U.S. Feds Accuse Second Color Climax Model Of Being Underage


Another popular vintage Color Climax Corporation (CC) actress from the same case accused by U.S. feds of being under age in two of her films (loops). Like Tove, the claim calls into question all of her productions, some of which are copyrighted in the Library of Congress. And yet, her catalog of films are being re-issued on DVD, including the ones found to be child pornography by the feds. What’s the trewthe?

In the opening remarks the prosecutor described the two loops on government exhibit 17-E to the jury:

The segments to be shown from this tape include scenes where a male motorcyclist and a high-school-aged female companion wind up on a park bench. Then they go into some woods and they engage in what you see as actual sexual intercourse as well as oral sex. This first segment is captioned “Lolita Climax.” As you’ll learn from the testimony, the word “Lolita” is a tip word or a code reference to depictions of underaged participants.

In another segment of the tape captioned “Lolita 2, Group Sex,” the same long-haired blond female from “Lolita Climax” participates with other high-school-aged girls and with males in a variety of actual sexual behavior…

Later, the prosecutor elicited from the case agent that they “determined” this long-haired blond female to be under 18.

On cross, the case agent acknowledged the receipt and copying of defense exhibit #201, Blue Vanities Catalog of Adult Videotapes distributed by Filmfare Video Labs. The witness also acknowledged that Blue Vanities #82 (B.V. #82) is found on page 21 of the catalog and that the video tape contains a loop entitled “Group Sex.”

cover of BV 82/defense exhibit 236 The defense attempted to introduce B.V. #82 into evidence stating this was the same “Group Sex” loop as that alleged in government’s exhibit 17-E. The prosecutor objected, the judge sustained and an offer of proof was made:

If the defense were allowed to introduce Defendant’s Exhibit 236 into evidence, which is a Blue Vanities tape of “Classic Vintage Stag Films, Arcade Nudes and Strippers, ’70s and ’80s” and “European Peep Show Loops” which includes “Group Sex, 3f-2m, TA, Climax, No. 1509,” the court would find that…

The above is consistent with the archived (NSFW) European Loops catalog page of the Blue Vanities web site (which is no longer available).bv_CATALOG_archive-82






cover of 1980 Filmlab Video Catalog Filmlab catalog Index Catalog ad for video TC-403 containing Christa's prosecuted footage English page from catalog







TA Climax is Teenage Climax , one of several film series produced or distributed by Film Lab A/S, Copenhagen. Film Lab was a content producer which sold content to CC as well as competed with them. Another of their film series, Master Film, contain the early Tove Jensen films, including a different “L**ita Climax.” These film series were re-issued by Film Lab into video compilations, as noted in their 1980 Video Guide.

At some point, the Danish company Vicom ApS took control of the Film Lab inventory and combined the various film series into extended video compilations, currently under the Schoolgirls and Teenagers product lines. Vicom has been offering said products on the web since 1998, along with several affiliates including climaxdeluxe.  A representative of Vicom said the first two volumes of Schoolgirls are available on DVD, with the remaining four set for a later date. He also said the footage is copyrighted under Danish law and the models are all over 18. A word of caution if you choose to visit their sites: Vicom deals in extreme adult porn including fisting and bestiality.

It bears noting that terms such as “L**ita” were (and are) commonly used by Euro adult porn producers in film and magazine story lines. These titles remain for copyright reasons but are routinely flagged by governments and search engines as suspect child pornography.

This explains, in part, the results of a file sharing study (pdf) conducted by the U.S. government in which terms associated with child porn were used to search the shared network. Less than half of the file name hits were considered suspect child porn, and less than half of the images downloaded by Customs were believed to be child porn.


Many of the Film Lab actors can be found in CC productions. The long-haired blond female described above in Teenage Climax No. 1509 is in a number of Teenage Climax productions including No. 1501, 1505, 1511 and 1512–(“L**ita Special”).

Index from Color Climax Magazine Catalog TS 19 Melodi d' Amour Vicom owns the film rights to Teenage Climax No. 1512–(“L**ita Special”), but CC owns the rights to the photos from the same film. These photos were published in Teenage Sex No. 19, one of the many magazine titles produced by CC. The story line is entitled “Melodi d’Amour.”

