Child modeling (erotic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
Erotic child modeling is erotic modeling by children for photographs or videos. It is distributed commercially or freely, in magazines or over the Internet.
Child modeling has become a more widespread phenomenon with the rise of the Internet and Usenet, and there are now many websites offering non-nude or nude photographs and videos of underage teens or preteens, usually girls, to subscribers. While some non-nude sites focus on non-erotic modeling, erotic non-nude sites may feature models in a variety of clothing types, including dresses, bikinis, nightgowns, or undergarments only.
Contents |
[edit] Legal issues in the United States
Material in which models are not nude and poses are not overtly sexual generally does not fall under child pornography laws of the United States or most other countries. As such it is generally legal to produce, purchase, or possess such materials. Note, however, that some countries (the UK in particular) do consider many of these sites illegal (eg. the UK requires only that a picture be 'indecent'). Many child modeling sites that are viewed as pushing the boundaries of the law are not considered to violate the law. However, depictions of even a clothed child violate U.S. federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (4) and 2256(2)(E)) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area. See United States of America v. Knox[1].
Other U.S. federal laws dealing specifically with issues surrounding child modeling are:
- 18 U.S.C. § 2251: Sexual exploitation of children.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2251a: Selling or buying of children.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2252: Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2258: Failure to report child abuse.
In the United States, some members of Congress (in particular, the disgraced former congressman Mark Foley) have proposed prohibiting certain child modeling sites. Opponents of such legislation argue that it would probably be ruled to violate the first amendment to the US constitution.
Most producers of child erotica assert that they always obtain the consent of the models' parent or guardian.
In early 2006 the operators of the child modeling agencies "A Little Agency" and "The VMS," Matt Duhamel and Charles Granere, were arrested on charges of child pornography. Neither A Little Agency nor the VMS distributed nude photographs, but federal prosecutors argued that, even though the photographs did not focus primarily on sexual organs, they still contained "lascivious exhibitions" of the genitalia.[2] They were indicted of transporting child pornography, possession of child pornography and receipt of child pornography.[3] Both plead not guilty. [4]
[5] Matthew Duhamel and Charles Granere filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them. Arguing a Web site they operated that contained pictures of young girls in suggestive poses does not rise to the level of pornography. Federal prosecutors claim their Web site, which has now been shut down, dealt in images of 9- and 10-year-old girls wearing scant clothing in suggestive poses. One photo reportedly shows a 9-year-old girl in "black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and a black jacket" sitting on a dining room table, according to court records.
In their motion, attorneys for Duhamel and Granere argue that there is no allegation of nudity nor do the locations of the photos suggest sexual locations.
However, courts have ruled that photos do not have to necessarily be nude in order to be considered "lascivious." The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."
According to the Salt Lake City, (AP), Campbell the Federal Judge assigned to the case has denied the motion to dismiss noting that the law is clear on not requiring nudity under the definition of pornography. Also noting the determination of whether the images on Granere and Duhamel's website were pornographic should be made by a jury.
[edit] Controversy
Critics say that most consumers of child modeling erotica are pedophiles. Referred among themselves as Girl or Boy Lovers - GL/BL; that the material may be used to groom a child. In some cases to reduce the child's sexual inhibition, for questionable [immoral] or sexual activity. Defenders of the material point out that images of attractive children fill the mainstream media, including youth fashion magazines and clothing catalogs, and most producers of child modeling erotica say that their intent is to advertise and promote the legitimate modeling services of the model; bringing mainstream modeling trends into public view.
Critics deny that the interest of the child is being served and argue that the producers of the material are well aware that they are engaging in exploitation.
In April of 2003, a child model named Cindy appeared with her mother on The Oprah Winfrey Show [6]. Many reporters and experts also debated on the show. Cindy's mother noted that Cindy's uncle, Curt Newbury, an [7] established professional model photographer is her photographer and manager, and claimed that she and Curt are trying to promote Cindy in the most tasteful manner possible. When Oprah told Cindy that modeling would never get her fame and she responded with "it got me here" Oprah was unwilling to reply. This show increased the traffic on Cindy's site.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- "The Lolita Problem", Red Herring
