads both in print and on TV. His mom is a retired booking agent. He is a former lead EMT who help to set up a medical station after the first tower had fallen on 9/11. He was there to see the second one fall. God bless him for doing his best to maintain his own sanity while there for a week picking up body parts with all the other firefighters.
He retired! Can you blame him? Kevin is now in Las Vegas and recently opened up his own talent agency! His is one of the few legit ones there! Anyone want more details, hit me up here on Model Mayhem for this great mans info ... some of us turn bad things around! Remember ... "Play it Forward!"
Photographer
Jack D Trute
Posts: 4558
New York, New York, US
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Jack D Trute wrote:
http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/ There was a guy who used this list to go on a sex offender killing spree. He went to their homes and shot them when they answered the door.
EDIT: I also wonder how many people realize that there are people on the sex offender list for life for doing things as simple as yelling at a kid for coming into his yard repeatedly and killng his flowers, poking a kid on the arm,and there was also one I saw a couple of years ago where a kid fell IN PUBLIC with a lot of people around and the kid fell in such a way that the kids face hit the crotch of a guy walking down the street and the mom happened to look toward her falling child just as the kids head hit the crotch and thought the guy grabbed the kid and shoved the kids head there himself. The guy had witnesses but still was convicted.
List like this need to be shut down.
Model
A BRITT PRO-AM
Posts: 7840
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, California, US
The Thorny Rose wrote:
That site is just wrong. These girls can't even fill out their training bras, let alone the tiny bikinis and lingerie they're trying to model. Some of their poses and the suggestive looks on their faces make my stomach turn; do they even understand what their suggesting with those looks???
The main reason I'm so disgusted is that site looks like it could become a pedophile's playground, a free place to look at what he/she likes. It disturbs me.
On a side note, there's nothing wrong with teen models, but 16-17 is a way more appropriate age to start, not 13. The only type of stuff that younger girls should be modeling is more catalogue type clothing.
These parents need to go play in traffic somewhere and lose at dodge-car.... well i am going to look now,,,
In principle I agree, It's wrong to have tis availabe to encourage ANYONE (especially the girls!) to think of young girls that way....and since I may be too outraged to write AFTER I see it, I'm writing now while I still have a relatively clear head.
What I agree with also are your side comments but never the less feel i have to point out 16 / 17 is when they wanna start them on ADULT FASHION modelling, that is, professional cat walk etc etc
And that 13 they already can look 17.... I did.
MY side note is to share with you that I was upset recently, by the childrens bikini catalogue my friend was chosing from for a 5 year old. The poses in particular.
Her response?
That I AM SICK (to think that its inappropriate).
''They just want to look like grown ups!''
That was my point.
BLIND.
Model
Ayira Araceli
Posts: 210
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
Isn't that illegal?????? it does look what I'd imagine kiddie porn to look like. Can the site be reported?
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Anona wrote:
Isn't that illegal?????? it does look what I'd imagine kiddie porn to look like. Can the site be reported? try reading a few posts, your question is answered very early on in the thread. If you think that is what kiddie porn is, my oh my are YOU in for a surprise.
Photographer
Jack D Trute
Posts: 4558
New York, New York, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
List like this need to be shut down. Are you on the list?
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Jack D Trute wrote:
Are you on the list? Nope 
i`ve never even stepped foot inside a court room or police station in my life for any reason whatsoever. I met my fiance through the net actually. And believe me, she did all the background checks,lol.
The reason I say it needs to be shut down is for the reasons I saw listed on sites where they show photos of sex offenders and what they did, and because people are using the list to commit murder.
Photographer
Jack D Trute
Posts: 4558
New York, New York, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Nope
i`ve never even stepped foot inside a court room or police station in my life for any reason whatsoever. I met my fiance through the net actually. And believe me, she did all the background checks,lol.
The reason I say it needs to be shut down is for the reasons I saw listed on sites where they show photos of sex offenders and what they did, and because people are using the list to commit murder. Dude, that was post 6969 for you.
creepy.
