report child porn?

[mopinko]

i have been getting spam about a "teenage" porn site. if the fbi really wanted to crack down on this shit, wouldn't they have a place to forward these e-mails? do they? anybody know?

[Atman]

1. 18 and 19 are "teenage" too

No legit site can be advertising kiddy porn and survive for more than a day or so before being shut down. They are playing on your preconceptions and fears..."teen" must be "child," right? But obviously it does not always mean any such thing. The link is most surely smut, but very unlikely kp.

[mopinko]

4. the "come one pic"

is surely not 18, and thanks for NOT answering the question.

[Atman]

29. I think you need all sorts of lightening up

How the hell do you know the come on pic was NOT 18? Because she had pigtails and a schoolgirl skirt? I DID answer your question, if you actually read my post: It ain't kp. I know a 35 yo we hang out with who is a cute as a button, with absolutely no chest. A- cup...she doesn't even wear a bra, ever. No need. And her face looks easily like a teenager. Two minutes with the median or blur filters in Photoshop, I'd have you betting the mortgage she was 13.

The point you didn't seem to pick up on is that porn makes money. The type of internet kp you hear horror stories about is NOT e-mailed to you by legitimate businesses. To even think it might be is ludicrous. How does that business model work? Buy a mailing list (hundreds or thousands of dollars); set up a secure site with MC/VISA card transaction capabilities; pay for hosting, etc, send our an illegal picture in your easily trace-able e-mail ad, then wait for the FBI to come rolling with their wallets open? Get real.

This is selling fantasy. Or are you up in arms also that the only female lawyers and doctors on teevee are young and hot? We LIVE reality. But we BUY fantasy. E-mail marketers know this, so they dress their models like teenagers, not perfectly legal 40 yo housewives.

[redqueen]

41. And I think you need to do all sorts of waking up

The fact that we rant about pedophiles while simultaneously broadcasting Britney Spears in a schoolgirl outfit licking her lips suggestively is hypocritical in the extreme.

You seem to have taken a less ethical, more lassiez faire attitude: it's legal, and it sells, so what's the problem? The problem is that this kind of pandering feeds into an epidemic around the world. Yes, epidemic.


http://www.designm.com/protectkids/pages/guide.htm

When faced with a medical epidemic in this country the Centers for Disease Control will take immediate steps to educate the public against the spread of the disease. An epidemic of child molestation is spreading across America yet few people are aware that 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be molested before age 18.1 And molestation is never a one-time incident for the victim. Children do not get over molestation as they do a virus. We are a country populated by millions of adult victims who continue to bear the emotional scars of childhood sexual abuse, and the casualties of this generation of children increases daily.

We would do well to draw upon the wisdom of the English statesman, Disraeli, who once told Queen Victoria, "The one with the most knowledge has the greatest advantage." There is no better place to apply this logic than in the protection of our children - no better place to begin than correct the myths which contribute to our false sense of security until someone we love is affected.

- Molestation occurs in all income and racial groups, from infancy through adulthood.

- The majority of molesters are known by their victims.

- You may never know that your child is a victim.

- Children are not likely to lie about sexual abuse.

- Children do not outgrow the traumatic effects of molestation.

The 1992 rape survey conducted by the National Victim Center reported that 29% of all rapes occurred when the victim was less than eleven years old, another 32% occurred between the ages of 11 and 17.

We cannot treat this matter lightly. To do so would be a betrayal of the trust our children put in us.

[iverglas]

75. wow, what was that about?

The post it was in response to had explained -- I think probably correctly -- that a business engaged in sending solicitation emails to random potential customers is not very likely using underaged models for its photography.

It pointed out that there are adults who look, and/or can be made to look, like people who are legally children.

It pointed out that there is a clientele for this product, and that it is legal to sell it.

And this response is:

You seem to have taken a less ethical, more lassiez faire attitude: it's legal, and it sells, so what's the problem?

Gee, I didn't see anyone saying "what's the problem?" What I saw was someone saying it's legal. That being an answer to the question on the floor.

Some of us might really do well to do a little less unfounded imputing of motives and ideas to others, it just always seems to me.

The problem is that this kind of pandering feeds into an epidemic around the world. Yes, epidemic.

You betcha it does. But that alone doesn't make it illegal, any more than casting Lara Flynn Boyle or Calista Flockheart in TV roles is.

And it is certainly no basis for accusing someone who says that it's legal of not being concerned about it.

.

[redqueen]

84. Just saying 'it's legal' is displaying a lack of concern.

The preponderance of people who will defend unethical behavior because 'it's legal' should be a red flag to all of us.

Our society is rotting, fast.

[iverglas]

97. no, it isn't

The preponderance of people who will defend
unethical behavior because 'it's legal' should
be a red flag to all of us.

And if you are accusing ANYONE of DEFENDING ANYTHING, you really should do a better job of putting your money where your mouth is.

I will quite gladly say that spreading anti-choice propaganda is LEGAL, but you can bet your ass that I'm not DEFENDING the spreading of anti-choice propaganda, or anyone who spreads it.

Get it yet?

Let's have the money.

Who defended anything in the post you were responding to?

You accused someone of taking "a less ethical attidude". ("Less ethical" than what, I dunno. It's not like your post was coherent.)

I say that when you make statements like that in public, you pay up.

.

[redqueen]

100. Flawed analogy

Anti-choice protestors are not victimizing anyone, regardless of the semantic dance you choreographed.

'Less ethical' than admitting that these pims are part of the problem of sexual exploitation of underage people. Instead just say 'hey, it's legal' and move on, as if the world is not worse for this kind of crap.

[iverglas]

112. good bleeding jeezus

Anti-choice protestors are not victimizing anyone,
regardless of the semantic dance you choreographed.

And precisely whom are the purveyors of pictures of WOMEN DRESSED UP TO LOOK LIKE CHILDREN "victimizing"????

You are doing nothing but begging the question.

I mean, actually, you're doing a whole lot more than that, but that's the essence of your "argument".

You are ALLEGING that it is POSSIBLE that the pictures are really children, and using your ALLEGATION as the premise for the conclusion that there is "victimization". At least that seems to be what you're doing.

PROVE YOUR PREMISE first, honeybun.

Or don't, I don't care -- but don't ACCUSE OTHER PEOPLE OF MORAL TURPITUDE unless you have provided proof of what you are saying.

If that's not what you're doing -- if you're claiming that it is enough that the people in the photographs LOOK LIKE children even if they are really adults, then go to the question I have asked you at the bottom of this thread: what is to be done (and how is it gonna work)?

'Less ethical' than admitting that these pims are part
of the problem of sexual exploitation of underage people.
Instead just say 'hey, it's legal' and move on, as if
the world is not worse for this kind of crap.

"As if", eh?

And once again, if I say of the spreading of anti-choice propaganda (no victims, indeed ...): "hey, it's legal", and move on, are you going to put the attitude that "the world is not worse for this kind of crap" in my mouth? You know you'd be very wrong if you did.

I've seldom seen such self-righteousness based on so little. Your repeated insinuation that people who say (and even, presumably agree) that selling pictures of women dressed like children is not (and, presumably, should not be) illegal do not agree that these "pimps" (I assume that's what you meant by "pims") are part of the problem of the sexual exploitation of children has no basis in fact. If I had my own druthers, Hugh Hefner himself would have been a pauper long ago, because in *my* ideal world, worthless pieces of shit like him would be barred from engaging in business.

But THIS is not MY world, and *I* do not propose that people be barred from earning a living in a manner that does not constitute genuine exploitation. I don't see Hugh Hefner giving anyone the choice between starving in the street and taking her clothes off for the camera. I don't see him making profits off the labour of people who have no choice or no ability to make choices.

I can think of other ways that might be used to bar him from doing what he does, and I'd consider them because I definitely agree that he is a big part of a dreadful problem. But I will not make stupid, disingenuous claims that he is doing something he is not doing.

But then, that's just me. I don't accuse people of doing or saying things they have not done or said.

.

