Presley ONeil wrote:

Nooo of course not I lovez you❤
^.^

Oh noes, I've been enamored by a 16 year old....

Karl Blessing wrote:
I wonder how many of the models in the teen/young-adult lingerie sections are actually under 18? The actual age doesn't seem to really matter if they still come across as the advertised demographic.

And in regards to shooting someone underage in underwear... unless you're actually working for the clothing line or the department stores etc it probably wouldn't be the best idea to shoot them as such.

You are wrong about assuming the ages .. I know of 11 and 12 year olds doing catalog work in New York, but of course they are either with an agency or looking for one.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

What is so horrible about it?  The images are very typical of the same images that myself and other photographers have been shooting for decades of teens for model zed cards or advertising.  The ONLY difference is that now those images are being uploaded to a website and whomever it is that would find it worth while can pay to subscribe to the website.  It's not porn, BUT if it were, there'd be a database for easy pickings for the FBI to use.

Patrick there is absolutely something wrong with that website. If someone pays to see half naked teenagers(some not even) looking uncomfortable then there's something seriously wrong with them.

The FBI thing is a good point, but it doesn't justify the site existing...

Patrick Walberg wrote:

What is so horrible about it?  The images are very typical of the same images that myself and other photographers have been shooting for decades of teens for model zed cards or advertising.  The ONLY difference is that now those images are being uploaded to a website and whomever it is that would find it worth while can pay to subscribe to the website.  It's not porn, BUT if it were, there'd be a database for easy pickings for the FBI to use.

Patrick there is absolutely something wrong with that website. If someone pays to see half naked teenagers(some not even) looking uncomfortable then there's something seriously wrong with them.

The FBI thing is a good point, but it doesn't justify the site existing...

DougBPhoto wrote:

If you're shooting those photos for advertising or model zed cards, that is a very reasonable, legitimate, and accepted thing to do, and most reasonable and prudent people would not question your intent.

Now, if you do the same exact shots but sell them to a web site whose purpose is catering to adults who become sexually aroused by looking at underage women in their underwear, that IS VERY different, even if the photos are identical.

Sure, it may make things easier for the FBI, but if the idea of GWC's creating spank banks of images of women who are over 18 is creepy, then how is it not even creepier when people are shooting images of girls under 18 for the same purpose.

What's so horrible about it?

If you don't see anything wrong with producing spank bank content for those who get off on under-18, then trying to explain to you what is so horrible about it would probably be an exercise in futility.

Our government has tried it's best to shut down websites that many people including Oprah Winfrey have "judged" to be websites meant to cater to "spank bank material!"  Why are they unsuccessful?  Because the images that we are speaking of ... that are seen in department store catalogs, or on Facebook now .. are exactly the same "content" that you may find on those websites.  There is absolutely NO WAY to prove that any images .. be it a woman or girl or a dog or cat, or a turtle ... or even a car .. MIGHT be "spanked" to.   The issue here is not about morality, but about money. 

I was in the midst's of the whole public storm when I was working for a credit card transaction processing provider that got shut down effectively because our United States government is influenced by a powerful lobby put together by Paypal (Ebay) and CCBill which are the two most dominate credit card transaction providers along with the credit card providers themselves which are Visa, MC and AE..  Companies like iBill are hardly noticed anymore.  So with an agreement with our government the credit card corporations got together and squeezed out the teen model sites by not allowing them a merchant account.  Some website owners like the guy who owns TTB got around it.

If the images were illegal, don't you think a lot of us photographers would be in jail or prisons?   A 16 or 17 year old can be photographed in underwear without it be a crime.  It is also the same exact content be it in a catalog or on a paysite.

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
You have to look at the intent. Child pornography is NOT showing your private parts. Child pornography is photographing a child in a sexually implicit manner. You can have your cloths on and still have it being child pornography and you can have your cloths off and have it not be. It is somewhat the style and a lot of it is the intent.

Shooting the same photo for Macy's and Teenagebimboswithbigboobs.com may have very different outcomes. Likewise, if he shot you in a full parka for a girls-in-parkas fetish site, it would be illegal. Granted, it would be impossible to convict for that but it still would be against the law.

It is also NOT illegal to shoot people under 18. There are thousands of photographers in the US who do it every day. I've shot hundreds of them, myself, but I don't shoot them in a sexual manner.

If you don't believe me, click this link. It is full frontal nudity of a young girl. It is also NOT child pornography. I am not marking it 18+ because it is not an 18+ image.
http://roberttracyphdart160fall2011.fil … dams-2.jpg
The photographer won a Pulitzer prize, not for this particular photo but for one of that era.