Model
Ayira Araceli
Posts: 210
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
try reading a few posts, your question is answered very early on in the thread. If you think that is what kiddie porn is, my oh my are YOU in for a surprise. Im possitive my question was answered through out the thread...just didn't want to read thru all of it. I know kiddie porn is worse than that...far worse. I just think its like a mild form of kiddie porn...kind of like a teaser for wack jobs. I reported the site. I still think they should be shut down. Gross...
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Anona wrote:
Im possitive my question was answered through out the thread...just didn't want to read thru all of it. I know kiddie porn is worse than that...far worse. I just think its like a mild form of kiddie porn...kind of like a teaser for wack jobs. I reported the site. I still think they should be shut down. Gross... Do you consider Maxim and FHM a mild form of adult porn?
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Jack D Trute wrote:
Dude, that was post 6969 for you.
creepy. What`s more creepy...... the fact that it was #6969 or that you cared enough to look notice?
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Anona wrote:
Isn't that illegal?????? it does look what I'd imagine kiddie porn to look like. Can the site be reported? Are there sex acts being photographed? That is child porn. If it's pre teen girls in thongs, well as distastful as it may seem, it's not illegal.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Do you consider Maxim and FHM a mild form of adult porn? Good question!
Photographer
Jack D Trute
Posts: 4558
New York, New York, US
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Anona wrote:
kind of like a teaser for wack jobs. I reported the site. I still think they should be shut down. Gross... If being a teaser for wackjobs is considered criteria to get a site reported and shut down, I feel sorry forthe future of MM and OMP and most websites of models and photographers .
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Good question! I think so too, thanks. Can`t believe no one has brought it up. If little girls in bikinis in provocative poses is a mild form of kiddie porn, then Maxim and FHM need to be considered mild adult porn.Only makes sense.
Model
Ayira Araceli
Posts: 210
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Good question! But those are consenting adults and the key word being adults...18 and up. IMO, I just think its wrong and unethical. Que sera sera...
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Jack D Trute wrote:
http://member.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=163049
http://member.onemodelplace.com/newforu … 7&forum=24 My art photography name and business is no secret
I have no clue what the second link is.It does not work. The other is a link to a thread about me talking with an art gallery and the other is my OMP GB profile with photographs I have had on here.
Photographer
Jack D Trute
Posts: 4558
New York, New York, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
My art photography name and business is no secret
I have no clue what the second link is.It does not work. You isa model manager too huh?
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Jack D Trute wrote:
You isa model manager too huh? Nope, but if asked by models I have worked with, or know but have not yet work with, I do put their link on my profile . It gets us both more exposure.I never claim to me their manager. I do sometimes help with their emails.I have never hid this either, I have mentioned it in posts. Helping them screen and claiming to be their mananger who makes decisions on who they work with are two different things. I cant help that OMP uses the word manager and has no other word for it.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Anona wrote:
But those are consenting adults and the key word being adults...18 and up. IMO, I just think its wrong and unethical. Que sera sera... porn is porn no matter what the age.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
My art photography name and business is no secret
I have no clue what the second link is.It does not work. The other is a link to a thread about me talking with an art gallery and the other is my OMP GB profile with photographs I have had on here. Nice work there Ray! I don't see a single picture of a child having sex! That is what it would take to get you on that list that the dog so desperately would like to see you on! ROFLMA!
My point about helping kids is that adults waste more time over fighting instead of helping these children who ARE being exploited. While the FBI could be going after the REAL hardcore cases of child porn, they get side tracked by the "opinions" of those who don't know the difference. That is why the two organizations I was inside of were fighting instead of finding missing children. Both organizations are doing so much better at finding children now that they are cooperating and working together.
People need to educate themselves before jumping to conclusions. We can do so much more, but first stop sending people to a link ... that only helps the freaking website in question!
