NationStates Jolt Archive

..........

PEOPLE FROM THE U.S.A. ANSWER ONLY PLEASE

Unsurprisingly as it's been on Oprah, mentioned in the news, and written about all over the net, I've heard quite a bit about child modelling websites where basically kids wear certain outfits, usually underwear or swimwear, and images of them are posted on those websites and for a fee, people can get access to more images.

What do most people think of these websites? Are they GENERALLY accepted in the USA, or GENERALLY considered to be child exploitation? If the latter, why are they not banned?

EDIT:

the reason I asked for just people from the USA to answer was because I was referring to the sites that are prominent in the USA (such as the made-famous-by-tv Amber Child Model website)

The sites I am referring to are NOT advertising underwear, they are presenting kids as models (similar to adult models). They are basically showcases for looking at children in their underwear

:eek: Well, what about diaper commercials? Babies (babies!) in nothing but diapers!

I would call that dangerously close to child exploitation, if not full out and out exploitation. Children shouldn't really be modeling such things anyway. Hell, underwear modeling as a whole is idiotic, in my mind.

..........

PEOPLE FROM THE U.S.A. ANSWER ONLY PLEASE

Unsurprisingly as it's been on Oprah, mentioned in the news, and written about all over the net, I've heard quite a bit about child modelling websites where basically kids wear certain outfits, usually underwear or swimwear, and images of them are posted on those websites and for a fee, people can get access to more images.

What do most people think of these websites? Are they GENERALLY accepted in the USA, or GENERALLY considered to be child exploitation? If the latter, why are they not banned?

First of all, try and stop me posting just cuz i'm not an american :p

It depends on the tone of the picture - obviously kids clothes and swimsuits (not underware) are going to be modeled, if its done tastefully and the parents consent and are present at the shoot and have the final say on the pictures used then I dont think it's that bad.

..........

PEOPLE FROM THE U.S.A. ANSWER ONLY PLEASE


If you were gathering poll results for a study for a class or something, I could understand if you added a "please indicate what country you are from for research purposes" request. But since you are not, this statement is inappropriate. This is an international forum; and one based outside the U.S. to boot. As an American, I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from such Americentric actions. We are thought of as arrogant assholes enough already.

If you were gathering poll results for a study for a class or something, I could understand if you added a "please indicate what country you are from for research purposes" request. But since you are not, this statement is inappropriate. This is an international forum; and one based outside the U.S. to boot. As an American, I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from such Americentric actions. We are thought of as arrogant assholes enough already.

*applauds*

If you were gathering poll results for a study for a class or something, I could understand if you added a "please indicate what country you are from for research purposes" request. But since you are not, this statement is inappropriate. This is an international forum; and one based outside the U.S. to boot. As an American, I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from such Americentric actions. We are thought of as arrogant assholes enough already.

Meh!

It's a public forum, he can do what he wants.

On my map (scale 1:75,000,000) I'm only 15.1 cm from Alaska, and 21.5 cm from 'mainland' USA, so I'll answer even though I'm not a USAmerican.

As long as their legal guardians consent and it happens within the law there's no problem. This is one of the few points where the US profits from having the politicians they have.

sorry if I wasn't clear or offended anyone...

the reason I asked for just people from the USA to answer was because I was referring to the sites that are prominent in the USA (such as the made-famous-by-tv Amber Child Model website)

The sites I was referring to were NOT advertising underwear, they were presenting kids as models (similar to adult models). They are basically showcases for looking at children in their underwear

Meh!

It's a public forum, he can do what he wants.

Not quite - it is a private forum - unless Jolt and Max have suddenly become a government. Furthermore, nobody here is allowed to post whatever they want. (In fact that specifically go to court in Australia - the MJ666 trouble.) And finally, need I point out that, within the limitations set by the owners, AllCoolNamesAreTaken can do the same.

..........

PEOPLE FROM THE U.S.A. ANSWER ONLY PLEASE

Unsurprisingly as it's been on Oprah, mentioned in the news, and written about all over the net, I've heard quite a bit about child modelling websites where basically kids wear certain outfits, usually underwear or swimwear, and images of them are posted on those websites and for a fee, people can get access to more images.

What do most people think of these websites? Are they GENERALLY accepted in the USA, or GENERALLY considered to be child exploitation? If the latter, why are they not banned?

