As far as I know, they are and have always been completely legal.

eastern Europe is not that economically backward like you think...

I agree in a way , but lets talk bluntly , if some pervert can no longer watch non-nude girls in bathing suits on the internet wont he just go to the local pool ? how can you police someone's mind ?

Is it ok to send your child to AMERICAN IDOL ? or a beauty pagent ??

People watch those kind of shows for one reason only .. to view talent/beauty/diversity.

What is acceptable and what isnt ?

men have been jerking off to sears flyers for years, should sears ban children from appearing..

Everyone has there own set of morals of what they would and wouldn't do , but its very very hard to draw that line..

If we were talking girls that posed fully clothed, bearing no sexual innuendo, you may have a point. But we're not. We're talking 13 year olds in bikinis, bent over while a camera is rammed up their ass so Joe Blow can get a nice camel toe shot.

I can assure you all 2257 info for the PerfectionCash sites are in order. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me.

I would have to disagree with you there. I think that fully clothed teen model sites could very well lead to some guy raping some girl. But i also think that the same could be said for 18 year old nude sites. I dont think you can police someones mind , so if there are perverts they will get turned on by a sears catalog even if there was no internet , so i think its basically impossible to change someone PHYSICAL actions by limiting what they can see or hear

Do you still realize what does it mean to lie? Are you sane?

Everything is 100% legal to the stadards of the law not even on the books as of yet. Always has been. The 2257 documentation is very, very clear.

read the whole fucking thread you moron. The girl was 19 at the time.

...and the Russia too.

the girl? So all your under 18 sites shut down by ccbill included only 1 girl?

Is shaving legal Jeff?

Ask yourself that bradley

Well, I get spam every day which offers me Russian and Eastern European girls for sale, so I guess that may have tainted my view a bit.

But 13 year olds in their natural environment have pretty much just discovered sexual innuendo and use it where and whenever they can, most often rather inappropriately. Spend 10 minutes watching a random group of teen girls in a public setting and it's completely clear that they're not the innocent, naive, asexual children society wants them to be.

Now, I'm all for limitations on what you can show, I just don't see why censoring what anyone can find anywhere makes sense.

So, in the end, you agree with me on the fact that censorship does not affect people's actual actions?

We had one site. That site is still up today. She was 19 when it was shot.

Now leave me the fuck alone for I have no reason to defend myself on this. I dont own the site or the content soo ask someone who gives a fuck.

:thumbsup

There's nothing wrong with letting your child wear a bathing suit to the pool, be on a tv show, model for a clothing catalog, etc. Of course some sickos will fantasize about little girls in innocent situations. Not much you can do about that, and no, you can't police their minds.

But *purposely* putting your young daughter on a website, sexualizing her with clothes, poses, make-up, etc., and then charging a monthly fee for it, is wrong. That is using your child to cater to grown men who get off on little girls, and then taking their money for your own monetary gain. IMO, it's disgusting and I can't imagine any parent who does that, being able to live with him/herself.

You was afraid in the post about ccbill not accepting under 18 sites. Why would you worry if you would have a 19 years old girl on the sites?

Maybe the site was pretending the girls were younger than they actually were?

ok your changine the details to fit your argument , let me put it bluntly.

Is there a difference between putting your daughter in a beauty pagent in a bathing suit , and charging a price for seats to watch it , / advertising revenue from tv commercials. OR putting your daughter in the same bathing suit on a website and charging a monthly fee. and if so please explain the difference..

Switch monthly fee to admission and you got a beauty pagent.

Hay dude, please stop discredit Russian sites! They are as legal as the US ones. There is a shitload of VERY famous and VERY respectable Russian partnership programs in the adult business. I don't want to list them all here, but be sure that more than 50% of US adverts are selling them. If you want to speak about something illegal, so just turn your sight to Western European (e.g. Dutch) or Japanese sites. They are selling scat, zoo and weed-related shit.

Totally agree! :thumbsup

And what is that? Pedoland.

And... they come in all shapes and sizes, not just 50 year olds, but people with some deficiency someplace.

A claimed "adult site" with imaging of kids, whether clothed or not, is pandering to the pedo element. Otherwise, what's the point?

I'm gonna start this site featuring 5 - 17 year olds "in public places" :-) You think it is commerically viable?? Shit.. probably is - sadly.

The difference is, the website is made for pedos only, nobody else will be looking for it. The one who makes it, knows it, the company who bills for them, knows it.

I'm Dutch myself, and scat, zoo and weed are completely legal here. Since fully clothed underage girls are also legal (pretty much anywhere), I'm not sure where you got the whole illegal thing from.

edit: typo

This shit should never be facilitated.

[QUOTE Just got a letter from CCbill saying that as of Nov 15 they will no longer process "teen under eighteen old sites." While I agree that the child porn and other garbage needs to be controlled and or eliminated, there is a huge market for legitimate teen model sites. I happen to run a couple that are totally non nude and are tasteful teen sites. [/QUOTE]

Jeff Meyers ran at least two underage creepy sites and was shutdown when ccbill stopped billing. He only said they were over eighteen after he started getting flamed in that thread.

:thumbsup

yup that statement is entirely correct.

I think people have a right to do business with whomever their morals permit them too.

I think the laws although rather vague are pretty good.


Any sexual activity or suggestions should be left to people OVER 18 period.


I know its not perfect , but i think its the best way to do it without censoring everything.

