SUPERIOR INTERNET CONTENT! X2

14 years old and already pimpin’. And proof that Britain has poor taste in women.

14-year-old hired 13-year-old prostitute

Police on Tuesday turned over to prosecutors their case against a 14-year-old boy in Kanagawa Prefecture who allegedly paid ¥60,000 to have sex with a 13-year-old girl he met on an Internet dating site.

The boy, in his third year in a Tokyo junior high school, used money from the more than ¥100,000 he had saved from his allowance to make the payment, Kanagawa police said.

They said the boy’s “indecent act” took place in a lavatory at JR Hashimoto Station in Sagamihara on March 1. At the time the girl was 13 years old and in her first year in a Sagamihara junior high.

The police quoted the boy as saying he carried out the act because he “had money and was interested in (sex).” He enticed the girl by portraying himself as an 18-year-old in a message posted from a personal computer at his home.

According to the police, he posted a message dated Feb. 20 that said: “Male, age 18. Got quite a lot of money. Waiting for your reply.”

SOURCE: The Japan Times Online

——–

USD645 sounded like the monthly allowance I always dreamed of when I was his age. You gotta give it to em’ for not choosing someone more than half his age to shag, unlike those horny old uncles who are triple his age. Now that’s a player with a strong sense of honour. I’m really curious: can you convict a minor for having consented sex with another minor with the same charges used to convict paedophiles?

——–

Semi-nude model ‘looked under 16′

A clothing firm has been criticised for using a model who looked under 16 in a “provocative” magazine advert.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled the shots for American Apparel “could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child”.

In a series of six pictures, the model revealed more and more skin until her nipple was partially exposed.

American Apparel argued the model was 23 and the images showed how to use its clothing to create different looks.

The Los Angeles-based retailer has been banned from publishing the same advertisement again.

‘Serious offence’

The initial shots showed the girl wearing just a hooded top and shorts with minimal make-up.

The ASA decided “the photographs suggested that she was stripping off for an amateur-style photo shoot”.

It also ruled that she appeared under 16 in some of the shots.

“Because the ad could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years, we concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offence to some readers,” said the ASA.

But it did not uphold a complaint from one reader who said the nudity was offensive and could have been seen by children.

The ASA noted the advertisement was published in a magazine called Vice, which is aimed at the 18-34 market and distributed free in bars, nightclubs and clothes shops.

It ruled the nudity “was not so overly gratuitous as to make it unsuitable for or likely to cause serious or widespread offence to the target audience”.

SOURCE: BBC News

——–

BULL-FUKKEN-SHIT. Amazing how the ASA made an iron-fisted decree for attractive young girls in their twenties to modify their looks to resemble a 40-something drugged up auntie. Since when was it a crime to look younger than your actual age? The ASA’s preference for female beauty is questionable logic-wise. If this is how they treat people based on their looks, then surely these self-elect white knights would receive the shock of their life when they’re introduced to Amai Liu.

This entry is also the few rare occasions where IRL babes are posted instead.