area291 wrote:
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?

The only correlation that I'm seeing is that the adult shaved model (theretically) has the maturity to make that choice. The underage model (therotically) does not.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Jessica, first I want to tell you that I like your portfolio.  I agree with much of what you have said too!   However, it is an uphill battle when the entertainment industry (in general) and the porn industry give children the distorted impression of what being a model, actor or musician is.  The role models are not the parents, but what they see on TV, movies and hear in music.  I've been working on getting an association together for a couple years now with the purpose of putting a positive face on what "Internet modeling" can be.  It is slowly changing, but if you mention the Internet and modeling in the same sentence to most people, they still have "porn site modeling" in their minds!  I am angry about that!  The Internet has so much more potential to be used by ALL models and photographers who are NOT in porn.  Maybe education is the way to build a better 'net?

Thank You for the compliment.  And in short, let me say that I completely agree with you.  If you mention to someone that you have an online portfolio, etc, they automatically assume it is porn or sexual, etc. That really drives me crazy.  I think there is a lot of negative marketing about it and not enough positive marketing, if that makes sense????

Jessica Jill wrote:
Well that is true, but I would hope that little girls that age are not going into public to get gawked at like that on purpose...yipes.

You have not been to the local mall in a while obviously. Especially on weekends. I cant count the times I have seen young girls in tops like this with no top under, and either in tight jeans, boy shorts or daisy dukes.often with heels.packs of girls dressed like this, lookin at boys, boys and men looking at them, the girls flirting back.

GWC wrote:

You gotta figure the pedos are into/onto it. It's like all the pedos that they keep catching working for churches (teaching sunday school!) and in the boy/girl scouts. I'm like "DUH"? Isn't that kind of obvious?? It'd be like a vampire getting a job at a blood bank or a necrofiliac working at a morgue. Duh?

GWC!

These were just guys who were there, not hotel employees.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
The Internet is like the "Wild West!"

Lets be a little realistic tho dude. When I was 16 I was already gettin' up in my 2 girlfriends' undies and we used to do some serious underage drinking and partying. Whenever parents weren't home word got around pretty fast and someone showed up with a keg and the place got trashed. I don't know many girls who hadn't seen or sucked their first d*ck by the age of 16 and most everyone had gotten drunk at least once and about 1 in 4 of us had gotten laid. So why are we pretending that the internet ought to somehow be different from "PARENTs AREN'T HOME LET"S PARTY" night?  I mean, weren't U like that when U were a kid? I recall we kids didn't come in sanitary plastic wrappers or anything. We all knew what it was all about and we all wanted to try it on.

Im not saying these sites arent creepy but keep it real. Remember how when U were a kid U thought grown ups were all stupid because they had NO IDEA you were partyin under their noses and having sex in the backseat of the car? Guess what - the internet hasn't changed kids, it's just given them a new means to communicate. At least U cant get herpes off myspace.

GWC!

Pat Thielen wrote:
Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't make it right.

Just pointing out they aint all innocent little girls like so many wanna believe.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

You have not been to the local mall in a while obviously. Especially on weekends. I cant count the times I have seen young girls in tops like this[img]http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/112785.jpg[/mg] with no top under, and either in tight jeans, boy shorts or daisy dukes.often with heels.packs of girls dressed like this, lookin at boys, boys and men looking at them, the girls flirting back.

Actually I do see that stuff, as a matter of fact, me and my friend were commenting on it at Thunder over Louisville this past weekend.  It isnt that I am blind to it, I just don't think it is right and that is why I say I "hope" they are not, I don't want to think they do it for attention.  I would never let my daughter (if I had a girl) out of my house like that, nor would I buy these clothes for my daughter.  I used to work at a store and would get disgusted when parents would buy there 10-12 yr old daughters string bikinis and thongs.  Call me crazy, but I don't buy them for just me to look at, why does a young girl need that then??? Nope, never!   Oh, and I don't go to the mall, lol.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Just pointing out they aint all innocent little girls like so many wanna believe.

