SayCheeZ! wrote:
Not only is it beating a dead horse, but here's how others are now beginning to feel about the MM website (someone posted this at another website):

"MM is filled with threads discussing why children should be allowed to model nude. 99% of it is in support. I hope that instead of Corrective Actions, the authorities start doing PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS and monitor folks who express interests such as that. "

Filled with threads discussing why children should be allowed to model nude?  Who ever on whatever site typed that is a moron.  Nothing like giving a broad generalization as some how representing the truth.

Ty Simone wrote:
Since the original thread was locked, and will not be re-opened, and since it seems that the topic generated some heated debate when I labelled it the other way, I will start the discussion once again.

The full title should be Photographing nude minors and revealing / sexy poses.

To start, Let's set the guidelines of the discussion here.

1. We are not talking about Pornography. It has been shown that photographing a minor in the nude is not in and of itself pornography, (child pornography) nor is it illegal in any Jurisdiction in the United States.

2. With revealing / Sexy poses, for the purpose of this discussion, we are talking clothed and revealing / sexy poses, not nude and revealing or sexy poses.
For example a girl with no bra on in a deep V cut dress (which was an image on here that got blasted at one time because the girl was 16)
or, a girl in Lingerie, where the pieces are NOT see through sitting with her legs spread for the camera. (although, in some jurisdictions, such an image may be illegal.)

Now, has been discussed before, in the industry, Minors (we will go with 14-17 year old) not only are required to be nude / topless around all sorts of adults (professional runway models during shows), but are also required to walk the runway in outfits that may show their breasts etc.. (such as the one image described above)Ad companies have used topless minors in major ads etc...
Hollywood as well has and continues to do movies and shows with topless / nude minors. (not to throw flames on the fire, but a recent show had a completely nude minor with a full frontal view)

Having said all that, It is part of this industry to have nude / topless minors.

Why do certain people feel that it is wrong for them to pose that way and then post the images in their portfolio?

How can you tell a young model with a straight face that because she is doing what the industry demands of her, that she is wrong?

How can you bash photographers for doing what their employers require of them to do, simply because your personal belief system is not in line with an industry you chose to be in?

Again, we are not talking about pornography, nor anything else illegal. We are talking about minors age 14-17 posing topless / nude.

Let the debate begin anew!

Toria wrote:
IINA is a component of FBI's Cyber Crimes Program, is an intelligence driven, proactive, multi-agency investigative initiative to combat the proliferation of child pornography/child sexual exploitation (CP/CSE) facilitated by an online computer.

Do you know how many FBI agents joke about that IINA in CCP?    I just read some of their quotes yesterday in Seattle Times, it was hilarious.

I have nothing to add to this thread.  I don't shoot nudes.

Kaori Night wrote:
*coughs and speaks up*

Um.. Last I checked it was... kinda illegal to looks at minors naked... Sure, you can photograph them, but it's not like you can have them up so everyone can see without getting in trouble. If we allow little girls to be in sexy poses and naked (not at the same time, as it sounds like you're saying), then what's stopping photographers and people in the "industry" from taking it a step further?

I'm a minor, myself, and I already know... a LOT of people would like to see me naked.. I hear it on a daily basis. I'm willing to pose nude also, but what's so wrong about waiting a ONE MORE YEAR? When it's LEGAL to look at. Also, there are some very childish looking models. If you want to see children naked, can't you just hire a small woman?

Also, I'm unfamiliar with these naked minors pictures you claim are coming out of the biz. If there were any, I KNOW someone would have put a stop to it. But I have not seen any.

Allowing young girls to be nude is feeding perversion. You may call it art, but a pedophile can call it porn.

And I agree with some of those before me. If I had a 14-17 year old daughter, I would NEVER let her be photographed nude; NOR would her father. And I already know this for a fact. If she wants it, she can stick with modeling until she's of age to be photographed nude when she doesn't live under my roof.

But, again... I guess this is just me.

theda wrote:
Yeah, it's just you. It's not illegal to look at a naked child. That;s why no one has put a stop to it. It's fairly common in high fashion.

This nudity=sex thing is what creeps me out.  Obviously, a lot of people simply do not know the difference. Pedophiles don't need to see nude photos of children to feed their desires. Any photos will do if they're really interested.

