VASSALBORO, Maine — Late last fall, an out-of-state man on a private crusade against online child erotica found a website that purports to sell vintage-style underwear to boys, teens and men.
But what it actually sells, he believes, is access to photos of youths who are primarily cavorting in underwear. The man was able to identify and track down one of the boys because in one photo the child was dressed in his school baseball uniform from a central Maine elementary school. When the Internet whistleblower contacted local police officials, they were appalled.
There is “enough information that people know exactly who these kids are,” said Lt. Glenn Lang of the Maine State Police’s Computer Crimes division. “I think parents need to be deeply concerned about it. If someone can identify who your child is, or where your child is, on a website, where a guy from God knows where can say, ‘I know exactly what school your child goes to,’ that’s a recipe for disaster.”
The boy is one of several central Maine youths who were paid to model for the website, which neither Lang or the Bangor Daily News is naming because it has not been charged with a crime. After investigating the underwear company, police could not bring charges against it, he said — because the photos did not contain a “lewd display” of genitals, or show a sex act, they did not cross the line into child pornography.
But Lang was clear in defining the website, and others that are similar that easily number in the hundreds, as child erotica.
“You’ve got to ask yourself: Are they marketing the children or the product?” he asked. “A lot of them operate right on the raggedy edge of the law.”
Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving minors under the age of 18. The law prohibits possessing, manufacturing, distributing or accessing with the intent to view child pornography. All 50 states and the District of Columbia also have laws which make the possession, manufacturing and distribution of child pornography illegal, according to the website for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
In other states, including Washington and Connecticut, law enforcement agents also pursued an investigation but ran into the same problems that Maine police did, Lang said.
“It doesn’t appear that there’s anything we can do about this particular thing,” he said. “But when you start having local victims … and when you take a low-angle picture of two boys wrestling with a hose spraying them and you can barely see the product they’re selling, come on.”
Maine law enforcement officials approached the boys’ parents, to alert them of their concerns, but the reaction they received was lukewarm at best. The boys had been paid “in the hundreds of dollars” for the photo shoots, and the parents did not believe that there was any wrongdoing by the underwear company, Lang said.
“Parents are often very proud of their children. They think their children are beautiful, and that’s a great thing, but they have to realize, some people look at children in a whole different light,” Lang said. “There’s going to be a defensive mechanism there, where they’re trying to rationalize it. But even if they’re doing nothing more than it appears they’re doing, these children are getting exploited.”
An official at the Washinton-based firm who answered the phone last week said that it is a “decent” company, which finds its models through a talent agency and then hires photographers to shoot the pictures. Its products appear to only be sold online, although Lang suggested that the company likely sells more photo catalogues than underwear to its clientele.
Maine police believe that the modeling agency that contributes photographs is located in Connecticut, but the company official would not identify that agency or other talent agencies in Maine that it uses.
The man grew indignant when told of the police investigation and he terminated the conversation.
According to Lang, mainstream clothing companies, including J.C. Penney and Sears, no longer show children wearing underwear and bathing suits in their catalogues.
Caron Bryan, owner of Port City Models & Talent Inc., in Portland, said she has been in the business a long time and knows that there are many predatory outfits that want to take advantage of people with modeling stars in their eyes.
“I’m extremely careful,” she said, adding that she does not have her models do anything that might be considered to be exploitative of children.
The industry is largely unregulated, she said, and often preys on naïve parents or children.
“There are so many people who aren’t realistic,” she said.
Bryan said that one way that type of company can profit from young people who flock to model searches is to charge them a lot of money for a portfolio of photographs. But she also said that parents should be careful to research modeling agencies, clients and photographers who have indicated an interest in their children.
“Parents have to be so, so careful,” she said. “There’s so many parents who want their children to get in this business. But oh, my God, you have to be so extremely careful.”
Lang said that parents with questions about possible modeling opportunities for their children should be fine if they use some common sense. They should never leave their kids unattended during a modeling shoot, he said, and also should see all the photographs.
