Met-Art Safe or Stay Away ?

[emmanuelle]

Yes, these girls, and little april etc may technically be 18, but we all know damn well that they are chosen because they appear much younger. Ask yourself who exactly is this intended to cater to, and do you want to be a part of it?

[backoffbitch]

I'll put my 2 cents in here.

I signed up to MET last month.

After going through the first 3 years of their archives I had seen enough preteens to make me cancel my membership.

When I asked them about it, they denied it all and said they couldn't find any and claimed they only go back two weeks in the archives (bull). Why does it say 1999 in the archives then?

I even told them specifically one set that I remember that had a 10-12 year old girl in it. It was very obvious,,, no hips, no tits, no hair, nothing. She is a child. That whole guest photographer set is all children from that particular series (attitude series). He then responded that it doesn't exists. I even offered to give him a url to it if he gave me a temp pass to get back in. Again, denial.

In total I'd say that 10 percent of the early years is all children.

While perfectly legal and non-explicit, it does NOT belong in a site being promoted by pornographers.

I suggest not touching them. Preteens and porn do NOT mix and opens yourself up to all kinds of trouble.

[MeatPounder]

Originally Posted by backoffbitch

I'll put my 2 cents in here.

I signed up to MET last month.

After going through the first 3 years of their archives I had seen enough preteens to make me cancel my membership.

I know I saw the same thing looking through their site, thus my post about there definately being children on their site.
Admitted the images I saw were beautiful photographs, with out being overtly sexual...but still children under the age of 18 naked, and several with spread legs.
Again...quite possibly completely legal even in todays political climate, but not something I will continue to promote.

Just because a books cover is PG, does not make the content of the book safe.

Quite honestly even if they cleaned the whole site out and took all the definate pre-teens out I wouldn't feel safe promoting them without signed and dated proof every girl on their site was off legal age at the time of the shoot. Which being overseas they feel they do not need.

[backoffbitch]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

Yes, these girls, and little april etc may technically be 18, but we all know damn well that they are chosen because they appear much younger. Ask yourself who exactly is this intended to cater to, and do you want to be a part of it?

not only that, even if the model IS 18+, protraying her as under 18 in explicit content IS ILLEGAL and considered child pornography.

It's law in both the US and Canada. While it's burried in US law, it's clearly stated in the canadian Age of Consent laws and Child Protection acts. In Canada anyone distributing, producing and selling the product can be charged under these laws and face STEEP penalties.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

Yes, these girls, and little april etc may technically be 18, but we all know damn well that they are chosen because they appear much younger. Ask yourself who exactly is this intended to cater to, and do you want to be a part of it?

I happen to reject galleries that uses sponsors that try to create this virtual KP...even if the models are 18 it just completely creeps me out to see 18 year olds dressed / acting like 12 year olds. They're definitely trying to cater to a segment of the population that I don't want visiting my sites.