michelleKristine wrote:
So i stopped reading your RANT about here... Who cares what GRANDMA thinks! Who cares if Acid Candy wants to be a freak, Which I'm not making judgement on bc I havent even checked out her portfolio... I don't care whats there, she put it there! These little girls didn't put up their pay sites! Their parents did!!!!!!

Are you serious? I think Acid Candy is mature enough to defend herself if she runs into grandma....

And the CHILDREN on these sites? Definately not mature enough to handle the situations they are without a doubt being put into!

"RANT"?.. Okie, whatever, dont comment then if ya didnt finish readin it, nuff said ... better yet .. read Ty's post .. makes better sense of what I was tryin to say ..

And btw .. yeah, lets worry soooo much about this .. which we can do absolutelyfreakinothing about .. annnnnd lets let gas prices soar, and let the administration rob us blind .. so that our children's children .. wont have a damn thing to retire on .. yeah .. man o man .. people worry about what they cant control .. and do nothing about what they can control .. duh .. its no wonder this country is in the damn pickle it's in .. go figure ..

krissy lynn wrote:
thas so f'd up.. i hate seein things like that..a nd it seesm like it is everywhere.. we really need to try to get that crap off the internet!

~krissy lynn~

Would you please read what I've been writing about how to move in a positive direction from this?  It's not going to help to keep going over the same topic, and YES, this very same link has been posted on Model Mayhem before ... but you keep encouraging the business by clicking on the link.  It is LEGAL and the best thing we can do is form an association of models, photographers and webmasters who uphold a better standard of Internet modeling DO READ my post about;  https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=43967

Mandie wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone here feel at least somewhat personally responsible for this?  The bigger issue here is not that there are parents that are willing to let their children (or coerce their children to) do these things, but that society makes these girls want to?

It bothers me, personally, that if my 13 year old sister saw my portfolio, which is (in my opinion) incredibly conservative, that she would want to imitate it.  It bothers me that my students have found my portfolio, and that me, as an influential figure in their lives, more than likely encourages them towards this industry with the likelihood that they won't have a healthy understanding of it, and that they could end up in situations that are very detrimental to their lives.

I don't like that it shows children that their best asset is physical, and superficial, rather than something that they choose to work at and develop, something worthwhile and long-lasting, of which they can be very proud for years to come.

I really thought that someone in this thread (I don't remember who - it is a long thread!) made an excellent point when s/he mentioned how sad it really is that the modern beauty standard is geared so heavily towards being sexy.  I was in no way abused or "corrupted" as a child, but it is not a huge stretch to me to believe that given these opportunities that I wouldn't have been on "lilmandie.com" or something similar.  I wanted to look sexy, too.  Not because I was abused (like I said, I wasn't), but because that is what society tells us is a goal.

We use the fact that sex sells as an excuse to further sexual exploitation in the media.  We use freedom of speech and sexual expression as an excuse to continue these behaviors.

While I understand and agree that what an adult does, or is allowed to do, and what a child does, or should be allowed to do, are two entirely different things...  Are we not encouraging children to follow their role-models, like Britney Spears? 

Yes, nude images on this site are marked 18+, and censored from the general (and underage) public.  But how old does someone have to be to come and see a picture of me with my rear end aimed at the camera and a sassy look on my face?  Only old enough to know how to type the website address into a browser.

I am not trying to be accusatory, and I understand that doing so would be incredibly hypocritical on my behalf.  This is just something that I personally struggle with, and I am curious about other people's opinions and insights on how you all justify this to yourselves, or if you even feel that it is necessary to do so.

If you don`t want your students to think that, if you don`t want some underage kid to see you with your arse in the air with the CFM look, f you do not want to risk your teaching career,etc,etc,etc, the simply do not do something that results in them being on the internet,which in turn may potentially cause all that,,,,I mean,,,,,, Hello,,,,,, McFly!
And if you are so ashamed of what the industry has put into peoples heads, why on earth are you perpetuating it?
Even if there was no way for the kids to see them without signing on, someone with the know how to screen shot your images can post them on any pic post site they want.
And a lot of those models and photographers who sign on with crappy images and  never have anything new? How many have happened to think that those are fake profiles from guys pretending to be a model or photographer so they CAN see the 18+ images? It does not have to be porn for them to like it. It just has to be a girl they haven`t seen before.