EDIT:

the reason I asked for just people from the USA to answer was because I was referring to the sites that are prominent in the USA (such as the made-famous-by-tv Amber Child Model website)

The sites I am referring to are NOT advertising underwear, they are presenting kids as models (similar to adult models). They are basically showcases for looking at children in their underwear
Ban it, its disturbed.

Any more replies? What dya think?

Any more replies? What dya think?

These sites are 'clearly' aimed at people in an erotic way. No products are being sold, and it is clearly an attempt to make revenue off of the images of young girls in skimpy clothing. No talent scouts are scouring these 'model' sites for future modelling consideration (at least I doubt it.)

So, the question becomes, is this exploitation, and if so, why are they not yet illegal?

Because there is a sexual connotation to these sites, I would argue that it is definitely exploitation. The legalities of the matter, (the fact that there is no nudity) complicate the issue. Essentially, making these sites illegal would mean that no children anywhere could be depicted in something as simple as a bathing suit, in magazines, tv or movies... But I'm sure someone could argue that these sites are specifically catering to people with pedophilic tendencies, and should be shut down.

Don't knock em till you see em.

Stacy Stalite was one of the best. Right now I think Inna is the best of the single child model websites. I have a favorite website but I figure I shouldn't post that website here less people harass the website owner.

Ban it, right away.

Well I see there are different opinions on here, but since I don't watch US tv (much - I can watch a bit from the internet), I don't know what the general feeling is about the websites - does anyone know whether GENERALLY the websites are accepted (or GENERALLY thought to be exploitative)?

Any more replies? What dya think?
One need only ask what the motive is behind a thing...to entice... sell ... compell...if the motive is exploitive, the action is exploitation. and children are the easiest victims to exploit in our world.

Since this is about my fellow age group, why would I be against seeing the opposite gender in very little clothing?

Since this is about my fellow age group, why would I be against seeing the opposite gender in very little clothing?

I thought young children often thought the opposite gender were "icky" :P

I would call that dangerously close to child exploitation, if not full out and out exploitation. Children shouldn't really be modeling such things anyway. Hell, underwear modeling as a whole is idiotic, in my mind.

Why? you want people to buy things, you show that pictures of it being used. Which would be more idiotic? Having children in underwear, or having adults in childrens' underwear.

It's no more exploitation that generations ago it was exploitation to have your children help out on the family farm. At least this will have a big payoff for them down the road putting them through college.

I personally dont mind them and think they should be legal as long as its not child porn.

Why is displaying child models in underwear controversial - because it is simply to close to child pornography which is an extremely high offense in the US.
But if the kids are protected and nothing traumatizing happens to them, then why should child modelling be banned?

Its not illegal in in any way and its only bad because people think about how pedophiles might use the photos for disgusting personal purposes.
But generally it is simply a form of art and I don't think theres anything wrong with it.

Why? you want people to buy things, you show that pictures of it being used. Which would be more idiotic? Having children in underwear, or having adults in childrens' underwear.

It's no more exploitation that generations ago it was exploitation to have your children help out on the family farm. At least this will have a big payoff for them down the road putting them through college.
It's just...it's UNDERWEAR! It's not meant to be fashionable or fancy or anything like that. It's practical, nothing more.

But then, I have a function over form look upon a lot of things. This is merely my opinion on the subject.

I'd say it depends on whether the child models are photographed in poses that are typical for children who are not models or for models who are not children.

Unless it's that sick "thongs for toddlers" stuff again; what the hell were the designers thinking?

It's pretty obvious these websites were for pedophiles, but it's interesting because they're free. If they did make it website, I guess it'd be kind of obvious of what the purpose was. But they are free, and no one is making a profit, so why is it even there?

But maybe that's straying too far from the topic. It sounds like the parents are consenting to this (who knows maybe they're the ones making money), but if these kids are being pulled off the streets to pose for this, then it should obviously be taken down.

They aren't naked, and being in your underwear doesn't really count for much (I'm pretty sure Victoria's Secret has a small army of these types of adult models).

In the end, I know it's wrong, but, not illegal. :(

It's pretty obvious these websites were for pedophiles, but it's interesting because they're free. If they did make it website, I guess it'd be kind of obvious of what the purpose was. But they are free, and no one is making a profit, so why is it even there?

But maybe that's straying too far from the topic. It sounds like the parents are consenting to this (who knows maybe they're the ones making money), but if these kids are being pulled off the streets to pose for this, then it should obviously be taken down.

They aren't naked, and being in your underwear doesn't really count for much (I'm pretty sure Victoria's Secret has a small army of these types of adult models).

