GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Perfection Jeff and his 13/14/15 year old non nude sites. (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=423735)

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. :1orglaugh

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. :)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:02 AM.
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123