Providing Pedo's with content to get off too is not cool. There is no argument here.

My guess is that in quite a few cases (e.g. eastern european and russian sites) the money actually benefits the entire family, including the girls on the sites.

Does it matter who the sites are for? So long as the girls on them aren't harmed in any way, and aren't forced to do anything they don't want to do, I don't think it's all that bad. Disgusting, maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

NO most 15 year old girls do not go to clubs and pretend to be 18. It would be a tiny fraction of them that do.

Maybe the one's you know do, but that dam sure is not most.

I think the general feeling is that even if it doesn't harm the children directly the pervert might get so pumped on the content that he feels the need to molest children that dont have anything to do with the internet..

Its def not a clearly defined MORAL or LEGAL stand..

But the point is DOES JEFF STILL PROMOTE this material , and if so post proof , like the sites , and if he doesnt then let sleeping dogs lie..

IF jeff did promote this material and ccbill actively processed the charges , then why wouldnt you be on ccbill's case ??

MANY many people whether they want to admit it or not have profited from this sort of material right or wrong.. ccbill made money from the processing , but they chose to DISCONTINUE this source of revenue due to moral reasons.. Well it seems to me jeff took the exact same stance.. he realise the material may be harmfull and switched venues EXACTLY the same way ccbill did ..

So if you want to say JEFF HAD NON-NUDE underage girls sites , then you should also point out CCBILL processed NON-NUDE underage girls..

Yes, it's wrong. You don't do that to your children. Period.

Well, I don't actually know any 15 year olds (I tend to hang out with people my own age), but when I was 15, the ones I knew did that. Also, when I go out, I generally see tons of underage girls.

Thank you again. Never had a site that featured an girl under the age of 18 and I never will. I have always proceed with ccbill and the guidlines there are very clear as we as the 2257 document attached to the websites I ran.

I don't think fully clothed 15 year olds on the internet lead to men raping 15 year olds any more than I believe that 18 year olds on the internet lead to men raping 18 year olds.

As for PerfectionJeff... I don't think he ever actually had any underage nude sites. Otherwise, they would have been posted a long, long time ago.

Hey guys, seems I have missed something very important here. Are you talking about perfectioncash.com? Do they have illegal content there? I'm asking this question because PerfectionCash is listed at my FHGStore service: http://www.fhgstore.com/perfectioncash.html

I always thought they are legal. At least the mentioned program was billed by CCBill and I didn't see any underage FHG's in the list (at least the ones listed at fhgstore.com). Thus please tell me exactly the status of PerfectionCash. Should I remove it from FHGStore.com?

Why? Why is it worse to have girls pose fully clothed than to have them grow up in poverty, without the possibility to get a decent education and thus probably without a future?

Also, since men also jack off to clothing catalogues, would it be just as wrong for parents to let their daughters pose for those?

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 ?