Here's a final example/paradox for you if you think that any image of a teenage girl with her boobs hanging out is child-porn. Picture that a girl was walking topless down a street in New York. The image is captured by a security camera. Is there any illegal activity there? No. In New York a female can legally walk around topless. The camera captures it, but there is no sexual intent. There's nothing illegal here.

Don't worry about the illegality of it. You're not the one going to go to jail. Even if it's legal, wonder if you really want to do it. Instead, worry about what you parents will think. Worry about what will happen when the kids in school find out about it. Worry about what will happen when you apply for jobs. Worry about how the picture will come back to haunt you.  Worry about your future. Worry about his intentions.  Wonder if you will be able to point out the picture to someone and proudly say, "This is me!"  If it's in Macy's ad, you're fine. If its on someone semi-porn site, then worry.

My suggestion is simply, down worry if it's legal and don't do something just because it's legal. Do the right thing. At your age, that's probably keeping your cloths on and being conservative.

I've been saying the same things you are saying. 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
You are wrong about assuming the ages .. I know of 11 and 12 year olds doing catalog work in New York, but of course they are either with an agency or looking for one.

i call bullshit.   that's just plain puffery.

adolescent imaging in underwear isn't booked through agencies.  that age group is depicted with product only by any company using a legitimate agency for their marketing presentation.

teens are depicted by those who are still teens, that being 18/19 that can give appearance of those in the 16/17 bracket, but the products showcased are the focus, not the model.

Presley ONeil wrote:

Patrick there is absolutely something wrong with that website. If someone pays to see half naked teenagers(some not even) looking uncomfortable then there's something seriously wrong with them.

The FBI thing is a good point, but it doesn't justify the site existing...

You are making a judgement call, and I respect your opinion, but I don't see the models as "half naked" nor do I see the models looking uncomfortable.   I am not an advocate for that website, but I am an advocate for freedom of speech and for artists to be able to express themselves.  If the FBI thought that he was doing anything illegal with his models on that website, it would have been shut down, but it is still going after several years.  The owner also has a website for models who are of adult age, and many of his models on the teen site go on to shoot for his adult site.  I imagine he pays well?

However I do not understand something ... what exactly does "justify" the existence of a website?

Patrick Walberg wrote:

What is so horrible about it?  The images are very typical of the same images that myself and other photographers have been shooting for decades of teens for model zed cards or advertising.  The ONLY difference is that now those images are being uploaded to a website and whomever it is that would find it worth while can pay to subscribe to the website.  It's not porn, BUT if it were, there'd be a database for easy pickings for the FBI to use.

You personally have been shooting under 18 in undies for decades, and of course that website is alright?

Name two commerical clients you've shot catalogue work for of this type of material.

Get fucken serious Patrick.....

Patrick Walberg wrote:

What is so horrible about it?  The images are very typical of the same images that myself and other photographers have been shooting for decades of teens for model zed cards or advertising.  The ONLY difference is that now those images are being uploaded to a website and whomever it is that would find it worth while can pay to subscribe to the website.  It's not porn, BUT if it were, there'd be a database for easy pickings for the FBI to use.

Patrick I have to disagree. In the context of this site the images are porn. People don't join the site for any other reason than sexual excitement. So not only porn, but child porn too.

Like most men I like nothing more than the female form, I'm genetically pre-disposed to do so, however I abhor the pre-sexualization of children that teen magazines and the rest of the media seems to think is OK. Let children be children and grow up at their own speed.

291 wrote:

i call bullshit.   that's just plain puffery.

adolescent imaging in underwear isn't booked through agencies.  that age group is depicted with product only by any company using a legitimate agency for their marketing presentation.

teens are depicted by those who are still teens, that being 18/19 that can give appearance of those in the 16/17 bracket, but the products showcased are the focus, not the model.

Really?  Bullshit?  So you actually are saying that agencies are not send out under 18 year olds to do the modleing of clothing worn by under 18 year olds?  Why do they sign 15 year olds for fashion then?  When it comes to clothing for children, do they send someone who is a teenager to pose in clothing .. including underwear worn by preteens?  I think not!

You are not in the industry, are you?  You don't have connections at Fords or Elite, do you?  I do!  You can think what you want, but I've been shooting for 30 years now, starting when I was a teen.  I don't pull on my connections because they are far away, but I have sent some under aged models with their parents to "go see's' with the top two agencies.  I run my own casting calls.  But that's my business, not yours.  Have some respect before you go calling what I say "Bullshit" ok?

