Ethics assignment

[BrettJ]

As some of you may know... I'm in my last year at the Univ of Wash.'s Business School -
I decided to write my final paper for Ethics ...on whether or not the adult industry is ethical.

Obviously we all think it is...or we wouldn't be doing what we are doing...

Any suggestions on what I should focus on...

children accessin content
exploitin women
warpin male perception of women
no value to society....

chime in with your suggestions/commentary..

~Brett

[Techie Media]

How about "An Cyber alternative to the mainstream workplace, as a means of earning a living"

------------------
Smile and Be Happy

Lightning Free Hosting
Girls Host

[titmowse]

Well, see the thing is we are salesmen. I don't think it's really possible to find our standards any different from a cross-sampling of any other type of salesman. Truth is, salesmen are on the same lower level as lawyers and tele-marketers.

I am interested in the adult webmaster that promotes content that they (personally) would not entertain in their actual lives.

IE:
Webmasters that promote beastiality or scat content. Do these businessfolk sell this stuff because they approve of it and feel the world should be allowed to view it? Or are they posting this content (and possibly desensitizing themselves in the process) for the alimighty dollar?




------------------
tit,
Mowsebytes Porn Newsletter: Webmasters submit your sites here.

[Warphead]

I'd write the whole thing explaining the conflict of which is more unethical - porn or blue laws that legislate morality.

Use Sweden as an example - for a long time their porn laws were very restrictive, now pretty much anything goes. And their rate of sex crimes is one of the lowest in the world.

Maybe talk about the fact that most strippers are either working their way through college or a single mother. It seems to me that a woman who's willing to dance naked to provide for her kids is the kind of mother more kids need.

[Theo]

don't forget the male pornography,demonstrate both parts

------------------
Great Money Makers! Top Sponsors

[kush]

Think of it like this:

We are adult webmasters, we SAVE LIVES! Here's how I figure.... We put all this porn out onto the net and people get off on it. Because of us there's more people getting of by themselves and less people breeding. So, in a way we're promoting abstinence. Just think of all the possible STD's and sexual fuckups we have prevented, not to mention the fact that we are contributing to a lower world population which means less starving people.

Plus we're exercising our God-given right to freedom of speech and providing an essential form of entertainment to people.

My $.02

------------------
My Webmaster's Page Feel free to take a quick peek here ;)

[BrettJ]

Likin the feedback so far...

Big J - didn't understand how creatin a workforce online was an ethical/unethical issue... Let me know what you're thinkin....

TitMouse - salesmen = sleaze. So economic entities are unethical? If so why do you do what you do? I don't see anything wrong with trading value for value. Salespeople put customers in touch with a product/service that they want/need.

I'd be interested to know why beastie/scat/CP do what they do too.

Warphead - The second part where women - strippin or modeling - are building productive lives and strong family structures was something I had thought about for the part about whether porn exploits women.

We had a couple Adult Stars from Vivid, Metro Global, and Hustler at one of the conventions. They are on top of their game. At that time I was makin $25 an hour -and they were easily pullin down 100s of dollars an hour. (strippin, modeling, movies, and promotional appearances). If anything us guys are the ones gettin exploited j/k

I'll look into sweden... that could provide a solid basis for my banter.

Kush - I definately agree... at least in my case porn does provide a good outlet for sexual tension!!

All: Appreciate the responses - they are providing me with the extra insite I was lookin for. Keep it comin'

=)
~Brett

[Warphead]

Originally posted by BrettJ:
I'd be interested to know why beastie/scat/CP do what they do too.

You shouldn't put beastie and scat in the same catagory as CP. We americans are terribly offended by the weird stuff, but it's not wrong. If two consenting adults choose to shit on each other and a third gets off watching it, there's nothing wrong with that.

CP is completely different.

If you grew up in a country where animal vids are readily available you wouldn't see it that way. Don't let a cultural bias affect you.

[BrettJ]

perception is reality. perception is shaped by your culture. my cultural bias is that all of those are gross.

I should have made a clear distinction between scat and beastie/CP. While eatin poop is not a practice I'm down for...it's not an unethical/ammoral practice.

