DoubleDango said: They don't appear on television lul, I don't watch television either. They're all over the internet though. I'll list some names I found: EDIT: I'm totally fine about some child stars/models but these ones go way overboard. They sell DVDs and photobooks with children wearing next to nothing and posing in ways that are so suggestive it's not funny. Where is Lynn Mimmei or Ranka lee on that list? Where did you get this list anyways? |
| On the wiki I linked to last page lol. Who's Lynn Mimmei and Ranka Lee? Ohh that's because a lot of them go by aliases, probably. EDIT: Wtf they not on the list? EDIT: Omg I read your post wrong lol. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| That's not what I'd define as child exploitation though. Do you think Charlie Bit is child exploitation? I'm just talking about those Junior Idols that are sold. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Why is it exploitation? Because its something sexual? Welcome to the sexually repressed society that is earth. |
| I'd consider it explotation if it's the parent who force their child to become one. |
 |
| Okay, let's get away from the whole exploitation thing. It's still sad to see a child's 'innocence' (yes, you can argue what innocence is...) taken away from them at such a young age. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| They're absolutely delicious. |
| it's Japan. not surprised anymore. but to advertise them "that" (I mean like an av model) way so casually was something else. i thought they would be more discreet. it's like they are throwing stones at UNICEF or something. |
 |
chloe01 said: DoubleDango said: That's not what I'd define as child exploitation though. Do you think Charlie Bit is child exploitation? I'm just talking about those Junior Idols that are sold. yes it is child exploitation.. and its very wrong a small kid is working in a movie and films rather than go to school. Bones season 6 episode 20 ... In your free time, don't ever film yourself, your friends or your kids. That's exploitation derp. Plus Charlie Bit Me was an accidental video. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
DoubleDango said: Okay, let's get away from the whole exploitation thing. It's still sad to see a child's 'innocence' (yes, you can argue what innocence is...) taken away from them at such a young age. They are a completely different place with their own culture. This innocence you speak of is all in your head and only exists because of where and when you were born. Maybe to them there is no innocence lost so its not a problem? And things like this don't really affect these kids lives like it would in a different culture. You're looking at their culture and judging it with a perception created completely by your own culture.. so in the end its a biased outlook. In the far past, had you been born then, you might of not considered this to be a problem at all. Anything you consider right and wrong are only that way because the current times deem them to be so. |
| A football (not handegg) club in the Netherlands recently signed an 18-month old to a "symbolic" 10-year contract. Is that "exploitation" too, DoubleDango? |
 |
| I didn't come here to debate the meaning of exploitation. All I want to say is that I don't think (now note the 'I' and the 'think' here) it's right for pictures to be taken of these children the way they are taken. I'm pretty it's a pretty international thing for people to believe it's wrong for suggestive images of children to be taken to please adults. Google the terms 'child erotica', 'child modeling' and 'child pornography'. You'll usually find related pages for all three term. It's a fact that it's hard to determine whether an image is art or, child pornography. There are laws for child pornography, obviously, but how can you tell something has past the line? Even if an image is obviously sexually suggestive, just because the website says the images were taken with the consent of parents, contains no nudity, are all artworks and does not contain any pornographic content doesn't mean it's not. Seriously, most of these pictures are ridiculous; what's a 10 year old doing wearing some string bikini that's loosely fitted and spreading her legs? What is that same 10 year old doing on all 4? Just because they don't reveal the entire of the genitals/pubic area doesn't mean it's not pornography. What purposes do these images even serve? If you tell me they're artworks and it's okay to collect them, sigh. 'Junior Idol' materials are often sold next to hardcore pornography content in Japan, what does that suggest? No one sells this kind of things in Europe, America and Oceania. What does that suggest? That Japan is more open minded? Obviously people think it's ethically and socially unacceptable. Why are magazines such as Zoo (published in Australia, I dunno about other countries) restricted to over 18's even though it doesn't have any nudity? Because it's sexually suggestive. Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
DoubleDango said: Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html >foxnews Well now I know why I found your entire post to be absolutely irritating beyond belief. |
DoubleDango said: Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html You've just lost any credibility with linking that. LOL |
|
Xjellocross said: y u hating on fox bro?DoubleDango said: Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html >foxnews Well now I know why I found your entire post to be absolutely irritating beyond belief. |
| I don't think I've ever sourced or linked Fox News ever before. I don't even know much about it, other than it's a news site that is. I'm guessing it's American because of the date format, I don't usually watch or read local and national news, let alone American news. This article just happen to illustrate my thoughts perfectly -- like I said; no matter whom an argument is made by, they should all still be heard -- or at least that's what I believe. If you find my post(s) irritating beyond beliefs, well, I guess I can't do too much about it. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
