Early sexualization of children? I hope these people spend a lifetime in Jail.

[Shimmer]

Pre-teen 'model' site BUSTED
Quote:

The woman said she sat chatting with the photographer and his wife during the daylong shoot and had no inkling what was going on until she walked into the studio when Pierson had left the room for a moment and saw her daughter wearing only a thong and a halter top. “That feeling is a feeling I don’t wish on anybody,” she said. The woman said that she and her daughter were frightened to leave because Pierson had earlier displayed a handgun he kept in the house, so they endured several more hours in the studio. “I said ‘We can’t do this,’ but my daughter said she was scared to leave and let’s get through this and then we won’t come back,” she said. “It was really hard.” Once they left, the woman said she “went straight to the FBI” in Birmingham and told them what Pierson had done.

Quote:

He also said that while some defend the “modeling” sites as harmless, they desensitize the young girls to sex. He said he knows of two girls who started out as teen “models” on such Web sites that graduated into adult pornography after they turned 18.

Focus:Is it child pornography, or is the reaction to these photographs an outdated one based on "Puritanical" beliefs? Should these people be convicted based on the evidence given in the article? Why? Why not? Is the area really as 'gray' as some would have us believe?

 

[*Stargazer*]

That is absurd. From the sounds of it, it does sound like child porn. I can't really evaluate how egregious it is without seeing it and I don't ever want to see it.

But this made me laugh:
Quote:

Webe Web representatives defended the business model, denying the sites were aimed at pedophiles, but the controversy snowballed

Who is the site aimed at if it isn't aimed at pedophiles? Who else pays to look at pictures of little girls in their underwear and lingerie?

 

[Shimmer]

Why, they're MODELING of course!

 

[M]

Would I want ANYONE looking at my daughter dressed provocativley as a teenager? No way. I totally beleive that these ppl were exploiting the sexuality of young girls. I wouldn't want my DD viewed as a sex object at any age for that matter. I don't think this is "old" thinking-I think it's right thinking. I find it so sad that today ppl actually question if our thoughts about so many issues are "off". I personally feel that our nation is falling apart morally and ethically. I pray it changes!

 

[Shimmer]

outside of Gap (and similar) catalogues there is no need for little girls to be modeling...particularly not modeling underwear.

 

[NutMeg]

The thing that really gets me is the combination of high heels and lingerie. How can that be innocent? I'm sorry, there is no good explaination and it's obviously traumatizing to these girls, as the mother who reported this site says further on in the article.

 

[Bre]

To me this is not a grey area it's wrong. Normal people want to see kids look and behave like kids do, there is no room for halter necks and stilletos

I've always thought of kids as teddy bears. By that I mean neither female nor male they are just innocent little people and should in no way be linked to the sexual world

On a bit of another note, I don't have kids but I have nephews. Sometimes I take my 6yr old newphew to swimming lessons. As we go straight from school he gets changed by the side of the pool and hops straight in (obviously he's not embarrased by this or I would take him to the change room).

The problem is before he strips off I automatically do this suspicious glance around to make sure there are no "interested" people arond and looking in our direction, This bothers me that I have to even think about doing this. Why can't these sicko's have some respect and just let kids be kids

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Focus:Is it child pornography, or is the reaction to these photographs an outdated one based on "Puritanical" beliefs? Should these people be convicted based on the evidence given in the article? Why? Why not? Is the area really as 'gray' as some would have us believe?

Thats a hard one ShimShim.

Part of me reacts immediateley along the same lines that LadyBug did. The fact that it's a pay site to look at photos of young girls makes my little alarm bells go off. It's obviously marketed at pedophiles. Especially considering the nature of the clothing, the poses, and other things described. The product being sold is young girls, not clothing or underwear. But then the other part of me goes, but it's not porn. There not naked, there not engaging in any physical sexual contact with another person. While it's obvious they are sexualizing these girls, it's not porn.

