joeri wrote:I don't want old men looking at my daughter as if it's a sex object.
I assume that either english is not your native language, or you simply mis-typed. You meant "she's", not "it's", right?
Anyway, although I have not taken a look at the website yet, it sounds like they are artful nudes. And I wonder by what criteria they are claimed as being under 18 years old. Firstly, some women look very young by todays standards of "they have to have large breasts, be tall, and have curvy hips". That doesn't mean those standards are accurate. Secondly, they are 3d models, not real people, and thus technically because they were recently created are less than a year old.
Moreover, there is classic artwork depicting young nude girls. I don't recall the title or artist, but there is one in particular that realistically renders a nude girl sitting on a couch.
I agree that young girls should not be photographed nude nor specific real-life young girls recreated in the nude whether by sculpture, painting, or other means. But that is to protect the girls from exposure, not the viewer from viewing. In the case of completely fictional girls, I don't see the problem.
As for "sexual addiction", I would like to point out that the entire human race is "addicted" to sex, as the drive for the actions of reproduction is a basic part of all animals, and human's are no exception. Also, human's are very curious beings, and thus the opposite gender's sexuality is of upmost interest to the vast majority of people.
I think the term you are searching for, Joeri, is pornographic addiction, which is different and not so inherent, and involves continued, obsessive viewing of pornography even after the curiosity about the opposite gender's sexuality has been satisfied.
As for those claiming that pornography addiction is not a common problem (if any of you are claiming that), from what I've read--though I admit I do not recall specific sources--it is
a fairly common problem, especially among males (though it does happen among females as well, it's just that fewer females view pornography), and can lead to problems. The biggest problem is it simply taking up too much of their time, and infringing on other valuable aspects of their life because of the disproportionate time spent viewing it. However, that same problem has been documented with TV viewing in general, so it is not specific to pornography.
Another problem is that it often leads to the person objectifying the opposite gender in mostly sexual terms, or rather, treating the opposite gender as "sex objects". Although it is important to recognize the opposite gender's sexuality, this resulting viewpoint views them as disproportionately sexual, as if that's all they are and are simply hiding it.
Both of these problems can occur to varying degrees of severity, and are fairly common among viewers of pornography. There are, of course, plenty of people who veiw pornography for whom neither of those things are a problem. So it depends on the person, too.
Anyway, I figured I'd share this tidbit of info, albiet without references (sorry about that).
So, before I go too far off topic, let me get back to topic.
I think that it would make sense to leave this post up, if for no other reason than the useful discussion that has resulted from it. As for a more broad-ranging policy, I honestly don't have an idea as to what I think should be done. It seems like there are problems and benifits to most of the solutions, and I think it's largely an issue of which benifits we think are most important.
As a final comment, I also found the "proven sickening" statement rather bizaare and amusing. Joeri: if you want to be taken seriously, you should refrain from saying absurd things like that.