Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Little Girls in Underwear... And It's Not Porn?

By MattOly in Internet
Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:10:42 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

One thing Pornography and Art have always had in common is that they're both very hard to define, but typically you know it when you see it. Not so in the evolving case of quasi-child pornography.


When The Captain and I were first made aware of this sort of thing, we decided not to post a story. It was a creepy website called Tiffany Teen Model. At the site, we see a 13 year-old girl posing in short skirts, bikinis, and underwear doing pre-teen girl things. From the site:
If you love Tiffany then you will love her video! It is 45 min long and shows Tiffany and her friend Helene having fun. The girls model for each other, do each others hair, etc.. You know, Girlie things.
While there is no nudity or anything sexual on the site, many people are protesting the site, and for obvious reasons. The poses are vaguely (intentionally so, no doubt) "sexy" and not cute. There are creeps all over the internet obviously getting off to the images.

What's even creepier, though, is that the parents of these teen and even pre-teen "models" are fully in support of these websites. They often make more money than their parents day jobs. You can see a video of Tifanny and her friend Helene doing "girl things", but it will cost you $75.

And Tiffany and Helene are not alone. There's also Mollirama, Li'l Amber and Jessi the Kid to choose from. These sites generally tout that they are up promote the girls professional modelling careers, which is totally ok. But what I'd like to know is why they make it a membership-based system, like most porn sites are?

We wanted answers, and we found them.

Wired recently posted an interview with the president of the company that owns virtually all of these sites, Webe Web corp. The man actually thinks we'll buy his story.

"This is definitely not kiddie porn in any form," said Webe Web spokesman Evan Gordon. "None of our sites have naked children." Maybe not, but the eyebrows of more than one child-advocacy networks have raised.

"The images on sites such as Lil' Amber fall into a murky legal area," said Parry Aftab, a lawyer and the director of Cyberangels, an Internet safety and education group. "This is utterly and absolutely distasteful, and I think it would invoke child abuse, but it's probably not illegal." And it's not. Where do we draw the line?

When asked why people would pay up to $50 a month to download non-naked pictures of little girls in skimpy clothing, Mitchell Earleywine, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, responded: "Beats the hell out of me. I'm really at a loss why anyone would pay to look at these photos." Earleywine said that men who are attracted to children tend to exhibit poor social skills and confusion on how dating works. "I would encourage men who are on this site to seek professional help,"

Taking legal action against this kind of posturing is a fine line to walk. Legislation may have to be adopted that would cause JCPenny's catalogs to quit using 8 year-old children to model tighty-whiteys.

The problem isn't the pictures themselves, of course, but with the people who pay for the membershps. Do the parents actually think that there aren't pervs downloading the pictures for masturbation? Or do they know and not care? Green money can make people do awful things. What do you think? Talkback below.

This story is being mirrored on K5's cousin, Satanosphere, another Scoop site.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Pornography or Not?
o Porn. 16%
o Not Porn, but not harmless. 53%
o Not at all. 29%

Votes: 95
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scoop
o The Captain
o Tiffany Teen Model.
o Mollirama,
o Li'l Amber
o Jessi the Kid
o posted an interview
o Webe Web corp.
o Satanosphe re,
o Also by MattOly


Display: Sort:
Little Girls in Underwear... And It's Not Porn? | 97 comments (92 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Where's the exploitation? (4.54 / 11) (#2)
by weirdling on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:16:26 PM EST

I, for one, don't care. There's absolutely no exploitation here, and if the behavior bothers people morally, well, that's what the first amendment is for.
What you have here is a bunch of girls on videos in skimpy clothing doing whatever girls do, which is apparently something people want to see, and so money changes hands and everyone is happy.
The point is that someone's going to have to come up with a lot more than a vague, creepy feeling to justify new laws and less freedom.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
I dunno... (2.40 / 5) (#6)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:21:50 PM EST

It is nice that they make good money... but the law explicitly prohibits images of minors engaged in real or simulated sex, it also forbids depictions of children designed to elicit sexual arousal.

That's that, as far as I'm concerned.


====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

The law (4.71 / 7) (#13)
by weirdling on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:08:27 PM EST

Also prohibits defending one's self in Maryland, swimming on dry land in many locales, and any form of drugs that are out of style. The law is hardly an arbiter for morality. There is ample evidence that the law about prostitution, for instance, merely makes the prostitute's life much worse.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Right... (3.00 / 3) (#27)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:26:24 PM EST

Again, it's not about legislation. I should have made that clearer. It's about "is this porn".

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

No (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by weirdling on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 12:47:07 AM EST

It's about 'is this really my business'. 'Is this porn' evidences an a priori assumption that what is immoral should be outlawed, as the only real reason to outlaw porn is morality. I should think we'd have gotten past that in this modern day and age. Nevermind; since this is clearly a question of legislated morality, it becomes obvious that it violates the first amendment's prohibition from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free excersize thereof. This has been established by the court time and again.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Just for the record... (2.50 / 10) (#3)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:17:16 PM EST

I found the site while trying to find funny/weird stuff to put up on Satanosphere, not cuz I'm a creepy old guy who wants to "use" this type of material.

I felt the need to clarify. Ahem. heh heh

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.

Hmm (4.50 / 12) (#5)
by sventhatcher on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:18:38 PM EST

Isn't this signifigantly better than having actual child pornography?

Wouldn't you rather the sick individuals who are getting a kick out of these sites do so there than with actual child pornography or worse yet an actual *child*?

The exploitation here is really not much worse than in the modeling industry in my opinion, and the claim that these sites exist to promote a girl's modeling career may not be far from the truth. If these sites grow to be exteremely popular, modeling agencies might be more likely to hire these girls. They've already proven their looks can sell.

That doesn't even account for the media attention that this kinda thing will probably eventually draw. Maybe the parents shouldn't be avid supporters of this kinda thing, but I don't know that they should object either.

--Sven (Now with bonus vanity weblog! (MLP Sold Seperately))

Wow. (2.40 / 5) (#7)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:23:43 PM EST

Now that's a good point I didn't address. It is better than actual porn...

I don't know if "better" is the term I like for that, though.

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

I retract my -1. (4.40 / 5) (#8)
by maynard on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:36:26 PM EST

Ugh, I was vascilating between "+1 section" and "don't care" and wound up selecting -1 by mistake. Sorry.

However, regarding the content of this article: Frankly, I don't care. I don't think it's wrong for pre-teen and early teen girls to model clothes for catalogues so I don't have a problem with this either. People are far too bent out of shape over this stuff. Yes, it's terrible when a child is sexually abused, in front of a camera or not. But weirdos jerking off to legitimate photos of children is not the responsibility of the children, their parents, or the photographers and whatever other organizations may be funding/supporting the project. As you write, by this logic we would ban Filene's flyers, advertisements, and catalogues in order to prevent the possibility that someone might masturbate to photographs of children modeling the department store's goods. Ban them because they're in bad taste: yes. Ban them because they're advertisements: let's discuss.

Hell, why not ban personal cameras as well? It's as ridiculous as charging a parent with child pornography for taking photos of their child in the bath tub. No, actually it's worse.

JMO.
--Maynard

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

I see your point. (2.00 / 5) (#9)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:46:04 PM EST

But if it's made for old men to whack off to on purpose, isn't that bad? I mean, membership!?

And it's cool about the -1 thing. I've done it too! heh


====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Nope. I'm not bothered. (4.66 / 6) (#12)
by maynard on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:06:04 PM EST

Actually, I'd rather the weirdos jerk off to this than to child pornography. Actually, by this logic I shouldn't be opposed to computer generated child porn; I guess I could stomach that logical leap.

I strongly support locking up child predators who sexually abuse and/or photograph children in sexual situations. Don't get me wrong about this, I'm no apologist for child porn. But some kids in clothes or bathing suits modeling just doesn't bother me, even if it turns out that the clientelle is primarily interested in masturbation.

Hey, all over the U.S. are laws restricting sodomy and oral sex. Do I think these are justified? Do I think it's disgusting what people are doing in their bedrooms? No; and neither does my GF. In fact, I think kinky sex is cool: handcuffs please! (her opinion may differ) :-) As long as those weirdos keep to themselves and don't bother any children that's fine by me. And please vote out those ridiculous sodomy laws while you're at it. --M

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

YES YES YES! (2.20 / 5) (#14)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:09:52 PM EST

Sodomy for all!

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Probably some pedos will get off on it. So what? (4.60 / 30) (#10)
by Eloquence on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:56:54 PM EST

First, read this article I wrote on a related subject. Follow the links and read the articles to find out about the damage the child porn hysteria of the last decades has caused. My K5 article on pleasure may also be of interest.

The poses are vaguely (intentionally so, no doubt) "sexy" and not cute

Not cute? By your standards? Tell her about it, I'm sure she'd like to hear your opinion. I think she's both sexy and cute and should be proud of herself.

A 13-year-old has a very well developed sexuality, many girls are even capable of bearing children at this age. It is a matter of debate whether pictures of children at this age should even be considered as child pornography, since the typical age where pedophiles are interested in children is shortly before puberty. To put things in perspective, in Germany, pictures of people above the age of 13 are perfectly fine, regardless of their content (with the exception of violent porn and animal porn, which may not be distributed).

