At first I was like 'Eh, it's just modeling.' but then I saw that 'outline' picture Jiggle put up... now WFT.

wow that is bad,but I mean come on adluts do teh same and no one runs around yelling "This is porn" besides as long as they ahve clothes on and are not being touched it's not porn

At 6/10/03 10:26 PM, blondedamaged wrote:

At 6/10/03 10:18 PM, RyoHahn wrote: so I take it some of you clicked the links. is it really as bad as most of you are making it out to be?

its not that bad!!! believe me...they have clothes on...

I saw vaginal lines and some hard nipples.

At 6/10/03 10:27 PM, digimonsucksass wrote: but then I saw that 'outline' picture Jiggle put up... now WFT.

OGM!

this practicly is porn magna did u find this looking 4 porn urself

At 6/10/03 11:09 PM, Magna wrote: I saw vaginal lines and some hard nipples.

ok if you saw that then you were looking at the pic way to hard

damned pedophiles! yeah, just cuz nothing really sexual is in it it doesnt means it isnt child porn, they r using kids' bodies to make profit, and law should intervene even if there isnt any proof of sexual content

Here we are debating about what you can see fro free on the sites...

Think for a second...

What do you get to see when you pay to be a member???

Yes, we all know Child Porn is sick, so GET OVER IT! Geeze! this isnt even Child Porn, sure, its not roght, but you see girls the same age wearing stuff like this on the street! Its not that big a deal! Little girls are dressing like Sluts nowadays! Its cause of "Role Models" like Britney Spears, and Christina Agulara!

I reported the site earlier today and got this back...

http://www.childsupermodels.com/

Thank you for contacting ASACP.

We've received numerous complaints in regards to this site in the
past, even though we consider these types of photos very unaccaptable,
it may not be considered child pornography, please visit this URL for
detailed information on child pornography laws...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html.

Please review our FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page for the
answers to most common questions (http://www.asacp.org/faq.html)

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact
us.

We appreciate your support in combating child pornography.

dang...nothin we can do...

Wait maybe this qualifies for that one more disturbing pic...

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

?eh?

child porn is the most discousting thing. anyone that has anything to do with it will rot in hell

At 6/10/03 02:40 PM, Magna wrote: Look at this! God, ok, this site is legit. I saw something about it on Oprah and today i actually visited the site. I nearly puked. This site is for pedophiles, plain and simple, and it's LEGAL. I'm going to post a link and some of the extreme pictures but i really don't reccomend going there.

http://www.childsupermodels.com/

OMG..... *pukes* preteens??? that's just disgusting.... *shudders and reports the site*

http://www.lindsey-model.com/series/02.jpg that one is my favourite.

http://www.tiffany-teen-model.com/series/40.jpg

haha, in this one you can actually see the pervs that look at this stuff, look at the guy in the pickup truck staring as he drives by

At 6/10/03 11:57 PM, SonnyCrockett wrote: http://www.lindsey-model.com/series/02.jpg that one is my favourite.

Man, Dobio is right, If you had no clue that these were underaged girls you would think they were just petite 18 year olds.

Damn, it's really sickening. Seriously man...

At 6/10/03 02:40 PM, Magna wrote: Look at this! God, ok, this site is legit.

Hey, I wonder if my girlfriend is on that site...yeah, just kidding.

If the chick is wearing leather, i dont care if they are 13 or 92, its all good.

I'm assuming that site is old, so the chick would be 13 now.

I agree with the first guy who posted here, whoever thinks these sites are a good idea, or are legit, should be shot in the face and testicular area. How those sites are considered legal, I may never know...

To those who think it's not really that bad.. that they're just in bathing suits big whoop.. did you see the one of the SEVEN YEAR OLD in a skirt.. sitting in a school chair letting you look up her skirt?

That's just fucking wrong..

At 6/11/03 12:25 AM, Phantosanucca wrote: How those sites are considered legal, I may never know...

They are seen as modeling sites and some people even deem it as photographic art. But it gets worse. I hear some sites out there allow full-frontal nudity. They are deemed as "online photographic art galleries" and (brace yourself for this) they charge monthly for access to their archives (much like your casual online pornography site) and the money in it is very high. People really will do anything for a buck today. Sad.

You know.. i really wish i hadnt clicked on that link.

I hope im not on some sorta fbi list now...

At 6/11/03 12:04 AM, mwazzap wrote: I'm sorry, I was rambling like an optomistic self empowering hippy again... excuse me for a moment while I think about the fact that my world is ruled by imbecilic power hungry republicans and will soon be over populated by [people who have children by the dozen]. *

[Catholics and poor people]*

mwazzap...im literally getting ready to fall out of my chair laughing! im catholic...and its soooooo true!! my grandparents have 10 children!! and these other people i knwo that are catholic have 12 kids...its insane!!!!!