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Nope, but if asked by models I have worked with, or know but have not yet work with, I do put their link on my profile . It gets us both more exposure.I never claim to me their manager. I do sometimes help with their emails.I have never hid this either, I have mentioned it in posts. Helping them screen and claiming to be their mananger who makes decisions on who they work with are two different things. I cant help that OMP uses the word manager and has no other word for it. I have the same problem! LOL
I can barely "manage" myself sometimes!
Model
A BRITT PRO-AM
Posts: 7840
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, California, US
Now I have looked.
Funnily enough I'm not COMPLETELY disgusted at all, imagined it would be far worse (IMAGES WISE) going by what has been said.
Some of the pictures are actually rather cute and many if the girls prob just want to look pretty.
It's CONCEPT WISE I feel is the problem (and thats why its not shut down).
I SUGGEST;
We should be more concerned with ADULTS pictures and what they are giving as a message to girls about what is cool, ok, whats accepted and what it IS (or will be) to be seen as a WOMAN?
*sigh*
Many of the pictures YES are wholly inappropriate and horribly tasteless.
They show utter lack of decency and/or willingness to protect our young....
But no more revolting than the many such teasy nastyness we see all the time.
Even on MM ocasionally!!! Not PORN but Naaasty.
At this age....V Sad.
IMHO
Vulgar is the best word for them all.
Photographer
Jack D Trute
Posts: 4558
New York, New York, US
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Nice work there Ray! I don't see a single picture of a child having sex! That is what it would take to get you on that list that the dog so desperately would like to see you on! ROFLMA!
My point about helping kids is that adults waste more time over fighting instead of helping these children who ARE being exploited. While the FBI could be going after the REAL hardcore cases of child porn, they get side tracked by the "opinions" of those who don't know the difference. That is why the two organizations I was inside of were fighting instead of finding missing children. Both organizations are doing so much better at finding children now that they are cooperating and working together.
People need to educate themselves before jumping to conclusions. We can do so much more, but first stop sending people to a link ... that only helps the freaking website in question! Yea, eventually she will go back under the porch with momma once she realizes no one wants to play fetch after her snide comments and attempts to do that
The girl on my GB profile she is obviously pointing out was shot outside in public in a park with MOM right next to me and cops walking by, driving by and biking by, some even greeting us and chatting a bit as I shot. I never told her how to pose. She went to Barbizon and had just graduated. I let her go to see how she would do and mom looked through all of the images right after the shoot.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Jack D Trute wrote:
Join me and unionize.
All dogs unite and unionize or at least take over. Listen bud, I like CATS! BIG CATS! I live less than a mile from this place Wild Things and they have some cats that would scare the syhit outa ya! It will cost me and another photographer about $2,500 a piece to shoot with those big boys! Any models "game" for it? We are actually looking for some brave and beautiful women who love cats ... big cats!
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Wild Things Are these the same people who did the cat show at Great America?
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45475
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Are these the same people who did the cat show at Great America? Not sure about that one? His animals (and there are many!) are in demand for movies, commercial ad shoots, and TV commercials. The lion he started with is now retired and a nephew has taken his place, but think of any movies that you saw lions, elephants, etc. and it was probably this place that supplied them. His retired lion was the model for "the Lion King" movie by Disney. That was a huge payday for Charlie!
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Not sure about that one? His animals (and there are many!) are in demand for movies, commercial ad shoots, and TV commercials. The lion he started with is now retired and a nephew has taken his place, but think of any movies that you saw lions, elephants, etc. and it was probably this place that supplied them. His retired lion was the model for "the Lion King" movie by Disney. That was a huge payday for Charlie! I once knew a girl whose parents ran the cat show at GA, she was gonna bring a couple over to my house, then re realized, they would not go well with our dogs, aka tiger snacks,lol.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17825
El Segundo, California, US
Gregory Garecki wrote:
If those pictures don't make you sick then my interpretation is that you are a sick man yourself. "Honi soit qui mal y pense"
Photographer
MichaelHaynes
Posts: 136
Norfolk, Virginia, US
Gregory Garecki wrote:
If those pictures don't make you sick then my interpretation is that you are a sick man yourself. Ok! Let's get into this!