They all start out as innocent little girls, until they have been corrupted in some way, shape, or form.  THAT is what saddens me. :0)

Pat Thielen wrote:
There's a huge differance between modeling and appearing on some barely legal child sex site for pedophiles to oggle.

Barely legal means just recently turned 18. Pedophiles on averagewant prepubescent children, not adults.

Pat Thielen wrote:

Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't make it right. These kids are obviously lacking in guidance by their parents. It's like the Simpsons episode when Bart and Milhouse found the Playboys with the photos cutout of them. The created the "Playboy mansion mood" but had absolutely no idea what the magazine was really about. Parent sneed to be there to guide their children, teach them morals. pass along social mores, and do what it is parents are supposed to be doing. Allowing your children to be set up as pedophile bait is not good parenting; it's gross incompetance at best and child endangerment at worse. If the parents had a clue and if they bothered to teach these children what is appropriate behavior this wouldn't be such a huge problem. This is why I'd like the news shows to do stories on this crap at least once a month; just to get the word out. It's amazing how clueless both parents and children can be.

  If a kid wants to get into modeling that's fine -- they should have the support and guideance of their parents to help them along and to help them make the right decisions. These sites are not modeling sites; they are exploitation sites. Again, there's a huge differance. Again, just because there's a lot of them doing it does not make it right. Nor does it mean we should just ignore it. As a society we have a greater responsibility than that.

  I firmly believe adults have the right to do as they want as long as their actions don't hurt another. If an adult wants to be a porn star that's perfectly fine; they are able to make their own decisions and take responsibility for those decisions. But a child isn't ready to make those kinds of decisions; they require adults to guide and protect them. These sites do not guide and protect them; they exploit the children and take advantage of their trusting nature and ignorance of the world. People are being hurt, and this is not acceptable.

  Anyway, enough rant for now. I sent the link to my local news station but haven't heard anything abck as of yet. I hope they choose to do a story about this; people need to have the wool pulled from their eyes. Just because something may be legal doesn't make it right. What the hell happened to common sense anyway?

  -P-

Pat, did you know that the owner of Fox News bought MySpace.com Did you know that when he bought it that there were only 30 million users, but two months later there are double that?  It is media manipulation. Bad news is good promotion because it drives traffic.  Just as this thread is driving traffic to the very sites we are condemning ... we are making Webe Web money with every click of the link.

While I agree that parents need to be responsible, it is not fair to make more laws that cannot be enforced.  It is not fair to put ALL the blame on the parents either.  It's a combination of the media, the economy, and peer pressure on the children too. 

MySpace has a tremendous amount of positive things going for it!  Many major musicians have their music there. Many great photographers and models are on there too! (and I know how to verify that it is the real person!)  SO I can't blame the youth of the World for uniting on a website that has become a social phenomena.  It is why parents are joining MySpace with creating their own profiles.  We need to unite to be able to fight and change what is already a very united effort to exploit children in the entertainment industry. 

Your local news probably wont do anything about it unless they are able to place MySpace.com in the story. In their efforts to change things, they end up promoting it!  We are all concerned, but fragmented by comparison to the very organized "machine" that produces what started this whole discussion in the first place.  We cannot win unless there is a united effort with money going a POSITIVE direction.  In my opinion, the Christian Coalition is a NEGATIVE organization with it's own agenda of promoting Christianity.  It's not a bad thing, but it does not address the direct issue.  Instead, Christian and Catholic religions put importance of raising money over the protection of children.  (Again, my opinion!) 

Is there anything we can do?  Yes, organize an association of photographers and models against exploitation of children!  If we can do that, then we would have a better chance of making changes on the Internet.  It would not be an easy thing to do, but then nothing is!

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Barely legal means just recently turned 18. Pedophiles on averagewant prepubescent children, not adults.

I didn't mean "barely legal" in that sense. I meant it in the sense that these sites are just skirting the child porn laws so as to not be prosecuted.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Pat, did you know that the owner of Fox News bought MySpace.com Did you know that when he bought it that there were only 30 million users, but two months later there are double that?  It is media manipulation. Bad news is good promotion because it drives traffic.  Just as this thread is driving traffic to the very sites we are condemning ... we are making Webe Web money with every click of the link.

While I agree that parents need to be responsible, it is not fair to make more laws that cannot be enforced.  It is not fair to put ALL the blame on the parents either.  It's a combination of the media, the economy, and peer pressure on the children too. 

MySpace has a tremendous amount of positive things going for it!  Many major musicians have their music there. Many great photographers and models are on there too! (and I know how to verify that it is the real person!)  SO I can't blame the youth of the World for uniting on a website that has become a social phenomena.  It is why parents are joining MySpace with creating their own profiles.  We need to unite to be able to fight and change what is already a very united effort to exploit children in the entertainment industry. 

Your local news probably wont do anything about it unless they are able to place MySpace.com in the story. In their efforts to change things, they end up promoting it!  We are all concerned, but fragmented by comparison to the very organized "machine" that produces what started this whole discussion in the first place.  We cannot win unless there is a united effort with money going a POSITIVE direction.  In my opinion, the Christian Coalition is a NEGATIVE organization with it's own agenda of promoting Christianity.  It's not a bad thing, but it does not address the direct issue.  Instead, Christian and Catholic religions put importance of raising money over the protection of children.  (Again, my opinion!) 

Is there anything we can do?  Yes, organize an association of photographers and models against exploitation of children!  If we can do that, then we would have a better chance of making changes on the Internet.  It would not be an easy thing to do, but then nothing is!

where do i sine up or better yet where do i send the check

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Go look at myspace, you will get a real glimpse at barely the tip of the icebrg of just how many "innocent little girls" post provocative images of themselves on their profiles there. And with the craze of cheap video phones the video section is getting filled with these same "innocent little girls" pretending to be girls gone wild girls, booty dancing in boy shorts, thongs,etc.... having their own wet t shirt contests, lap dancing,etc....

yeah, but where are the parents???  I know that some parents are blind to this stuff or just don't care.  But if they did, their would be more "parental control."  Parents are parents for a reason, granted kids will rebel and do their thing, but parents need to take more of a stand in issues as such.  I was rebellious, but I never got away with anything either...I'm a bad liar though, LOL.  There is a difference between invading your child's privacy and independence and educating your child on important issues.

GWC wrote:

Lets be a little realistic tho dude. When I was 16 I was already gettin' up in my 2 girlfriends' undies and we used to do some serious underage drinking and partying. Whenever parents weren't home word got around pretty fast and someone showed up with a keg and the place got trashed. I don't know many girls who hadn't seen or sucked their first d*ck by the age of 16 and most everyone had gotten drunk at least once and about 1 in 4 of us had gotten laid. So why are we pretending that the internet ought to somehow be different from "PARENTs AREN'T HOME LET"S PARTY" night?  I mean, weren't U like that when U were a kid? I recall we kids didn't come in sanitary plastic wrappers or anything. We all knew what it was all about and we all wanted to try it on.

Im not saying these sites arent creepy but keep it real. Remember how when U were a kid U thought grown ups were all stupid because they had NO IDEA you were partyin under their noses and having sex in the backseat of the car? Guess what - the internet hasn't changed kids, it's just given them a new means to communicate. At least U cant get herpes off myspace.

GWC!

You know what GWC?  You are right!  I was not an innocent 16 year old kid myself.   But what we are talking about here are younger girls than 16 ... this Webe Web website company is marketing images of 9 year olds on paysites.  Now that is just too young!  That is my opinion, but it is not the law.   And I have stated that I believe it would be too dangerous to pass more laws .. and especially trying to place an age limit to something that would never be enforceable.  It wont work! 

By stating that the Internet is the "Wild West" what I mean is that you find anything and everything on it.  The 'net is a tool that can be wonderful .. look at us here posting about this topic!  Or it can be used to abuse ... but society, the media, and big business cannot turn things around without the complete effort on the part of parents.  If a parent is concerned about what their 9 year old is doing, then that is where it has to start.  By the time kids reach age 15 or 16, it's too late!  Have you heard what Bill Cosby has said about parenting?  Most households have either both parents working, or are run by a single parent.  It's not easy!

