Anyone with concerns about this or similar pages should contact the Internet Crimes Against Children unit of their state police. What is your take on the content does the conduct appear safe. Web pages for parents on net safety are essential. Pay particular attention to those on sexting.
Your definition of liberty is both false and silly. We adhere to a set of principles for society to work. One of those principles is to protect children. When we see a child at risk we have a responsibility to call attention to the situation. That I have done and will continue to do.
Nowhere have I challenged the morality of the parents nor impuned their character. I have pointed out that allowing risque pics of a child online can be dangerous and may have long lasting unforeseen consequences.
Anyone who reads my comments will see that I have only presented facts. Fact... internet safety experts caution against minors posting erotic pics of themselves online. Once in cyberspace a pic exists forever. Adults who posed as children for such pics express remorse and both personal and professional difficulties.
Fact... the photos in question fall in the legal category of child erotica. Fact...men who buy these pics often also collect child porn and are sex offenders.
Most parents want to know about the whereabouts of s.o.s in their neighborhood. For these children that neighborhood is basically the world and practically the continent of NA. And they are drawing the attention of a lot of s.o.s in the neighborhood.
Most parents would flip out if a sex offender owned even a school photo. Here we have a site selling the pedo version of Victorias Secret pics to any and all comers...pun intended.
Opinions do not equate facts. You have not talked to these models/parents, so all you offer is hearsay and insinuations. Merely requesting ones opinion on a matter that they have no direct knowledge of does not equate any wrongdoing on the models/parents part. Your personal attack on these models/parents is subjective and unduly egocentric.
Personal opinions about a website are dubious as well. Obviously the website has not broken any laws and the video is still posted on youtube. A factual judgement call would dictate that your logic is flawed and discriminatory. You have failed to present any factual evidence that can be considered legitimate.
And now you question the wisdom of the parents decision making. By questioning the wisdom of the parents to make decisions for their child based upon their judgement, you infer that they somehow are unfit or easily duped. You have decided that your morality trumps their moral decision making and you know what is best for their child.
Your zealous and pathetic attempt to impose your beliefs and morals on these parents and others is incorrect, irrational, unethical, oppressive and unjust. Need I remind you that at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own preception of morality.
We have the opinion of ICAC agents We have the opinion of child protective service case workers . We know what the local police think. We know what the prosecutor's office in Pierce County WA says. And we know what the consumers and producers of this material think. ("Nice ass" a terrific comment directed at a child). Make your own "judgement calls."
Anyone with serious questions could simply contact the Internet Crimes Against Children section of their state police force. "What do you think about this website?" "What do you think about the wisdom of posting these photos on line?"
Check out web pages on internet safety. There are some terrific blogs for parents. Start with the ones involving "sexting" as a starting point.
LOL. And where have I accused anyone of a crime? I've stated the opinions of those whose job it is to protect kids.
Speaking with agencies and officers does not equate to speaking with the actual people involved to determine the actual facts. You are merely speculating, and smearing actual human beings reputations. If you cannot offer definitive proof of any of these allegations, then you are clearly slandering these people. You are accusing these people whom you have never met or had a conversation with of crimes. You have crossed the line into a litigious situation and you should be held accountable.
I spoke with child protective services and special assault officers in several states. Those charged with protecting kids are universal in their assessment of the situation and their concern for the families.
I have posted responses from some of the 30 plus agents of the Internet Crimes Against Children whom I contacted and a response from the special assault officer in Pierce County WA.
Your fear mongering tactics and bigoted opinions along with your exaggeration of facts not in evidence, and the vicious pattern of outright lies and insinuations is disgusting and uncalled for. It is truly a shame that you would attack people you have never met.
You have absolutely no proof that these decent people have no experience with any kind of agency, you are speculating about facts that are not in evidence. You have absolutely no proof that these models/parents are at any kind of risk or that their safety has been compromised. Again, speculation with no facts to back up your incredulous claims. Nothing but disrespect and outright lies meant to discredit hard working people. You have no right to pass moral judgement on anyone without any facts
More huffing and puffing. Until you can produce actual facts about these specific individuals that back up your incredulous claims, you offer nothing but your opinion. You do not have the right to disrepesct these models and their parents based on your opinion.
I am not the one who duped trusting decent people who have no experience with legitimate talent agencies into letting their nearly naked children parade around in front of my camera. And I am not the one who risked their safety putting the pics on the web.
My heart goes out to the children and their families. I dont know them but have spent hours talking to caseworkers ICAC agents and reporters who understand how these scammers dupe parents into letting their kids pose. I defy anyone to find a disrespectful comment aimed at the victims or their folks.
Because youtube has determined that it does not violate their TOS. He can huff and puff all day about experts opinions, but he does not know any of these people personally and for him to make such a blatant determination about their motives is pure conjecture. He is blasting their integrity without so much as one iota of actual proof about these individuals. He has been rude and disrespectful towards these models and their parents with no actual proof to back up his claims.
The producers of this material profit...and profit well... by selling so called catalogs. These are actually collections which feature photos of a specific child provacatively posed and wearing only underwear.
Pedophilia is classified as a mental illness. Men who are attracted to young boys are nearly impossible to treat. When the attraction is combined with denial and rationalization these men are public menaces. There is concern for the welfare of the young boys pictured as well as for children groomed by men who show them this material.
I have watched and enjoyed this video. I felt it was a video of boys swimming and playing around. Now I read from the comments that this video has sinister motives. I don't understand, they are not selling anything. If they have bad motives, how do they profit?
Be realistic. A guy has a Playboy. We get that. A guy has a Victorias Secret catalog. We get that. Now a guy has multiple pics of a young boy...some of which are of this child ...who is named... in soaking wet white briefs. But the pics are just an ad to help the bastard to choose a brand of underwear. YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING DELUSIONAL. LMFAO.
Taking pictures of your kid in public is one thing. Taking pictures of kids not known to you raises red flags. Owning pictures of those kids in underwear is a dead giveaway. The experts are found at your state ICAC office. Contact them. I did.
As one expert put it...There is no valid reason ...EVER... for a stranger to possess pictures of your child. Last summer a guy taking pics of young girls in a park was found to have illegal pics on the camera. We all get what this is about.
@VerumEtCalx I guess you can't argue with an "expert" even if they're unnamed. If this is so, then I can't take pictures of my kid playing basketball If it might include a kid from another team that I don't know? Silliness.
Geeze-us! At their age, I used to swim in a Speedo more revealing than that…and I know my parents (and others) took pictures. Who knew?! Now I’ll have to turn them all over to the “Underwear Police.”
We saw what happened when Penn State and the Catholic Church turned a blind eye. But those fellas who enjoy and produce this kind of thing enjoy that kind of thing. By all means enjoy this little ...advertisement.