[redqueen]

114. You again assume these are legal aged models

Dangerous assumption to make, considering the consequences if you're wrong, don't you think?

Or is it that since we never hear of the consequences, it's one of those 'out of sight, out of mind' situations?

[iverglas]

123. oh, dear, what can the matter be ...

You again assume these are legal aged models

YES. YES YES YES.

IF the models ARE adults, THEN the material IS LEGAL.

For the love of anything you hold holy, why can't you acknowledge that THIS is what has been said?

YOU are not saying:

"IF the models ARE NOT adults, THEN the material IS ILLEGAL."

YOU are saying something else.

YOU are saying (per your answer way down the thread, strangely given in question form -- is it really that difficult to ANSWER A QUESTION??):

"IF the models ARE adults, THEN the material SHOULD BE ILLEGAL."

*I* (and everyone else) am **NOT** saying:

"IF the models MIGHT BE adults, THEN the material IS LEGAL."

And yet here you are again, trying to portray others as having said that, as far as I can tell.

What do you imagine this thread is about, if I may be so bold as to ask?


Or is it that since we never hear of the consequences,
it's one of those 'out of sight, out of mind' situations?

Well I dunno. If you can make that a coherent question -- consequences OF WHAT; WHAT is "it"?? -- maybe I could answer ...

.

[redqueen]

124. *sigh*

I'm not sure where you got that quote from... if the models are adults, then material should be illegal... I have never said that. However, just as rape scenes are a no-no, I think the underage portrayal should be a no-no.

The consequence I refer to is the consequence of sexually exploiting anyone, especially an underage person. I thought that would be clearly inferred. Mea culpa.

[iverglas]

129. excuse me

I'm not sure where you got that quote from...
if the models are adults, then material should be illegal...
I have never said that.

Well, poor me, I'm left to my own devices here trying to figure out what the bloody hell you are saying.

Here's what you did say:

Is a law stating that marketing women so as to appeal
to the tastes of those who would rather see children or
underage girls too much to ask?

Do you want to tell me what that meant?

what do you mean by THAT? what do you MEAN by that? WHAT do you mean by that?



The consequence I refer to is the consequence of
sexually exploiting anyone, especially an underage person.
I thought that would be clearly inferred. Mea culpa.

Well, you'd just better keep beating your breast, 'cause there seems to be a whole lot of sinnin' going on here.

YOU are apparently asserting that someone -- "especially an underage person"? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?? WHAT UNDERAGE PERSON -- is being sexually exploited.

Where exactly did you establish this fact?

C'mon now, drop the façade and come clean. You're really a ten-year-old getting a kick out of driving a lot of people of intelligence and integrity quite mad with your bizarre illogic, right? Are we exploiting you?

http://www.jabberwacky.com

.

[redqueen]

133. Look

I'll PM you with personal details to explain that I'm not a ten year old, ok?

Meanwhile, just as rape scenes are a no-no, IMO underage appearance should be a no-no.

[iverglas]

137. if you're not a ten-year-old

(and I do not wish to receive unsolicited private messages from people who won't answer questions on the discussion board)

... why can't you speak grown-up?

Meanwhile, just as rape scenes are a no-no,
IMO underage appearance should be a no-no.

I asked you to explain what struck me as a disingenuously worded statement-in-the-form-of a question, which I had attempted to interpret and to which interpretation you had objected.

My interpretation of your "question" had been that photographs portraying adults as children in a sexual context should be illegal. I asked you to confirm or deny this interpretation.

And you give me "a no-no"???

What do you MEAN, "rape scenes are a no-no"?? They aren't ILLEGAL, are they?

So are you saying that "underage appearance" should also NOT be ILLEGAL?

And if THAT is what you were saying (and that is NOT what your question, whether a law against such things would be too much to ask, implied), WHAT is your problem with everyone who said that photographs portraying adults as children in sexual context are not, and should not be, illegal?

Oh, all right. That's ... well, not a rhetorical question, because I really just don't know the answer. It's kind of just a plea for reason. But I know that it's destined never to be answered -- the plea for reason, or the question -- so let's just agree that I don't know what your problem is, and you're not going to tell me. 'K?

.

[redqueen]

140. So insulting... *sigh*

The law is vague. It's all set up to adhere to 'community standards'. During Clinton's administration, it was pretty much anything goes. No obscenity charges were sought.

However, things are changing. Now there are challenges to porn producers, and one of the things most vehemently sought for charges are the rape scenes. So, strictly speaking, no, they're not illegal. But you try defending a rape tape in front of a jury, and see if that fits their idea of 'community standards'.

And YES, I think that the portrayal of adult models as underage models SHOULD be brought up before a court, so that a jury could tell us once and for all that it does NOT fit the community's definition of obscenity.

I find it funny that you express to me a 'plea for reason', when you're the one accusing me of being a child, of not being able to make sense, etc.

Your playful sarcasm in this discussion of a very serious matter is duly noted.

Thanks for making yourself perfectly clear. Really.

[iverglas]

143. hey

Thanks for making yourself perfectly clear.

At least I'm able AND WILLING to do so.

You're still with the malicious insinuations and without any evidence. All mouth and no money still, as far as I can tell.

I'll take me.


However, things are changing. Now there are challenges to porn producers, and one of the things most vehemently sought for charges are the rape scenes. So, strictly speaking, no, they're not illegal. But you try defending a rape tape in front of a jury, and see if that fits their idea of 'community standards'.

And YES, I think that the portrayal of adult models as underage models SHOULD be brought up before a court, so that a jury could tell us once and for all that it does NOT fit the community's definition of obscenity.

Do you even have a clue about how "obscenity" is defined in the actual law of your jurisdiction? Do you actually imagine that someone can just be "brought up before a court" -- presumably charged with distributing obscenity -- on a whim, and a jury can just apply any "definition" it wants?

Don't answer. Please. I am too afraid of whatever you will say.

Have you investigated that notion of RIGHTS yet?


Oh, and was that a leetle bit of Clinton-bashing I heard there? ... No, please; that was a rhetorical question.

.

[Lindacooks]

65. Man, are you ever wrong

Lighten up about child porn? For God's sake, that is just a sick attitude. The child porn industry is booming, and everybody needs to report these sick spam emails. And there is a place to do so:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=169

If you just 'ignore' these emails, you're part of the problem.

[Atman]

98. Who said lighten up on kp?

This thread should be a great lesson to all. This could be a debate about Bush/Kerry, the way things are being twisted and stretched around.

You are fighting the oldest unwinnable battle in nature...trying to curb/define/legislate sex. I NEVER, EVER offered any acceptance of child porn. I NEVER EVER said lighten up about child porn. RedQueen obviously has some personal issues that go beyond mere disgust. Fine. It changes nothing.

The legality aspect should not be ignored. You seem to have no problem potentially destroying one person's life for doing something perfectly legal, in the name of protecting an anonymous, possibly non-existent threat to a non-existent teen (remember, we're talking college girls in plaid skirts, not real kids...been to a Halloween party lately? What was the numer one costume the women were wearing?)

It is selective indignation. You're choosing the ruining of one person's life over another that may not even exist. For LEGAL behavior. I'm sorry, lots of things are legal that digust us. Rush Limbaugh and Nascar come to mind. But I don't advocate banning free speech or cars in the hope that someone somewhere won't say "feminazi" or drive around in circles for 24 hours. You're just as guilty as everyone we've railed against who'd advocate the removal of Stern from the air. Sorry it offends.

Live your own life clean. Fight injustice where you can. But don't tell me I can't get a boner for looking at a nineteen year old in knee sox and a plaid skirt. It isn't a law causing that reaction in my pants. Unless you count Nature's Law. It IS the law that lets me know that I can LEGALLY look at her, and even have my way with her if I were to be so lucky. I am so tired of women telling men we should stop looking at pretty women! I friend of mine even insists that pubic shaving is a sign of a pedophile. Well, I got news for you...watch a porno, go to a nudist resort. The WHOLE WORLD is a pedophile, then, I guess.

Next thing you know you'll want to cover those perky breasts on the Statue of Justice...oh..er...waitaminute............

[redqueen]

101. Destroying someone's life?

This is amazing... there is an epidemic of sexual exploitation of underage people going on, and you're concerned about pimps having their 'lives destroyed'... how? By having to show the cops their affidavits which all models must sign? Oh how tragic!

How exactly does an investigation into a business equate into having one's life destroyed, do tell.

You flaunt that women all over the country were dressing as little girls last year. Do you not consider that to be indicative of a problem????

No one is saying to ban porn. Why did you start with the banning free speech canard?

[Atman]

109. Huh?

"Why did you start with the banning free speech canard?"

Why are you tossing about "pimps?" Again, you keep missing the point...the cops don't call and say, "Hey, can we have a look at your model releases" if they suspect you of kiddie porn...they'll take your computer and everthing FIRST. Now, if you are a running a legit business, just re-selling some crappy porn you downloaded, how does that make you a pimp? But is your life any less destroyed when your family and job and house is gone while you await an apology from the FBI?

Are you getting it? You seem to want people arrested and thrown away for PERCEPTIONS. That is a a dangerous, dangerous road to travel.

[redqueen]

113. *sigh*

pimp

\Pimp\ (pmp), n. One who provides gratification for the lust of others; a procurer; a pander. --Swift.


I understand that teh FBI will investigate, and will not put on their white gloves as they do with most rich offenders. However, to complain that their 'life is destroyed' is a stretch. If a man is hiding his porn marketing service from his wife that's the cause of the divorce, not the investigation. And if she's aware of what he's doing she surely knows the deal.

You are the one who is not getting it. I do not wish for any innocent person to be arrested and 'thrown away'. This is not about perceptions, this is about laws. If they are breaking the law, then they deserve the appropriate punishment.

I simply want porn merchants to market their wares RESPONSIBLY and WITHOUT giving any further ammo to those who WILL take away our freedoms. And further, WITHOUT providing encouragement to those who DO wish to have sex with underage people!

[Atman]

116. If

"If a man is hiding his porn marketing service from his wife that's the cause of the divorce, not the investigation. And if she's aware of what he's doing she surely knows the deal."

If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'.

[bearfartinthewoods]

32. google for the attorney general of your state and send it to them.

and send it to abuse@(insert isp of spam here). if they don't own the isp and it's in this country, that might help.

[Lindacooks]

66. Report it here:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=169

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Great minds, etc etc etc. (nt)

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

21. jeez

:eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. 18/19 = teenage too

So it's possible, nay, nearly certain, there's no kiddy porn there. These are all for pay porn sites, and they aren't idiots. Their business is legal.

[mopinko]

6. well,

i didn't expect outrage, but i didn't expect so many apologists. geez. it's on the interent, it must be legal? c'mon.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. It's just a hunch

Legitimate business that make a huge profit typically tend not to be idiots, so my instincts tell me the girls are probably 18/19 although some may LOOK younger. (a combination that no doubt is a much valuable asset -- pun intended -- in the porn biz)

But please clarify me. I'm an apologist for WHAT?

[mopinko]

10. apologists for

people who even dream of using the promise of kp.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. Did they promise kp? I don't think so.

Pornography with 18yos, although you may not like it, is legal. 18yos are teens (try pronouncing the number 18 out loud and listen carefully to the last syllabe). Teen ≠ kid. As someone else said... Get. Over. It.

Go ahead, report them if you must, but try not to blow a gasket if nothing happens, mmmkay?

[uncle ray]

9. driven by a college campus lately?

i'm just under 30, and i feel like a pervert if i look at a 18 or 19 year old girl. and some of them i would swear were 15-16.

get. over. it.

remember, 18 year old boys need something to wank to, what are they supposed to get off on tired old 40 year old porn veterans? its not just dirty old men that like teens.

i'd suggest directing your anger towards helping anti spam laws.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. I assure you you are a normal, healthy male.

Unless you're also hiding a secret craving for underage platypuses or something.

[outinforce]

19. "Normal"??

I read your assurance that uncle ray is a "normal, healthy male" because when he drives through a college campus he likes looking at 18 and 19 year old women.

I do hope that you understand that there are some of us healthy males who have absolutely no interest -- zero, nada, zilch -- in looking at 18 and 19 year old women. It does absolutely nothing for us.

Some of us have spent a great deal of our lives being told that since we don't feel a sexual attraction to women, we are not "normal".

You do understand, I hope?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Yes, you're normal TOO. And gay people too. Happy now?

(Standard platypus disclaimer applies)

[outinforce]

27. NO!

Am I happy now?

Are you serious?

Of course I am not happy. People are being killed in Iraq.

The GOP controls not just the WH, buit also the House of Reps and the Senate.

Kids are undernourished here in the USA.

Women are being abused.

And you ask if I am happy now?

Hell no!

Aren't you sorry now?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. I feel your pain

But let's not allow the evils of the world rob us the little moments of happiness we're able to wrestle out of it.

[redqueen]

42. Primitive

self-deleted

[frylock]

26. who told you about the platypuses!?

if this gets out, I could be ruined!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. I'm a psychic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x903964

[Southpaw Bookworm]

3. Here ya go

http://www.cybertipline.com/

[nostamj]

7. How To Report Child Pornography

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/report.htm

google is your friend!

[redqueen]

12. I called the local FBI office

and asked them.

I hate that crap with a burning passion.

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. just out of curiosity, where do they get these 18 & 19-year olds from?

Does someone troll the high schools looking for seniors who want to take their clothes off?

Or are these probably college freshmen who responded to flyers placed in their dorm rooms or something?

Or are these women who sought out the sites hoping to make it in modeling or acting?

:shrug:

[outinforce]

16. What Difference Does It Make?

What difference does it make, really?

Are you suggesting that adult women should not be able to use their own bodies as they themselves see fit?

[Forkboy]

23. Where the hell do you get that from MR's post?

Lighten up Gunga Din.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. Fourth option

They know what's it all about beforehand, don't mind, and want to make a quick buck. Possibly combined with some of the other options.

[alfredo]

20. Hookers and junkies in some cases.

Money is probably the prime mover for them.

Porn doesn't just exploit women, it exploits men. It exploits our sex drive and our loneliness.

[Zookeeper]

25. 'Just looked at your webpage...

your photos are lovely! I especially like "Potting Shed #1."
:hi:

[alfredo]

138. *blush* Thanks.

[redqueen]

43. HEAR HEAR!

I can think of few examples of such a situation. Stuck in primitive thinking, and staying there willfully because it feels good.

:puke:

[alfredo]

139. You go with what you know

there is comfort in the familiar.

that's why progressive have a tough sell.

[Az]

22. Marketting

Marketting is about presenting images in the way the customer will buy. You hire models that look young and then tell the customer that they are young.

America worships at the alter of youth. Advertising and programming are based on selling people on younger and younger looks. By appealing to am image that few can attain and none can maintain they establish are continuous struggle in the consumer to try to alter their appearance in an increasingly futile attempt to look young.

[seabeyond]

18. kinda the head in hte sand kinda thing

oh no they are business people they wouldnt do that, they just have an illusion of underage for our perversion but they wouldnt do it, no the fbi would shut them down in a day.

that is the so opposite of what is going on with the net

but hey, what the hell, we dont want at 30 to feel getting a hard on with some kid

kinda going with the picture of hannity in all his morality outrage with three young girls hotties for hannity.

not a big deal, just indidctive of what we create for our youth. not that we would ask any of our adults to be responsible, oh no, that might infringe on their right, right, grin.

i say go to it original poster, good for you for getting the info

[RandomKoolzip]

33. Is it too much to ask of DUers to make sense?

I can make neither hair nor hide of your post. Hannity with three babes? Huh?

These websites are legal. Any actual kiddie porn sites get shut down IMMEDIATELY since there are literally tens of thousands of full-time cops working the cyber-beat, and anything that looks suspicious is pounced on and investigated. REAL kp sites are so secretive and underground that they would never use friggin POP-UP ADS to attract the cops to them.

