T O P I C R E V I E W
Member # 17184
posted 08-02-2004 01:38 PM
Okay, there are links in this post that are NOT WORK SAFE, but they are legal. That's sort of the worst part.
A friend of mine saw this link in someone's online journal (the woman who posted it was appalled, let's be clear):
I was going to go on this big rant about it, but it's sort of got me in tears here, so let me just send you the link to
a good article in Wired on the topic, instead. It's so despicable that words fail me.
An excerpt, with emphasis added:
quote: The mother of " Jessi The Kid" insists her daughter's site is geared toward other children, and that her daughter enjoys planning the themes for the photo and video shoots.
"There's so much smut on the Internet, we're completely on the opposite end of that," said the mother, who refused to give her name, referring to herself instead as "Jessi's mommy."
She said she
didn't know who was buying pictures and videos of her daughter because she had no face-to-face interaction with customers. She said the site is profitable.
"Let's just say that from
her portion of the earnings, she could apply for medical school right now and not have to take out a loan," she said.
But while Webe Web and Jessi's mother say they don't know what their demographic is, a quick peek at the girls' virtual fan clubs make it quite clear: men with nicknames such as "
Cum ta Poppa."
At one of
Amber's fan clubs, "humberthaze" writes: "We only get glimpses of her potential when she does a bit of 'bump and g[rind],' but then she quickly relapses into something awkward and childish. Sometimes you can hear the photog get excited when he gives us what we/he want(s). She'll do a little killer wiggle and we hear him say quickly, 'What was that?' or 'Do that again!!!'"
Another complained: "She's gotten
too developed for my taste, I doubt I'll be an Amber fan anymore."
It looks like I've got a
lot of kids to adopt.
[This message has been edited by audra estrones (edited 08-02-2004).]
Member # 3
posted 08-02-2004 01:54 PM
What I find amazing in that Wired piece is someone saying that if there is not nudity, it is not porn, or can't be used that way.
An interesting factoid on that is this: when we're talking about adult sexual material (as many be obvious, I have zero idea what does or doesn't sell in underground child porn markets, nor do I particularly care to), in terms of what is most often used as porn, what sells as porn, nudes tend to FLOP, big time. In other words, nudes aren't very many people's porn at all.
I earnestly have to process the rest of this before I say a whole lot more, but I do feel pretty confident saying that we're likely talking about exploitation here, with parental permission, no less, and no matter the benefit (money for medical school was mentioned by Jessi's mother), denying or ignoring the incriedbly obvious pitfalls and dangers, as well as denying or ignoring WHY a person pays a monthly fee for poorly done pinup/striptease photos of someone (of any age) seems beyond questiobale to me. Okay, not questionable in terms of why to deny, because the motivation to deny seems clear: it's to keep out of jail.
It also seems to hearken pretty intensely to parents prostituting their kids (oddly, the primary reason age of consent laws were developed way back when, so parents doing so is hardly new), and VERY shoddy to me to blame whoever the paying customers are for purchasing this stuff: after all, no matter what their deal is or what anyone thinks of them, these aren't THEIR kids, nor are they the parents selling them out like this.
(Another small monment of incredulousness: Jessi's mother thinks kids are buying memberships at $25 a pop? With what credit card? And how? And with what parent's persmission? Seriously, either she's just continuing on with the denydeny, or she's earnestly dumb as a bag of rocks.)
Member # 17184
posted 08-02-2004 02:09 PM
I think she's denydenydenying, and that she looks at her daughter and sees dollar signs.
quote: Capitol Hill Blue conducted a random check of the 100 photographers who run the highest-traffic child model sites and found that 37 had been convicted of sex crimes involving minors and another 22 had been charged but not convicted. Another article
Member # 17924
posted 08-02-2004 09:07 PM
It makes me very sad to see these girls this way. Maybe I am a little old school, but posing a child like that and using the pictures to make money seems horrid to me. I am also appalled at some of the poses and outfits these girls are put in. It seems to deprive them of being a child and is turning them into something they're not. But that's just my opinion.
Member # 18761
posted 08-02-2004 10:05 PM
i went to those links...i was absolutely disgusted!!!! what are those girls' parents thinking??? i mean, i looked at some of those pictures and felt, well, dirty. and some of those outfits (nurse, police officer, firefighter) are stereotypically seen on strippers and in porn...obviously (as one of you said earlier) the parents look at those girls and see not a child, but dollar signs. i hate people like that...they do not deserve to have kids!
Without love, what are we worth? Eighty-nine cents! Eighty-nine cents worth of chemicals walking around lonely. ~M*A*S*H, Hawkeye
Member # 17069
posted 08-03-2004 02:20 AM
It's sick and disgusting and wrong.
But how do you stop it? I'm not saying anyone shouldn't try, but I'd genuinely like to know. The girls aren't being touched nor are they naked in any of the pictures. There isn't any evidence that speaks to the fact that they may be being forced into it. It could be stopped if it was proved they were, but I'm sure it's not hard to tell a young girl she's being pretty and put her in those poses because she has no idea how sexual they are. It's really distressing.