Oh quit your whining and go somewhere else, i see what your saying and understand your views but people come on now jeez this Youtube not your own personal blog. -_-
When made aware of this so-called "legitimate business," law enforcement officers universally across the country exhibit concern for the questionable materials posted and for the well-being of the children caught up in the racket. They've seen this behavior before and recognize it immediately. That's their 'judgement call".
As these images continue to show up in caches of genuine child pornography, the motivations and orientation of both purchasers and producers become increasingly clear.
In a letter from the Special Assault Unit of the Pierce County (WA) Prosecutor's office: "Accordingly, through investigation I learned that the domain name owner is based in Los Angeles, CA. I could not locate any connection between Tiger Underwear and University Place, WA. Following your suggestion, I contacted Detective [ ] in [ ]. He was likewise unaware of any such business in University Place, WA. I have placed a call to Seattle ICAC task force to seek any additional information." ...
Continuing: "The larger issues... of potential abuse and easy identification of the minors being used in child erotica websites is more complex. As you note, there is (unfortunately) nothing illegal about these disturbing images.... I am forwarding your letter to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) as they may have additional information..."
This "business" is either not located in WA state at all, or the owners have gone to great lengths to hide from law enforcement.
When made aware of this "legitimate business," law enforcement officers universally across the country exhibit concern for the questionable materials posted and for the well-being of the children. They're familiar with this behavior and recognize it immediately. Their "judgement calls" are clear.
As these pictures continue to show up in caches of genuine child pornography, the motivations and orientation of both the purchasers and the producers of this material become increasingly clear.
Everyone is welcome to make their own "judgement calls."
But the fact is that these children's names are now forever linked on the worldwide web with images which ICAC agents, local police, prosecutors, and social workers have positively classified as child erotica. There is no way for them, their parents, or anyone else to undo this
unfortunate connection.
I won't change any minds with my comments. Just realize people know what this business is about. Go ahead, grab your sock and have at it.
This is a commercial for underwear like the SI swimsuit edition advertises swimwear. Of course consumers of child erotica are unable to distinguish between what is appropriate for adults from children. That is part of their problem and what makes them a threat.
We know what the ICAC agents who deal with this material see.And they tell us it is not an ad. We know that the producers have their access to young boys. We know that the consummers of this material get their fix.
From Wikipedia: "Child erotica refers to any non-nude or semi-nude photographs and videos of children (minors) in sexually suggestive poses. Child erotica may include ... underwear ... and other similar items. Law enforcement investigators have found that child erotica is often collected by paedophiles and child sexual abuse offenders.Some child erotica images are distributed over the internet and presented in a fashion similar to non-erotic child modeling." References are included on the site.
ICAC agents are clear and universal in their evaluations.
The DCFS case worker in CT and local special assault officer I spoke with in November were also concerned, not only about the site content but for the safety of the minors involved.
Those who defend this material are no different than the Catholic bishops, Penn State officials, Boy Scout leaders and others who looked the other way or made excuses. Their behavior enables people who exploit and abuse children.
Objectifying adults in pictures is human nature, but we should remember that these children are real human beings with feelings, goals, and lives. Through these websites they have almost certainly inadvertently attracted the attention of some of society’s most dangerously ill individuals. It would not be unheard of for these sex predators to act upon their fixations. Parading these children on the web in an irresponsible manner places them and their families at risk. This is a cop's worst fear.
My “comments” include: responses from ICAC agents specializing in child exploitation who after viewing these “disturbing” photos classify them as “child erotica;” an admonition from a federal judge that adults exploited in this way as children face decades of remorse, shame, and revulsion; reference to Wikipedia where definitions and academic footnotes are available; and a reference to a series of articles concerning Bob Lamb where information about these “modeling agencies” can be found.
On the other hand we have shrill denials, attempts at distraction, the same rationalizations used to coerce and groom children’s families, and some hilariously inadvertent confessions. Everyone should reach their own conclusions – about those who produce , consume, and then try to defend child erotica. Eventually some of these folks will undoubtedly hear in person from the experts and judges, and will then face the conclusion reached by a jury of their peers.
Dude has been trolling this video now for 3 months desparetely trying to convince ANYONE that it is child erotica and the models are being exploited. The mere fact that it is still on youtube tells us that it obviously does not meet the definition of erotica and the models are not being exploited. I think everyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not just leave it alone and let people make their own judgement calls.
You need to shut up about this video! I think the video is cute so does that make me a pedo? This is just how this company decided how to advertise there produce! It's not like they are running around naked and kissing! My god if you think this is dirty than you need too take a long hard look at yourself! Haven't you ever seen kids do this cuz I have and they where on the beach! So are you calling everyone on that beach a pedo? No so just chill out!
Speaking of kicking over a rock: the business in question is not listed amongst the other businesses where they claim to be located. Officially, it does not exist in that location. Hiding is not the behavior of legitimate businessmen who are proud of their enterprise. It is the behavior of creeps who know they are engage in unsavory acts. They are deceiving not only the few honest customers they may have, but the families of the "models." The owner of the domain name is actually located in L.A.
There are few things more satisfying than kicking over a rock and watching the vermin exposed beneath squirm in the light. The only ones fooled by their attempts at distraction and rationalization are themselves and the sick pathetic choir they preach to. The experts who testify for victims in court have weighed in - this material is not legitimate advertising, but child erotica. Those viewing the material enable child abusers, which is a perverse kick for some -the vicarious thrill of watching
We should just ignore this fucker. He's on every video. But let me just say that part of selling a product is marketing it. Its not exploitation. These kids don't have bruises on them. What's your opinion on toddler beauty pageants? Those parents market their children to the highest bidder(talent agencies, clothing companies, etc. ) but I don't see you complaining about them. What about ANY commercial that features a baby? Isn't that exploitative? The baby can't say no. So find somewhere else to
@EMERALDISLETV: of course you can obtain Tiger products in Europe. The product is a digital "catalog" featuring titillating photographs of your favorite little boys posed in underwear. Clothing is incidental to the operation, providing thin cover (both figuratively and literally) for their true purpose - providing pedophiles with legal though exploitational pictures of young boys. Similar products do very well worldwide. Now that you know what these men really are up to, feel free to order away.
Perhaps if the people behind Tiger were a bit more responsive towards genuine trade enquiries from around the world, they might not be considered by many as running some sort of potentially dodgy operation. The fact that their email address is a Yahoo domain address is also causing suspicion. As is the fact that one has to pay to see their catalogues/calendars! They need to sort themselves out and respond to these genuine global trade enquiries!
@drm1cst and everyone else - well I am glad to see a debate going here. I am not against this sort of thing at all. I have tried to import Tiger products into Europe but have never had a reply from anyone at Tiger.... They would sell well in Europe but I have never seen Tiger products on sale anywhere here. I can see absolutely nothing wrong with boys modelling underwear but what concerned me was the total lack of response from the people behind the Tiger website to my enquiries.
