Lil Amber's web site
Every9man
I dont see anything awful.
Barbara
<A HREF="http://www.lilamber.com/">Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV</A>
=^.^=
Did you forget the smiley face? How do I erase that I ever went to
the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
for......something! gesssh
nicki
ReginaldDrutoy
>the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
>for......something! gesssh
>
>nicki
It was a pretty sick site wasn't it? Barbara is a hopeless liberal though and
doesn't tseem to think anything is wrong with a pre-teen girl doing provocative
bikini shots.
How low can you get?
~Reginald
****You can always count on a liberal to show their true color during any time
of crisis. Problem is that color seems to be yellow.
Mike Osgood
>I dont see anything awful.
>
>Barbara
>
Jesus, you need professional help if you don't think those pictures are bad.
Matt Miller
news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com:
> think this is the one they are talking about?
> I dont see anything awful.
>
> Barbara
Are you blind? Just because a model keeps her clothes on doesn't mean
the picture isn't intended to be erotic. If I see an adult woman dressed an
posed like this I don't think "Wow she must really enjoy modeling, what a
marvelous self afirming choice for her to appear this way."
And at the bottom of the screen there's a banner for some teen model
site featuring a girl in a thong and what seems to be a fishing net. But
I'm sure that's just there because visters to lilamber can't get enough
modeling. But portrait photography hobbyinsts I bet.
Can the parents be nailed for child endangerment?
--
Matt Miller
JonesieCat
"=^.^=" <nicki8801(spamfree))@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g4haau0u8trcgjl7p...@4ax.com...
What smiley face?
It's creepy. I don't like it, and I wouldn't allow my daughter to do it.
(And my kid would be grossed out by such poses anyway, thk gd.) And this
child, if this is the Amber in the article, with the mother who used to work
in porn - hard to say what her future holds. Who knows if the kid has any
idea what this is about.
But I just don't know what anybody can/should do about it. Also, I don't
think they're particularly worse than JonBenet's activities (as td thought).
Yuck of course.
JC
tiny dancer
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Did you actually open up any of these gallery's??
td
Every9man
>
>"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com...
>> think this is the one they are talking about?
>> I dont see anything awful.
>>
>> Barbara
>>
>> Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV
>
>
>Did you actually open up any of these gallery's??
>
>td
>
I think so td, I dont know if I opened all of them but I didnt see anything I
dont see daily in the playgrounds of our public schools or on parks and
beaches in the summer.
Unless I missed something I think that some of the things I've seen in the
beauty pagents for very young children are far worse.
Barbara
Barbara
Every9man
>ever...@aol.com (Every9man) decided to stand up and say:
>
>>think this is the one they are talking about?
>>I dont see anything awful.
>>
>>Barbara
>>
>>Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV
>
>A prepubescent teen in skimpy clothes posing suggestively. I can
>definitely see what the fuss is about, but I don't believe there's
>anything illegal about it. It's certainly creepy, though.
>
>--
>Coyote
I've seen photos far more suggestive than those in fashion magazines, and yes,
of very young children.
Barbara
jp
--
Do you know what's in the members section?
Why would they need a members section if it was all above board?
ciao
Jason
Volfie (Lisa L. Green) the underpants and vaginal infection expert!
___________________________________________________________
"Is your baby dead yet?"
Martha Sprowles
jp
Every9man wrote:
>
> >From: "tiny dancer" tinyda...@hotmail.com
>
> >
> >"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >> think this is the one they are talking about?
> >> I dont see anything awful.
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV
> >
> >
> >Did you actually open up any of these gallery's??
> >
> >td
> >
> I think so td, I dont know if I opened all of them but I didnt see anything I
> dont see daily in the playgrounds of our public schools or on parks and
> beaches in the summer.
>
>
> Barbara
--
But the difference is Barbara is that there's not a bunch of blokes in
long overcoats sitting on park benches perving at them!
Andrea Bostrom
>>
>> think this is the one they are talking about? I dont see anything awful.
>>
>> Barbara
>>
It's not as bad as Jon Benet Ramsey posing suggestively. I wonder if
mom/dad are pushing this.
Andrea
Sherman
http://www.lilamber.com/links.html
read:
http://www.nbc6.net/nbc6investigates/1315942/detail.html
sherman
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Sarah Monroe
>I've seen photos far more suggestive than those in fashion magazines, and
>yes,
>of very young children.
>
>Barbara
>
>
Anybody ever been to those kiddie beauty pageants? Very popular in the South.
The JBR type stuff is typical for them.
Gms
Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the
agencies of the central governemnt.......Brave New World Revisited by Aldous
Huxley
Maggie
>>>
>>> think this is the one they are talking about? I dont see anything awful.
>>>
>>> Barbara
>>>
>>> Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV
>
> It's not as bad as Jon Benet Ramsey posing suggestively. I wonder
>if
>mom/dad are pushing this.
***Mom and step-dad put up the site (she's a former porn model).
Maggie
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the
experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so."--Douglas Adams.
mothra...@hotmail.com
I think this is a child pornography site, I really do. To see videos
and even their links, you have to join, at $25 a *month*. I wouldn't be
surprised, though, if this is a sting operation. The photos they show
for free are all clearly legal, even if the poses seem suggestive. The
girls are all dressed in clothing that is appropriate for some
age-appropriate activity. But I believe a pedophile would find those
images arousing, too.
I do think it's a sting.
Martha
Michael Snyder
jp wrote in message <3CA5A763...@btinternet.com>...
>
>
>Every9man wrote:
>>
>> think this is the one they are talking about?
>> I dont see anything awful.
>>
>> Barbara
>>
>> <A HREF="http://www.lilamber.com/">Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV</A>
>
>--
>
>Do you know what's in the members section?
>Why would they need a members section if it was all above board?
Uhhh -- so they can charge money? ;-/
Michael Snyder
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote in message <3CA5F4...@erols.com>...
That would be pretty amusing -- a congressman demanding
that the FBI investigate its own sting bait.
Maggie
>>
>> ever...@aol.com (Every9man) wrote in
>> news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com:
>>
>> > think this is the one they are talking about?
>> > I dont see anything awful.