The rest will go in alpahbetical order, but for your sake, we wil start with your home state of Maryland.
But first a quick question: Is it sick to view such pictures as featured on childsupermodels.com of persons who are of marital age? Think very carefully before you answer that one and think about another poster's question about whether Maxim and FHM style shooting should be considered porn by the standards 'held' by most of the respondents to this thread.
And now, back to our thrashing already in progress...
So, Maryland: 18. Minimum age of marriage: None! Under 16 can get married with parent's or custodial guardian's consent and the written approval of a judge of the Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas. And if the girl is pregnant or has already had a child, parental consent can be waived
And now to the other states...some of which allow marriage at age 12 and quite a large number can technically go below that, having no minimum age in their statutes!
ALABAMA: 18, With parental consent, 14.
ALASKA: 18, With parental consent, 16 commonly but parties can marry at a younger age, also with parental consent.
AMERICAN SAMOA: 18, with parental consent 16.
ARIZONA: 18, With parental consent, 16, but can marry at a younger age with both parental and judicial consent.
ARKANSAS: 18, With parental consent, males can marry at 17 and under 17 with parental consent and can receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child. With parental consent, females can marry at 16 and under 16 with parental consent and can receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
CALIFORNIA: 18, With parental consent, no age limits for the minimum age for a couple to marry. (Other statutory laws apply.)
COLORADO: 18, younger ages with parental consent.
CONNECTICUT: 18, With parental consent, 16. Parties can marry at a younger age, but with both parental and judicial consent.
DELAWARE: 18. Males can marry under 18 with parental consent and under the age of seventeen can receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child. With parental consent, females can marry at age 16 and under 16 can apply for and receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 18. With parental consent, 16.
FLORIDA: 18, With parental consent, 16 and under 16 can receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
GEORGIA: 18, With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, 16. Under 16 can receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
GUAM: 18. Under 18 requires a court order in addition to parental consent.
HAWAII: 18, With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, 15.
IDAHO: 18, With parental consent, 16.
ILLINOIS: 18, With parental consent, 16. If parents refuse to consent, judicial consent may be obtained on behalf of the marrying parties.
INDIANA: 18, With parental consent, 17, and under the age of seventeen can receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
IOWA: 18, With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, 16.
KANSAS: 18. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at age 14 and females at age 12.
KENTUCKY: 18, With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, parties can marry under 18.
LOUISIANA: 18. Under 18 with parental consent.
MAINE: 18. With parental consent, 16.
MASSACHUSETTS: 18, With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males 14 and females 12.
MICHIGAN: 18,. With parental consent, parties can marry at age 16.
MINNESOTA: 18, With parental consent and/or the consent of the judge, 16.
MISSISSIPPI: 21. With parental consent and/or the consent of the judge, males 17 and females 15.
MISSOURI: 18, With parental consent, 15 and younger parties may receive a license by reason of special circumstances.
MONTANA: 18. With parental consent and/or consent of a judge, parties can marry at age 16 and younger parties may receive a license by reason of special circumstances.
NEBRASKA: 19. With parental consent, 17.
NEVADA: 18, With parental consent, 16.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: 18. With parental consent and the consent of the judge, males 14 and females 13.
NEW JERSEY: 18, With parental consent, 16. Younger may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child or other special circumstances.
NEW MEXICO: 18. With parental consent, 16 and younger parties may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child or other special circumstances.
NEW YORK: 18. With parental and judicial consent, parties can marry at age 16.
NORTH CAROLINA: 18. With parental consent, 16 and younger parties may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
NORTH DAKOTA: 18. With parental consent, 16.
NORTHERN MARIANA: 18. With parental consent, 16.