The Thorny Rose wrote:
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.

My thoughts exactly!

Farenell Photography wrote:
The only correlation that I'm seeing is that the adult shaved model (theretically) has the maturity to make that choice. The underage model (therotically) does not.

The choice of posing wasn't the question.  It was the choice made by those viewing.

GWC wrote:

Lets be a little realistic tho dude. When I was 16 I was already gettin' up in my 2 girlfriends' undies and we used to do some serious underage drinking and partying. Whenever parents weren't home word got around pretty fast and someone showed up with a keg and the place got trashed. I don't know many girls who hadn't seen or sucked their first d*ck by the age of 16 and most everyone had gotten drunk at least once and about 1 in 4 of us had gotten laid. So why are we pretending that the internet ought to somehow be different from "PARENTs AREN'T HOME LET"S PARTY" night?  I mean, weren't U like that when U were a kid? I recall we kids didn't come in sanitary plastic wrappers or anything. We all knew what it was all about and we all wanted to try it on.

Im not saying these sites arent creepy but keep it real. Remember how when U were a kid U thought grown ups were all stupid because they had NO IDEA you were partyin under their noses and having sex in the backseat of the car? Guess what - the internet hasn't changed kids, it's just given them a new means to communicate. At least U cant get herpes off myspace.

GWC!

I'm not sure you can compare this really. That's just kids being kids.
The concern here is about those kids being accessable to adults with twisted minds.
If we were all given a license to shoot paeds on sight, this wouldn't be an issue.

Acid-Candy wrote:
im sicked actually.. i did a google search for model sites toplist and this is what i find:

**link removed so if you want to report it its childsupermodels**

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?!?!



-------------------------------------------
happy now?

i would like to be linked to the site because i do not think we should cencor reality and i would like to be able to make an opinion on this most likely i will agree that children deffinatly should not have pay sites it sounds very devious to me

Pat Thielen wrote:
What the hell happened to common sense anyway?

  -P-

Ever heard" Common sense isn`t?"

GWC wrote:

U ever seen those beauty pageants or cheerleader teams?? B'lieve me those chicks are shakin' it and the parents know exactly what they are doin' too.

This is so true. There are even some schools who have banned certain routines because of all the stripper moves and such.
Some people tend to forget that the true purpose for cheerleaders is to keep the fans eyes toward the field, and not necessarily watching the game either.They were thought  up by men, to keep guys comin back.

Jessica Jill wrote:
It isnt that I am blind to it, I just don't think it is right and that is why I say I "hope" they are not, I don't want to think they do it for attention.

Denial of the problem only prolongs it.

Jessica Jill wrote:
until they have been corrupted in some way, shape, or form.  THAT is what saddens me. :0)

Believe it or not, as some studies have shown, even non corrupted kids can end up that way. Some just start early and on their own.

Jessica Jill wrote:
yeah, but where are the parents???

exactly, then there are also the kids who do this through a friends computer. and about the mall thing, many parents dont let their kids go dressed like that. Like my sisters did when they were young, they took a change of clothes, or wore the sexy stuff under the clothes mom and dad were ok with, or went to their friends house once they left ours, and changed there.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
This is totally gross.  It's like 14 year old lingerie.

Victorias Secret has had models that young in catalogs and runway shows.

The Thorny Rose wrote:
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.

Let me play devils advocate here. and I am doing only that, not taking sides. But,,,,,would you rather the pedo"blow off steam" sitting in front of his computer? Or actually go out and kidnap/rape/kill some little girl?

Wretched Beauty wrote:
I really think this is someone's sneaky way of doing child pornography. How do you report this? I am going to look into it!

http://www.cybertipline.com/

I've reported a few sites to this website and they have all been taken down. It's a part of the FBI. You should also contact your local FBI field office if you ever find anything like this. They always take it seriously.