>> >
>> > Barbara
>>
>> Are you blind? Just because a model keeps her clothes on doesn't
>mean
>> the picture isn't intended to be erotic. If I see an adult woman dressed
>an
>> posed like this I don't think "Wow she must really enjoy modeling, what
>a
>> marvelous self afirming choice for her to appear this way."
>>
>> And at the bottom of the screen there's a banner for some teen
>model
>> site featuring a girl in a thong and what seems to be a fishing net. But
>> I'm sure that's just there because visters to lilamber can't get enough
>> modeling. But portrait photography hobbyinsts I bet.
>>
>> Can the parents be nailed for child endangerment?
>>
>I think this is a child pornography site, I really do. To see videos
>and even their links, you have to join, at $25 a *month*. I wouldn't be
>surprised, though, if this is a sting operation. The photos they show
>for free are all clearly legal, even if the poses seem suggestive. The
>girls are all dressed in clothing that is appropriate for some
>age-appropriate activity. But I believe a pedophile would find those
>images arousing, too.
>
>I do think it's a sting.
***No way. This would clearly be entrapment and would never stand up in court.
As you point out, the come-on pictures are all perfectly legal. Not to
mention that MSNBC found the parents.
Michael Snyder
Maggie wrote in message <20020330123539...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
Do the parents operate the website? Maybe the parents don't know it's a sting.
Every9man
It might be and it might be an entree to a porn site. My only point was that
the pics were no more suggestive of print ads or beauty pagents.
b
mothra...@hotmail.com
Yup. And my point is that even innocent photos of children can be
arousing to pedophiles.
Martha
Ronald Helm
<nicki8801(spamfree))@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>think this is the one they are talking about?
>>I dont see anything awful.
>>
>>Barbara
>>
>><A HREF="http://www.lilamber.com/">Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV</A>
>
>Did you forget the smiley face? How do I erase that I ever went to
>the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
>for......something! gesssh
>
>nicki
C'mon, nicki...arrested for what? I agree with Barbara on this one.
The parents who encourage their daughters to enter beauty pageants, or
model at this age may not be very good parents...but there is
certainly nothing criminal about this website. Notice that only a
bunch of male perverts who seek out this crap on the web act shocked
and complain about it.
Ron
Michael Snyder
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote in message <3CA5FD...@erols.com>...
Sooo... you would ban diaper ads, because of the risk that
some man might get off on them?
Michael Snyder
Ronald Helm wrote in message ...
Ummm... excuse me?
Every9man
>Subject: Re: Lil Amber's web site
I agree with this post.
b
Sarah Monroe
>court.
>> As you point out, the come-on pictures are all perfectly legal. Not to
>>mention that MSNBC found the parents.
>
>Do the parents operate the website? Maybe the parents don't know it's a
>sting.
>
>
>
>
Isn't it entrapment for the FBI to participate in chat rooms, pretending to be
a young kid and making dates with whoever, then arresting the person when he
shows up?
That's done all the time. How about the Candyman thing that just happened,
claim to have 4000 names of people to arrest.
Jojoz
"Sarah Monroe" <gmsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020330134603...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> >>***No way. This would clearly be entrapment and would never stand up in
> >court.
> >> As you point out, the come-on pictures are all perfectly legal. Not to
> >>mention that MSNBC found the parents.
> >
> >Do the parents operate the website? Maybe the parents don't know it's a
> >sting.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Isn't it entrapment for the FBI to participate in chat rooms, pretending
to be
> a young kid and making dates with whoever, then arresting the person when
he
> shows up?
> That's done all the time. How about the Candyman thing that just
happened,
> claim to have 4000 names of people to arrest.
>
>
> Gms
>
>
>
>
I may be wrong, but I think it's only entrapment if the undercover person
approaches the person first .... works the same with cops that go undercover
as prostitutes. They let the 'john' do all the talking and offering, they
can not approach the subject or talk money - then it becomes entrapment....
Jojoz
tiny dancer
"Ronald Helm" <drs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vg0cau4916e4jl6om...@4ax.com...
I don't know Ron, did you actually go in the website and click on the
links?? Cause I'm pretty liberal minded, but seeing little girls posed in
bikini's with their legs spread wide open looks a bit sick to me. I mean
it's different if one is taking pictures of their daughter at a gymnastics
event or something, or ballet........but to pose them in such a way for a
still shot and post it on the web where people who have such inclinations
pay to look at it gives me the creeps. Don't forget, these are the freebies
we're seeing......to see more you've got to pay. And buy their videos. I
have albums and boxes of pictures of my girls.......but nothing like this.
Sure they sometimes put on make up and hammed it up for the camera......but
we weren't focusing the shot between their legs. I just don't like this
one, to me it seems worse than the JonBenet stuff.........I don't like still
shots of little girls in obviously seductive poses and without the 'happy
little girl' faces.
td
=^.^=
wrote:
It is the provocative posing of this girl that is so disgusting..not
the clothing that she is wearing. It gave me the creeps to look at
her pictures. These were not normal print model poses.
nicki
Ronald Helm
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>C'mon, nicki...arrested for what? I agree with Barbara on this one.
>>The parents who encourage their daughters to enter beauty pageants, or
>>model at this age may not be very good parents...but there is
>>certainly nothing criminal about this website. Notice that only a
>>bunch of male perverts who seek out this crap on the web act shocked
>>and complain about it.
>
>Ummm... excuse me?
You are excused.
Ron
Ronald Helm
<tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know Ron, did you actually go in the website and click on the
>links?? Cause I'm pretty liberal minded, but seeing little girls posed in
>bikini's with their legs spread wide open looks a bit sick to me. I mean
>it's different if one is taking pictures of their daughter at a gymnastics
>event or something, or ballet........but to pose them in such a way for a
>still shot and post it on the web where people who have such inclinations
>pay to look at it gives me the creeps. Don't forget, these are the freebies
>we're seeing......to see more you've got to pay. And buy their videos. I
>have albums and boxes of pictures of my girls.......but nothing like this.
>Sure they sometimes put on make up and hammed it up for the camera......but
>we weren't focusing the shot between their legs. I just don't like this
>one, to me it seems worse than the JonBenet stuff.........I don't like still
>shots of little girls in obviously seductive poses and without the 'happy
>little girl' faces.