Whether you like it or not, there are men in this world who like to look at young girls. These porn websites employ young-LOOKING girls to promote the illusion of sex with young girls. And 18 is still the age of consent in most places. The Traci Lords fiasco caused a real shake-up in the porn industry; since then, they've been extra-super-careful to do background checks of their models. The women know what they're getting into. THERE IS FREE-WILL INVOLVED. The men who enjoy this stuff: Many of them are hard-working, otherwise decnt people. Many of them employ you. Many of them work for you.


If the subject makes you queasy, what's your solution? Lock them up? Okay, so then our prisons are already full of men and women doing time on charges based on marijuana usage (which should not be criminalized - far more men are in prison due to being busted for pot than for kiddie porn) and now you want to clog them up with guys locked up for checking out LEGAL websites. Meanwhile the REAL crimes go unpunished, multinationals continue to rape the environment and the workforce and go unpunished, education funding gets pillaged and the perpetrators go unpunished, etc. And real, exploitave kiddie porn is indeed some horrible shit and the guys who are into THAT stuff ought to be put away for life in some prison where they can get horribly expoited, anally, by their cellmates. No debate there. But the websites in question are legal.

Just because you find something unpleasant doesn't make it a crime.

[redqueen]

44. What gives you the impression these illegal sites are shut down quickly?

Please do tell.

Because it's dead wrong, you know. Completely and totally 180 degrees in conflict with reality.

[RandomKoolzip]

122. Give me a link that proves YOUR "reality", please.

And then I'll find some for you.

[redqueen]

125. I honestly can't believe I'm reading this

http://www.antichildporn.org/whiteppr.htm

For the love of God, do some research before you claim to understand the nature of a problem.

Your turn.

[DrWeird]

31. I guess you didn't get a memo.

In the internet dialect of pornese, "teens" translates as 'skanky 35 year old in pig tails.'

[RandomKoolzip]

34. LOL!

Put some 3-pack-a-day mother-of-two in pigtails and a catholic school girl outfit, put a lollipop in her hand, and VOILA! "Teen porn!"

THESE ARE NOT REAL UNDERAGE GIRLS.

It's also funny how much we all rail against the patriot act on DU and then post threads like this. House of cards?

[LeahMira]

35. You can...

if the fbi really wanted to crack down on this shit, wouldn't they have a place to forward these e-mails?


You can if you want to. Check this link and find your closest FBI Field Office.
http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm

The Field Offices have e-mail contacts listed and you can forward the piece of mail you received to that office along with any comment you think you should make.

You can also report it to the ISP from whence it came so the service provider can take whatever measures against the sender.

[FlaGranny]

36. It could possibly be a sting operation

by the FBI. But, I would report it, if I were you. I don't like to take chances where kids might be concerned. This would seem to be targeting pedophiles anyway, so it can't be good.

[Atman]

37. You're no better than Ashcroft TIPPSters

You are going to turn a guy's name over to the FBI, in the Days of Ashcroft, for what? Even when (I am not saying "if") it is determined that the guy was just an opportunist businessman (maybe one of the Bush unemployed trying to pay his rent), it will be too late, because the FBI will have taken his computers, his name will be on the front page of his local paper...and maybe a year later they'll let him go and say, "Oops, I guess she really was 35 yo skank!" But then, he's lost everything, his bank accounts will be drained, and the lawyers will own his house. Based upon your illogical hunch that a perfectly legal e-mail you received was possibly something it might or might not be.

I get huge amounts of e-mail because of my heavily-trafficed site, and while I get plenty of porn spam, most of it containing come-ons to teenage girl sites, I've never, ever received anything that I for one moment believed to be for child porn. (Another angle: I get LOTS of mail, and surf lots of sites (no porn...that's what NG's are for)...yet I don't get child porn e-mails. You might want to check your own histories to see where YOUR computer has been...maybe you're just getting a response to a cookie set during a late-night session? Eh?)

Child porn IS disgusting and SHOULD be vigorously prosecuted. But to turn someone over to the DOJ, to get them into The System without a higher degree of certaintly than the word "teen" accompanied by a low-resolution thumbnail...it just gives me the creeps.

The Ashcrofts have won.

[outinforce]

38. I Think You're Being WAY Too Harsh

I think you are being far too harsh on FlaGranny.

I have a quite healthy suspicion of the current USDoJ, but I nonetheless think that sometimes it (along with one of its components, the FBI) does s good job at catching the most dispicable criminals among us.

I have a quite healthy suspicion of the current USDoJ, but I nonetheless think that sometimes it (along with one of its components, the FBI) does s good job at catching the most dispicable criminals among us.

I lived through October, 2002, in Washington, DC, and I was glad when the FBI was able to catch the two guys who killed 12 people here in the DC area during that time.

Child porn is one of the most awful crimes I can imagine -- it takes young, vulnerable, and defenseless children and turns them into objects of lust -- leaving the kids with lifetime psychological and emotional scars.

I think FlaGranny is no fan or Ashcroft, but to suggest that she is "no better" than Ashcroft TIPPsters is, to my way of thinking, hitting way below the belt.

[Atman]

39. It wasn't aimed at FlaGranny

It was aimed at anyone whose knee-jerk reaction to an unpleasant image is to call the FBI or DOJ. That is a MAJOR step, considering the overwhelming common-sense odds that it is a perfectly legit site, no matter how distasteful one might find it. If you are wrong, which is almost inevitable, you very well might completely destroy another person's life based upon the most dubious evidence imaginable...an internet picture.

It just isn't right.

[redqueen]

47. "The common-sense odds are that it is a perfectly legit site"

You would rather she err on the side of the smut-merchants, instead of on the side of protecting any children possibly being scarred for life.

:wow:

[FlaGranny]

61. They have nothing to fear anyway if no chlidren

are involved.

[redqueen]

63. That's right

Just inconvenience. And if it's so bothersome, stop hawking borderline cases so as to alarm those concerned about the exploitation of children in the sex trade.

[Atman]

102. That's wrong

When the FBI kicks in your door in and takes your computer and the local papers publish it, and your wife leaves, and your house goes to the lawyer, and then a year later you're cleared of all wrongdoing...tell me there's no harm done.

My entire point has been, calling a government tip line, unless you have real evidence besides your own disgust, can destroy a perfectly innocent life, too. And it is, as been said a hundred times here, almost a 100% certainty that no one in his right mind (or even in his sick, twisted mind) would bulk mail unsolicited child porn. It is ludicrous to even assume such a thing. But this thread seems to have completely lost sight of that issue.

[redqueen]

104. This sounds familiar

Like the family farms that lost everything due to estate taxes.

Got a cite for this happening, perhaps?

[RandomKoolzip]

119. Do YOU have any links to these supposed millions of

actual kiddie porn websites that DON'T get shut down by cops all the time, that send spam e-mails to total strangers, that promote their wares using pop-up ads? I can't give you the title of the book, since I forgot it, but I just read most of a book here in a Barnes and Noble in Chicago about this (kp websites). The author, who infiltrated the underground world of child porn file trading on the net, tells us that these sites have to have names that do not in anyway indicate the kind of material within, something random-sounding, like "umbrella" or "Cloud house" or something. They can't freaking ADVERTISE their sites because the authorities are always watching. Next, he said, at most, there's maybe 500 people all together on these sites, and they mainly trade pictures back and forth, via e-mail. there is no open display of jpeg files so that any random user could stumble upon them and just miraculously FIND kiddie porn. Lastly, there was one famous alt.binaries site that was active in 1999-2000 that got shut down which is now supposedly a warning to all file traders that these kinds of picture-trading-finder sites are up for a few days at the most, then change their address; sometimes a site will have a new address everyday and the long-time, established users can only access the e-mail addresses. Since that famous alt.binaries site got killed, the DoJ has been more and more extreme about finding these guys and shutting them down....whether it takes going into chatrooms and posing as pedos themselves to gain trust. Believe me, there are tens of thousands of cops working this detail everyday, thank god, to make sure REAL asshole pedos get caught.