The difficult part of this case is lets say it goes to trial and it's deemed, "child porn." What happens next? Are the thousands of girls and boys taking suggestive photos of themselves and posting them on their myspace pages now guilty of child pornography? Is a boyfriend who takes some pics of his girlfriend in her underwear with his camera phone a child pornographer if they are an underaged couple? Is a girl who sends suggestive photo's (or even nude ones) of herself to her boyfriend sending childporn if she is under 18?

Where does it stop?

What about your baby photo's? We all have em, naked pics of ourselves as babies our parents snapped of us while being parents. You know the ones our Moms always LOVE to show our boyfriends when you bring them home for the first time. Are those now child porn? Is a pampers diaper commercial pornography now?

I know some of those are extreme examples, but this topic is really a slippery slope.

 

[Shimmer]

It's really not; porn is sexually suggestive subject matter. Naked butt baby photos are not sexual, nor are they suggestive.
It stops in realism.

 

[Raerae]

So a photo spread in Maxium is porn now?

 

[Shimmer]

It's softcore sexual subject matter.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com porn n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire [syn: pornography, porno, erotica, smut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-ngr-f) Pronunciation Key n. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy Pronunciation: por-'nä-gr&-fE Function: noun : material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordnet pornography n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire [syn: porno, porn, erotica, smut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by free on-line Dictionary of Computing pornography <application> Still or moving images, usually of women, in varying states of nudity, posing or performing erotic acts with men, women, animals, machines, or other props. Some say it degrades women, some say it corrupts young boys (who down-load it from the World-Wide Web or exchange it on floppy disks). Most of it is in the form of JPEG images. There are many sites on the World-Wide Web offering porn of all sorts, almost always for a subscription. It is said that these are a driving force in the evolution of new technology and techniques for the web. Advertisments for them certainly constitute a significant proportion of all spam. There are even pornographic computer games, an early example being Mac Playmate.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Naked butt baby photos are not sexual, nor are they suggestive.

That was just an extreme example of the slippery slope Shim.

And to expand on this. Who determines what is sexual if new laws are passed? That is a very subjective term. Obviously I think there are areas we can all agree on. But what about grey areas?

Keep in mind, I'm not defending the actions of the photographers, I think that they should be jailed for a very long time (if not forever), because the intent of what they were doing is morally wrong. Regardless if it wasn't 100% nudity.

But I think how they are charged is very important, because it does set a precident in our legal system. And it could make some very innocent actions become potentially illegal.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer It's softcore sexual subject matter.

I guess if you want to define it specifically by a definition. I never really thought of any of those photo spreads as porn though. So when i look at the fall Victoria's Secret catalog to pick out some new clothes, I'm now looking at softcore porn when i get to the bra and panty section? They are wearing the same type of clothing and often posed in the same ways as the girls who pose for Maxium.

 

[Shimmer]

The intent is the difference.
And, yes, it's that simple.

There was an episode of ANTM where Tyra admonished Danielle to watch her posing...because certain poses are more alluring to men than women, and certain poses are geared for women over men.
The difference in this posing is evident in the two publications we're discussing. It's subtle but there.
Almost all lingerie catalogue posing is done from the side, with the model turning herself slightly, so you're not getting, for lack of a better word, a yawning view of her girliness. Aside from that, their nipples are airbrushed into oblivion.
Men's mag (Maxim, FHM, etc.) is done with different posing, more suggestive, more sexual.

The intent behind VS is to make a woman say "Wow, that corset could make me feel beautiful..."
The intent behind MM(men's mags) is to make a man say "Holy shit dude check out her fucking tits...hey look there's an article over here..."

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer The intent behind VS is to make a woman say "Wow, that corset could make me feel beautiful..." The intent behind MM(men's mags) is to make a man say "Holy shit dude check out her fucking tits...hey look there's an article over here..."

Neat info to know btw.

You think average Joe knows the diff? I know when my BFF and I had one of our guy friends as a roomie, he sure wasn't looking at the VS catalog because he thought that corset would have him feel beautiful =P The fact that it was often sitting next to the toilet in the bathroom next to Playboy, Maxium, and Stuff magazine is evident of that.

 

[Shimmer]

Regardless of where it ends up, it's the intent behind the shoot that defines it.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Regardless of where it ends up, it's the intent behind the shoot that defines it.

While I do see your point. What about the precident set if these men are convicted of shooting "child porn"? This is mainly what i see as a larger issue of this case. I could care less if the guys shooting the photo's rot in jail.

Example: MySpace CamWhore01, posts a photo of herself in a provocative pose. She's on her hands and knees, on her bed with her back arched and her butt in the air. Wearing nothing but a bra and thong. With the caption, "Wanna get with me?" Photoshopped under her photo (anyone who uses MySpace has seen photo's just like this). This is just one of her many photo's on her MySpace page in varios states of undress. However, she's never fully "nude" in any of her pics. CamWhore01 is 15 years old.

Is MySpace.com now guilty of hosting Child Pornography? What about the millions of guys who right-click save these photo's on their hard drives. Are they now guilty of being in posession of Child Pornography?

What about the girl who took photo's of herself? Is she now guilty of shooting child porn?

 

[Shimmer]

There's a defense there.
If she never states her age, it's not intentional.
If she states her age, it's intentional.


Regarding myspace and being held responsible, they don't approve their photos, the way other sites do. They do have a report this photo link, as well as rules inplace.

It's a huge precedent, and I do see what you're saying.
Regardless of whether she took the pictures or not, they are sexual pictures of a minor.

If JoeBob04 doesn't know that she's fifteen, it's one thing. If she states she's fifteen, and he's carrying on w/her or RCSing, then it's another thing entirely.

 

[Raerae]

Reminds me of a Law and Order: SVU, where a girl has genetic disorder or some problem with her pituitary gland or something. Anyways shes like 18 or older i forgot (she's not a minor), but looks like she is 12. And she's in a relationship with a guy who in the show is made out to be sorta like a closet pedophile.

But anyways at the start of the episode, her parents report her to those police as missing when she doesn't come home one night (she was staying over at his place if I remember right), and show her photo to the police. At this time of course you don't know she's an adult, because when you look at the photo, all you see is a 12 year old girl. And the parents dont disclose to the police she's over 18 eigther. So SVU is called in and they treat it like a Amber Alert.

Anyways long story short, they track the guy down, dig up his past where some dirt is found that kinda hints he's a closet pedophile, but nothing substantial enough to prove it. So of course Stabler having daughters of his own is totally upset over it, as regardless of her being a legal adult, to him she's a child because of her appearance.

So the court case end up being the daughter vs her parents in a custody battle to allow her to move out (even though she is an adult). The parents arguing that because of her disease, she's not capable of living on her own (especially with an older man who's into little girls). Wheras, she's arguing that she shouldn't be treated any differently, and that she's an adult, and should be able to make her own decisions.

Regardless, the court allows her to move in with her boyfriend. Ending the episode in one of those moral quagmires that Law and Order often does, where it's hard to really see a right or a wrong answer.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer There's a defense there. If she never states her age, it's not intentional. If she states her age, it's intentional. Regarding myspace and being held responsible, they don't approve their photos, the way other sites do. They do have a report this photo link, as well as rules inplace. It's a huge precedent, and I do see what you're saying. Regardless of whether she took the pictures or not, they are sexual pictures of a minor. If JoeBob04 doesn't know that she's fifteen, it's one thing. If she states she's fifteen, and he's carrying on w/her or RCSing, then it's another thing entirely.

So assuming that these types of photos are deemed as "child porn." Would it then be illegal for any minor to take a photo of themself in a sexually sugestive pose/clothing?

Talk about murkey water heh.