A child that does not look like a child and is not styled like a child is not of interest to a pedophile (cf. the books by Dr. Edward Brongersma and Dr. Frits Bernard which have detailed statistics on the subject). Your complaint (which suggests that the parents basically decided for the girl, while I bet she had a lot of fun doing these pics) boils down to (although you shy away from that conclusion for obvious reason) labeling children as an obscenity, they should be locked away or dressed asexually in order to avoid inciting any sexual "urges". This is exactly, word by word, the same kind of logic that is used by the Taliban in veiling their women: That not doing so would incite sexual urges in other males. Now think about this for a while -- could we be on to something here, maybe some truth about the repression of sexuality and its consequences?

The people who look at Tiffany's site are most likely not pedophiles but simply average guys with a fetish for young girls, possibly because of personal sexual experiences at that age which they are reminded of when they look at the pictures. This is an important difference because the likelihood of actual predatory behavior is very small in these cases; these people are usually married and just like to fantasize about something else some of the time. The people who look at the sites of younger kids (preteen age), especially boys, are more likely to be actual pedophiles (that's why most pedophiles, e.g. NAMBLA, call themselves boylovers, because around 90% of them are not interested in girls -- this has specific reasons and nothing to do with homosexuality). Pedophile homepages usually contain links to such pages, you will even find them collecting kids' TV programs to get movies with "cute boys". Check out Boylinks for examples of the stuff these people look at (don't worry, I think most of it should be legal even in the US).

So what are we going to do about it? Forbid kids TV? Prohibit making photos of children? Prosecute anyone who "gets off" to such a picture or video (most likely they would not be masturbating to the picture itself but to the fantasy of sexual acts with the person depicted therein)? Of course we shouldn't do any of these things. In fact, if you want to protect the children, you should do the exact opposite and be glad that such websites exist, because they provide a safe outlet for these people's fantasies, without hurting anyone. It is well known and documented, on the other hand, that suppression of sexual desire leads to violent and aggressive behavior. By trying to control the fantasies of pedophiles, you will turn many of them into sadistic monsters who will satisfy their desires by whatever means they deem necessary. Furthermore, you will give children the impression that their bodies are something to be ashamed of, and that nudity in itself is one of society's most important taboos.

A peaceful society is one which is open about the body, one that doesn't consider children, even when clothed, obscene and "creepy" -- and one that tries to deal with unacceptable sexual behavior through fantasies instead of suppressing it.

(I am not a pedophile and I don't condone child abuse. I am a strong opponent of the sexual hysteria that is rampant around the world, though. It's the reason I have to put such a disclaimer into my writings when I even mention pedophiles without asking for public hangings of every single one of them.)
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!

Exploitation is the issue (4.18 / 11) (#15)
by rusty on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:14:22 PM EST

The question isn't so much "What harm comes from showing pictures of little girls" as "At what age is a person old enough to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to put up wank material of themselves on the internet?" That is, can or should a 9 year old girl make the decision to expose her body for the viewing pleasure of others? Does she even understand what the pictures are really for? I think there's little question as to who the audience is -- Webe Web's other business is hardcore porn, according to the Wired article. They know what they're doing. As do the parents, if they have even two brain cells to huddle together for warmth.

So what we have are some very young girls doing what their parents tell them is ok (wear that bikini, arch your back, you'll make Mommy and Daddy very proud), and parents and pornographers making a hefty profit charging pedophiles to look at pictures of their kids. I'm not against pornography, but I am against exploitation, which I consider pretty much all child porn to be. Do these kids really have the sexual experience and understanding to decide that they're ok with this? One interesting quote from the Wired article:

"If you had a cute dog that I could put up on the Web and make money off of, I'd do that too," [Webe Web spokesman Evan Gordon] said.
So, is your daughter a "cute little dog" until she's old enough to make decisions for herself?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Exactly my point. (3.50 / 4) (#16)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:25:12 PM EST

I tried hard to make it sound non-acusitory, and think I did OK. But just because they're not naked doesn't mean they're not being exploited. It doesn't matter if they're wearing clothes or not, except for in a legal sense, does it?

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Every goddamn time, there has to be a *law* (4.00 / 7) (#19)
by ubu on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:33:27 PM EST

The question isn't so much "What harm comes from showing pictures of little girls" as "At what age is a person old enough to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to put up wank material of themselves on the internet?"

Er, no, you really can't avoid the subjectivity simply by restating the question. What's "wank material"? If you're on a crusade to protect some sort of "age of consent of public exposure" then you can't ask it to be enforced selectively. Whether or not the material is sexually explicit -- and whether or not it passes the "I can't think of any other reason to pay for it" test -- the same argument holds.

I think you're really against the idea of pedophiles getting off to pictures they shouldn't look at. You have to acknowledge the fact that while almost all of us share your disgust for pedophilia, we do not necessarily share your zeal for legislating morality to every corner of the planet.

The consent and approval of the girls' parents really is enough to make those sites legitimate. And while -- in my opinion -- that makes them very bad parents, it does not make them criminals.

Ubu



[ Parent ]
Missing my point... (3.00 / 6) (#21)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:48:50 PM EST

I'm not saying we need to pass new laws. I'm really not saying anything pro or con when it comes to the laws. I don't presume to be someone who could write (or support) legislation like that. My point is that this is bad for the kids. Period. You can't get around that. What's worse is I have a feeling that it's a cyclic problem. These girls may one day put their daughters (or sons, ahem.) through the same ordeal.

And I saw ordeal because it is. It's not over when the photos are developed and they put their street clothes back on. When they and figure things out, they're going to be messed up.

And the parents... C'mon. Would you be comfotable in the knowledge that your daughter's URL is being used for currency in prison? I know I wouldn't. So how can these mothers and fathers do this? Boggles my mind.

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Yeah, same here (3.66 / 6) (#22)
by rusty on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:55:42 PM EST

Dammit, I wrote a good reply to ubu and Netscape crashed when i hit "Post".

My point was also not that we need magic new laws. My point was that these are bad parents, and they shouldn't be condoned or encouraged. I think all three of us agree on that.

I have no idea how one would craft a law preventing this. I suspect it would be impossible. That doesn make it ok, though, as a disturbing number of comments here want to claim.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

The disturbing number of comments... (4.00 / 6) (#23)
by wiredog on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:01:57 PM EST

From the article men who are attracted to children tend to exhibit poor social skills and confusion on how dating works

Not that I'm saying that people who post comments to K5, or geeks in general, have poor social skills and trouble dating. No sir! Not me! I certainly don't know anyone like that. Especially here!

Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things
[ Parent ]

Heh (3.66 / 6) (#25)
by rusty on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:15:56 PM EST

I think it may also be that the average age here is younger than "parenting" age. I suspect you'd get a very different reaction from a site frequented by 30-somethings who have kids of their own. Or, I hope, from the parents that I know are here already.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Hey Rusty... (2.00 / 4) (#28)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:29:25 PM EST

I thought you were too disgusted to keep going? heh heh heh ;)

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

reply (4.50 / 2) (#56)
by ubu on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 09:31:41 AM EST

Dammit, I wrote a good reply to ubu and Netscape crashed when i hit "Post".

The number of times this has happened to me, and the amount of good material I have lost to such crashes, have nearly driven me insane. I credit Netscape (aka The Devil) with my current flaky state of mind.

I have no idea how one would craft a law preventing this. I suspect it would be impossible. That doesn make it ok, though, as a disturbing number of comments here want to claim.

It's not impossible. The UN crafts laws like this all the time. I agree that such laws should not exist, but they do and they will continue to exist as long as people continue to object to behavior like Teen Model Whatever and at the same time feel as though they have no effective recourse -- no bully pulpit.

Anyway, I think it's important to persuade people that it's wrong. It's also important to make it clear that you do not support legislation as a replacement for individual responsibility.

Ubu


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
It has nothing to do with sexuality then (3.33 / 6) (#20)
by Eloquence on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:47:09 PM EST

Obviously in some cases persuasion may be involved. In other cases, the initiative may have come from the children themselves. You don't know how actively the parents were even involved. What would a good parent do? Discourage the child? Or actively accompany them to make sure that things don't go wrong? How do you raise happier children, by teaching them to be open about their bodies, to be confident in their beauty, or by telling them that, for these and those reasons, they'd better be careful not to show themselves to others. (What kind of impression do you give a child by saying that?) And by the way, labeling these pictures as "wank material" is not exactly objective -- for me, they are just pictures of a pretty girl, and it's perfectly fine to have them on the web.

But there is the problem of persuasion (which, again, we cannot really assess without better knowledge of the case). That is the case with all child photography, children's movies, child models, child advertising etc. etc.. If you are complaining about this case of persuasion, however, you're on very thin ground. What about the parents who force their child to accept their religion and decry all others? What about those who spank their kids? Compulsory schooling? These are cases where actual coercion is involved, much more severe than that of a teen model who probably had a lot of fun during the photo shoots (you don't get kids to smile that easily if they don't want to). What do you want to do about that? It has nothing at all to do with sexuality, especially since, as I pointed out, pedophiles will use completely nonsexual material for their personal satisfaction.