Lawrence Guy wrote:

What kind of website? Is it selling underwear for teens, or pics of teens in underwear? If the latter, it sounds pretty sleazy.

Yeh.... it does.

>_>

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Our government has tried it's best to shut down websites that many people including Oprah Winfrey have "judged" to be websites meant to cater to "spank bank material!"  Why are they unsuccessful?  Because the images that we are speaking of ... that are seen in department store catalogs, or on Facebook now .. are exactly the same "content" that you may find on those websites.  There is absolutely NO WAY to prove that any images .. be it a woman or girl or a dog or cat, or a turtle ... or even a car .. MIGHT be "spanked" to.   The issue here is not about morality, but about money. 

I was in the midst's of the whole public storm when I was working for a credit card transaction processing provider that got shut down effectively because our United States government is influenced by a powerful lobby put together by Paypal (Ebay) and CCBill which are the two most dominate credit card transaction providers along with the credit card providers themselves which are Visa, MC and AE..  Companies like iBill are hardly noticed anymore.  So with an agreement with our government the credit card corporations got together and squeezed out the teen model sites by not allowing them a merchant account.  Some website owners like the guy who owns TTB got around it.

If the images were illegal, don't you think a lot of us photographers would be in jail or prisons?   A 16 or 17 year old can be photographed in underwear without it be a crime.  It is also the same exact content be it in a catalog or on a paysite.

That is all well and good, but how about discussing what you said here:

Patrick Walberg wrote:
What is so horrible about it?  The images are very typical of the same images that myself and other photographers have been shooting for decades of teens for model zed cards or advertising.  The ONLY difference is that now those images are being uploaded to a website and whomever it is that would find it worth while can pay to subscribe to the website.  It's not porn, BUT if it were, there'd be a database for easy pickings for the FBI to use.

What is so horrible about it?

As you said above, you may not see a problem with it, and as a matter of free speech, you're certainly free to express your beliefs of what is okay and what isn't.

That said, in both cases, it sure sounds like you're saying that you don't see anything wrong with photographing underage girls for the purpose of producing spank bank material for those people that sort of thing appeals to.  Not "might" be, but are intended to be.

It really isn't a question of what is legal or isn't legal, the point is that you said "what is so horrible about it" and there are probably others who would agree with you...

Personally, if you can't grasp what is wrong with photographing underage girls (or boys) for sexual gratification, then I really don't know what to say to help you to understand.

For a lot of people it isn't something as simple as what is legal or is not legal, it is about how most people think that it is pretty creepy and disgusting, both to get turned on by that sort of thing, and/or to intentionally create content for those who are turned on by underage girls.

I can't speak for the OP, but I suspect there might be some girls who might feel rather creeped out about their photos being taken for that purpose, even if they are getting paid.

You may not see anything wrong with it, but I suspect most people DO see something wrong with shooting photos of underage girls with the intent of them being used for spank banks.

Cherrystone wrote:
You personally have been shooting under 18 in undies for decades, and of course that website is alright?

Name two commerical clients you've shot catalogue work for of this type of material.

Get fucken serious Patrick.....

Anything I've shot in the past for "print" is not on the Internet.   It was for "print work" ... and not websites.   It is a fact that I have not shot for a commercial client dealing with youth clothing since the late 1990's ... before the huge surge of social networking on websites.  I'll leave it at that.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

What is so horrible about it?  The images are very typical of the same images that myself and other photographers have been shooting for decades of teens for model zed cards or advertising.  The ONLY difference is that now those images are being uploaded to a website and whomever it is that would find it worth while can pay to subscribe to the website.  It's not porn, BUT if it were, there'd be a database for easy pickings for the FBI to use.

oh come on Patrick don't be fucking naive.

you know what that site is about.

Gryph wrote:

Oh noes, I've been enamored by a 16 year old....

Shutup you love me and you know it(-:

ARA Photo wrote:
Patrick I have to disagree. In the context of this site the images are porn. People don't join the site for any other reason than sexual excitement. So not only porn, but child porn too.

Like most men I like nothing more than the female form, I'm genetically pre-disposed to do so, however I abhor the pre-sexualization of children that teen magazines and the rest of the media seems to think is OK. Let children be children and grow up at their own speed.

Maybe I'm just immune to this sexual excitement you seem to think is there, but I know for a fact that not everyone "joins" a website for the same reason.  I had to go through and approve or decline modeling websites for credit card merchant accounts, and I've seen hundreds of model websites for free because of that process.  There are some God awful model sites out there which tried to get billing .. and even if they did, the site went under anyway because of many reasons ranging from poor photography, unattractive models, to laziness on the part of the webmaster or model.  Many quit after the first month or two ... 90% are gone in 6 months. 

