you're righteven though page 3 girls can be 16, she looks younger... but she's not, or else she's pulled the biggest fake-age scam since Traci Lords.
(
JustHere4Coffee remembers when all o' this were car parks,
Sun 13 Apr 2003, 16:26,
archived)
they only show bare boobies, or occasionally just bumsour age of consent's 16, and the pictures on page 3 are more "here's a girl who forgot to wear a top doing something rather normal"
Edit: But that girl stars in her own porn site, so she's got to be over 18
(Edit: But that girl stars in her own porn site, so she's got to be over 18
JustHere4Coffee remembers when all o' this were car parks,
Sun 13 Apr 2003, 16:32,
archived)
It has to be with parental consentbut it doesn't happen often, and usually they flop - only real "exception" is Linsey Dawn MacKenzie, who was never going to be considered a child.
I wonder how much her parents regret letting her pose at that age?
(I wonder how much her parents regret letting her pose at that age?
JustHere4Coffee remembers when all o' this were car parks,
Sun 13 Apr 2003, 16:41,
archived)
Iagree.
16 is way too young for any sort of sexual imagery.
Although I will cop a look at the odd 16-yo (but I'm allowed; I'm only 16 myself.)
(,
Sun 13 Apr 2003, 16:45,
archived)
16 is way too young for any sort of sexual imagery.
Although I will cop a look at the odd 16-yo (but I'm allowed; I'm only 16 myself.)
hahI'm 18, I guess two years doesn't really make that much difference, but at 16 how can you know how having pictures of your girlie parts all over the place is going to affect you?
( gracielou,
Sun 13 Apr 2003, 16:49,
archived)
I think some couldbut most wouldn't be able to understand the consequences.
That and dirty old men/women looking at teenage girls/boys is quite high on the yuck scale to me.
(,
Sun 13 Apr 2003, 16:54,
archived)
That and dirty old men/women looking at teenage girls/boys is quite high on the yuck scale to me.
you have no ideahow much I agree with that last statement!
( gracielou,
Sun 13 Apr 2003, 16:57,
archived)