July 16, 2001

9:35 AM

The Florida publisher of ChildSuperModels.Com, Jessi the Kid, Tiffany Teen Model and other creepy child-model sites also publishes Home From School and other explicit porn sites with older models. "Please treat my daughter with respect," Jessi's mom asks on her about page. Are parents knowingly consenting to this?
posted by rcade (78 comments total)

your question is "are parents willingly consenting to having this company make pages for their children?"

dunno. I'd say it's likely that either

1) the parents aren't aware of the other business interests of this group ("we've made sites for many young models")

or

2) the parent's aren't aware that the sites exist at all. they pay kids for "modelling work" and then use the pictures to create fake sites for their pedophile customer base. :P

I'm not sure where they're making their money here: the links page goes to other "amateur" sites? is there that much money to be made from subscriptions? I wonder what comes with a subscription?
posted by rebeccablood at 10:00 AM on July 16, 2001

one of the links:

Send me an outfit and I'll model it for you!!!

ick. although, I suppose it would be a way to get free clothes if you didn't mind the sleaze factor.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:03 AM on July 16, 2001

God, this stuff just makes me ill. Do you suppose they present themselves as a legitimate marketing firm for child models in an effort to pacify the concerns of parents?

This is clearly the razors edge of child pornography. These sites produce the same feeling I get from those bizarre child beauty pagents (recall Jon Benet).

Jessi's site has an e-mail address for "mommy" (which also strikes me as a bit odd) - perhaps we should send her a list of links to the explicit sites maintained by these people.

All outrage aside, I've read that the FBI maintains sites such as these in an effort to track down true child pornographers and pedophiles. Though doubtful, perhaps that's the case here.
posted by aladfar at 10:08 AM on July 16, 2001

Wow. I'm thinking Taxi Driver. Yuck.
posted by swerve at 10:12 AM on July 16, 2001

This page from Tiffany Teen Model is so SO wrong.
posted by lia at 10:13 AM on July 16, 2001

OMG. This is disgusting. There are a few scenarios here:
1) Parents think by putting this on the Internet their child will "strike it rich" and get a modeling, commercial or acting deal. ie, they are pimping their kids out which is just wrong.
2) The parents are completely clueless and don't realize that the people who are selling this are selling it knowing there are a bunch of sickos out there getting off on this.
3) The photos were taken and then used in this manner which it may not have been intended for.
4) The parents are just completely sick fuckers who know exactly who is looking at this shit and using their kids to make money. #'s 1 & 4 are closely related.

Any way you look at it this is fucked up and is skirting so closely on child pornography it needs to be looked into. I'm all for free speech but this is REALLY pushing it.
posted by suprfli at 10:32 AM on July 16, 2001

This is so sad, and I agree it should be "looked into". I checked the FBI's site and they don't accept e-mail. Anyone got any ideas on who to report this to?
posted by hazyjane at 10:35 AM on July 16, 2001

im trying to write e-mails to as many of these "parents" as i can.

i have a feeling that they aren't "parents" but rather whatever company is paying the daughter to do "kids clothes shots"
posted by Satapher at 10:53 AM on July 16, 2001

parents exploiting their children. nothing new per se, but it's a shame the net makes it easier.
posted by jcterminal at 11:02 AM on July 16, 2001

yeah, and the links page sets off lots of grossness alarms in my head ...
posted by maura at 11:04 AM on July 16, 2001

Metafilter = Gateway To Porn? ;-)

It's hard to put into words the revulsion & disgust these sites (and the people who run them) instill.

BTW...reading a compendium of film reviews by Roger Ebert yesterday and he made an interesting point about what he deemed a respectable film that had some rather explicit sex scenes in it: "Sex is an activity; porn is an attitude." Touche.
posted by davidmsc at 11:06 AM on July 16, 2001

Metafilter = Gateway To Porn? ;-)

It's hard to put into words the revulsion & disgust these sites (and the people who run them) instill.

BTW...reading a compendium of film reviews by Roger Ebert yesterday and he made an interesting point about what he deemed a respectable film that had some rather explicit sex scenes in it: "Sex is an activity; porn is an attitude." Touche.
posted by davidmsc at 11:07 AM on July 16, 2001

Can we contact WebeWeb-- are they just hosting the sites, or is this the company that owns the actual domains?