Mandie wrote:
I'll keep you posted!  :-)

Not to sound harsh but that is not really necessary. All the keeping me posted I would need is whether your profile is still around and you are still doing that kind of modeling or not after what you said in your previous post.
All I know is if I did not want something to happen I would do my damn best to make sure I did not do anything to make it happen,top priority being the things that would be the most likely to make that happen.

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

Jade Jorarni wrote:
(I know that the site is considered legal, but with all you MMer's outraged and such, why hasn't anyone body suggested writing to good ol' Oprah.

Even though it has been stated for a number of reasons that nothing can be done about it.

Everybody knows that American moms look at Oprah like GOD and she and her team of supermoms (and dads) will go up against it... to at the very least raise awareness.

Maybe she would spotlight the issue being smart enough not to give out the site names to help the daily hits of the site go up ... but to make people rally up against the issue of child erotica as a whole not this one specific site.

Right.

Which would lead to legislators knee-jerking to rush yet another rapidly drafted, poorly written law with enough loopholes to drive a deathstar through, to attempt to stop this practice...while actually writing something which didn't actually address the problem, and whose side-effects would curtail almost all artistic freedom, violate the constiturion...and which every legislator would nevertheless feel compelled to vote in favor of, if he/she wanted to ever get re-elected, no matter how badly written it was.

We've seen this behavior too many times already for anyone to legitimately expect a different response.

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!

Florida tried to pass a law against that kind of site and failed. Constitutional issues. I am afraid you will have to report it to the founding fathers.

Jade Jorarni wrote:
I was being a bit sarcastic in a sense that this would be something I could see on Oprah.

I'm not saying this is what I would do.
I was just surprised that no one suggested it.

Oprah and Dr Phil have both done shows where they brought on non-nude teen models from these websites ... I believe Cindy was 13?  She would be the youngest because it's pretty dang hard to locate any of these young models even if you are police.  Anyway, Oprah and Dr Phil both have had some of these teen age models.  The way they got them was by lying about exactly what they were going to say, and by manipulating the images to look worse than they were ... zooming in on the butt for example.  Oprah DID NOT call for any laws or changes to be made, all she and Dr Phil have done is humiliate the poor people (models with their parents and/or photographers) for the purpose of ratings!  Forget Oprah and Dr Phil ... it's been done before!

So scaring people and making them angry is supposed to lead us to do the right thing?  Yea, just like how the boogie man "terrorists" from 9/11 are conveniently dragged out every time Bush W wants to get approval for something!  That is the "fear" tactic and it pisses me off!  We need HOPE, not fear!

Click on those links, keep following them and quite possibly you will get into some territory that you'll wish you had not crossed into.  For example, the worst thing a teacher can be found with is child porn on their computer.  Someone I went through Junior high and High school with became a teacher.  He recently was sentenced to quite a few years in prison because the school computer in his classroom had been used to visit some child porn sites. The police also found where his personal computer at home had been to inappropriate sites.  I'm not the judge or jury, but I can't help but wonder if he wasn't set up! 

If you already know that you are sickened by those sort of website, please don't visit them.  The FBI does know about the one that has been pointed our, and they keep watch on it.  There is nothing that you should do.  The excuse that you are searching for these places because someone told you about it on Model Mayhem, or that you are researching it and planned to contact the FBI about it ... may not be enough to keep you out of prison.  Is it worth having your life ruined?

Who was there for Judy Garland, Natalie Wood, or Drew Barrymore when they were exploited as children?  It's been going on in the entertainment industry for a long time.  Things ARE getting better, but there are things we can do to improve the conditions of modeling.

