CristinaLex wrote:

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....

This is very humorous and supports my point.  If you can't get your point across through intelligent conversation, revert to name calling and acting like a kid.  Grow up!!!!!

Gregory Garecki wrote:

That explains why you don't see anything wrong with this web site.

There is nothing really different from that photographers"pretty girl" site photographs and most new models at that age accept his quality is pretty low. Look around at even some of the bigger modeling agency sites that have girls the same age as he does on "pretty girl".You see very similar outfits and poses.

F-ing Nuts Benny wrote:

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.

my intent was not to get people to give more hits to the site but was to help get it reported. Its hard to report a site you havent see or dont have a url for.

Gregory Garecki wrote:

Are you on any sexual offenders list? Just asking.

Nope

F-ing Nuts Benny wrote:

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.

yea but what are we supposed to do sit and watch the site stay there...like im really close into contacting my local news station seriously

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

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.

That is just paranoid and delusional.

photog2b wrote:

This is very humorous and supports my point.  If you can't get your point across through intelligent conversation, revert to name calling and acting like a kid.  Grow up!!!!!

I am grown...how about you grow up and be knowledgable to the point where this site and others have to go...and if your not positive enough to help the problem...your becoming  a problem...now i thought youu were leaving?

Gregory Garecki wrote:
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.

Go to Australia and all the other countries where little girls where thongs, very narrow g strings, go topless or even nude. Ask them what suffering they are going through.

Acid-Candy wrote:

REOO Arts wrote:
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.

In all reality I am willing to bet most of them are nudist families.

Apfel Photography wrote:
Man, I think they made it in just under the child porn laws.  But there is NO QUESTION who these people are going after for clientelle base.  I hope the feds have obtained a customer lists and are tracking their web activity.  And I agree, I think the parents are guilty of extorsion.  There is no way these parents think of their children as anything other than cash-cows.

i know ..these parents let thier kids do this KNOWING who is going to be viewing this stuff and buying memberships. Common sense you put a little 7 year old girl in a g-string   you know whos going to be visiting that site. That should be on the edge of child endangerment if you ask me. hi my name is ... i live in... and here's my pictures for pedophiles to enjoy... i mean seriously.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
Christina  think contacting your local news agency is a very good idea. Lets make a deal you contact those in your area and I will contact those in mine.

yea I just contacted Channel & in NY..They only had the main number to report a story or anything ..I called and let them know and just emailed them the URL and told them the story of how were trying to get it shut down....but some laws are making it legal..

So I would Like to say THANKS to the OP....no matter what SOME PEOPLE will say about posting the URL....so I really hope they pick this up and get it out there and investigate and mybe itll get closed...I pray and hopeq

CristinaLex wrote:
I dont know if I should call my news station about this seriously

This site and tons of other similar sites have been allover the news. Big news programs like CNN on down to local city news.

Acid-Candy wrote:

my intent was not to get people to give more hits to the site but was to help get it reported. Its hard to report a site you havent see or dont have a url for.

this is why I agree with you

Terry Breedlove wrote:
That is just paranoid and delusional.

Ashcroft started it all and even he admitted to saying that even art nudity should be illegal and it is being carried on by the guy who replaced him. Do you not recall Ashcroft putting curtains over the bare breasts of the Justice statue behind where he gave his news conferences? Do you not recall him saying he does not dance with his wife because he thinks dancing is a sin?
You do know about the porn squad right? They have already shut down many adult sites and arrested the people who ran them. At one time there was a website owner they arrested and did not even charge him with anything, and held him for weeks  without any charges because under the new patriot act they do not have to charge you with anything within the normal 24 hours. In fact they can hold you indefinitely without charges.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Ashcroft started it all and even he admitted to saying that even art nudity should be illegal and it is being carried on by the guy who replaced him. Do you not recall Ashcroft putting curtains over the bare breasts of the Justice statue behind where he gave his news conferences? Do you not recall him saying he does not dance with his wife because he thinks dancing is a sin?
You do know about the porn squad right? They have already shut down many adult sites and arrested the people who ran them. At one time there was a website owner they arrested and did not even charge him with anything, and held him for weeks  without any charges because under the new patriot act they do not have to charge you with anything within the normal 24 hours. In fact they can hold you indefinitely without charges.