The digital images of CC’s extensive magazine inventory are copyrighted in the Library of Congress, and consistently being uploaded to their own site as well as rodox.com. The rodox site is administered by International Media Company BV (IMCO) under a licensing agreement with CC, and stipulates all images are 2257 compliant. Thanks to the Internet Archive, we know that “Melodi d’Amour” was added to the rodox site in April, 2005(NSFW). This business relationship is why IMCO was a plaintiff in Digital Graphic Systems, et al. v Bile.

In addition, this same long-haired blond female appears in a number of other CC film and magazine productions, two of which are on their Teenage Bestsellers compilations, No. 251 and 257. These compilations were recently re-issued on DVD by CC through a contractual agreement with Musketier Media (NSFW). As noted in a prior post, these DVD re-issues are available in the states.

UPDATE:  XploitedCinema, based in Cleveland, is no longer online.  But the site has been preserved by the Internet Archive, along with it’s catalog of Color Climax films, including Tove and Christa, on pages 14 and 15.

UPDATE: Musketier Media has either dropped their association with Color Climax, or no longer advertises it on their revamped website. However, the Internet Archive has preserved the association, at least in German.

How is all this possible in light of the fact my source informs me that numerous past and present U.S. federal and state officials, including two members of Congress, are aware that the U.S. feds say this long-haired blond female is underage.

So the questions persist. Are the U.S. feds knowingly allowing child porn to be copyrighted, re-produced, advertised and distributed worldwide? Are the U.S. feds conspiring with adult companies to protect them from child porn prosecutions?

Or did the U.S. feds lie under oath about the ages of Tove Jensen and the long-haired blond female, and have enlisted third parties, including members of Congress, to cover it up. What is the trewthe?


  1. jon said,

    November 25, 2007 at 1:27 am

    just like america to be all up in a different countries buisness.
    who really gives a f@ if porn filmed BEFORE the ‘age law’ thing stared female(s) under 18?
    i ask you, do people magically change overnight from asexual to sexual just because of a birthday?
    someone that is 12 can be more ready for sex then people that are 30.
    just because someone is ‘of age’ DOESNT mean they are mature.

  2. Caroline said,

    December 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    I think Ive already tried to explain this in my last reply and I am a little astonished,
    that you now ask some questions again.
    You ask : “Are the US Feds knowingly allowing child porn to be copyrighted etc.?”
    At first I have too strongly disagree, that porn with 15-17 year old Teenagers is “childporn” !!
    Only a few years ago, almost no european country confiscated or banned porn with models over the age of 15. Germany even still has a low 14 years of age minimum. Denmark had a 15 years of age. We had a 16 years of age minimum in the Netherlands, but old danish teen movies with models of 15 years of age were tolerated.
    So we had a different definition of child porn, depending on the country.
    The “Library in Congress” Registration is only a formal act. I assume, that
    these movies were included before the sec.18 § 2257 came into effect.
    Even if not, and this happened after § 2257, the “Library in Congress” procedure is only formalistic, the copyright holders had to include a written statement, that
    their video material is legal. It was legal – under danish and european law.
    You write in your statement : ” Are the US feds conspiring with adult companies
    to protect them from child porn prosecutions ? ” The opposite is true ! The US
    feds are criminalizing hundreds of thousands of normal teen porn customers !

    The produced porn movies with 15-17 year old models werent “criminal child porn
    movies”, because a.) under european law, the models werent children in a legal
    sense, but adults (16), or teenagers (15).
    b.) the movies werent produced with criminal content and illegal methods,
    like force, bribing parents, etc., but all models participated out of their own
    free will. I know and knew some former teen porn models in person, and they could assure that. I dont want to comment Vicoms statement in detail, but it is
    of no help reacting like the US CCC spokesman, who wrote, that “CCC never worked with models under 18”. It is more as possible, that the US Feds will
    find some more Teenagers in old danish Lolita and Schoolgirls video volumes.
    But it is of no help in fighting childporn, to criminalize legal or former legal teen porn. Yes, CCC/Rodox also produced terrible childporn until 1979, this is contemptible and has to be castigated !
    It is more important to help victims of childporn and to prevent these horrific
    crimes, instead of wasting manpower at the FBI, CIA and other authorities,
    with the scrutinisation of legal ( or formler legal ) european teen porn.
    I hope that this madness will stop and that they will concentrate on the real
    important crimes, like terrorism, child molestion, white-collar crime, war crimes.

