Teenage Calander Girls - ideas please

alant1000

cazziej wrote: »

Hi Alan, replied once, but it disappeared!!

I must say I am really surprised at the response of the men!! The girls in question are all intelligent and self-willed and would never do anything they didn't want to. All of them, without exception, think this is a fun thing to do and can't wait.

And can I just ask - if you spotted a page 3 girl in the newspaper, over somebody elses shoulder , and then you noticed she was only 17, would you gouge your eyes out?????

My husband is very protective of his precious "baby girl" (she will be his baby girl even when she 50!) and even he can see no wrong in this, neither can any of the other parents.

Would 17 years, 11 months, 3 weeks and 6 days be okay???? Tell your mate sorry, but the girls will be in mini football kits, and we are in Manchester, but if he really wants to..............

Thank you for the useful tips about printers.

Thanks, Carol.

ahh sorry Carol we aren't all trying to gang up. I am saying this because i am 28, if i got chatting to a nice looking girl and she told me she was 17, or even under 21 i would run a mile regardless of her looks, purely on principle. Only because at that age they are still young, but you are the one with the daughter not me so i know that you see your daughter in a proud sense, and i am 100% certain you are not making them do it. Indeed most 17yr old girlies would jump at the chance, the bit that freaked me out was the fact that the calander is blatantly going to be aimed at men, lets face it, and the fact is that you are using girls not men in football kit as it will help sell your calander.

The sun newspaper dont use girls aged 17 for a reason, if even if they looked identical to the day before their 18th, if they printed a girl and put her age at 17 its a bit pervy, but the same girl at 18.. no problem!

I totally applaud your effort, and am sure that your daughter is delighted you are giving her a nice chance to be a model so she can impress her mates, but i just wouldnt want to look at a calender of girls that young, 17/18 is a major mental barrier for most normal blokes!! Not trying to lecture you, and i do wish you all the best, but when you wrote the original text i am sure you were looking at this as a fun activity for you daughter and friends, when us blokes out there are probably seeing it in a different context. I would seriously think about this perception, maybe stick them all as 18 yrs old in the calender!!

cazziej

alant1000 wrote: »

ahh sorry Carol we aren't all trying to gang up. I am saying this because i am 28, if i got chatting to a nice looking girl and she told me she was 17, or even under 21 i would run a mile regardless of her looks, purely on principle. Only because at that age they are still young, but you are the one with the daughter not me so i know that you see your daughter in a proud sense, and i am 100% certain you are not making them do it. Indeed most 17yr old girlies would jump at the chance, the bit that freaked me out was the fact that the calander is blatantly going to be aimed at men, lets face it, and the fact is that you are using girls not men in football kit as it will help sell your calander.

The sun newspaper dont use girls aged 17 for a reason, if even if they looked identical to the day before their 18th, if they printed a girl and put her age at 17 its a bit pervy, but the same girl at 18.. no problem!

I totally applaud your effort, and am sure that your daughter is delighted you are giving her a nice chance to be a model so she can impress her mates, but i just wouldnt want to look at a calender of girls that young, 17/18 is a major mental barrier for most normal blokes!! Not trying to lecture you, and i do wish you all the best, but when you wrote the original text i am sure you were looking at this as a fun activity for you daughter and friends, when us blokes out there are probably seeing it in a different context. I would seriously think about this perception, maybe stick them all as 18 yrs old in the calender!!

Thanks Alan, I can see your point of view and appreciate your opinion, as you put it across rationally, and not in the accusatory fashion that some have!!

Now then, if there is any more of this, I will change the idea to "Footballers Mums" and then you would all know what being disgusted and offended is!!!:eek:


Carol

C_Ronaldo

cazziej wrote: »

Sorry, but I must disagree, it DOES matter what the girls think, they are adults and I think it is very patronising of you to say otherwise. And how did we get from doing a fun calendar, clothed, to doing !!!!!!!!???

The kind of people that I think will buy a calendar full of seventeen year old girls in skimpy clothing is 17 year old boys!!! I have seen girls dressed in skimpier clothing than ours are planning to wear, splashed across the internet on nights out, in "Faces in Places"!!

Aside from this, I was asking for ideas, not questions about the morality of doing this. They WILL do it, and all I wanted was ideas!!!