In the end, I know it's wrong, but, not illegal. :(

Who told you they were free? The one from Ophra's show and all it's links are pay sites.

Because girls are cute and can attractively model clothing at young ages.

ban it! Children don't need to model underwear! They're being exploited, and why isn't somebody doing anything?!

Not quite - it is a private forum - unless Jolt and Max have suddenly become a government. Furthermore, nobody here is allowed to post whatever they want. (In fact that specifically go to court in Australia - the MJ666 trouble.) And finally, need I point out that, within the limitations set by the owners, AllCoolNamesAreTaken can do the same.

Obviously, it has to remain in the guidelines and it's still public because we don't pay to be here.

AllCoolNames can speak his piece but the same if for Muti.

Just because AllCoollNames doesn't like the American, comment doesn't make it invalid since it's not on the list of rules......

The perception here in the states seems to be that this is a disgusting practice that is only able to remain in practice because writing laws which specifically put a stop to this without simotaneously causing a major disruption in so called "normal" publications is impossible, or at least prohibitively dificult.

Personally, I think it's no different from a regular kids clothing magezine model in terms of any potential trauma done to the child. The intent, if you will, is all on the side of the end user. The child need not even know people find them sexually attractive. (Since kids are naturally ignorant of sexual things, right?)

The perception here in the states seems to be that this is a disgusting practice that is only able to remain in practice because writing laws which specifically put a stop to this without simotaneously causing a major disruption in so called "normal" publications is impossible, or at least prohibitively dificult.

Personally, I think it's no different from a regular kids clothing magezine model in terms of any potential trauma done to the child. The intent, if you will, is all on the side of the end user. The child need not even know people find them sexually attractive. (Since kids are naturally ignorant of sexual things, right?)

At the time ... but fresh waves of guilt were introduced by my molestation as I got older and realized what he was actualy seeing in me.

Just because they do not know at the time does not mean later reflections or revialations on the subject wont be harmfull

At the time ... but fresh waves of guilt were introduced by my molestation as I got older and realized what he was actualy seeing in me.

Just because they do not know at the time does not mean later reflections or revialations on the subject wont be harmfull

Only harmful if you don't want to be considered sexy. Other than that it's an injury to pride and a rather strange sense of pride too. I didn't do sexual things therefore I'm cool. Or maybe it's similer to man checking you out when you are a man and a hetrosexual.

Only harmful if you don't want to be considered sexy. Other than that it's an injury to pride and a rather strange sense of pride too. I didn't do sexual things therefore I'm cool. Or maybe it's similer to man checking you out when you are a man and a hetrosexual.
It was not simmilar to anything you described ... but mine involved sexual actions noth just thoughts by others

But in the end thinking the only damage done is at the time of the action is ignorant

..........

PEOPLE FROM THE U.S.A. ANSWER ONLY PLEASE

Unsurprisingly as it's been on Oprah, mentioned in the news, and written about all over the net, I've heard quite a bit about child modelling websites where basically kids wear certain outfits, usually underwear or swimwear, and images of them are posted on those websites and for a fee, people can get access to more images.

What do most people think of these websites? Are they GENERALLY accepted in the USA, or GENERALLY considered to be child exploitation? If the latter, why are they not banned?

EDIT:

the reason I asked for just people from the USA to answer was because I was referring to the sites that are prominent in the USA (such as the made-famous-by-tv Amber Child Model website)

The sites I am referring to are NOT advertising underwear, they are presenting kids as models (similar to adult models). They are basically showcases for looking at children in their underwear

Gross.

It was not simmilar to anything you described ... but mine involved sexual actions noth just thoughts by others

But in the end thinking the only damage done is at the time of the action is ignorant
My point was originally that the two actions performed were identical. It's only the intent that was different, and intent is not reason enough to diferentiate between criminal behavior and harmless behavior.

Don't knock em till you see em.

Stacy Stalite was one of the best. Right now I think Inna is the best of the single child model websites. I have a favorite website but I figure I shouldn't post that website here less people harass the website owner.
Umm.....yeah, you're weird

Umm.....yeah, you're weird

For all the money those websites make. Some one must be paying to see them. maybe many folks on these board have. Maybe some of them are right now posting about how abhorant they are while enjoying their memberships.

I could very well be. One of the few honest enough to say so.

For all the money those websites make. Some one must be paying to see them. maybe many folks on these board have. Maybe some of them are right now posting about how abhorant they are while enjoying their memberships.

