GFY sponsoring "lolita" ? hmmmmmm - GoFuckYourself.com

Judas_Hansen · 12-18-2003, 05:21 AM

this banner:

This site:
http://www.magicnude.com/webmasters/

This content:
http://www.met-art.com/c32/120103_4.htm

Isent that a little TO close to "lolita" ?

mrthumbs · 12-18-2003, 05:25 AM

without $$ the owner of that site would be a CP lolita SOB..

Now he's just an advertiser.. that's how things work
in the magic world of adult.com.

Thomas · 12-18-2003, 05:28 AM

all 18+ so what's the problem?
http://www.met-teens.com/l.html

Deepsy1 · 12-18-2003, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Judas_Hansen
this banner:
This site:
http://www.magicnude.com/webmasters/

This content:
http://www.met-art.com/c32/120103_4.htm

Isent that a little TO close to "lolita" ?

why you should stick your nose in this matter ? fucka

DarkJedi · 12-18-2003, 05:28 AM

SlutFinder · 12-18-2003, 05:28 AM

ohhhhhhhhhhhh dear

johnbosh · 12-18-2003, 05:31 AM

polish_aristocrat · 12-18-2003, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deepsy1

why you should stick your nose in this matter ? fucka

haha, I thought you were shutting down lolita sites.

But on a serious note, their contant is now 18+ ( used to be underage before ).

Judas_Hansen · 12-18-2003, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
all 18+ so what's the problem?
http://www.met-teens.com/l.html

http://www.met-art.com/c32/120103_4.htm
sure.. this model is SURELY 18+... IDIOT

Zappu · 12-18-2003, 05:41 AM

I can not understand the problem of Lolita? In Europe this is a description for girls in real teen, schoolgirl and girlie outlook

Judas_Hansen · 12-18-2003, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zappu
I can not understand the problem of Lolita? In Europe this is a description for girls in real teen, schoolgirl and girlie outlook

.. in other words; you sell cheat kiddiporn?

polish_aristocrat · 12-18-2003, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Judas_Hansen

sure.. this model is SURELY 18+... IDIOT

Why don't you people realise this:

70 % of girls who are 18 - actually look like 18
15% look rather like 19-21
15 % look like 15-17.
It is simply true.

DarkJedi · 12-18-2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zappu
I can not understand the problem of Lolita? In Europe this is a description for girls in real teen, schoolgirl and girlie outlook

in europe fucking dogs is also OK

stocktrader23 · 12-18-2003, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkJedi

in europe fucking dogs is also OK

In the U.S. naked teens (under 18) is ok. What's your point?

DarkJedi · 12-18-2003, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23

What's your point?

exploiting chldren = bad

stocktrader23 · 12-18-2003, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkJedi

exploiting chldren = bad

I know, lets go boycott all the bookstores tomorrow.

Rick Latona · 12-18-2003, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat

Why don't you people realise this:

70 % of girls who are 18 - actually look like 18
15% look rather like 19-21
15 % look like 15-17.
It is simply true.

87 % of statistics are made up on the fly. ;)

stocktrader23 · 12-18-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Latona

87 % of statistics are made up on the fly. ;)

43% of GFY already knew this.

Deepsy1 · 12-18-2003, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat

haha, I thought you were shutting down lolita sites.

But on a serious note, their contant is now 18+ ( used to be underage before ).

yes , your thoughts are very correct. I'm still doing that my way.
but it's wasn't the point of the thread. on a serious note , you woudn't see the banner on gfy if we were talkin about real cp/lolitas

stocktrader23 · 12-18-2003, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deepsy1

yes , your thoughts are very correct. I'm still doing that my way.
but it's wasn't the point of the thread. on a serious note , you woudn't see the banner on gfy if we were talkin about real cp/lolitas

I saw no porn in that site at all actually.

yeviking · 12-18-2003, 06:08 AM

Lolita or not lolita... This site HOT!

hjnet · 12-18-2003, 06:12 AM

There are a lot of people in this biz which don't care for ethics or moral as long as they make money with it, and at the same moment they wonder why adult-business has such a bad reputation.

who · 12-18-2003, 06:12 AM

yeah - it used to be under 18 chicks in MET, but now they're 18+ (so I've been led to believe). In EITHER case there's nothing illegal about it. Nothing wrong with it, in fact. What's wrong is all the old guys whacking off to those pics and knowing that the girls are underage.

The models are't being exploited, either.

stocktrader23 · 12-18-2003, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by .?.
yeah - it used to be under 18 chicks in MET, but now they're 18+ (so I've been led to believe). In EITHER case there's nothing illegal about it. Nothing wrong with it, in fact. What's wrong is all the old guys whacking off to those pics and knowing that the girls are underage.

The models are't being exploited, either.

Exactly, I didn't see anything worth whacking off to there but I'm not a pedo. It looked like the art you see in fancy books all over.

funkmaster · 12-18-2003, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat

Why don't you people realise this:

70 % of girls who are 18 - actually look like 18
15% look rather like 19-21
15 % look like 15-17.
It is simply true.

... that is not the point, the point is who you target ... and this is what I dislike. in my eyes it is childporn, by the definition of law iti s not. my opinion obviously is not lensman' s opinion.

ServerMaze-Patrik · 12-18-2003, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yeviking
Lolita or not lolita... This site HOT!

so true

we have to take their word that ALL MODELS ARE 18+ (they don't look like it, but hey not all girls look like the age that they realy are)

funkmaster · 12-18-2003, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ServerMaze-Patrik

but hey not all girls look like the age that they realy are)

damn fucking right, this beauty just turned 15 ... would you fucking believe it ??

<img src="http://www.flexonline.com/mro/final_women_bb/images/FDBE0401.jpg">

JFK · 12-18-2003, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Latona

87 % of statistics are made up on the fly. ;)

63.5% will probably beleive you

SleazyDream · 12-18-2003, 09:00 AM

if the model IS over 18 then it's you who are discriminating against her.

Dugan · 12-18-2003, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Latona

87 % of statistics are made up on the fly. ;)

my thoughts exactly,
i love that he actually gave exact percentages, HAHA,
hey polish, can you give me an approximate number in thousands

Dugan · 12-18-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by funkmaster

damn fucking right, this beauty just turned 15 ... would you fucking believe it ??

<img src="http://www.flexonline.com/mro/final_women_bb/images/FDBE0401.jpg">

WOAH!!!, what a hottie

LadyMischief · 12-18-2003, 09:14 AM

Brad Shaw should have a field day with this :P

LadyMischief · 12-18-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by funkmaster

... that is not the point, the point is who you target ... and this is what I dislike. in my eyes it is childporn, by the definition of law iti s not. my opinion obviously is not lensman' s opinion.

That really all depends. Even photographs of OBVIOUSLY legal women can be considered child pornography if the situation depicted is one which is obviously meant to portray her as a child or as underage. The definitions are getting a lot more general as authorities and lawmakers try harder and harder to crack down on CP. Depicting a model in a little schoolgirl outfit in a classroom might be ok, but if you write "Grade 5 class" on the chalkboard behind her, you can be charged with child porn. A lot of it is up to the interpretation of the community as well. Many people have made the mistake of thinking that just because the model is of age they are ok, and ended up spending a LONG time in jail for it.

Morgan · 12-18-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23

43% of GFY already knew this.

44

BradShaw · 12-19-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief
Brad Shaw should have a field day with this :P

DISCLAIMER: MODELS ON MET ART.COM WERE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHEN PHOTOGRAPHED

Nathan · 12-19-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkJedi

in europe fucking dogs is also OK

Where the FUCK do you get your facts from dude?!?!

Mutt · 12-19-2003, 10:27 AM

i haven't looked around MET in awhile but I have seen CHILDREN - not borderline girls - girls maybe 12 years old on their tour.

No doubt the photography qualifies as art but not for a moment would I accept that all models are 18+ just because some representative from the company said so. They have as much credibility as the AdultBouncer stooges who spout that company's bullshit 'We used to have some problems with stolen content but everything is totally legal now'.

I believe the content is art - I also believe at least half, probably more, of MET's members are pedophiles.

Ross · 12-19-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Latona

87 % of statistics are made up on the fly. ;)

I was gonna say that

Except I was gonna say 75%

badmunchkin · 12-19-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by funkmaster

damn fucking right, this beauty just turned 15 ... would you fucking believe it ??

<img src="http://www.flexonline.com/mro/final_women_bb/images/FDBE0401.jpg">

wow, Andy Dick has really pumped up.

12-19-2003, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BradShaw

DISCLAIMER: MODELS ON MET ART.COM WERE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHEN PHOTOGRAPHED

Same thing applies to lightspeed and they seem to get your panties in a bunch, so what's the difference here?

dig420 · 12-19-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hjnet
There are a lot of people in this biz which don't care for ethics or moral as long as they make money with it, and at the same moment they wonder why adult-business has such a bad reputation.

and there are a lot of hyporcrites in this biz who pretend to have ethics and morals.

dig420 · 12-19-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by funkmaster
<img src="http://www.flexonline.com/mro/final_women_bb/images/FDBE0401.jpg">

oh great, now I'm going to have dreams of this beast chasing me around the forest tonight...

quiet · 12-19-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420

and there are a lot of hyporcrites in this biz who pretend to have ethics and morals.

amen

Matt 26z · 12-19-2003, 11:00 AM

Even if hypothetically speaking they've got under 18 there it's legal even in the US. You can order that kind of stuff from any major bookstore chain, and some even stock it right there. There's a difference between nude photography and pornography. Which is why taking a pic of your kid playing in the tub isn't illegal.

I think the true issue at hand here is should such sites, even though they are legal, be promoted right alongside porn sites?

I think it's very questionable to say yes since you'd be targeting porn surfers for a site you are saying really isn't porn at all.

That's just my opinion. Artistic underage non-porn shouldn't be anywhere near porn sites. I wouldn't even want to see such sites put their 18+ pics on TGP's.

Fletch XXX · 12-19-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mutt
i haven't looked around MET in awhile but I have seen CHILDREN - not borderline girls - girls maybe 12 years old on their tour.

No doubt the photography qualifies as art but not for a moment would I accept that all models are 18+ just because some representative from the company said so. They have as much credibility as the AdultBouncer stooges who spout that company's bullshit 'We used to have some problems with stolen content but everything is totally legal now'.

I believe the content is art - I also believe at least half, probably more, of MET's members are pedophiles.

art? just throwing this out... ;)

hmmmm. In my time in school, and through all my Art History classes, nowhere did I ever study photos like this, nor have I ever been told by an art teacher that this is classified as art.

How come there are no museums full of this art?

Artistic photography?

try Dietter Appelt, but pics of nude children is not art man.

http://www.hainesgallery.com/DAPP.bio.html

I have helped organize Dieter exhibits, THAT is art, not naked kids.

Mutt · 12-19-2003, 11:16 AM

photography with naked children as the subjects just like photography of naked homosexual men or naked elderly people can be art. Check out a library's art section or bookstore and I am sure you will find books with photos or drawings of naked children.

what you can't do is eroticize the children, have them in anything that is close to a sexual situation whether it be by themselves or with others.

Fletch XXX · 12-19-2003, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mutt
photography with naked children as the subjects just like photography of naked homosexual men or naked elderly people can be art. Check out a library's art section or bookstore and I am sure you will find books with photos or drawings of naked children.

what you can't do is eroticize the children, have them in anything that is close to a sexual situation whether it be by themselves or with others.

to each his own i guess.

but as soon as Sleazydream adds a banner on his site, it becomes PORN, staright up old school naked girl pics. Porn, no way around it.

I also do not think there is any way you can hang a picture of a nude 10 year old on the wall and step back and say, 'Wow, this picture says something to me, this is creativity, this is art.'

naaah man, it, just a picture of a naked child.

i guess its how you look at it, but I have worked in art museums and given tours of art ranging from Dale Chihuly venician glass, and Basquiat and Lichtenstein, even Koontz, never studied or had an exhibit of naked kids thats for sure.

I was just throwing this out....

And we arent really talking about pics in the library are we? we are talking about a asite that gets adult webmasters to send it traffic, thus turning it into porn.

Does MET art put out books? are there photos in the library?

;)

^R3K^ · 12-19-2003, 11:22 AM

In know quite a few webmasters promoting it. I dont because i dont have traffic for it, and i dont have traffic for it because it seems like a very controveral site esspecially with its background, and I dont spend time generating traffic that might come back and bite me in my ass.

I never doubted that there is money in it, but I dont like being anymore of a target that I can help.

Its a site like this that is legal that will attract more attention than an illegal site, and Personaly I dont like that kind of attention.

Morals dont belong in the this business, but you need to be able to have a grasp on local & global morals, and stay within those lines, or close to it.

MadCap · 12-19-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by badmunchkin
wow, Andy Dick has really pumped up.

Thats exactly what i thought when i saw that pic.

Talk about a roid freak.

rowan · 12-19-2003, 11:29 AM

I signed up for a trial on metgirls or met-art about half a year ago to see what I would be promoting. Some of the video content looked pretty sus, they showed nudists that definitely looked underage.

Only the person who shot that content - if it was a proper shoot with releases and IDs - can confirm or deny this, but the fact that a few people have said that met *used* to have underage girls makes me wonder if they haven't removed everything they should have.... I cancelled at that point and didn't let it rebill. Haven't sent them any hits either.

12-18-2003, 05:21 AM	#1
Judas_Hansen Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Denmark / Hellerup Posts: 520	GFY sponsoring "lolita" ? hmmmmmm this banner: This site: http://www.magicnude.com/webmasters/ This content: http://www.met-art.com/c32/120103_4.htm Isent that a little TO close to "lolita" ? __________________ \| EUROPEAN HOSTING = FORGET 2257 \| IcQ 300-894038 \| anti-SPYWARE \|

12-18-2003, 05:28 AM	#6
SlutFinder Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,273	ohhhhhhhhhhhh dear __________________ Legit mailing and optin databases - Adult,Casino&Pharmacy. ICQ: 272-745-001 - EMail:[email protected] Adult payments allowed! on your site or between webmasters! www.YowCow.com

12-18-2003, 05:41 AM	#10
Zappu Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,556	I can not understand the problem of Lolita? In Europe this is a description for girls in real teen, schoolgirl and girlie outlook __________________ Zappu (ICQ: 23141467) European Erotik Content Archive CONTENT4FREE = CONTENT4CLICKS X JOIN NOW!