This situation is a far cry from this make-believe child-porn empire you'd have us believe exists. The reality is that these scumbags KNOW they're being hunted, don't do their business in the open, trade in complete anonymity, and often change their e-mail addresses week-to-week. Next time you think real kp is accessible to the genral public, do a google search on any of the terms pedos use, like "kp," "kx," "loli," etc, and see what comes up. Nothing. It's HIGHLY doubtful that a real child-porn site would send a spam e-mail to ANYBODY. A relatively innocuous "teen porn" site, sure. But real kp is so underground I DARE you to find a single example on your own.

This is like the Andrea Dworkinite snuff-film scare of the early 80's. Snuff films don't exist, you know. There is no traffic in snuff films. The FBI, the DoJ, the CIA, etc, have NEVER been able to find a single one. And yet, the myth of this secret, shadowy world of morally corrupt businessmen trading in films of young girls getting raped and killed persists. Why? Probably because it's comforting to have boogeymen under the bed to justify self-righteousness and a desire to interfere in people's lives. Remember how upset we all were about the Patriot act? Civil rights apply to even the most wretched among us, no matter how ugly that seems. The first amendment protects even those whose ideas and views we find hateful. Sorry!

I'm not saying that kiddie porn doesn't exist. It does. But I suggest going after REAL kiddie porn rather than these fake sites which are perfectly legal, however morally gross you may find them.

PS: on a personal note, I have a friend who lives in Nashville and enjoys "teen" porn sites. He tells me about checking out certain sites all the time (he's a very close friend, so we share a lot of info between us we wouldn't tell the world about). Anyways, he's never raped anyone, never murdered anyone, never stolen anything from anyone, has a good job, has a degree in sociology, has a girlfriend (who is a year older than him), is very liberal politically, in fact was a Kucinich backer, but just happens to enjoy masturbating while watching semi-nude young women on the internet.

Does he belong in prison?

[redqueen]

121. I understand what you're saying

But my point is that these sites that pander to those who wish to gratify their sexual urges with the images of underage girls (even if they're NOT underage) is contributing to the problem.

Of course he doesn't belong in prison. He's not committing any crime. However, I would think that his choice of material (if the 'teen' sites are his distinct preference) is indicative of a problem in our society, which is what is causing this epidemic of child molestation and sexual exploitation.

[RandomKoolzip]

127. I don't think you can make this "problem" go away....

A lot of men like young girls. Sorry. It's been that way for a long time. Go ask Lewis Carroll!

I don not think it's society's fault, nor do I think it's impossible to discern between those who feel desires and those who act on those desires. This is an important distinction.

A man attracted to teenage girls who chooses to masturbate to pictures of adult women dressed as schoolgirls is a far, far different case than a man who trades actual kiddie porn via the internet, or, heaven forbid, molests his own underage daughters or nieces and takes pictures of it. The law makes a distinction between the two for a reason: one is choosing to sublimate his desires through legal, relatively unharmful channels, the other is exploiting and harming others actively. The former should not be locked up, while the latter ought to be locked up, beaten up, and hopefully taken revenge upon by his cellmates.

Men are going to be sexual creatures for the rest of humanity's span on earth. Whether you find their vareigated desires twisted or disgusting is of no real consequence to them. Sorry. We are all born with free will and can choose not to involve ourselves in such areas; this is a personal choice, up to the individual. Just so long as they don't actively harm another without the other's knowing consent, I don't see the problem with letting men feel anyway they want to feel. Would you ban gay sex, gay porn, etc.? Or would you allow others to define gay porn as illegal siumply because it's indicative of what THEY see as a "problem?" After all, I think we all agree that gay men and women are allowed to express their sexual desires in private or alone, right? (The RW doesn't.)

I mean, I'm sorry, but I think society has bigger issues to deal with than to bother with some horny guy checking out some college girl flashing her boobs on the internet....After all, how would we go about codifying a set of laws which would prevent such a thing? How would we word the legislation and how could we prevent the ACLU from getting involved? And aren't we broaching some serious Deutschland Uber Porno territory here? Or Lewis Carroll's era and values? And we all know what a return to Victorianism would result in.

[redqueen]

131. Again, I understand where you're coming from

However recent investigations into these sites have turned up cases where the models are offered for sex. And many are not over or even near the age of consent.

And I disagree that we cannot change our primitive behavior. My primitive behavior would be to sleep with every rich or powerful man (or whom I perceived to be powerful) -- do I do it? No. Neither do most men who enjoy looking at apparently underage models. However there are a lot who do cross that line.

The very existence of this epidemic of child molestation and sexual exploitation ought to be a warning to those who take these matters lightly. I think we need to re-evaluate the situation from the ground up.

The fact that the epidemic is not publicized, to me, should be an eye opener for all of us.

[seabeyond]

142. you are right there are bigger issues

like the rapes and mutilations and the murders of women and the drug date rape and the pedophiles taking the children, adn abusing their own

the males spending hours on internet addicted to the porn and causing divorces in marriages and break ups in families

the underling disrespect of the female

much bigger issues than some man checking out a college girl. so why dont we address those, or do we just say men have been doing it since beginning of time, look at history, look at culture look at religion

after all they are only our mothers and sisters and daughters

free will. it is ours to chose.

[FlaGranny]

48. Thanks - I wasn't thinking of Ashcroft at all,

but I was thinking that these are people targeting pedophiles, whether or not the pedophiles know the "teens" are underage or not. My boss once had neighbors whose home was raided because of them running an internet child pornography ring. When the whole story came out, they had been running this operation for several years. I won't take any chances where children might be concerned. If that site is not using any children, they haven't broken any laws. But it is very suspect that they are trying to target the pedophile market. They MIGHT even be FBI targeting pedophiles in a sting. They also might BE pedophiles. In any case you have to look at their target market.

[redqueen]

45. "The Ashcrofts have won"?

Oh stop with the henny penny routine!

If these smut merchants didn't want the man coming down on them, they could stop with the 'here jack off to this 14 year old' crap.

If they want to use that form of 'marketing', let them pay the price.

[DrWeird]

49. That's right. Use the word "teens" then expect to get reemed.

It's like I tell my rape victims. If you don't want to get raped, stop dressing like a slut. It serves them all right.

[redqueen]

51. I'll agree that if the word 'teen' is the only thing bothersome

However the OP said that the picture was indeed indicative of an underage girl.

Whether or not she was technically legal is beside the point.

It's the ethical vacuum in this country that's tearing us apart. They are pandering to people who are creating an epidemic of emotionally scarred people who may never be able to have normal relationships.

And for you to compare smut merchants with rape victims is, may I say, far beyond disgusting.

:puke:

[FlaGranny]

55. You don't take chances with kids - period.

The parties sending this spam may just be indulging in false advertising - but their market is clearly pedophiles. If they don't actually employ underage children they have nothing to worry about, as they haven't committed any crime (except maybe false advertising). Have you considered that it could actually be the FBI targeting pedophiles? It would not be the first time.

My conscience would not let me live with myself if even one kid was involved and I knew and did nothing. The fact that these ads target pedophiles in the first place is enough to make them suspect.

I will overlook your insult calling me no better than an Ashcroft tippster.

[redqueen]

59. Thank God children have people like you considering their needs

Child molestation is an epidemic -- this kind of fanning the flames CANNOT be tolerated.

[FlaGranny]

68. Thanks, and

I must add a sort of disclaimer - I have absolutely nothing against pornography when it involves adults. I do have somewhat of a problem with adults being passed off as children (as it targets pedophiles), and a really big problem with actual children being used.

[redqueen]

72. I have no problem with porn either

I actually enjoy it. But I do NOT enjoy the nonstop sexualization of young girls. And this kind of 'marketing' if not outright crime is the reason for it, IMO.

Bratz... :grr:

[Lindacooks]

69. Thank you very much

My husband is the Guide to an Incest/Abuse Prevention website:

http://incestabuse.about.com

and he has written articles on how to report these emails:

http://incestabuse.about.com/cs/childabuse/a/PeteTownshend.htm

[rumguy]

50. they aren't targeting pedophiles - for cris-sakes

there are tons of websites that advertise teen sex...they use legal girls and I bet a good number of them are in their early twenties...

and a child porn site would not send out mass emails advertising itself...

child porn is secretive and very underground, in all my years of web surfing I have never seen any...