>
>td
I did not follow the links, and only viewed the free stuff. Perhaps
if one were perverted enough to pay for the rest of the galleries, he
might find a different collection of photos. But what I saw for free,
was not offensive or illegal.
Ron
Ronald Helm
wrote:
>***No way. This would clearly be entrapment and would never stand up in court.
> As you point out, the come-on pictures are all perfectly legal. Not to
>mention that MSNBC found the parents.
>
>
>
>Maggie
I don't think it is a sting operation either, but stings by their very
nature are entrapping...how do real stings get by that claim?
Ron
Ronald Helm
wrote:
>Isn't it entrapment for the FBI to participate in chat rooms, pretending to be
>a young kid and making dates with whoever, then arresting the person when he
>shows up?
>That's done all the time. How about the Candyman thing that just happened,
>claim to have 4000 names of people to arrest.
>
>
>Gms
See my last post...sting operations almost by definition involve
entrapment. Maybe one can not be "entrapped" (in the legal sense of
the word) if the activity is clearly legal ?
Ron
Maggie
>in
>>court.
>>> As you point out, the come-on pictures are all perfectly legal. Not
>to
>>>mention that MSNBC found the parents.
>>
>>Do the parents operate the website? Maybe the parents don't know it's
>a
>>sting.
>>
>>
>>
>>
gms said:
>Isn't it entrapment for the FBI to participate in chat rooms, pretending
>to be
>a young kid and making dates with whoever, then arresting the person when
>he
>shows up?
>That's done all the time. How about the Candyman thing that just happened,
>claim to have 4000 names of people to arrest.
***As I understand it, entrapment occurs if LE induces the target to do
something he wouldn't ordinarily do absent the inducement. In the chat room
thing, it comes down to what exactly is said and lots of weight is given to the
nature of the entire contact. If the name of the chat room is
menfuckingteens.com, the perp is going to be hard pressed to claim he was just
trying to find a friend for his daughter. OTOH, if the target is lured into an
illegal site through a perfectly legal gateway (as in the Amber case), the
target would certainly argue that he had no idea what he was getting into and
was tricked into subscribing to porn--all he wanted to do was learn something
about teen modeling and photography.
Maggie
>wrote:
>
>>***No way. This would clearly be entrapment and would never stand up in
>court.
>> As you point out, the come-on pictures are all perfectly legal. Not to
>>mention that MSNBC found the parents.
>>
>>
>>
>>Maggie
>
>I don't think it is a sting operation either, but stings by their very
>nature are entrapping...how do real stings get by that claim?
***I just answered this in a post to GMS. In essence, if this was a sting
(which it isn't) the target would claim that he was lured into the site with
perfectly legal pictures. He *certainly* wouldn't go hunting down porn. In
order to make it a sting, real kiddie porn (computer-generated, I guess) would
have to be displayed while LE sat back waiting for someone to subscribe to
*porn*--not to perfectly legal (however discomforting) pictures of young girls.
Kathy
Definitely worse. At least the pageants are out in the open. This seems
to be directly soliciting pedophiles. I can't think who else would pay to
view photos like this.
Kathy
Barbara
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:25:00 GMT, Ronald Helm <drs...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:51:44 GMT, =^.^=
> ><nicki8801(spamfree))@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>think this is the one they are talking about?
> >>>I dont see anything awful.
> >>>
> >>>Barbara
> >>>
> >>><A HREF="http://www.lilamber.com/">Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV</A>
> >>
> >>Did you forget the smiley face? How do I erase that I ever went to
> >>the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
> >>for......something! gesssh
> >>
> >>nicki
Print ads in fashion magazines are far more provocative, they are just more subtle.
Barbara
Sarah Monroe
>entrapment. Maybe one can not be "entrapped" (in the legal sense of
>the word) if the activity is clearly legal ?
>
>Ron
>
>
>
I saw your post. I agree, stings are done all the time and they are definitely
entrapment. They use stings to catch drug dealers, chop shops, prostitutes,
you name it and convict people on that evidence.
Sarah Monroe
>subtle.
>
>Barbara
>> >
>> >C'mon, nicki...arrested for what? I agree with Barbara on this one.
>> >The parents who encourage their daughters to enter beauty pageants, or
>> >model at this age may not be very good parents...but there is
>> >certainly nothing criminal about this website. Notice that only a
>> >bunch of male perverts who seek out this crap on the web act shocked
>> >and complain about it.
>> >
>> >Ron
>>
>> It is the provocative posing of this girl that is so disgusting..not
>> the clothing that she is wearing. It gave me the creeps to look at
>> her pictures. These were not normal print model poses.
>>
>> nicki
>
>
>
>
>
>
You all been around any little girls lately? They all want to look and act
like Britney Spears.
Sahkanaga
"Sherman" <she...@mint.net> wrote in message
news:Ezjp8.8011$SG2.8...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> this is sick:
> http://www.lilamber.com/links.html
>
> read:
> http://www.nbc6.net/nbc6investigates/1315942/detail.html
>
> sherman
>
>
>
> "Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> > think this is the one they are talking about?
> > I dont see anything awful.
> >
> > Barbara
> >
> > <A HREF="http://www.lilamber.com/">Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode
IV</A>
>
"Favorites" folder?
Every9man
>>Print ads in fashion magazines are far more provocative, they are just
>more
>>subtle.
>>
>>Barbara
>>> >
>>> >C'mon, nicki...arrested for what? I agree with Barbara on this one.
>>> >The parents who encourage their daughters to enter beauty pageants,
>or
>>> >model at this age may not be very good parents...but there is
>>> >certainly nothing criminal about this website. Notice that only a
>>> >bunch of male perverts who seek out this crap on the web act shocked
>>> >and complain about it.
>>> >
>>> >Ron
>>>
>>> It is the provocative posing of this girl that is so disgusting..not
>>> the clothing that she is wearing. It gave me the creeps to look at
>>> her pictures. These were not normal print model poses.
>>>
>>> nicki
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>You all been around any little girls lately? They all want to look and
>act
>like Britney Spears.