We do well to remember that child erotica, though legal, is another form of sexual abuse and child exploitation. Those children involved run a great risk of being molested - which itself is a huge draw for the pedophiles who collect the images. Viewing the pictures, predators vicariously relish the degradation and emasculation of the child subjects. Child sexual abuse is not about affection, but rather an act of violence in which the perpetrator enjoys a sense of power over the child.
It seems that some have difficulty distinguishing between art and exploitation. Others are not willing to distinguish between a painted image of a generic child and photographs of identifiable children who now potentially face decades of regret and embarrassment. Since I alone am unable to convince these folks of the irreparable harm the people at Tiger Underwear are doing to these children, let me post some quotes from ICAC agents and social workers I've received over the past month.
"The images on the website are categorized as “child erotica” and are not illegal images. But thank you for bringing my attention to the website so that I can add it to my “watch list” and keep tabs on the direction of their content."
"While these images/videos are disturbing, they do not violate the law."
"While we agree that this is inappropriate none of the content would be considered illegal in and of itself. Therefore there is very little we can do."
"I agree a number of things about this seem to point to this as being something a lot worse. We are going to continue to look at this." [Indicating that the children photographed may be in danger of being molested as well].
"There has always been a very fine line between child pornography and some of these child modeling sites, child erotica sites and child photography 'art' sites. This being noted, we will follow up."
From a newspaper article discussing the effect of pornography on the subjects:" [The defendent] now realized the harm that merely viewing the pictures created. [The Judge] elaborated on that fact as he held up several letters from people who were photographed.
"There's a common theme in these, that they all have trouble getting on with their lives . . . knowing those pictures are out there," the judge said.
Erotica damages the kids involved, and is used to groom other kids for pornography.
For a basic definition of "child erotica," check out the Wikipedia entry. References are included.
For information about Bob Lamb and others who use his tactics, read Flint journalist Ron Fonger's excellent series on the internet.
Parents should read the 12/09/11 article in the Seattle Times: "After Penn State, new stronger requirements for child abuse reporting is only a start" By Michael A. Patterson and Thomas E.M. Hutton describing some warning signs of predators stalking their kids.
The "Bob Lamb scam." An man from a "talent agency" approaches the family of a young boy (often at a sports event) with offers of a lucrative modeling career. He grooms the family to establish trust, convincing the parents they are entering a business partnership with a friend. Some jobs are legit. In unchaperoned or loosely chaperoned situations, the photog now takes inappropriate pictures. Threats, expensive gifts, and humiliation of the child lead to physical abuse. The child now feels trapped
The jobs pay well, and the family can use the money. The photos are then sold to pedophiles on the net. The child ensnared is conflicted, feeling guilty and ashamed. He doesn't want his family to lose the income, though he is deeply humilated. The agent may continue to give the family money and gifts as if he is a friend, but may end up pitting the parents against each other. The child feels worse. Effects follow into adulthood - substance abuse, difficulty with trust, and relationship issues.
The only bright spot in this deplorable situation is that these photographs are admissable in court. Possession of these pictures bolster the state's case against a predator by demonstrating an unhealthy obsession with children. Excuses of retro clothing, re-living childhood, or other such nonsense fall apart. The definition of "child erotica" is crystal clear, and reasonable people recognize that the primary purpose of the photos is sexual in nature. Normal people do not collect such photos.
@VerumEtCalx "The definition of "child erotica" is crystal clear" That's where the danger comes in--people thinking that anything is crystal clear. There are more fetishes out there than there are stars in the sky. There are people who get off on kids in soccer uniforms---so people filming their kid's soccer game would be erotica to some. Crystal clear? Hardly. You're probably right on the footage seen here--but it's scary to use the term "crystal clear".
@VerumEtCalx "an unhealthy obsession with children"--which does not automatically mean sexual in nature, let's try to remember that. "Excuses of retro clothing, re-living childhood, or other such nonsense fall apart." Okay---and how exactly are these excuses nonsense?
And, let us not forget the famous and iconic Coppertone suntan lotion image of a litle girl having her swim pants pulled down by a playful pup to reveal her tanline and buttocks that was used for 50 years with the common understanding of it as "innocent". Today the same image carries the connotation of "smutty" and "child erotica".
Maybe when you're through with this company you could go after Abercrombie & Fitch. Abercrombie Kids is now selling pushup bikini tops for 7-year-old girls. The clothing giant is also selling thongs in their children’s line that say “wink wink” and “eye candy” on them, and T-shirts with slogans like “Who needs brains when you have these?” emblazoned across the front.
Fortunately, I have a flight to catch for the holidays, so I bid you a fond farewell and wish you a Merry Christmas. Good luck with your "witch hunt".
As for Victoria's Secret, the comparison is valid. I'm calling b.s on all the huffing and puffing about retro products and rationalizations. The business produces "child erotica," and that draw is the main function of it's website - not selling clothes. I would wear burlap before subsidizing an business which - in the opinion of ICAC officers, social workers, and others - exploits and degrades children. Theirs is a despicable enterprise, and the people who buy their product are assisting them.
Kids don't always comprehend what has happened to them. But what will they feel when they are adults? How will they feel knowing that their pics remain stored in the computers of degenerates? How will they feel knowing the pics were used to groom other victims, and they are indirectly involved with the abuse of other children? How will they feel about the adults who recognized the implications of their situation, shrugged, then walked away, abandoning them to the depredations of these monsters?
Parents of victims require more grooming than the kids, but that is what happens all too often. Good-hearted people who can't imagine their kids being hurt by friends believe they have entered into a "legit" business partnership, allowing increased unfettered access of "friends" to their children. But real friends don't expose personal information to potentially dangerously ill men. Friends don't put families at risk. Friends don't take multiple "child erotica" photos of children in underwear.
With the recent scandals at Penn State and the Citadel, we are more aware of how pervasive the problem is. This situation sends up all kinds of red flags and alarms. You have grown men enticing little boys to run around in wet underwear, diapers, and plastic pants. They spend the night with them. It's tough to believe that the sole purpose of these excursions is to take pics for a "catalog." Some of the police and social workers I corresponded with agree. Eventually the truth comes out.
Bob Lamb in MI ran a legal business and was eventually caught with illegal pics. He sold pictures of teenage boys - a legal enterprise, but certainly odd. What normal man or woman buys portraits of strangers' kids? None. What legitimate reason could they have for owning such pics? None. They buy the pics because they are attracted by the boys. That's flat out weird. Such pics can then be photoshopped to create new images in which the original subject had no intention of appearing.
The Sears catalog was legal, but only contained one photo. You don't need multiple photos to decide whether or not to buy, and only a nut would care how underwear "looks" on a child anyway. Sears stopped using these photos because they were used to groom kids into posing for similar photos - and worse. Sears et. al. took a principled stand when they realized how the pics were misued. But the Tiger pics were never about selling a product anyway.
You really want to engage me in a conversation? Ok. I was a foster parent who was trained to take in sexually abused teens. I have spent the past month talking with police, social workers, and newspaper reporters - none of whom have the same take on this as the posters below. The images used on Tiger Underwear are classified not as advertisements, but "child erotica." While legal, exploit the children and not designed to sell product. Posts on the website indicate that that kids are the draw.
Are you implying the employees of this company as well as the parents of the child models are all involved in some sort of bizarre conspiracy to exploit children? If that were true, wouldn’t the authorities shut them down and arrest the parents of the child models? You do realize that not everyone is a perv who views these ads and then purchases these products from a legitimate American company, right? Their products are American made by American workers paying taxes just like you do.
If we followed your logic, then Calvin Klein, Hanes, Fruit of the Loom are also involved in child exploitation as they use child models to advertise their clothes. Tiger Underwear has had their clothing featured in a movie in 2008, ‘Harold’ which starred Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ally Sheedy.They were also featured in the TV show ‘Sons of Tucson’ and were also featured on ‘The Ed Schultz Show’ on Air America Talk Radio Network. All co-conspirators to exploit children as well I guess, huh?
You have referenced Victoria's Secret so people can see how it looks. Did you know that when you buy their products you actually are assisting in child exploitation and endangerment? As recent as this month, they were (and possibly still are) buying cotton harvested by child slave labor as reported by Bloomberg News (12-15-2011).
Additionally, one of their main suppliers of merchandise is the Israeli textile giant, Delta Galil Industries Ltd.. By partnering so closely with Delta Galill, Victoria’s Secret is helping to support Israeli Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. I will choose Made in the USA, sounds rational to me. Sit on that and spin it chump.
Perhaps the children are used in advertising to promote the retro look by reminding customers what it was like to be a child, to associate the good times of childhood with the comfort of the product
As for being a legitimate business, I reported this site to Internet Crimes Against Children agents around the country. Responses came back that the photos are classified as "child erotica" and not "legitimate" advertisements. They are legal, but in the words of several: "disturbing" and "inappropriate." Not only are the kids being exploited, but material like this is used by predators to groom victims. The adults should be ashamed, and those buying assist in child exploitation and endangerment.
@ drm1cst The rest of us get what it's all about. How many pictures of children in their underwear do you need before deciding to purchase the product? Apparently for fans of the site, the answer is "limitless." Victoria's Secret shows pictures of adult women in sexy underwear so people can see how it looks on a woman. Who are the children on this site supposed to be attracting? We understand what this is all about; we don't need you to rationalize or spin it for us.
The Victoria's Secret for gay pedophiles. Website basically an excuse for pervs to leer at young boys wearing only underwear. Fetish freaks treated to pics of boys in diapers and plastic pants. Posted comments reveal weirdos' real motivation; all seem to have their favorite. Suspect that owners make most of their money selling "catalogs" than clothing. Support this business and you're helping promote child exploitation. Your money. Your conscience. Your call.
@VerumEtCalx Tiger underwear is a legitimate business located in the USA and their products are made in the USA. So when you purchase a product from this legitimate business cashing in on the current trend of retro vintage clothing, you are supporting the USA economy. The parents of the models would probably dispute that their children are being exploited. Would you rather people support child slave labor overseas manufacturing clothing?
@EMERALDISLETV Tiger underwear is made in the USA and is available to anyone in the world who wants to purchase them. Their company is located in Washington and is cashing in on the current trend of "vintage" clothing. I remember wearing underwear like this as a kid. It is a legitimate business making money off of people who are into the retro look. The models are not exploited, so why are you making judgement calls like this. Ignorance??
Anyone with concerns about this or similar pages should contact the Internet Crimes Against Children unit of their state police. What is your take on the content does the conduct appear safe. Web pages for parents on net safety are essential. Pay particular attention to those on sexting.
VerumEtCalx 10 hours ago
Your definition of liberty is both false and silly. We adhere to a set of principles for society to work. One of those principles is to protect children. When we see a child at risk we have a responsibility to call attention to the situation. That I have done and will continue to do.
VerumEtCalx 11 hours ago
Nowhere have I challenged the morality of the parents nor impuned their character. I have pointed out that allowing risque pics of a child online can be dangerous and may have long lasting unforeseen consequences.
VerumEtCalx 11 hours ago
Anyone who reads my comments will see that I have only presented facts. Fact... internet safety experts caution against minors posting erotic pics of themselves online. Once in cyberspace a pic exists forever. Adults who posed as children for such pics express remorse and both personal and professional difficulties.
VerumEtCalx 11 hours ago
Fact... the photos in question fall in the legal category of child erotica. Fact...men who buy these pics often also collect child porn and are sex offenders.
VerumEtCalx 12 hours ago
Most parents want to know about the whereabouts of s.o.s in their neighborhood. For these children that neighborhood is basically the world and practically the continent of NA. And they are drawing the attention of a lot of s.o.s in the neighborhood.
VerumEtCalx 12 hours ago
Most parents would flip out if a sex offender owned even a school photo. Here we have a site selling the pedo version of Victorias Secret pics to any and all comers...pun intended.
VerumEtCalx 12 hours ago
Opinions do not equate facts. You have not talked to these models/parents, so all you offer is hearsay and insinuations. Merely requesting ones opinion on a matter that they have no direct knowledge of does not equate any wrongdoing on the models/parents part. Your personal attack on these models/parents is subjective and unduly egocentric.
drm1cst 13 hours ago
Personal opinions about a website are dubious as well. Obviously the website has not broken any laws and the video is still posted on youtube. A factual judgement call would dictate that your logic is flawed and discriminatory. You have failed to present any factual evidence that can be considered legitimate.
drm1cst 13 hours ago
And now you question the wisdom of the parents decision making. By questioning the wisdom of the parents to make decisions for their child based upon their judgement, you infer that they somehow are unfit or easily duped. You have decided that your morality trumps their moral decision making and you know what is best for their child.
drm1cst 13 hours ago
Your zealous and pathetic attempt to impose your beliefs and morals on these parents and others is incorrect, irrational, unethical, oppressive and unjust. Need I remind you that at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own preception of morality.
drm1cst 13 hours ago
We have the opinion of ICAC agents We have the opinion of child protective service case workers . We know what the local police think. We know what the prosecutor's office in Pierce County WA says. And we know what the consumers and producers of this material think. ("Nice ass" a terrific comment directed at a child). Make your own "judgement calls."
VerumEtCalx 15 hours ago
Anyone with serious questions could simply contact the Internet Crimes Against Children section of their state police force. "What do you think about this website?" "What do you think about the wisdom of posting these photos on line?"
Check out web pages on internet safety. There are some terrific blogs for parents. Start with the ones involving "sexting" as a starting point.
LOL. And where have I accused anyone of a crime? I've stated the opinions of those whose job it is to protect kids.
VerumEtCalx 15 hours ago
Speaking with agencies and officers does not equate to speaking with the actual people involved to determine the actual facts. You are merely speculating, and smearing actual human beings reputations. If you cannot offer definitive proof of any of these allegations, then you are clearly slandering these people. You are accusing these people whom you have never met or had a conversation with of crimes. You have crossed the line into a litigious situation and you should be held accountable.
drm1cst 16 hours ago
I spoke with child protective services and special assault officers in several states. Those charged with protecting kids are universal in their assessment of the situation and their concern for the families.
VerumEtCalx 17 hours ago
I have posted responses from some of the 30 plus agents of the Internet Crimes Against Children whom I contacted and a response from the special assault officer in Pierce County WA.
VerumEtCalx 17 hours ago
Your fear mongering tactics and bigoted opinions along with your exaggeration of facts not in evidence, and the vicious pattern of outright lies and insinuations is disgusting and uncalled for. It is truly a shame that you would attack people you have never met.
drm1cst 17 hours ago
You have absolutely no proof that these decent people have no experience with any kind of agency, you are speculating about facts that are not in evidence. You have absolutely no proof that these models/parents are at any kind of risk or that their safety has been compromised. Again, speculation with no facts to back up your incredulous claims. Nothing but disrespect and outright lies meant to discredit hard working people. You have no right to pass moral judgement on anyone without any facts
drm1cst 18 hours ago
More huffing and puffing. Until you can produce actual facts about these specific individuals that back up your incredulous claims, you offer nothing but your opinion. You do not have the right to disrepesct these models and their parents based on your opinion.
drm1cst 18 hours ago
I am not the one who duped trusting decent people who have no experience with legitimate talent agencies into letting their nearly naked children parade around in front of my camera. And I am not the one who risked their safety putting the pics on the web.
VerumEtCalx 21 hours ago
My heart goes out to the children and their families. I dont know them but have spent hours talking to caseworkers ICAC agents and reporters who understand how these scammers dupe parents into letting their kids pose. I defy anyone to find a disrespectful comment aimed at the victims or their folks.
VerumEtCalx 22 hours ago
Because youtube has determined that it does not violate their TOS. He can huff and puff all day about experts opinions, but he does not know any of these people personally and for him to make such a blatant determination about their motives is pure conjecture. He is blasting their integrity without so much as one iota of actual proof about these individuals. He has been rude and disrespectful towards these models and their parents with no actual proof to back up his claims.
drm1cst 1 day ago
why do's no one take it down ?
thegreatjustice100 1 day ago
The producers of this material profit...and profit well... by selling so called catalogs. These are actually collections which feature photos of a specific child provacatively posed and wearing only underwear.
VerumEtCalx 2 days ago
Pedophilia is classified as a mental illness. Men who are attracted to young boys are nearly impossible to treat. When the attraction is combined with denial and rationalization these men are public menaces. There is concern for the welfare of the young boys pictured as well as for children groomed by men who show them this material.
VerumEtCalx 2 days ago
I have watched and enjoyed this video. I felt it was a video of boys swimming and playing around. Now I read from the comments that this video has sinister motives. I don't understand, they are not selling anything. If they have bad motives, how do they profit?
MegaSkate311 2 days ago
lol @ some of the "expert" comments in this video. People seem to be forgetting that "pedophilia" isnt considered a crime, and rightly so.
florianfan2008 3 days ago
I think that anyone who reads your comments, understands your position. So, why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 4 days ago
Be realistic. A guy has a Playboy. We get that. A guy has a Victorias Secret catalog. We get that. Now a guy has multiple pics of a young boy...some of which are of this child ...who is named... in soaking wet white briefs. But the pics are just an ad to help the bastard to choose a brand of underwear. YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING DELUSIONAL. LMFAO.
VerumEtCalx 4 days ago
Taking pictures of your kid in public is one thing. Taking pictures of kids not known to you raises red flags. Owning pictures of those kids in underwear is a dead giveaway. The experts are found at your state ICAC office. Contact them. I did.
VerumEtCalx 4 days ago
As one expert put it...There is no valid reason ...EVER... for a stranger to possess pictures of your child. Last summer a guy taking pics of young girls in a park was found to have illegal pics on the camera. We all get what this is about.
VerumEtCalx 4 days ago
@VerumEtCalx I guess you can't argue with an "expert" even if they're unnamed. If this is so, then I can't take pictures of my kid playing basketball If it might include a kid from another team that I don't know? Silliness.
Debukochi 4 days ago
Geeze-us! At their age, I used to swim in a Speedo more revealing than that…and I know my parents (and others) took pictures. Who knew?! Now I’ll have to turn them all over to the “Underwear Police.”
Debukochi 4 days ago
I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 6 days ago
We saw what happened when Penn State and the Catholic Church turned a blind eye. But those fellas who enjoy and produce this kind of thing enjoy that kind of thing. By all means enjoy this little ...advertisement.
VerumEtCalx 1 week ago
If you dont like my comments dont read them. Grab your sock and have at it. But hear what the pros who deal with these degenerates are telling you.
VerumEtCalx 1 week ago
Oh quit your whining and go somewhere else, i see what your saying and understand your views but people come on now jeez this Youtube not your own personal blog. -_-
DeadSkyze 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When made aware of this so-called "legitimate business," law enforcement officers universally across the country exhibit concern for the questionable materials posted and for the well-being of the children caught up in the racket. They've seen this behavior before and recognize it immediately. That's their 'judgement call".
As these images continue to show up in caches of genuine child pornography, the motivations and orientation of both purchasers and producers become increasingly clear.
VerumEtCalx 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 1 week ago
In a letter from the Special Assault Unit of the Pierce County (WA) Prosecutor's office: "Accordingly, through investigation I learned that the domain name owner is based in Los Angeles, CA. I could not locate any connection between Tiger Underwear and University Place, WA. Following your suggestion, I contacted Detective [ ] in [ ]. He was likewise unaware of any such business in University Place, WA. I have placed a call to Seattle ICAC task force to seek any additional information." ...
VerumEtCalx 1 week ago 4
Continuing: "The larger issues... of potential abuse and easy identification of the minors being used in child erotica websites is more complex. As you note, there is (unfortunately) nothing illegal about these disturbing images.... I am forwarding your letter to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) as they may have additional information..."
This "business" is either not located in WA state at all, or the owners have gone to great lengths to hide from law enforcement.
