Under 18 clothed models... is this legal?
 

I remember seeing a website posted here a while ago, and one thing they advertised was 16-18 year old clothed teens. Just wondering if this was legal.

Its a niche called non nude, but I dunno if its legal

Should be legal....

I know about the non-nude niche, but I was just wondering whether featuring models under 18 was legal or not. Personally I don't see anything wrong with it for non-nude. I'm interested in eveyone's opinion on the matter.

There have been several threads about this issue.

There is technically nothing illegal about non nude underage girls, HOWEVER if you promote it along side and with PORN, then it is perceived as so.

Depends on how you define 'clothed'

If you mean street clothes, your safe.. if you mean scantilly clad in underwear, lingerie, etc.. then you're hittin a grey area that is best avoided just to be on the safe side..

IMHO

It is a very grey area, do a search and read up on the current Jim Grady case??...:(

yeah.. but for what purpose would someone want to promote this for.......

Nurgle

i was talking more street clothes... tank tops, etc.

I just cannot understand why anyone would want to bother with risking underage content on any level in this industry.

There is TONS and TONS of PUSSY among other things to push in this industry. All sorts of hot niches and sponsors.

Why does anyone feel the need to sell clothed underage girls anyhow? It really is disturbing. May their children drive them completely insane when they hit puberty, should they ever have any.

I think it depends what they are doing. If its like a sears catalog and they are just pics of girls in clothes, that's fine.

If it's a 16 year old who is posing in some erotic position, even if she's dressed like a bee-keeper, then I think it's questionable and borderline. She could be fully clothed and sucking some one off and I think that's gone too far. She could be making out with another 16 year old and still fully clothed and it would be questionable.

This is an area which is too borderline I find and for that reason I wouldn't touch it.

Let someone with huge bills that can afford a lawsuit set the standard.

WG

WiredGuy has a good point about letting the big boys with the bills tap that market first. When you think about it though, 16 year olds make personal homepages and post pics of them selves with friends/boyfriends kissing etc. So i guess if it were portrayed as more of a personal homepage, with nothing more then a "pics of friends" type thing, it should be safe.

That is by no means safe. An area you are best to stay away from unless you really know what you are doing.

I have 2 large non nude networks featuring dance club and club resort pictures from Cyprus Spain and the UK - both have a huge bookmark following.


Stay at 16 and above without any provocative nudity whatsoever and you will have no problems.


I can't see any reason why anyone would want to display early and pre-teen models other than to attract the peds.

Why don't you make a site with Bums fighting instead?

leave that kinda smut to the real pros....jcpenny and such...although they are actually selling clothes....what is it that you intend to sell with them????

i wouldnt even poke it with a long stick like you do with a dead animal on the side of the road. there is sitting on the fence and then theres being violently ripped from the fence onto the wrong side against your will or your intention. ya dig?

16 - 18 YO non nude girls wrong ?

Get out more often and wake up to 2002

Since your on this board i am gonna assume you have porn traffic,

non-nude teen sites only attract pedo's,, or do you actually believe only teenagers are visiting and using their own credit cards,

These sites are very much in the grey area,, But when you actually start charging for monthly recurring memberships, well then thats just really wrong

BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHAH......... :thumbsup

Then tell me why legal teens sites do so well from my non nude traffic.

Learn what real pedos want before you open your mouth, I have been in the teen market for 3 years and know the score babe.

wife beater and also child molester...and I MEAN IT

greed

And for those who want to know how it works.

Most normal men like to look at cute young girls who are sexually ready, if you don?t think that?s true then you are in the dark ages. Non nude sites sow the seed for what we are all trying to do here ? get men horny. Moving them from non nude to a site that shows legal nude teens is now marketing with a guy who has fantasy in his mind, the rest is obvious.

The real paedophile will click out and go looking for early and pre-teen material to further feed his sick desires.

In the teen site market fantasy is the game boys, after all most of the guys buying the product are well past the age of ever being able to pick up a cute young girl but they do like to dream about it.

Legal... Im not sure.

Gives me wood.... Hell yes.