At 6/10/03 10:29 PM, RyoHahn wrote: wow that is bad,but I mean come on adluts do teh same and no one runs around yelling "This is porn"...

There is a big difference between a consenting adult choosing to exploit his/her sexuality and a child doing the same.

At 6/11/03 12:32 AM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote:

They are seen as modeling sites and some people even deem it as photographic art. But it gets worse. I hear some sites out there allow full-frontal nudity. They are deemed as "online photographic art galleries" and (brace yourself for this) they charge monthly for access to their archives (much like your casual online pornography site) and the money in it is very high. People really will do anything for a buck today. Sad.

Yes, it really is sad how people put their ethics, scruples, and basic human decency aside if it'll make them a few extra bucks...I'm seriously offended by the mere idea of this...hopefully something will be done.

You people are all like "Oh! that's like child porn" and you stop there.
What's the financial situation of those people? Do you know? Maybe those parents need the extra cash to live, maybe the photo shoots are assissted by the parents, maybe if you all shut up about it and don't spread it all over the net like you just did, the reputation of those girls will be less damaged...

Put yourselves in their shoes... a photoshoot every week... 1000 extra bucks.. no hassle. No one in their right mind would care if that's wrong, as long as they need that extra income.
It's up to those girls and those girls parents to decide if that's wrong or not, Oprah had NOTHING to say in the matter and should shutup now :(

And of course, this will lead to abuse blablabla spare me this crap. The abuse is already there, this changes nothing. Actually, I might want to report ng to oprah since there is violence on it, and even though it's not real, it makes kids shoot people at schools...
yeah right.

At 6/11/03 02:03 AM, poxpower wrote: You people are all like "Oh! that's like child porn" and you stop there.
What's the financial situation of those people? Do you know? Maybe those parents need the extra cash to live, maybe the photo shoots are assissted by the parents, maybe if you all shut up about it and don't spread it all over the net like you just did, the reputation of those girls will be less damaged...

Can't say I agree with you Poxpower. Would you argue with child labor laws if the parents needed extra money to live? I can't say any arguement about financial situations would justify a parent using their child in any way to make a living. If the parents need extra money to live they should be doing extra work or "modeling" themselves. I also don't see how spreading the word about it will increase any damage to the reputation of these girls since the majority of NG users seem enraged about the situation and not excited.

At 6/11/03 02:29 AM, Miss_Iivil wrote:
Can't say I agree with you Poxpower. Would you argue with child labor laws if the parents needed extra money to live? I can't say any arguement about financial situations would justify a parent using their child in any way to make a living. If the parents need extra money to live they should be doing extra work or "modeling" themselves. I also don't see how spreading the word about it will increase any damage to the reputation of these girls since the majority of NG users seem enraged about the situation and not excited.

I only know that spreading the word isn't good, that's all. And I'm not pro child porn or whatever you might think, it's just that in THAT particular case, if the parents need the cash, ( and I mean need) then I say it's okay, or at least, it's their say, not some Rosie Odonnel vigilante...

And maybe someone who is in a depression or burnout or sme health problem doesn't have the time to "model" themselves or to do some extra work.
Again, I'm not endorsing this, I'm just accepting that under certain circumstances, it's acceptable.

these sites r sick as fuck!!! i can under stand 16-17, but 7! WTF! tare these site down!

At 6/11/03 02:48 AM, poxpower wrote:

I only know that spreading the word isn't good, that's all. And I'm not pro child porn or whatever you might think, it's just that in THAT particular case, if the parents need the cash, ( and I mean need) then I say it's okay, or at least, it's their say, not some Rosie Odonnel vigilante...

And maybe someone who is in a depression or burnout or sme health problem doesn't have the time to "model" themselves or to do some extra work.
Again, I'm not endorsing this, I'm just accepting that under certain circumstances, it's acceptable.

I understand that you're not endorsing it, but sometimes ignoring or accepting a problem can be nearly as bad. The people doing this whether by choice or by parental pressure aren't old enough to responsibly make the decision or really fight back for themselves. Besides, if they are that desperate for money, they can get welfare. By having children you assume responsibility for that child until they're able to fend for themselves, the child shouldn't be supporting the parent at that age.

Even if you do choose to accept it for a rogue case where a family needed some quick cash, there are too many girls on this site for that to be the case.

Spreading the word is not a bad thing, it's the only way that a change can be made if necessary. Most people who have replied to this post had no idea sites like this were running within the limits of the law. I know I certainly didn't.

I hope you don't think I'm judging you or anything, everyone has different tolerances to things, but I don't think you should chastize people for trying to spread the word about it. I also hope that you can understand that some of us are upset about the situation, even if you don't find it unacceptable personally.