I could very well be. One of the few honest enough to say so.
You're still weird, no matter how honest you are.

Personally, I don't care. If they want to, let 'em. But, then again, I am a 12 year old male.

..........

PEOPLE FROM THE U.S.A. ANSWER ONLY PLEASE

Unsurprisingly as it's been on Oprah, mentioned in the news, and written about all over the net, I've heard quite a bit about child modelling websites where basically kids wear certain outfits, usually underwear or swimwear, and images of them are posted on those websites and for a fee, people can get access to more images.

What do most people think of these websites? Are they GENERALLY accepted in the USA, or GENERALLY considered to be child exploitation? If the latter, why are they not banned?

EDIT:

the reason I asked for just people from the USA to answer was because I was referring to the sites that are prominent in the USA (such as the made-famous-by-tv Amber Child Model website)

The sites I am referring to are NOT advertising underwear, they are presenting kids as models (similar to adult models). They are basically showcases for looking at children in their underwearIf its swimwear or something like that, I don't like it but I won't raise hell over it. However, sadly, in the US, it is legal to pose children nude as long as its not sexual. That is child soft porn, nothing more, and is sick and should be outlawed.

Personally, I don't care. If they want to, let 'em. But, then again, I am a 12 year old male.

Really?

What if these were pictures of you,and how would you feel if you knew that people who bought those pictures were old men, and you have no idea what they were thinking when looking at these pictures?

What if they were pictures of your little brother, or sister?

(Lets pretend you have one, even if you dont).

Now how would you feel about the people who may be looking at these pictures?

Do you find it creepy, or do you still have no problem with it?

Sometimes, opinions change when you look at a situation differently.

Really?

What if these were pictures of you,and how would you feel if you knew that people who bought those pictures were old men, and you have no idea what they were thinking when looking at these pictures?

What if they were pictures of your little brother, or sister?

(Lets pretend you have one, even if you dont).

Now how would you feel about the people who may be looking at these pictures?

Do you find it creepy, or do you still have no problem with it?

Sometimes, opinions change when you look at a situation differently.

If a fat, balding, 62 year old man who smells like piss wants to wank off to pictures of me as a kid in the bathtub, all the power to him... as long as I've made money by selling said pictures. ;)

It is creepy, that doesn't make it morally wrong.

As long as he stays at home wanking and doesn't start touching real kids, I don't care. Saying looking at pictures of kids in underwear, or even full out kiddy-porn leads to adults raping kids is like suggesting straight men looking at normal porn leads to straight sex.

Straight men are going to look at straight porn when the rub one out, pedophiles are going to look at kids. As long as they recognize that making their fantasies real isn't healthy, especially for the other half, and thus don't act them out and cause harm, I don't really care.

..........

PEOPLE FROM THE U.S.A. ANSWER ONLY PLEASE

Unsurprisingly as it's been on Oprah, mentioned in the news, and written about all over the net, I've heard quite a bit about child modelling websites where basically kids wear certain outfits, usually underwear or swimwear, and images of them are posted on those websites and for a fee, people can get access to more images.

What do most people think of these websites? Are they GENERALLY accepted in the USA, or GENERALLY considered to be child exploitation? If the latter, why are they not banned?

EDIT:

the reason I asked for just people from the USA to answer was because I was referring to the sites that are prominent in the USA (such as the made-famous-by-tv Amber Child Model website)

The sites I am referring to are NOT advertising underwear, they are presenting kids as models (similar to adult models). They are basically showcases for looking at children in their underwear
You dont think those sites work in Canada?

I personally think that child underwear models should be stopped, but the general idea of child models may be a market tool to boost sales if they used to advertise appropriate clothes for their age group like for example school uniforms or Abercrombie shirts.

:eek: Well, what about diaper commercials? Babies (babies!) in nothing but diapers!


I know! people could look at these children and think dirty thoughts because of what they are wearing... or what they aren't wearing.

We must only allow children to wear burkas on the tv and in pictures.

.........As long as they recognize that making their fantasies real isn't healthy, especially for the other half, and thus don't act them out and cause harm, I don't really care.

Problem is... they don't realise it's not healthy. They think it's normal. Don't believe me? Try typing "Logical Reality" into google - perfectly innocent, right? Just something to do with science or someone presenting a new view of the world or something, right? Wrong. Once you've finished being disturbed, click on the message board of the site you find.