  3. trewthe said,

    December 2, 2007 at 8:24 pm


    U.S. Copyright Office is a service unit of the Library of Congress. CC began registering their digital images with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1998 in anticipation of the bilesasylum litigation; a legal requirement to make a claim of copyright infringement in a federal court.

    The copyright records, including any mandatory deposits (copies of material) are open to the public for viewing, and under certain conditions, for copying: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ06.pdf That would include the footage of the models described above as being child porn.

    The feds testified under oath these females were minors and have sent individuals to prison for being in possession of the material. The material is either legal or illegal. If it’s illegal then the feds are required by law and regulation to ensure that the public is informed and all copies are destroyed. If it’s legal, the feds are required by regulation and ethics to inform the defendant that they screwed up. They have not done either, and the question is why.

  4. Caroline said,

    December 4, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    At first, I have strongly to disagree to the posting by “jon”. Its very, very unusual,
    that a girl is ready for sex with 12. And even if she is, this shouldnt be filmed.

    @ trewthe : Now I understand your point. You explained the status of Filmlab
    and Vicom very well. I think, this can be explained easily. The feds screwed up,
    when this material was registered, and they dont have the courage to say “excuse me”. They made an error, because the danish material has minors ( e.g. 15-17 year old girls ) according to US Law, but not according to the old danish law ( < 15 ). Its even possible, that the US CCC people didnt know that, because this is no genuine CCC material, but Filmlab A/S material.
    The feds who made this error, arent the feds who now confiscate these movies. The anti cp dept. will seizure this and will bring the retailers and customers to court. Under US law, they are obligated to do this. But every second grade laywer should point this out, all of the owners of these material, who had bought it, can rely on “bona fide”. It makes no sense, that US Feds accuse CC of a 3rd, 4rth and more “minor” models, …..
    ( Tiny Tove was adult, its ironic, that all of this legal hassle started with her )
    I am in Germany now, where the material is still legal, and Ive examined the videos yesterday in a videostore. Some still carry the VICOM videos. There are more – as you call it in the USA – underage models.
    So the Feds should, instead of bringing unblemished citizens before the court, inform the videodealers and customers, should withdraw the material, should say “Excuse me”, and that was it.
    ( Or should rethink their stupid sec.18 § 2257 etc. laws, but it is more probable
    that a North Korean would be the next US president )

  5. Peter65 said,

    December 22, 2007 at 1:30 am

    I used to have copies of old Teenage Climax 8mm films. I bought them in Baltimore in the early 70’s. The girls in the loops were incredibly beautiful and appeared to be much younger than 15…I’d guess about 13 or 14. I have since gotten rid of them – perhaps 20 years ago. If I still had them in my possession. would it be a criminal offense?

  6. Caroline-NL said,

    December 28, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    Dear Peter, almost all models in the Teenage CCC Series were 15 or older. Only very, very few episodes had models with 13 or 14. And I have only seen 2 in Germany, where it is STILL legal to view porn movies with models of 14. I only heard rumours about models beeing 13. A former model, who started at Filmlab with 15, told me, that in the mid-late 70s, she met a swedish girl who had told her, that she had her first shooting with 13. I cant verify this, but I cant falsify it too. Models who were younger – talking about 12 or younger, I would prefer to use the terminus victims, instead of models, were abused in the “Lolita” series.
    Contrary to the Lolita series and real childporn, as far as I know, everything done in the Teenage Series was done out of a free will. To answer your question: To own porn material with models of 13 is illegal in almost all countries now. Only in Japan it is still legal to OWN it. Sale, distribution etc. is illegal there too. In DK/NL, according to the written law, it is illegal, but they dont confiscate movies if the models are at least 15. Only Germany still has a low 14 year age law, but they want to implement the US law next month. So if you still would own these, you could be brought before court, because of possession of “childporn”.

  7. jon said,

    May 29, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    on November 25, 2007 at 1:27 am i spacifically referanced 12y/o girls.
    now because of people seeing my words and not reading into them i must explain.
    12y/o is under 18y/o just like 6569 days is under 18y/o
    it is true that just because a person is ready for sex doesnt mean it should be filmed but then again sex is a rather private thing.
    but i must ask this, is it “childporn” to videotape your newborn son/daughter at bathtime?