>
>
>Gms
Or Lil Kim, Pink, J-Lo, ....not only do they want to, they do.
Hey, didnt Britney break up with Jason???
Barbara
tiny dancer
"Sarah Monroe" <gmsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >Print ads in fashion magazines are far more provocative, they are just
more
> >subtle.
> >
> >Barbara
> >> >
> >> >C'mon, nicki...arrested for what? I agree with Barbara on this one.
> >> >The parents who encourage their daughters to enter beauty pageants, or
> >> >model at this age may not be very good parents...but there is
> >> >certainly nothing criminal about this website. Notice that only a
> >> >bunch of male perverts who seek out this crap on the web act shocked
> >> >and complain about it.
> >> >
> >> >Ron
> >>
> >> It is the provocative posing of this girl that is so disgusting..not
> >> the clothing that she is wearing. It gave me the creeps to look at
> >> her pictures. These were not normal print model poses.
> >>
> >> nicki
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> You all been around any little girls lately? They all want to look and
act
> like Britney Spears.
I'm certainly not disputing that little girls like to dress like the latest
celebrities.......but it's a whole 'nother story when a parent dresses their
daughter up, poses her in suggestive poses, and puts her pictures on the web
to entice pedophiles....because we all know who would be buying these
videos.
td
Ronald Helm
<kae...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>I agree with you fully, nicki. I think exploiting a child is child abuse
>too.
>
>I'll help you with the deletion part if you want. :o)
>
>--
>
>KaEfEr
Miss computer expert will "help you with the deletion".. If this is
our Penny, she has never deleted anything from her computer.
Ron
mothra...@hotmail.com
> You all been around any little girls lately? They all want to look and act
> like Britney Spears.
>
And how disturbing was it (funny, too, though) when Bob Dole says "Down,
boy" to his dog in that Pepsi commercial?
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> >ee my last post...sting operations almost by definition involve
> >entrapment. Maybe one can not be "entrapped" (in the legal sense of
> >the word) if the activity is clearly legal ?
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >
> >
>
> I saw your post. I agree, stings are done all the time and they are definitely
> entrapment. They use stings to catch drug dealers, chop shops, prostitutes,
> you name it and convict people on that evidence.
>
I think LilAmber would be a good sting site, though, if you just put
some language like "want to see *more* of LilAmber <winkwink>" where
they offer to sell you a membership.
Martha
Maggie
>> >>Did you forget the smiley face? How do I erase that I ever went to
>> >>the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
>> >>for......something! gesssh
>> >>
>> >>nicki
>
>Print ads in fashion magazines are far more provocative, they are just more
>subtle.
***Well, whatever *you* think of the pictures, since the monthly fee for
Amber's site is approximately 15 times the subscription price of an adult
fashion magazine, clearly *someone* thinks Amber's pics are more interesting
than those found on the newstands. Not to mention that I'm not even aware of a
children's fashion magazine. Can you give us some names? I'd like to check
out those provocative pics.
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> >> >>
> >> >>Did you forget the smiley face? How do I erase that I ever went to
> >> >>the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
> >> >>for......something! gesssh
> >> >>
> >> >>nicki
> >
> barbara said:
> >Print ads in fashion magazines are far more provocative, they are just more
> >subtle.
>
> ***Well, whatever *you* think of the pictures, since the monthly fee for
> Amber's site is approximately 15 times the subscription price of an adult
> fashion magazine, clearly *someone* thinks Amber's pics are more interesting
> than those found on the newstands. Not to mention that I'm not even aware of a
> children's fashion magazine. Can you give us some names? I'd like to check
> out those provocative pics.
>
You get Vanity Fair, don't you? Don't you notice the sleepy-eyed
children reclining on adults in, say, the Calvin Klein ads? And Barbara
didn't specify children's fashion mags--look at Vogue: you will find
children in those ads, if you look for them.
Martha
Maggie
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Did you forget the smiley face? How do I erase that I ever went
>to
>> >> >>the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
>> >> >>for......something! gesssh
>> >> >>
>> >> >>nicki
>> >
>> barbara said:
>> >Print ads in fashion magazines are far more provocative, they are just
>more
>> >subtle.
>>
>> ***Well, whatever *you* think of the pictures, since the monthly fee for
>> Amber's site is approximately 15 times the subscription price of an adult
>> fashion magazine, clearly *someone* thinks Amber's pics are more interesting
>> than those found on the newstands. Not to mention that I'm not even aware
>of a
>> children's fashion magazine. Can you give us some names? I'd like to
>check
>> out those provocative pics.
>>
>You get Vanity Fair, don't you? Don't you notice the sleepy-eyed
>children reclining on adults in, say, the Calvin Klein ads? And Barbara
>didn't specify children's fashion mags--look at Vogue: you will find
>children in those ads, if you look for them.
***Well, since I'm not a pedophile my opinion may not matter, but *I* think
that the pictures on the Amber site are a great deal more provocative that
those glossy ads you (and, I guess, barbara) are talking about. Maybe it's
because Amber seems much more natural and child-like--more *real*-- than those
made up, posed, carefully coifed children in the ads. It's a rawer image. I
don't like the ads you're talking about, but I don't think they're nearly as
creepy as the Amber pics.
mothra...@hotmail.com
I would be hard-put to say which is worse--I think the volume of pix on
the Amber site has something to do with my reaction. If I saw only one
of those pictures I *might* not have the strong reaction I do have. I
also think children are sexualized in a lot of ways, including ads--and
including the glorification of performers like Britney Spears--I bet I'm
the only person here who watched the VH-1 special about her, "Driven?"
The images of her as a child performer aren't all that different from
the Amber pix, except that seeing the young Britney moving around,
smiling and singing, does make a difference.
Martha
Every9man
>
>>> >>
>>> >>Did you forget the smiley face? How do I erase that I ever went to
>>> >>the page. I think the girls parents should be arrested
>>> >>for......something! gesssh
>>> >>
>>> >>nicki
>>
>barbara said:
>>Print ads in fashion magazines are far more provocative, they are just
>more
>>subtle.
>
>***Well, whatever *you* think of the pictures, since the monthly fee for
>Amber's site is approximately 15 times the subscription price of an adult
>fashion magazine, clearly *someone* thinks Amber's pics are more interesting
>than those found on the newstands.