I agree with you about the sexualization of children, but as young as age 15 or 16, many of these teens have already had sex, and it's nothing new to them.  In the perfect World, I wish every child could grow up in a great home environment surrounded by loving parents and family, but it is not a perfect World, now is it?  Is our society any better or worse than it was a hundred years ago?  There were 12 year olds were getting married back in the 1800's but that was a different time.  There were no labor laws regarding children back then, and no child protective services.  In the early 1900's was when children started to gain protective rights.  In my opinion, today is a much better time to grow up than back 100 years ago, but then I'm biased towards progress.  How are 16 year olds any different today than they were when you and I grew up?  The obvious answer is "technology advances!"

ARA Photo wrote:
Like most men I like nothing more than the female form, I'm genetically pre-disposed to do so, however I abhor the pre-sexualization of children that teen magazines and the rest of the media seems to think is OK. Let children be children and grow up at their own speed.

+2

DougBPhoto wrote:
That said, in both cases, it sure sounds like you're saying that you don't see anything wrong with photographing underage girls for the purpose of producing spank bank material for those people that sort of thing appeals to.  Not "might" be, but are intended to be.

It really isn't a question of what is legal or isn't legal, the point is that you said "what is so horrible about it" and there are probably others who would agree with you...

Personally, if you can't grasp what is wrong with photographing underage girls (or boys) for sexual gratification, then I really don't know what to say to help you to understand.

For a lot of people it isn't something as simple as what is legal or is not legal, it is about how most people think that it is pretty creepy and disgusting, both to get turned on by that sort of thing, and/or to intentionally create content for those who are turned on by underage girls. 

I can't speak for the OP, but I suspect there might be some girls who might feel rather creeped out about their photos being taken for that purpose, even if they are getting paid.

You may not see anything wrong with it, but I suspect most people DO see something wrong with shooting photos of underage girls with the intent of them being used for spank banks.

Ok, "intent" has been used many times in this thread, so tell me how you can determine "intent?"  I would like a straight answer.  Without the "use" of the images being considered ... only the images themselves.   So forget the websites ... it does not matter.  It is the "intent" that matters as to determine if an image is pornographic or for sexual gratification and NOT determined by where you see it, or if you pay for it or not.  So prove the intent of the images. 

Congress has already mulled that question over many times! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Maybe I'm just immune to this sexual excitement you seem to think is there, but I know for a fact that not everyone "joins" a website for the same reason.  I had to go through and approve or decline modeling websites for credit card merchant accounts, and I've seen hundreds of model websites for free because of that process.  There are some God awful model sites out there which tried to get billing .. and even if they did, the site went under anyway because of many reasons ranging from poor photography, unattractive models, to laziness on the part of the webmaster or model.  Many quit after the first month or two ... 90% are gone in 6 months. 

I agree with you about the sexualization of children, but as young as age 15 or 16, many of these teens have already had sex, and it's nothing new to them.  In the perfect World, I wish every child could grow up in a great home environment surrounded by loving parents and family, but it is not a perfect World, now is it?  Is our society any better or worse than it was a hundred years ago?  There were 12 year olds were getting married back in the 1800's but that was a different time.  There were no labor laws regarding children back then, and no child protective services.  In the early 1900's was when children started to gain protective rights.  In my opinion, today is a much better time to grow up than back 100 years ago, but then I'm biased towards progress.  How are 16 year olds any different today than they were when you and I grew up?  The obvious answer is "technology advances!"

I understand that there are professional services that must register and check out websites however, surely you agree that any successful site cannot exist on these edge case registrations. They are aimed at adult credit card holding men plain and simple.

I also take your point that many 'kids' are having sex with each other below the age of consent, I myself was one of those and that was many years ago, so I sure as hell understand that situation. IF this was kids dating kids that would be way better than under-age girls dressing for the sexual pleasure of adult males. I'm amazed you don't find this vile too!

In the olden days life expectancy could be 25-30 years old so marriage at a young age was pretty much a social imperative. Shit ran open in the streets and people rarely washed. I don't see how this makes getting your rocks off over teenage girls anymore acceptable, but thanks for the history lesson.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Ok, "intent" has been used many times in this thread, so tell me how you can determine "intent?"  I would like a straight answer.  Without the "use" of the images being considered ... only the images themselves.   So forget the websites ... it does not matter.  It is the "intent" that matters as to determine if an image is pornographic or for sexual gratification and NOT determined by where you see it, or if you pay for it or not.  So prove the intent of the images. 

