Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Terry Breedlove wrote:
I believe the new 2251 law addresses photos of this nature but this site might be located offshore. its 2257, and offshore or not makes no difference with these sites as there is no nudity.Provocative at any age is not illegal.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
F-ing Nuts Benny wrote:
try this site to report, I already made one
http://asacp.org/report.php This is one of the anti child porn groups which told me these sites are not illegal. They even mention it on their site. They may cut it close to being illegal but they stop just short.
Model
Acid-Candy
Posts: 94
Jefferson City, Missouri, US
Isys Entertainment wrote:
I wont even look at it...from what I have read It would bother me way to much...
Regardless I think that it is important for everyone who finds this disturbing to report it because at least you will be doing something to stop this perversity.. exactly why i posted the link in the first place.. the more people that report it the better chance it has of getting shut down.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
photog2b wrote:
What is equally sick is that you find such a site and post the address here for everyone to go to the page. Do you not realize that you are contributing? Or is this your intent? you truly sound like the type of person who wants images like this of children to keep going...You shouldnt even question someones thought about posting this and trying to get the page down...
There are people everyday on MM who post about the immigration and the war, but no one says stop posting that we know it exists...You should have not commented at all...If you saw a women get raped i doubt youll report it to help her out, because WE all know that rape does exist so why keep trying to stop it.....
Photographer
ATMPhotos
Posts: 1565
Brooklyn, New York, US
Has anyone considered making complaints to the companies hosting this offensive content?
Photographer
area291
Posts: 2525
Calabasas, California, US
This all brings up an interesting question...
Have you ever noticed on some MM model portfolios where the model is completely shaved there are more views than when the model is not shaved?
Granted, the image may (or may not be) stronger, but it brings up the thought that maybe all of those views reflect a strong interest in glaring at prepubescent fantasy.
Most will say it is simply more attractive than seeing hair. But just what is the attraction that separates the appearance (likeness) of a non-matured girl from a woman?
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
Afablb wrote:
Sadly in order to have a free and open society, that allows freedom of speech, thought and artistic points of view, we need to tolerate these kinds of things. I am no advocate of such use of children. If for example we created laws that banned young looking images, how many models on this site would have those same laws used against them.
As a society we have grown very hyper sensitive to the use of children for anything that even suggest a hint of sex , least we forget that in that vast majority of the world at 15 some girls are married and getting ready to have a child of here own. Western society has pushed back the biological clock. It was a short 400 years ago that if you lived to be 35 you were considered a very old person !
Who remembers Brook Shields winning an a major film award for portraying a child prostitute ?
All tough to stomach , but if you don't like it - Simply don't look at it. I don't like it but I will defend a parents right to do whatever they want to do, short of blatant sexual exploitation - Because if you don't then it only a matter of time before laws are passed to ban anything that may have the slightest hit of sexual overtones for ANY age. At 17 years 340 days old a sexy bikini clad girl holding a banana with a nasty look on her eyes is banned , but 25 days later it's ok - were is the line ?
Ex public defender The thing is that there is not enough done about it. Maybe little girls dressed in the same outfits in another context would have been OK but this is done clearly for pornographic purposes. It's not some abstract moral issue but real harm done to those kids who will suffer from this for a long time and may even perpetuate the same abuse on their own kids. Where is the line? Don't know about the laws but in real life the line is not that hard to establish as many parents would tell you. Just let the kid establish it and guide them.
I have two daughters and I don't know what you have to do to a 9-year old girl to make her act like the girls in those pictures. I don't think I want to know.
If the law doesn't adequately protect the kids then it needs to be changed.
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
This is one of the anti child porn groups which told me these sites are not illegal. They even mention it on their site. They may cut it close to being illegal but they stop just short. When the new 2257 law (thank you) takes over they will be illegal.
