This is not funny

[model-sensations]

[Marino]

It's a bit off, the girls they advertise are 16 and 17, not really the sort of thing that should be on this site me thinks.

[Easy23]

Yea, it's sick. The girls don't even look the age they say they are.

[joe king]

is topless 16 illegal? or just not funny?

[Marino]

Not illegal with parent's consent, but who the fuck wants to look at little girls, when we have such lovelies as Alica Rhodes and co.
Not an agency I will be using thats for sure.

[sandie]

me n faye were talkin bout this the other day.
im under the impression it is ok to shoot topless at 16 but not sure if photographer HAS to have parental permission.

sam fox, LDM and many others appeared in print at 16 topless.
the site states it is law abiding and only seems to deal with lingerie or topless shots/shoots.


think some of the links on the site are abit distasteful tho.

if these girls are being managed properly then i dont see anything funny as such.

[Pervert]

I think what's mostly bothering people is the market the site is aiming at. Very young girls, who look younger.

[Paul Tavener]

I think the seual Offences Bill will make this illegal in the near future.

[marcusallen]

It is not illegal.
Parental permission is required because the model release form is a legal document that cannot be signed by a minor (under 18)

However distasteful it may seem to certain of us, it is extremely exciting to another segment of the population and this of course is what the site owners are playing on with promises to these kids of fame and fortune.

[jj]

But at the moment it's perfectly legal.
And no more morally objectionable than parents buying their 10-y-o daughters thongs, or plastering them in make-up and hot-pants and entering them in 'talent' contests, or allowing their 16-y-o's to pose topless for the Currant Bun (just above the editorial castigating prostitution.........).