Congress has already mulled that question over many times! 

Let me tell you Congress is VERY wrong on this one.
IF the images from the website were in a catalog then few parents would buy from it as the images are too sexual. Loads of 13 year old buys would happily transition puberty with the publication though. Regardless, you could argue that the intent was to sell underwear.

What is the intent of a members only site that is populated with images of young girls proudly displaying their age alongside? Maybe this reflects badly on me, but I'm sorry I can only think of one, and that's vile!

SPV Photo wrote:
Me too. Last time it was body paint. Seems like a lot of the same issues have come up again.

+1

We're not talking about credible catalog work here, folks.  This is a GWC looking to get his yeah-yeahs by tip toeing the line of teen erotica.  The OP's post history is one of asking questions regarding shady inquiries from photographers.  There's a pattern.  My suggestion to the OP is when confronted with these types of inquiries, a clear and concise "NO" should be all that is given.  Do not leave anything open for interpretation.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

oh come on Patrick don't be fucking naive.

you know what that site is about.

Yes, to bore me to death.  That is the intent.  I'm sure of it!     

Really, I've had to look at hundreds of model websites as my job.  I have even been writing a book about my experience in the Internet model industry.  Yes, it is an "industry" and there are all kinds of models out there.  Contrary to popular belief of the general public, not all model websites are porn.  Not all model websites are intended to sexually stimulate the viewers.  So I guess that is up to the viewers discretion. 

I have had a free pass to the website I linked earlier, and I honestly am not so sure that all the members are there for the same reason.  Just to point out that people may have other reasons for joining a website beside sexual gratification, I know that there are parents on the site, and some of the teenaged models have friends join too.  So even if you could prove that the majority of members join for the intention of sexual gratification, those same people can join OneModelPlace.com for the same reason, or this site we are on.  At least it is a controlled database ... with some protections.  However it is more dangerous for a teen to be on Facebook, Myspace or other social sites that are free and easy for a predator to gain access to the child. 

Regardless of ages of the models, the model websites that are paysites provide better security and a buffer between the user and the model which social networking sites don't have.  With few exceptions, solo model sites no longer do well, so it is the multi model sites that have the best pull for users.

ARA Photo wrote:
I understand that there are professional services that must register and check out websites however, surely you agree that any successful site cannot exist on these edge case registrations. They are aimed at adult credit card holding men plain and simple.

I also take your point that many 'kids' are having sex with each other below the age of consent, I myself was one of those and that was many years ago, so I sure as hell understand that situation. IF this was kids dating kids that would be way better than under-age girls dressing for the sexual pleasure of adult males. I'm amazed you don't find this vile too!

In the olden days life expectancy could be 25-30 years old so marriage at a young age was pretty much a social imperative. Shit ran open in the streets and people rarely washed. I don't see how this makes getting your rocks off over teenage girls anymore acceptable, but thanks for the history lesson.

I certainly find it vile and gross for men to stare at teen girls at the shopping mall.  I think men who go to girls sporting events to watch the girls for sexual pleasure are disgusting and sick!  There are many criminal cases brought up against perverts who make contact with minors.   It's obvious that harm can occur to the child in those cases.  There are many situations I could go on about ... but one point I wish to make is this;  the teenaged models on those websites have no contact with the "users" what so ever! The web security is very protective of the models. 

In a thread a while back, I tried to locate some of the models of past websites from the early 2000's when there was a bigger shit storm going on about it.  It's not easy to find many of these former teen models even with the connections I've had in the business.   However I can't find any former teen model that has been harmed in any way from posing for those sites.  Can you?  I do know that some of the former teenaged models from that TTB site are now adult age and modeling on Jimmy's other sites.  Really, as a writer and researcher in the entertainment industry, I have been trying to find out who is being harmed.  Can you tell me what harm comes to a teenaged model who poses for any of those sites?  I'm waiting to hear about that.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Ok, "intent" has been used many times in this thread, so tell me how you can determine "intent?"  I would like a straight answer.  Without the "use" of the images being considered ... only the images themselves.   So forget the websites ... it does not matter.  It is the "intent" that matters as to determine if an image is pornographic or for sexual gratification and NOT determined by where you see it, or if you pay for it or not.  So prove the intent of the images. 

Congress has already mulled that question over many times! 

First off, I was never speaking from a narrow strictly legal/illegal point of view, there are things that you can do that may be legal, but are also creepy/sleezy as fuck.  If this is something that you don't understand, I'm not sure I can help you there, other than to simply say that just because you *can* do something does not mean that you should do it.