Yes, but he's also talking about sexy poses. There is a difference between child porn and nude pictures. Hell, everyone has nude pictures of them as a child. It's innocent. But how innocent can it be when they're trying to look sexy? Or have already hit puberty? Once that comes, the innocence really isn't there any more and it just crosses the line of... "Why the hell is that necessary to take pictures of?" I don't want to meet the parents who consented to that...

2. With revealing / Sexy poses, for the purpose of this discussion, we are talking clothed and revealing / sexy poses, not nude and revealing or sexy poses.

Not according to the original post.

Kaori Night wrote:
So, when/if you have one, are you going to let your 14 year old daughter pose naked for some man and a camera? Let her naked body be on some man's public online portfolio? Since you don't seem against it at all...

I'm sorry. But this is one thing I actually am against. I'm open minded to a lot of things, but letting teens and preteens have nude pictures is just wrong and unnecessary. I'm sorry if you all don't agree with me. They should be at least 18 before they take their clothes off professionally...

Possibly. It depends on context.

Kaori Night wrote:
*coughs and speaks up*

Um.. Last I checked it was... kinda illegal to looks at minors naked... Sure, you can photograph them, but it's not like you can have them up so everyone can see without getting in trouble. If we allow little girls to be in sexy poses and naked (not at the same time, as it sounds like you're saying), then what's stopping photographers and people in the "industry" from taking it a step further?

I'm a minor, myself, and I already know... a LOT of people would like to see me naked.. I hear it on a daily basis. I'm willing to pose nude also, but what's so wrong about waiting a ONE MORE YEAR? When it's LEGAL to look at. Also, there are some very childish looking models. If you want to see children naked, can't you just hire a small woman?

Also, I'm unfamiliar with these naked minors pictures you claim are coming out of the biz. If there were any, I KNOW someone would have put a stop to it. But I have not seen any.

Allowing young girls to be nude is feeding perversion. You may call it art, but a pedophile can call it porn.

And I agree with some of those before me. If I had a 14-17 year old daughter, I would NEVER let her be photographed nude; NOR would her father. And I already know this for a fact. If she wants it, she can stick with modeling until she's of age to be photographed nude when she doesn't live under my roof.

But, again... I guess this is just me.

You must have missed the other dozen or so threads on this very subject.  (That's a conservative estimate too!)  I've got to correct you on one thing. It is not illegal to photograph a person of any age "nude."   Absolutely NOT illegal!  Otherwise those books by David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and a couple female photographers whose names slip my mind ... would not have books for sale of nude people, many of minor age ... selling at Barnes and Noble near you!  These images have withstood the judgement of the Supreme Court and passed as "art." 

Now if we add something that is of a sexual element to the images ... then it is pornography.  That is a fact that separates "art" from "pornography" as we have known it through out history.  There are some very obscene pictures which I consider pornographic that have nothing to do with nudity. 

Now if there are any images that is the least bit objectionable ... can we take it up with the Administration of this website, NOT discuss it here?  I have seen much crude hateful stuff on MySpace .. for example a few hundred of us filled the MySpace Admin's box about a profile by a teenaged guy who relished being a hateful skin head with his profile filled with all sorts of hateful disgusting images including a short video clip of a big boot wearing skin head stomping on a Negro mans head while the man was beaten and laying on the ground. There were pictures of black people hanging from trees ... he posted that it was a fun party! I find this much more disturbing than a classic art nude of a 17 year old young lady.

Also I have seen hundreds of FAKE profiles on MySpace and Yahoo that are created with pictures that the FAKE has stolen from models and photographers! This disturbs me so much that I started the FAKE BUSTERS on both MySpace and Yahoo! You need to send me a message in MySpace to join because it's exclusive. I'm http://www.myspace.com/bellaimages  then the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAKEBUSTERS is the yahoo group. But it is damaging to the reputation of the models when the FAKE uses the models real name and then proceeds to do something stupid like say they are "a lesbian and want nude pictures of other hot chicks!" 

The other thing I've seen online are the profiles by teens who shoot their own pictures for either OMP or MySpace. Sometimes these pictures are in bad taste or worse!  In other words, what to do if the photographer of a nude teen is the teen herself?  It does happen! 