The inseparable combination of "exploitation" and "sexuality" or even sensuality in the media is the direct cause of the demonization of sexuality, and its resulting repression. Radical feminists have labeled all women who appear in porn movies as "exploited" -- regardless of the women's own opinion. Here, again, children are labeled as "exploited" -- without further knowledge of the situation, based on prejudice, myths, false logic, and without even asking the kids of their opinion. I think you would find that 13-year-olds are not half as dumb as they are portrayed in the movies.

By the way, even if these guys sell porn (and Wired has screwed up more than once in their child porn stories), inferring anything from that fact would amount to prejudice. Porn is a business like any other, only that it is socially stigmatized. Mentioning that is bad journalistic style at best and slander at worst.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

Porn (3.66 / 9) (#24)
by rusty on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:13:31 PM EST

This is getting into a lot of different areas. Let me try to state why I object to this as clearly as I can.

Whether or not the kids are being persuaded or coerced (I very much suspect they're not, BTW) to do this work, I don't think that they really understand what it is they're selling. While "wank material" is certainly subjective, my assertion is that the majority of subscribers to these sites are in fact interested in them for sexual reasons. So whether you or I find them "wank material" doesn't matter. The point is that the people who are paying for them do.

About the mention of Webe Web's porn business -- the inference is not "porn is evil" but that these people are experienced in the world of adult entertainment, and therefore can hardly be expected to simply not know what their subscribers are interested in. It's not a condemnation of their business, but an establishment of knowlege that you may not be able to assume if these sites were sponsored by, say, a children's clothing manufacturer.

I hope we can agree that the parents and Webe Web know that their kids are being used as fetish material. You don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I don't know. I'm to disturbed by this to keep arguing. I hope you're in the minority.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Children are no obscenities (2.25 / 4) (#34)
by Eloquence on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:56:19 PM EST

Yes, I agree that pedophiles and fetishists look at the pictures. I'm not sure if they're in the majority of subscribers, who might consist of model agencies, photographers, parents who want to learn how to style their children, painters looking for inspiration, webmasters, adults harmlessly reminiscing in past experiences, even other kids (they're really looking for that kind of stuff) or just people who enjoy looking at photos of other people with no kind of dark background whatsoever. You see, the underlying assumption seems somehow to be "How sick do you have to be to look at a picture of a beautiful kid?" You don't have to be sick at all. And if you're sick, it may very well be the best therapy you can get, as opposed to real life experience.

You think that the decision is too heavy and loaded for the kids to make. I don't think it's heavy and loaded at all. We're not talking about a child-swapping-ring here. We're just talking about photos of good-looking kids. And I believe that this kind of discussion is far more harmful to the psyche of these kids than any "sicko" looking at these photos in his basement could ever be. What might "mess these kids up" is not their later realization that their photos might have been used in a fashion that they do not approve of, it is accusations that they are "exploited", "unable to make the decision", "creepy" or "obscene".

Regarding Webe Web, I think that, again, it borders on accusations to say that a company that is experienced in the world of porn has any prior experience with pedophiles and their interests whatsoever. What you can reasonably infer is that they know how to handle access control and billing, which is essential for this kind of activity.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

Oh come on (4.00 / 3) (#43)
by delmoi on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 10:30:58 PM EST

These sites are exactly the same as pr0n sites. Same setup, same 'top 50' links pages. I agree that their could be some sad people looking at these sites (and especially the videos) to reclaim their childhood, but the idea that these things are totally normal is preposterous.

No, there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting to look at cute kids, but I doubt many people would actually pay for that material in the same way they would for pr0n.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Normalcy (3.00 / 4) (#49)
by Eloquence on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 12:16:51 AM EST

We do not know who the majority of the viewers are. We do not know the viewers at all. Let's leave the conclusion jumping to the tabloids. Totally normal? The pictures are normal, many of the fetishes satisfied by them are probably not "normal" by any reasonable definition of the word. I agree that the process is harmful if the children were deliberately misled or even coerced. But I don't see any evidence for that. What I see is an article which basically leaves the door open for fundamentalists who will, in the next step, ask advertisers no longer to display kids because the images could arouse pedophiles. (I am not joking. This has been seriously suggested in German government hearings and probably American ones as well.) Use your fantasy to continue from there.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
Porn? (4.00 / 3) (#54)
by sigwinch on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 05:24:18 AM EST

These sites are exactly the same as pr0n sites.
Yeah, Jessi The Kid is exactly the same as any other kiddie porn. There's no difference between Molli and this or this or this or this (at Geocities, of all places) or this or this or this or this.
Same setup, same 'top 50' links pages.
Yeah, exactly the same.
No, there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting to look at cute kids, but I doubt many people would actually pay for that material in the same way they would for pr0n.
You have obviously never seen a fanboy go on a Slayers or Sailor Moon or Key the Metal Idol spree. (Although I guess Key doesn't count as a real girl, being a robot, but it's the nature of what it intended to arouse in the viewer that counts, right?) These would lose 75% of their appeal if they weren't cute and young (and often rather scantily clad).

Another thing everybody seems to ignore: what are 13 year old boys supposed to look at? Tasteful pictures of smiling girls their own age, or pictures of desperate 30 year old women with 34 DD boobs who couldn't crack a realistic smile to save their semen-covered asses?

I mean, have you actually looked at the porn that's out there on the 'net? I enjoy a good dick-lifter as much as the next red-blooded American male chauvinist pig, but the vast majority of the stuff out there makes me want to go take a cold shower or read the Bible. The women don't smile at all, and usually have this awful expression of desperation or self-loathing on their faces. They're arranged in ridiculous acrobatic poses so that we can see, by god, that she really is being penetrated, often by several men at once. And pictures of clothed girls are somehow vastly more offensive than this unnatural dreck?

And now for a gratuitous goatse.cx link. And here is a goatse.cx link that doesn't get as much press as the site 'entry point', but is about 50 times more hilarious.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

Yes, yes, and - Yes. (4.85 / 7) (#30)
by snowlion on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:32:53 PM EST

That is, can or should a 9 year old girl make the decision to expose her body for the viewing pleasure of others? Does she even understand what the pictures are really for? ... Do these kids really have the sexual experience and understanding to decide that they're ok with this?

My answer is, "Yes, yes, and yes". Actually, I don't know- I'm not the parents. But I have a hard time imagining that the kids don't know, they're pretty smart. Maybe I should say, "Maybe, maybe, and - maybe." I strongly suspect they know what's going on, though.

I have a wonderful daughter named Sakura. She's going to grow up knowing about the following things:

  • sex
  • what a monomorphism is
  • what a dildo is for
  • that the seasons are due to the tilt of the earth rather than an elliptical orbit around the sun
  • how to program computers
  • how to create a web page
  • how to collect and interpret statistics
  • how to put on makeup
  • how to use her brain
  • calculus
  • how to add and subtract
  • how to analyze literature, and gather meaning from it
  • how to recognize danger
  • how to use a saw and a hammer
  • how to ride a bicycle
  • what pornography is and where to find it
  • how to play with electronics
  • anything she'd like to learn about

I look forward to reading The Lun Yu with her, and playing video games with her.

She will learn about:

  • her body
  • her emotions
  • her habits
  • her memories
  • her thought process
  • her unconscious
  • her Soul
  • The Ocean of Love

She'll probably get her first vibrator when she's 5 or 6 years old. I don't know; whenever she notices that she likes to touch herself.

Since she's a happy girl and smiles a lot right now, she likes to laugh a lot, and she laughs loud, I suspect that she'll be happy as she grows up. If research is any indication of things, that'll be the case.

Do you think that Sakura will become a monster because she learns about sex and plays with herself?

Hiding sex from girls isn't in my programming. Many people question the customs of their parents, but few question the customs of their culture. Debug thyself! I debugged myself as part of the process when I picked up Linux, turned off the TV, read science books, and generally all around became a free Thinker, many years ago.

So, is your daughter a "cute little dog" until she's old enough to make decisions for herself?

Parents make decisions for their children every day. Think critically about what you just said: Do you still believe it? As your belief in this unnecessary taboo (other cultures are fine with this) itself shows, most of your beliefs and customs come from your parents. Your parents have "made" most of your decisions. Or maybe not- maybe you are independent, either through analysis or rebellion. But there are still even deeper roots that come from your culture. You may have analyzed the decisions your parents were handed down, but what about your culture?

I respect you as a software developer and as an engineer, but you have not thought in the face of cultural taboo. Think!

Here; I want to show people that I am a human being. These are pictures of my daughter and I:

Go; Look; See my web page, my girlfriend's web page, and my daughter's web page.


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
Sakura (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by shada on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:10:30 PM EST

sweetheart, she will also know about the following things:
  • cooking
  • sewing
  • painting
  • how superior freebsd is
  • HTML tables =)


[ Parent ]
HTML tables? (4.33 / 3) (#42)
by delmoi on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 10:02:26 PM EST

How could inflict pain on a child?

CSS learn about it before it's too late!
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
I am not a parent, but... (2.33 / 3) (#45)
by Skwirl on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 10:52:26 PM EST

>She's going to grow up knowing about the following things...anything she'd like
>to learn about
Wait, why isn't this sufficient? Why do you have to force your particular worldview on your daughter?

"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
Worldviews (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Wolfkin on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 11:51:53 PM EST

Why do you have to force your particular worldview on your daughter?

I'm not the parent you asked, but...