Beastie and CP ... in my book are. Children and Animals do not have the mental capacity to consent to have sex with Adults. For adults to have sex with either is wrong - regardless of what the law in your country is.

And if it is unethical to preform the acts... it's certainly unethical to distribute the pics regardless of whether you are "allowed" to.

Ethics isn't about whether it is legal or illegal in your region - it's about whether or not you should do it.

[Warphead]

Originally posted by BrettJ:
Beastie and CP ... in my book are. Children and Animals do not have the mental capacity to consent to have sex with Adults. For adults to have sex with either is wrong - regardless of what the law in your country is

When you look at it that way, you're right about the ethics of it. Law and society are rarely concerned with ethics.

I don't agree with you because we starve chickens so they'll lay more eggs and the method we use to kill cows is only 70% effective (30% of the animals are then dismembered alive because it's expensive to make sure they're dead)

I don't think there's a society on earth that really cares what animals consent to. And comparitively, being used in a porn flick is a damn sight better then being kept in a box then skinned alive. So in my mind, it's ok to suck the bull's dick, just don't set fire to him and watch him run through the streets.

I do respect your opinion though, comparing animals to children makes you (in my opinion) very ethical.

[BrettJ]

Kewl =)

Now let me tackle the chicken/cow issue.

I assume people should be allowed to eat meat. If you don't...the rest of my argument won't hold water. But I like salmon, steak, ribs, burgers, spagetti and the rest...So that's where i'm comin from.

I agree that mistreatin/abusing an animal is wrong. It's my understandin that they are. I know McDonalds is forcing it's suppliers to provide a high level of treatment for the animals under their care.

It kind of sounds like you are sayin.... well they are mistreatin them...and this is better mistreatment ... so it's okay.

I guess I could see a couple scenarios where the animal probably isn't really "being mistreated" ...Like the cases I've heard of where a woman will spread peanut butter on her pussy to have her dog lick it off. Maybe the dog doesn't mind that... he doesn't know that he is having sex... hell they lick your face all the time. Maybe that's not a huge deal. But when a guy pins a dog down and starts layin into it... and the dog is skirming away... that's animal rape

I couldn't defend that.

~brett

[Rivux]

Originally posted by kush:
Think of it like this:
Plus we're exercising our God-given right to freedom of speech and providing an essential form of entertainment to people.

I don't want to be the bad one here, but since when was freedom of speech a God-given right? Nothing is a God-given right, we have to fight for everything that we think is our right, and there will be people who are willing to fight just as hard to not allow what we think is our right. This applies to porn as well.

You can talk about the arguements for porn, they are the same arguements for pretty much anything, drugs, alcohol and so on. For every person that enjoys it, there is another who thinks that it should be banned.

The other issue is that everyone has a different definition of porn. Some people when they hear it, think of hardcore girl/guy, well others may think of naked posers. So defending it is difficult since you have to defend so many things.

I am for most kinds of porn, I think that when it involves adults who are able to make rational decisions then it should be fine.

Anyways, it should be a good final paper, can't wait to read it.

------------------
It wasn't me occifer

[ZaHa]

Go to www.oppapers.com and get an essay.


------------------
---ZaHa---

[BrettJ]

valid points Rivux - seems like you're playin devil's advocate - so i'll just leave it at that.

zaha - plagerizing an ethics paper. good call ;-)

[kush]

Rivux,
OK, maybe not God-given right but it is definately an American given right. My ancestors fought and died for our freedom from England, and one of the things they died for is our freedom of speech. Screw the English and their damn Stamp Acts and Tea Act and all that shit...

So it's an American given right....

(by the way I notice you're from Canada and I'm not bashing that in any way, I actually have an uncle who lives in Calgary and that's BEAUTIFUL countryside! But as a recall, there was no rebellion resulting in bloodshed in Canada with England from a fight for independence)

Great discussion we got going here...

------------------
My Webmaster's Page Feel free to take a quick peek here ;)

[UnseenWorld]

Plato posited an ethical conundrum called "The Ring of Geiges." In a nutshell, here it is: Geiges found a ring which, when he wore it one way, he was visible, but when he rotated it, it made him invisible. While invisible, he could do all kinds of bad things undetected. He could steal, rape, murder, whatever he felt like doing. Now, the question is, why shouldn't he use the advantage this ring gave him?