Please go back to the reason why this is a topic to start with.  The Administration here MUST be made aware of any under aged models in images that are possibly crossing the line of what is child pornography.  I do NOT believe there is any such content on this website!  GET THAT everyone! If you see something disturbing, DO NOT HARRASS the person whose profile it is on!  DO NOT POST HERE IN THIS FORUM TO BRING UNNEEDED ATTENTION TO THE PROFILE!!!  Notify the Model Mayhem Administration about it!  You can message them through the website.   

I do think all this attention to the subject of nude minors does this website does give it an unfair and bad reputation.  Ty says he is concerned about minor aged models getting bashed or harassed for having images that are sexy, push the envelope, but are not nudes.  If that is so, then where are these models?  Maybe they were chased off?  I don't know, but I think that people here should NOT be harassing the models.  I really hope we can all be adult enough to common sense and not act like idiots going over and over the same arguments when it is the Model Mayhem Administrations decision as to what is inappropriate on this website!

There does not seem to be a lot of child porn or even nude teen pictures on this website.  Unless you can prove that this is a problem here, let's all grow up and let this extremely irrelevant topic die off!

Kaori, sure there are people who would like to see you nude (minor age or not!) and it's your choice!  I don't shoot nudes much at all. I find more enjoyment in having the model look sexy with her important parts unexposed.  That takes a great deal of skill in itself.  I will always enjoy art nudes and glamour nudes (like Playboy style) but my imagination is better than most men, so I don't care for pornography. That said, I've come across hardcore porn on OMP which bothers me greatly because that website accepts all ages for profiles.

Best wishes to everyone!

Jessica L wrote:
Hasn't this been done and done again? Last time I joked around but this time, I gotta say this.
Why is it that people who don't want to pose nude are automatically branded by some other people as being prudes or uncomfortable with thier bodies? That is so not true.
I'm a minor and I am NOT a prude and I'm also very comfortable with my body. I've spent most of my life dancing and taking good care of my body and I'm certainly not ashamed of it. Just because I don't want to share my private parts with the rest of the world does not make me a prude or ashamed of myself.
If other people do it and like to, I'm happy for them. I never plan to do any kind of nudity in my photos because number one, I get enough crap from kids my age for modeling and all of the other stuff I do, period. Don't ask me why, I don't know what goes on in other people's heads.
Number 2, I also perform, act, dance and sing and also plan to to hopefully work in theater and movies someday. I don't want people pulling out naked photos of me and shaking their fingers. Yes, if it's going to effect my career goals then I do care what other people think and say. I love my art but notice I said make a career, which means being PAID, as in job for all of this. I'm not going to lose a good paying job because someone has naked photos of me. I don't want to be contraversial. I just want to be my personal best and not have some stupid boobie picture of me out there to ruin it.
I can't even imagine, esspecially at my age taking my clothes off for any reason in front of a stranger and having my photo taken.
I may only be 16 but I know that I will only be 16 for one year and I'll only be a teenager for a while. It's a special time. My body is a work of art but Mother Nature is the artist so I don't feel the need for some other artist to to claim it for themselves with a photograph.

You all have a right to do what you want. THIS is what I want.
JMHO

Jessica, You are a classy lady! You should not be harrassed by anyone over your pictures or modeling. My mom still harrasses me to get a real job. Seems some people don't think that models and photographers work, or else they think we do porn?  It's their sick minds, and has nothing to do with us.  I don't photograph minors nude, and don't want to.  If I ever did, I could fly to Europe and shoot there.  But my point is this website is going to get a horrible reputation if this topic doesn't stop rearing it's ugly head constantly!  There are NO pornographic images that I know of on this website.  NONE!  So why all the talk in the forum about it? Ty?  Can we grow up? Can we move on yet?

Kaori Night wrote:
Wow. Just wow. I really can’t say how astonishing that is to hear.

I mean, I know content for anything is a factor in this. If it showed nothing, I'd be a little more understanding of it.. but when I hear nude, I think you can see most of everything that nature gave them. This is fine for adults, but I will always believe it isn't for adolescents. Teens already get a bad rep. All of us are supposedly sexually active and all kinds of negative crap that isn't true, but adding nude photos on top of that? What the hell is the problem with just waiting until you're of age? Jeez! If you're 16, you won't change THAT MUCH from now until you're 18. So what's the big beef?

Also, I seriously think your mind will change once you do have a little girl... Many things change when you have your own children.