Member # 17184
posted 08-03-2004 04:14 PM
This article is interesting:
quote: In March of 1991, the U.S. Customs Service intercepted an order form for what was believed to be pornographic videotapes featuring underage girls. Allegedly included in the mailing was a check drawn on the account of Stephen A. Knox of State College.
Together with the state and local police, the Customs Service searched Knox's apartment and confiscated three videos allegedly depicting underage girls posing in swimsuits and leotards.
After being convicted by U.S. District Court in Harrisburg of knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography, Knox was sentenced to five years in prison. An appeals court upheld the conviction, saying the display of fully clothed genital areas constitutes an exhibition.
Member # 3
posted 08-03-2004 04:25 PM
I think one of the tricky things with stuff like this is that the way the laws tend to be approached is by very arbitrary things: nude or not nude, under 18 or over 18, etc. And that's not so great. Not only does it mean things like this go as they are, though they appear to be very exploitive, it also tends to result in cases which have happened where parents get charged with making child porn by developing family photos they took of their kids in the bathtub with no sexual motivation whatsoever.
I don't know the answer to that, though for profit and not for profit seems like it SHOULD draw a very clear line. A site of a 12-year-old in costumes generally intended for fetish models, making substantial money from posing for such from a demographic of adult men is clearly not the same arena as cute family bathtub photos. The purpose of this stuff is pretty clear here: it's to make money by providing sexual entertainment.
What worries me most is that ANYONE who does any form of sex work or works in sexual entertainment who is in denial about that (or who is being told by others that is not what they are doing when they are), who doesn't have support and information about that, and who cannot both give full consent to that and truly UNDERSTAND what they are consenting to is in profound emotional danger. Someone who is not an adult is in even greater danger in that regard, and that gets upped even more so when their parents are not only not protecting them, but are the ones putting them in harm's way.
Honestly, it seems to me that a call to DCFS -- jeez, especially given something like the JonBenet stuff -- would possibly remedy that. Trouble is, with no real names out there, that's pretty much not doable. The web company is going to know those names for releases they HAVE to have filed and for checks written but they aren't going to give them up because this or that 11-year-old is also their meal ticket, too.
(Of course, it's also made even tricker because in child porn cases, the law often seeks this stuff out through who PURCHASES this stuff, and that's who gets lamblasted, while ultimately, that's the least guilty party of all. When we're not talking about very small children, it seems like the level of protection gets considerably smaller in terms of concern.)
[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 08-03-2004).]
Member # 568
posted 08-03-2004 09:48 PM
I cannot even begin to express how disgusted I am with what I just saw. I was so ticked off, I sent an email about it to a talk radio personality. Lets see if she brings up the issue on the air or over the mailing list...
LA County STD Hotline 1.800.758.0880 Toll free STD and clinic information for Los Angeles County residents.
Love Scarleteen? By donating just $1, you can help keep us around.
Member # 17184
posted 08-04-2004 10:40 AM
An alleged "teen model" is defending the sites
Hands up if you think she's for real?
Member # 17924
posted 08-04-2004 11:01 AM
Oh my God...
I read every one of "teen_goddess"'s posts...and all I have to say is that if they really are a 16 yr old teenager, they need to get back in school NOW and take a few English classes. (And if not, that was a pathetic attempt to fool people into believing a teenager was on the other end)
That makes me mad enough to take this computer right now and launch it out the window. But since it's not my computer and there is no window near me, I guess that won't work.
My hand is most certainly down...and it's staying that way.
And if it turns out that I am wrong, I firmly believe every single one of those girls is brainwashed. Severly brainwashed. As far as I'm concerned that stuff is porn in every way, shape, and form.
Ugh...I think I need some air.
Member # 3
posted 08-04-2004 11:06 AM
If she IS, then statements like:
"i personally NEVER wanna turn 20"
"but u gotta realize sum gurls are really poor and this is how they live, like for example the cops stop modeling for w/e reason..and u all say "YAY" to urselves..for ur own satisfaction, will YOU or the COPS pay these girls?? and its not abt money.."
"When it comes to being sexy..NO GIRL IS TOO YOUNG"
"its coz of idiots like YOU we kill ourself..im not gonna kill myself coz im not psycho..but im gonna drop out of skool and not care abt my future"
"YES me and my friends go to chatrooms sumtimes 4 fun and we like to turn on men..BELIEVE it or NOT! we used to go on msn..but they shut it down now..but i kinda stopped doin it..how do i know YOUR not gay?? how do i know ur not 14? its the net BUDDY! u can't SEE the other people!! Once me and my friends FORCED an adult man to meet me in the mall coz he couldn't believe kids would do it"
"coz i know girls who'd cry for hours threatning to run away if they don't model...all kinds of stuff..so its not like we're naive or anything..what else can i say?"
...are not exatcly the best defnese of this scenario, to say the least. If anything, they validate the concerns voiced insanely well. I sincerely hope this was a troll, because if not, some of what she's saying there is really sad stuff.