  8. eric said,

    August 8, 2008 at 5:57 am


  9. Urmel said,

    October 23, 2008 at 10:23 am

    very usefull information here!

    a have a question

    where can i find this catalogue?

    thx in advance

  10. December 17, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Musketeer Media has stopped the DVD release of “Teenage Bestsellers”, because of the new german law, that was passed in early November.

    Trewthe, as much as I like your blog and your scrutinizing journalism, I dont like it, that you equatate teen porn with child porn. Its true, that CCC and freelancers of CCC commited several crimes producing childporn.

    Crimes at least in a moral sense, because the distribution wasnt illegal prior 1980, the production was in a sort of grey area in DK, but we shouldnt look down on teen porn, at least with models of 15 and over, as a criminal product.

    Girls at this age – not only in northern Europe – enjoy sex, have sex and there is no need to criminalize it, only because it is done before a camera. A danish girlfriend of mine enjoyed it with 15, she did it for fun ( and a little fame ), not only for the money. She is shocked, that this stupid US law is connecting her films with one of the most terrible crimes, child molestation. She neither was a “child” with 15, old danish laws ( changed on 1st Jan.03 !) guranteed sexual indepence with 15, neither was she forced or raped or whatever. She enjoyed it and I dont see any sense in producing “virtual” crimes here.

    US laws think of 17 year olds as “children”, only if they have sex. If they commit a crime, like shooting or murdering, even 12-year olds are made responsible for their deeds. This isnt making a (legal) sense, or ?!

    We shouldnt requestion laws that prevent little children from sexual exploitation,
    but we should requestion laws that threat 15, 16 and even 17 year olds like small children.

    Back to this special case, I think it isnt the rule, but the exception of the rule.
    If I look at the childporn hysteria in the USA, no politician and no FBI agent would risk his career, because he would look away, when cp is distributed or sold.

    I think we have 2 problems here:

    At first, an error was made 10 years ago and this error grew bigger and bigger. Instead of saying: “We made mistakes”, agents try to ignore it. This is a normal human reaction. People who cant pay their bills anymore, dont open the letters anymore and dont go on the phone, because the bank and the credit companies are calling them. They just try to ignore it as long as possible.

    Second, excluding some single teen models, there are no reliable documents, no reliable sources to determinate the real age.

    Some models gave interviews and their age was printed in these articles.

    If you have the exact age, you can look at the back catalogues of CCC, they had monthly, quartlerly and annual catalogues, so you can barely determine the real age.

    I think the given age is reliable until 1982, when more countries started to forbid “underage” material. Starting in 82, Sweden officially banned the import of material with models under 16, so a danish CCC model, who started her career with 15, said in a swedish interview, when she was 17, that she started with 16.
    Because the producer of the swedish magazine, which wasnt released by CCC, feared legal problems.

    Her “start age” cant be true, because her first movies were released 2 years ago.
    Because her age (17) was verified in danish CCC catalogues at this time, her given age at the time of the interview was correct, but not the age when she started her porn movie career.

    So after stricter laws were passed, ages were manipulated – at least in some magazines. Videos and 8mm movies only very rarely mentioned the age at all.
    Thats the reason, that the material with 15 year old models, who were only a minority, most were 16 and older, was also sold in Sweden or Switzerland, when this material was officially illegal. Nobody can differentiate a 15 year old girl from a 16 year old girl only by looking at her. Especially if some try to look older. And some older try to look younger.

    Starting in 1983, thes given ages also differ, according to the legal minimum age of the country, where the material was released.

    ( As seen by the stupid CCC USA statement,”we only worked with 18+ models” )

    But examining the source material until 82, is the only option to determine the age of the models. But it dont will give you an exact birthdate, you cant say, if the model was 15 3/4 or 16, 17 1/2 or 18, this can be very important before a court. And even researching in 15-17 material is illegal in most ( not all ) european states now.

    Its really interesting to know, how they will solve this strange case.
    It has to come to an end finally, or ?

  11. trewthe said,

    December 27, 2008 at 6:39 pm


    1) What’s in the German law that caused Musketier to abandon their realtionship with CCC? Did they issue a statement or press release, or was this done under the radar? And aren’t all the Teenage Bestsellers already released on DVD?

    2) We are not equating any porn with child porn, the U.S. feds are. We are informing the public what the feds have done and said about this prosecuted footage. We are informing the public that the feds are refusing to stand on their sworn testimony or honor a jury verdict.

    3) This is not a case where “errors” are being ignored. This was an orchestrated conspiracy to deprive a defendant of a fair trial, and a jury of the truth. Having exposed that conspiracy, another one has developed to not only cover it up, but to engage in retaliation.

    4) Whether or not CCC or others have documentation is debatable (we have been informed they do). But as the court documents detail, the agent testified they “determined” these 3 females in the commercial footage were underage. That agent has been promoted.

    5) No, the case has not come to an end. The conspiracy is ongoing and we will have more postings in the New Year.

  12. August 23, 2009 at 10:28 am

    1) What’s in the German law that caused Musketier to abandon their relationship with CCC? Did they issue a statement or press release, or was this done under the radar? And aren’t all the Teenage Bestsellers already released on DVD?

    The german law was changed in Nov.08, raising the minimum age for people depicted in porn from low 14 to 18. They even “invented” a new law for this, especially for genuine teen porn, the §184c.

    Musketier never had a direct relationship with CCC, they only sub-licensed the CCC movies from E. Petersen. Yes, Musketier released 2 press releases ( but only in german ) .Only a small fraction of Teenage Bestsellers was released so far.
    Its also impossible to say how much movies could have been relased under this label, because “Teenage Bestsellers” was only a “best of label”.

    The best movies of other CCC/Candy/later Filmalb movies were re-released on video under this title. 8mm series were “Teenage Climax”, “Candy presents”, “Teenage Lust”, “Teenage Sex”, etc.
    I cant understand, because the law changes were discussed as early as 98, why they havent started to re-relaease the old material nearly a decade ago.

    I cant link the german/austrian CCC/Musketier press release here, ironically some depicted covers still include models of minor age.

    2) “We are not equating any porn with child porn, the U.S. feds are.”

    Yes and no. You use the term : “childporn” for teenporn (15-17) too.
    On the one hand, this is the official US definition, on the other hand, its just idiotic to equate porn where small babies are sodomized, with teen porn, where no model was minor in a legal sense, according to the law of the country, where these porn movies were produced.

    3) “This is not a case where “errors” are being ignored. This was an orchestrated conspiracy to deprive a defendant of a fair trial, and a jury of the truth.”

    Yes, so many errors are no coincidence. But it still isnt making a real sense. Here even the police is ignoring illegal material ( under US law ), while at the same time the US Custom Service is confiscating it. Anyone who imports these old movies from Denmark or the Netherlands, please dont do it, will be in heavy trouble.
    Instead of doing this, you only have to rent these movies from your local videostore. 😉

    4) “Whether or not CCC or others have documentation is debatable (we have been informed they do).”

    The danish Justice Dept. demanded documentation in early 1980, they hadnt, because documents burnt down ( accidentally or intentionally). This makes sense ( at least for CCC ), because childporn was forbidden in Dec.79 by the danish parlament. If only these files had “vanished”, nobody had believed this. But I dont believe the story of the “tragic fire” in the archive. Maybe a X-Mas tree burnt down. CCC released and marketed real cp before 1980, most of the material was with kids between 4-9 years. Most material was sent in by pedophiles, but some “movies” were also produced in the studio.

    Only files after 80 exist, but even here material is missing. Otherwise it makes no sense, that CCC wasnt able to prove that the model was 16/18, when this was demanded. From what Ive heard from a german distributor, they had quite a lot of cases in Great Britain, shortly after Blair legalized porn. The minimum age was 16 at this time and they couldnt prove, that the model XY who looks like 15 was 16. Or that the model YZ who looks like 17, but could be 15, was in fact 16.

    If they had everything on file, they only had to present this to the legal department. They hadnt. 15 really was the exception for Teen Hardcore, not the rule. ( Most of the 15ers started with posing. Most of the models were at least 16. Before the adaption of the US law in Europe, only very few countries had such a high minimum age for porn models, e.g. Switzerland and Great Britain )

    But its funny, that Uncle Sam demands US laws in Europe, but US Feds arent following their own laws in the United States.

