NationStates Jolt Archive

At the risk of starting an uproar....

I recently posted this message: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491098

I'm posting this as a seperate message, because I don't know whether it will be seen if I post it as part of the above one.

The sites I referred to in the above post featured children in underwear (not modelling it for any particular brand, just parading around in it), but it would appear there are nude versions of such sites. The sites are basically lots of pictures of nude children doing (or not doing) various non-sexual things. The sites are apparently legal due to the sites claiming they are artistic and do not show any sexual behaviour, and apparently "innocent" (ie non-sexual) nudity is legal in the U.S.A., and I've heard of one called "Sunny Lolitas" or something like that, which doesn't seem to be a pervy-sounding name (unless you compare it with that Lolita film). The thing that may make them not-so-innocent is that they are not just family photo albums, they are pictures of lots of kids who are nude and the only reasons for the websites seems to be to show off nude kids.

Same question as before, and again I'm asking only people from the U.S.A. to answer due to these websites being U.S.A. websites - are they GENERALLY accepted in the U.S.A. or GENERALLY considered to be sickening?

Also, does anyone know if it's possible to have them shut down?

I'd say Sunny Lolita's is most definately a reference to Nabakov's Lolita. What else could it mean?

I'd say Sunny Lolita's is most definately a reference to Nabakov's Lolita. What else could it mean?

I think I heard a definition somewhere of "lolita" that meant something to do with young people, but not something pervy

I think I heard a definition somewhere of "lolita" that meant something to do with young people, but not something pervy

Lolita is the name of a young girl in the novel Lolita. A forty-something man is in love with her. To him, it's not pervy, but to other's it is. Lolita is usually a code for child porn.

I would generally say that that is on the sick level. Even if it wasn't a poorly masked pornography knock-off site, I would still think it's sick because I think child modeling/beauty paegants are sick. But yes, I doubt they are held as legitimate or accepted by many people.

That is most definitely crossing the line. The term lolita has come to mean an underage person associated with sex. It's part of the term lolicon, or lolita-lover(rough translation) in Japan, which is the term to those who enjoy drawn art or real pictures and movies involving children having sex. I don't care what they try to call it, these are most assuredly child porn sites as far as I'm concerned. They should be shut down immediately for exploitation.

Lolita is the name of a young girl in the novel Lolita. A forty-something man is in love with her. To him, it's not pervy, but to other's it is. Lolita is usually a code for child porn.
A good book though.... disturbing, but good nonetheless.

A good book though.... disturbing, but good nonetheless.

Yeah. I tried to read it a couple years ago, but I wasn't up to the task of classical novels, so I couldn't get through it. Right now, I'm still at the age where it's slightly creepy for me to be seen reading it (I've surpassed to age where I could be a nymphette, but most people say I look about fourteen).

Yeah. I tried to read it a couple years ago, but I wasn't up to the task of classical novels, so I couldn't get through it. Right now, I'm still at the age where it's slightly creepy for me to be seen reading it (I've surpassed to age where I could be a nymphette, but most people say I look about fourteen).
It just sucks you in to thinking "Hey, leave him alone. Its perfectly fine what he's feeling..... holy shit.... wait..."

Really makes you rethink your whole perspective.

*sigh*

Look ... there's a very simple formula here:

If you want to hump 8 year olds, seek help. If you are humping 8 year olds, get caught ... please ... by the father of the 8 year old.

Period. End of story. No need for analysing it.

These sites pander. Nothing more or less. Many of the pics are taken from family photo albums by pervy photo developing techs. Some are deliberately taken by pervy uncles or whatever. Either way, it's a horrid thing to do.

If I knew of any definitive way to bring it to a stop, I would. Without hesitation.

It just sucks you in to thinking "Hey, leave him alone. Its perfectly fine what he's feeling..... holy shit.... wait..."

Really makes you rethink your whole perspective.

Yup. That's the best kind of book.

my opinion so far is that pageants may actually be more psychologically damaging than the websites I referred to because they are essentially a competition to see which child looks nicest - in other words, the criteria to win is to be a child and look more attractive than everyone else, which means that those who don't win may be made to feel very ugly... and unlike with the websites, the pageants are a compeition for children to show themselves off.

*sigh*

Look ... there's a very simple formula here:

If you want to hump 8 year olds, seek help. If you are humping 8 year olds, get caught ... please ... by the father of the 8 year old....



Unfortunately it's often the parent who is the abuser (or "humper" as you put it).

