Perfection Jeff and his 13/14/15 year old non nude sites. - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psyko514

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.

Im not speaking of "most" teen sites im stating a very clear point.

Im saying EXACT same content because i mean it.. In my example i meant a website with the EXACT same content as a beauty pagent.. lets just say for the sake or agument that the website is actually just raw footage from beauty pagents , so it is EXACTLY the same content.. so the only REAL argument is that the internet is private , but that doesnt really wash either as beauty pagents are taped and can be viewed privately using tivo the exact same way

codymc12 · 01-28-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

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

I think what I'm saying, Smoky, is that the hypothetical you are posing doesn't really exist. Sure, I think in the strictest sense, using your hypothetical, you could say that the two are the same ( beauty pageant in real life, beauty pageant on the web). I might personally disagree with it - but I'd probably hold my tongue.

Non-nude under 18 sites are not in that realm, in reality, though. The reality is extremely provocative content that specifically caters to those looking for that particular thrill. That, I have a problem with.

freeadultcontent · 01-28-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

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.

All the ones I have seen advertised offered cash prizes, cars, scholorships (ok for kids on that), bonds, trips, ect.

I am not a fan of pagents, under age sites, ect either so I am not trying to "justify" them. I just know that since they are legal, I really can not attempt to point at them, since many who think adult content itself is immoral and wrong could just as easily point a finger at me and my legal activities.

On another note, it does seem perfectly fine for many when young teens (15-17) enter into the world of fashion modeling (purely for profit) and it is perfectly ok that they will strut down runways in sheer seethrough material.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psyko514

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.

Seriously, though, you base your opinion on what the "general consensus" on under 18 non nude sites is?

freeadultcontent · 01-28-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psyko514

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.

They do allow people to record at those shows, so I would imagine the show could be as dirty as someone wanted it to be recorded, only to be viewed in the comfort of their own home.

psyko514 · 01-28-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Seriously, though, you base your opinion on what the "general consensus" on under 18 non nude sites is?

It's better than basing my opinion on absolutely nothing like you seem to be doing.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codymc12

I think what I'm saying, Smoky, is that the hypothetical you are posing doesn't really exist. Sure, I think in the strictest sense, using your hypothetical, you could say that the two are the same ( beauty pageant in real life, beauty pageant on the web). I might personally disagree with it - but I'd probably hold my tongue.

Non-nude under 18 sites are not in that realm, in reality, though. The reality is extremely provocative content that specifically caters to those looking for that particular thrill. That, I have a problem with.

actually they do exist

http://www.missteenusa.com/delegates/2004/files/DC.html

and you can buy photo sets from them ..

and there are several other websites with content that graduates from classy to the type of sites people mention above.. pure pedo hangouts.

What im trying to say is the line is drawn in each individuals minds, if i were to comment on a non-nude site i would have to see it first to say it was morally objectionable to me..

Who do you think buys photo sets of 16 year old girls in skimpy attire ?? i dunno , but i dont think www.missteenusa.com is evil by itself , * well actually i havent looked at the entire site , just browsed it to make a point

Holly · 01-28-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

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..

smokey- I'm not talking about policing what someone thinks when they see something. You can't have any control over that. Pedos are going to think sick thoughts about little girls, no matter what the situation or amount of clothing.

Let me say it once again- I'm talking about the parents who *purposely* set up websites and put their kids on them, to profit off of that sickness. That's all I'm talking about. Beauty pageants are different because that is not the intent of them, and it's not what the parent is doing.

codymc12 · 01-28-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

actually they do exist

http://www.missteenusa.com/delegates/2004/files/DC.html

and you can buy photo sets from them ..

and there are several other websites with content that graduates from classy to the type of sites people mention above.. pure pedo hangouts.

What im trying to say is the line is drawn in each individuals minds, if i were to comment on a non-nude site i would have to see it first to say it was morally objectionable to me..

Who do you think buys photo sets of 16 year old girls in skimpy attire ?? i dunno , but i dont think www.missteenusa.com is evil by itself , * well actually i havent looked at the entire site , just browsed it to make a point

Sure, I understand your point. But I don't think missteenusa is in the same league as your average non-nude, under 18 site. That's what I meant re: your hypothetical - you're not really going to see Miss Teen USA in the non-nude, under 18 site market that we're talking about. Why? Because, sadly, it's not going to make enough cash, as it doesn't cater to the pedos enough.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:19 PM

infact that site is a perfect example.. it has 15 year old girls in tight skimpy bathing suits , and sells photo sets of them..

www.missteenusa.com so lets vote , is the site evil ? should it be banned ? would you do business with them . * you might be suprised at the well known advertisers for missteenusa.

