I dunno if this is still the case in Holland, but there was a time when CP was legal as long as the material was not created within Holland? In other words... kids, often in third world countries were being used to create this shit.

I remember a few years back there was an "incident" when we found out a biz associate had a load of CP material for sale in his warehouse there.

Let's just say there were some backs being thrust against a wall and hands on throats :winkwink:

It's kinda like when OJ got questioned by Petrocelli in the civil trial. He just keeps lying over and over and keeps getting caught over and over. :1orglaugh

From my personal past experience, this (very sadly) is a useless and unwinnable arguement on GFY, EG, underage girls being posed (clothed or not) for explicitly sexual purposes.

Apparently, any line you draw is the same as any other line. It all smells of the double talk and rationalization used by child/teen predators to justify their actions. While many will speak out against it - evidenced in this thread- you'll also find many who will champion the cause of 15 year old Janie bent over in an almost-thong.

People who do so, thankfully, must not have kids. If you think there is no difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old, or a 15 year old and, say, a 19 year old, you've never watched a child grow up. The changes are exponential and real, not gradual.

But I'm just wasting my breath, I'm sure.

Fuck, I'm starving. I can't keep replying.

I'm not changing my argument. Every post I've made has been about one thing only- the parents who whore their kids out on websites for their own financial gain. imo, it's wrong.

And yes, there is a difference. A beauty pageant, tv show, clothing catalog, etc., are innocent situations that aren't set up to charge pedos a recurring fee to leer at kids. Of course, any sicko can turn it in to that but that is not the purpose or function of any of those things. And if it was, then that would be wrong, too.

A pedophile could watch your daughter riding her bike down the street in a tank top and shorts, and think nasty thoughts. But that's entirely different than you starting a website, putting your daughter in a skimpy outfit, setting her on the bike with her legs propped up, and then charging him a fee to look at her. One is his sickness, the other is you using your child to profit from it.

because when you watch TV, you watch mostly what they offer to you, you switch channels until you find what you like. But on internet you have to look for the sites you want more actively. For example with searching for keywords like kids in bathing suit. Who would look for that? P E D O S

Punkworld... you keep using the term "fully clothed" to defend these sites.

The girls are far from fully clothed on these sites. They're rife with thong shots, wet t-shirt shots, see through shirt shots, and tons of stuff like that. These sites do not feature the girls wearing sweaters and jeans.

Bingo! It was all the rage in early 2002. Fucking sue me! I was open for 2 months. haha! She was legal and by ccbills defintion at the time the site was too. The site is still up... I just changed the verbage, put the 2257 stuff on there, made it a nude site and thats that.

Its all in that post for 2002.

Bye

You hit that nail right on the head Holly!

It is clear most folks don't even know the extent and effects of some of this shit.

It is very damaging and sadly is not uncommon - in fact - very common. Ask any law enforcement officer who deals with this and you'll need a bag to throw up into.

I meant the things that are considered illegal in the USA.

I totally disagree. Parent's don't profit from beauty pageants. They shell out mucho, mucho, bucks. No parent putting their kid in them is doing so for monetary gain.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of beauty pageants. imo, it's mostly mothers who are trying to relive their youth through their kids, or compensating for the fact that they had a miserable childhood and weren't popular or pretty. They're messed up too, but in a different way. :1orglaugh

again your changing the argument to fit your point , i never said anything about girls in skimpy outfits or girls on bikes..

Ill make it very clear for you...

Theres a beauty pagent in california every month..

Is there a difference between charging a fee for tickets to watch a beauty pagent, and a website that displays THE EXACT SAME CONTENT on a website and charges a monthly fee or a one time ticket sale.

So what exactly is the difference ? the internet is the devil ? everything on the internet is for pedo's ?

Well, apparently unlike you, I do not generally visit those sites, so I don't exactly know what's on them...
However, imo, "fully clothed" also includes what you would see on a random day at the beach or a public pool.

Just for the record i dont agree with beauty pagents either and agree with you holly , but thats not the point .. The point is how you morally police what someone THINKS when they see something..

I'm sorry - and I'm not trying to be an ass - but I agree with Holly, and I think the comparison between the two is silly. To clarify - I think child beauty pageants are bullshit, for all kinds of reasons. But to try and say 15 year old Janey wearing a pair of wet panties with her thumb in her mouth on a non-nude site is the same as a beauty pageant... these are not the same.

Are there similarities? YES. But there are also vast, vast, vast differences, and some of those differences are the ones that are the most important.

yes they do , rich parents put there kids in beauty pagents to win a prize or for notoriety , poor parents put there kids on a website for an hourly wage.. same thing in my opinion.

I have to agree ... that is a very good point.

I have not heard anyone trying to argue that they are the same thing yet ??

One notable difference is that the pedophile can view the website in the comfort of his home whenever he wants. And the entire audience at a pagent isn't there to catch a glimpse of young girls for their own sexual gratification.

Also, a beauty pagent doesn't disply "THE EXACT SAME CONTENT" as a teen model site. I've never been to a beauty pagent, but I don't think they have wet t-shirt contest and I don't think they model in thongs and g-strings either.

I ain't been to any either, but doubt that is the case :1orglaugh

I don't generally visit those sites either, asshole. There have been many threads on this topic in the 2+ years I've been on GFY. The general consensus is that most underaged teen model sites are run exactly like 18+ non-nude sites.

Im not speaking of "most" teen sites im stating a very clear point.

Im saying EXACT same content because i mean it.. In my example i meant a website with the EXACT same content as a beauty pagent.. lets just say for the sake or agument that the website is actually just raw footage from beauty pagents , so it is EXACTLY the same content.. so the only REAL argument is that the internet is private , but that doesnt really wash either as beauty pagents are taped and can be viewed privately using tivo the exact same way

I think what I'm saying, Smoky, is that the hypothetical you are posing doesn't really exist. Sure, I think in the strictest sense, using your hypothetical, you could say that the two are the same ( beauty pageant in real life, beauty pageant on the web). I might personally disagree with it - but I'd probably hold my tongue.

Non-nude under 18 sites are not in that realm, in reality, though. The reality is extremely provocative content that specifically caters to those looking for that particular thrill. That, I have a problem with.

All the ones I have seen advertised offered cash prizes, cars, scholorships (ok for kids on that), bonds, trips, ect.

I am not a fan of pagents, under age sites, ect either so I am not trying to "justify" them. I just know that since they are legal, I really can not attempt to point at them, since many who think adult content itself is immoral and wrong could just as easily point a finger at me and my legal activities.

On another note, it does seem perfectly fine for many when young teens (15-17) enter into the world of fashion modeling (purely for profit) and it is perfectly ok that they will strut down runways in sheer seethrough material.

:1orglaugh

Seriously, though, you base your opinion on what the "general consensus" on under 18 non nude sites is?

They do allow people to record at those shows, so I would imagine the show could be as dirty as someone wanted it to be recorded, only to be viewed in the comfort of their own home.

It's better than basing my opinion on absolutely nothing like you seem to be doing.

actually they do exist

http://www.missteenusa.com/delegates/2004/files/DC.html

and you can buy photo sets from them ..

and there are several other websites with content that graduates from classy to the type of sites people mention above.. pure pedo hangouts.

What im trying to say is the line is drawn in each individuals minds, if i were to comment on a non-nude site i would have to see it first to say it was morally objectionable to me..

Who do you think buys photo sets of 16 year old girls in skimpy attire ?? i dunno , but i dont think www.missteenusa.com is evil by itself , * well actually i havent looked at the entire site , just browsed it to make a point

smokey- I'm not talking about policing what someone thinks when they see something. You can't have any control over that. Pedos are going to think sick thoughts about little girls, no matter what the situation or amount of clothing.

Let me say it once again- I'm talking about the parents who *purposely* set up websites and put their kids on them, to profit off of that sickness. That's all I'm talking about. Beauty pageants are different because that is not the intent of them, and it's not what the parent is doing.

Sure, I understand your point. But I don't think missteenusa is in the same league as your average non-nude, under 18 site. That's what I meant re: your hypothetical - you're not really going to see Miss Teen USA in the non-nude, under 18 site market that we're talking about. Why? Because, sadly, it's not going to make enough cash, as it doesn't cater to the pedos enough.

infact that site is a perfect example.. it has 15 year old girls in tight skimpy bathing suits , and sells photo sets of them..

www.missteenusa.com so lets vote , is the site evil ? should it be banned ? would you do business with them . * you might be suprised at the well known advertisers for missteenusa.

My point is , if you offered the same exact site but all the pics were quadruple zoomed in , it would be the same as most teen model sites i have seen ?

i hear what your saying but your missing the point..

www.missteenusa.com are those parents bad or good ?

No, I wouldn't do business with them. I think it's deplorable. But... your last sentence:

"My point is , if you offered the same exact site but all the pics were quadruple zoomed in , it would be the same as most teen model sites i have seen ?"

You don't see a world of difference between the two from that simple action? I do - and so there's no misunderstanding, I know where you're coming from, and I'm not calling you a pedo, etc, etc, etc. It's a good point of debate. :)

When you get to the Teen USA and Miss America level, then yeah, you can win big scholarship money. But trust me on this- parents do *not* profit off beauty pageants. The pageants are set up for one reason only- to line the pockets of the organizers. If you wanna do the pageant thing with your kid you gotta either be rich, have corporate sponsorship, or be willing to mortgage your house. The price of entry fees, dresses, sportswear, etc is enormous, not to mention air fare and hotel/food expenses. Most of the mothers are complete screwballs, too. :upsidedow

but then your only argument is how popular the contest is ?? that doesnt make any sense at all.

and i would beg to differ with you , im sure missteenusa prob sells lots of product.

Infact if you browse around that site , its not far from most teen model sites i see..

What im saying is that line is impossible to draw physically .

Its up to judgement of morals on a site by site basis , anything else leaves way to much leeway.

I base my opinion on logic, actually.

By the way, you sound a bit ticked off :1orglaugh

i totally see a difference in the two , thats not my point , my point is the line is in your mind.. example..

find a site that you dont object too , then zoom it by 1.000001 then 1.000002 and so on , at some point it becomes objectionable right ?? well how exactly do you make that rule ??

No... my arguement is that one is not as popular as the other because of the extreme difference in intent/provacativeness of the content. More the WHY of the difference in popularity.

The most popular with pedos: full nude, hardcore underage.
Next: Extremely provocative non nude, underage.
Next: Miss Teen USA, lingerie catalogs, etc.

Is the pedo going to jack off to them all? Sure. But there is a difference between where the pedos are going to cluster, in terms of volume, and there's a reason why those differences will exist. The reasons, IMO, contain all the answers from the moral standpoint that I need.

yes but i think the general point i was trying to make is that rich people get satisfaction from the notoriety etc etc and poor people get satisfaction from the money.. there is no difference. they are both exploiting children for the parents gain, be it money be it popularity, the only way to police it is in your own mind and your own morals on a site to site basis

smokey, I don't know what else to say to you. I've explained in almost every post why I think beauty pageants, tv shows, ads, etc. are different. That site was not set up by a parent to charge grown men to look at his/her young daughter. You're talking apples and oranges here. The intent of that site is entirely different that the intent of the parents I'm referring to.

NOW I HAVE TO GO GET A MEATBALL SANDWICH WITH LOTS OF MAYONNAISE FROM SUBWAY OR I AM GOING TO DIE.

I think we should debate this, the sheer idea of a meatball sandwhich with mayo sounds morally wrong.