Secondly, while intent may be ambiguous sometimes, when shooting catalog/commercial images of an underage minor and they are going into newspaper ads, in-store displays, catalogs, or merchant web sites the intent is quite obvious (at least to most of us), just as having those images being on the zed card or in the port of the model, or even in the portfolio of a photographer who works for those clients.  I think *most* people understand the intent there.

Now, if you have someone who shoots underage girls in their underwear, and either personally uses those images in a sexual manner or distributes them to/via sites/groups that cater to persons who use the images in a sexual manner, that intent is pretty clear (at least to most of us.)

It is NOT about what the photo looks like, it is how the photo is being used.   Again, I'm not talking any legal definition there, strictly creepy/pervy, aka, horrible, versus not.   I think most people are able to understand this, just like many photographers stay away from these things as they don't want the responsibility to prove their intent/innocence.

Intent matters. To use a legal issue as an example, consider indecent exposure laws in many areas, where intent matters, for example, simple-nudity may not constitute indecent exposure where the laws require a sexual component to accompany the nudity.  It isn't "just" being nude, because even according to the laws in some places, intent/context matters.

Yes, intent is not always clear, which is why as photographers we sometimes need to be sure that IF there is any doubt we either err on the side of safety or we don't do it at all, but of course, there are those photographers who don't care, or are either so principled (or stupid) that they choose to ignore things that most reasonable people understand.

While you may disagree and choose to act differently in your personal (or professional) life, I think most people here grasp that if shoot pics of underage girls in your underwear and you keep them for your personal use, or you upload for people to use for their personal sexual purposes, THEN the intent IS pretty clear....   just like if you are hired by a commercial client (such as a store or a designer) to produce images, the intent is pretty clear...    HOWEVER, if you were to take the same exact images and intentionally distribute them as child-porn to child-porn consumers, then THAT intent would also be perfectly clear to most people.

I never claimed that you can tell exclusively by looking at the photo, but *how* it is used is something that is relevant to most brain-enabled persons.

At this point, however, I'm not sure how much this really contributes to the OP's question, although perhaps it helps to pimp your future book.

Dan OMell wrote:
Why all these kids cannot wait for their 18yo birthday?

The very insignificant part of photographers who are even remotely interested to shoot with underage models (and I'm not one of them) at all have plenty of opportunities with 25yo looking EXACTLY like 15-16yo -- including body type, height, proportions, face expressions -- etc. There are at least 2-3 on MM complained that many are totally confused about their real age and scared to shoot with them. And I'm not talking about midgets at all.

If some modeling agency didn't scout you in your 13-14 birthday, you're already old enough for them. Just sit tight and wait for your 18 y.o. to shoot with MMers. End of story.

She is already modeling for MM'ers ... and she is just asking a question about content.   Shooting 25 year olds to appear like 15-16 year olds is not my intent.   From what I understand, that is actually a fetish.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Yes, to bore me to death.  That is the intent.  I'm sure of it!     

Really, I've had to look at hundreds of model websites as my job.  I have even been writing a book about my experience in the Internet model industry.  Yes, it is an "industry" and there are all kinds of models out there.  Contrary to popular belief of the general public, not all model websites are porn.  Not all model websites are intended to sexually stimulate the viewers.  So I guess that is up to the viewers discretion. 

I have had a free pass to the website I linked earlier, and I honestly am not so sure that all the members are there for the same reason.  Just to point out that people may have other reasons for joining a website beside sexual gratification, I know that there are parents on the site, and some of the teenaged models have friends join too.  So even if you could prove that the majority of members join for the intention of sexual gratification, those same people can join OneModelPlace.com for the same reason, or this site we are on.  At least it is a controlled database ... with some protections.  However it is more dangerous for a teen to be on Facebook, Myspace or other social sites that are free and easy for a predator to gain access to the child. 

Regardless of ages of the models, the model websites that are paysites provide better security and a buffer between the user and the model which social networking sites don't have.  With few exceptions, solo model sites no longer do well, so it is the multi model sites that have the best pull for users.

sorry patrick but tinyteentwats or whatever those sites are named don't feature ugly girls dressed in burkhas so that only their inner beauty and soul are seen.

  The front page features girls aged 13-16? with fabric barely covering their girl bits.   If the intent is not to have ANY sexual stimulation at all, why feature them in teenie weenie bikinis?   