Force? I don't think the parent in question mentioned using force to inculcate values. She's gonna grow up with some set of values, some worldview. Shouldn't he try to provide her with the best worldview he knows of? Wouldn't that be his own?

Randall.



[ Parent ]
Wolfkin has Answered (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by snowlion on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 08:41:20 PM EST

Wolfkin has correctly answered. =^_^=


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
Decisions... (3.00 / 4) (#57)
by MattOly on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 12:09:59 PM EST

OK, you're right! Some here are saying that a 9 year-old knows what they're doing parading around in a leotard baking a fucking cake. They know that they're supposed to look "sexy", and that makes it ok. It should be there decision. But if it weren't for the pornographers (I'm sorry, PARENTS) of these little Lolita-esque girls, these websites wouldn't be up.

Do you think that an 11 year-old girl would do this on her own? Not anyone in my neck of the woods.

Assuming that this is OK because the girls don't mind it is bullshit. I'm sure they wouldn't mind having naked pictures taken, either, but does that make that ok?

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Re: Decisions... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
by F8alist on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 12:06:06 AM EST

I'm sure they wouldn't mind having naked pictures taken, either, but does that make that ok?

Are you aware that this would be perfectly legal?

Libertarianism: The absurd notion that an individual is capable of running his own life, and that the government has anything but his best interests at heart
[ Parent ]

Poor kid (1.50 / 4) (#59)
by Ken Arromdee on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 01:00:42 PM EST

Checking your page shows that neither you nor your girlfriend are Japanese, nor are you living in Japan. On the other hand, you *are* a fan of anime.

I really hope you did not name Sakura that name because of your fandom. This would be a very bad thing to do to a child.

[ Parent ]

Why "Sakura" (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by snowlion on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 06:40:45 PM EST

I have reveared Japan as far back as I know.

I can make many origami.

I understand and agree with the spirit of Shinto, Confucism, Taoism, and Buddhism.

I can (and have!) perform Taiko.

I study Japanese, can read and speak more than most gaijin who study Japanese, and can write 500 of the Kanji.

I have played Japanese games for my whole life, and took up anime when I learned about it in College.

"Sakura" is a perfect name for my daughter.

When Sakura is 13 years old, I will tell her that if at any point she would like to change her name, we will help her. I think that she will want to change it at some point, simply because there is no way that a parent can predict the nature of their children. We will file the necessary papers to have her name changed when she decides what she would like to be called.

I can think of no better authority beside herself for determining her name. Though we help her come into this world, her life is ultimately her responsibility, and her determination of her name will help make this principle clearer to her.

Sakura is merely a placeholder until she is capable of determining her name.


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
Oh-ho. (3.66 / 3) (#71)
by Inoshiro on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 11:42:50 PM EST

Where the hell do you get off telling someone what they can't name their child? Naming a child after the name of a season in another language is just as reasonable as naming them after someone you know. And. IMO, it's a bit better than naming someone from a book of "name meanings."



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
I'm curious (4.66 / 3) (#64)
by kubalaa on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 08:17:02 PM EST

First: If you're truly open and permissive then society will have plenty of chances to make its mark on your daughter. What do you plan to do when she can't make any friends because they all know what a nut her dad is? (mostly kidding, but you see my point; it's you versus society and you won't always be on the winning side)

Second: I don't believe in a difference between tolerance and meta-tolerance. In other words, if you believe in open-mindedness then you must be open-minded about close-mindedness as a valid approach to life. Of course it's impossible to avoid forming any opinions at all, but by taking such a radical left wing approach you send the message that your view is so much better than society's that you're willing to make a point of being different. Even if I agree that your way is better, I think you are forced to give conservativism more credit if you truly want to let your daughter make her own choices. Besides, your daughter will learn to resent you if your goal is to produce a clone of yourself.

Third: How were you raised? I don't think it's coincidence that all the intelligent, athiest adults I know were raised catholics. Your childhood has a direct effect on your worldview but not always in expected ways. You shouldn't see raising your daughter as an exercise in mentally engineering a perfect individual because you'll fail.

Of course, I'm reading in a lot that's probably not there. Maybe stuff to think about.

[ Parent ]

3,er, 2, Short Answers (none / 0) (#93)
by snowlion on Sun Aug 05, 2001 at 03:01:31 PM EST

I wrote a long reply, but Mozilla crashed while I answered. Now I'm replying in short.

  1. Sakura already has friends who's parents know about how I intend to raise her. They have no qualms. As for the children, they get along. Then again, Sakura is only 4 months old. There are many people who believe the way I believe; Sakura will be raised with them. However, if it does turn problematic, we'll probably move to Europe, where society doesn't have a problem with youth learning about sex.
  2. I wrote another article about Meta-Intolerance (see my previous comments), unfortunately I didn't get to say everything that I wanted to say. Basically, the word "Tolerance" is incredibly vague. It's sort of like the word "Open-Minded". These words are frequently interpreted as meaning "AntiFoundationalist" - that is, that there are no root truths. My interpretation of "Open Minded" does not mean "Accepts all ideas as equally valid", but rather, "Open to ideas beyond mainstream conception", you can apply the same function over "Tolerance". Yes, I believe that my views about sex and gender are superior to others. If I believed that someone else's views about sex and gender were superior to my own, I would adopt their vies, and thus be back to believing that my views about sex and gender are superior to others.

I'm sorry, my family needs to go to Toys'R'Us, I don't have time to finish this right now. I'll try and get back to it- take care! Excellent questions!


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
Second Question's Answer (none / 0) (#94)
by snowlion on Sun Aug 05, 2001 at 03:45:32 PM EST

It's not true that to be open-minded, you need to be open-minded about close-mindedness as a valid approach to life.

Open-minded means that you are open to ideas beyond your immediate or root culture. It does not mean that you will necessarily accept those ideas as valid.

You should be open-minded.

Why should we consider ideas beyond our immediate or root culture?

Consider if you grew up south of the Mason-Dixen line, pre-civil war. You would be presented with a culture that believed that enslaving people with black skin was okay. If you grew up in Nazi Germany, you would be presented with a culture that believed that killing Jews was the right thing to do.

If you are an ethical person, you should look beyond your culture for ethics, because cultural rejection or acceptance does not make ethical validity.

The principle applies beyond ethics; It applies as well to philosophy in general, to technology, and to art. Thinking beyond the immediate culture is also necessary for invention.

I missed the last bus- I'm not going to miss this one. Now I'm REALLY going to Toys'R'Us.


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
Third Question (none / 0) (#95)
by snowlion on Mon Aug 06, 2001 at 08:58:32 AM EST

My core values came from my father. I believe that the number one thing that I got from dad was a belief in the value of honest work, and a mildly rebellious nature (which is also inherent in the culture), though I don't think I've ever once heard him say anything about those things; I imagine it was copied into me mostly through his actions. My dad was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I was interested in ESP when I was young, and my dad introduced me to statistics in order to put such interests to rest. (I remained interested in the occult, but paid more attention to science.) My parents encouraged my interest in science and computers. My mom is semi-Catholic. We never went to church, she doesn't like the pope (because the pope doesn't like birth control), but she went to a Catholic school and has Catholic sympathies. We have more than a few virgin Mary's around the house. That said, it had very little influence on my life, either pro or con. My mom is a compulsive neatnik.

It's hard to see what you get from your parents, because it's so present that it's transparently built into us, so I've probably missed quite a bit. Also factor in that I lived with them for about 20 years, and the above paragraph is only yae long.

Certainly, our childhood has a direct effect on us. However, do not underestimate the power of dialectic hegelism in modifying our world views. Here's a relevent selection from The Diamond Age:

"The Vickys have an elaborate code of morals and conduct. It grew out of the moral squalor of an earlier generation, just as the original Victorians were preceded by the Georgians and the Regency. The old guard believe in that code because they came to it the hard way. They raise their children to believe in that code- but their children believe it for entirely different reasons."

"The believe it," the Constable said, "because they have been indoctrinated to believe it."

"Yes. Some of them never challenge it- they grow up to be small-minded people, who can tell you waht they believe but not why they believe it. Others become disillusioned by the hypocrisy of the society and rebel- as did Elizabeth Finkle-McGraw."

"Which path do you intend to take, Nell?" said the Constable, sounding very interested. "Conformity or rebellion?"

"Neither one. Both are simple-minded- they are only for people who cannot cope with contradiction and ambiguity."

--The Diamond Age, Neal Stephenson

My current views are radically different than the ones that are present in my living family lineage, I can't speak for deceased relatives. Nor is it easy for me to find related views in the world at large. I have adopted Surat Shabda Yoga (Union of the Soul with the Light & Sound) as my religion, because it has challenged and extended my perspective in ways that other religions are incapable. In particular, the Soul-Word union path has shown me how to experiment with the Spirit, and to meet with it, very clearly and experientially. While there are many paths that offer experiences of different realms and worlds to the practicioner, they are very rarely rooted in the Ocean of Love and Mercy, rather, they tend to drift off into olde Indian dreams of blue deities with zillions of arms, crystals, and other laser shows more appropriate for a Pink Floyd concert, rather than a basis of Living. If you want to find where the center of my value structures lie, look to the Surat Shabda Yoga. If you want to find out how I got there, look to Dialectic Hegelism and apply it to the nature of Awareness, the incapability of experiment to determining the presence of awareness, since aware machines are indestinguishable but fundamentally different from unaware machines, and to the difference between something that is Real and something that is not.