    • trewthe said,

      September 16, 2009 at 10:41 pm


      You’re right. Ervin Petersen (EP Video) has the CCC digital film rights. He contracted with Musketier to do the film to digital transfers. We spoke with Musketier in October of 2007. They said they have a letter from Petersen confirming the models are over 18, but no actual documentation.

      CC produced 63 8mm loops under their “Teenage Sex” film label (701-763). Three of these involved Tove, two others Christa. The loops were compiled into 30 minute videos under the same name. Later, the 60 minute videos were released under the “Teenage Bestsellers” label, numbered 251-260. These contain most, if not all, of the “Teenage Sex” loops, including Tove and Christa’s films (251, 252, 255, 257, 260), and don’t include loops from other CC film labels. The “Teenage Bestsellers” compilations have all been released by EP/Musketier.

      CC has a separate “Bestsellers” film label, which EP/Musketier are releasing on DVD.

      “Teenage Climax” was never a CC label. The Filmlab loops were originally released on video under their own label, (or other Filmlab labels) but Vicom mixed them all under their “Danish Schoolgirls” and “Teenagers” labels, which is confusing as many of the loops have the same title.

  13. September 23, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    @ trewthe:

    “They said they have a letter from Petersen confirming the models are over 18, but no actual documentation.”

    Of course this is rubbish. Quite a lot were 15-17.

    “Three of these involved Tove, two others Christa.”
    Yes, but Tove made more movies for “Candy” and Christa for “Playboy” and “Masters”.
    (The danish “Playboy” label had nothing to do with the US mag, in fact Playboy Enterprises threathened to sue them, if they dont change their name )

    Trewthe, there are not only different language versions of these movies
    ( english, dutch, german ), but different compilations. Especially the dutch versions are quite rare. Even here in the Netherlands, the german versions were widely available.

    “The “Teenage Bestsellers” compilations have all been released by EP/Musketier.”
    Yes, but they only released a small part.

    ““Teenage Climax” was never a CC label.”

    Yes and no. It wasnt, but CC later bought Filmlab Copenhagen.

    Ive talked to a now retired swedish businessman, who was involved into porn distribution in the 70s and 80s, especially 8mm. Filmlab Copenhagen had financial troubles in 81/82, because they dont managed the transition to Beta (later VHS).
    Sales and especially the production of 8mm movies ( Filmlab was a big photo and film studio ) nearly imploded when video arrived. They only sold the porn segment and the rights of the old porn material to CCC.

    This makes sense, because Ive always wondered, why Filmlab Copenhagen stopped the production of new porn movies at this time, when the company was still existing. Even before they had ties to CCC. I wasnt the first who noticed, that some of the scenes of old Filmlab Copenhagen movies where shot in a studio, that was also used by CCC. They were shot in a building owned by CCC, Filmlab rented this studio for some shootings. At least one cameraman was working for CCC and Filmlab.

    CCC still used the name for a transition period, because the name was well known. ( Its the same with “CANDY”, at the beginnig this was also an independent company, CCC bought several competitors )

    Filmlab Copenhagen now was only – as it was before they entered porn in the early 70s – a movie development service.

    Vicom was formerly a porn dealer and distributor ( like SCALA in the Netherlands ), later they released the old Filmlab material.

    “Vicom mixed them all under their “Danish Schoolgirls” and “Teenagers” labels, which is confusing as many of the loops have the same title.”

    Yes, they even changed some titles or shortened the original titles.

  14. Nick said,

    May 27, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Dear all,

    First of all I must say that I do not have large legal knowledge of the US legal system, as I am a Law student in Greece. I have been doing some research on CCC, and I would like first to ask, if indeed there has ever been a time at which under age was not an offence in such “films” as I have heard of a video claimed to be produced by CCC with two underaged performers, one a male one a female, along with adults. This I believe is highly illegal, and as there is proof, I believe that this case could be re-opened.

    • curious55 said,

      June 9, 2010 at 8:07 am


      you must be young. You are not aware that 25 years ago, so called “child porn” was mainstream Hollywood. The movie “Blue Lagoon” featuring underage actors depicting sex to be meant between underage participants, clearly would be Child Porn by today’s standards.

