According to the IMDb, Debee Ashby also launched her topless modeling career at age 16 in a dual pictorial with her mother, Anne Ashby. Debee's "Page Three Girl" exposures got her expelled from school before she could complete her "O" levels.
So the school didn't give a shit that she even had parental consent? Great job idiots! Even better is the fact that they denied a young lady an education. Again, great job idiots!
It's legal in the UK for a girl to pose topless at age 16, but the older I get the more it creeps me out, the notion that I checked out a sixteen year :eek: but that's just me.
Depends if she looks like a woman or not. Lindsey Dawn McKenzie (LDM) was pretty well "built" at age 17 when she started.
Maybe it's because I'm an American Libertarian, but I care about the
intent of the laws, for which they are ultimately (even if it takes to reach the Supreme Court, either state or possible federal, here in the US).
The US makes it illegal to view pornography of minors because the creation of the media requires minors to be exploited. In the US, the age of majority is 18 regarding nude photography (and even other types of photography require consent of the guardian before 18). That's why any prosecution of an adult doesn't hold if the American looks at photos of a woman where she is not considered a minors in their locale where they were taken place, or various types of Japanese Hentai/Manga. I've even seen some "troublesome" Hentai/Manga at a major bookstore in a mall in the US.
I always keep the intent of any law in mind, and that minors should never, ever been exploited. People make it about "taste," which will always be subjective, instead of "protection," which is very objective. As such, it becomes very simple to me. In fact, if people would focus on "protection" and "rights" instead of "taste" and "morals," a lot less men and women would be harmed in our society. So I consider it very, very necessary and even responsible to differentiate.
Hell, a few years back they raised a sex offender's apartment looking for some evidence of a crime (which was proven he had nothing to do with), but they found writings by him. It was his outlet. It was psychologically proven it was his outlet. But they convicted him anyway, even though he had harmed no one. I personally think he's was a sick fucker, but it's not about what I think or any "taste." It was about "protection," and unless they just want to keep him locked up (possibly forever) "just to be sure" (which may they wanted, in clear violation of his rights), I failed to see what he was remotely guilty of.
Hell, we don't differentiate between the smallest of mis-understandings today, and the "sex offender" title gets slapped on. I'm sure one 17 year-old girlfriend of mine, who was far more sexually adventurous than I, had parents who would have had that title slapped on me when I was barely 4 months older than her (but 18) had they ever caught her with me. Why? Because they were sexually frustrated with each other (hadn't had sex in 15 years themselves), quite sad.
If we'd focus on protecting the innocent, then a lot less people would be harmed, and we'd catch the real problems of society.