And you know, depending on what it is and the person and what not, there really isn't anything wrong with the body (of any age). Human anatomy is beautiful, but the world has become perverted and I don't think we should exploit today’s youth to that. It's not like they'd even know what they were doing..

If your daughter was serious about this industry, she would get bashed SO HARD for having pictures of her naked when she was a child, and she could do NOTHING about it because she knew no better and you LET her. Like Jessie had stated before... It would ruin her. At LEAST until their 18 so they can make their own mistakes and realize the pros and cons of it. Some 14 year olds are smart, yes, but they still don't think things all the way through sometimes. My thought from when I was 14 to now are way different, so there's not doubt a young girl would come to regret posing naked for someone's portfolio when she's older.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I've got to correct you on one thing. It is not illegal to photograph a person of any age "nude."   Absolutely NOT illegal!

I NEVER SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL. OMFG. I also never said underage nudity was a problem here. If it is on other sites, I wouldn't know. I do not look for that kind of stuff. I don't feel children between the ages of 14-17 should pose nude, as it's too risqué for their age group. Younger, I could stomach easier as that IS innocent. Sexual nature in anything like that would be horribly wrong, yes. But sexy poses while dressed isn't exactly age appropriate either.

And yes. Some teens do take their own pictures. I've known a few and I always suggest they don't post them online any time soon. I don't think they should get off scot-free either, if they're doing that. They could get the webmaster of site in trouble.

I think there is a difference between being kinda sexy and then down right provocative. That, I'm against. Little girls pulling their shirts down and trying to show off as much as possible is really tasteless. I've seen some of these before, but thankfully not here. I have full faith in the administration here, and I don't think they'd ever allow something -too- age inappropriate to be posted. It's their call and I think they'll make the right one. I, for one, am getting quite sick of this topic. I know what's wrong and I know when things have gone too far. I don't think this should even be an issue, since I've never seen any of that happen here. So, if anyone has a problem with how I see things, I guess they can shove it, or send me a message. Your call.

theda wrote:
When I have a little girl? I hate kids, so this is entirely hypothetical.

I guess that explains why you'd let her pose nude for someone. Good day to you.

Kaori Night wrote:
Um.. Last I checked it was... kinda illegal to looks at minors naked...

You didn't say that?

Kaori Night wrote:
Wow. Just wow. I really can’t say how astonishing that is to hear...

Teens already get a bad rep...

You don't get that bad rep from Jock Sturges/Sally Mann photographing children/teens/moms/dads naked.

You could possibly get a bad rep from the prosti-tots websites promoting "teen glamour" models.

Kaori Night wrote:
Wow. Just wow. I really can’t say how astonishing that is to hear.

I mean, I know content for anything is a factor in this. If it showed nothing, I'd be a little more understanding of it.. but when I hear nude, I think you can see most of everything that nature gave them. This is fine for adults, but I will always believe it isn't for adolescents. Teens already get a bad rep. All of us are supposedly sexually active and all kinds of negative crap that isn't true, but adding nude photos on top of that? What the hell is the problem with just waiting until you're of age? Jeez! If you're 16, you won't change THAT MUCH from now until you're 18. So what's the big beef?

Also, I seriously think your mind will change once you do have a little girl... Many things change when you have your own children.

And you know, depending on what it is and the person and what not, there really isn't anything wrong with the body (of any age). Human anatomy is beautiful, but the world has become perverted and I don't think we should exploit today’s youth to that. It's not like they'd even know what they were doing..

If your daughter was serious about this industry, she would get bashed SO HARD for having pictures of her naked when she was a child, and she could do NOTHING about it because she knew no better and you LET her. Like Jessie had stated before... It would ruin her. At LEAST until their 18 so they can make their own mistakes and realize the pros and cons of it. Some 14 year olds are smart, yes, but they still don't think things all the way through sometimes. My thought from when I was 14 to now are way different, so there's not doubt a young girl would come to regret posing naked for someone's portfolio when she's older.

All I said is that images of a minor nude does not mean these images are pornographic.  Artists have been painting nudes of adults and children in art since Roman times.  There are many professional models in Europe who are exposed up top in the fashion shows. These are ladies who may be as young as 15 or 16 because it is not even a factor there. It is only a controversy here in the USA. But then Brooks Shields was not hurt by doing nudity as a minor ... and there are plenty of books in Barnes and Noble here in California with nude minors. Just look in the "Art photography" section. It's NOT porn! It's all true. When you hear "nude" reconsider that it may not be what you think.

