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.

People, it's all about how a site is doing their marketing. For example, there are a lot of mainstream modelling sites that have a teen model section. There is nothing in the lawbooks that says a teen can't be a model. It's the sites that promote the teens as sex objects, and have a member's area that hints of maybe seeing the girls nude that crosses the line.

There are lots of good-looking teens out there that want to start a legit modelling career online, and there's nothing wrong whatsoever with them doing so. Teens are in rather *sexy* commercials on tv all the time, in tight jeans, bikinis, tiny tank tops etc etc, so having an online modelling portfolio with such clothed pictures is illegal? I highly doubt it.

Ummm, <i>she</i> said she was using non nude teens to upsell to porn.

Bottom line.

Thats not cool

dude you crack me up! :thumbsup

thanks bro

Feeling okay there Soul_Rebel?

You feel fine though.

*rubs Martin*

excellent, im doing the self esteem exercises my doctor told me.

I actually am interested in producing this type of content. I am not an old dirty sicko, I am in fact still in high school, so I do have easy access to potential models. Many girls I know as young as 15 pose in tight clothing (ie. jeans, shirts) ads/ catalogues, etc. So I think if the whole site is designed in a non-sexual matter, maybe even targeted to a mainstream market as a model portfolio site, there should be no problems at all and I have a feeling it will do quite well.

YO = years old.

This is what happens when kids make porn.

Shouldnt you be studying instead of thinking of ways to exploit the youngest girls legally?

You are in highschool?

How old are you?

I'm 19, probably the youngest here

new sasush!

oh,ok sasush is 18 now

What is a 19 year old doing in highschool?

I was in college at your age.

sasush?

I'm one of the last classes here in Canada doing OAC, which is the 5th year of high school. The new ciriculum only goes up to grade 12 now, so there will be twice as many people graduating, which pretty much makes it twice as hard to get into college/university. I'm thinking of taking an extra semester or two 'til things kinda cool off. In Queens, where I currently have hopes of attending there are 30,000 students applying for 2,000 spots!

NN in action

http://www.teensuncovered.com/

Get yourself a copy of the Los Angeles Times on Sunday and take a look at all the pictures of 7 year old girls wearing bikinis and underwear.

If this is legal, then any non-nude website should also be legal, regardless of how it is marketed.

The US government should not be prosecuting thought crimes.

Ridiculous.

Do you share classes with the kid above?

Take 20 pics cut out of the same newspaper of 7 year old girls and make a gallery and submit it to the hun. Despite ? laws, so you dont lose way, this is only hypothetical.

It becomes porn, and child porn at that.

So your comment on regardless of how it is marketed is absolutely ridicilous and incorrect.

At least you admit its a "crime."

If I were to get into this I would be targeting mainstream modeling markets. I guess it would be more of a little modeling agency where small companies can view models they would like to promote their products. It's just an idea though, I'm not even sure if I wanna get into this. It would be a lot of work now, especially with school there.

I think Dopy is saying "16 year olds" like Americans say "18 year olds". Maybe a minor where she lives is anyone under 16?

If that's the case, then she has a valid point. If you use people who are not minors, then you can't get into trouble.

I could be wrong about the age of consent where she lives, but maybe?

Doesnt matter what the age of consent is, using minors to sell to porn sites is wrong.

What am I missing?

You take pics of 16 year old girls, put them on page.

Get traffic, dump all traffic to Tawnee Stone.

hmmm.

I have nothing against making money legally with *teens,* I do it myself.

HAHA

Same stupid argument always used.

Please explain to me how selling underwear in the sears catalog is the same as using minors to sell porn on porn sites?

Are you really unable to see a difference between selling underwear and selling porn using minors?

Why do people always bring underwear sales into a discussion about porn and using minors to sell porn?

The original message in this thread talked about non-nude pictures, not "porn", so your argument is silly.

When the LA Times publishes pictures of little girls in their underwear, it's not considered pornography - and rightfully so.

Likewise, if a website publishes pictures of girls in underwear, bikinis, short shorts etc, it is also not pornography.

The fact that people may download these pictures and masturbate doesn't change the fact that they are just harmless shots of CLOTHED girls.

The arguments about the context of the pictures (department store ads vs "porn" sites) is ridiculous, since it attempts to criminalize the thoughts and motivations of a person, rather than the actions.

I think you missed my point.

The definition of "minor" depends on where you live. If you live in the U.S. then a "minor" is someone under 18. If you live in the Netherlands, then a "minor" is someone under 16.

So, you are right, using minors is wrong. However, a minor is not defined as someone under 18. A minor is someone under the legal age of consent where you live.

Do you see what I'm saying? A 16 year old in NOT a minor in some countries.

There is no objective age at which a person is no longer a minor, it depends on the laws of the country you live in.

I do agree that people should not break the laws of the country they live in on this issue, of course.

Well, I'm convinced. I'm off to scan pics of 7 year olds in the Sears catalog to use on the next gallery I submit to The Hun.

I certainly hope if the feds come knocking on my door, you'll be my lawyer and save me.

You're really stretching here.

I never said it's legal - I'm saying it SHOULD be legal.

A picture of a non-nude girl is NOT pornography, no matter how the idiot prosecutors try to spin it.

You obviously missed the part where I said lets use "minor" for lack of a better term for "underage" undivided by location.

So you think I should be able to make a gallery of 8 year olds dressed in nothing but undies and use it to promote my new site CUM SOAKED TEENIE GANGBANGS?

WHAT??....... you fat fucking pervert!! :321GFY