[redqueen]

52. There is an ethical consideration here

They are targeting borderline pedophiles. They are encouraging men to consider this an acceptable form of 'recreation', at a time when child molestation is at epidemic proportions.

Do you think there is anything defensible about men wanting to masturbate to obviously very young (barely legal) girls?

[rumguy]

53. is it wrong for a 21 y.o. guy to masturbate about an 19 y.o. girl?

of course not...

you can't assume that anyone who likes to look at a young, yet overage girl is a "borderline pedophile" - that's nuts...

[redqueen]

56. What age do you think it becomes an ethical problem at?

Do you think that only men under that age are partaking of these wares?

[rumguy]

58. at no age do I see it as an ethical problem

an 85 y.o. man who looks adoringly at a 19 y.o. girl is fine with me...

these sites may be tasteless...but not unethical, which implies they should be banned...

the real problem sites would be those that do use underage girl..those should be shut down, and pronto...but I doubt that many, if any, of these larger websites would even dare do that as the penalties are so harsh...

[redqueen]

62. This is where we do disagree strongly

You call it 'looking adoringly'. That's not adoration, friend. Smut sites are based on LUST. Adoring gazes are for people who do NOT have sex on their mind. Once the focus is sex, it is not adoration, it is lust.

I think they are unethical, because they are fostering an environment where it is acceptable to lust after barely legal teenage girls at a time when an epidemic of child molestation is sweeping this country and the world.

I agree about the very real problem of the true kp sites. However if these legal sites wish to continue to do business with no interference from the law then some consideration should be made to their advertising methods.

[rumguy]

70. an overage girl is not a "child"

you cannot equate the two and it only serves to muddy the waters of the child molestation problem...

[redqueen]

73. That is true

However when they market 'teens', they are skirting the line between childhood and womanhood, and knowingly.

They take the risk, they bear the burden of the law coming down, and I wish they came down hard, as many on this thread seem to think they do, but this is not the case.

[rumguy]

76. I have no prob. with law enforcement looking into these sites

However, I believe they already do - all porn sites must keep detailed logs of their activities, and I'm sure that includes the age of their models...it's federal law, written into the federal code in the 90s...

What I don't want is some kinda witch hunting mindset to take hold where all of this gets lumped into the same category of child molestation.

[redqueen]

86. I don't think that's happening

What is happening is that these pimps are targeting their wares less carefully, and it is resulting in some upset people.

Those people want to make sure no children are being harmed.

What's 'witch hunty' about that?

on edit: I can see the 'witch hunt' claim making sense, if people were advocating trying to find these people who downloaded or clicked links, but just for alerting the authorities on sites which skirt the line of the law? No, not a witch hunt by any stretch of the imagination IMO.

[rumguy]

88. alerting authorties: fine - arresting those who only used overage women

that's what I meant by a witch hunt...

[redqueen]

91. Where did that come from?

Who said anyone was being unfairly arrested?
:shrug:

[rumguy]

93. true - but I saw a slippery slope being set up...that's all - nt

[redqueen]

94. I very much agree there is one

There is certainly a slippery slope involved here.

And that's just more reason for those who enjoy porn and wish to keep it legal and protected by free speech laws to vigorously oppose the envelope pushing that goes on with respect to underage models.

[rumguy]

95. my original point - was that very few, if any, are using underage models

but if they are, bust 'em...

[redqueen]

99. And my point is

that you don't know that.

Err on the side of protecting the victims, not shielding the 'unlikely' perpetrators.

[DrWeird]

60. OK, at what age should a woman be

before it's OK for her to be in pornography.

I think if you'll do a survey a significant number of men would rather look at a 19 year old then a forty year old. Not that there's no market for the latter. But what makes one better than the other?

[redqueen]

67. Whatever the community designates is the age of consent

I would not want to advertise my views here as I'd be flamed all to hell and back. :)

However we can stick with the laws, can't we?

And I'm sure that you're right about the survey. However you can do similar surveys and find that Britney Spears is more talented that Mozart. Dig?

As for what makes one better, it's primitive thinking. Men are hardwired to breed and young females make better breeding partners.

The sooner we free ourselves from our primitive mindsets the better!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. As primitive as the urge to eat. No, less. Amoebas eat. (nt)

[redqueen]

87. Eating is necessary

Eating does not involve the possible victimization and exploitation and lifelong scarring of innocents.

See the diff?

[trapper914]

128. Age of Consent

16 here in Indiana.

[FlaGranny]

74. I would say that

a woman anywhere from age 18 to 80 (or more) should be allowed to pose pornographically, if they so desire. But, and this is where my problem comes in, a young woman or man over 18 posing as a 12- or 14-year-old is catering to men or women who like their sexual partners to be adolescents, which is not a good thing. If the poser is actually 12 or 14, then we have an even bigger problem.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. The real "borderline pedophiles"...

...are considered plain pedophiles by law, in order to "err on the side of caution". That would be, let's say, the ones who crave for 15yos and 16yos.

But 18? That's well outside the gray area. SO outside, in fact, that in many countries the age of consent is less than 18.

[rumguy]

79. in many states it's 17

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

85. So, can they do porn in those states, provided it's not sold to...

...18yo states? This question shall only be construed as curiosity about the technicalities of law!

[rumguy]

96. I don't think so...most pornographers will stay 18+ just to be safe

[outinforce]

81. I Think It Is Wrong

I happen to think it is wrong to call a 19-year-old woman (someone old enough to vote, purchase alcohol and tobacco, drive, and enter into the armed forces of the US) a girl.

She is a woman.

[rumguy]

82. fine, a 19 y.o. woman - you prove my overall point with this insistence

[outinforce]

89. You're Quite Correct

I doubt that anyone would be too terribly upset (aside from being upset at getting spammed) at seeing something that advertized hot pictures of teen-age women. The women would at least make it clear that the women whose pictures were shown are at or above the age of legal consent.

And it would most likely not appeal to the pedophiles out there.

The fact that pornographers refer only to "teens" or to tenn-age girls or to barely legal girls is what has folks upset.

[DrWeird]

54. "targeting borderline pedophiles?"

Really? I thought they were targeting people who would rather look at attractive consenting adults then skanky old women with wrinkles and cellulite. After all, there's plenty of websites that cater to that.

[redqueen]

57. Aha, now we're getting somewhere

"I thought they were targeting people who would rather look at attractive consenting adults then skanky old women with wrinkles and cellulite."

There is a world of difference between barely legal and 'skanky old women with wrinkles and cellulite', but thank you so much for showing some insight into the mindset of the men who defend these kinds of operations.

Teens are legal for what... three years? Maybe four? Why not market the twenty year olds? Or how about they just show lovely WOMEN?

For you to automatically jump from barely legal teenage girls to 'old women with wrinkles and cellulite' says a lot, I'm afraid.

[DrWeird]

64. Oh, but they do.

Often the "barely legal teens" marketing gets lumped in together with the "sorority college girl" crowd.

There's also porn that markets 30 year old mothers.

[redqueen]

71. I'm aware of the porn industry and the various tastes it caters to

I have no problem with college girls or 30 year olds.

My problem is when these pimps advertise the barely legal crowd. That is feeding into a problem that we can ill afford to bury our heads and continue pretending doesn't exist.

[outinforce]

77. I Get Gay Spam

I sometimes get gay spam (and if I ever find the website that caused me to get it, they are toast!).

Often, the message is to link to a site that has hot pictures of teen-aged boys.

That's right, boys.

There is, within the gay community, a tendency for some young men to call themselves "boys" or "boiz".

I think the spam is little more than a come-on for gay pedophiles.

[redqueen]

90. Oh, do you think?

There was an expose done recently wherein one of those sites was chartering trips to a European country, so that the viewers of that site could actually have sex with the 'models'. The ages of the models? As young as 12.