NO, I do not advocate minors doing nudity, and it is not likely that I would allow my 16 or 17 year old daughter to do nudity ... unless she was signed with Elite or Fords and I was very involved with her career.  You would be surprised how many of the Super Models have done nudity!  However ... I mean HOWEVER, that is far and away removed from the topic getting rehashed over and over again on a website that doesn't allow for minors posting anything the Admin. considers inappropriate.  I DON'T WANT YOU TO DO NUDES! EVEN AFTER YOU REACH 18!  If you decide you want to do any sort of nudity after you are 18, then that's your choice.  If it is a mistake or not depends on many factors.  Too many to take on in this thread.

The largest sexual organ we have is the brain. We can not enjoy sex without our brain, otherwise it's just another physical function we do.  So I find ANYONE who comments on pictures of teens in a rude, crude or sexual way to be responsible for their own behavior. The model did not do something to make that person "think" perverted thoughts. Nobody has any business on Model Mayhem harassing models about their poses or pictures. Again, if anyone finds an image on this website that is inappropriate, DO NOT HARRASS the model! Take it up with the Administration!

Best wishes!

theda wrote:
When I have a little girl? I hate kids, so this is entirely hypothetical.

But the fact is, models who have posed nude or semi-nude when they were underaged do not get "bashed so hard" by those serious about the industry. It is fairly commonplace.

Again, I'm glad I was raised in an environment in which nudity was not taboo. It's almost unfathomable to me how hung up on it American culture is.

True! This is such a "non issue" that it makes me sick to go over and over it again!

I trust the owner and moderators on this website to do the right thing!

Toria wrote:
Wow...this is truly creepy...*shudder*...

I heard about this on another forum that I am involved in and had to check it out for myself...

What kind of a sick person would even WANT to take photos of a child naked?  What is in any way erotic or sexual about a child naked?  What kind of person thinks that children naked are sexy?  Oh...wait a minute...I think they do have a word for people like that...they are called PEDOPHILES. 

Just for shits and giggles, I am going to invite the Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI)to check out your profile and see how well you stack up against others who like to have naked images of kids in sexual positions, etc.  ( IINA is a component of FBI's Cyber Crimes Program, is an intelligence driven, proactive, multi-agency investigative initiative to combat the proliferation of child pornography/child sexual exploitation (CP/CSE) facilitated by an online computer.)   Let us know how you come out...

YUCK!

As far as the law and owner of this website are concerned, there are no pedophiles on this website. There are not any pictures of nude children ANYWHERE on this website. So why is this subject brought up again and again?

theda wrote:
You didn't say that?

Yeah. I did. And it IS illegal in some places.

bencook2 wrote:
You don't get that bad rep from Jock Sturges/Sally Mann photographing children/teens/moms/dads naked.

You could possibly get a bad rep from the prosti-tots websites promoting "teen glamour" models.

Never said they did. I'm talking about in society in general. Not things like that. Those are so not sexual or provocative.

And Patrick, that whole post was totally not directed at you. Images for minors don't need to be pornographic, or anything. I just don't think they should take their clothes off until their 18. End of story, now you all just let it rest and get off my back. I also believe LIKE I STATED BEFORE that the MM admins will not let any child nudity on their site. I have trust in them that they will manage their site how it needs to be managed and I don't argue that.

theda wrote:
Yeah, it's just you. It's not illegal to look at a naked child. That;s why no one has put a stop to it. It's fairly common in high fashion.

This nudity=sex thing is what creeps me out.  Obviously, a lot of people simply do not know the difference. Pedophiles don't need to see nude photos of children to feed their desires. Any photos will do if they're really interested.

From what I've read, the true pedophile also goes for girls that are not filled out as the teens who are this website. There is another "Place" that we all know about that allows all ages. That is a website I would worry about "lurkers" and also why once I launch my model listing website, it will cost a small fee to "lurk" so I can keep tabs on the membership.  I don't shy away from a website just because it cost to be on it.