Be aware that looking at the outer manifestations of the Word paths (Surat Shabda Yoga), you will find nothing that condones my perspective on how I intend to raise my daughter. Indeed, the Sikh lineage of Surat Shabda Yoga that lies at the roots of the newly blooming Western branches (which are incredibly numerous) absolutely forbids sex for any reason other than the production of children. Even in the recent and liberal Western traditions, you will have difficulty finding anything that could condone such an approach, though it is there.

As for giving conservativism more credit, so that Sakura can make her own choice: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You'll have to be a little more specific, because if I try to address all of the things that you could mean, I could easily be here typing all night.

Finally, as far as trying to mentally engineer a perfect child: No; Not only am I not trying to mentally engineer a "perfect" child, whatever that may be, I am not trying to engineer a child at all. While I have some ideas about what should be done, and what should not be done raising a child, I should hardly call it engineering.

I don't mentally engineer a child, because even if I could, the child would be limited by my own structure. That is, Sakura would exist within the span of my own principles, ideas, world, but would be incapable of surpassing them. I already exist, there's no need for another me. Time for a new generation, so the world can keep churning its ideas and developing. When I close my ideas to see what needs to be done while working on an engineering process, I frequently forget my immediate process and drift into projections for the future, seeing all the work that needs to be done, and then looking to see what will be available. Sometimes I chart these things onto a graph for the future, so that I can play them off one another, but mostly I just look around up there, and see what I can see. I could easily make a full time job charting the things in the future, but I imagine that's better left to Neal Stephenson and myriad other science fiction writers, futurists, and engineers in their domains. At any rate, the point is, that that is Sakura's domain, Sakura's world. My dad once told me, "I read about Microsoft and Linux, and I read about all the amazing things that is going on in the computer world and software world. I can't understand most of it, but it all seems so exciting. If I were you, I'd be so excited to be living in that world." For more in this vein, go to Electric Sheep, and read the comic Chrsalis Colossus. It conveys it far more beautifully than I can aspire to. Back to Sakura: I am incapable of figuring out what she needs for that world, and if I were to copy her my own state, I would hold her in the dreams of the late 20th century, and not the dreams of the world she needs to live in. While Amber and I have the priviledge of raising her, she is not our child; Like all of us, she is God's, a drop of the audible Life stream.

I should add something else. I have found that a significant amount of my mental makeup and tendencies have been contributed to by the Japanese, strangely enough. Even though I had met hardly a single Japanese person through my life up untill college, and even then, they were scarce, I believe that Japanese sympathies and notions have infiltrated my cognitive systems through the interactive medium of story based video games from Japan, in particular, the Final Fantasy series, the Secret of Mana, Chronotrigger, and several other like-minded games. If you play Metal Gear Solid ][, you will note similar tendencies. People who do not like to think much call these things merely entertainment. That is a poor position to take, I believe. Unfortunately, I sound like a complete fruit cake whenever I suggest these things in a public forum. Fortunately, sounding like a complete fruit cake on Kuro5hin is quite allowable, and in some cases, even encouraged, so there you go. {;D}=

Take care, Lion Kimbro =^_^=


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
I find it kind of weird... (3.50 / 2) (#33)
by snowlion on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:51:42 PM EST

...that we keep agreeing with each other, even on dramatically distant subjects. {:)}=

It's like, "Oh; Hello. Someone knows what I'm talking about."


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
Either/Or (2.60 / 5) (#44)
by Skwirl on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 10:37:27 PM EST

>This is exactly, word by word, the same kind of logic that is used by the
>Taliban in veiling their women: That not doing so would incite sexual urges in
>other males. Now think about this for a while -- could we be on to
>something here, maybe some truth about the repression of sexuality and its
>consequences?

Now, let's imagine a society where, instead of being veiled, women are regularly viewed and treated as sexual objects, and men are the only people allowed to be viewed as whole beings. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle.

>The people who look at Tiffany's site are most likely not pedophiles but simply
>average guys with a fetish for young girls

By definition, a fetish is a "sexual object" that "may become necessary for sexual gratification." People who need to use a young girl in order to get off are either very repressed or very dangerous.

> A peaceful society is one which is open about the body, one that doesn't
>consider children, even when clothed, obscene and "creepy" -- and one
> that tries to deal with unacceptable sexual behavior through fantasies instead
>of suppressing it.

"Moral virtue is a mean between two extremes, the one involving excess and the other deficiency." -- Aristotle



[ Parent ]
In media veritas? (3.57 / 7) (#46)
by Eloquence on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 11:51:48 PM EST

Now, let's imagine a society where, instead of being veiled, women are regularly viewed and treated as sexual objects,

You are looking at the same end of the spectrum, not at different ones. In a society where women are repressed, they are hardly treated as anything but sexual objects. They are banned from the workplace, from attending schools and university. They are seen as so powerful sexual objects that in some countries like Iran they are not even allowed to ride bikes because their legs would move so seductively.

Where woman have many sexual rights, they traditionally have many civil rights as well -- see, for example, the Netherlands or Scandinavian countries, where sexuality is much more liberalized and what would be viewed as pornography in the US can be seen on prime time TV. At the same time, abortion is legalized, women get government support for finding jobs, feminists are in the government etc. etc. Studies have continually tried to find support for the thesis that attitudes about women degrade when men look at pornography -- and failed; one study by Padgett, Brislin-Slütz and Neal [1] even found that regular visitors of erotic cinemas regarded women's rights as more important than a control group of college students, and that repeated exposure had no measurable effect at all.

You may think of Japan as an example for a "permissive, exploitative" culture. But Japan has a very deprivated culture as well. While they don't have the tits fetish that the US have, genitalia are regularly censored and blackened out in all kinds of publications (in a very weird fashion, sometimes you see the contrast of a penis very sharply, but it's all black inside like it's been cut out). Many of their comics and TV shows are highly sadistic. Women are often patronized, and there's this whole non-permissive set of rules for men, although I hear things are getting better for the next generation.

You see, sexual permissiveness is like a cultural slider, and the effects you get when you move it to the "right" and prohibit it are completely predictable (and yet, somewhat unpredictable in their specific nature -- there are the strangest fetishes!). The stronger you repress sexuality, the more fetishes you get. Do you really think the American breast-inflation fetish is normal? Tune into an American TV station and they even put pixels over the nipples -- no wonder US-Americans get obsessed with breasts. Native tribes walk around nudely and have no such fetish. Do you think they feel exploited because they walk around with their beasts exposed, children run around nude etc.? It is the fetish that degrades women into objects, not the permissiveness. You can even look it up in the cross-cultural tables.

People who need to use a young girl in order to get off are either very repressed or very dangerous.

1) They don't use the girl, only a picture. 2) They are dangerous if they are repressed. So are most people. If they manage to control their sex drive through fantasies, they are harmless.

Moral virtue is a mean between two extremes

Aristotle was so often quoted in the Dark Ages because his views often conformed well to the necessary moral relativism. (Contrary to, for example, Archimedes' not quite so relativistic works, most of which were either destroyed or overwritten with prayers..) "In media veritas", "the truth lies in the middle", was also one of the principles behind the witchhunts. If you deny that you're a witch, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are one, but the truth probably lies in the middle .. If you could choose between many crimes, few crimes and no crimes, what would you choose? There cannot be too much sexual permissiveness in a society as long as we're talking about consensual behavior.

[1] Pornography, Erotica, and Attitudes Toward Women: The Effects of Repeated Exposure. Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.479-491, Nov. 1989
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

lux et veritas (4.33 / 3) (#53)
by Skwirl on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 03:51:48 AM EST

I'm going to bookmark those tables since they appear fairly intriguing; However, when viewing statistics, and anecdotal data, it's integral to remember: Correlation does not imply causation. Adopting this mantra will save you from believing many silly arguments.

>Do you really think the American breast-inflation fetish is normal?
No. Err, well, it's "normal" in America.

You're also assuming that fetishists are content in fantasy being their only form of sexual release. To me, this seems very constraining--they'll be in trouble when they're trapped on a desert island without their pseudo kiddy porn. I guess they're not repressed in the psychological sense, but fetishists must get very sexually frustrated, and awfully lonely when they inevitably have trouble finding a partner that shares, or embodies, their fetish.

Also, I was quoting Aristotle, not St. Thomas Aquinas. Just because a tenet of philosophy has been misused doesn't mean that it's invalid. Guilt by association is the most insidious tool of witchhunters.

I agree that the United States has many harmful puritan beliefs. The most dangerous of these beliefs is the idea that "protecting children" is justification for censorship. However, I think there is also danger in the opposite extreme, since an "anything goes" atmosphere will result in the powerful exploiting the weak.

In our current society, parents own their children. (We call it emancipation when children divorce their parents, no?) To argue that child models freely choose to engage in lewd posing because they are smiling in the photos is analogous to the "happy sambo" myth of southern slaveowners.

I suggested a middle ground because I believe that somewhere between puritanism and varietism is a world where all people can grow up to be self-actualized, instead of being hung up on the fetish of self-gratification or the equally bad fetish of self-denial.



"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
I don't know; Sounds okay to me. (4.53 / 13) (#11)
by snowlion on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:59:21 PM EST

Do the parents actually think that there aren't pervs downloading the pictures for masturbation? Or do they know and not care? Green money can make people do awful things. What do you think?