I didnt say they werent more interesting. I was trying to explain why I was not
shocked.
Perhaps living where I do and being around kids that age has jaded me.
Not to mention that I'm not even aware
>of a
>children's fashion magazine. Can you give us some names? I'd like to check
>out those provocative pics.
>
>Maggie
I'm not talking about children's magazines, I'm talking about adult ones,
fashion ones.
The next time I see one I'll give you the issue number.
IIRC some of the Gap ads had children in provocative poses.
I"m not sure that Brooke Shields might not have posed for provocative pics when
she was a young teen.
Barbara
Barbara
Barbara
Every9man
The kids in those ads are much better looking and much sexier imo than the ones
on that site.
Barbara-remembering Baby Doll
tiny dancer
Brooke Shields did one of those Calvin Klein ads when she was around 12 or
13. One of those......'nothing comes between me and my Calvin's'.........I
remember it caused a bit of an uproar at the time.
td
>
> Barbara
> Barbara
tiny dancer
And who was in the original Lolita?? Was Richard Burton in that?? I can't
recall the blond girl??
td
Matt Miller
news:20020330093404...@mb-fv.aol.com:
>>
>>I've seen photos far more suggestive than those in fashion magazines,
>>and yes,
>>of very young children.
>>
>>Barbara
>>
>>
>
> Anybody ever been to those kiddie beauty pageants? Very popular in
> the South. The JBR type stuff is typical for them.
Now I think these things are stupid, but from what I've seen they
involve more of excess of fabric rather than the virtual absense of it.
--
Matt Miller
JonesieCat
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83yp8.60598$GI5.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
James Mason and Sue Lyon.
Every9man
>including the glorification of performers like Britney Spears--I bet I'm
>the only person here who watched the VH-1 special about her, "Driven?"
>The images of her as a child performer aren't all that different from
>the Amber pix, except that seeing the young Britney moving around,
>smiling and singing, does make a difference.
>
>Martha
Nope you're not the only one.
I watched some of it just to see what she was going to do this time. She gets
racier and racier every performance and she still looks like a very young teen.
Barbara
Every9man
Sue Lyon and it was James Mason as Humbert Humbert.
they just did a remake w. Jeremy Irons.
Nowhere as good as the book.
Barbara
jp
article is now closing down membership, ie they already have enough
perverts!
If they've nothing to hide why prevent new membership?
ciao
Jason
--
___________________________________________________________
"...AND the one and only Michael Newton, who is well known to me and has
close cyberspace connections to the same areas of cyberspace that I
spend my time at. :) "
Joe1Orbit
___________________________________________________________
"Is your baby dead yet?"
Martha Sprowles
gardenia
> I"m not sure that Brooke Shields might not have posed for provocative pics
when
> she was a young teen.
>
> Barbara
how old was she when she played the young prostitute in pretty baby?
Sal
My recollection was that she was older that, and I thought the stir over
it was about her not wearing underwear. It was a jeans ad I think.
But who was that waif-like model, Kate somebody? I've seen plenty shots
of her that definitely made her look underage by a lot. There was one
where she was topless and hugging a teddy bear to cover up her breasts.
-sal
glas
> think this is the one they are talking about?
> I dont see anything awful.
>
> Barbara
Then I honestly pity you. What I see is so disgustingly dreadful and
disgusting that it turns my stomach.
They type of person that would view these sorts of pictures are the same
sorts that grab children off the streets to rape and murder all to satisfy
sick sexual desires. Nothing like a little photographic feeding into the
mentality that it is okay to sexualize young children and hey, from the
looks of the pictures it could be easily surmised that they would actually
enjoy the attention.
A parent that would encourage their child to participate in something like
this deserves to have that child taken away because they obviously aren't
capable of parenting.
chrissy
tiny dancer
>>
> >> I"m not sure that Brooke Shields might not have posed for provocative
> >> pics
> > when
> >> she was a young teen.
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >
> > Brooke Shields did one of those Calvin Klein ads when she was around
> > 12 or 13. One of those......'nothing comes between me and my
> > Calvin's'.........I remember it caused a bit of an uproar at the time.
> >
> > td
> >
>
> My recollection was that she was older that, and I thought the stir over
> it was about her not wearing underwear. It was a jeans ad I think.
>
> But who was that waif-like model, Kate somebody? I've seen plenty shots
> of her that definitely made her look underage by a lot. There was one
> where she was topless and hugging a teddy bear to cover up her breasts.
>
> -sal
I'm pretty sure Brooke was 12 or 13 at the time, she may have looked
older.......but I don't think she was. Are you thinking of Kate Moss?
td
>
Every9man
>
>But who was that waif-like model, Kate somebody? I've seen plenty shots
>
>of her that definitely made her look underage by a lot. There was one
>where she was topless and hugging a teddy bear to cover up her breasts.
>
>-sal
Kate Moss.
b
>
>
>
>
>
>
Every9man
>"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com...
>> think this is the one they are talking about?
>> I dont see anything awful.
>>
>> Barbara
>
>
>Then I honestly pity you. What I see is so disgustingly dreadful and
>disgusting that it turns my stomach.
I didnt say I like it, I m talking about not being shocked. I see this type of
thing every day on the streets, in the schools, in fashion mags, at concerts
and obviously it's at beauty pagents.
Dont you get sick when you see all of that stuff? My god, you cant get away
from it.
>
>They type of person that would view these sorts of pictures are the same
>sorts that grab children off the streets to rape and murder all to satisfy
>sick sexual desires. Nothing like a little photographic feeding into the
>mentality that it is okay to sexualize young children and hey, from the
>looks of the pictures it could be easily surmised that they would actually
>enjoy the attention.
These people get off on pictures that are not suggestive as well though, they
get off on regular underwear ads for God's sake.
>A parent that would encourage their child to participate in something like
>this deserves to have that child taken away because they obviously aren't
>capable of parenting.
Well, I'd like to agree with you -- I think there are many reasons to take
kids away from what I see are abusive parents, especially emotional abuse but
at the same time there are not nearly enough places to put these children.