I would simply choose to boycott any business that had associations with these sorts of sites.. ( and thats generally what happens )

yes, and now he even claims there was only 1 site with one girl at the age of 19. He dont even realize that he is lying about his previous lies. :1orglaugh

umm how do you figure ?? how is a website different from a beauty pagent if they display the same EXACT content ?

I dunno if this is still the case in Holland, but there was a time when CP was legal as long as the material was not created within Holland? In other words... kids, often in third world countries were being used to create this shit.

I remember a few years back there was an "incident" when we found out a biz associate had a load of CP material for sale in his warehouse there.

Let's just say there were some backs being thrust against a wall and hands on throats :winkwink:

It's kinda like when OJ got questioned by Petrocelli in the civil trial. He just keeps lying over and over and keeps getting caught over and over. :1orglaugh

From my personal past experience, this (very sadly) is a useless and unwinnable arguement on GFY, EG, underage girls being posed (clothed or not) for explicitly sexual purposes.

Apparently, any line you draw is the same as any other line. It all smells of the double talk and rationalization used by child/teen predators to justify their actions. While many will speak out against it - evidenced in this thread- you'll also find many who will champion the cause of 15 year old Janie bent over in an almost-thong.

People who do so, thankfully, must not have kids. If you think there is no difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old, or a 15 year old and, say, a 19 year old, you've never watched a child grow up. The changes are exponential and real, not gradual.

But I'm just wasting my breath, I'm sure.

Fuck, I'm starving. I can't keep replying.

I'm not changing my argument. Every post I've made has been about one thing only- the parents who whore their kids out on websites for their own financial gain. imo, it's wrong.

And yes, there is a difference. A beauty pageant, tv show, clothing catalog, etc., are innocent situations that aren't set up to charge pedos a recurring fee to leer at kids. Of course, any sicko can turn it in to that but that is not the purpose or function of any of those things. And if it was, then that would be wrong, too.

A pedophile could watch your daughter riding her bike down the street in a tank top and shorts, and think nasty thoughts. But that's entirely different than you starting a website, putting your daughter in a skimpy outfit, setting her on the bike with her legs propped up, and then charging him a fee to look at her. One is his sickness, the other is you using your child to profit from it.

because when you watch TV, you watch mostly what they offer to you, you switch channels until you find what you like. But on internet you have to look for the sites you want more actively. For example with searching for keywords like kids in bathing suit. Who would look for that? P E D O S

Punkworld... you keep using the term "fully clothed" to defend these sites.

The girls are far from fully clothed on these sites. They're rife with thong shots, wet t-shirt shots, see through shirt shots, and tons of stuff like that. These sites do not feature the girls wearing sweaters and jeans.

Bingo! It was all the rage in early 2002. Fucking sue me! I was open for 2 months. haha! She was legal and by ccbills defintion at the time the site was too. The site is still up... I just changed the verbage, put the 2257 stuff on there, made it a nude site and thats that.

Its all in that post for 2002.

Bye

You hit that nail right on the head Holly!

It is clear most folks don't even know the extent and effects of some of this shit.

It is very damaging and sadly is not uncommon - in fact - very common. Ask any law enforcement officer who deals with this and you'll need a bag to throw up into.

I meant the things that are considered illegal in the USA.

I totally disagree. Parent's don't profit from beauty pageants. They shell out mucho, mucho, bucks. No parent putting their kid in them is doing so for monetary gain.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of beauty pageants. imo, it's mostly mothers who are trying to relive their youth through their kids, or compensating for the fact that they had a miserable childhood and weren't popular or pretty. They're messed up too, but in a different way. :1orglaugh

again your changing the argument to fit your point , i never said anything about girls in skimpy outfits or girls on bikes..

Ill make it very clear for you...

Theres a beauty pagent in california every month..

Is there a difference between charging a fee for tickets to watch a beauty pagent, and a website that displays THE EXACT SAME CONTENT on a website and charges a monthly fee or a one time ticket sale.

So what exactly is the difference ? the internet is the devil ? everything on the internet is for pedo's ?

Well, apparently unlike you, I do not generally visit those sites, so I don't exactly know what's on them...
However, imo, "fully clothed" also includes what you would see on a random day at the beach or a public pool.

Just for the record i dont agree with beauty pagents either and agree with you holly , but thats not the point .. The point is how you morally police what someone THINKS when they see something..

I'm sorry - and I'm not trying to be an ass - but I agree with Holly, and I think the comparison between the two is silly. To clarify - I think child beauty pageants are bullshit, for all kinds of reasons. But to try and say 15 year old Janey wearing a pair of wet panties with her thumb in her mouth on a non-nude site is the same as a beauty pageant... these are not the same.

Are there similarities? YES. But there are also vast, vast, vast differences, and some of those differences are the ones that are the most important.

yes they do , rich parents put there kids in beauty pagents to win a prize or for notoriety , poor parents put there kids on a website for an hourly wage.. same thing in my opinion.

I have to agree ... that is a very good point.

I have not heard anyone trying to argue that they are the same thing yet ??

One notable difference is that the pedophile can view the website in the comfort of his home whenever he wants. And the entire audience at a pagent isn't there to catch a glimpse of young girls for their own sexual gratification.

Also, a beauty pagent doesn't disply "THE EXACT SAME CONTENT" as a teen model site. I've never been to a beauty pagent, but I don't think they have wet t-shirt contest and I don't think they model in thongs and g-strings either.

I ain't been to any either, but doubt that is the case :1orglaugh

I don't generally visit those sites either, asshole. There have been many threads on this topic in the 2+ years I've been on GFY. The general consensus is that most underaged teen model sites are run exactly like 18+ non-nude sites.