VerumEtCalx 1 week ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
When made aware of this "legitimate business," law enforcement officers universally across the country exhibit concern for the questionable materials posted and for the well-being of the children. They're familiar with this behavior and recognize it immediately. Their "judgement calls" are clear.
As these pictures continue to show up in caches of genuine child pornography, the motivations and orientation of both the purchasers and the producers of this material become increasingly clear.
VerumEtCalx 1 week ago
son gays jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaj
eliasperes1999 1 week ago
tiger underwear? anyway they has a hot ass
cr4shish 1 week ago
لبى طيازكم
cr4shish 1 week ago
@cr4shish
أنــــــــــــــشهد
^_^
GLLAY1231 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 2 weeks ago
The most common Google search for this "business" is not in conjunction with product, but with children's names. We can conclude that:
A) Some folks require multiple pics of a specific child wearing underwear before deciding on which brand of brief to purchase.
B) Infatuated sickos are combing the internet for provocative pictures of their favorite young boy wearing only briefs.
Google reveals what these dudes are really interested in, and it's not clothing. They are looking for images of kids.
VerumEtCalx 2 weeks ago
Everyone is welcome to make their own "judgement calls."
But the fact is that these children's names are now forever linked on the worldwide web with images which ICAC agents, local police, prosecutors, and social workers have positively classified as child erotica. There is no way for them, their parents, or anyone else to undo this
unfortunate connection.
I won't change any minds with my comments. Just realize people know what this business is about. Go ahead, grab your sock and have at it.
VerumEtCalx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 2 weeks ago
This is a commercial for underwear like the SI swimsuit edition advertises swimwear. Of course consumers of child erotica are unable to distinguish between what is appropriate for adults from children. That is part of their problem and what makes them a threat.
VerumEtCalx 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
chupahombrrre 2 weeks ago
Interesting that one of the related videos as determined by viewers is Interview with a Child Rapist.
VerumEtCalx 2 weeks ago
We know what the ICAC agents who deal with this material see.And they tell us it is not an ad. We know that the producers have their access to young boys. We know that the consummers of this material get their fix.
VerumEtCalx 2 weeks ago
Strange: all I see is an underwear commercial showing kids having a good time - I guess if some people look hard enough, they will find sex anywhere.
smoggly 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From Wikipedia: "Child erotica refers to any non-nude or semi-nude photographs and videos of children (minors) in sexually suggestive poses. Child erotica may include ... underwear ... and other similar items. Law enforcement investigators have found that child erotica is often collected by paedophiles and child sexual abuse offenders.Some child erotica images are distributed over the internet and presented in a fashion similar to non-erotic child modeling." References are included on the site.
VerumEtCalx 3 weeks ago 3
I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 4 weeks ago
Draw your own conclusions.
ICAC agents are clear and universal in their evaluations.
The DCFS case worker in CT and local special assault officer I spoke with in November were also concerned, not only about the site content but for the safety of the minors involved.
Those who defend this material are no different than the Catholic bishops, Penn State officials, Boy Scout leaders and others who looked the other way or made excuses. Their behavior enables people who exploit and abuse children.
VerumEtCalx 4 weeks ago 2
Objectifying adults in pictures is human nature, but we should remember that these children are real human beings with feelings, goals, and lives. Through these websites they have almost certainly inadvertently attracted the attention of some of society’s most dangerously ill individuals. It would not be unheard of for these sex predators to act upon their fixations. Parading these children on the web in an irresponsible manner places them and their families at risk. This is a cop's worst fear.
VerumEtCalx 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@VerumEtCalx I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 1 month ago
My “comments” include: responses from ICAC agents specializing in child exploitation who after viewing these “disturbing” photos classify them as “child erotica;” an admonition from a federal judge that adults exploited in this way as children face decades of remorse, shame, and revulsion; reference to Wikipedia where definitions and academic footnotes are available; and a reference to a series of articles concerning Bob Lamb where information about these “modeling agencies” can be found.
VerumEtCalx 1 month ago 2
@VerumEtCalx I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position,so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 1 month ago
On the other hand we have shrill denials, attempts at distraction, the same rationalizations used to coerce and groom children’s families, and some hilariously inadvertent confessions. Everyone should reach their own conclusions – about those who produce , consume, and then try to defend child erotica. Eventually some of these folks will undoubtedly hear in person from the experts and judges, and will then face the conclusion reached by a jury of their peers.
VerumEtCalx 1 month ago 2
Methinks the ladies doth protest too much.
But my thanks to the protestors who've made my point by basically saying"Yeah, we get our rocks off on little boys."
LOL. Priceless!
VerumEtCalx 1 month ago 2
@VerumEtCalx I think that anyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 1 month ago
@VerumEtCalx And...if you're going to quote Shakespeare, at least try and get it right.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
drm1cst 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dude has been trolling this video now for 3 months desparetely trying to convince ANYONE that it is child erotica and the models are being exploited. The mere fact that it is still on youtube tells us that it obviously does not meet the definition of erotica and the models are not being exploited. I think everyone who reads your comments understands your position, so why not just leave it alone and let people make their own judgement calls.
drm1cst 1 month ago
No doubt that the boys are hot and sensual and their underwear leave them sexier and awesomer.
MsMacaverde 1 month ago
There is no doubt that the boys are sexy.These underwear make them sexier.
MsMacaverde 1 month ago
You need to shut up about this video! I think the video is cute so does that make me a pedo? This is just how this company decided how to advertise there produce! It's not like they are running around naked and kissing! My god if you think this is dirty than you need too take a long hard look at yourself! Haven't you ever seen kids do this cuz I have and they where on the beach! So are you calling everyone on that beach a pedo? No so just chill out!
thejokerwillkillyous 1 month ago
Speaking of kicking over a rock: the business in question is not listed amongst the other businesses where they claim to be located. Officially, it does not exist in that location. Hiding is not the behavior of legitimate businessmen who are proud of their enterprise. It is the behavior of creeps who know they are engage in unsavory acts. They are deceiving not only the few honest customers they may have, but the families of the "models." The owner of the domain name is actually located in L.A.
VerumEtCalx 1 month ago 2
There are few things more satisfying than kicking over a rock and watching the vermin exposed beneath squirm in the light. The only ones fooled by their attempts at distraction and rationalization are themselves and the sick pathetic choir they preach to. The experts who testify for victims in court have weighed in - this material is not legitimate advertising, but child erotica. Those viewing the material enable child abusers, which is a perverse kick for some -the vicarious thrill of watching
VerumEtCalx 1 month ago 2
To troll. Maggot*
TheZiggirawk 1 month ago
We should just ignore this fucker. He's on every video. But let me just say that part of selling a product is marketing it. Its not exploitation. These kids don't have bruises on them. What's your opinion on toddler beauty pageants? Those parents market their children to the highest bidder(talent agencies, clothing companies, etc. ) but I don't see you complaining about them. What about ANY commercial that features a baby? Isn't that exploitative? The baby can't say no. So find somewhere else to
TheZiggirawk 1 month ago
@EMERALDISLETV: of course you can obtain Tiger products in Europe. The product is a digital "catalog" featuring titillating photographs of your favorite little boys posed in underwear. Clothing is incidental to the operation, providing thin cover (both figuratively and literally) for their true purpose - providing pedophiles with legal though exploitational pictures of young boys. Similar products do very well worldwide. Now that you know what these men really are up to, feel free to order away.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
Tiger underwear products would sell very well around the globe!