I'm not so sure that mothers who push their kids to be regular models, screen
stars, beauty pageants, etc are not abusive as well.
Barbara
>
>chrissy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Every9man
I'm not sure, 13 maybe.
I dont know that it makes a difference how old she was in terms of feeding into
the fantasies of hebophiles ( is that the word) though, as long as she appears
to be that young.
Barbara
Sarah Monroe
>the Amber site has something to do with my reaction. If I saw only one
>of those pictures I *might* not have the strong reaction I do have. I
>also think children are sexualized in a lot of ways, including ads--and
>including the glorification of performers like Britney Spears--I bet I'm
>the only person here who watched the VH-1 special about her, "Driven?"
>The images of her as a child performer aren't all that different from
>the Amber pix, except that seeing the young Britney moving around,
>smiling and singing, does make a difference.
>
>Martha
>
>
>
>
You would lose your bet, Martha. I watched that VH1 special, thought it was
real interesting too. Note that it was Britney that wanted her fame all the
time, never did her parents push her into it. Matter of fact, they gave up a
lot to help her with her dream. Lots of kids have minds of their own, you
know.
Ben Dover
When she was about 10 she was in a movie about a New Orleans whore house
playing a young virgin men bid on. As I remember she was carried around in a
chair/platform thing naked. Think name of movie was Little Foxes or
something like that. Nowadays it would be considered cp.
jp
Every9man wrote:
>
> >
> >You all been around any little girls lately? They all want to look and
> >act
> >like Britney Spears.
> >
> >
> >Gms
>
> Or Lil Kim, Pink, J-Lo, ....not only do they want to, they do.
> Hey, didnt Britney break up with Jason???
>
> Barbara
Britney broke up with Justin Timberlake.
ciao
Jason
jp
Every9man wrote:
>
> I"m not sure that Brooke Shields might not have posed for provocative pics when
> she was a young teen.
>
She was also in a couple of films that required some nudity, Blue Lagoon
being one of them.
ciao
Jason
> Barbara
jp
Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> jp wrote in message <3CA5A763...@btinternet.com>...
> >
> >
> >Every9man wrote:
> >>
> >> think this is the one they are talking about?
> >> I dont see anything awful.
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> <A HREF="http://www.lilamber.com/">Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV</A>
> >
> >--
> >
> >Do you know what's in the members section?
> >Why would they need a members section if it was all above board?
>
> Uhhh -- so they can charge money? ;-/
--
For what?
Are the pitures going to be the same as those in the gallery, or are
people going in thinking they'll see more?
I find the whole thing kinda cheap, tacky and dangerous to the children
involved!
ciao
Jason
gardenia
Maggie
***The Calvin ads were when she was 15; Pretty Baby was when she was 12 (movie
released when she was 13) and Blue Lagoon, when she was 15.
Patty
I think she was about 15 when she recited those famous lines, "Nothing
comes between me and my Calvins." Here's one of the print ads.
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~davidtoc/images/ck.brooke2.jpg
Keith Carradine's daughter, Martha Plimpton, also starred in some
controversial Calvin Klein ads back in the early 1980s and she was
only 11. I've always liked Plimpton as an actress, she's chosen some
very interesting roles in her film career, including 1997's Eye of
God. I've always thought she had a Jodie Foster look about her.
Patty
Every9man
Patty
She was 12 at that time, her mother Terry Shields claimed that a body
double and/or body suits were used in the nude scenes. I saw that
movie on video just a few years ago and I think it was the real
Brooke. Here's a poster from the movie.
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=903102&item=306797
I think this one may have come from the movie as well.
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=903102&item=275729
Patty
Reed Richards
> think this is the one they are talking about?
> I dont see anything awful.
>
> Barbara
>
> <A HREF="http://www.lilamber.com/">Lil Amber - A New Hope - episode IV</A>
Sorry I am a little bit late to the party, but it goes without
saying the people responsible for this sick, sick site (regardless of
who they are) should be SHOT.
As in DEAD.
JonesieCat
"Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0e77308.02033...@posting.google.com...
Oh dear. These are both much worse than LilAmber pics, espec the top link.
God. I saw Brook on Johnny Carson years ago when she was 13. Mostly she
talked about her horse, and generally seemed rather bored to be there -
typical 13 y.old. She showed some snapshots of her face all made up at 10 -
she'd been fooling around with the make-up herself and someone took a photo.
In the pic she looked amazingly like 18 or so. It was such a contrast to see
such a beautiful person sitting there on the couch, and in the pic at 10,
and to realize she was just a typical *child*. It was weird really. I think
she turned out pretty good though.
JC
JonesieCat
Well I had dinner with Martha's dad one night after a performance of Hair in
Manhattan. I was with two other girls, one of whom was dying to meet him. So
we waited at the stage door and went with him to eat. It was lots of fun.
That was, uh, one or two years ago.
JC
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> >I would be hard-put to say which is worse--I think the volume of pix on
> >the Amber site has something to do with my reaction. If I saw only one
> >of those pictures I *might* not have the strong reaction I do have. I
> >also think children are sexualized in a lot of ways, including ads--and
> >including the glorification of performers like Britney Spears--I bet I'm
> >the only person here who watched the VH-1 special about her, "Driven?"
> >The images of her as a child performer aren't all that different from
> >the Amber pix, except that seeing the young Britney moving around,
> >smiling and singing, does make a difference.
> >
> >Martha
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> You would lose your bet, Martha. I watched that VH1 special, thought it was
> real interesting too. Note that it was Britney that wanted her fame all the
> time, never did her parents push her into it. Matter of fact, they gave up a
> lot to help her with her dream. Lots of kids have minds of their own, you
> know.
>
She really was an amazing child performer, wasn't she?
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> "Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0e77308.02033...@posting.google.com...
> > "gardenia" <garde...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:<1sCp8.444$t74.26...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > "Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20020331011628...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> > >
> > > > I"m not sure that Brooke Shields might not have posed for provocative
> pics
> > > when
> > > > she was a young teen.
> > > >
> > > > Barbara
> > >
> > > how old was she when she played the young prostitute in pretty baby?