Let's discuss those things together as an association or group that puts together a set of standards that we can agree on.  Let's provide benefits such as insurance for those of us who need it.  In a way we are in the entertainment business.  The actors have their guild, so do recording artists.  Wedding and portrait photographers have an association.  So do press photographers!  What are we waiting for?  Go to this thread if you would like to discuss some ideas for improving our industry;  https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=43967

LarryN wrote:

The best thing to do is to report the site to a local police force. They can determine where the site originates and pass the info to Interpol to follow up.

Larry

Sorry Terry but the new 2251 law does NOT apply to these sites, they are not a violation of any law in the United States.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Let's discuss those things together as an association or group that puts together a set of standards that we can agree on.  Let's provide benefits such as insurance for those of us who need it.  In a way we are in the entertainment business.  The actors have their guild, so do recording artists.  Wedding and portrait photographers have an association.  So do press photographers!  What are we waiting for?  Go to this thread if you would like to discuss some ideas for improving our industry;  https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=43967

Or check out American Society of Media Photographers, Advertising Photographers of America, Professional Photographers of America, Association of Photographers [UK], Editorial Photographers, Stock Artist Alliance....

Of course, those are all professional organizations, just as are the  ones for actors, recording artists, wedding photographers, and so-on--and many have stringent entry requirements (SAG, APA) as well as existing codes of ethics.

Ty Simone wrote:

Sorry Terry but the new 2251 law does NOT apply to these sites, they are not a violation of any law in the United States.

2251 does not apply to anything in this thread, however 2257 does.2257 actually applies to anything involving any sort of modeling, photography, other arts,etc......internet based or not.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Which would lead to legislators knee-jerking to rush yet another rapidly drafted, poorly written law with enough loopholes to drive a deathstar through, to attempt to stop this practice...while actually writing something which didn't actually address the problem, and whose side-effects would curtail almost all artistic freedom, violate the constiturion...and which every legislator would nevertheless feel compelled to vote in favor of, if he/she wanted to ever get re-elected, no matter how badly written it was.

This is an issue of protecting the children, in some cases from their parents. There are very few issues that are as clear cut as this one. I am also afraid of legislators overreacting but where do you draw the line? We certainly don't want laws sending parents to jail for taking pictures of their kids in a bathtub. I think in the least social services should take a close look at what is going on in the families of those kids. I don't believe that an normal (average?) parent would let their daughters do something like that. I bet there is something more serious than those pictures going on in most of those families (mental illness of the parents, history of the parents being abused as children and perpetuating the same, actual sexual abuse of the children). This is way beyond just cultural influences.

There is a difference between 10 or 13 and 17. And I'm not even sure why some compare their dislike of nudity done by adults to this.

Gregory Garecki wrote:
We certainly don't want laws sending parents to jail for taking pictures of their kids in a bathtub.

Parents have already been arrested and convicted for this a few times.

MistressNyne wrote:
Is anyone else reminded of Jon-Bennet Ramsey?

Nope. What the girls on that site are doing and what she did are two completely unrelated situations.

Ty Simone wrote:
The minute you willingly give up a right, you lose a bunch more.....

Absolutely 100%  .. correct .. I like the way you word things Ty ..

Kevin Connery wrote:

Or check out American Society of Media Photographers, Advertising Photographers of America, Professional Photographers of America, Association of Photographers [UK], Editorial Photographers, Stock Artist Alliance....

Not ONE of those has anything to do with Internet models or us, but thank you for pointing out the associations I mention on the other thread about what we can do.  I am already studying those ones.  Thanks again!

MistressNyne wrote:
Well not that I can SEE the sight now, but people are talking about children looking like porn stars...

Now, given that Job-Bennet was doing a lot of child modelling, mostly pageants, mind you, it just got me thinking of how tragic her life was...

I mean they made her up to look like the was 20-something, and taught her to move that way too... It was really quite a twisted, sick tragedy.

Well then, you must put an end to baby pageants ... then how far up the age ladder do you go?  I know someone who says that all websites should only allow 25 year old or older?  But then I know her daughter was in dance competitions while being much younger.  What about the cheerleaders? Or how about the gymnastics and ice skating competitions?  I'm sure since those competitions are the most watched in the Olympics it is possible that it's possible there are perverts as spectators. 

I'm against beauty pageants, but for the reason that I stated before from my own experience of being a photographer for a model competition (pageant) for adult age teens.  Never again!  These sort of competitions with the backstabbing, the judge tampering, and the hateful scenes that go on backstage are horrifying even for the adults who fail to act like adults.

I think that we can organize and set our own standards of websites for models.  I'm all for making us look better while diminishing the number of those websites from having "hits" ... let's build something that will turn heads and make people notice!  Look at MySpace!  That website has been around for a little over 2 years and worth hundreds of millions, with 70 million users.  The number of users doubled within two months after Fox News bought it!  I'm quite aware of the stories about MySpace ... ALL of it much exaggerated to get more parents to join!  The "chat" function on MySpace has been disabled for months.  I use it to promo my music magazine ... see http://www.myspace.com/backstage411 the kids and adults are much more interested in music than they are in modeling!  Trust me, I know by how fast the music profile is growing vs. my modeling one!

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I think that we can organize and set our own standards of websites for models.

That's obvious. What's less obvious is how you'll impose your own standards of websites for models on others.

Unless your plan is to compete with MySpace, ModelMayhem, OMP, etc, it's going to be a bit difficult.

Ty Simone wrote:
The minute you willingly give up a right, you lose a bunch more.....

Tomi Images wrote:
Absolutely 100%  .. correct .. I like the way you word things Ty ..

Ty is right!  I have agreed with Ty Simone on everyone of these many threads that have been started on this same subject about these child modeling websites.  Please use the search function in the forum and you will find we've covered this ground just as many times as it's been talked about on daytime TV shows. 

The girl models are not accessible to those who go to those sort of websites.  The girls are protected much more from predators than if they were wearing the same outfits at the shopping mall or local swimming pool.  As disturbed as many of us are about it, there is no proof that these children are being harmed in any way by having those pictures taken.  We can not, and should not try to attempt to reach them, and we should not bring so much attention to the websites when we all know that OMP has many underage ... children who have profiles there.  I am so glad that Tyler has the 16 year old rule for this wonderful Mayhem of a site! 

It's websites like OMP and MySpace that actually (NOT purposely however!) allow predators the gateway to reach these kids.  However, MySpace also has watchdogs who report the bad stuff, and many of the kids are posting the common sense rules of avoiding the predators.  I've got a FAKEBUSTERS group there that you must be on my friends list as a known model, photographer or friend in real life who wants to help bust the fake profiles created by stealing OUR pictures.  Yes, many of the photographers and models here are losing photos to all sorts of strange folks who for what ever evil reason ... create a profile on MySpace.  Lately I have not had time to do much fake busting, but the numbers of FAKES using yours and my pictures is astronomical!  It's more of a concern to me that the underage non nude model sites. 

There are many projects that we can launch as an association or organization to make a difference in making the Internet a more positive and safe place for anyone who wants to use it.  It's not possible to eliminate stuff by making it illegal.  The laws are unenforceable. The Internet is a tool, nothing more! Don't go backwards trying to put Pandora back in the box, instead turn this into a positive direction ... move it forward!

Kevin Connery wrote:
That's obvious. What's less obvious is how you'll impose your own standards of websites for models on others.

Unless your plan is to compete with MySpace, ModelMayhem, OMP, etc, it's going to be a bit difficult.

Kevin, nothing I've ever attempted has been easy. 

Googles motto is "Don't Be Evil!" which is a stab at Bill Gates.  My motto is "We Succeed Together!"  I've many projects in the works, but it all comes together quite well.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
2251 does not apply to anything in this thread, however 2257 does.2257 actually applies to anything involving any sort of modeling, photography, other arts,etc......internet based or not.

2257 does not prohibit the activities on this site. It does not even prohibit minors modelling or being photographed in the nude.

I find it totally amusing that people on this site are so totally up in arms about children posing in skimpy swimsuits and underwear, yet it is perfectly legal for those same children to pose nude and not a single person is complaining about that.

Maybe it was those two Supreme Court decisions upholding nudity, for both adults and minors that are keeping peoples mouths shut on that issue and forcing them to rant and rave about clothed minors.

So tell me...how is protesting swimsuited and ligerie wearing teens going to change the fact that more exposure than that is perfectly legal?

The key phrases in 2257 is sexually explicit and sexually exploitive. The Supreme Court has already determined that nudity, and images of nudity, in and of itself, does not constitute sexually explicit and sexually exploitive imagery.

Then you have your public standards: You can find teens wearing less than that in many public venues.


After that, your psychological implications. One worries about pervs viewing those images. Well, child molestation is pathological behavior. Cannot be trained or conditioned out of an individual. Either they feel those tendencies or they do not. The availability of imagery to view does have a corresponding drop in sexual assaults. It is a non-risk behavior, based upon fantasy, that can be done in the privacy of the home. Take away even that faux imigery, as displayed on that site, and guess whose children, out on the street, will become more at risk.

Then there is the definition of a child molester in and of itself. Here in Virginia, I had better not touch anyone under 18. But in Ohio, South Carolina and Hawaii I can legally have intercourse with a 14 year old and not be a child molester. Something like 18 other states have the age of consent at 16. A few are at 17. A psychologist will cite child sexual obsession (medically) in a case where the child has not developed sexual organs.

[Quick edit] I just learned that Hawaii has raised the age of sexual consent to 16 [i]temporarily[i]. It seems that they could not get support for an increase from 14 so the legislature passed a law raising the age for only a couple of years, then it rolls back to 14. Gosh...cannot even raise the age for sex, how are you guys going to raise the age for swimsuits? [End Edit]

So...if one can have sex with a fourteen year old, how can one logicallly make it illegal to view a picture of that same 14 year old posing off in a bathing suit?

Remember, 18 is an arbitrary age, not set because of physical sexual maturity, but because 18 is the age set in the mid 20th century as the maximum age that a state can bar someone from voting.

For the last 20 years, sex crimes as a whole, including against minors, have been dropping and dropping fast. Check any law enforcement database. Online predation is also not that common either. In fact, cases of it are so rare that they get reported in the national media.

True, I wonder what those parents are thinking (besides their pocket books) but nothing on that site is illegal. It has been running for years and, as I posted before, Florida unsuccessfully tried to legislate against it.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Parents have already been arrested and convicted for this a few times.

Show me such a conviction that was upheld upon appeal....

Many cities, counties and even states have laws prohibiting such, but those laws always get overturned when appealed to the district level.

MistressNyne wrote:
Is anyone else reminded of Jon-Bennet Ramsey?

No. Not a single shred of evidence links her death to her performance as a beauty pageant participant. You are thinking of the news service speculation which helped to irrivocably harm the investigation. The parents are still the best, most likely suspects and I am certain they saw her many times without make up or clothing or dolled up. Watch the interviews of the father. Check out the direction of his eyes, the motions of his hands. The blink reflex. Grow up on the street...you spot a liar everytime.

So...what's your point?

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,  let me take your word for it.

Thats one thing I don't need    someone looking at my work,  or my activity and thinking I am hungry for the 12 year old model.

My house has one,  and I am really good at avoiding this curious and sad addiction to the younger body.  My daughter is not flat chested and is not a 'barely filled out child'   but she is too young.

I agree that she might want to consider it in a few years.  It being modelling.  Not being erotic modelling.

I is a very thin line some of us walk.  When I shoot,  I always ask ,  while everyone has their clothes on,  to see ID and proof of age  etc...  I photograph those documents  several times and download them first into the machine before we proceed with any shoot.

I'm a typical old fart letch.   It is not a good thing to be confused with a pedophile.  That  is not something I would ever want to be confused with.

Learned that lesson as a teenager.  not something that is worthwhile now.

happy landings to all of you who click on the site to see what is there.

Hope you can tell me later, but in this case, I'll still not look. 

Have a great weekend.

Find flesh that is old enough and have fun.

SC