EMERALDISLETV 2 months ago
Perhaps if the people behind Tiger were a bit more responsive towards genuine trade enquiries from around the world, they might not be considered by many as running some sort of potentially dodgy operation. The fact that their email address is a Yahoo domain address is also causing suspicion. As is the fact that one has to pay to see their catalogues/calendars! They need to sort themselves out and respond to these genuine global trade enquiries!
EMERALDISLETV 2 months ago
@drm1cst and everyone else - well I am glad to see a debate going here. I am not against this sort of thing at all. I have tried to import Tiger products into Europe but have never had a reply from anyone at Tiger.... They would sell well in Europe but I have never seen Tiger products on sale anywhere here. I can see absolutely nothing wrong with boys modelling underwear but what concerned me was the total lack of response from the people behind the Tiger website to my enquiries.
EMERALDISLETV 2 months ago
We do well to remember that child erotica, though legal, is another form of sexual abuse and child exploitation. Those children involved run a great risk of being molested - which itself is a huge draw for the pedophiles who collect the images. Viewing the pictures, predators vicariously relish the degradation and emasculation of the child subjects. Child sexual abuse is not about affection, but rather an act of violence in which the perpetrator enjoys a sense of power over the child.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
It seems that some have difficulty distinguishing between art and exploitation. Others are not willing to distinguish between a painted image of a generic child and photographs of identifiable children who now potentially face decades of regret and embarrassment. Since I alone am unable to convince these folks of the irreparable harm the people at Tiger Underwear are doing to these children, let me post some quotes from ICAC agents and social workers I've received over the past month.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
Comments from ICAC & social workers
"The images on the website are categorized as “child erotica” and are not illegal images. But thank you for bringing my attention to the website so that I can add it to my “watch list” and keep tabs on the direction of their content."
"While these images/videos are disturbing, they do not violate the law."
"While we agree that this is inappropriate none of the content would be considered illegal in and of itself. Therefore there is very little we can do."
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
And here as well...
"I agree a number of things about this seem to point to this as being something a lot worse. We are going to continue to look at this." [Indicating that the children photographed may be in danger of being molested as well].
"There has always been a very fine line between child pornography and some of these child modeling sites, child erotica sites and child photography 'art' sites. This being noted, we will follow up."
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
From a newspaper article discussing the effect of pornography on the subjects:" [The defendent] now realized the harm that merely viewing the pictures created. [The Judge] elaborated on that fact as he held up several letters from people who were photographed.
"There's a common theme in these, that they all have trouble getting on with their lives . . . knowing those pictures are out there," the judge said.
Erotica damages the kids involved, and is used to groom other kids for pornography.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well,I think needless to say male semi-nudity is one of the most sublime human arts.
MsMacaverde 2 months ago
Comment removed
MsMacaverde 2 months ago
For a basic definition of "child erotica," check out the Wikipedia entry. References are included.
For information about Bob Lamb and others who use his tactics, read Flint journalist Ron Fonger's excellent series on the internet.
Parents should read the 12/09/11 article in the Seattle Times: "After Penn State, new stronger requirements for child abuse reporting is only a start" By Michael A. Patterson and Thomas E.M. Hutton describing some warning signs of predators stalking their kids.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
The "Bob Lamb scam." An man from a "talent agency" approaches the family of a young boy (often at a sports event) with offers of a lucrative modeling career. He grooms the family to establish trust, convincing the parents they are entering a business partnership with a friend. Some jobs are legit. In unchaperoned or loosely chaperoned situations, the photog now takes inappropriate pictures. Threats, expensive gifts, and humiliation of the child lead to physical abuse. The child now feels trapped
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
The jobs pay well, and the family can use the money. The photos are then sold to pedophiles on the net. The child ensnared is conflicted, feeling guilty and ashamed. He doesn't want his family to lose the income, though he is deeply humilated. The agent may continue to give the family money and gifts as if he is a friend, but may end up pitting the parents against each other. The child feels worse. Effects follow into adulthood - substance abuse, difficulty with trust, and relationship issues.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
The only bright spot in this deplorable situation is that these photographs are admissable in court. Possession of these pictures bolster the state's case against a predator by demonstrating an unhealthy obsession with children. Excuses of retro clothing, re-living childhood, or other such nonsense fall apart. The definition of "child erotica" is crystal clear, and reasonable people recognize that the primary purpose of the photos is sexual in nature. Normal people do not collect such photos.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
@VerumEtCalx "The definition of "child erotica" is crystal clear" That's where the danger comes in--people thinking that anything is crystal clear. There are more fetishes out there than there are stars in the sky. There are people who get off on kids in soccer uniforms---so people filming their kid's soccer game would be erotica to some. Crystal clear? Hardly. You're probably right on the footage seen here--but it's scary to use the term "crystal clear".
pinklipsarepretty 1 month ago
@VerumEtCalx "an unhealthy obsession with children"--which does not automatically mean sexual in nature, let's try to remember that. "Excuses of retro clothing, re-living childhood, or other such nonsense fall apart." Okay---and how exactly are these excuses nonsense?
pinklipsarepretty 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And, let us not forget the famous and iconic Coppertone suntan lotion image of a litle girl having her swim pants pulled down by a playful pup to reveal her tanline and buttocks that was used for 50 years with the common understanding of it as "innocent". Today the same image carries the connotation of "smutty" and "child erotica".
drm1cst 2 months ago
Comment removed
drm1cst 2 months ago
Maybe when you're through with this company you could go after Abercrombie & Fitch. Abercrombie Kids is now selling pushup bikini tops for 7-year-old girls. The clothing giant is also selling thongs in their children’s line that say “wink wink” and “eye candy” on them, and T-shirts with slogans like “Who needs brains when you have these?” emblazoned across the front.
drm1cst 2 months ago
Fortunately, I have a flight to catch for the holidays, so I bid you a fond farewell and wish you a Merry Christmas. Good luck with your "witch hunt".
drm1cst 2 months ago
As for Victoria's Secret, the comparison is valid. I'm calling b.s on all the huffing and puffing about retro products and rationalizations. The business produces "child erotica," and that draw is the main function of it's website - not selling clothes. I would wear burlap before subsidizing an business which - in the opinion of ICAC officers, social workers, and others - exploits and degrades children. Theirs is a despicable enterprise, and the people who buy their product are assisting them.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
Kids don't always comprehend what has happened to them. But what will they feel when they are adults? How will they feel knowing that their pics remain stored in the computers of degenerates? How will they feel knowing the pics were used to groom other victims, and they are indirectly involved with the abuse of other children? How will they feel about the adults who recognized the implications of their situation, shrugged, then walked away, abandoning them to the depredations of these monsters?