My point is , if you offered the same exact site but all the pics were quadruple zoomed in , it would be the same as most teen model sites i have seen ?

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

Let me say it once again- I'm talking about the parents who *purposely* set up websites and put their kids on them, to profit off of that sickness. That's all I'm talking about. Beauty pageants are different because that is not the intent of them, and it's not what the parent is doing.

i hear what your saying but your missing the point..

www.missteenusa.com are those parents bad or good ?

codymc12 · 01-28-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

infact that site is a perfect example.. it has 15 year old girls in tight skimpy bathing suits , and sells photo sets of them..

www.missteenusa.com so lets vote , is the site evil ? should it be banned ? would you do business with them . * you might be suprised at the well known advertisers for missteenusa.

My point is , if you offered the same exact site but all the pics were quadruple zoomed in , it would be the same as most teen model sites i have seen ?

No, I wouldn't do business with them. I think it's deplorable. But... your last sentence:

"My point is , if you offered the same exact site but all the pics were quadruple zoomed in , it would be the same as most teen model sites i have seen ?"

You don't see a world of difference between the two from that simple action? I do - and so there's no misunderstanding, I know where you're coming from, and I'm not calling you a pedo, etc, etc, etc. It's a good point of debate.

Holly · 01-28-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeadultcontent

All the ones I have seen advertised offered cash prizes, cars, scholorships (ok for kids on that), bonds, trips, ect.

I am not a fan of pagents, under age sites, ect either so I am not trying to "justify" them. I just know that since they are legal, I really can not attempt to point at them, since many who think adult content itself is immoral and wrong could just as easily point a finger at me and my legal activities.

On another note, it does seem perfectly fine for many when young teens (15-17) enter into the world of fashion modeling (purely for profit) and it is perfectly ok that they will strut down runways in sheer seethrough material.

When you get to the Teen USA and Miss America level, then yeah, you can win big scholarship money. But trust me on this- parents do *not* profit off beauty pageants. The pageants are set up for one reason only- to line the pockets of the organizers. If you wanna do the pageant thing with your kid you gotta either be rich, have corporate sponsorship, or be willing to mortgage your house. The price of entry fees, dresses, sportswear, etc is enormous, not to mention air fare and hotel/food expenses. Most of the mothers are complete screwballs, too.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codymc12

Sure, I understand your point. But I don't think missteenusa is in the same league as your average non-nude, under 18 site. That's what I meant re: your hypothetical - you're not really going to see Miss Teen USA in the non-nude, under 18 site market that we're talking about. Why? Because, sadly, it's not going to make enough cash, as it doesn't cater to the pedos enough.

but then your only argument is how popular the contest is ?? that doesnt make any sense at all.

and i would beg to differ with you , im sure missteenusa prob sells lots of product.

Infact if you browse around that site , its not far from most teen model sites i see..

What im saying is that line is impossible to draw physically .

Its up to judgement of morals on a site by site basis , anything else leaves way to much leeway.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psyko514

It's better than basing my opinion on absolutely nothing like you seem to be doing.

I base my opinion on logic, actually.

By the way, you sound a bit ticked off

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codymc12

You don't see a world of difference between the two from that simple action? I do - and so there's no misunderstanding, I know where you're coming from, and I'm not calling you a pedo, etc, etc, etc. It's a good point of debate.

i totally see a difference in the two , thats not my point , my point is the line is in your mind.. example..

find a site that you dont object too , then zoom it by 1.000001 then 1.000002 and so on , at some point it becomes objectionable right ?? well how exactly do you make that rule ??

codymc12 · 01-28-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

but then your only argument is how popular the contest is ?? that doesnt make any sense at all.

and i would beg to differ with you , im sure missteenusa prob sells lots of product.

Infact if you browse around that site , its not far from most teen model sites i see..

What im saying is that line is impossible to draw physically .

Its up to judgement of morals on a site by site basis , anything else leaves way to much leeway.

No... my arguement is that one is not as popular as the other because of the extreme difference in intent/provacativeness of the content. More the WHY of the difference in popularity.

The most popular with pedos: full nude, hardcore underage.
Next: Extremely provocative non nude, underage.
Next: Miss Teen USA, lingerie catalogs, etc.