      Playboy Germany had 16 year old models. And Germany had nude children of all ages in their FKK magazines. Very normal, as you can see nude children on Germany’s nude beaches (most beaches in Germany are a mix of nudes and non-nudes), so this is just photos of what you can see everywhere in Germany in the summer.

      And I understand that Britain’s page 3 nudes in Newspapers were often 16 year olds

  15. June 9, 2010 at 11:26 am

    @ Nick: Your statement is very mysterious.

    ” as I have heard of a video claimed to be produced by CCC with two underaged performers, one a male one a female, along with adults. This I believe is highly illegal, and as there is proof, I believe that this case could be re-opened. ”

    With case ? The case talked about in this blog ?
    Underaged performers…. Are you talking about 17 year olds or small children ?

    Looks like this case here is closed. Its true, that CCC produced quite a lot of real childporn between 1971-79, with children ranging from 3-12 years, but they had never legal troubles, because this stuff wasnt illegal in Denmark until Dec.79
    Even if the production wasnt legal in a formal way, but the danish law had several loopholes.

  16. rolfen said,

    August 23, 2010 at 3:45 am

    Although I agree with some comments saying that free-will teenage porn is not a crime such as child molestation. It seems to me like there needn’t be much difference between a 16 year old and 20 year old, as far as sex is concerned. Yet the porn industry in general is kind of impersonal, and maybe it’s a good thing that teenagers are kept away from it for a little longer.

  17. September 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    “the” porn industry in general isnt existing. There is an enormous difference between Abby Winters or Roccos Gangbang Throatfucking.
    Just look at the cover of the “Teenage Sex” Mag above. Its clearly visible, that this isnt a result of impersonal porn.

    Even quite a lot of US experts criticize the ” 18 years old = legal, 18 years old minus one day = childporn ” equalisation. The most prominent ist Prof. Phillip Jenkins.

  18. February 5, 2011 at 10:11 am

    “but i must ask this, is it “childporn” to videotape your newborn son/daughter at bathtime?”

    You have to wonder about the common sense levels in some people. As a parent, I’ve never felt compelled to film my kids during bathtime. It’s not like bathtime is something that does’nt happen very often so it must be captured, is it? So why film kids in the tub in the first place? And then here’s the one that really gets me. Once parents have filmed their kids in the tub, why then the compulsion to upload it onto the internet where its going to cause no end of problems. Why do that? They’re YOUR kids, not anyone else’s, so why do other people need to see your kids bathe? Why the need to share that?

    Stuff like that should’nt even be getting anywhere near the net, and I question the intelligence, and parenting skills of any parent who would upload videos of their kids onto the internet. At best you only do it to share these videos with family members. Why? Can the family members not wait until they visit you to see this unmissable footage?

    Sometimes I despise the world I live in, because it feels like I’m the only one who has an ounce of common sense.

  19. CR said,

    February 7, 2011 at 9:19 am

    I know this is an old thread but regarding the part near the end where it was asked

    “re the U.S. feds knowingly allowing child porn to be copyrighted, re-produced, advertised and distributed worldwide? Are the U.S. feds conspiring with adult companies to protect them from child porn prosecutions?’

    I would have to say that yes they are allowing it as well as actively engaged in covering acts of children being used in the sex trade as we have just seen with the wikileaks documents showing how they covered for a company providing children for sex.

  20. Old thread, couldn't resist commenting said,

    November 4, 2011 at 1:47 am

    ‘Did the US feds knowingly allow the distribution of child pornography?’

    Come on now, only proles get charged for child sex, Congress covers it up because a great many are no doubt pedos themselves(Re Boy’s town?). I suspect once your at a certain level of corruption spoiling innocence is the only thing that is going to get you off anyhow. The US has its fingers in everything, that much should be clear to even the especially thick by now. I’m not saying anything you don’t already know

  21. hhhdcjdciudchcdsh said,

    June 10, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    Think everyones missing the point. Most of the girls in 1971-1979 series were between the age of 5 and 12. Not a few months underage lol. And in Denmark this was perfectly legal at the time!

    This company “color climax” has promoted child pornographic and lots of other sick shit over the last 40 years and have made alot of money doing so and have never been held responsible…..

  22. hfdwha said,

    August 29, 2013 at 8:36 pm

    who gives fuck. if she has hair on her vagina, my dick will be in it

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: