Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Fri 26/04/24 23:26:12 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 18062.1

Subject: Re: All of this blather about underaged models

Date: Mon 05/09/05 06:00:50 GMT

Name: Blue Ranger

Email:

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

I think the whole definition of when a person 'changes' from a child to an adult is a matter of debate. Here in the UK it is at 18 but I know in many parts of the world a person can be classed as an adult in one country or state whilst being a child just across the border in a neighbouring teritory. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere but it (as with all age-related rules) is too definite for a natural variable - people dont change overnight because of their 18th (or 21st) birthday. Girls of 15 and 16 are largely aware of what they are doing and what they encourage by wearing revealing provocative clothing. But it is fair to acknowledge that girls of just 12 or 13 may be unaware of what they are doing by simply copying big sister in wearing something low cut.

Images taken by a family member or friend and then uploaded to the internet are quite acceptable as the subject is probably aware of what is going on, it is candid images where the subject is probably unaware their image is on the net where caution should be taken. I fully agree that common sense be used in deciding whether an image be suitable - of course if it is on a modelled site then the model can be assumed to be fully aware of the consequences of her image being taken.

I have never seen wetlook (in the usual sense - not a skimpy thong and nothing else) as pornographic, but I do think it is necessary to warn of genuinely inappropriate images. Remember that many of these girls are just having fun and not expecting to appear on the net, especially where (mostly) men will be jerking off over their innocent behaviour.

Just one more point, taking pictures in public is usually fully acceptable as anyone who may appear in a picture is in a public place, but taking a picture of an 'infant' or 'young child' of 'any age' would certainly be frowned upon and regarded as peadophilia unless of course the subject was known to the photographer.

In reply to Message (18062)

All of this blather about underaged models

By Sopping - katakai1@verizon.net Mon 05/09/05 04:29:24 GMT

Website:

I don't get it.

I am not talking about national laws here, just common sense. It is OK to take and publish a picture of an infant, a young child, a lovely young woman---of ANY age...As long as she is, playing in the park, petting a small dog, sucking on an ice-cream bar, or sitting on a fence wearing a bikini etc etc. - whatever. No problem, no porn, no nothing.No cries of alarm!

Why can said young lady be innocently wading in a lake? Is it OK for her to be standing by the lake then? Or possibly just getting her feet wet? At what point does she wade to sufficient depth that the button of the "anti-porn police" is pushed?

There is not the slightest element of porn in these pictures.You know it, I know it, we all know it.

But, on this site, we have postings by slobbering voyeurs of "Busty,Sexy teen-models" and similar porn-come-ons all the time. Big time! If I were to waste my time on these sites, I am sure I could identify some underage bimbos. But why bother.

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)