> >
> > She was 12 at that time, her mother Terry Shields claimed that a body
> > double and/or body suits were used in the nude scenes. I saw that
> > movie on video just a few years ago and I think it was the real
> > Brooke. Here's a poster from the movie.
> >
> > http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=903102&item=306797
> >
> > I think this one may have come from the movie as well.
> >
> > http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=903102&item=275729
> >
> > Patty
>
> Oh dear. These are both much worse than LilAmber pics, espec the top link.
Did anyone see Natalie Portman several years ago in "The Professional?"
That movie was about as close to child pornography as I've seen since
"Pretty Baby." And PB was a good movie, I thought--TP just kind of made
me sick-feeling. I was especially surprised to read later that NP's
parents are so protective of her, of what kind of work she does--maybe
they became that way after TP.
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=903102&item=306797
Martha
Every9man
Well at least I am not the only one who thought that the pictures were not
unique in their suggestiveness.
Barbara
JonesieCat
<mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3CA7BF...@erols.com...
In the end, I liked The Professional. Yes, there was creepiness. It veered
close to weird stuff, but then backed off - done intentionally, as part of
the story line, and done well I thought. That actor, I like him alot,
dammit, what's his name? did a good job of having his lonely character
perhaps being momentarily tempted, and instinctively making a decision of
what sort of relationship he was going to have with this vulnerable girl
child, and doing the right thing by her. The entire story was improbable,
but it was well acted and pretty well done I think. Probably gave pedos of
the world a thrill, which I didn't think of at the time. And I figured
NPortman was probably much older than the part she played. Wasn't she?
I hardly remember Pretty Baby. Just that I thought it was overrated, and it
was creepy.
JC
Bart Bailey
>
>
> I don't know Ron, did you actually go in the website and click on the
> links?? Cause I'm pretty liberal minded, but seeing little girls posed in
> bikini's with their legs spread wide open looks a bit sick to me. I mean
> it's different if one is taking pictures of their daughter at a gymnastics
> event or something, or ballet........
....or women's figure skating?
> but to pose them in such a way for a
> still shot and post it on the web where people who have such inclinations
> pay to look at it gives me the creeps. Don't forget, these are the freebies
> we're seeing......to see more you've got to pay. And buy their videos. I
> have albums and boxes of pictures of my girls.......but nothing like this.
> Sure they sometimes put on make up and hammed it up for the camera......but
> we weren't focusing the shot between their legs.
......like skating past the judges "reviewing" stand on one leg,
and the other extended upward,
spread eagle and smiling.
It's all about sex,
always was and always will be,
and to deny it belies the possibility that you're jealous of their youthful
attractiveness.
> I just don't like this
> one, to me it seems worse than the JonBenet stuff.........I don't like still
> shots of little girls in obviously seductive poses and without the 'happy
> little girl' faces.
just click around the net awhile,
you should be able to find all the nubbins you want,
"with" those smiling faces.
~Bart~
Every9man
not that it matters because she was playing the part of a young teen and I was
shocked at the portrayal myself.
She *did* wind up sleeping with him didnt she?
However. I loved the film, I loved Jean Reno, , I loved Natalie Portman and I
adored Gary Oldman. I thought it was a brilliant film.
Barbara
Barbara
>
>Martha
>
>
>
>
>
JonesieCat
Well, no, she didn't wind up sleeping with him. That was my take on it. To
my mind there came a point where he, as the one in the position of power,
had a decision to make about the attraction he felt for her, and he opted
for the high road.
Perfectly natural for a paid assassin I thought. No surprise there. :>))
JC
tiny dancer
Was she in that movie, can't remember the name, with Judd Hirsch.......about
the '60s radicals on the run from the law with their two sons?? Wasn't
River Phoenix one of the sons?? Fire and Rain was the theme song at the
end of the movie??
td
tiny dancer
Damn, it just came to me.....'Running on Empty', wasn't she in that movie??
td
Every9man
I've gotta go back and watch it again for the umpteenth hundred time. I could
swear that the scene in the bed left the issue of whether or not he slept with
her ambiguous.
I remember being upset because it wouldnt have been congruous with the plot or
his character so I just pushed it out of my mind.
I loved it when he tried to make her laugh with the pig pot holder and when
she was playing parts trying to make him guess which movie she was playing a
part in.
Barbara
Patty
No, I don't think so, but whenever I see her name his name comes to
mind.
> Well I had dinner with Martha's dad one night after a performance of Hair in
> Manhattan. I was with two other girls, one of whom was dying to meet him. So
> we waited at the stage door and went with him to eat. It was lots of fun.
> That was, uh, one or two years ago.
>
> JC
That must have been one of his early performances, huh? I never knew
he had performed in any musicals, let alone did stagework. But I
think his song "Easy" did win an Oscar in the mid 1970s.
Seven degrees of separation, Keith Carradine played the photographer
in "Pretty Baby" with Brooke Shields.
One of my favorite Keith Carradine movies is the mid 1980s tv-movie
"Blackout," with Richard Widmark as a cop after a man who killed his
entire family. You're never sure if Carradine is this man or not.
Patty
Every9man
Sarah Monroe
Great performer, even as a child, good singer. Unlike JBR who was always so
far off key it hurt your ears. Always wondered how she won so many contests,
her talent was about nonexistent. Guess it was the expensive costumes.
glas
> >From: "glas" glas...@your-net.com> >news:20020329225902...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >> think this is the one they are talking about?
> >> I dont see anything awful.
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >
> >
> >disgusting that it turns my stomach.
>
> I didnt say I like it, I m talking about not being shocked. I see this
type of
> thing every day on the streets, in the schools, in fashion mags, at
concerts
> and obviously it's at beauty pagents.
>
> Dont you get sick when you see all of that stuff? My god, you cant get
away
> from it.
You see children posing suggestively every day? I guess I don't get out much
because I certainly don't. I see children wearing clothes that I would
consider somewhat suggestive sometimes but I've never seen any of them
standing on street corners posing suggestively with a come-hither look as in
these photos.
I get your point that children are sexualized by the media every day, and
yes, I find it distasteful.