Unfortunately it's often the parent who is the abuser (or "humper" as you put it).

Sadly true. *sigh* (again)

These sites are more rampant than one might think, too. A quick Google search for the term "Sunny Lolitas" popped up quite a few hits for random child modeling sites, as well as a few news articles, such as this one:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=9&num=501

Quite illuminating, really.

These sites are more rampant than one might think, too. A quick Google search for the term "Sunny Lolitas" popped up quite a few hits for random child modeling sites, as well as a few news articles, such as this one:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=9&num=501

Quite illuminating, really.

they're the underwear ones I rferred to in my other post though - in this one I'm referring to the nude supposedly artistic ones

they're the underwear ones I rferred to in my other post though - in this one I'm referring to the nude supposedly artistic ones
And if you read the article, you'll see it's talking about those. The photos shown in the article(which disgust me; I had the things blocked) were the free ones; they refused to show the member-only ones for obvious reasons.

they're the underwear ones I rferred to in my other post though - in this one I'm referring to the nude supposedly artistic ones

Ah yes ...

The average 4-7 year old will run about in the buff without a care in the world because, well, they're 4-7 year olds! They don't know it's wrong until someone tells them so.

When someone takes advantage of someone so innocent and naive, it makes my skin crawl ... even if it's "art". It is one of the only real sins, disguising usurption as "art", and I'm about as "liberal" as a person can get.

Lolita is usually a code for child porn.


Agreed. And it's used by the offenders themselves, by the way. This isn't cop-speak or anything.

And if you read the article, you'll see it's talking about those. The photos shown in the article(which disgust me; I had the things blocked) were the free ones; they refused to show the member-only ones for obvious reasons.

nope, the only mentions of nudity are legal age nudity in that article (or depending where you live, at least legal-age-to-have-sex-but-not-to-model nudity anyway).

but I've decided, if this is true, then the sites should definitely be shut down (it's a quite from the site you posted):


"They skirt the law by avoiding explicit pornography,” says Dr. Grange. “But they are selling a sexual fantasy that appeals to pedophiles. Every time I see another child go missing, I wonder if whoever grabbed her was visiting some of these web sites.”

Statistics compiled by the FBI and state and local police departments show more than 75 percent of those arrested on pedophilia or child sexual abuse charges in the last five years have visited Internet sites which features teen and pre-teen models"

edited cus posted too much

Ah yes ...

The average 4-7 year old will run about in the buff without a care in the world because, well, they're 4-7 year olds! They don't know it's wrong until someone tells them so.

When someone takes advantage of someone so innocent and naive, it makes my skin crawl ... even if it's "art". It is one of the only real sins, disguising usurption as "art", and I'm about as "liberal" as a person can get.
Me too. What's really such a huge problem is the fact that not only do the parents encourage this, most of the kids like to do it too! Frankly, this is only due to the fact that humans are by nature incredibly easy to influance in our childhood years. It's how we evolved. It's how we learn. It's also, unfortunately, how kids can be taught to hate, and how they can be taught that liking this kind of thing is good, even when it really isn't. Of course, that begs the question: are we exercising a MORAL viewpoint here? Morals are, of course, entirely subjective. I prefer not to hold a moral unless it has a scientific basis. For instance, I feel that sex with children is immoral, as science proves that the brain simply has not fully grown at that age for the child to understand what sex really is. Still, one has to ask: do we have a right to pass moral judgement on the kids who enjoy being photographed? Should we allow them to be photographed nevertheless if they choose so? It's a damned hard question, so please, don't answer it right away. I don't have an answer either.
(Though, if we did, I can think of many ways right away to avoid further molestation of these children. Oversight into the actions of the photographers and modeling agencies would go a long way, for instance, into preventing such molestation. One could, with some thinking and doing, find a way to allow them to be photographed without the children coming to harm. Of course, the psychological issues the children most likely have to deal with later in life(which themselves come from a number of sources, including societal pressures which should be alleviated) are another story.)

oops posted too much quote above. changed it.

So, a Google of this "Sunny Lolitas" resulted in a Capitolhillblue article, that has been posted from above...and the rest seemed to be at worst, child pornography sites, or something close to it.

One such site had such charming titles as "suck my young pussy."

So...I think its safe to assume that such "modeling" has very little intention that isnt sinister.

Not good.

Yes, I think Americans are probably a little bit more uptight about children and sexuality than other places, but I guess I dont have a problem with that.

I recently saw a Dario Argento movie that starred his daughter, Asia.
She was about 17 in the movie, maybe as young as 16.
Theres a brief scene where we see her breasts.

The girl was attractive, yes, but to me...I must admit to having felt like I shouldnt have been looking, as over here, thats a bit young.
Perhaps in Italy, viewing 16-17 year old boobs isnt quite so taboo.
I dunno..not from Italy..

I dont think people can help being attracted to whatever fancies them, but I also believe that people can choose to control any such urges they have.
Our actions make us good people, not our thoughts.
In the case of the website, I think it caters to pedophiles, or at least makes it legal for them to buy child pornography.

I do not approve.

i don't understand the parents that let their kids do stuff like this. . .

I recently saw a Dario Argento movie that starred his daughter, Asia.
She was about 17 in the movie, maybe as young as 16.
Theres a brief scene where we see her breasts.

The girl was attractive, yes, but to me...I must admit to having felt like I shouldnt have been looking, as over here, thats a bit young.
Perhaps in Italy, viewing 16-17 year old boobs isnt quite so taboo.
I dunno..not from Italy..

Ever seen the big Hollywood movie 'American Beauty'? You may recall a scene where a 16 year old Thora Burch shows off her boobs through a window... 16 year old boobs must not be taboo in America either. :D

The sites I referred to in the above post featured children in underwear (not modelling it for any particular brand, just parading around in it)

Children in underwear is about on the same level of children in diapers. So nothing much. In the nude, dunno.

Ever seen the big Hollywood movie 'American Beauty'? You may recall a scene where a 16 year old Thora Burch shows off her boobs through a window... 16 year old boobs must not be taboo in America either. :D

Well ... 16-17 is technically close enough. It's not "of legal age", but it's right up there. When I talk about child porn, I mean like 4-12 year olds and whatnot.

At the risk of starting an uproar....

I recently posted this message: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491098

I'm posting this as a seperate message, because I don't know whether it will be seen if I post it as part of the above one.

The sites I referred to in the above post featured children in underwear (not modelling it for any particular brand, just parading around in it), but it would appear there are nude versions of such sites. The sites are basically lots of pictures of nude children doing (or not doing) various non-sexual things. The sites are apparently legal due to the sites claiming they are artistic and do not show any sexual behaviour, and apparently "innocent" (ie non-sexual) nudity is legal in the U.S.A., and I've heard of one called "Sunny Lolitas" or something like that, which doesn't seem to be a pervy-sounding name (unless you compare it with that Lolita film). The thing that may make them not-so-innocent is that they are not just family photo albums, they are pictures of lots of kids who are nude and the only reasons for the websites seems to be to show off nude kids.

Same question as before, and again I'm asking only people from the U.S.A. to answer due to these websites being U.S.A. websites - are they GENERALLY accepted in the U.S.A. or GENERALLY considered to be sickening?

Also, does anyone know if it's possible to have them shut down?
Like I said in the other thread, it's child porn.

Well ... 16-17 is technically close enough. It's not "of legal age", but it's right up there. When I talk about child porn, I mean like 4-12 year olds and whatnot.

Well, I wasn't responding to anything you said, so that's kinda irrevalvent, no? :p

Children in underwear is about on the same level of children in diapers. So nothing much. In the nude, dunno.

It's 'kids' in underwear in 'sexy' poses. Like Maxim with 11-17 year olds.

I've seen Nina Model, she's hot... I think she's 17 now, I recall seeing 4 years ago that she was 13...

I'm 21, she's 17, so she's fair game. :fluffle:

Aren't there plenty of parents who would love to have their child do modeling? They would get money and have some pride of showing of their kid. They of course don't intend for it to be sexual but really why do we have models? Do we look at the clothing they wear or at the body beneath it?

Aren't there plenty of parents who would love to have their child do modeling? They would get money and have some pride of showing of their kid. They of course don't intend for it to be sexual but really why do we have models? Do we look at the clothing they wear or at the body beneath it?

But don't you consider it exploitative for an organisation to be posting loadsa of naked pictures of kids on a website? Or art? Or...?

Agreed. And it's used by the offenders themselves, by the way. This isn't cop-speak or anything.

It's also used in mainstream porn as code for 18-21. ;)

It's also used in mainstream porn as code for 18-21. ;)

hmm how confusing. one group uses it to mean kids, the other to mean young adults. pffft what's up with the world?