Yeah, little more than a come on. :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

40. It's probably not real "child porn", as others have pointed out.

It might be better for your peace of mind to look into an e-mail system with functional spam filters--and maybe a popup blocker.

There are also programs that can clear "cookies" out of your system.

[tinanator]

46. what, and bust Colin Powell's buddy Steve Case?

Step back and look at the bigger picture.

[Jacobin]

83. <shaking head> Did I stumble into a Christian Coalition meeting?

Talibornagains versus pedophiles?

Good grief. Wasting bandwidth arguing over whether men (and women) fantasize sexually over younger members of the opposite sex.

Clue phone ringing: Many do. And many of those who say they don't are lying to ya.

[redqueen]

92. THIS IS NOT ABOUT FANTASIES

As I have pointed out NUMEROUS times in this thread, there is an EPIDEMIC of child molestation going on. MANY TIMES BY RAPE.

THESE KINDS OF SITES CATER TO AND FOSTER THE MENTALITY THAT LUSTING AFTER CHILDREN IS SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE.

Clue phone ringin: WHEN DO YOU START TO GIVE A S$#@?


AND on edit: I take offense at your characterization of any concern over the sexual exploitation of underage people as 'taliban' or 'christian coalition' related only. For your information, MANY liberals care about those who are exploited for the sex trade, NOT just the Taliban and Christian Coalition. Pull your head out!

[iverglas]

103. well now

How about you tell us: WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

Let us assume that the internet sites in question have been proved to offer photographs of women who are not, legally, children. (Most of us have kinda figured out that this is actually the case, but for you, we'll "assume" it.)

What exactly is it that you are proposing be done to the operators of those sites?

There's precisely nothing that can be done to them under laws as they now stand, as I understand it.

Are you proposing that it be an offence to sell pictures of "women who look like, or are dressed and made up to look like, or whose pictures are doctored to make them look like, children"?

Gabrielle Carteris, who played Andrea in Beverly Hills 90210, was in her late 20s when she played a high-school student. The actor who plays oldest brother Francis on Malcolm in the Middle, who was in high school when the show started, was 20 years old then.

C'mon. How is it going to work? (Hmm, do you hear an echo?)


I take offense at your characterization of any concern over
the sexual exploitation of underage people as 'taliban' or 'christian
coalition' related only. For your information, MANY liberals care
about those who are exploited for the sex trade, NOT just the Taliban
and Christian Coalition. Pull your head out!

Yeah. And a whole lot of them can undoubtedly tell the difference between children and adults dressed up to look like children.

What's really offensive is your characterization of what anyone else has said as a lack of concern for victims of sex-trade exploitation. (Use the search function, if you will, and check the archives for my name and those terms, just for instance.) Not to mention your own exploitation of their exploitation to further your own agenda here.

It's mildly surprising that someone who takes offence so readily and with so little cause should apparently be so unconcerned about giving it so gratuitously.

.

[redqueen]

106. Well, giving a $hit would be a good start!

Is a law stating that marketing women so as to appeal to the tastes of those who would rather see children or underage girls too much to ask? You try to spin it by tying in actors playing children, but that's so far off the mark it's nearly funny. Those actors are not peddled as masturbation material for those that derive sexual gratification from underage models.

And I love how you assert that you've 'figured out' that all the models on all these sites are really legal. Amazing powers of perception you have there. :eyes:

You think that as long as they only look like children, there's no problem. I vehemently disagree.

You seem to think that all one has to do is feel sorry for the children, and then anything else is A-OK (such as dressing teens up to look like children, in order to satisfy the desires of the mentally ill). I disagree. I think that the acceptance of this practice is part of the reason that there is an epidemic of child molestation.

I'm not here to offend anyone. I just find it shocking and disgusting that there is apparently not much concern over marketing sexual material to people who want to see underage models. As you can tell I think this is part of the problem, and cannot under any circumstances tolerate it.

Can we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

[iverglas]

120. I want the money. Now.

And I love how you assert that you've 'figured out' that
all the models on all these sites are really legal.
Amazing powers of perception you have there. :eyes:

Yeah, well, I'd be real impressed by the rolling eyes if you weren't just addressing a red herring, since my argument in no way turned on my powers of perception -- since I STATED that my question was based on the ASSUMPTION of what I have figured out, i.e. that old "for the sake of argument".

You think that as long as they only look like children,
there's no problem.

I do, do I?

I want a quote from something I have said, saying exactly that.

And I know that you can't provide it, because I haven't said it, and your statement that I "think" this is BASED ON NOTHING and is a BIG FAT FALSE STATEMENT.

What is your problem?

Why can't you make your case, whatever the hell it is, without making FALSE STATEMENTS about other people?

You seem to think that all one has to do is feel sorry
for the children, and then anything else is A-OK (such as
dressing teens up to look like children, in order to satisfy
the desires of the mentally ill).

No, I DON'T SEEM to think any such thing. Not to anyone with eyes and the good faith to read what's in front of them as it as written, and the honesty to acknowledge what it is.

WHY do you continue to claim that a statement that something IS AND SHOULD BE LEGAL is a statement that it is A-OK?

Aren't you "pro-choice" on abortion? (Well, hmm, didn't you say you were more pro-choice than anti-choice, at least?) Do you think that abortion is "A-OK"? Is it A-OK with you if I go around saying that you think that abortion is A-OK?

I think that the acceptance of this practice is part of
the reason that there is an epidemic of child molestation.

I HAVE NOT SAID that I disagree with you.

I might also think that the acceptance of the practice of adultery is one reason that there is an epidemic of children being raised in poverty by sole-support mothers. But I am not advocating that adultery be OUTLAWED.

Have you ever tried to get your head around the concept of RIGHTS?

Is a law stating that marketing women so as to appeal
to the tastes of those who would rather see children
or underage girls too much to ask?

YES.

A woman who wishes to pose for a photographer has a RIGHT to earn a living. So does the photographer. So does the person who sells the pictures.

I think the pictures are nasty. I think the whole lot of those people are nasty -- although I think the woman is far more sinned against than sinning, of course -- but not nasty, and not sinned against, in a way that justifies interference by THE LAW.

People do have RIGHTS, whether YOU like what they do with them or not. This may indeed be a novel idea for some, but what you like or dislike just is not what the world turns on.

As you can tell I think this is part of the problem,
and cannot under any circumstances tolerate it.

Then don't tolerate it. But STOP MAKING UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS AND INSINUATIONS OF MORAL TURPITUDE against people whom you can't even demonstrate DISAGREE with you.

Can we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

If only you could actually demonstrate where we have disagreed about ANYTHING except your entitlement to make unfounded accusations and insinuations of moral turpitude against other people ...

.

[redqueen]

126. Not even going to bother with most of this...

I don't have the time or energy.

However this I read and it begs for a response:

"I STATED that my question was based on the ASSUMPTION of what I have figured out, i.e. that old "for the sake of argument"."

So, for the sake of argument, you're assuming something you don't know, which is the crux of the disagreement. Great form.

[iverglas]

132. the crux of the disagreement

I STATED that my question was based on the ASSUMPTION
of what I have figured out, i.e. that old "for the sake of argument".

So, for the sake of argument, you're assuming something
you don't know, which is the crux of the disagreement.


Where have you been for the last two hours?

The crux of the disagreement IS NOT whether the models on the internet sites in question are adults, which is what I "assumed" them, for the sake of the actual argument, to be.

The crux of the disagreement is whether purveying photographs of adults who LOOK LIKE CHILDREN should be illegal.

Are you going to explain that little "question" of yours ever? The one asking whether a law against doing that would be too much to ask?

YOU objected to statements that IF the photographs in question were of adults, THEN the activity was LEGAL, by making gratuitous and unfounded allegations of moral turpitude against the people who made those statements. Your allegations are just as unfounded, and unacceptable in civil discourse, as they started out being.

Great form.

Allow me to return the sarcastic compliment.

.

[redqueen]

141. Re-read the OP

This is not about making it illegal to portray adults as minors for the sexual gratification of monsters. That's a subthread. :eyes:

[iverglas]

144. duh de duh duh duh

The OP says:

report child porn?
i have been getting spam about a "teenage" porn site.
if the fbi really wanted to crack down on this shit,
wouldn't they have a place to forward these e-mails?
do they? anybody know?

If I said I had been getting spam about a "green cheese moon" site, would that mean that somebody was trying to sell me real moon cheese?

I still don't know what *you* think that was about.

If I may offer some unsolicited advice, you maybe oughta go easier on that eye-rolling for a bit. They might just get stuck like that.

.

[Atman]

105. It's time to call you on this one

"there is an EPIDEMIC of child molestation going on."

I don't take this approach often, but I will now...I want links. Stats. Government stats, or independent in some way. Go back to the fifties, the time of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation's history.

You are claiming an "epidemic" over and over again. You cannot seem to separate beauty from "child." A nineteen year old is a beautiful thing. Maybe she likes to be naked. I know some that do. Maybe she wants tuition money, so she poses. But you only think unnattractive women should be allowed naked? WTF? I don't get your angle.

Show me the "epidemic." This has been going on since the dawn of time. Look up "vintage porn" on google.

[rumguy]

107. I believe there is a real problem with it

and it should be delt with...but these sites that this thread is about are not the real problem, not in my book...

[redqueen]

111. See post #41

Apparently some people reeaally care about this issue, enough to scan the threads, even.

And teen pregnancy is somehow, to you, directly in relation to child molestation? :eyes:


And HOW DARE YOU say that I cannot separate beauty from "child".

You refer to a 19 year old as if that is what we're discusssing - pfft. Pitiful strawman.

And you refer to any woman over the age of consent (the ones I think are fully within their rights to perform nude or do whatever they want with their bodies as long as it's consenting) as 'unattractive'? WTF indeed!

Do 'vintage porn' searches return pictures of 'barely legal' teens? children? Hmm?

[Atman]

115. You're too emotional to discuss this rationally

over a message board.

I bring up teen pregnancy rates NOT as an illustration of child molestation, rather as an illustration that maybe, just maybe, things are NOT always getting worse and worse and worse and are thus an "epidemic."

Your claim that I ever said a woman over the age of consent was unnattractive was the last straw for me. You're pulling things out of thin air now.

[redqueen]

117. Strawman!

"maybe, just maybe, things are NOT always getting worse and worse and worse and are thus an "epidemic."

Did I claim 'things' are an epidemic? No. I said child molestation is, which it is.

"Your claim that I ever said a woman over the age of consent was unnattractive was the last straw for me. You're pulling things out of thin air now."

Am I? Here's your comment:

"But you only think unnattractive women should be allowed naked? WTF? I don't get your angle."

If you read my posts, I've said more than a few times that as long as the models are not hawked as underage to would-be child molesters, I have no problem with it.

Please explain what you meant by the comment above, if you think I pulled my interpretation out of thin air.

[outinforce]

130. I Object!

It's one thing to disagree with someone, but when a man says to a woman that she is just "too emotional" to discuss something "rationally", then I think I detect the foul order of sexism.

Refute her if you need to.

Clarify what you've said, if that is appropriate.

But there are many of us (I think -- and hope) who find comments about a woman's "emotionalism" to be quite offensive.

[redqueen]

134. I must concede

they do have a point. I am emotional, and for good GD reason.

I have allowed my personal feelings about this issue to take over and should have moderated my comments better.

[mopinko]

108. wow

wow, people who make money off of pornography can make women look younger and better??!!! does hugh hefner know about this??
seriously people, i live on this planet. i know this shit.

just fyi, here is the part that set me off about this particular e-mail-
"i hope you like me and my girl. she's shy i will try to get her on the site soon."

it's the coercion part the really bothered me. do i think i am breaking up a big secret kp ring that accidentally sent only me am e-mail. get real yourself. do i think that these clowns who are skirting the edge need to be reminded once in a while where the line is- yes i do.
and dr wierd- i agree with redqueen- if you go straight from teenagers to "skanky old women with wrinkles and cellulite" you got a hole where your maturity ought to be.

and just on the subject of pornography in general- i whole heartedly support adult women of sound mind doing whatever the hell they want with their bodies. if you can't sell it, you don't really own it. but many of the women doing it are not of all that sound mind, usually courtesy of child molestation and the substance abuse that often occurs with it. or just plain mental illness that very often expresses itself in adolescent hypersexuality. and it isn't really a free choice as long as women don't have the same choices that their brothers do to make money and be successful. i don't think these things are something that the justice system can fix. i think that is something that everybody that puts money into the system ought to understand. think about what you are supporting. if you refuse to shop at walmart, but you pay for this kind of shit, you are missing something.
get some reality folks. in all things.

[rumguy]

110. I would bet money it's not a kp ring

but if it makes you feel better alert on it...

but if you were to go around alerting about all the sites that feature "teen girls" and even use language like that well you will be a very busy gal...

[mopinko]

118. well, ya missed my point

about the coercion factor, and "all" of them are not in my inbox, tuggin' on my breakfast.

[trapper914]

135. As an earlier poster suggested...

I would try to find out why you're getting that kind of e-mail.

I'm not bothered by the "teen girl" message, as much as I am at the unsolicited porn in my e-mail box that anyone in my family might get confronted with. THAT is the violation, in my estimation.

[mopinko]

136. i get a lot of spam

because i have a contact on my art website. it doesn't have the actual address, but most of the spam comes in through there.

[neverborn]

145. Most porn sites have on the front page...

LEGAL NOTICE: All models appearing on the site were at least 18 years of age at the time their photographs were taken. Please refer to our 18 U.S.C '2257 compliance notice below for further information and documentation.


or something similiar.

Does that one?

[Shifty-Eyed Llama]

147. Yes, most of them do.

I don't see a problem with a porn site as long as they have that legal disclaimer and their models are 18 or above.

[sendero]

146. Wow....

... what a debate. The ignorance here is overwhelming. Some of you ought to get out more :)

I got annoyed enough with a porn spam once to do some investigation. If you want to do something, this is it...

There are pay porn sites on the net. They charge a monthly fee to access the site. Like lots of internet businesses, they use "affiliates" to send them "traffic", people who might buy the access.

Each customer sent by the affiliate that buys access earns the affiliate a commission.

Here is the kicker. Most of these pay sites absolutely forbid the use of spam emails as a method of promotion, for reasons that should be obvious. If an affiliate is caught using spam, most pay site owners will terminate their account on the spot and withhold unpaid earnings to boot!

So, if you want to give this guy hell, find out who the pay site owner is and complain that you got a spam email promoting the site. Show him the complete URL in the spam mail, that has the affiliate code in it.

I have shut down several affiliates this way. I have no problem with porn, but I have a big problem with spam email porn, because it undoubtedly gets into kid's email accounts too, and that sucks.

Anyone needing more info on this can PM me.

[Dogmudgeon]

148. It's probably impossible

1. The source of it is probably not the USA. Russia is a big source for porn these days.

2. It probably isn't even child pornography. Almost all of them are selling a fetish, not the real thing. There is a huge difference between pedophilia and "age roleplay". The difference even shows up clinically. Pedophilia is a sickness, coupled with purposefully predatory behavior toward children. "Age roleplay" is a kink for adults.

3. The FBI, the CIA, Interpol, and just about every other international police organization keeps tabs on the spammers. There has been a lot of "cross-jurisdictional" cooperation in the last decade. For instance, about two years ago, a huge international child-porn and pedo ring centered in Brussels was broken up. This wasn't just kid sex -- these folks were into sadomasochistic "play" with the children. Translation: Child sex and torture. But we got 'em. All of 'em.

4. The real pervs go to places like Thailand and the Philipines and have large expense accounts to draw from. Certain members of the Bush family, for instance.

Save the porn spam if you wish, and contact the FBI. They'll probably tell you to just delete it. But don't feel like they're putting you off. They're aware of it, and they're after it. Oh yes.

--bkl