If so, here's their phone numbers, in addition to the address info rcade listed above. Could we call and say we're reporting it to the FBI? I'm not sure how one goes about handling this, but I think we need to do something. This makes me really fucking ill. Shudder. They own "Dildoplanet.com" and "Everysextoy.com," too.
Administrative Contact:
Libman, Jeff (JL4145) [e-mail]
WEBE WEB Corp.
7020 s.w 22nd court Suite D
Davie, FL 33317
[phone] (FAX) [phone]
Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
Marc, Greenburg (GM2606) [e-mail]
WEBEWEB CORP.
p.o. box 480027
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33348
[phone] (FAX) [phone]
posted by gramcracker at 11:21 AM on July 16, 2001

I'm all for a mass-calling campaign. Short of telling them that we will report them to the FBI, which will probably make them laugh, can anyone think of something credible to say that will make them at least think twice about what they are doing?
posted by davidmsc at 11:30 AM on July 16, 2001

are they just hosting the sites, or is this the company that owns the actual domains?

The owner of the domains is Webe Web, according to WHOIS.
posted by rcade at 11:31 AM on July 16, 2001

Guys, if there is an investigation going on, your well-meaning action could seriously fuck things up. Let me send the thread to someone I work with--a probation officer who specializes in these cases. He'll probably know what to do with it.
posted by frykitty at 11:34 AM on July 16, 2001

here's the thing: if it's not child pornography, it's not child pornography, even if it's pandering to pedophiles. you can't shut someone down (I don't think) because they're pandering.

what *might* be effective would be (and I'm not suggesting that metafilter do this) for the authorities to contact (somehow) the parents of these children. possibly the parents could get the pictures taken down, if they didn't know that they were to be used in this way.

I sincerely doubt that any of the email addresses on the site go to the parents of these children.

another avenue would be to contact news agencies, but this would only feed the "web = child pornography" fervor, and also probably end up pointing pedophiles to these sites, probably give the guys who run them an increase in traffic.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:35 AM on July 16, 2001

Thanks, frykitty.
posted by davidmsc at 11:36 AM on July 16, 2001

Is anyone else even vaguely disturbed to see the otherwise generally liberal and free-speech-loving MeFi crowd suddenly start crying out for prior restraint over content that, while perhaps subjectively "creepy," is clearly not illegal?

Zippity LYNCH!™
posted by webmutant at 1:01 PM on July 16, 2001

The sites mentioned are structured like typical pay adult sites, with a preview area, member area, and items for sale. It seems pretty obvious who they are intended for. I think in Canada this might warrant criminal charges, but in the US I am not so sure. I have tried to report material like this, which is overtly pedophilic, but was told it was most likely legal in the US.

These may indeed be "sting" sites. Get pedophiles to sign up for the site, grab their location and details, and then offer them explicit material and/or contact. The pedophile bites and can be charged, but no actual child porn changes hands.
posted by tranquileye at 1:07 PM on July 16, 2001

that's the point I was trying to make above. pandering is not necessarily pronography.

I do think it is reasonable to assume that the parents of these girls would be interested in seeing where their modeling shots ended up, however.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:09 PM on July 16, 2001

tranquileye: isn't that entrapment? also, where would they get the pictures of the girls? their daughters? some unsuspecting "models"? it's still yick.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:11 PM on July 16, 2001

Letter from Jessi's mom :

"My child proof's all pics and final cuts of each of her videos. Since when did making yoga vids for kids and arts/crafts vids become porn? She's 11 1/2 and has an iq level of that of a genius. She is preparing to purchase property with her built up finances and is well aware of what she is doing.

I guide her and make sure it all stays very kid like.
You need to get your head out of the sand and get into reality. Have you seen the Olsen twins lately? Many of our ideas are mirror images of what they are into.

It's only show business and believe you me when i tell you my child lives a charmed life and would never label it all as being abused. Their are kids out there being abused and shown naked on the net. Those are the real criminals why don't you go after the real thing.

When a child visit's our site and writes us to tell about their experience not ever do they say it's not kid friendly. The say "cool, fun and could you add more jokes".
It's all in the eye of the beholder and if you thoughts are unpure you will see more than what is being offered.
So stop being a pervert and go after the real freaks out there will ya!

