How can this NOT be child porn

[Markbnj]

It's normal that a 14 year old child does not arouse you sexually although you seem quite disappointed by it.

Actually, what is "normal" is that males are aroused by sexually mature females. It has little to do with chronological age in years, although there are obviously rough age boundaries around pre-pubescence, pubescence, adolescence, and adulthood. Some females (and males) mature earlier, some later. The peak of sexual attractiveness in females is somewhere between 18 and 25 for simple biological reasons.

A male who is aroused by a sexually mature adolescent is not abnormal physically, he is just allowing his gaze to wander outside the bounds of social convention. Those conventions change, and it was less than 75 years ago that musician Jerry lee Louis married his 13 year-old cousin.

A male who is aroused by sexually under-developed females (probably the best definition of "child" in this context) has an actual problem.

And a 54 year-old guy like me who brings any of this up is of course pretty creepy.

 

[amdhunter]

 

[lxskllr]

you can see when a 14 year old or even younger is a pretty little girl. doesn't have to sexually arouse you. this chick isn't even pretty. she is ugly.

She's interesting looking, not particularly pretty or ugly. Designers like interesting in their models, and I agree. Hot girls are a dime a dozen, and they all blend together on the stage. Interesting girls stand out.

 

[waggy]

Actually, what is "normal" is that males are aroused by sexually mature females. It has little to do with chronological age in years, although there are obviously rough age boundaries around pre-pubescence, pubescence, adolescence, and adulthood. Some females (and males) mature earlier, some later. The peak of sexual attractiveness in females is somewhere between 18 and 25 for simple biological reasons.

A male who is aroused by a sexually mature adolescent is not abnormal physically, he is just allowing his gaze to wander outside the bounds of social convention. Those conventions change, and it was less than 75 years ago that musician Jerry lee Louis married his 13 year-old cousin.

A male who is aroused by sexually under-developed females (probably the best definition of "child" in this context) has an actual problem.

And a 54 year-old guy like me who brings any of this up is of course pretty creepy.

stop bringing up facts you creepy pervert!

Also i will add the damn definition of pedophile has changed. I remember learning it as "the sexual attraction of a pre-pubescent child". So a flat chested no ass etc kid.

now its any kid under 18.

 

[Markbnj]

stop bringing up facts you creepy pervert!

Also i will add the damn definition of pedophile has changed. I remember learning it as "the sexual attraction of a pre-pubescent child". So a flat chested no ass etc kid.

now its any kid under 18.

Just as 'child' now means 'any offspring under the age of 30 who can't hold a job and needs to move home.'

 

[ctark]

Hey, I'm all for hot and sexy (legal) chicks.

But 14? At that age you're certainly not ready to make a decision to let the world see you naked. It's even more disturbing that the parents gave their consent.

Victoria secret may not be porn, but I bet a couple million teens find it pretty useful on a daily basis.

Who made you the authority? Just because you were raised in a culture that behaved a certain way does not mean you get to project your views as the standard which everybody should live by.

 

[Pulsar]

Who made you the authority? Just because you were raised in a culture that behaved a certain way does not mean you get to project your views as the standard which everybody should live by.

I made myself the authority. You want to be one too? Then take a standpoint. Sitting their throwing stones without stating an opinion is pretty stupid.

 

[shortylickens]

I made myself the authority. You want to be one too? Then take a standpoint. Sitting their throwing stones without stating an opinion is pretty stupid.

I dont think you know what authority means.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I made myself the authority. You want to be one too? Then take a standpoint. Sitting their throwing stones without stating an opinion is pretty stupid.

Alright then. Counter-point: nipples aren't inherently sexual. We have an absurd double standard when it comes to nipples in the USA; no one would have a problem with a 14-year-old boy being photographed topless, but as soon as it's a girl, people (like you) lose their shit. Why? Because society has conditioned you to treat female nipples as a sex object. That's a social construct that doesn't hold true everywhere, and certainly not for large sections of Europe where topless women are featured in magazines and public television freely available to children. You're trying to interject your subjective moral opinion as though it were objective fact, and that's just silly.

I mean, really, why are women's nipples inherently "naughty"? It can't be because of sex; nipples aren't genitals, and aren't required to be included in a sex act (although they should be!). Nipples' primary function isn't even sexual; it's the vehicle by which a mother feeds her offspring. If you ban them based on the fact that they can "cause sexual thoughts," then you better not let women eat ice cream in public, because I guarantee you that act is inspiring a fair share of erections. And, from a subjective standpoint, there is not a man or woman, gay or straight, on this Earth, who would say "that fat hairy guy should be able to walk around topless in public, just don't let Scarlett Johansson do it or I'll be sick." As soon as you start dismantling the arguments against women's nipples being taboo, you'll see why your fears over "child pornography" from a visible nipple are overblown.