(did I mention I coach girls volleyball?)

Exactly

So it's right to show an 18 year old girl getting fucked in every single hole and getting cummed on by dozens of men, but it's wrong to show a girl a year younger that's fully clothed and is not having sex or anything.
That sounds rather odd, to be honest.
(not speaking about legalities here)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

So you use 16 year old girls dressed in clothes on your porn sites to get guys horned up?

Have you ever seen pics of kids fully clothed in a Toys-R-Us catalog?

But, really.... What's the point? The surfer is there to see PoRn... not some kid in their feety pajamas. WTF!

I'm sure you have some half-cocked explaination, but, whatever the reason is.... IMHO, it's stupid, and sick.

Looks that way to me.

Guy puts pics of 16 year old on site.

Surfer likes pics of girls under 18 he bookmarks site.

He sees *Legal Nude Teen banner* clicks and join porn site.

Sounds like he is using kids to fuel porn to me.

Clearly.

OK... for you dense people out there... please learn how to spot sarcasim in a post before you ICQ somebody and make accusations (no, I dont actually coach volleyball).



Anyhoo....

I was eating lunch with some friends the other day on the patio of restraunt near the local highschool. There were little 16, 17yr old Britney Spears look-alikes all over the place. Tube tops, tight hiphugger jeans...the whole works.

Being the politicaly correct adult webmaster I am, I kept my eyes off off the girls becaue I knew they were under 18. However, my friends 25-27 yrs old could not keep their eyes off of the girls. They would througly check out every young hottie that walked by.

Across the street were some guys working on the road. Id say they were in their late 30's and 40's. They continually stopped their work to throughly watch and whistle at the young girls.

At the table next to us, were two classy older guys... Id say in their 50's. Looked like they were there for a business lunch. I could hear them making coments about the girls. They were really enjoying the view that came with lunch.

Being attracted to teens is hardley pedophilla (sp?) Sure I can understand the legal issue... to prevent exploitation of young girls and stuff... but what I dont get is how so many Adult Webmasters, who view anal sex, facials, and gangbangs on a daily basis, can be so outraged at pictures of a clothed underaged teen girl?

Lets look at the "Legal" sites out there. CEN, ARS, Lightspeed....whoever... all portray teen girls in pigtails, pajamas, and licking lollipops. When was the last time you saw a highschool girl do that? Is this type of site "moraly" any different...or is it just accepted because it falls within legal guidlines?

What gives?




btw... No, I dont have any girls under 18 on my sites. I dont want to get busted by the porn police.

just remember the Police takes your property first, ie computers and all your equipment, freezes you bank account, then puts you in Jail,

then just tell your story to the judge, and explain your reasoning..

Dopy: would you mind posting the URL of your site up?

im doing good with non nude matures

BTW, I am She not He.


LOL . 5% of your daily traffic is kids.

When you can prove this I will listen to you.

Otherwise.

Dont you have some 15 year old to crop?

Let me school y'all beiotches on something. There is a difference between an attraction to children and an attraction to teenagers.

Pedophile = attracted to children who have not yet reached sexual puberty.

Phebophile = attracted to young SEXUALLY MATURE people.

I love young teenage girls. And where I live, I can fuck them from 16 on up. That is in no way making me a pedophile. I don't go to the local elementary school and getting off on the kids. There's a BIG difference.

High school girls that are 16-17 are SEXUALLY MATURE females. Nobody said shit back when people were dooling over Anna Kournikova back when she was 16. She was even dating a grown man who played in the NHL back then and nobody said SHIT.

You fucks need to get back to reality. Saying that you "wouldn't look at 16 year old girls" because you're "a responsible adult webmaster" is the most ludicrous shit I've ever heard.

If you are telling me that a 16-17 year old big breasted sexually mature tender honie doesn't get you hard, YOU'RE A LYING FUCK!

If you post again will it be a 14 YO


One person in this thread has spelled it out to you or are you just too dumb to recognise what the media is doing every day of the week.

Oh sorry, QUOTE When you can prove this I will listen to you UNQUOTE - you are dumb, or is it blind.