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
Parents of victims require more grooming than the kids, but that is what happens all too often. Good-hearted people who can't imagine their kids being hurt by friends believe they have entered into a "legit" business partnership, allowing increased unfettered access of "friends" to their children. But real friends don't expose personal information to potentially dangerously ill men. Friends don't put families at risk. Friends don't take multiple "child erotica" photos of children in underwear.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
With the recent scandals at Penn State and the Citadel, we are more aware of how pervasive the problem is. This situation sends up all kinds of red flags and alarms. You have grown men enticing little boys to run around in wet underwear, diapers, and plastic pants. They spend the night with them. It's tough to believe that the sole purpose of these excursions is to take pics for a "catalog." Some of the police and social workers I corresponded with agree. Eventually the truth comes out.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
Bob Lamb in MI ran a legal business and was eventually caught with illegal pics. He sold pictures of teenage boys - a legal enterprise, but certainly odd. What normal man or woman buys portraits of strangers' kids? None. What legitimate reason could they have for owning such pics? None. They buy the pics because they are attracted by the boys. That's flat out weird. Such pics can then be photoshopped to create new images in which the original subject had no intention of appearing.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
The Sears catalog was legal, but only contained one photo. You don't need multiple photos to decide whether or not to buy, and only a nut would care how underwear "looks" on a child anyway. Sears stopped using these photos because they were used to groom kids into posing for similar photos - and worse. Sears et. al. took a principled stand when they realized how the pics were misued. But the Tiger pics were never about selling a product anyway.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
You really want to engage me in a conversation? Ok. I was a foster parent who was trained to take in sexually abused teens. I have spent the past month talking with police, social workers, and newspaper reporters - none of whom have the same take on this as the posters below. The images used on Tiger Underwear are classified not as advertisements, but "child erotica." While legal, exploit the children and not designed to sell product. Posts on the website indicate that that kids are the draw.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
Are you implying the employees of this company as well as the parents of the child models are all involved in some sort of bizarre conspiracy to exploit children? If that were true, wouldn’t the authorities shut them down and arrest the parents of the child models? You do realize that not everyone is a perv who views these ads and then purchases these products from a legitimate American company, right? Their products are American made by American workers paying taxes just like you do.
drm1cst 2 months ago
If we followed your logic, then Calvin Klein, Hanes, Fruit of the Loom are also involved in child exploitation as they use child models to advertise their clothes. Tiger Underwear has had their clothing featured in a movie in 2008, ‘Harold’ which starred Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ally Sheedy.They were also featured in the TV show ‘Sons of Tucson’ and were also featured on ‘The Ed Schultz Show’ on Air America Talk Radio Network. All co-conspirators to exploit children as well I guess, huh?
drm1cst 2 months ago
You have referenced Victoria's Secret so people can see how it looks. Did you know that when you buy their products you actually are assisting in child exploitation and endangerment? As recent as this month, they were (and possibly still are) buying cotton harvested by child slave labor as reported by Bloomberg News (12-15-2011).
drm1cst 2 months ago
Additionally, one of their main suppliers of merchandise is the Israeli textile giant, Delta Galil Industries Ltd.. By partnering so closely with Delta Galill, Victoria’s Secret is helping to support Israeli Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. I will choose Made in the USA, sounds rational to me. Sit on that and spin it chump.
drm1cst 2 months ago
Perhaps the children are used in advertising to promote the retro look by reminding customers what it was like to be a child, to associate the good times of childhood with the comfort of the product
alanbrown70 2 months ago
As for being a legitimate business, I reported this site to Internet Crimes Against Children agents around the country. Responses came back that the photos are classified as "child erotica" and not "legitimate" advertisements. They are legal, but in the words of several: "disturbing" and "inappropriate." Not only are the kids being exploited, but material like this is used by predators to groom victims. The adults should be ashamed, and those buying assist in child exploitation and endangerment.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
@VerumEtCalx What a cynical little person you are.
drm1cst 2 months ago
@ drm1cst The rest of us get what it's all about. How many pictures of children in their underwear do you need before deciding to purchase the product? Apparently for fans of the site, the answer is "limitless." Victoria's Secret shows pictures of adult women in sexy underwear so people can see how it looks on a woman. Who are the children on this site supposed to be attracting? We understand what this is all about; we don't need you to rationalize or spin it for us.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
The Victoria's Secret for gay pedophiles. Website basically an excuse for pervs to leer at young boys wearing only underwear. Fetish freaks treated to pics of boys in diapers and plastic pants. Posted comments reveal weirdos' real motivation; all seem to have their favorite. Suspect that owners make most of their money selling "catalogs" than clothing. Support this business and you're helping promote child exploitation. Your money. Your conscience. Your call.
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
@VerumEtCalx Tiger underwear is a legitimate business located in the USA and their products are made in the USA. So when you purchase a product from this legitimate business cashing in on the current trend of retro vintage clothing, you are supporting the USA economy. The parents of the models would probably dispute that their children are being exploited. Would you rather people support child slave labor overseas manufacturing clothing?
drm1cst 2 months ago
SUPER CUTE :D
Kyle69healey 2 months ago
@Kyle69healey Gross!
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
@VerumEtCalx hahaha nope
Kyle69healey 2 months ago
This is way too long to be just an ad for underwear. It seems to cater to the J. Sanduskys in certain men. Take it down-it's much too creepy.
JONLL56 2 months ago
Very hot boys.Nice game.
MsMacaverde 3 months ago
so cute!
bulgeboy469 3 months ago
@bulgeboy469 Gross!
VerumEtCalx 2 months ago
Who makes Tiger underwear and why isn't it available all over the world? Or is it basically some sort of pedophile ring?
EMERALDISLETV 3 months ago
@EMERALDISLETV looks like...
DerKaugummiautomat 3 months ago
@EMERALDISLETV Tiger underwear is made in the USA and is available to anyone in the world who wants to purchase them. Their company is located in Washington and is cashing in on the current trend of "vintage" clothing. I remember wearing underwear like this as a kid. It is a legitimate business making money off of people who are into the retro look. The models are not exploited, so why are you making judgement calls like this. Ignorance??
drm1cst 2 months ago
fun playing in the water
bmelin 4 months ago