“They should be skeptical at all times of how the photos are being taken,” he said.
If parents have questions about a particular company or modeling shoot, they are encouraged to call local law enforcement agencies.
And they should simply be aware that “modeling underwear” is a red flag when it comes to child exploitation, he said.
“A parent should immediately say, ‘Are you kidding me?’ Reputable companies just aren’t doing that anymore,” Lang said.



It should be illegal to take photos of children in their underwear. Period. What child wants to be seen by their peers (or anyone else) in their underwear? Parents that coerce (or force) their children into these gigs are doing it for the money. They should be prosecuted, too.
Children – and parents – are being “groomed” in more ways than one. Parents, take a step back and look at what you’re doing. Better safe and broke than sorry and rich. All the money in the world can’t buy your child’s innocence back for him or her or for you either. Childhood and appropriate development is priceless, rare and deserving of the best protection you can provide.
Lepage’s former communications director (the one who resigned because of financial issues on his properties) had a picture of his two young sons naked in a tub on his business website. Bubbles were strategically placed over the most private parts, but it still left way too little to the imagination.
Parents don’t always use good sense in these things.
I am not defending anything but the actual physical threat to children is so minuscule it might as well be zero. Making laws based on emotional reactions is dumb, period. Studies show that people that view child pornography are not child predators. There is no physical real life manifestation of their child pornography fetish. While I do not support CP in any way shape or form, I think making laws banning something that isn’t CP but can be used by some in a way similar to CP is ridiculous.
Spoken by a man who I suspect DOES view a lot of child pornography perhaps? Because it seems to me that you are defending this. None of this is acceptable. None of it. There is no slippery slope here. Whe it comes to protecting our children, there is only right and wrong. Screw the gray area..
I agree, children should be safe and protected. When there is no threat to the children then there is a slippery slope.
I said that legislation should not be made from knee jerk emotional reactions and I stand by that.
There is nothing “acceptable” at all about forcing or coercing child into posing for a camera in their underwear. It’s child abuse – plain and simple – regardless of who the end viewer is.
If it is child abuse then maybe you should be going after parents who have their kids participate in beauty pageants and allow their children to be models.
Otherwise, you need to get a grip, it isn’t child pornography, no children were harmed, if the parents felt threatened or that their children were threatened they could have turned down the offer to allow their kids to model products.
Laws were not violated, children were not harmed, why play up the “save then children” emotional BS just to create laws that will affect nothing?
It may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right. Bad parents put their children at risk every single day for the almighty dollar. Making a child pose for pictures in their underwear is wrong on every level. People who think it’s okay for make children pose in their underwear are sick.
So, where do you draw the line? Is every package of Pampers featuring a giggly baby sitting in a diaper an object of child pornography? If you say no, why is it it different? If you say yes, how is it that generations of people have been unbothered and unthreatened by this image for decades? What’s changed?
Where was it forced or coerced in this story? The children were well paid, by a model agency, which I assume their parents have a contract with.
A common childhood (and occasional adult) nightmare is finding oneself standing in your underwear in front of your peers.
A child model has to pose for pictures in their underwear and their parents get paid for it. If you can’t see what’s wrong with this, you need your head examined!
I’m just not so sure it would qualify as child porn. If that’s the case, we must keep little Johnny and Muffy covered up from head to toe at all times. Don’t go to the beach, because if you take pictures and some kids in bathing suits happen to be in them, you can be arrested for child porn.
Where does the nanny state end? It’s ridiculous. I’m sorry, but I don’t feel that this should be classed as child porn. Remember all those ads of a little girl getting her bathing suit pulled down by a dog to show off the tan line? Was that child porn? Respectable magazines carried, as well as many billboards.
We need to stop criminalizing everything.
Unfortunately you are correct. This is a money game for law enforcement agencies… The game goes like this:
Scare people enough so they don’t mind a tax hike to keep them “safe”
Horse-hockey.
Well, we took the classic “kid in a tub” pictures of both our daughters. We were not making porn but memories. Published pictures are a different story. How many parents are you suggesting we arrest?