Kaori Night wrote:
So, when/if you have one, are you going to let your 14 year old daughter pose naked for some man and a camera? Let her naked body be on some man's public online portfolio? Since you don't seem against it at all...

I'm sorry. But this is one thing I actually am against. I'm open minded to a lot of things, but letting teens and preteens have nude pictures is just wrong and unnecessary. I'm sorry if you all don't agree with me. They should be at least 18 before they take their clothes off professionally...

I'm not arguing with you on this.  All I'm saying is that it is not on this website, at least I have not seen it.  Also I don't find some nudity, such as "art" nudes offensive ... regardless of age.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
So why is this subject brought up again and again?

Don't know! Why the hell you keep bumping this dead topic back to the top?

Kaori Night wrote:

Yeah. I did. And it IS illegal in some places.

Where?

Kaori Night wrote:

I NEVER SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL. OMFG. I also never said underage nudity was a problem here. If it is on other sites, I wouldn't know. I do not look for that kind of stuff. I don't feel children between the ages of 14-17 should pose nude, as it's too risqué for their age group. Younger, I could stomach easier as that IS innocent. Sexual nature in anything like that would be horribly wrong, yes. But sexy poses while dressed isn't exactly age appropriate either.

And yes. Some teens do take their own pictures. I've known a few and I always suggest they don't post them online any time soon. I don't think they should get off scot-free either, if they're doing that. They could get the webmaster of site in trouble.

I think there is a difference between being kinda sexy and then down right provocative. That, I'm against. Little girls pulling their shirts down and trying to show off as much as possible is really tasteless. I've seen some of these before, but thankfully not here. I have full faith in the administration here, and I don't think they'd ever allow something -too- age inappropriate to be posted. It's their call and I think they'll make the right one. I, for one, am getting quite sick of this topic. I know what's wrong and I know when things have gone too far. I don't think this should even be an issue, since I've never seen any of that happen here. So, if anyone has a problem with how I see things, I guess they can shove it, or send me a message. Your call.

I don't have any problem with you or your opinion.  I respect you, and was just pointing out that nudity itself is not illegal. I agree with you that provocative or inappropriate images should not be done by minors.

Best wishes!

Kaori Night wrote:
Why don't you go look it up

Becuase you're the one that made the claim.  It's not my place to back up your statements.

Kaori Night wrote:
Like it was stated before, it also all depends on the content. Just like in some places its even illegal to look at illustrated child pornography. But in any case, I said I was done with this topic, so I'd suggest you find something else to do than argue with me that child nudity is ok. Because you're not changing my mind. Go think about how you're not going to have children or something. Jeezus...

For someone done with the topic, you keep responding.

The topic here is nudity, not pornography.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
As far as the law and owner of this website are concerned, there are no pedophiles on this website. There are not any pictures of nude children ANYWHERE on this website. So why is this subject brought up again and again?

I didn't bring it up...just responded to it.  I have my own personal reasons for what I believe and can tell you positively that they come from a place within me that is deeper than just some mindless banter about whether some adult male (or female for that matter) gets a woody over seeing a child naked!  True, pedophiles don't "need" photography to get them going...however if it's available...they sure won't turn it down.  I think it's ridiculous for you to say tht there is "no pedophile" on this website...how would YOU know what is in people's hearts and minds?  And at least one of Ty's photos is extremely questionable to me whether or not it is a child......unless you have seen the birth certificate of that specific model...I really doubt you know either...

Anyway...I'm done with this thread too since I doubt we will change each others minds...however I wanted to say to Kaori..you are amazingly wise above and beyond your years and I have no doubt you will go far in life...best of luck to you sweetie...always stick to your innermost morals and feelings..

Kaori Night wrote:
Like it was stated before, it also all depends on the content. Just like in some places its even illegal to look at illustrated child pornography. But in any case, I said I was done with this topic, so I'd suggest you find something else to do than argue with me that child nudity is ok. Because you're not changing my mind. Go think about how you're not going to have children or something. Jeezus...

Your age is showing.

bencook2 wrote:

Your age is showing.

And her I.Q.  Dang things in life must be simple to be Dumb like George.

VIS wrote:

And her I.Q.  Dang things in life must be simple to be Dumb like George.

coming from an intellectual giant, i am sure that she is hurt by your remark...george may be dumb, but he is in charge of the greatest nation that this earth has ever seen.