>
>
> >
> >They type of person that would view these sorts of pictures are the same
> >sorts that grab children off the streets to rape and murder all to
satisfy
> >sick sexual desires. Nothing like a little photographic feeding into the
> >mentality that it is okay to sexualize young children and hey, from the
> >looks of the pictures it could be easily surmised that they would
actually
> >enjoy the attention.
>
> These people get off on pictures that are not suggestive as well though,
they
> get off on regular underwear ads for God's sake.
True enough. However, I've never seen underwear ads where the children
looked so sexualized. The pictures of the little girls on these sites (I
only looked at Lil Amber and Jessi the Kid so I"m generalizing a bit here)
are obviously intended for no other purpose than to titilate and their very
existence strongly suggests approval by the parents of this sexualization
for the pleasure of pediphiles. There is no way I believe that the websites
are "modeling" portfolios and neither would anyone else with half a brain.
>
>
> >A parent that would encourage their child to participate in something
like
> >this deserves to have that child taken away because they obviously aren't
> >capable of parenting.
>
> Well, I'd like to agree with you -- I think there are many reasons to
take
> kids away from what I see are abusive parents, especially emotional abuse
but
> at the same time there are not nearly enough places to put these children.
> I'm not so sure that mothers who push their kids to be regular models,
screen
> stars, beauty pageants, etc are not abusive as well.
I'm not a fan of beauty pageants although I find a very big difference
between that and allowing your child to be the subject of photos for a
website that panders to one of societys most despicable ills. Very heinous
to support a child by putting her in the position of pandering to the very
element that would most likely do her serious harm. Not only is this a
disservice to the child directly involved but it is also a threat to
children everywhere.
Any parent that would exploit their child by putting up a website such as
this is totally irresponsible and unworthy. Shame on them and shame on
anyone that would abet such an enterprise.
chrissy
>
> Barbara
> >
> >chrissy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Hester Mofet
Bravo! Well said.
Hester Mofet
vond...@hotmail.com
Patty wrote:
> "
>
> > Well I had dinner with Martha's dad one night after a performance of Hair in
> > Manhattan. I was with two other girls, one of whom was dying to meet him. So
> > we waited at the stage door and went with him to eat. It was lots of fun.
> > That was, uh, one or two years ago.
> >
> > JC
>
> That must have been one of his early performances, huh? I never knew
> he had performed in any musicals, let alone did stagework. But I
> think his song "Easy" did win an Oscar in the mid 1970s.
>
> Seven degrees of separation, Keith Carradine played the photographer
> in "Pretty Baby" with Brooke Shields.
>
An interesting note--the movie PRETTY BABY was based on an actual person (the photographer), who was, in real
life, a hunchback dwarf whose brother was a priest and attempted to destroy his work after he died young.
Like Toulouse-Latrec, his subjects were prostitutes & pimps. In his case, he lived in the brothels of
Storyville. The story of the child-whore is loosely based on a chapter in a collection of oral histories (no
pun intended) from former turn-of-the century New Orleans sex workers called STORYVILLE. It has the most
distinctive opening sentence of any biography I've ever read: "My mama used to fuck the horses down at Emma
Johnson's Circus House."
Vonda
Every9man
No, they hang around the school yards in the play ground posing suggestively
imitating the Britney Spears of the world. I dont know glas, maybe it's
different in New York.
There are kids that age here who are sexually active and dont make any bones
about it.
>
>I get your point that children are sexualized by the media every day, and
>yes, I find it distasteful.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >They type of person that would view these sorts of pictures are the same
>> >sorts that grab children off the streets to rape and murder all to
>satisfy
>> >sick sexual desires. Nothing like a little photographic feeding into
>the
>> >mentality that it is okay to sexualize young children and hey, from the
>> >looks of the pictures it could be easily surmised that they would
>actually
>> >enjoy the attention.
>>
>> These people get off on pictures that are not suggestive as well though,
>they
>> get off on regular underwear ads for God's sake.
>
>
>True enough. However, I've never seen underwear ads where the children
>looked so sexualized. The pictures of the little girls on these sites (I
>only looked at Lil Amber and Jessi the Kid so I"m generalizing a bit here)
>are obviously intended for no other purpose than to titilate and their very
>existence strongly suggests approval by the parents of this sexualization
>for the pleasure of pediphiles. There is no way I believe that the websites
>are "modeling" portfolios and neither would anyone else with half a brain.
Oh I agree that that's what the site is intended for. And I for one think that
for instance, Brooke Shields posing in that poster that someone put up, with
legs in such a position to show her underpants is far more suggestive than the
amateur ones in that site.
But again, I dont think it matters for purposes of evaluating their effect.
I have absoultely no idea what was in the heads of these companies who run
these ads and in my mind even though they are not intentionally turning on
pedos they're just as guilty of pandering to the group.
>> >A parent that would encourage their child to participate in something
>like
>> >this deserves to have that child taken away because they obviously aren't
>> >capable of parenting.
>>
>> Well, I'd like to agree with you -- I think there are many reasons to
>take
>> kids away from what I see are abusive parents, especially emotional abuse
>but
>> at the same time there are not nearly enough places to put these children.
>> I'm not so sure that mothers who push their kids to be regular models,
>screen
>> stars, beauty pageants, etc are not abusive as well.
>
>
>I'm not a fan of beauty pageants although I find a very big difference
>between that and allowing your child to be the subject of photos for a
>website that panders to one of societys most despicable ills. Very heinous
>to support a child by putting her in the position of pandering to the very
>element that would most likely do her serious harm. Not only is this a
>disservice to the child directly involved but it is also a threat to
>children everywhere.
Point taken .
>Any parent that would exploit their child by putting up a website such as
>this is totally irresponsible and unworthy. Shame on them and shame on
>anyone that would abet such an enterprise.
I agree, my only objection was what I see as an unrealistic suggestion to take
the kids out of the home.
Barbara
>
>chrissy
>>
>> Barbara
>> >
>> >chrissy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
tiny dancer
Yup, that's the one, really enjoyed that movie.
td
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
JonesieCat
<vond...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3CA86E2B...@hotmail.com...
Thx. I just printed out your email to add to my 'books, etc to read' file.
JC
Every9man
I didnt like the film much but I was totally entranced with River Phoenix. Sad
to see him go.
Barbara