Parents should not publish nude pictures of their children (that IS illegal) and they should not allow others to photograph their children naked or in their underwear. I do NOT photograph my children that way because it’s not right. My mother took a picture of me in the bathtub when I was little and I was deeply embarrassed. Years later, I found the picture and burned it. It’s wrong – just plain wrong. Children do not want to be photographed nude and why in the world do you WANT pictures of your nude children? Sick!!!
I have the classic butt picture of my child around the age of 3 in the house somewhere and it is not illegal for me to have it. It is in no way child porn and if you think it is, you are the one with the issue.
It is the classic pose of the child running away naked after a bath and there is nothing at all sexual about it and yes, my child who is now 13 years of age has seen it and does not have a problem with it at all.
If a 3 year old child’s naked butt is offensive to you, you have issues.
Just because “everybody does it” doesn’t make it right to take pictures of a nude child. Implying that someone who does not take pictures of nude children has an “issue” is odd, to say the least.
Weren’t you also the one who opposed the city of Bangor having residency restrictions against sex offenders?
I didn’t say someone. I said you are the one with issues. There is nothing wrong with taking a picture of your 3 year olds naked butt as they run down the hallway after a bath and it is not illegal to do so and it is not child porn.
I go into the homes of complete strangers all the time. My job requires me to do so and I have seen plenty of pictures people have framed of their kids naked in the tub, sitting on a toilet, the classic running away butt pose.
Am I supposed to call 911 and report them as soon as I leave and state they have child porn displayed about their home?
As for your last question it has nothing to do with the story or the point you are trying to make. Try to stay on topic and not derail the
conversation to suit your needs.
So, you aren’t denying that you’re the one who was opposed to having residency restrictions against convicted sex offenders living in Bangor, which would have prevented them from living near parks and schools.
You’re now supporting people having naked pictures of their children and, based on your words here, it appears you are not opposed to parents letting others take pictures of their children in their underwear.
And, you claim there’s something wrong with people (me) who don’t take pictures of naked children.
I agree with scotpenob above. You need help.
I love the way you dance around and avoid the questions asked of you.
I appologize if I offend, but your words tend to make me wonder if there was something in your life that happened to you that made you feel the way to do. To say a parent is ‘sick’ because they want a naked butt picture of their child is wrong on so many levels. I have them of my kids. A cute, dimply infant butt is adorable. I don’t publish them, nor do I pull them out to show friends and family. They are for me and for them when they’re older. I don’t pull them out and look at them. They are safely tucked away in the family picture box. There are no full frontal nudity pictures other than one of my changing a diaper that my husband took. My child was 3 days old. Am I sick, you ask? Extremely insulting to me and any other of the millions of parents who want to remember their child as young and innocent.
Agreed. I am very happy to see any child predators locked up for life, but I am so sick and tired of the right-wing BS about anything remotely involving the body (women’s contraception, this guy’s problem with naked babies, etc.). These people are trying to drag us back to the days of religious oppression. Not only do I want freedom of religion in this country, I want freedom FROM religion too! I don’t want my President telling me how to pray – or to pray at all. Yes, maybe I’m off-topic a bit here, but it’s all related.
Sears does it as does Macy’s. Just look in the supplement’s of newspapers or clothing catalogues. I am not saying it’s right, but its out there. I think this is a tempist in a tea-pot. Pretty soon we will not be allowed to advertise overcoats.
I realize that there are child predators. Having a child in the “lime light” at all, can be dangerous. It’s dangerous for a child to walk to school alone. People of the world are becoming more twisted. So much more is allowed and accepted these days and more and more envelopes are being pushed. More unorthodox lifestyles are pushing to be legally accepted. So many things now are accepted that weren’t 50 years ago and I think it’s warping our viewpoint. Our children are losing their right to innocence much sooner than they should.