Plato's Socrates could think of no reason except this: When you live a life of deception, you make yourself alone in the world. You may physically be with other people, but in a more profound sense, you are alone.

I don't know who coined it, but I like this saying: "Character is what you have when the lights go out."

A lot of people in our business are doing things they don't want others both in and out of the industry to know about. This is something about themselves they'd be very smart to question.

------------------
Producer of truly original teen/young woman-oriented adult content at Wonders of the Unseen World

[Warphead]

Originally posted by BrettJ:
I assume people should be allowed to eat meat. If you don't...

I know McDonalds is forcing it's suppliers to provide a high level of treatment for the animals under their care.

I don't eat meat Brett, because I can't be a part of any of the things I talked about above. As a moral issue I don't think eating meat is wrong, it's completely natural. If were treated like living things then one day killed I'd eat them. But that's never going to happen because it's not as cheap as "factory farming".

McDonalds did just recently change their policies about how their animals were treated, but don't be thinking they're a good guy in this, they've been starving the chickens for the last 20 years. They're still factory farming, but they aren't doing the "forced molting" anymore and they claim they're going to have regular inspections of their meat-plants.

Also the only reason they've done any of this is PETA has been running a "McCruelty" campaign that finally started to worry them.

The other big fast-food chains followed their lead except for Burger King.

[Warphead]

Originally posted by BrettJ:
It kind of sounds like you are sayin.... well they are mistreatin them...and this is better mistreatment ... so it's okay~brett

I'm not saying it's ok, I'm just saying it could be a lot worse.

[Warphead]

That's a very thoughtful post, Unseenworld. On the charactor note I'll quote a Chinese proverb:

He that stands straight need never fear a crooked shadow.

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by kush:
But as a recall, there was no rebellion resulting in bloodshed in Canada with England from a fight for independence)

Kush, you ever hear of a guy called Louis Riel? Likely not, but his story is considered by many historians to be Canada's civil war. The Americans during that time were very much self-absorbed with their own flamboyant history unfolding....imagine that.
<font face="Arial">___________
CD
* <a href="http://www4.smutserver.com/babes/bgnetwork/submit.html" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#27FFFC">Babe Galleries Network</font></a> < -- submit galleries here
* <a href="http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin/refer.cgi?ref=cdsmithok" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#CBE6FF">60% of all signups, 40% of all rebills</font></a> + High Quality free content, mthly cash bonuses
* <a href="http://members.home.net/cyberdogs/Anti-Censorship%20Site/" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#FFCCCC">Sites Against Censorship</a><font color="#EDDDDD"> Support us, support your future</font></font>

[BrettJ]

warphead - that's cool man. I can respect that. I honestly don't know enough about the issue - to say one way or the other whether these meat companies are evil.

The ancients sure packed a lot of wisdom in a few simple words =)

I feel like grabbin The Cave, ah but I have a 15 page paper to write for Operations on Supply Chain Managment. Maybe this weekend =)

[jimmy-three-way]

If you need info for your paper write me, I can give you an earful about the 'exploitation' of women in the porn business.

------------------
[email protected]

Topcash - $40 per whatever, blah, blah; you know who we are, I won't spam you in my sig.

[Warphead]

Brett I'm chock full of info about animal abuse, my sister works for PETA.

(I was actually a vegetarian before that though)

[JAC]

Have you been sitting out back in the sun too long today Brett? )

Congrats on almost getting outa UW...

[Theo]

i wish i could be a vegetarian too and it's too hard + i know that certain ingredients and vitamins do not exist on vegetables and are "necessary" for the human body like creatine. (bodybuilding experience hehe)

I don't find wrong scat or beastiality, but of course i don't like them. CP is another issue.These bastards destroy kid souls,kid murders. The last decade we had 2 animals that raped young kids in Greece,both suicide after a while on the prison, the rest prisoners made their living there a real hell.

------------------
Great Money Makers! Top Sponsors

[Warphead]

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel:
The last decade we had 2 animals that raped young kids in Greece,both suicide after a while on the prison, the rest prisoners made their living there a real hell.

Sounds like justice to me.

I thought creatine was a suppliment?

[MelissaD]

Ethics - mmm

children accessing porn.. and 1st amendment rights.

I was in a meeting with two non parents the other day and this topic came up and believe it or not we all agreed.

We all know that the "child protection against porn" act is up before the supreme court soon and the lines are be drawn in the sand regarding 1st amendment rights. But I disagree - here's my thinking on it.

Its not about 1st amendment its about the government raising our children, the government telling parents what they can and can not let their children see or read etc.

What happened to me being responsible for raising my own child and taking responsibility for controlling what my child sees? I don't remember voting on a law that says the government is responsible for my child?

Look kids have been sneaking playboys etc forever from trash cans, under brother/father's bed. Porn isn't going to go away, and no matter how many safeguards we put into affect they are still going to look at it.

I believe that its the responsibility of the parent to discuss, monitor, etc their children?s online activities, not the governments.

Bottom line in this rant and rave is this - who do you want to raise your kids? You or the US Government? What is the saying .....

And the pursuit of happiness.




------------------
Melissa Davies
[email protected]
www.BillinGuru.com
954 856-3071 mobile
954 227-0926 office
954 827-0335 fax
15566387 ICQ

When it comes to your money, you need to see the whole picture.....

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by jimmy-three-way:
I can give you an earful about the 'exploitation' of women in the porn business.

I'd like to add some thoughts on that. I see that theory as a two-edged sword in that both sides can make strong cases of who is actually being exploited. Those that think women are exploited by the porn biz will say that women are being used and degraded in order for porn to be profitable....which to some degree is very true.

BUT (and there's always a but), those that oppose would say that most adult women that participate in porn either do it freely and willingly, and/or they do it for monetary gain, many of which live in a far higher standard of living than many other people will ever experience.

Question: Can you justify calling it "exploitation of women" when the women are:
A) of legal age of consent
B) desirous of participating
C) able to make a lucrative living
D) all of the above

I see it as a give-and-take situation, where

I place an ad in the paper for models,
a number of women choose to express their interest by calling,
I choose the ones I want to work with,
and I pay them for their time and talent.

It's rather symbiotic in nature really, in that these women would not have the income opportunities that they now enjoy without the porn biz, and the porn biz would not exist without these women.

Conclusion: I see no exploitation in this industry, except in cases where the participant is forced into it or coerced under duress, or in cases where the participant lacks the mental capacity or maturity to choose to participate.

Solution: For mature minds, the solution is relatively simple; If someone doesn't want to do it...don't do it. If they don't want to view it, don't view it.
<font face="Arial">___________
CD
* <a href="http://www4.smutserver.com/babes/bgnetwork/submit.html" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#27FFFC">Babe Galleries Network</font></a> < -- submit galleries here
* <a href="http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin/refer.cgi?ref=cdsmithok" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#CBE6FF">60% of all signups, 40% of all rebills</font></a> + High Quality free content, mthly cash bonuses
* <a href="http://members.home.net/cyberdogs/Anti-Censorship%20Site/" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#FFCCCC">Sites Against Censorship</a><font color="#EDDDDD"> Support us, support your future</font></font>

[Rivux]

Originally posted by MelissaD:
...I don't remember voting on a law that says the government is responsible for my child?

I think that the government has to take some responsibility when it comes to raising our youth. If you want the gov't to be there when things are bad (unemployment, sickness, crime) then you have to be able to take some guidance from them.

This may not be the best analogy, but think of it as an insurance company. Every insurance company says "If you smoke, or drink or do this or that, then we will only give you this much coverage. And if you want more coverage for less money, then you have to do the following things"

The government is our security blanket(insurance). When things are great and we are healthy and happy, then we have no need for them. But when things turn bad, we turn to them in some form, so I think they should be able to lay some ground rules.

My 2 cents.


------------------
It wasn't me occifer

[UnseenWorld]

As a producer of content involving nude women in erotic poses and/or situations, I've had to think a lot about the exploitation of women (esp. since I have an advanced degree in philosophy, and ethics is something I think about a lot).

First, on the word "exploit." Exploitation has two primary meanings, but the word is often used as though it has only one. One meaning is simply a synonym for "to use," the other is "to take unfair advantage."

When you buy photography from me, you exploit me in terms of my talent for photography. In other words, you *use* my talent.

If you work for a company, your company exploits your skills, but not necessarily in a bad sense.

Likewise, when I hire a model, she is fully informed. She knows in advance what is expected, she gets to read the release before signing it, and I respect the limits she sets (although I make sure to know them before I decide to work with her). And the fact is, she is free to walk away from the situation instead of accepting it.

I work with sober girls who are old enough (according to our legal system) to make contractual and sexual decisions.

True, I make more than the model, but I'm the one with expensive equipment, I'm the one who prepares the photos for distribution, I'm the one developing business contacts, and I'm the one who is really at legal risk (I've never heard of models being thrown into jail on porn charges, just photographers and distributors of various sorts). By contrast, the model simply shows up and gives up a few hours of her time at an hourly rate she finds acceptable.

However, I understand that there are photographers and videographers who specialize in finding girls in desperate straits, who are willing to do almost anything for drug money, who are doing it under pressure from a partner (male or, sometimes I suppose, female), and this indeed is unethical. This is exploitation in the bad sense.

Sometimes, I have two models around at the same time, and I listen to them when they are talking to each other and aren't thinking that I'm there. From what they say, most of the girls I work with pose because "It's fun!" (they're exhibitionists) and also because it's a way to make in 2 or 3 hours what it'd take them 2 or 3 days to make at a low-wage job.

My point is, yes, there is exploitation of women in porn (especially in the hard-core area, where there is no real pretense that the female is looking pretty or sexy and is merely a sperm receptacle). Yes, she may have an alluring expression on her face, but we all know that this is not how women actually look when they have a cock up their butt.


------------------
Producer of truly original teen/young woman-oriented adult content at Wonders of the Unseen World

[CDSmith]

Unseen world --

If there is ever a bible written for this industry, your post should be included in the gospel

Damn good job in saying what I was thinking.
<font face="Arial">___________
CD
* <a href="http://www4.smutserver.com/babes/bgnetwork/submit.html" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#27FFFC">Babe Galleries Network</font></a> < -- submit galleries here
* <a href="http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin/refer.cgi?ref=cdsmithok" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#CBE6FF">60% of all signups, 40% of all rebills</font></a> + High Quality free content, mthly cash bonuses
* <a href="http://members.home.net/cyberdogs/Anti-Censorship%20Site/" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#FFCCCC">Sites Against Censorship</a><font color="#EDDDDD"> Support us, support your future</font></font>

[BrettJ]

You make it sound like I never work, Joe

Melissa - if the gov't says your kids can't look at smut...but you want them to... you can get away with it in the privacy of your own house. It's like parents that let their kids drink. You are the parent - you make the call.

But if kids can't access internet porn...that's not gonna break my heart ... they aren't paying for anything so bandwidth bills will go down and conversions will go up.

sure growing up.. it was part of comin of age...that you stole a playboy...and eventually found a hustler... but some of the stuff on the net fucks with even my head. I don't think an 8 year old really needs to see some of this stuff just yet.

I would like to see some fences set up to keep kids out...It's a difficult issue because I value the freedoms we have... but don't you think some limits should be in place? at least for kids? (we don't let them see R rated movies with out parents)

your thoughts?

[BrettJ]

Addin to that... my niece is 8 now. She's still so young.. She's got her whole life to fuck up. For now she should continue to ride her bike around the neighborhood... play games with the neighbor kids...and drink koolaid.

Let's try and see if we can let our kids have a childhood with out bombarding them with all the issues adults have to deal with.
(hell i'd like to see TV before 9 pm get a whole lot tamer too...)

Fuck I'm 23 and already I'm starting to sound like a Prude.

[titmowse]

The beauty of this internet explosion is that for a brief moment, the tools are in the hands of everyman.

In past times, exploitation of women and porn walked hand in hand. Organized crime and porn walked hand in hand. But, that was the past.

Now, a woman can get on the comp, take her own damned pictures, post them on her own damned website and make her own damned money.

I don't think porn in it's essence devalues or demoralizes women. I think the WAY the porn is portrayed that comes into play.