Photographer
T J Crain Studio
Posts: 19
Leitchfield, Kentucky, US
Those of you that stumble upon things that are questionable can help to rid the world of things that are not art. Face it, these people aren't Maplethorp. All issues pertaining to child protection can be forwarded to the following address: http://www.asacp.org/reportsite2.html
Photographer
Dee
Posts: 3004
Toledo, Ohio, US
WOW that shit isnt considered illegal??? I went to report it too http://www.asacp.org/faq.php#1 and read the FAQ under number 3 it says , Child modeling sites, (i.e. childsupermodel.com) are not illegal. ASACP does not accept child-modeling sites as Sponsors or Approved Members, but these sites are legal. That site is flatout disgusting...I am truely disgusted...
Photographer
KEKnight
Posts: 1876
Cumming, Georgia, US
rp_photo wrote:
I didn't post the link nor did I visit. I got the gist from the replies of others. Most of the other participants probably didn't either (am I right?)
Sometimes creating outrage is a good thing that leads to positive action. That's in the true sprit of the Internet. I would think that most particpants visited the site, IMO. I also think that most people would get the "gist" of the post simply by stating that there are sites that show young girls and boys partially clothed, without providing a URL to the link.
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
photog2b wrote:
Where in any of my comments can you reason that I "seem to be accepting sites like this"? I didn't post the URL, you did. I didn't contribute to more traffic on the site, you did.
Tell you what, go back to thiat site in a month. If it's gone, I'll send you $100 and my apologies. Otherwise, I don't think good judgement was used in posting the URL. Many of us myself included have never seen work like this so posting the site both educated us and we reported it so good was done by her posting the link.
Photographer
Fotographic Aspirations
Posts: 1966
Long Beach, California, US
Gregory Garecki wrote:
The thing is that there is not enough done about it. Maybe little girls dressed in the same outfits in another context would have been OK but this is done clearly for pornographic purposes. It's not some abstract moral issue but real harm done to those kids who will suffer from this for a long time and may even perpetuate the same abuse on their own kids. Where is the line? Don't know about the laws but in real life the line is not that hard to establish as many parents would tell you. Just let the kid establish it and guide them.
I have two daughters and I don't know what you have to do to a 9-year old girl to make her act like the girls in those pictures. I don't think I want to know.
If the law doesn't adequately protect the kids then it needs to be changed. Laws can't do what good parents should do !
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
ebarb wrote:
(http://www.prettygirlphotography.com/) I have seen this site before and have seen the photographer on OMP. I personally see nothing provocative about anything on his site. It looks like normal shots to me. No provocative poses, no see through stuff, no very skimpy stuff, no come do me expressions.
Model
Acid-Candy
Posts: 94
Jefferson City, Missouri, US
photog2b wrote:
I would think that most particpants visited the site, IMO. I also think that most people would get the "gist" of the post simply by stating that there are sites that show young girls and boys partially clothed, without providing a URL to the link. how on earth am i going to get everyone to report it if they dont even know what the link is?
Photographer
KEKnight
Posts: 1876
Cumming, Georgia, US
rp_photo wrote:
I didn't post the link nor did I visit. I got the gist from the replies of others. Most of the other participants probably didn't either (am I right?) That is my point.....
Why post a link when most people will get the "gist" of what you are talking about without posting a URL. I would think it's a known FACT that these sites exist. Is this somehow disputed enough that a URL must be provided?
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
A Twisted Mind wrote:
Has anyone considered making complaints to the companies hosting this offensive content? It will not have any effect unless you to complain to them about 2000 times a second for 24 hours a day seven days a week. It's called Denial of Service attack. It will shut them down.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Ched wrote:
Their transdactions aren't even by credit card, you have to have a pre-paid calling card to join th site. Major anonymity. Not true at all. As someone who has run pay sites and such, paying by phone or prepaid calling card is no less anonymous than paying by credit card. They still get to see what phone number the net connection is coming from.Therefor they can get the members name, address and all just as if they used a card.
Model
Amiruku
Posts: 5
Orlando, Florida, US
Im sickened too, that's just plain stupidity! I would never let my daughter do this! Let alone, my sons 7, I would never let him do this shit either! **CRAZYY!**
Then parents wonder how their child could have gotten kidnapped and molested or raped then killed? HELLO!!!??