OHIO: 18, With parental consent, males under the age of 18 can marry and females at 16. Younger may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
OKLAHOMA: 18. With parental consent, 16 (and younger) and, in addition, younger parties may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
OREGON: 18. With parental consent, 17 with the exception that if one party does not have a parent who resides in the state and one party has been a resident in Oregon for at least six months, then no permission is necessary.
PENNSYLVANIA: 18. With parental consent, 16, and younger parties may receive a license by reason of special circumstances.
PUERTO RICO: 21. Females who may apply for and receive a license at a younger age by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child. Males 18 and females 16 with parental consent. Younger males and females can marry with parental consent and receive a license by reason of pregnancy, the birth of a child, or other special circumstances.
RHODE ISLAND: 18. With parental consent, males can marry under age 18 and females at 16, and younger parties may receive a license under special circumstances.
SOUTH CAROLINA: 18. With parental consent, males 16 and females 14, and younger parties may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
SOUTH DAKOTA: 18. With parental consent, 16, and younger parties may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
TENNESSEE: 18, With parental consent, 16. Under special circumstances, younger minors can receive a license to marry.
TEXAS: 18. With parental and judicial consent, parties can marry but not below the age of 14 for males and 13 for females.
UTAH: 18. With parental consent, 14.
VERMONT: 18. With parental or judicial consent, 16.
VIRGINIA: 18. With parental consent, 16 and under the age of 16 may receive a license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
VIRGIN ISLANDS. Males, 18. Females 16. Males 16, with parental consent. Females 14 with parental consent.
WASHINGTON: 18. With parental consent, 17, and younger age under special circumstances.
WEST VIRGINIA: 18. With parental consent, under the age of 18 may receive a license at a younger age by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child.
WISCONSIN: 18. With parental consent, 16.
WYOMING: 18. With parental consent, 16. Younger ages under special circumstances. Common law marriage is not recognized.
When you consider that many states marriage laws conflict with age of sexual consent laws, it is weird that we can copulate at all. Some states have sexual consent laws six years earlier than one can marry without consent. Some have sexual consent laws older than the marriage age without parent's consent.
What I would like to know, right now, is why everyone is putting up a clamour over pictures of teens and pre teens and making absurd reports to law enforcement when, if you really want to do something contact your state legislatures and have them raise the marriage ages! It is very very very incredibly hypocrital to get up in arms and try to throw someone in jail for taking or viewing pictures of people the law says you can either have sex with or marry or both.
Now do you understand why I consider all this ranting and raving against the website to be utterly foolish, maniacal and ludicrous. Just another cause for you all to rally around, pat yourself on the back and feel proud that you have spoken out when the real work to be done lies under your preaching, pontificating and oh so disgusteded noses.
{Last note: Remember a few years ago the United Nations tried to pass a resolution committing allmember states (nations) to raise their minimum marriage ages to at least 15 years old? This was in 2002. Guess what...the United States refused to sign on! In 2004, 11% of married females in the United States, aged 15 to 24, were married before age 18 according to the United Nations Population Fund.}
(Yes, it is overcast, 56 degrees and high humidity...I had nothing better to do today.)
Photographer
MichaelHaynes
Posts: 136
Norfolk, Virginia, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Man, you are giving them a reality check! Why is everyone so fasinated with this subject to begin with? Trying my best! Why is everyone so caught up? It is a 'jump on the moral high ground bandwagon or risk being considered a sick perv' kind of issue. I protest the loudest therefore I am not a pedophile or a supporter of pedophile psuedo paraphernalia! Tuh Tuh tah dah!
Have you also noticed that not a single person on MM would ever, absolutely not in a million years allow their daughters to dress like that? Wierd how millions of teen and pre-teen girls parade around in public settings in outfits like those but none of them belong to MMers. I mean, just statistical probability says otherwise. We must have a very special group of people here and we should all twist around a vigorously pat ourselves on the back for being those upright, moral, boiled in red, white and blue conservative Americans that the Republican Party always knew we were.
Either that, or this thread has slipped into a Fraudian, sorry, Freudian wet dream.
|
Why is everyone so fasinated with this subject to begin with?