I do not promote sponsors that sell teen, upskirt, scat, midget, preggo or beastiality content. This is my choice. I don't like this content and I don't want to look at it.

I still ask about my originl point: do some adult webmasters sell the above mentioned content because they like it, or because it makes them $$$$?

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by BrettJ:
I would like to see some fences set up to keep kids out...It's a difficult issue because I value the freedoms we have... but don't you think some limits should be in place? at least for kids? (we don't let them see R rated movies with out parents)

your thoughts?

I've always said that it is the role and responsability of the parent to act as the very barrier/fence/limit you speak of Brett, and not the role of the webmaster. Before I elaborate, I'll first deal with your other comment, the one about R rated movies. I beg to differ, as there are lots of R rated movies shown on open television nowadays. True it's mostly late at night, but who can honestly say that all parents everywhere are preventing their kids from viewing such material. Also, why is it that the tv networks can get away with a simple pre-warning like "the following production contains scenes of violence, nudity and course language, viewer discretion is advised" and yet for a free site with literally the SAME content a similar warning is deemed insufficient? I am sensing a double-standard here, is anyone else? At least with the website warning, no one can initially access the site WITHOUT seeing the warning. With the TV network's pre-warning, what if you tune in a few seconds AFTER the warning? Does that not make it redundant?

Just as the new VCR's are coming out now with filtering gadgets to block certain types of innapropriate programs for kids, so too do many of us actively promote and encourage parents to obtain similar programs from one of the various screening services. For now, that's about all we can do, and rightly so I might add. This brings me back to my original point, which was that it is not the role of the adult webmaster to babysit anyone's kids. That's the parents job, always has been, always will be.

tit --
I believe the answer is "both". I'm sure there are those webmasters that simply have a great fascination or strong fetish for those types of content, and they have found a way to commiserate with other like-minded souls by making use of the internet. Others simply seek to supply a service to those that are looking for it, and hopefully make a profit from them. I don't see a big mystery there, in one case it's a need to belong, and in the other it's based on the law of 'supply and demand'.

Then there are webmasters like us, that choose to go with their own tastes and values, and only promote that which they deem appealing or at least merely acceptable.
Now fire up the music, I want you for this dance luv
<font face="Arial">___________
CD
* <a href="http://www4.smutserver.com/babes/bgnetwork/submit.html" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#27FFFC">Babe Galleries Network</font></a> < -- submit galleries here
* <a href="http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin/refer.cgi?ref=cdsmithok" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#CBE6FF">60% of all signups, 40% of all rebills</font></a> + High Quality free content, mthly cash bonuses
* <a href="http://members.home.net/cyberdogs/Anti-Censorship%20Site/" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#FFCCCC">Sites Against Censorship</a><font color="#EDDDDD"> Support us, support your future</font></font>

[BrettJ]

It's definately the parents job.

For the most part the TV is responsible... in that it does warn...and it does put it's more mature programmin on later at night.

I see the parrell betwen adult warning pages and TV warnings. Not just for financial reasons...bur overall social value... some content should be locked behind avs/members areas.

There was a case in Bellingham WA where a guy had a store that sold magazines. He got a hold of this one that depicted tortuer and death scenes. The police came and said he would have to put it behind the counter.... his reaction... he put it in the front window for all passerbys to see.

I don't know if i would or wouldn't sell that magazine in question... BUT if it were your store where would you have put it?

On a shelf on display
Under the counter so people would have to ask for it by name.
In the front window for all to see (even children)
or On a shalf/behind counter but with a board covering up all but the title (like they do for playboys and cosmos.

If i choose to sell it ... I would have choose the last one.

I think that's the most responsible way to handle a product of a mature/sensitive nature. TV executives and webmasters should realize that they are "public" properties... as such... you do influence the people that visit your site. Whether you like it or not... you are responsible for your words/actions/choices and their outcomes.

my $1.12 cents

[Warphead]

Originally posted by titmowse:
I do not promote sponsors that sell teen, upskirt, scat, midget, preggo or beastiality content. This is my choice. I don't like this content and I don't want to look at it.
I still ask about my originl point: do some adult webmasters sell the above mentioned content because they like it, or because it makes them $$$$?

C'mon Tit, you're putting preggo in with bestiality?

I used to agree with you about teen, I thought the idea behind was wrong, so I wouldn't touch it. But one day I looked it over and realized that for alot of people, what's known as "teen" is a young woman, light on the make-up, no implants and usually a great face. It's kind of a backlash from the Playboy, silicon, barbie-doll look. So now I have a teen site, but it's not a LOLITA site. Lolita is when they're selling the idea of the girls being underage - I don't like that.

Are you saying you think preggo and midget are gross, or wrong? I don't have any particular interest in either, but if the woman is really attractive I like it just fine.

[titmowse]

no, i don't think preggo and midget are wrong. I just don't like to look at it. i do not approve of upskirt where they have pics of unsuspecting women. I feel that's illegal and wrong, the same with bathroom shots.

Yes, the line of demarcation is hard to see with teen content. I also stay away from words like lolita and tiny.

from a surfer point of view, i would hope that folks look for preggo and midget stuff, because it gets them off. but to hear some of these webmasters talk derrogetorily about the models of such content...well...i guess that's just salesmen i guess...

[UnseenWorld]

I don't understand the problem with "teen" content, as long as the girls are of legal age. If the argument is that they can't make an adult decision at 18 or 19, then we need to adjust the age of consent accordingly, because that is what the age of consent laws are supposed to imply. At the same time, then, 18 and 19 year old boys shouldn't be allowed to join the armed forces, because, like the girls there are just stupid children who can't make decisions for themselves.

If the argument is that there is something wrong with older men enjoying the beauty of young women, this is absurd, all the more because it's something that will never change. And wanting to change something that isn't going to change is a bit pathetic, I think.

------------------
Producer of truly original teen/young woman-oriented adult content at Wonders of the Unseen World

[titmowse]

that sounds good in theory mr. unseen. but then i see a model like the infamous jenny. sure she's of age, but she LOOKS 14. in my opinion, she draws an audience that i don't want anything to do with.

it's one thing to want to see beautiful youth. it's another to want to see girls that appear to be underage.

[Warphead]

Titmouse,
I don't care for the voyeur stuff either. I definately agree with you on the "salesmen". I don't think porn has to be degrading, and I don't really like it when it is.

Unseenworld,
I'm talking more about the packaging than the models. If you show me a picture of a beautiful 18 year old naked and smiling, that's what I like on my "teen" site. But when it's implied that she's 14 and instead of smiling she looks a little scared - that's more disturbing than arousing.

[UnseenWorld]

I have a clause in my license that forbids implying that a model is underage, although it's there as much for my protection as for anything else, because the girls I shoot are all documented to be 18 or older.

Now, I have several models who look quite young, and it's simply a fact that girls mature at different rates. So, simply because a girl looks like she's fifteen, she may also look like she's 19, because just as some 19 year olds can look 15, so can some 15 year olds look 19. This is where the expression "jailbait" comes from.

Because of this, I'm not sure what "looking underage" means, unless it's a 19 year old girl in a diaper sucking her thumb, but everyone would recognize that as kind of a sick joke, not an instance of pedophilia. Check out my model Kitty (forgive the buttonized look, they are being used in a site design and I'm simply linking to them):
http://207.235.4.65/sitegrph/kitblip11.jpg

How old is she? Does she look underage? I suppose you could say so, because, as I said, no one looks like a specific age, they look like an age range. In fact, the isn't even 18 here, she's 19. She's not dressed up in preteen-looking clothing or anything else to convince you she's underage, she just looks awfully young. Doesn't she have a right to work as a model looking as she actually looks?

Here's another model, Kelly:
http://207.235.4.65/sitegrph/kellblip3.jpg

Once again, she's 19. Are you going to say, "You can't work as a model: You look too young"? Or are you going to try to get me jailed because I gave her work she wanted to have?

I hear a lot of people rumbling against the "teen" thing, but I hear very little practical to do about it, that wouldn't interfere with some very cherished rights, like freedom of expression and the right to work.

------------------
Producer of truly original teen/young woman-oriented adult content at Wonders of the Unseen World

[Paul Markham]

Lensman is a hypocrite


The Revive Juicybone Now Coalition