The other clue that the ultimate point of these sites is to create a bond and attraction to an underaged girl  is the "news" and narratives of the models.   This is the same formula as playboy etc where you 'get to know" the model with a light narrative that serves to give the spanker a form to his fantasy.


You're right that teenieweenieteensinlittlebikinis.com has a barrier from model to spanker which is not the point.   Mr spank job who has a primary attraction to underaged girls is going to find his Lolita where?  At home?  In the neighborhood by the school? A tour to Thailand?


Sally Mann has done some exquisite work documenting  her children as they have grown up.  That's quite different from the site you linked. 

It's not art.  there is no celebration of the girls other than their bodies and their age.

don't insult our intelligence claiming that these sites are promoting anything other than sexual attraction to underage ass.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
She is already modeling for MM'ers ... and she is just asking a question about content.   Shooting 25 year olds to appear like 15-16 year olds is not my intent.   From what I understand, that is actually a fetish.

With all due respect, I don't think the OP was asking exclusively about content, nor were the majority of people in this thread answering, exclusively, about content.

There is also, quite clearly to most of us, context and intent.

As stated previously, if the OP said this was for Macy's or Fred Meyer ads, or for a clothing designer, or some other clearly catalog/commercial use, I think many people would have said congratulations, have fun, and hope you're okay with your classmates/friends/family seeing you in your underoos.

However, the OP's question was actually about a photographer paying her $600, plus many additional costs, with no commercial client, and with discussion of creating a web site... for most people, that CONTEXT/INTENT sets off red flags and sets off their creep radar.

Unless you're just bored and trolling (as you may have alluded to above when saying the purpose of this site is to bore you), this really isn't such a difficult concept to grasp.

ARA Photo wrote:

Let me tell you Congress is VERY wrong on this one.
IF the images from the website were in a catalog then few parents would buy from it as the images are too sexual. Loads of 13 year old buys would happily transition puberty with the publication though. Regardless, you could argue that the intent was to sell underwear.

What is the intent of a members only site that is populated with images of young girls proudly displaying their age alongside? Maybe this reflects badly on me, but I'm sorry I can only think of one, and that's vile!

I don't think anything you've said "reflects badly" on you.  If anything, I have gone out on a limb to express what I know to be the opposite of popular opinion here ... and I'm taking a risk on reflecting badly.  But if you knew me personally, it's typical of me to argue the minority opinion.   

Again, it comes down to proving "intent" ... and the "I'll know it when I see it" opinion does not provide the "proof" needed to make a case against such websites.  Let's say for example, a man is a police officer, and he pulls over a car driven by an attractive woman.  He walks up to her rolled down window and starts talking with her with the usual pattern of questions and answers before giving her a ticket. 

Now let's suppose during this exchange, he has thoughts of what it would be like to kill her, cook her and eat her?  It was all just thoughts ... much like a daydream perhaps, but he takes no action towards doing such a horrible and criminal thing.  No one besides himself knows that as he looked down her blouse, he thought about what it would be like to suck on her tit, rape her, choke her to death, and then cook her body.  He took no actions towards accomplishing those thoughts.   

Then in real life, I read where a New York cop actually took actions of planning to do such a gross crime as to kill and eat a woman!  Apparently this cop made contact with some others and told them of his plans.  He must have trusted that their intent would be of the same nature?  He never got as far as to kidnap and carry out his thoughts, but there was enough evidence of his intent that the District Attorney believes they have a strong enough case. 

Sometimes I've bought a product with the intent of using that product for something it was not intended for.  For an example, Prell Concentrate hair shampoo is great as a car wash soap, but I would never use it in my hair.  There are other examples, but you understand.  I can't think of any exceptions to this, but the seller of a product is not responsible for what the buyer uses their product for.  Now I can't read minds, so I have no way of knowing what another person's intent is.  I have no control over what someone does with regards to my images when they are in the privacy of their own home.  I rest my case.

DougBPhoto wrote:
While you may disagree and choose to act differently in your personal (or professional) life, I think most people here grasp that if shoot pics of underage girls in your underwear and you keep them for your personal use, or you upload for people to use for their personal sexual purposes, THEN the intent IS pretty clear....   just like if you are hired by a commercial client (such as a store or a designer) to produce images, the intent is pretty clear...    HOWEVER, if you were to take the same exact images and intentionally distribute them as child-porn to child-porn consumers, then THAT intent would also be perfectly clear to most people.

I never claimed that you can tell exclusively by looking at the photo, but *how* it is used is something that is relevant to most brain-enabled persons.

I actually agree with you in many more ways on this subject than disagree.   This is a great discussion and hopefully enlightening to many of us. 