Back in the 50’s parents made christmas cards of their naked babies and sent them to friends and family. This was acceptable and showed off their perfect new baby. The receiver saw a beautiful baby and congratulations were sent, that was it. It wasn’t uncommon for small children to swim nude or run around in their underwear on a beach or for parents to take pictures of them playing in a bath tub. There was never any sexual connection.
From the comments I see, it looks like we may have to start draping our children in cloakes and masks so they can’t be exploited or looked upon by a twisted eye.
I don’t believe there is any more now than in the 50’s. What we have now is mass communication. Protect kids or overprotect kids, that is the real question. Believe me I grew up in the 50’s and we all knew which priest just, “Loved” his alter boys. Kids today are just as street smart as we were then.
Pedo-Hysteria. This is the typical response of a person who is not victim centered. This person has their own phobias and paraphilias that they struggle with. As a defense mechanism they characteristically make wide pronouncements like… “It should be illegal to take photos of children in their underwear. Period.” They do this as a costume or shield hoping that their wild unambiguous pronouncement protects them and persuades at least themselves that they are certainly NOT interested in children in underwear.
This article is irresponsible. It’s hysteria bait much like the “pretty white girl” effect. All of you have fallen for it. Please consider spending your time and efforts on REAL victims of abuse and neglect. There are enough real pedophiles and worse in this world to worry about that we don’t need to create them out of thin air.
Child Pornography is evil. Protecting kids is something we should definately do.
There is a fine line though, a slippery slope so to speak.
There are photos of me in the bathtub taken when I was a toddler. That was over 30 years ago. Today would those photos be considered suspect?
And what do we do to protect kids? Make child modeling illegal? There is a program on TV about beauty pageants for children that are very, very young. The little girls are made up to look like glamour dolls. That show is probably turning some sicko on. Do we ban shows like that?
Do we ban certain types of clothing for young children becuase it will turn some pervert on to see the child in it?
Do a Google search for “little girls in bathtub” and you will get plenty of photos of topless girls in the bathtub but it is not considered child porn but I’m sure someone gets off on it.
No thanks.
Detective Dwyer!
I have a problem with parents pimping their children out as the family’s primary source of income. Children should be allowed to be children, not paraded on stages and across underwear advertisements.
I agree 100%. That show with the young pageant girls to me is disgusting, mothers trying to live vicariously through their own children.
But yet Toddler and Tiaras is still allowed on TV which is a pedophiles dream come true. We also have young girls running around in bikinis and little boys in Speedos at the swimming pool and anyone can take their picture because they are in a public place.
Go to Google and do a search for “little girls in bathing suits” and you will get tons of pictures of just that. Do a search for “little boys in underwear” and the same thing will happen.
Unless we make it 100% illegal to allow any of the above to happen the problem is not going away.
did you search that yourself?
I live in TX and a SA man was just sent to jail for 20yrs for taking pictures of girls and women in public places. (water parks and amusment parks, once in a restaurant) Improper photography.
Please provide me with a link because there has to be a lot more to the story.
I think that any stranger who wants to take a picture of your child or children or children of your friends is really, really shifty. I once was a children’s librarian for a large public library and in one of our story time slots, a strange man came into the library to take pictures of the kids. I told the guy to leave.
What if the stranger worked for the local paper, would you have allowed it then?
What about a clergyman who was also involved in various community projects? Too soon?
Never too soon to take a shot at scum.
Hey, someone was thinking it.
Ya know, in todays day and age, maybe not. People are very soon to forget.
I guess those parents valued money over their child.
Take a walk on the beach and see what you see.
If someone is looking through a catalog of boys and mens in underwear for appropriate purposes then I am thinking they are not finding anything at sexually amiss with the adds.
I had a strange Aunt that said she didnt like to use a certain type of wood working saw as she found the movement of the saw blade up and down obscene. My mother had the same type of wood working saw. They both made wooden crafts. My mother and my aunt were talking about this type of saw and my Aunt said that she didnt like to use that tool as she found it obscene and asked what my mother thought, if she found it obscene too. My mother said “Gee, I dont know, I see a saw blade, not a pe–is. You have an odd mind.”