Is the pedo going to jack off to them all? Sure. But there is a difference between where the pedos are going to cluster, in terms of volume, and there's a reason why those differences will exist. The reasons, IMO, contain all the answers from the moral standpoint that I need.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

When you get to the Teen USA and Miss America level, then yeah, you can win big scholarship money. But trust me on this- parents do *not* profit off beauty pageants. The pageants are set up for one reason only- to line the pockets of the organizers. If you wanna do the pageant thing with your kid you gotta either be rich, have corporate sponsorship, or be willing to mortgage your house. The price of entry fees, dresses, sportswear, etc is enormous, not to mention air fare and hotel/food expenses. Most of the mothers are complete screwballs, too.

yes but i think the general point i was trying to make is that rich people get satisfaction from the notoriety etc etc and poor people get satisfaction from the money.. there is no difference. they are both exploiting children for the parents gain, be it money be it popularity, the only way to police it is in your own mind and your own morals on a site to site basis

Holly · 01-28-2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

i hear what your saying but your missing the point..

www.missteenusa.com are those parents bad or good ?

smokey, I don't know what else to say to you. I've explained in almost every post why I think beauty pageants, tv shows, ads, etc. are different. That site was not set up by a parent to charge grown men to look at his/her young daughter. You're talking apples and oranges here. The intent of that site is entirely different that the intent of the parents I'm referring to.

NOW I HAVE TO GO GET A MEATBALL SANDWICH WITH LOTS OF MAYONNAISE FROM SUBWAY OR I AM GOING TO DIE.

freeadultcontent · 01-28-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

NOW I HAVE TO GO GET A MEATBALL SANDWICH WITH LOTS OF MAYONNAISE FROM SUBWAY OR I AM GOING TO DIE.

I think we should debate this, the sheer idea of a meatball sandwhich with mayo sounds morally wrong.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codymc12

No... my arguement is that one is not as popular as the other because of the extreme difference in intent/provacativeness of the content. More the WHY of the difference in popularity.

The most popular with pedos: full nude, hardcore underage.
Next: Extremely provocative non nude, underage.
Next: Miss Teen USA, lingerie catalogs, etc.

Is the pedo going to jack off to them all? Sure. But there is a difference between where the pedos are going to cluster, in terms of volume, and there's a reason why those differences will exist. The reasons, IMO, contain all the answers from the moral standpoint that I need.

grrr my point is , if they banned everything but sears catalog , then pedo's would all be looking at sears catalog right ? so would you stop any relations with anyone working for/with sears ??

so in that list above who would you do/ not do business with ..

codymc12 · 01-28-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

grrr my point is , if they banned everything but sears catalog , then pedo's would all be looking at sears catalog right ? so would you stop any relations with anyone working for/with sears ??

so in that list above who would you do/ not do business with ..

The lingerie cataolog. They are trying to sell lingerie. Every other example is trying to sell the girls.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

smokey, I don't know what else to say to you. I've explained in almost every post why I think beauty pageants, tv shows, ads, etc. are different. That site was not set up by a parent to charge grown men to look at his/her young daughter. You're talking apples and oranges here. The intent of that site is entirely different that the intent of the parents I'm referring to.

NOW I HAVE TO GO GET A MEATBALL SANDWICH WITH LOTS OF MAYONNAISE FROM SUBWAY OR I AM GOING TO DIE.

How bout just answer the question.. are the parents of those children bad ??

They are getting paid cold hard cash for pictures of their children in tight skimpy bathing suits ....

btw subway is a sponsor of missteenusa so i hope you know your promoting children in bathing suits being sold too 70 year old men

lol

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codymc12

The lingerie cataolog. They are trying to sell lingerie. Every other example is trying to sell the girls.

so if i sell clocks , but have pictures of children in bathing suits its ok ??

codymc12 · 01-28-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

so if i sell clocks , but have pictures of children in bathing suits its ok ??

Sorry, Smokey, I'm not on the debate team anymore, trying to chalk up wins. I have too much to do to get into the existentialism of the connection of the sameness of everything.

I have to go eat, so, you win: a clockmaker with pictures of his child in a bathing suit is the same as a lingerie catalog is the same as 15 year old Janey bent over in front of the camera on a non-nude site.

Gotta go - have fun with whoever else still wants to play.

Mr.Fiction · 01-28-2005, 07:47 PM

Lessons from GFY:

Any guy who looks at a 17 year old girl with clothes on is a "pedo".