Do you not recall that hes probrably a nut and showers with a suit on because hes scared of his own nudity....lol...hes a A-class weirdo..lol

CristinaLex wrote:
Do you not recall that hes probrably a nut and showers with a suit on because hes scared of his own nudity....lol...hes a A-class weirdo..lol

I agree with you but on the other hand, his replacement has the same beliefs and is carrying on where ashcroft left off.It has been a goal of many of the republican administrations to rid the us of porn. There was also a case not long after the porn squad was appointed where they turned away a ship that was delivering porn videos a US company had produced and paid some company in another country to make the copies for them.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Acid-Candy wrote:

REOO Arts wrote:
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.

In all reality I am willing to bet most of them are nudist families.

There is a huge differance between nudist families, where nudity is considered natural and healthy, and sites like that. Those sites are set up and designed to attract pedifiles to pay to see children in provoactive poses wearing just barely legal sexy outfits. In a nudist family it's quite a bit differant, and I serisouly doubt nudists would exploit their children like that. These aren't the same things; what these sites are selling is child sex while skating just this side of legality. Just because something is legal, and other people are doing it, does not make it right.

  I'm also not supportive of more laws, because the more laws that are created the more repressed society becomes. And laws won't stop this, because these sites will simply move overseas and continue out of the reach of U.S. laws. There are already plans in place to remove more of our freedom of expression, and "protecting the children" is the rallying cry that is most often used. What needs to happen is people need to understand that this sort of thing is wrong; that a normal person would not exploit their children in this way. I think airing this sort of thing on the news would help educate people of this problem, but like more laws I doubt it would really affect the people already doing it. I doubt they really care. So, really I don't know. I suppose a law could be written to cover a certain age group -- perhaps children under the age of 18 or whatever. I think as long as there's money to be made people will simply do it in order to make money, and that's the problem with people as a whole -- greed. And how do you declare war on greed?

  Some things are far more important than money...

  -P-

CristinaLex wrote:

Do you not recall that hes probrably a nut and showers with a suit on because hes scared of his own nudity....lol...hes a A-class weirdo..lol

im not a fan of ashcroft.. not even when he was the governor of my state.  that still doesnt change the fact that something needs to be done so sites like this one can be taken down and are considered illegal.. there is nothing wrong with child modeling but there is something wrong when a child is dressed and posed in a sexually implied manner.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
Yes we want to make money but not by destroying these young girls in the process.

I am just saying our goal is the same as theirs, money.as for destroying the little girls in the process. Yea, I can see that happening to some of them as a result. But there are just as many girls of those ages who LIKE doing that. I recall several girls from when I was a kid who loved to dress as skimpy as possible, were even sexual in some ways. Some of them SEEK this kind of modeling out, as many photographers who have been contacted by such girls know.

Acid-Candy wrote:

im not a fan of ashcroft.. not even when he was the governor of my state.  that still doesnt change the fact that something needs to be done so sites like this one can be taken down and are considered illegal.. there is nothing wrong with child modeling but there is something wrong when a child is dressed and posed in a sexually implied manner.

I agree. And it's so incredibly sad we even apparantly need such a law. Would you even think we'd have to have a law to prevent parents from exploiting their children in child porn? I find that mind-boggeling...

  What I do find difficult is how such a law could be written that it wouldn't infringe on the rights of adults or legit child modeling; that it would only affect the child-porn "modeling" that is evident on sites such as the one we're talking about. It is true the government is doing whatever they can and wasting whatever resources they have to stomp out porn, as they see it. While this is wrong, it isn't wrong to create fair laws that *actually* protect our children from this type of exploitation. Maybe the law shouldn't be so much about what is shown, but who is responsible. A child obviously can't sign a release, so the responsible person would obviously be the parent and they should be the ones prosecuted. I just don't know how you can define what is allowed and what isn't in a written and understandable form. We know it when we see it, but to put this into the context of a law is very difficult. Any ideas? Thoughts? And are our current laws actually not good enough? Do we *really* need more? Perhaps they aren't being enforced as they should be.

  Anyway, I do think the government is taking a completely wrong and counterproductive aproach to this. They seek to make all porn illegal, when what they should be doing is actually protecting children from being cought up in it and prosecuting the parents that allow it to happen.

  -P-

Felicia  wrote:

It may or may not be, but certainly should be looked into. There is not even a privacy notice or location on any of the sites.

Felicia  wrote:

It may or may not be, but certainly should be looked into. There is not even a privacy notice or location on any of the sites.

Actually this is the address I found

Registrant:
   c/o CHILDSUPERMODELS.COM
   P.O. Box 821650
   Vancouver, WA 98682
   US

-Katrina- wrote:
They are most definately raising little whores

That's a pretty tough statement.  Those little angels just might be gaining inspiration by viewing sites like this (there are two well known that are highly popular on OMP)...does that mean they will grow up to be big whores because they emulate older models?

They may be poorly guided, but consideration should also be given to what they will model in the future...the very thing that creates massive views.  There is an emulation factor to consider, many may be saying, "when I grow up I want to model just like her!"

-Katrina- wrote:
They are most definately raising little whores

That`s a bit on the harsh side there.

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?!?!

area291 wrote:

That's a pretty tough statement.  Those little angels just might be gaining inspiration by viewing sites like this (there are two well known that are highly popular on OMP)...does that mean they will grow up to be big whores because they emulate older models?

They may be poorly guided, but consideration should also be given to what they will model in the future...the very thing that creates massive views.  There is an emulation factor to consider, many may be saying, "when I grow up I want to model just like her!"

I think your also assuming that all kids are like, blank canvus' and get misled and thus its somehow our fault...and an extent that is true...

but there are most definately some youngin's who have a mind of their own, are what i like to call "fast" girls, and are growin up way 2 quick...

granted we cant decipher on the site who was like, forced and misled into this, and who loves what she does and thinks she the sexiest 9 year old to walk the planet...in which cause, I will put in a clause, the latter of the two that i mentioned are gonna grow up to be whore. UNLESS, they get a spot on maury and get sent to the nearest womens prision, closest prostitution corner, and follow that all with bootcamp

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?

i think the idea was to bring some thing like this to the attion of people so that they would do some thing about it like some did and posted places to report it i did not know where to report things like this until i red this post so i did HAPPLY report it and have now book marked where to do so so now maby if we all did the same that sight will be shut down i know that there will be a nether to take its place and all that but hay at lest it is some thing

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Go to Australia and all the other countries where little girls where thongs, very narrow g strings, go topless or even nude. Ask them what suffering they are going through.

I have no problem with a 9- or 12- or 22-year olds running around naked on the beach. I have a problem with underage kids being exploited for financial gain as in:  pedofiles paying for the web site so they have pictures to beat off too. If you don't get the difference then you have a problem or, what is more likely, you have an agenda here and trying to do damage control.

When I was talking about psychological damage I meant that this rarely stops at just pictures. There is sexual abuse going on. Any parent who would expose his or her daughter to something like that is automatically a suspect.

-Katrina- wrote:
granted we cant decipher on the site who was like, forced and misled into this, and who loves what she does and thinks she the sexiest 9 year old to walk the planet...in which cause, I will put in a clause, the latter of the two that i mentioned are gonna grow up to be whore. UNLESS, they get a spot on maury and get sent to the nearest womens prision, closest prostitution corner, and follow that all with bootcamp

Methinks watching too much daytime TV is just as dangerous to the psyche and mindset...the only thing missing in your statement was blaming it all on MTV!

I don't condone the imaging, it (flaunting the bod) is not the type of modeling that offers much in way of talent.  That goes for the little girls too...but I wouldn't go so far as to classify either, or their actions, as whores or whores to be.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
Christina  think contacting your local news agency is a very good idea. Lets make a deal you contact those in your area and I will contact those in mine.

i work for a news paper and i will bring it up to my boss