My guess is that the parents know what's going on, the kids know what's going on, but that they don't care because they don't share your lifestyle.

Read some Phil Foglio, and you'll see a good representation of a perspective on sex different than your own.

I think it's okay. I believe that our understanding of sex is poisoned when we are young; We are told, explicitly, but mostly implicitly, that sex is taboo. A lot of unnecessary and harmful shame is built into us. I believe that if people were happy, open, and friendly about sex, that the world would be a much nicer place to live.

Do you know where censorship of the femal form naturally leads?

There is an interesting paper called Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence that I highly recommend reading and thinking about.


--
Map Your Thoughts
Don't share your lifestyle?? (3.83 / 12) (#17)
by rusty on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:27:33 PM EST

So, 12 year old Lil' Amber understands what these pictures are for? 10 year old Jessi the Kid has decided that she has a "perspective on sex different than my own"?

These kids do not know what's going on. What happens when they're 17, or 20, and figure out what their parents encouraged them to do?

"Mommy, why did you let me do this?"

"We needed the money, dear."

Parenting in the 21st century.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Yah... (1.50 / 4) (#18)
by MattOly on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 07:32:29 PM EST

And again for the record, it's not MY lifestyle! I'm no sicko...

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous (1.50 / 2) (#38)
by Blarney on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:29:13 PM EST

The photography might be a hassle, but the part about having large piles of money lying around from horny Internet customers wouldn't be so bad - not for a kid or anybody. No need to be defensive about that lifestyle!

Unless you mean the lifestyle of those who BUY the pictures...

[ Parent ]

Hrm (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by delmoi on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:50:40 PM EST

Well, I knew what sex was when I was that age. I don't know if these kids would realize exactly what was going on though

If the parents did tell them, I mean now, how do you think they would take it? If no one's told 'em its wrong why would they belive that it was?
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
and, so? (4.14 / 7) (#29)
by strlen on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:29:55 PM EST

so, that's not pornography. im sorry, but underwear is not porn. period. is it wrong? may be. but it does not violate any law. morals schmorals. on the other hand, it is bizzare indeed and double checks need to be made that the parents aren't FORCING their children to do that. and i'll be pretty sure that these girls will be porn stars upon reaching 18.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
um, er... (4.70 / 10) (#35)
by cyclopatra on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:01:28 PM EST

I just saw one of these pages for the first time a couple of days ago. I don't remember how i found it exactly (banner ad I think), but suddenly, everywhere I go, it's what everyone is talking about.

I can't quite articulate how I feel about these sites, though:

  • Yes, it's creepy.
  • Yes, their parents are lying when they say they "can't imagine" how anyone could think their cute little daughters were supposed to look alluring on their web pages. "Mollirama" "cooking up a storm" IN HER THIGH-HIGH HOSE? Why, yes, that's exactly what I used to wear to play "cooking".
  • No, I don't think the little girls realize they're acting sexy for dirty old men, and not other 10 y.o. boys (read "dirty old men" to include any adult taking a salacious interest in these sites, and "10 y.o. boys" to include anyone around these girls' ages)
  • But, I don't think it's illegal or should be, unless the girls were coerced into it.
The sites creep me out. They really, really creep me out. But so does poop sex, Martha Stuart, and Aaron Carter. The girls aren't nekkid, they're not doing anything *really* licentious for the most part (although I've seen a couple of photos that were close enough to make me uncomfortable, and I'm not sure how I stand on those), so it's not kiddie porn, and I can't see any compelling reason why it should be illegal.

I don't want to meet their parents at the supermarket, though.


All your .sigs are belong to us.
remove mypants to email

Underestimation of Children (4.69 / 13) (#37)
by RadiantMatrix on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:21:20 PM EST

I didn't look at the site. Some crazy idea I had that looking at kids in their underwear and trying to decide if it's porn being a colossal waste of time and bandwidth.

That being said, much of this issue surrounds one key point -- do these kids have an understanding of what they're doing? The tone of the article suggests that a 10 to 12 year old person cannot possibly grasp the significance of wearing "sexy" clothing and posing for the camera. I beg to differ.

Being 21 years of age, I have a clear recollection of that stage of my life. At 12 years old, I had a detailed knowledge of both the "physics" of sex, as well as the emotional bonds which accompany intimacy. I also knew the difference between sex for physical pleasure and romantic sex. Had I been asked to "perform" on video, I would have been able to make an informed and thought-out decision. For me, that decision would have been no, but that's not the point. The point is that at 12, children are more than capable of understanding what "sexy" is and what they are doing. What is lacking is the refinement of that sense.

So, the lone issue, which we will probably never be able to address, is whether these children were forced into this. Somehow I doubt it. If these kids were six or seven years old, I might suggest that the situation be monitored more closely, but as it stands this is not illegal, dangerous, or explotation unless you can prove coercion.

--
never put off until tomorrow what can be done the day after.

Kiddy porn laws (4.92 / 13) (#39)
by delmoi on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:40:35 PM EST

Kiddy porn laws are indented to prevent children from being harmed, not preventing perverts from getting off.

These girls don't look like they are being harmed. They are not being molested. And whatever nebulous psychological impact realizing that some 45 year old loser wanked off to your pictures by the time their old enough to realize it, can't really be much worse then any incidental emotional hardships dealt with growing up.

Unless kids are actually being molested, I can't see how, or why, it should be banned.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
Reasons for child porn laws. (4.25 / 4) (#51)
by dave920 on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 01:09:40 AM EST

Child pornography laws serve to protect children (those under 18 years of age) from sexually explicit situations where they may photographed or videotaped. While this does, in effect, restrict the ability for "perverted old men" to get a hold of child porn so they can get off, this is not the main intent of the laws. Rather, it is so children do not have to be put in sexual situations.

While I personally hold no interest in the type of material discussed in the article, I do not believe it should be banned. It is definitely not child pornography, but it does bring into question the motive behind it. However, motive is usually only prosecuted when it's murder, not a website.

[ Parent ]

But... (2.50 / 2) (#58)
by MattOly on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 12:11:58 PM EST

...These children ARE being put into sexual situations! "Ok, arch your back... Great!" Their pictures on a screen while a guy jerks his turk. What's not sexual about that?

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

How about that they're not there for it? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Duke Machesne on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 12:42:42 PM EST

If I'm jerking my terk reading your message, have you been put in a sexual situation?

__________________________________________________
arts schoolsweight loss
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry but... (3.42 / 7) (#40)
by boxed on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:47:24 PM EST

I'm sorry, but what is a "quasi-child"? :P

Awww... (1.33 / 6) (#48)
by femmefierce on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 12:04:45 AM EST

Ya didn't make the first page, but alas, this is still a pretty hot topic, I see. Call me a prude, but I get the heebie jeebies from regular porn, this is just over the top. No, it's not illegal, and I can see the can of worms that would be opened if it were, but it's still creepy and sick. Oh, and just because these girls are old enough to know what they are doing, doesn't make it ok. I'm old enough to go blow the old man on the corner, but that doesn't make it the new heroin, does it? Now, a site featuring buff 18 year old studs, I might support...

It's disgusting (4.00 / 6) (#52)
by decaf_dude on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 02:07:49 AM EST

But as long as those girls are not abused in any shape or form and are under proper supervision of their parents/guardians, I have no objection to the existence of this site. I personally find it very creepy and wouldn't peruse it, but different strokes for different folks (pun not intended).

Of course, it is now time to bring up that famous Votaire's quote:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
So there you go. I fully agree with that psych prof who said that whoever peruses those sites should seek professional help. Interest in seeing little girls in tighty-whiteys is a good sign of a serious mental disorder that is potentially dangerous and can lead to the oft-feared abuse of little children.

Incorrect Attribution of Quote (none / 0) (#62)
by acestus on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 07:22:51 PM EST

Of course, it is now time to bring up that famous Votaire's quote:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire did not say this. It is often misattribtued to him, however. It was said as a summary of his opinion, by an author writing about him.

See here.

Acestus
This is not an exit.
[ Parent ]
Would you really? (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by gonerill on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 08:10:05 PM EST

You'd defend them to the death? Really?

Of course you wouldn't. That quote is so overused (and misattributed) that people should really take a long, hard look at it before using it. Oh, it sounds very fine --- To the barricades! --- but if you ask yourself whether you mean it, I guarantee you the answer is "No". Defend crypto-kiddie pornographers to the death? Of course you wouldn't. In fact, I doubt whether you'd even be willing to spend, oh, $200 of your own money for that purpose. Or even $20.

What you really mean is, "I don't want to see any more of this disgusting crud, but am unwilling to think hard about what my standards really are about freedom of speech."

[ Parent ]

ok... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by Danse on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 03:36:24 PM EST

Maybe it should be rephrased as "I disapprove of what you're saying, but I'm not going to seek legislation against your right to say it." There, happy?