Mommy"

automated? or just proof of the extreme power of denial?
posted by Satapher at 1:17 PM on July 16, 2001

Try it again from another addy, and see if you get the same response.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:20 PM on July 16, 2001

Funny how none of the sites owned by Webe Web can use any of the variations of "their/there/they're" correctly. And that includes "Mommy".

The first blatant example is ont eh front page of Child Models. Screams out "same person" to me.

Also, isn't pandering a crime? I thought I remembered something about a person being convicted on possession of child porn and pandering. I'll look it up and get back to you.
posted by raintea at 1:32 PM on July 16, 2001

Is anyone else even vaguely disturbed to see the otherwise generally liberal and free-speech-loving MeFi crowd suddenly start crying out for prior restraint over content that, while perhaps subjectively "creepy," is clearly not illegal?

You're mischaracterizing the discussion -- no one has expressed any certainty that the material is illegal, and several people have acknowledged that it might be legal.

Even if you're right to be so certain of its legality, parents are either unaware of these sites or willingly allowing their kids to be exploited in this way. I think the situation deserves a longer look from legal and child-protective officials.
posted by rcade at 1:41 PM on July 16, 2001

Here's my problem. I'm 18 years old. This girl is quite definitely within my mental "dating pool" -- in fact, up until two or three months ago, it would have been legal for me to have sex with her. I've dated under-18 girls while being over-18. On the other hand, I am a college student, and this site is obviously visited by quite a few pedophiles. (I'm not sure how "exploited" this girl is, though -- she has a Yahoo! fanclub, which she appears to post on.)

So, the question: yes, this is pseudo child porn. But should I feel guilty about it?

(By the way: we should at least be happy that these sorts of sites exist for pedophiles to satiate themselves with, rather than actually trafficking in child porn. There is such a thing as a pedophile who isn't a moral monster, you know.)
posted by tweebiscuit at 1:47 PM on July 16, 2001

twee: The site you just linked has a members section on it. I'm not going to join it or anything. But it strikes me that, at $19.95 a month, this is a porn site.
posted by raysmj at 1:53 PM on July 16, 2001

Twee: sorry, sites like this don't satiate pedophiles. Rather, it escalates their behavior. I only wish the opposite were true.
posted by frykitty at 2:02 PM on July 16, 2001

Twee has a point though about girls on the border of being "old enough." I'm 20, and an 18 year old going to college wouldn't be off limits, but I sometimes see these girls with short shorts and a tight shirt prancing around who could be 16 or 19. And while it appears that these sites are catering to a pedophile crowd, there is a growing trend towards a more sexual style with the younger set. This is probably the line the parents get who are hoping putting their kids on the site will get them a break with The Mickey Mouse Club or something.
posted by Sellersburg/Speed at 2:17 PM on July 16, 2001

First, the attention being drawn to these sites by this thread (and the thousands of bloggers who will copy the link to it) are what the people who put the sites up have been drooling over forever. Second, they are pictures of kids wearing clothing. There's no nudity. If the poses are suggestive, I suggest you search yourselves rather than forming another MetaFilter lynch mob. Until you pay for the members only area, and can prove that there's porno there, this site is as pornographic as Jennycam.
posted by crunchland at 2:23 PM on July 16, 2001

Search ourselves for what? Brain cells? A suggestive pose is a suggestive pose. No, it still doesn't mean that the site is porn, but I do wonder about the $19.95 charge. It's charging, in other words, like a porn site. And it's the girl's "bedroom," after all. Sheesh.
posted by raysmj at 2:28 PM on July 16, 2001

Tweebiscuit approves of this girl and, by extension, her decision to pose in such a manner. And crunchland defends the site on the grounds that the females are wearing clothes. Apparently many other "males" (I shudder to call them "men") feel the same, judging by the SI "swimsuit issue", Maxim & other "lad" mags, and the popularity of online porn (soft or hard). Newsflash: clothing may hide things, but it is attitude & posing on the part of the "models" that is inappropriate. Society becoming more "sexual?" Duh. But that doesn't mean that it is appropriate for minors to suggest, via clothing, attitude, & pose, that they are willing to do whatever it is the adult males want, or otherwise cater to a male's sexual fantasies.

Here's what bothers me about pix like these, or even the "glamour shots" that people have done during their weekend trip to the mall: would you want your wife, mother, or sister to pose in this manner? Further, even if she did, would you want her to post them for the world to see?

If your answer is no, then why the heck do you think it is OK to condone such pix, or ogle them? And why on earth would you find a woman like that desirable (as far as friendship, dating, marriage, etc)? Females who do this are nothing more than what I once heard termed "inflatable party girls." And, yes, this applies to males too, although it occurs less frequently on that side.
posted by davidmsc at 2:36 PM on July 16, 2001

Hey, after we string up the people who put these sites up, I think we should go after that degenerate Nabokov... that book he wrote is a textbook for pedophiles. Let's burn 'em all!
posted by crunchland at 2:37 PM on July 16, 2001

Uh-uh, crunch...while the story of Lolita does contain actions & motives that are lurid, creepy, and/or sexual, the book offers insight, rationale, and commentary on the subject. It is not a simple "older man wants sex with young girl" story.
posted by davidmsc at 2:40 PM on July 16, 2001

davidmsc, I think your sarcasm detector is on the blink.
posted by jjg at 2:46 PM on July 16, 2001

The copyrights are all WEBEWEB boilerplate.... anyone try e-mailing "Mommy" from a different address?
posted by mimi at 2:46 PM on July 16, 2001

Got it. Point still valid, though.
posted by davidmsc at 2:54 PM on July 16, 2001

crunchland: uh... have you seen JenniCam lately? Unappealing, but explicit.
posted by swerve at 2:56 PM on July 16, 2001

JenniCam has been explicit for years, actually.
posted by raysmj at 3:19 PM on July 16, 2001

I never said I approved of her. No, I wouldn't want my sister doing that. If the girl herself is being exploited (I don't think this one is, although others linked to in this posted might be), then that's terrible. If it's her decision, then I disapprove of it. But frankly, once the non-exploitation of these girls is established (which it could be fairly quickly by any enforcement body), I really think that as far as being harmful goes, this ranks pretty low on the list when compared to most of the kiddie-porn out there.

Pedophiles exist. My belief is that pedophilia is something akin to sexual orientation or any other fetish -- you're just born with it, and there's nothing really you can do about it. Therefore, there's nothing we can do about the pedophiles themselves. Therefore, there's going to be legal near-child porn around. We need to accept this as a necessary evil in a free society -- especially you, davidmsc. For instance, I'm sure there is plenty of erotic fiction involving children, since a healthy fiction community exists for just about any fetish -- does anyone here want to legislate against that? Isn't this a clear breach of "hating the sin and loving the sinner"?
posted by tweebiscuit at 3:38 PM on July 16, 2001

Okay, if someone is really feeling like what these folks are doing is illegal, here's the FBI contact info from the guy at work:

The appropriate authority would be either FBI or US Customs. I believe each FBI field office has a Crimes Against Children Coordinator.

Altough I never used it, I understand there is a national number (800-BE ALERT) for reporting Child Porno or Exploitation, via the DOJ.
posted by frykitty at 3:38 PM on July 16, 2001

an addendum--I thanked the officer for the info, and he wrote this back:

"I do think it would be a very good idea to report the sites. Furthermore, I checked out the images, and my guess: nothing innocent about the intent. "
posted by frykitty at 3:58 PM on July 16, 2001

There is a photo in the preview area of the site "Kirsten's Bedroom" (the one that Tweebiscuit linked to) where one of the photos shows Kirsten posing sexily in a sauna in a see-through bikini. The photo has been obviously edited in Photoshop to add a small graphical heart over a nipple. This is innocent kids stuff?

It would be interesting to know whether or not that photo (or others in see-through clothing) are available if you pay the fee -- and is there enough of a line between see-through clothing and no clothing to differentiate between skanky modeling and porn?
posted by Dreama at 4:05 PM on July 16, 2001

tweebiscuit: Sorry - if I misinterpreted your statement that "...this girl is quite definitely within my mental "dating pool", then I apologize. I took it to mean that you saw nothing wrong with it, and in fact would date such a girl.