Anyone who lives in any country where the age of consent is below 18, is a "pedo".

Any girl who is over 18 but who has pigtails or a schoolgirl skirt is promoting "pedo".

GFY is funny.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 07:48 PM

btw let me just remind everyone this thread was about jeff and his websites, and nobody has shown ANY evidence that his sites ever contained ANY non-nude underage girls , so for all we know his sites could have contained 18 year olds in hooded parkas. its pretty clear everyone here agrees that exploitation is bad , and i think everyone also agrees that there are websites that have girls under 18 non-nude that arent bad/sick perverted because of the context they are in , SOOOOOO i think the final breakdown is ,

no site that contains non-nude photo's should be written off without actually seeing the material and rating it against your morals.

Kevsh · 01-28-2005, 08:12 PM

If you are featuring under-18 models on a site that requires credit card access then the conclusion, I think, is very simple: Your customers are all *adults* paying to see photos (nude or not) of under-18 girls. That just sounds wrong, period.

(Compared to teen (18+) sites maybe it doesn't seem so bad, but that's about the only defence, isn't it?)

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevsh

If you are featuring under-18 models on a site that requires credit card access then the conclusion, I think, is very simple: Your customers are all *adults* paying to see photos (nude or not) of under-18 girls. That just sounds wrong, period.

It does , but then you would be pointing the same finger at missteenusa and every sponsor, beauty pagent organizer, yahoo etc etc etc

They all actively sell photo sets of girls aged 15 in tight bathing suits using credit cards , or sell tickets to the beauty pagent the same way using visa/mastercard readily available to signup online.

sherie · 01-28-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

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..

Uhh YES! The parents that put their children in pagents etc., do so because they think they are furthering the childs career (Iin what I do not know) I have seen interviews with parents that believe that they are doing this for their children. However, parents that are putting their children in bathing suits and posing sexually are doing so knowing full well that they are getting money from sick freaking men! There is a difference, one is the parent thinking/believing in their hearts they are doing it for their children (not saying I agree with that sort of thing) and the other is knowing full well they are making money off the backs of their daughters! It's sick and there is no excuse for it at all, morally or legally! And the fact that some can't see that is a tad bit creepy in itself!

Kevsh · 01-28-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

It does , but then you would be pointing the same finger at missteenusa and every sponsor, beauty pagent organizer, yahoo etc etc etc

They all actively sell photo sets of girls aged 15 in tight bathing suits using credit cards , or sell tickets to the beauty pagent the same way using visa/mastercard readily available to signup online.

Personally, I don't think any of it is good ... but your argument (by way of comparison) illustrates my point: I don't think a good defence of anything controversial is to compare it to others that do the same or worse.

We can go on for pages in this thread showing examples of society exploiting under-18's in so many ways: pageants and much more. But does that really adequately defend a pay site where adults sign up to look at under-age girls?
(The old "If they do it, so can I!" argument I think, is weak)

I guess my own belief is there are lines in the sand. A beauty pageant where a component may be a swimsuit competition, to me, isn't something I'd watch or condone but IMO doesn't quite cross the line. Owning/operating a site featuring under 18 girls in non-nude (but presumably sexy or teasing) poses and charging for memberships, again - to me, crosses that line. I don't think it's criminal, but morally, I don't agree.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sherie

------------------
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
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..
---------------------

Uhh YES! The parents that put their children in pagents etc., do so because they think they are furthering the childs career (Iin what I do not know) I have seen interviews with parents that believe that they are doing this for their children. However, parents that are putting their children in bathing suits and posing sexually are doing so knowing full well that they are getting money from sick freaking men! There is a difference, one is the parent thinking/believing in their hearts they are doing it for their children (not saying I agree with that sort of thing) and the other is knowing full well they are making money off the backs of their daughters! It's sick and there is no excuse for it at all, morally or legally! And the fact that some can't see that is a tad bit creepy in itself!

did you just totally not read what you quoted , i urge you to read what you quote , no explanation is needed , your reply speaks for itself, your not paying attention. i agree with most of what you say , but you quoted me comparing 2 oranges , and went on to say how different a banana is from an orange.. it has nothing to do with what you quoted..

I think i made it fairly clear before.. ITS THE SAME CONTENT , SAME CONTEXT, your saying its ok to exploit your children as long as your doing it for something popular ?? i dont quite get your reasoning..

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevsh

Personally, I don't think any of it is good ... but your argument (by way of comparison) illustrates my point: I don't think a good defence of anything controversial is to compare it to others that do the same or worse.

We can go on for pages in this thread showing examples of society exploiting under-18's in so many ways: pageants and much more. But does that really adequately defend a pay site where adults sign up to look at under-age girls?
(The old "If they do it, so can I!" argument I think, is weak)

I guess my own belief is there are lines in the sand. A beauty pageant where a component may be a swimsuit competition, to me, isn't something I'd watch or condone but IMO doesn't quite cross the line. Owning/operating a site featuring under 18 girls in non-nude (but presumably sexy or teasing) poses and charging for memberships, again - to me, crosses that line. I don't think it's criminal, but morally, I don't agree.

I think i just proved that there isnt a line in the sand , theres a line in your MIND that can only be drawn once you have seen it in action , as you very words indicate that the content isn't dangerous by itself only how its shown.

Also in your own words your saying that a beauty pageant is moral as long as its not on the internet .. Thats pretty low thinking dont you think ?

Again i think with all this arguing you will end up agreeing with me by your very own words...

The content itself isnt the question so , making a bland statement like EVERY SITE THAT HAS ANYONE UNDER 18 CLOTHED OR NOT IS IMMORAL. is just not true

When infact i think everyone would agree , that although legal the only way to tell if something is morally wrong i to make your own judgement by viewing the material and either agreeing with it or disagreeing with it.. But to just say anyne who profits from children is immoral is just ignorance and excludes everyone on the planet.

sherie · 01-28-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

did you just totally not read what you quoted , i urge you to read what you quote , no explanation is needed , your reply speaks for itself, your not paying attention. i agree with most of what you say , but you quoted me comparing 2 oranges , and went on to say how different a banana is from an orange.. it has nothing to do with what you quoted..

I think i made it fairly clear before.. ITS THE SAME CONTENT , SAME CONTEXT, your saying its ok to exploit your children as long as your doing it for something popular ?? i dont quite get your reasoning..

Your thought process makes no sense to me, you like to argue for the sake of arguing. You asked if there was a difference and I said yes. I don't believe that it's orange to orange you are compairing, the content is for two totally different reasons. You have heard it from quite a few other people but you just don't want to hear it....have fun, this is getting quite boring, i'll clap with one hand elsewhere.

SureFire · 01-28-2005, 10:41 PM

Parents (and promoters) who make a dime of their children from a paysite should be a shamed and rot in hell.

I doubt that any modeling agency would contact them?.hope the content is smart enough to realize that this when they become of age.

01-28-2005, 07:19 PM	#110
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	infact that site is a perfect example.. it has 15 year old girls in tight skimpy bathing suits , and sells photo sets of them.. www.missteenusa.com so lets vote , is the site evil ? should it be banned ? would you do business with them . * you might be suprised at the well known advertisers for missteenusa. My point is , if you offered the same exact site but all the pics were quadruple zoomed in , it would be the same as most teen model sites i have seen ? __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

01-28-2005, 07:47 PM	#126
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Lessons from GFY: Any guy who looks at a 17 year old girl with clothes on is a "pedo". Anyone who lives in any country where the age of consent is below 18, is a "pedo". Any girl who is over 18 but who has pigtails or a schoolgirl skirt is promoting "pedo". GFY is funny. __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

01-28-2005, 07:48 PM	#127
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	btw let me just remind everyone this thread was about jeff and his websites, and nobody has shown ANY evidence that his sites ever contained ANY non-nude underage girls , so for all we know his sites could have contained 18 year olds in hooded parkas. its pretty clear everyone here agrees that exploitation is bad , and i think everyone also agrees that there are websites that have girls under 18 non-nude that arent bad/sick perverted because of the context they are in , SOOOOOO i think the final breakdown is , no site that contains non-nude photo's should be written off without actually seeing the material and rating it against your morals. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

01-28-2005, 08:12 PM	#128
Kevsh Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: TO Posts: 8,619	If you are featuring under-18 models on a site that requires credit card access then the conclusion, I think, is very simple: Your customers are all adults paying to see photos (nude or not) of under-18 girls. That just sounds wrong, period. (Compared to teen (18+) sites maybe it doesn't seem so bad, but that's about the only defence, isn't it?)

01-28-2005, 10:41 PM	#135
SureFire Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: internet Posts: 4,398	Parents (and promoters) who make a dime of their children from a paysite should be a shamed and rot in hell. I doubt that any modeling agency would contact them?.hope the content is smart enough to realize that this when they become of age.