My concern is cops who pimp,eh?
see link for full story
http://www.times-standard.com/breakingnews/ci_20114217/ex-irs-agent-gets-2-years-prison-pimping
Ex-IRS agent gets 2 years in prison for pimping Eureka teen
The Times-Standard
Posted:
03/06/2012 01:51:05 PM PST
A U.S. District Court judge in Nevada
sentenced a former Internal Revenue Service agent to two years in prison
for driving an 18-year-old Eureka woman to Reno where he put her to
work as a prostitute. Kemp Shiffer, 59, of Reno, who was a lead
criminal investigator for the IRS, was also sentenced Monday to 10
years of supervised release and 250 hours of community service work,
according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release. Shiffer was
arrested in August and pleaded guilty in November to one count of
transporting an individual in interstate commerce for purposes of
prostitution.
I believe the company is the TIGER UNDERWEAR STORE.
http://www.tigerunderwearstore.com/
If you look up vintage boys underwear, they’re the first result, but I ran a whois and the company is located in California. I couldn’t find any information about their photographers.
I visited the link. The cover photo was enough to turn my stomach, I didn’t go any further. I feel badly for the children who were exploited.
I hear your disgust. Maybe you can help me here.
There was a national pedophile ring operating out of Omaha Nebraska involved in kidnapping
sexually abusing, torturing then murdering children.
The members of the ring involved heads of corporations. The FBI and local police covered up
the investigation.
Whaddya think should be done after the Nebraska Legislature appointed a special prosecutor
who was then murdered when his private plane blew up with his young son and him in it.
see
http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Scandal-Story-Powerbrokers-Betrayal/dp/0977795357
I went to the site too. I found the picture on the home page a bit strange to say the least. However I also found the pictures of the men models to be shot in such a way to make me wonder if the adds were about underwear or more for someone who like to look at men in underwear.
I checked out that link and I saw a few pics that were fine but quite a few are disgusting! There’s one that depicts a young boy laying on the floor with his legs spread while he’s running his hand through his hair. WTF!
The pictures of the adult male models seem to be done in such a way as to appeal towards other men in a sexual way and not really be about marketing product.
I agree. Those pics were sickening, too. Like I said before, there were very few pics that I would have deemed appropriate. I can’t believe that these types of ads are allowed in our country.
In this case, this company appears to be pushing the envelope a bit,.
Definitely creepy. Seems like they don’t so much sell underwear as subscriptions to their catalogs, of which they brag, “Tiger Underwear offers high quality digital catalogs”.
They have an archive of previous catalogs. You click on the “manhole cover” to access.
Can’t make this stuff up!
I’m sure they appreciate the free advertisement you’re giving them. Sorry, but I don’t think the link should be posted here.
Well, can you purchase underware from thst site or not? If yes then what?
If you are looking for porn you can find it.
What about those skimpy dresses the girls wear on the Disney channel shows?
What about Brook Shields (when she was a child) in Blue Lagoon? or the trashy jeans ads she did.
Disney Channel? Porn? Uhgggg, you are starting to scare me a little bit harry, ok, a LOT. Disney channel DUDE?
Tune in to Rush today, you will like what you hear.
People should be wary of strangers who approach them claiming they represent model agencies. This goes for parents as well as young women. People who want to be models have a hard time breaking into the business. It doesn’t come looking for you.
just plain sick!
I have not seen the pictures which led to this investigation, ergo, I cannot comment on whether they were inappropriate or not. Yes there are perverts everywhere and there always have been. That is why parents need to be ever vigilant.
Personally I am a little upset with all of the PC overkill. The fact that there are sick people in the world should not make a beautiful photo of an innocent little child in the all together something dirty. I have a picture of my son at about 1yr, toddling on the beach just the way he came into the world, (full frontal) It is one of my favorite pictures of him. He is so happy. His grin is as wide as the ocean. His eyes as bright as the sky.
Nudity is not dirty, minds are.