DoubleDango said: I didn't come here to debate the meaning of exploitation. All I want to say is that I don't think (now note the 'I' and the 'think' here) it's right for pictures to be taken of these children the way they are taken. I'm pretty it's a pretty international thing for people to believe it's wrong for suggestive images of children to be taken to please adults. Google the terms 'child erotica', 'child modeling' and 'child pornography'. You'll usually find related pages for all three term. It's a fact that it's hard to determine whether an image is art or, child pornography. There are laws for child pornography, obviously, but how can you tell something has past the line? Even if an image is obviously sexually suggestive, just because the website says the images were taken with the consent of parents, contains no nudity, are all artworks and does not contain any pornographic content doesn't mean it's not. Seriously, most of these pictures are ridiculous; what's a 10 year old doing wearing some string bikini that's loosely fitted and spreading her legs? What is that same 10 year old doing on all 4? Just because they don't reveal the entire of the genitals/pubic area doesn't mean it's not pornography. What purposes do these images even serve? If you tell me they're artworks and it's okay to collect them, sigh. 'Junior Idol' materials are often sold next to hardcore pornography content in Japan, what does that suggest? No one sells this kind of things in Europe, America and Oceania. What does that suggest? That Japan is more open minded? Obviously people think it's ethically and socially unacceptable. Why are magazines such as Zoo (published in Australia, I dunno about other countries) restricted to over 18's even though it doesn't have any nudity? Because it's sexually suggestive. Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html Wait did you just post a link from fox news? That doesn't help, that is a lost of credibility lol. What is it that troubles you much? That some people may fap to their pictures? So what? It's not a problem just because they may please some guy you think as creepy. The thing is that this teens aren't having some traumatic experience at all and they get good money out of it. Those money may help them later in their life. It's no different than doing any of the other thousand shit kids do trying to get money or learn staff early on. Who buys the DVD is unimportant really. |
Xjellocross said: At least Foxnews in better than CNN imo...DoubleDango said: Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html >foxnews Well now I know why I found your entire post to be absolutely irritating beyond belief. |
  |
| I've seen that list before, don't remember where. Anyone brave enough to look up some of them on google. It happens here in the West no DVDs and mags but in public showings, Single Ladies Video anyone. |
 |
| What? There are plenty of 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 year olds. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Monad said: DoubleDango said: I didn't come here to debate the meaning of exploitation. All I want to say is that I don't think (now note the 'I' and the 'think' here) it's right for pictures to be taken of these children the way they are taken. I'm pretty it's a pretty international thing for people to believe it's wrong for suggestive images of children to be taken to please adults. Google the terms 'child erotica', 'child modeling' and 'child pornography'. You'll usually find related pages for all three term. It's a fact that it's hard to determine whether an image is art or, child pornography. There are laws for child pornography, obviously, but how can you tell something has past the line? Even if an image is obviously sexually suggestive, just because the website says the images were taken with the consent of parents, contains no nudity, are all artworks and does not contain any pornographic content doesn't mean it's not. Seriously, most of these pictures are ridiculous; what's a 10 year old doing wearing some string bikini that's loosely fitted and spreading her legs? What is that same 10 year old doing on all 4? Just because they don't reveal the entire of the genitals/pubic area doesn't mean it's not pornography. What purposes do these images even serve? If you tell me they're artworks and it's okay to collect them, sigh. 'Junior Idol' materials are often sold next to hardcore pornography content in Japan, what does that suggest? No one sells this kind of things in Europe, America and Oceania. What does that suggest? That Japan is more open minded? Obviously people think it's ethically and socially unacceptable. Why are magazines such as Zoo (published in Australia, I dunno about other countries) restricted to over 18's even though it doesn't have any nudity? Because it's sexually suggestive. Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html Wait did you just post a link from fox news? That doesn't help, that is a lost of credibility lol. What is it that troubles you much? That some people may fap to their pictures? So what? It's not a problem just because they may please some guy you think as creepy. The thing is that this teens aren't having some traumatic experience at all and they get good money out of it. Those money may help them later in their life. It's no different than doing any of the other thousand shit kids do trying to get money or learn staff early on. Who buys the DVD is unimportant really. Well this person made a point. I guess. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Who the hell buys this stuff besides other idol agencies and hardcore pedophiles? I can't see any self respecting person buying this unless they are in an idol or seiyuu agency. |
|
Gogetters said: Xjellocross said: At least Foxnews in better than CNN imo...DoubleDango said: Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html >foxnews Well now I know why I found your entire post to be absolutely irritating beyond belief. Then you must not watch CNN at all. I don't care I guess. Kinda gross. |
Drunk_Samurai said: I stopped after their RapeLay crap :)Gogetters said: Xjellocross said: At least Foxnews in better than CNN imo...DoubleDango said: Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html >foxnews Well now I know why I found your entire post to be absolutely irritating beyond belief. Then you must not watch CNN at all. |
|
Gogetters said: Drunk_Samurai said: I stopped after their RapeLay crap :)Gogetters said: Xjellocross said: At least Foxnews in better than CNN imo...DoubleDango said: Read this article, it perfectly illustrates my thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349834,00.html >foxnews Well now I know why I found your entire post to be absolutely irritating beyond belief. Then you must not watch CNN at all. Which is still way better than FOX labeling Mass Effect as digital pornography. DoubleDango said: I'm totally fine about some child stars/models but these ones go way overboard. They sell DVDs and photobooks with children wearing next to nothing and posing in ways that are so suggestive it's not funny. Though it's mostly to blame on the parents, I do have a feeling Japan is more open to sexuality in broad ways, making it seem more tolerable if you were born and raised there. |
Chavez said: They did that!? To hell with them then!Which is still way better than FOX labeling Mass Effect as digital pornography. |
|
Gogetters said: Chavez said: They did that!? To hell with them then!Which is still way better than FOX labeling Mass Effect as digital pornography. Right here. Let's not get this off topic, by the way. The real issue is about Asian countries having kids run around on stage in clothing nothing short of being called slutty. |
| Different cultures. |
     |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |