>>16723374>it seems unlikely Val Mont wouldn't check something so basic before starting the shoot;I agree, but it still could have happened. She may have been a family friend and someone mistakenly told her that she was older than she actually was, or she may have lied to him and he didn't bother asking for ID until he later became suspicious.
>it seems unlikely he would leave *any* sexualized images of her online if she *were* underage;Nigga what? It's the internet. Once somebody out here gets a copy of something it's free to spread as far that person cares to try.
>I've never seen him mention age when asked why her sets were taken down.Why would he mention it? Why admit to possibly committing a crime, even if it was an innocent mistake. It's a lot simpler and easier to just say she had quit.
I don't think she was underage but I can't tell. And I don't really care. She doesn't like at all uncomfortable or unhappy or like she was being exploited in those photos. If we learn differently one day then, fine, I'm out. Right now, I think anons need to just relax and either enjoy or delete them.