 

[Pulsar]

Alright then. Counter-point: nipples aren't inherently sexual. We have an absurd double standard when it comes to nipples in the USA; no one would have a problem with a 14-year-old boy being photographed topless, but as soon as it's a girl, people (like you) lose their shit. Why? Because society has conditioned you to treat female nipples as a sex object. That's a social construct that doesn't hold true everywhere, and certainly not for large sections of Europe where topless women are featured in magazines and public television freely available to children. You're trying to interject your subjective moral opinion as though it were objective fact, and that's just silly.

I mean, really, why are women's nipples inherently "naughty"? It can't be because of sex; nipples aren't genitals, and aren't required to be included in a sex act (although they should be!). Nipples' primary function isn't even sexual; it's the vehicle by which a mother feeds her offspring. If you ban them based on the fact that they can "cause sexual thoughts," then you better not let women eat ice cream in public, because I guarantee you that act is inspiring a fair share of erections. And, from a subjective standpoint, there is not a man or woman, gay or straight, on this Earth, who would say "that fat hairy guy should be able to walk around topless in public, just don't let Scarlett Johansson do it or I'll be sick." As soon as you start dismantling the arguments against women's nipples being taboo, you'll see why your fears over "child pornography" from a visible nipple are overblown.

Hmmm. I agree, when it's an adult making the decision. 18 years old and want to walk around with your boobs hanging out? Sure.

But 14? My biggest problem is with the age. That's simply too young to make that type of decision, and I have to admit I question the type of parenting that would allow a 14 year old to do something like this.

I agree with your commentary on male nipples versus female nipples and whether they are really sexual or not. I had to go to bat for my wife a handful of times when places 'invited' her to stop breastfeeding (she was very discrete about it), but that's a different argument.

I still feel that this is explotive, and is far to young to begin modelling in that manner.

Let's be real for a second - there's a reason that fashion models are taught to walk like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeYl0npgy_Y

 

[KeithP]

All I am getting from this thread is that if the OP sees nude or partially nude young girls he immediately thinks of sex.

Anything else here or is that about it?

-KeithP

 

[Pulsar]

All I am getting from this thread is that if the OP sees nude or partially nude young girls he immediately thinks of sex.

Anything else here or is that about it?

-KeithP

 

[Exophase]

Alright then. Counter-point: nipples aren't inherently sexual. We have an absurd double standard when it comes to nipples in the USA; no one would have a problem with a 14-year-old boy being photographed topless, but as soon as it's a girl, people (like you) lose their shit. Why? Because society has conditioned you to treat female nipples as a sex object. That's a social construct that doesn't hold true everywhere, and certainly not for large sections of Europe where topless women are featured in magazines and public television freely available to children. You're trying to interject your subjective moral opinion as though it were objective fact, and that's just silly.

I mean, really, why are women's nipples inherently "naughty"? It can't be because of sex; nipples aren't genitals, and aren't required to be included in a sex act (although they should be!). Nipples' primary function isn't even sexual; it's the vehicle by which a mother feeds her offspring. If you ban them based on the fact that they can "cause sexual thoughts," then you better not let women eat ice cream in public, because I guarantee you that act is inspiring a fair share of erections. And, from a subjective standpoint, there is not a man or woman, gay or straight, on this Earth, who would say "that fat hairy guy should be able to walk around topless in public, just don't let Scarlett Johansson do it or I'll be sick." As soon as you start dismantling the arguments against women's nipples being taboo, you'll see why your fears over "child pornography" from a visible nipple are overblown.

Nipples, breasts, hips and so on are typical components of sexual arousal because straight human males instinctively see these as traits that contribute to successful childbirth and child rearing, which has been an important part of promoting survival. While being sexually aroused by breasts and nipples may not be totally universal it's far from arbitrary or a pure invention of society. And note that just because a society doesn't ban it from public view doesn't mean that people aren't aroused.

Here we see society backlashing against seeing 14 year old girls as potential mates who will bear offspring. Which conflicts with instincts and what happened for most of human history. I guess when something is highly instinctive yet viewed as highly problematic you get a massive amount of shunning to try to counteract it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

it is actually baffling how many people on ATOT of all places don't know wtf porn is.

You clearly missed the definition of pornography posted above.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Hmmm. I agree, when it's an adult making the decision. 18 years old and want to walk around with your boobs hanging out? Sure.

But 14? My biggest problem is with the age. That's simply too young to make that type of decision, and I have to admit I question the type of parenting that would allow a 14 year old to do something like this.

I agree with your commentary on male nipples versus female nipples and whether they are really sexual or not. I had to go to bat for my wife a handful of times when places 'invited' her to stop breastfeeding (she was very discrete about it), but that's a different argument.

I still feel that this is explotive, and is far to young to begin modelling in that manner.

Let's be real for a second - there's a reason that fashion models are taught to walk like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeYl0npgy_Y

Someone who is dirt fucking poor?

Oh, and nice link. Here's a link to an article with a video of her walking the runway. It is NOTHING like what you linked above.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-Tel-Aviv-council-estate-catwalks-Paris.html

A few weeks later, Sofia received a phone call from her Israeli agent. Dior, one of the most prominent luxury fashion houses in the world was offering the girl from Holon the opportunity to model on the catwalk of the Paris Fashion Week - and to sign a £170,000, two-year modelling contract.

Upon hearing the news, Sofia immediately called her mother. 'You can quit your job, mum!' she said, as broadcast in a report by the Israeli Channel 2. Weeks later, she made her debut on the runway at the Paris Fashion Week, wearing a long, sheer gown.

Some have criticised Sofia's young age, dubbing the girl's employment in fashion as exploitation.

But her agent, Roberto Ben Shoshan, defended the decision to sign her up, emphasising that Sofia is always supervised by her chaperone.

'She's 24-hours with her, she's sleeping in the same room as her, she's going with her to the auditions, to the catwalk, so I think it's okay.', he told I-24 news.

Sofia said she intends to continue with her school work, despite the minimum four trips a year to Paris mandated by her contract with Dior.

'It is very important for me to continue to go to school. I'm still very young and I know that wherever I go, I can expect to be accompanied up until the age of 18,' she said.

As for her earning, Sofia said she gave the money to her mother. 'We will move into a bigger flat, and at last I'll have a room of my own, a big living room, and a nice kitchen and a clean bath', she added.

She seems pretty well grounded for her age if you ask me. Do you know any 14 year old girls personally? I do, they all think they're smarter than their parents. All she is doing is putting on a dress and walking around a pedestal for a couple minutes at a time. I was shoveling driveways and mowing lawns at her age. Nobody gave a fuck about child exploitation then.

Sorry, you can't have a lucrative modeling contract and lift your entire family out of utter poverty... the prudish American says so.

 

[ctark]

I made myself the authority. You want to be one too? Then take a standpoint. Sitting their throwing stones without stating an opinion is pretty stupid.

I think I did make a "standpoint", you must have missed it. I'm sorry you got a boner when you saw those titties. Its a perfectly natural reaction and you shouldn't be ashamed, even if they are 14 year old titties. It is normal for you to be attracted to young females, evolution has ingrained that into your brain because young typically means fertile. The thing that separates us from animals is that we can choose not to act on our instincts. I'm not judging you cause you got a little hot in the pants.

Yes.. yes.. appeal to ridicule.

 

[Away]

The sexual repression in this country is sad. This is artistic expression, nothing more and nothing less. Some people really need to try removing the stick from their ass.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's said that in the Middle East... a woman's ankle is sexual.
Because HEY, it's skin... that you don't ever get to see.

It's sexual repression plain and simple that makes someone think that sheer dresses are porn.

 

[drebo]

Hmmm. I agree, when it's an adult making the decision. 18 years old and want to walk around with your boobs hanging out? Sure.

But 14? My biggest problem is with the age. That's simply too young to make that type of decision, and I have to admit I question the type of parenting that would allow a 14 year old to do something like this.

I agree with your commentary on male nipples versus female nipples and whether they are really sexual or not. I had to go to bat for my wife a handful of times when places 'invited' her to stop breastfeeding (she was very discrete about it), but that's a different argument.

I still feel that this is explotive, and is far to young to begin modelling in that manner.

Let's be real for a second - there's a reason that fashion models are taught to walk like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeYl0npgy_Y

Does a 14 year old know the difference between right and wrong?

The generally accepted answer to that is yes. As long as there is no coercion going on, there's nothing wrong with a 14 year old choosing to become a model or get married or have sex or whatever.

Who are you to say what is and isn't OK for someone else and their child, as long as everyone is past the age of reason and consenting?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Because pornography, BY DEFINITION, needs to have sexual content.

Underage NUDITY is not pornography and in most countries its not illegal.

See also:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078111/reference

This story comes to mind.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/09/17/parents-sue-walmart-after-kids-bath-photos-fiasco.html?mep

 

[CPA]

Jared from Subway: "It's only art, officers, I promise!"

 

[1sikbITCH]

you can see when a 14 year old or even younger is a pretty little girl. doesn't have to sexually arouse you. this chick isn't even pretty. she is ugly.

I agree and I guess it's just a terminology thing. It would have been straight pedophile for adults to play "Hot or Not" on children when I was coming up. A child can be pretty of course but "hot" means hittable. The more appropriate and common use of the wording in my experience was always "She's gonna be hot when she grows up".

 

[The Day Dreamer]

Because France.

This.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I blame the internet.

 

[Subyman]

Pretty sad when some think a nude human body in and of itself is porno.