12-18-2003, 09:00 AM	#29
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	if the model IS over 18 then it's you who are discriminating against her. __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

12-18-2003, 09:14 AM	#32
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	Brad Shaw should have a field day with this :P __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

12-18-2003, 05:25 AM	#2
mrthumbs salad tossing sig guy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com Posts: 11,702	without $$ the owner of that site would be a CP lolita SOB.. Now he's just an advertiser.. that's how things work in the magic world of adult.com.

12-18-2003, 05:28 AM	#3
Thomas Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 277	all 18+ so what's the problem? http://www.met-teens.com/l.html

12-18-2003, 05:28 AM	#5
DarkJedi No Refunds Issued. Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: GFY Posts: 28,300	.

12-18-2003, 05:31 AM	#7
johnbosh Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Netherlands, Rotterdam Posts: 8,965	lol

12-18-2003, 06:08 AM	#21
yeviking Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Usa Posts: 589	Lolita or not lolita... This site HOT!

12-18-2003, 06:12 AM	#22
hjnet Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: European Union Posts: 3,815	There are a lot of people in this biz which don't care for ethics or moral as long as they make money with it, and at the same moment they wonder why adult-business has such a bad reputation.

12-18-2003, 06:12 AM	#23
who So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ICQ #23642053 Posts: 19,593	yeah - it used to be under 18 chicks in MET, but now they're 18+ (so I've been led to believe). In EITHER case there's nothing illegal about it. Nothing wrong with it, in fact. What's wrong is all the old guys whacking off to those pics and knowing that the girls are underage. The models are't being exploited, either.

12-19-2003, 10:27 AM	#37
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	i haven't looked around MET in awhile but I have seen CHILDREN - not borderline girls - girls maybe 12 years old on their tour. No doubt the photography qualifies as art but not for a moment would I accept that all models are 18+ just because some representative from the company said so. They have as much credibility as the AdultBouncer stooges who spout that company's bullshit 'We used to have some problems with stolen content but everything is totally legal now'. I believe the content is art - I also believe at least half, probably more, of MET's members are pedophiles. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

12-19-2003, 11:00 AM	#44
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Even if hypothetically speaking they've got under 18 there it's legal even in the US. You can order that kind of stuff from any major bookstore chain, and some even stock it right there. There's a difference between nude photography and pornography. Which is why taking a pic of your kid playing in the tub isn't illegal. I think the true issue at hand here is should such sites, even though they are legal, be promoted right alongside porn sites? I think it's very questionable to say yes since you'd be targeting porn surfers for a site you are saying really isn't porn at all. That's just my opinion. Artistic underage non-porn shouldn't be anywhere near porn sites. I wouldn't even want to see such sites put their 18+ pics on TGP's. Last edited by Matt 26z; 12-19-2003 at 11:04 AM..

12-19-2003, 11:16 AM	#46
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	photography with naked children as the subjects just like photography of naked homosexual men or naked elderly people can be art. Check out a library's art section or bookstore and I am sure you will find books with photos or drawings of naked children. what you can't do is eroticize the children, have them in anything that is close to a sexual situation whether it be by themselves or with others. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

12-19-2003, 11:22 AM	#48
^R3K^ Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,815	In know quite a few webmasters promoting it. I dont because i dont have traffic for it, and i dont have traffic for it because it seems like a very controveral site esspecially with its background, and I dont spend time generating traffic that might come back and bite me in my ass. I never doubted that there is money in it, but I dont like being anymore of a target that I can help. Its a site like this that is legal that will attract more attention than an illegal site, and Personaly I dont like that kind of attention. Morals dont belong in the this business, but you need to be able to have a grasp on local & global morals, and stay within those lines, or close to it. __________________ no business like ho business Http://www.natnet.com No Hype, Just Results

12-19-2003, 11:29 AM	#50
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	I signed up for a trial on metgirls or met-art about half a year ago to see what I would be promoting. Some of the video content looked pretty sus, they showed nudists that definitely looked underage. Only the person who shot that content - if it was a proper shoot with releases and IDs - can confirm or deny this, but the fact that a few people have said that met used to have underage girls makes me wonder if they haven't removed everything they should have.... I cancelled at that point and didn't let it rebill. Haven't sent them any hits either.