And far be it from me to legislate against porno, given my largely libertarian views...and it's just not my cup of tea, and I think those who derive joy from engaging in or viewing it are wasting their time...but involving MINORS in such activity, even borderline-porn, is just wrong, either on the part of the parents/guardians, those controlling the strings, or both. One of the basic principles of "minors" is that they are not mature enough to make decisions that are in their best interest, and this is clearly an example of that.
posted by davidmsc at 4:06 PM on July 16, 2001

Dreama, important distinction: Tweebiscuit's link was not produced by Webe Web.
posted by machaus at 4:29 PM on July 16, 2001

Hm- you know, in retrospect I might have been a tad overemotional in my last outburst... :)
posted by hincandenza at 4:38 PM on July 16, 2001

Hear hear, hincandenza.
posted by tweebiscuit at 4:38 PM on July 16, 2001

I don't recall if it was ever made part of the laws regarding/defining child pornography, but at one point I heard that an image can be considered kiddie porn even if the child is clothed (and not committing an overtly sexual act). The definition was in the intent behind the image, pose, etc.

There was also talk of photos of legal-age models being considered child porn if the intent was to pass them off as being children in explicit situations.

Again, I don't know the current legal definitions of child pornography, and I don't think those sites (what can be viewed) are pornographic, but they do set off my oogy sensors. Yuck.
posted by phichens at 4:53 PM on July 16, 2001

good god, enough with the bukakke references!
posted by lotsofno at 5:17 PM on July 16, 2001

hincandenza: You weren't being too harsh, you hit the nail on the head. (you too lotsofno)
posted by tj at 5:21 PM on July 16, 2001

I was on the fence about this, but I've since been knocked squarely back into the "Tolerable though creepy" category.

So it's OK to exploit children as long as someone's making heavy-handed arguments against pornography?

Therefore, there's nothing we can do about the pedophiles themselves.

Really? There are hundreds of jailed child sex offenders and released, monitored offenders who would dispute that claim.
posted by rcade at 5:23 PM on July 16, 2001

rcade, let me clarify why I backed hincandenza.

I personally think that kiddie porn is disgusting, revolting, and wrong. But when someone starts bringing in arguments like davidmsc has (the wife, mother etc. thing), well, it gets my temper raging.

My mother and sister are adults, and they have the right to make their own damn choices. And wether i'd like for it to be or not, it's none of MY or ANYONE ELSE's damn business.
posted by tj at 5:41 PM on July 16, 2001

hiz: A little overboard, since davidmsc said he's not for banning anything now legal. Still, y'know, I wouldn't want to see a nude sculpture for which one of my sisters served as a model. I wouldn't want to see mom in arch, black-and-white, nude art photographs. Man. I'm sure some families would be more open. I'm sure some are more open in plenty of other ways, given that I've read Faulkner novels. Nevertheless, don't going throwing family into the equation of "what's erotic," unless you're doing in-depth Freudian analysis.
posted by raysmj at 6:05 PM on July 16, 2001

davidmsc blurted: or otherwise cater to a male's sexual fantasies.

Soooooo...only men can have sexual fantasies involving the objectification of women? Women don't like to be looked at, lusted after and treated as a sexual being?

Thank you so much for being the arbiter of morality and letting us all know how improper it is for women to entertain sexual fantasies outside of the missionary position.

You fucking twit.
posted by Spanktacular at 6:19 PM on July 16, 2001

Therefore, there's nothing we can do about the pedophiles themselves.

Really? There are hundreds of jailed child sex offenders and released, monitored offenders who would dispute that claim.

There's a big difference between a pedophile (someone who finds children arousing) and a child molester. Honestly, I feel sincerely sorry for the "noble pedophile" -- the man who is attracted to children, but knows that he could never engage in a sexual act with one because of the ethics involved (inability to consent, etc.) Surely you agree that there must be at least one such person in the world. Potential to act is different from the act itself -- therefore, simple attraction to children cannot be a crime itself, and there's nothing we can do about this social/biological phenomenon, any more than we could prevent any fetish.
posted by tweebiscuit at 6:30 PM on July 16, 2001

twee: let me just say that even if I admit your distinction, I still do not want any pictures of my daughter on the web in poses like that for pedophiles to look at.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:12 PM on July 16, 2001

Then don't put any there.
posted by kindall at 7:31 PM on July 16, 2001

well, I guess I wasn't very clear.

even if you see pedophilia as being an unchangeable state for some people, I think most people would find the idea of their children's pictures being used as a "safe outlet" highly distasteful. I would be uncomfortable with it, and most of the parents I've ever known would be. would you feel fine about your daughter being on that page?

nimby, I know, but I draw a big fat line right there.
posted by rebeccablood at 8:09 PM on July 16, 2001

Hey, sure, grown adults should do what they want. If adult sisters want crazy mad sex as hincandenza described, go for it.

But sorry, these aren't adults. The girls in these pictures are posing for some reason. Either the sick photographer promised them a modeling contract out of it, or--even sicker--the parents think it's okay for their daughters to pose like this, knowingly, on the Internet.

What kind of values or ideas does this put in the child's head? And by having these sites online, isn't it implied to the possible molester that in some sick, twisted reality, all pre-teen girls want to look this way or act sexually like this?
posted by gramcracker at 8:24 PM on July 16, 2001

Hey, the three sites linked in the original post, and probably the whole WEBE Web network, seems to be taken offline. Either WEBE Web did that intentially, or we've overloaded their servers (the MeFi effect).

Could this be a sign of restraint on WEBE Web's part, or are they just taking the site down for a little while to let this whole fiasco simmer down, so as not to draw attention to themselves?
posted by ktheory at 8:31 PM on July 16, 2001

do sites actually ever get mefi'd (like sites getting /.-ed)?
posted by lotsofno at 8:48 PM on July 16, 2001

even if you see pedophilia as being an unchangeable state for some people, I think most people would find the idea of their children's pictures being used as a "safe outlet" highly distasteful. I would be uncomfortable with it, and most of the parents I've ever known would be. would you feel fine about your daughter being on that page?

I'm not approving of the sites, or the character of the girls/parents. What I am saying is that as long as the girls aren't exploited, and their parents aren't being misled, I'm not sure we have a right or an obligation to protest. There are far more important things to worry about, and since this isn't really directly harming anyone (again, given that there is no exploitation, which there might well be), I'm not sure on what grounds we should complain other than "It possibly supports pedophilia in certain people." -- which is an allegation that could be levelled against pretty much anything with children in it.

This is a touchy issue, and I'm not putting down my definite beliefs on either side of the fence -- it's just that this is one of those subjects that people have difficulty thinking about with a clear head, and I'm trying to help that.
posted by tweebiscuit at 9:21 PM on July 16, 2001

Well, I would say that the scariest thing about all this is not the websites - it's the witch-hunting that always accompanies a discussion like this.

Don't agree that these sites are sick? Then you're not a 'man' and you obviously are a pedophile.

Speaking of pedophiles, apparently thoughtcrime is back because even if they never touch a child apparently they should all be in jail.

Speaking of jail, apparently it's pornography even if there is no sex or nudity - in fact it's porn as long as someone somewhere thinks it's porn - so we are back to porn being defined by the views of the least tolerant group who views something.

Oh, and interestingly, it is probably child porn even if NO CHILD WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. That's right - thoughtcrime again.

Really scary stuff... much much scarier than the websites in question. Of course, I am sure an opinion like that will get MY name tagged onto the next list of "offenders" sent to the FBI .. because if I disagree... you know what I must be...
posted by soulhuntre at 9:38 PM on July 16, 2001

Spanktacular: Soooooo...only men can have sexual fantasies.

No, you "fucking twit" (as you so eloquently referred to me), if you'll read my whole post, you'll see that I ended with: "And, yes, this applies to males too, although it occurs less frequently on that side."

hincandenza: And I REALLY resent stick-up-the-butt prudes moralizing about what the rest of us should consider as acceptable ways to "pursue happiness".

Sorta like what you're doing now, feeling righteous about being superior to me for being more tolerant, & berating me in public?

Your claim to be a libertarian rings hollow...

Calm down - if you'll recall, not once did I indicate that I wanted to outlaw ANY sexual behavior or proclivities. You want mind-blowing sex? Great! Me too! And you know what? I enjoy it in the privacy of my bedroom. You know, just between me & my chosen. This makes me a "prude?" Nope. Does the fact that I don't enjoy seeing a "sex it up" attitude everywhere I turn (media, mall, culture) make me a prude? Nope. It means that I don't personally care to see it. Makes no difference to me if Joe & Jane Sixpack think a $49.95 special at Glamour Shots will spice up their love life. But you know what? I'm entitled to think that they're wasting their time, or wasting their money, or barking up the wrong tree. It's called an opinion, and that is far, far different from trying to legislate my point of view, or proselytizing on a street corner about the Decay Of America.
posted by davidmsc at 9:47 PM on July 16, 2001

davidmsc: But what you're talking about is infantalized sexuality, as opposed to healthy sexuality. Consequently, the pictures talked about here, no matter how sick and disquieting, are reflective of the culture at large. Healthy sexuality is not defined, however, as simply private, or something you can only think about your family not doing. Which is what I think upset some people here, even if it's only an opinion and even if those getting upset ignored the "no censorship" part of your message. That sounded overly harsh, even if I can sympathize with where you're coming from.
posted by raysmj at 11:18 PM on July 16, 2001

Fantasy is healthy sexuality, ray.
posted by Spanktacular at 4:38 AM on July 17, 2001

I think the most damning thing of all is in rcade's intitial post-- this company also produces real porn. That connection alone, regardless of what you think about the 'non porn' sites, makes this company sleazy to say the least. Good detective work, rogers.
posted by chaz at 4:50 AM on July 17, 2001

There are far more important things to worry about, and since this isn't really directly harming anyone (again, given that there is no exploitation, which there might well be), I'm not sure on what grounds we should complain other than "It possibly supports pedophilia in certain people."

Those kids are clearly being exploited, even if the sites are legal. How fucked up would you be today if your parents sent you off with a pornography photographer once a month when you were 10, and he persuaded you to pose as provocatively as current law allows so pedophiles would pony up $20 a month to see your photos and videos? And even if the interest in children isn't satiated by the site, but instead a fan is inspired to abduct an actual child to carry it further, so what? We need to understand the "noble pedophile," not judge him. The problem is not his, anyway. It's our culture! There's absolutely no difference at all between the Olsen Twins wearing lipstick and dressing like older girls and Jessi the Kid doing a few pay-per-view upskirts.

I love the tyranny of tolerance that calls it a lynch mob or witch hunt to express concern about kids whose parents would subject them to this. Heaven forbid we call into question anyone's behavior in any way, for fear that we're stepping on their rights to live an alternate lifestyle.

It's not like these parents did something truly heinous, such as making webloggers look stupid by creating a fake journal about a girl dying of cancer. Let's never lose sight of the real victims here -- people who want to fuck children.

I'm sorry for being so judgmental and bringing this up. But maybe there's a positive to all of this. If someone finds the correct contact information for Webe Web, maybe some of you will forward it to parents you know, in case their daughters would like to make some real money this summer.
posted by rcade at 5:46 AM on July 17, 2001

Good detective work, rogers.

Thanks, but I didn't find this originally. It appears that the publisher of Daign.Com first called attention to these sites.
posted by rcade at 5:49 AM on July 17, 2001

rcade -- just a little tip -- when using sarcasm or irony, try to keep it consistant. I got lost in your maze of actual objections and sarcastic suggestions. *sigh* I'm just not good at this, I guess.

I agree with you, and I disagree with you. I'm not going to say any more because it's getting too complicated for my ethics to sort through, and I don't feel like justifying what I've already said any more. Thanks for listening, everybody.
posted by tweebiscuit at 6:50 AM on July 17, 2001

The appropriate authority would be either FBI or US Customs. I believe each FBI field office has a Crimes Against Children Coordinator.

Altough I never used it, I understand there is a national number (800-BE ALERT) for reporting Child Porno or Exploitation, via the DOJ.

Thanks for the info frykitty. I would really like to report this, but I'm not in the U.S. so can't call the number.

I found rcade's post very easy to understand, even though my thoughts at the moment are none too coherent. I don't want to get too personal with this, but I was sexually abused as a kid and I'm still very fucked up from it. These kids are being sexually abused in my opinion - but really, that's for the FBI to decide, not us.

It's too bad this post got hi-jacked by folks not understanding the difference between sexual freedom and kids getting damaged. I'm all for sexual freedom.

Is anyone out there willing to call? If it is some kind of sting operation, which I doubt, us reporting it wouldn't seem to affect the efficacy of the operation.
posted by hazyjane at 7:09 AM on July 17, 2001

This is clearly the razors edge of child pornography.

Actually the real razor's edge can be found by searching the title of the law which defines the edge. Disclaimers on such sites explicitly point out that they are legal, but at the limit of the law, by restating the law and thus making themselves easy to find. I won't say here what string to search, though. If you go looking for this be warned...keep a barf-bag handy.
posted by plaino at 9:45 AM on July 17, 2001

Wired News has written a story on these sites.
posted by rcade at 10:22 AM on July 23, 2001