One thing that you have me confused on is this ... how can those "same exact images" become child porn simply for being distrubuted as such?  If that were the case, then why are there not child porn busts based on non nude content of minors on websites like the one discussed or perhaps even teenagers in bikinis or underwear on Modelmayhem or OneModelPlace?   I know for a fact that there have been some child porn busts through omp, I used to talk with the previous owner many years ago.  But those images were nudes, that were sexual in nature, and very much child porn without a doubt of the intent. 

So if what you are saying is true, then where are those cases where people are being busted for distributing images of teenagers exactly like the ones we are seeing on these websites?  I could believe that those "exact images" you speak of are mixed in with graphic porn, but certainly no case has been built against someone with only the "exact images" of teens in bikinis or such?   If so, please cite those cases.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

sorry patrick but tinyteentwats or whatever those sites are named don't feature ugly girls dressed in burkhas so that only their inner beauty and soul are seen.

  The front page features girls aged 13-16? with fabric barely covering their girl bits.   If the intent is not to have ANY sexual stimulation at all, why feature them in teenie weenie bikinis?   

The other clue that the ultimate point of these sites is to create a bond and attraction to an underaged girl  is the "news" and narratives of the models.   This is the same formula as playboy etc where you 'get to know" the model with a light narrative that serves to give the spanker a form to his fantasy.


You're right that teenieweenieteensinlittlebikinis.com has a barrier from model to spanker which is not the point.   Mr spank job who has a primary attraction to underaged girls is going to find his Lolita where?  At home?  In the neighborhood by the school? A tour to Thailand?


Sally Mann has done some exquisite work documenting  her children as they have grown up.  That's quite different from the site you linked. 

It's not art.  there is no celebration of the girls other than their bodies and their age.

don't insult our intelligence claiming that these sites are promoting anything other than sexual attraction to underage ass.

I do like Sally Mann's work, and I consider David Hamilton an artist, but I never called it "art" ... not even once!   

Maybe I am playing devils advocate more than I should, but if websites like the one I linked were to be made illegal, then I don't think Sally Mann would have a legal leg to stand on to continue her work.  It would be difficult to say the least.  It goes back to the inability of proving intent.   You and I could agree on our opinion on what the intent or purpose of the teenyweenyteen site or whatever is, BUT in most all other places all those images are legal.  Also I believe that the models are older than you stated .. from 14 or 15 to 17, not 13?  I don't know because I am not even clicking on the site .. I already know what is on it.  I also know that many of those same models age out and move on to his other site.

DougBPhoto wrote:
With all due respect, I don't think the OP was asking exclusively about content, nor were the majority of people in this thread answering, exclusively, about content.

There is also, quite clearly to most of us, context and intent.

As stated previously, if the OP said this was for Macy's or Fred Meyer ads, or for a clothing designer, or some other clearly catalog/commercial use, I think many people would have said congratulations, have fun, and hope you're okay with your classmates/friends/family seeing you in your underoos.

However, the OP's question was actually about a photographer paying her $600, plus many additional costs, with no commercial client, and with discussion of creating a web site... for most people, that CONTEXT/INTENT sets off red flags and sets off their creep radar.

Unless you're just bored and trolling (as you may have alluded to above when saying the purpose of this site is to bore you), this really isn't such a difficult concept to grasp.

Yes, Doug, I said that the purpose of those teen modeling sites is to bore me because I had to accept free passes then go in to view to decide to either approve or disapprove them for credit card merchant accounts several years ago.  It was for a short time that I had that job, but it still effected me. 

The Modelmayhem forums obviously never bore me as you can tell from the number of posts I've made and how long I've been on the site.  Do you thnk I am trolling?  I've rarely been accused of trolling.  I like a good discussion and I'm simply bringing up another point of view. 

In my first post directed to the OP, I advised her to be careful in considering this modeling project.  I said to find out exactly what the url of the website is for which the photographer wants to post her images on, and to have a contract.  I also said for her to think about her future and what consequences ...  if any ... could posing in underwear have on her goals?  No doubt she has gotten a lot of reading here, and agree or disagree, we've all given various opinions.  No harm done in that. 

If the OP were to accept this paid modeling job, what could be the worst that might happen to her?  Let's say that for speculative purposes that the photographer has shot images of her in underwear that are NOT of a sexual nature.  He then puts those images he shot of her on a website and charges money for those that wish to see those images.  How could the alleged perverts looking at her on a website harm her?

Food 4 Less wrote:
I'm telling you from much experience that most photographers are perverted.

Now that is the most honest and truthful statement yet!