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
A blatant example of what already exists ? (4.50 / 6) (#55)
by moosh on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 06:39:47 AM EST

Looking back to the earlier epitome of a 'sexy' female, say the 1940's, mature women with large (by today's standards) seemed to dominate. Take Jane Russell from the 1940's for example. Modern day however, the skinny younger looking 'chick' dominates. Flipping through half a dozen pages of a magazine and I'm bombarded with images of Britney Spears dressed as a school girl. These cases aren't few either, perhaps another example I might sight is young music artist Nicky Webster (I think is her name, I'm not really up to date with the latest bopper sensations). My point is, this make-females-as-young-as-possible image can be seen clearly in western culture and how many guys love to see it? And then cry wolf at a web site like this? Perhaps I'm off on a tangent, but these pictures seem to be giving the (male?) public what they already ask for, or what the mass media already gives. It is just far more blunt.

Western culture? (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by Inoshiro on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 06:13:47 PM EST

Go to Japan and buy some pre-worn school-girl panties from a vending machine.

You/I/etc may not be comfortable with it, but 13 & 14 yo females can sometimes be attractive because there are always a few early bloomers. When it's creepy is when the people posing are not developed, as in the case with one site I stumbled across after reading this story and googling around. I found a Texas "art" site where the lowest age was 4 (!!). That is very creepy. When I was growing up, I never considered the girls in my grade very attractive until grade 10. I really don't see why people want to look at preschoolers, etc.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Where is the line drawn? (4.00 / 2) (#66)
by MSBob on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 10:00:04 PM EST

You raise an interesting point in that somewhere we as a society try to draw the line on what's considered normal vs what's perversion and paedophilia. The ages you mention (10-14) are obviously way below this line for all normal adults. But what does one do with "borderline" cases such as the age of 16? It's not easy to decide on this one which is refleted by international laws. As far as I know any nudity below the age of 18 is in the US considered border line or even downright perversion. However, in the UK for instance it's quite normal to show nude girls at the age of 16. One doesn't have to lurk on creepy websites to find them. It's simply enough to look at the top shelf of your local newsagent. Both the age of consent and the age for nude photography are set at 16. It gets even weirder when you look at Canada (where I currently live). Here the age of constent is only 14(!) but I'm not sure if it's legal to show nude pictures of girls/boys of that age. Still the fact that someone can just get off with a 14 year old and be still within the boundaries of the law is quite disturbing. Thus the line has to be drawn somewhere. While I find the American 18 years restriction too high (I lost my virginity at 16) and I think we must accept that at 16 lots of girls are usually fully developed and they are sexual beings and I really can't see how a nude magazine with 16 year olds would turn on any paedophiles. Nude pictures of persons below the age of sixteen would freak me out though. That's sick and should be banned everywhere.

Unfortunately the links we're talking about are difficult to forbid. While the girls are way below the age I'd consider sexual they are not nude... Unfortunately, they are probably being sold as a jerk off material and that's what's disturbing rather than the actual pictures themselves. It's basically the context in which they are shown and the aura of sexuality that those sites try to build that gives us creeps. Now imagine those pictures in a fashion catalogue. All of a sudden the would stop looking perverted because they would serve a totally different purpose. If I was to call the shots on this one I'd let the pictures stay on the site but I would make sure that the police takes a very, very, very close look at what's going on in those households. If there's even a dimmest chance that those kids are forced to participate I'd charge the parents with child molesting. I would doubly no, I'd triply make sure there is no possible signs of sexual abuse or exploitation. I think that's the only option we have where we can protect those kids and still retain the laws as they are without the risk of implementing some drakonian islam-like restrictions. It's a pretty fine line one has to walk here.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
Sexual maturity (4.00 / 1) (#67)
by marx on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 10:26:47 PM EST

The ages you mention (10-14) are obviously way below this line for all normal adults.

Hint: the average age of menstruation (sexual maturity in girls) in the US is 12-13. (source).

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

So? (4.00 / 2) (#68)
by MSBob on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 10:35:56 PM EST

Menstruation doens't equal sexual maturity. Do you think it's OK for a menstruating twelve year old to engage in a sexual relationship?
I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
Nature (4.50 / 4) (#73)
by marx on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 12:35:59 AM EST

Menstruation doens't equal sexual maturity.

This is the definition of "menstruation" from www.m-w.com:

a discharging of blood, secretions, and tissue debris from the uterus that recurs in nonpregnant breeding-age primate females at approximately monthly intervals

I think "breeding-age" is quite close to "sexual maturity", if not the actual biological definition.

Do you think it's OK for a menstruating twelve year old to engage in a sexual relationship?

No, since society has told me this is not right, I feel this is not OK. However, if I was raised in the south of US in the 1800s, I would feel that black people were inferior to white people. Why should we blindly accept what society tells us?

I think it's very natural that sexually mature males are attracted to sexually mature females. Additionally, the younger the female is, the more attractive she generally is to males. If I was talking about any specie other than humans, this would sound perfectly sensible. Why are suddenly human males considered perverts and "unnatural" for exhibiting these perfectly natural biologically sound qualities?

Let me ask you a counter-question. Do you eat meat? What is your rationale for killing animals? If you invoke "nature", then you have no right to remove these peoples' right to do the same.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

No No No! (4.50 / 2) (#77)
by wiredog on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 10:08:48 AM EST

A 12 year old can get pregnant, or become a father. It happens. This does not mean they are sexually mature. For one thing, a 12 year old girls breasts are still growing. If they are still growing then they are not mature. For another, when a woman, or girl, gets pregnant she needs all available nutrition to support the pregnancy. Which leaves little left over for her physical growth. It can be very dangerous for girls under about 16 or so to get pregnant, and they usually require more care than, say, a 20 year old.

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]
Repulsive, but... (3.00 / 1) (#82)
by MattOly on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 03:13:43 PM EST

My old friend Joe would disagree. His motto was always, "If there's grass on the field, Play Ball!" I'm sure he subscribes to these sites...

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Another one (3.00 / 1) (#84)
by Riktov on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 08:31:35 PM EST

Ewww, I don't know which is worse, that one or "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed."

[ Parent ]
And if there's not grass in the field... (3.00 / 1) (#86)
by Duke Machesne on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 12:37:53 PM EST

Practice!

__________________________________________________
arts schoolsweight loss
[ Parent ]

Doesn't make sense (3.00 / 3) (#90)
by marx on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 08:36:21 PM EST

For another, when a woman, or girl, gets pregnant she needs all available nutrition to support the pregnancy. Which leaves little left over for her physical growth. It can be very dangerous for girls under about 16 or so to get pregnant, and they usually require more care than, say, a 20 year old.

From a biological point of view, this does not make sense. When a girl reaches "breeding-age" (as the lexicon so eloquently put it), this means she can get pregnant. Why would her body start allowing pregnancies if it was dangerous? Suddenly doing something natural is dangerous?

Even if we disregard this whole line of reasoning, if people are so concerned about young pregnancies, why not just use contraceptives? Surely the only reason why young sex is seen as taboo is not because young pregnancies sap nutrition from a growing woman.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Age of menstruation (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by kestrel13 on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 09:37:06 PM EST

Research has shown that the average age of menstruation has been steadily dropping from about 16-17 in the late 19th century to now, where we have girls menstruating as young as eight. This is linked to a lot of factors, including better nutrition and higher fat content in diets (and some evidence it is caused by exposure to certain chemicals). Simply because a girl is menstruating does not mean she is mature enough to make a decision about sexual activity with all the consequences that can go along with it. Also, menstruation is not even the last stage in puberty, as many girls' chests and figure (wider hips, etc.) are still developing after this. Physically ready for sex is not at all the same thing as mentally ready for sex.

[ Parent ]
10-14? (4.00 / 1) (#78)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 07:36:31 PM EST

I didn't mention anyone below 13, except to say that 4 year old stuff is hella not cool.

I said grade 10, around age 15-16 for most people. With the odd 14-yo at the start of grade 10. I also live in Canada, and after seeing some of the (early blooming) grade 9s, I can understand why 14 and 15 have specific restrictions, but are otherwise legal. I remember those ages clearly, and I was quite cognizant of any consequences of sexual relations.

The law with special restrictions is there for early bloomers and exceptional cases. The "free-and-clear" one starts at 16, which I find reasonable.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (4.50 / 2) (#63)
by Kasreyn on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 08:10:24 PM EST

Western culture is TOTALLY perverted to see females as gorgeous, the younger the better. We've simply decided there's a level we're not going to cross, at least not admittedly. So we kid ourselves that someone downloading pix from "13cherry.com" is a "perv", and us upstanding members of society can watch Britney Spheres prance around on MTV in her school uniform, grinding her girlishly slim hips in sexual pantomime, and we're perfectly A-OK.

Yeah, right.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Good Rant (4.50 / 2) (#75)
by dagoski on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 08:11:10 AM EST

You're right on target here. One of the big questions I have when I occasionally poke my head out of my bohemian isolation and look at mass media is "How old are those women anyway?" A lot of the models I see in Victoria's Secret or J.Crew look like someone stuck a twenty year old woman's head on a thirteen year old's body. Either there's some serious photo manipulation going on, or these chicks were starved during critical phases of development.



[ Parent ]
Not porn but potentially very harmful (2.20 / 5) (#69)
by MSBob on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 11:07:59 PM EST

This stuff is creepy and sick. Worse, it's dangerous. I don't know if those parents realise what kind of danger they put their kids in. The clientele of those websites just have to be paedophiles. I can't even comprehend why someone would pay $75 to see a video of a nine year old. Paedophiles being what they are have the nasty tendency to act out their fantasies. Now when they start imagine having a relationship with the kids on those video tapes I think there is a real and present danger for those children. Would it really take much for a horny paedo to track down where Tiffany lives and rape her? I think not. The customer base of these sites are paedophiles plain and simple. Dirty old men will jack off to something like this instead.