**Amira**
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
I have seen this site before and have seen the photographer on OMP. I personally see nothing provocative about anything on his site. It looks like normal shots to me. No provocative poses, no see through stuff, no very skimpy stuff, no come do me expressions. Are you on any sexual offenders list? Just asking.
Photographer
Fotticelli
Posts: 12252
Rockville, Maryland, US
Glamour Boulevard wrote:
As someone who has run pay sites and such, ... That explains why you don't see anything wrong with this web site.
Photographer
KEKnight
Posts: 1876
Cumming, Georgia, US
CristinaLex wrote:
you truly sound like the type of person who wants images like this of children to keep going...You shouldnt even question someones thought about posting this and trying to get the page down...
There are people everyday on MM who post about the immigration and the war, but no one says stop posting that we know it exists...You should have not commented at all...If you saw a women get raped i doubt youll report it to help her out, because WE all know that rape does exist so why keep trying to stop it..... You are clueless.
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, 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.... Agreed!
Photographer
C and J Photography
Posts: 1986
Hauula, Hawaii, US
ebarb wrote:
Hello,
I can't say for sure on this site, but I know that many of these kids are shot overseas....many are russian or eastern european...
A friend of a friend a while ago called me and said she had been approached by a "photographer" here in Rochester who sets up "websites" to market young models..well i went to his website and it was exactly like the one the OP put up. Looking at his site I wonsered how anyone could be dumb enough to let him take there kids pictures...I'm thinking it's all about money
(http://www.prettygirlphotography.com/)
I did talk to some law-enforcement people and they told me that this kind of stuff is right on the edge of illegal....but there is no nudity, and what is "sexually provocative" is one of those tough things to prove...so generally it gets a pass.
Though I'm surprised with people complaining on MM about stuff like that....some would call it "art"..yeah right I looked at this guy's site and think his work is disguisting. However I sincerely doubt any prosecutor would go after him for anything I saw.
The site the thread started with I reported too. Some of those girls have 50 to 100 subportfolios. I didn't open any individual subportfolios but if they each had only 10 or 20 images it would take a month of full time exploitation to shoot that many images and looks.
Talk about teaching a 12 year old her highest and best use is to be oogled in scanty clothing.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Gregory Garecki wrote:
In some states non-nude pictures can be considered child pornography as well. Not in some but in all. The thing is usually the focus of the image has to be on what we consider private areas. They can pose provocatively and as long as the lens isnt mainly focused on that, there is no law broken.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
photog2b wrote:
You are clueless. yo momma....
lol...a quick line for "Yo Momma" on MTV....comes on sometime...check your schedule for your local listings...
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
That site is only what we see I wonder how many of the girls have been contacted to shoot even worse. Money talks to some people and they will do anything to get it.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
Acid-Candy wrote:
how on earth am i going to get everyone to report it if they dont even know what the link is? because he is way to stupid to see that and he can only see the fact that a link was posted...
he cant see the fact that you have already had at least 4 to 5 people report the site, despite the count the page might get..thats not more important than the site trying to be shut down...but people will continue to be NARROWMINDED
Model
Acid-Candy
Posts: 94
Jefferson City, Missouri, US
CristinaLex wrote:
because he is way to stupid to see that and he can only see the fact that a link was posted...
he cant see the fact that you have already had at least 4 to 5 people report the site, despite the count the page might get..thats not more important than the site trying to be shut down...but people will continue to be NARROWMINDED i guess next time ill post this:: bad site needs to be reported.. everyone must be psychic to get the url to report it!
Photographer
REOO Arts
Posts: 135
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Acid-Candy wrote:
im sicked actually.. i did a google search for model sites toplist and this is what i find:
http://www.childsupermodels.com/rank/index.html
why do children need pay sites?!?! these kids are like 9 and up and they look like little pornstars.. who the hell would let thier kids do this?!?! that is the sickest f*cking thing i have ever seen in my entire life. those parents need to be drug from their houses and beaten to death. then someone should make a web site for that so that no other parents ever think of doing that to their kids. i am pissed and disgusted and i dont even know what else. thats f*cked up.
Photographer
KEKnight
Posts: 1876
Cumming, Georgia, US
Acid-Candy wrote:
i guess next time ill post this:: bad site needs to be reported.. everyone must be psychic to get the url to report it! I could shave 30 points off my IQ and not be as stupid as you both. So you bright women just keep on posting URL's to sites that you find offensive. Best of luck.
Model
Acid-Candy
Posts: 94
Jefferson City, Missouri, US
REOO Arts wrote:
that is the sickest f*cking thing i have ever seen in my entire life. those parents need to be drug from their houses and beaten to death. then someone should make a web site for that so that no other parents ever think of doing that to their kids. i am pissed and disgusted and i dont even know what else. thats f*cked up. if these kids are doing this stuff now id hate to see what thier home life is. Seriously someone needs to step in and evaluate thier home life. I wonder seriously how many of these girls need it.
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Acid-Candy wrote:
exactly why i posted the link in the first place.. the more people that report it the better chance it has of getting shut down. Only if it were illegal, which it is not. The site has been around for years.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
this whole site seems sick and those gurls...whether non nude or what have you
should not be posing in dominatrix pleather, wearing bikinis found on girls gone wild...and giving back shots like they know they got good stuff...and looking like they rready to jump on a "rodeo bull".....they look to grown...it scares me really badly ...especially the fact that the ASCAP...I think is what it's called...says this is legal...does these peopl ehave children of thier own at all...but hey this stuff doesnt seem any different fromt he sick stuff those young girls on Myspace post....this world is sickening day by day...
Photographer
Pat Thielen
Posts: 16800
Hastings, Minnesota, US
I just want to know what the hell is wrong with these alleged "parents." Sure, it's legal, but it's not ethically right. And coming from me, Mr. Liberty, that says a lot. And I say it's ethically wrong because I believe it's flat out exploitation. I don't believe these children know what they're doing, at least not at first, and they depend on their parents to protect them. This is wrong on so many levels... Those parents need to be bitch-slapped off a high cliff; if they're lucky the fall will kill them. The fist duty of a parent is to protect your child from harm, be it physical or emotional. If they can't do that much they are unfit and bitch-slapping should ensue. I also don't think people understand the effects of emotional abuse and trauma; there is still a stigma attached to seeing a therapist.
The whole thing is pathetic...
-P-
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Terry Breedlove wrote:
When the new 2257 law (thank you) takes over they will be illegal. If the new 2257 law changes keep going as they are, and the porn squad grows, not only will that be illegal but so will lingerie modeling, art nude modeling and the photography of it and the posession of images of it.that is what they are wanting to head towards.
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
photog2b wrote:
I could shave 30 points off my IQ and not be as stupid as you both. So you bright women just keep on posting URL's to sites that you find offensive. Best of luck. UHH DUUHHHHH my nyame is photo2b and iz suppurts the ongowing of child paying sites, izs know theyer there....but why post a ummmm,...uh duhhh a ummm url....
Model
CristinaLex
Posts: 1970
Silver Spring, Maryland, US
I dont know if I should call my news station about this seriously
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
A Twisted Mind wrote:
Has anyone considered making complaints to the companies hosting this offensive content? Most of them, especially the big money ones are their own host with their own servers.
Photographer
Art Of Imaging
Posts: 13136
Brooklyn, New York, US
CristinaLex wrote:
you truly sound like the type of person who wants images like this of children to keep going...You shouldnt even question someones thought about posting this and trying to get the page down...
There are people everyday on MM who post about the immigration and the war, but no one says stop posting that we know it exists...You should have not commented at all...If you saw a women get raped i doubt youll report it to help her out, because WE all know that rape does exist so why keep trying to stop it..... although I may not agree with him, I do not think he it that type of person, he does have one valid point, by us clicking on the site, the site views go up, as the site views go up it will be easier for perverts to find the site on search engines like google and yahoo.
|