Thank you!!

Carol:eek:

17 year olds arent adults theyre teenagers thence the teen bit,

alant1000

cazziej wrote: »

Thanks Alan, I can see your point of view and appreciate your opinion, as you put it across rationally, and not in the accusatory fashion that some have!!

Now then, if there is any more of this, I will change the idea to "Footballers Mums" and then you would all know what being disgusted and offended is!!!:eek:


Carol

hahaha, OK 17 and 18yr olds it is then!

Another idea (back to the original request), is do you know any small business owners at all, even pubs, salons, anything. The point being almost all businesses need printers at some point, and some of these people might have an account with a printers which might get you a marginally better price, perhaps if you get them to bundle it with another job.

If they do all end up being 18 - stick me down for a copy!

dmg24

cazziej wrote: »

Oh get a life - not all men are as pathetic and dirty minded as you are.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I'm a woman!

If you really think that it is only seventeen year old boys that would be interested in this then you are sadly deluded. All too many depraved men gets their kicks out of this kind of thing.

The sun newspaper dont use girls aged 17 for a reason, if even if they looked identical to the day before their 18th, if they printed a girl and put her age at 17 its a bit pervy, but the same girl at 18.. no problem!

Yes, it is a 'bit pervy'. However, in the context of Page 3, it would also be illegal. Depending on the degree of exposure, it is classed as child pornography. This is the issue, you have to be so careful as to whether you are crossing that line or not.

Sorry, but I must disagree, it DOES matter what the girls think, they are adults and I think it is very patronising of you to say otherwise.

Seventeen year olds are not adults in the eyes of the law with respect to issues such as this.

You need to get real as to how some people view this kind of thing.

The great majority of people would not bat an eyelid at a charity calendar, however there is a minority of sicko's that just thrive on this kind of thing. They are known as PAEDOPHILES.

Do you want to encourage them?

I have no problem with people wanting to raise money for a charitable cause. However, anything that could assist paedophiles in satisfying their needs makes me feel physically sick.

vikingaero

16 year olds can pose glamour/lingerie with no bits on show with parental consent. 18 year olds can do anything.

cazziej

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

17 year olds arent adults theyre teenagers thence the teen bit,

Thank you for the clarification, however, my eighTEEN year old daughter can get married, vote, buy her own house, works full time, is learning to drive, and has a mean left hook, try telling HER she isn't an adult!!

AND, I was married at nineTEEN, so technically still a teenager, but I can assure you I knew my own mind then and still do, and considered myself an adult when I bought my own house at nineTEEN.

Carol

alant1000

vikingaero wrote: »

16 year olds can pose glamour/lingerie with no bits on show with parental consent. 18 year olds can do anything.

you have just proven the point - that they cannot do it without parental consent - why? Because they are deemed too young to decide for themselves. We are not talking about 16 yr old here, nor 18 (of which it wouldn's sound so bad), but 17 is kind of in the middle, and as some have pointed out there are dodgy old men in raincoats and NHS prescription glasses who will go mad for this FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

Lets not all get on Carols case toooo much, she is the girls mother and would not be looking at this in the same light as she is the proud mum etc, i think we have all just proved that the idea is not as stright cut as originally thought, and if we were all punters we wouldn't be buying, so from a business and prfit perspective maybe not a hot cake, but Carol has stated that 17yr old blokes are the target audience so who knows.

LETSALL SAY FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE THAT THE GIRLS WILL ALL BE 18 THEN TO KEEP THE PEACE AND PROVIDE ANY MORE IDEAS?? :rolleyes:

dmg24

vikingaero wrote: »

16 year olds can pose glamour/lingerie with no bits on show with parental consent. 18 year olds can do anything.

Not correct. This was previously the case (under the Protection of Children Act 1978), however the law was amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to also cover those under eighteen years old.

The key as to whether the images are illegal is whether the images are judged to be 'indecent'. Indecency is of course subjective, however it is much less strict a concept as the previous proof required, whereby the images must be shown to tend to deprave and corrupt the viewer.

tomstickland

Newspapers have pictures of teenagers in them. If you exist then other people can look at you and who knows what they're thinking. Maybe we should all hide indoors because of this.

Sounds like a fun idea to me.