BTW

You can pose topless here at 16 legally !

BTW

You can have sex here at 16 legally

When one moves to insults it no longer becomes a discussion.

Lets burn.

Lets drop the age then.

No more numbers.

You are the dumb ass pushing minors to adults.

Despite what I can or cant say, you still make money selling children to men who are jerking off, or are you blind?

If you are so confident either post a link to your site, or crawl back into your hole with the rest of the pedophiles.

As a woman you might know better, but as a bitch I guess you dont.

Bitch !

LOL you got that bit right

This is the first sign of someone who has no real or rational argument when it comes to this issue.

#1 morally I am against non-nude and artistic nude under age sites.

#2 I am 100% Pro constitution and first amendment.

So I am constantly conflicted when it comes to this issue.

Right now these sites are protected by the first amendment as long as they stay within certain guidelines..and because of that and the fact that I want my first amendment rights to stay as they are I will defend them.

These site currently are legal..once again as long as they stay within certain guidelines.

For those who think that cp is only when you see a girl under 18 either nude or in suggestive clothing or involved in sex you are 100% wrong.

It's all a matter of context...one case in particular involved a guy who video taped young girls 8-12 in leotards at some sort of recital but focused primarily on their CLOTHED genitals.

The courts ruled this was CP and rightfully so.

So as some have stated here it's a very GREY area to get involved in...once again it's all about context.

If you have 16 year old girls in lingerie...which could be the very same lingerie model from Vogue but right next to her you have links and banners to porn sites then you've changed the context of the image and could very well get into trouble.

So once again and with feeling...I am MORALLY AGAINST such sites...but right now most of them are 100% legal and are protected by our first amendment rights here in America.

And for those who do not understand how this greatly affects your business then understand anyone...and I stress ANYONE on this board at ANYTIME can be brought up on obscenity charges based on violating local community standards...and your defense will be your first amendment rights to produce such materials...and by god you better hope they are still intact.

But also, I would hope that webmasters would be responsible enough to stay away from such garbage sites...it only reflects poorly on our business and keeps the eyes of the government watching us.

If we can't regulate ourselves then they will.

And in most cases...the ones who scream against something the loudest...are usually the ones with the most to hide.

There's also a difference between non-nude niche sites and CP, as Soul Rebel pointed out... the problem is, most mainstream porn people (content providers, sponsors) don't understand the niche very well.

Fetishes like feet, panties, pantyhose/stockings, etc., are very popular, but it's impossible to find good content because the photographers think, "If I show feet, I also need to show pussy; if the girl is in panties, she also needs to take them off; if she's wearing pantyhose, that's the ONLY thing she should be wearing." Well, no, actually, the people who get off on that stuff generally don't give a fuck what the inside of her pussy looks like.

The whole attraction to non-nude sites in general (legal or not) is the idea that these are women you see on the streets, at work, or at school every day. The girl-next-door type. The hot secretary at your dentist's office, with her long legs and short skirt. That great piece of ass you saw at the grocery store.

Some overused whore who acts like she's not being paid enough to pose DOES NOT turn guys on. A cute girl in a bikini does.

Typical reply from the ignorant..

One line reply to facts.

<font color="yellow">You make money pushing minors to men jerking off.</font>

http://www.lawrencewalters.com

Fletch and I usually disagree on this issue and have debated it one a number of occasions...but in this case I would have to agree with him Dopy.

If you are using minor children to push porn sites you have changed the context of the images.

While 16 topless is legal where you are at...it doesn't necessarily mean in a porn type situation...any age nude is legal as long as it has artistic merit and isn't focusing lasciviously on the genitals etc.

So while you think you are fine within the law, you may very well not be.

Something you might consider speaking to an attorney about.

One fact is that CP is pretty much illegal anywhere and everywhere at this point.

It won't sell anyway.

i would say more than 10% and this is rule for near everybody. Hell, I was the best porn magazine client of the local store at the age of 14 :-)

i think this thread still is missing the casual gfy drama........

people you don't try hard today.