What kind of parents are those people to turn their children photos into perverts' masturbation aid?

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

your leaps of faith are astounding (4.50 / 6) (#80)
by mikpos on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 12:00:55 AM EST

You'd do well to do some real research on paedophiles. Believe it or not, there actually is research, too :). Mostly in sexology or psychology or general sociology journals.

Paedophiles who act out their fantasies are far and few between. Acts of child abuse, even child sexual abuse, or more likely acts of violence than anything else. There was an interesting article by Okami (or something like that?) about 10 years ago in a prominent sexology journal detailing prevalence of child sex crimes caused by paedophiles and non-paedophiles. If you get most of your information regarding paedophilia from mainstream news, you might be well surprised to do some real research on the subject.

Suffice to say I don't think Tiffany is any real danger of being stalked and raped. If she develops celebrity status, that would be a different matter, as people will low self-esteem can get dangerously obsessive about celebrities. But otherwise, a violent person with urges to rape will be FAR more likely to pick an "easy" target in his own home town.

In summary, I think you have a grave misunderstanding of what paedophiles are. I do agree, though, that the rationale of the parents is questionable. In fact, judging from the article, they have no rationale they're willing to share.

[ Parent ]

good post, BUT (4.00 / 1) (#81)
by Danse on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 02:43:48 PM EST

are far and few between

I have seen this too often. The phrase is "few and far between." Saying it the other way makes no sense. How can something be "few between?"

I'm just hoping this doesn't become more of an epidemic. People messing up such phrases is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Maybe I should seek professional help.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
you won't believe this! (none / 0) (#85)
by mikpos on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 10:09:11 PM EST

But I was actually thinking of this exact thing this morning. Often I'll run through recent posts of mine in my head (while I'm in the shower, eating breakfast, etc.) and this morning I wondered to myself if I had actually said "far and few between". I didn't get a chance to check it until now.

I blame it on not taking the time to proofread it (I didn't even preview it once). There are other mistakes, like me saying "will" instead of "with".

[ Parent ]

My little rant! (2.00 / 7) (#70)
by geekgrrl on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 11:40:13 PM EST

I don't agree with censorship at all, but I found myself reading this post and wanting to see for myself what these sites are about. I called them up on screen and was immediately shocked. I am at work and felt compelled to shut down the browser window, like I was looking at something very wrong. My main issues with these sites is the way the girls are dressed and posing. It isn't as though they are twenty-somethings trying to sell clothes by selling sex, they are children dressed in g-strings and bras (when mostly they don't need the latter yet) sitting with legs apart and far too provocatively for my liking. In MHO the only people who will be interested in looking at these sites is sick-minded men who are less than interested in prompting the childs modeling career. Just a quick note I would like to add, this also has relevance where Niki Webster (preteen singer in Australian Charts) and other young girls like her are concerned, is that, why are these children singing about things don't understand and have never experienced, and posing and dressing in these ways when they don't understand what disgusting connotations it has, what the hell are their parents thinking letting them be subjected to this just for money, how about letting kids be kids while they have the chance???

You should get out more... (3.50 / 4) (#76)
by darthaggie on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 09:43:33 AM EST

My main issues with these sites is the way the girls are dressed and posing...they are children dressed in g-strings and bras (when mostly they don't need the latter yet) sitting with legs apart and far too provocatively for my liking.

You should get out and go people watching at your local mall. Check out the teenaged girls, and what they're (not) wearing.

More than once I've done the double-take "Whoa! she's hot! she's...15? ACK! THPPPPTTT!" And more than once I've wanted to ask the parents why they let their daughters out of the house dressed like hookers.

I suppose these will be the parents who are shocked and dismayed that their daughters got pregnant...

I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
[ Parent ]

Stop the insanity. (4.90 / 11) (#74)
by Betcour on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 07:37:25 AM EST

Is this porn ? Definitely not - porn is about visible sex. It could maybe qualify as erotic material depending on your definition of it.

Are this site customers paedophiles ? Most probably yes - there aren't many reasons why one would spend 75 $ for this kind of tapes if it wasn't out of sexual interest.

Should there be a law against this ? I'd say no. While I certainly object to the content of this site, it doesn't seem like the "models" have suffered any harm.

The only reason of this article is that seing something is supposed to encourage people to do it. Well, I'm sure you have seen thousands of people getting killed on TV... did you kill anyone because of this ? I fail to see where is the danger of these tapes. Sure some sick guys will probably masturbate themselves while watching them, but as long as they keep it a fantasy only I fail to see the harm being done. Unfortunately, there'll always be sick dangerous people to molest children, and those will not wait for a video tape to do so. But being a paedophile is no more illegal than being a racist, what is illegal is the action, not the thoughts. Well at least that's how it's supposed to be, before you start mixing morality and law...

Thanks for the great links! (4.77 / 9) (#88)
by Duke Machesne on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:58:29 PM EST

Cute girls! :P

What I see happening in this discussion is a lot of people who are basically ashamed of themselves trying to come to a consensus on what "is" worthy of being ashamed of. Over and over people assure one another, "Don't worry, I'm not one of these creeps."

Bollocks. The girls are cute. They're cute in the sense that nice-looking people are just plain nice to look at, and they're cute in the sense that attractive women are cute to heterosexual men. I'm writing this from work, but I might just squeeze one off to one of these sweet little young ladies myself later on. Hang me for it.

When you're afraid to look at something as innocent as cute little girls (in their fucking clothes, no less) because it "is" creepy, you've lost something. So tell me what it is. Is it nervous memories of a socio-sexual initiation that went awry? Is it that you're afraid you might be aroused by it, and your disgust is with yourself?

The thing to realize is that these pictures do not contain a property which renders them disgusting. Your disgust is yours, only yours. There are some things I'm pretty comfortable about avoiding (goatse.cx, for example). But there's nothing inherently gut-wrenching, disgusting, creepy, or wrong about a picture. The picture is only the picture, the feelings and evaluations are a part of you.

As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty fucking chauvinistic to tell someone they're sick because they evaluate a picture in a different way than you do.

__________________________________________________
arts schoolsweight loss

Addendum (4.75 / 4) (#89)
by Duke Machesne on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 02:37:09 PM EST

I confess, when I wrote the previous statement I'd taken only a cursory glance at these sites. Now that I've thoroughly perused them (and enjoyed them, you'll be pleased to know), I'm ready to go out on a limb and be a little chauvinistic myself. Ready?

Anyone who thinks these sites are creepy or sick, I think are sick and creepy people.

What the hell could be cuter than a little girl playing dress-up & playing with horses on her parents farm? Or a little girl dressing up like a cute little mommy and cooking with a chef's hat on? To be honest, I really expected to be more than a little turned on by these sites the way you all have been ranting and raving, but (with the exception of Tiffany, who actually is pretty hot & clearly at least biologically mature) there's not anything even suggestive on these sites!

Do people realize what you're doing here?

All this nonsense because you're afraid somebody somewhere might feel good for a couple minutes with Li'l Amber on his mind? You may as well just all start beating your genitals and shouting Hail Marys in hopes of being forgiven for the mortal sin of being born with cocks that demand stroking and cunts that require fulfillment.

I'm reminded of Hunter S. Thompson's remark about average joes stricken with the terrible fear that behind every closed door lurked men in wool jackets, getting incredible kicks from things they'd never understand.

__________________________________________________
arts schoolsweight loss
[ Parent ]

It's not hardcore porn but it doesn't look (1.60 / 5) (#91)
by sexyblonde on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 05:11:31 AM EST

legal. It made me feel very uncomfortable seeing these little girls pictures posted on-line posing in very sexy clothing. Especially the site http://www.tiffany-teen-model.com Why are they asking for a membership fee? They need to get their pictures posted on-line with a legit modeling agency like: Barbizon Modeling Agency

This page of banner ads made me want to vomit http://www.tiffany-teen-model.com/banner/index.htm

This is just WRONG. I feel sorry for these little girls.



This topic is really bothering me. (4.00 / 1) (#92)
by sexyblonde on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 07:18:44 AM EST

Did you check this link out on the cute little girls site http://www.tiffany-teen-model.com/banner/index.htm If you notice one of these ads has a little girl posing with no top on and her hands cupping her breasts. Here is the link: http://www.models13-2-17.com Tell me what you think

I have a 13 year old daughter who is model material. I would never allow her to pose in such provocative ways. It's not cute.


This is cute and is an appropriate pose for little girls! Alexis & Jennifer



What a quote. (3.00 / 2) (#97)
by Anonymous 6522 on Mon Mar 11, 2002 at 03:25:01 PM EST

"I've seen child porn, and we're many, many degrees away from it," he said. "We're not catering to pedophiles; we're catering to people who will pay money to see pictures of child models. It's nothing new, it's just that it's on the Internet."

people who will pay money to see pictures of child models = pedophiles

Summary: We don't cater to pedophiles, we cater to pedophiles.

Little Girls in Underwear... And It's Not Porn? | 97 comments (92 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!