State: Girls Gone Wild Filmed at Least 35 Minors in Panhandle

ap.tbo.com ^ | Sep 4, 2003 | AP

[Queen Jadis]

I totally blame the internet for bring so much porn "mainstream". </i?

How true that is. Jenna Jameson getting an E true Hollywood Story made about her. One scene has her going to a mall in Arizona Shopping...a girl (barely over 18) recognises her and asks for her autograph. I liked it better when Porno stars were "underground". Glad I don't have teen age girls....Porn definately has gone mainstream. Funny thing to notice now, the stars in the MTV awards look like the stars in the Adult Film Awards did (10 15 years ago) and the Adult Film Awards look like the stars that were in the Oscars (20 years ago).

[baltodog]

...But we dare not call these stars sluts.
I'm so glad my daughter isn't a teenager yet...she only twelve.
You know, 13 years ago, I wouldn't have one bit about this issue!

[geaux]

Actually, I think the arbitrary age line for majority is a bit like the zero tolerance nonsense -- it can produce absurd outcomes. We've quit using common sense in these situations in favor of a completely random line in the sand. I agree that a 20 or 30 year old chasing after a 16 or 17 year old is demonstrably immature and, as you say, not fully cured. But I just don't equate him with the sickos who molest little kids.

Many moons ago, when times were very different, my 21-year old grandfather married my "almost 15 year old" grandmother. No one blinked an eye that she was 14 and marrying a 21 year old. A few years later, my 42 year old uncle married a 13 year old. Everyone knew he was a disgusting pig. People exercised common sense to arrive at these conclusions; not hard-line applications of a rule with no exceptions.

[68skylark]

If it's Ok for a 16 or 17 year to expose herself to a 20- 0r 30-year old, then it should be OK for that same guy to date her, get to know her, and maybe cop a feel....

Actually, age 16 or 17 is the "age of consent" for sexual activity in most states, so I don't think your example holds up real well. What you describe IS currently legal. It's odd that a young woman can legally have sex, but can't legally be photographed lifting her top. I agree with those who don't think it should be worth 30 years in prison (a year or two in jail would be more proportionate to the offense, IMHO).

[68skylark]

I have to say, I think including 16 or 17 year old girls lifting their shirts in the "kiddie porn" category is a bit extreme.

I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

I think you're comments are reasoned, but I disagree.

If you allow underage girls to be fodder for these clowns, then 16 and 17 year olds won't be the only ones they go after. They'll go after any kid they can talk into doing it. Girl's should provide documentation to prove their age. If they are 18, they are fair game.

Look, there's plenty of tallent out there. Why do they need 16 and 17 year olds vs 18 and 19 year olds? They don't.

If I caught some guy trying to get my 16 year old to take her clothes off for this video, he'd have more problems than Johnny law coming after him.

[cyborg]

Defense attorney Jimmy Judkins argued that the tapes "contain a wealth of evidence that will exculpate Mr. Francis and will disprove the government allegation that Mantra Entertainment is a criminal enterprise."

** Unfortunately Mrs. Pan Yan, I knew plenty of girls who were 16,17 whose parents paid for them to go Cozumel,South Beach,etc. for Spring Break. Most of these Spring Break situations are fueled by alcohol and hormones and offers of cash. I've seen the late night GGW infomercial and the girls are flashing their boobs already. That's why I have no interest in Mardi Gras and all that. I don't drink and I'd never flash my girls.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I think including 16 or 17 year old girls lifting their shirts in the "kiddie porn" category is a bit extreme."

I entirely agree.

We treat teens as adults when they do adult things like drive, commit crimes, etc. Why not treat them as such when they attend events with the intention of getting drunk and displaying their breasts?

[BossLady]

"Francis' company, Mantra Films Inc., has disputed the charges, saying its crews always ask young women their age and film only those who say they are 18 or older."

BullS*&t!!!! They are considering themselves a film company and selling the likeness of these girls.....If there was no 'acting' release signed by each and every girl these idiots filmed AND a copy of their driver's license and social security card along with that release, they are liable. Period.

[Jabba the Nutt]

The "Girls Gone Wild" staff filmed at least 35 girls exposing themselves during spring break in the Panama City Beach area, prosecutors said.

They exposed themselves in public, will the girls be prosecuted? If not, why not? Why are only the filmers guilty?

[Fifth Business]

Actually, age 16 or 17 is the "age of consent" for sexual activity in most states,...

But they just can't drink while they're "doin' it."

[RS]

"If my daughter ever wound up on a tape like that, I'd find out who shot it and beat him to death with his family's legs! "

Sure... your drunken underage daughter takes off her top at the beach and you're ready and willing to commit murder...

Sounds like you would make a great example of adult behavior to your kid.

[vikingchick]

You tell 'em!

[geaux]

If you allow underage girls to be fodder for these clowns, then 16 and 17 year olds won't be the only ones they go after. They'll go after any kid they can talk into doing it.

I disagree. The same clown who wants to see a 16 year old's ta-tas does not necessarily want to strip down an 8 year old for sexual gratification. I don't think they should be treated as "child molesters."

Just so you don't think I like the idea of teens stripping down for the camera, I'll add that I'm a woman with a young daughter who lives in New Orleans. I cringe when Mardi Gras rolls around. But if I caught my 16 year old acting like a whore for plastic beads, she would be the one with hell to pay, not the horn dog with the beads. I used to be a 16 year old girl; they know better.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your comments.

[N3WBI3]

People dont buy pictures of babies taking a bath to get aroused, and I am guessing they doint buy ggw for the memories..

[Mr. Quarterpanel]

People dont buy pictures of babies taking a bath to get aroused, and I am guessing they doint buy ggw for the memories..

True, but if ggw was just filming girls "letting the girls out", then it is not illegal, no matter how revolting. If these jokers were filming sex acts(WILDLY STUPID), and the players were not of age, as the prosecuter claims, then that is a problem that can only be solved by an extended stay at the graybar motel, and justly so.

[Eric Esot]

Then the defense is correct. By that standard, simple nudity is not pornography if their is no sexual act or simulation thereof.

No - depiction of an identifiable minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct is child porn... and; evidently this story has a little fact to it - the producer gave underage girls money and told them to lie and say they were 18.