Interesting. I just noticed something else that "may" prove the same people that run xxl-cash are involved with the BD child sites.

From looking at virginsphotos on archive.org using an archive of theirs of the site when it was listed in bd company (which shows virginsphotos as well as many child sites in their program) I have noticed some similarities that can't just be a coincidence.

On the virginsphotos current site:

All The Material posted on VirginsPhotos is copyrighted.
The models are 18 or older
18 U.S.C. 2257 Statement
Privacy Policy

No part of this website can be copied without our permission!

On archive.org's version of virginsphotos:

All The Material posted on Virgins Photos is copyrighted.

All The Models Are At Least 18 Years Old!
No part of this website can be copied without our permission!

How often do two separate people use the same wording in their end statement?

i checked some of the sites and i didnt expect they were really underage.... fuck that

brutal man.

bum for the Friday crew

nothing i seen so far in this thread, changes my oppinion..

the hosting company should pull this off or they will be in big trouble. :321GFY

And The Picture?

holy shit....I really hope somebody takes care of this sick freaking pedos...

He is still here...

The just ignore these issues. Unbeliebvable. And they are still trying to do more business here.

Regardless if it's legal or not, the issue is that they are catering to sick fucks that like children and that is wrong regardless of how you look at it!

Many folks claim to be advocates of free speech and then get upset when they see such "art" sites.

While such sites offend many people, so does the content of most adult sites - censorship is a slippery slope ...

Going to digress a bit - how come such "art" sites offends so many here and yet images on consumptionjunction.com, ogrish.com, and rotten.com don't?

Often the argument is put forward that the possession of a picture showing a crime, in particular child porn, itself is a crime - if so, then why aren't the many pictures depicting beheadings, shootings, etc shown on the three above mentioned sites illegal too?

Of course the simple answer is "morals" ... and that's opens a pandara box of questions ... so while it's understandable for many folks to dislike "art" sites, going after them too hard leads to situations in which law-abidding adult site operators can be targeted too, such as depicting *age 18+* models as appearing to be younger; merely implying they are younger and/or depicting them in certain types of scenes, such as cheerleader practice, has become risky ... and to reiterate I'm speaking of age 18+ models!

I'm not saying such "art" content is desirable, but folks concerned about freedom of speech (everyone in this business should be!) need to be wary of overreaction.

Lastly, to be clear, I agree with many others here in that "art" sites are certainly something that should NOT be associated with GFY, since this is not an "art" discussion site :error

Ron

don't think that sites with underage model posing nude in sexual exoplicit poses has anything to do with art :mad:

You seem confused, nobody is talking about 18+ models dressed to look younger, we're referring to sites with 8-14 yr nude boys and girls in sexual poses modeled under the veil of "art". I see no correlation in your analogy trying to compare the offensiveness of violent and gross pictures on mainstream sites with this underage nudity.

I just viewed the tour thumbs on the schoolpassion.com page ... or is there another site you're referring to?

There does NOT appear, at least in the tour thumbs, to be any clear-cut child porn pics.

With that said, some of the tour pics are legally borderline in that they could be interpreted different ways ... "thought-crime" comes to mind ... for example many nudism pictures could easily be considered illegal child porn and legal art at the same time!

Don't think so ... zap on over to Amazon.com / bd.com and search for nudism ... some very controversal stuff there, including a few that have been the focus of court cases.

Ultimately the legality simply comes down to intent of the *viewer* ... wow, that's scary quite really for that logic can and does to a lesser extent apply to *adult* porn as well - anyone doubting that need only look at the terms and conditions (TOS) of many adult sites that restrict access to content/purchase based on one's location ... and an aspect of local community standards is "intent" of the viewer.

Many folks here think this stuff is all cut and dry; certainly would like to have it that way ... but the reality just isn't that simple.

Lastly, to follow-up on lazycash's other point ... lasycash's comment "I see no correlation in your analogy trying to compare the offensiveness of violent and gross pictures on mainstream sites with this underage nudity" was exactly the type of comment I'd expected - so torture, murder, guts and gore, etc are all ok? Difficult to have one without the other - to think they're different issues reiterates that strong moral feelings is what's driving much of this discussion - not saying that's wrong, but keep in mind that strong morals feelings also apply to adult porn business too - many of the laws used against child porn, while to some extent helping to protect childrem, are mainly designed to control adult porn; make it more difficult for adults to obtain - and anyone doubting that, just look at the TOS of any decent adult site ... the amount of regulations of what one can show or not show (talking adults!) has greatly increased since the mid 80s; folks working in this business a long time are quite familiar with the dramatic restrictions placed on content these days ... there's even a whole side business of selling adult content prior to the mid 80s/early 90s.

Weew, really covered a lot of groud there ... guess the point is, again, that strong feelings is understandable, but overreaction can be far worse in the longrun for the industry and personal freedom; natural human rights.

Ron

bump for Saturday

if it's legal why is there no such site operating fully legit under US law, with US postal adress, US payment processor, etc .. ?

Where is the child porn on schoolpassion.com?

Dont get me wrong, usually if Russians are involved on the internet something dodgy is going on but i simply dont see cp on that site.

Exactly :2 cents:


Ivy

"soft CP" (children posing nude, but not sexually explicit) is only art for some people ...

holy shit what a crackhead

the links to the real sick shit has been removed - you dont have to look very far to see it tho - def underage - avoid like the plague people

Technically if there's no sexual hints or poses then yes, though if the girls are pre-pubecent then you're only catering to one crowd, which has arguments for and against providing such content, safety of the individuals, though also exploitation comes to mind.

Matt

This is some fucked up shit. This is art? I am not going to go into this right now.

Yes, http://www.xxl-cash.com seems approved by ASACP and it is billed by CCBill. That's why I have listed their program at FHGStore.com. However if they are really involved into this shit, I'm going to remove their program ASAP. The only one thing is not clear for now. Is the mentioned CP-site REALLY belongs to xxl-cash.com, so somebody just used their info to registed the domain. I wanna see the explanation from xxl-cahs right here! :mad:

Ukraine is NOT Russia, as well as Columbia is NOT the USA.

Why Do you think that xxl-cash is underage site ?
I just sighned all models look legal ...
also I have seen there fhg at all big sites youngerbabes for example ....and see galleries with there content at al4a.com, thehun .....

i would like to see their explanation as well ... :mad:

nobody said that the xxl-cash sites are underage. they just seem to own "nude underage" sites as well ... :mad:

Another nazi moron here??? http://www.gofuckyourself.com/images...es/NEW/321.gif

and the beat goes on....

Yes Ukraine is NOT Russia like German is not Brazil

...uhm did you just brainfart?
:error

Parents taking naked pictures of their kids in bathtubs have been brought up for prosecution here in the good ol U.S of A. Any of you fucks that defend this crap are sick perverts. :disgust

No, I'm "just" Russian.

I doubt anyone will defend such a shit at all (here or somewhere else).

Does anybody still doubt that XXL Cash owns this Nude Underage "Art" Sites?

Oh.. i feel sorry for you.. i havent got anything against russians in general - just a simple fact that many cracks, hacks, vira, domain stealing etc. seem to be coming from Russia and old east block countries.

Personally I'd like to see their response. However I have to note that all their sites (icluding the "art" one) have a similar design. It's only IMHO of a professional webdesigner but nothing else. I can't claim anyone without a clear evidence...

P.S. Just removed xxl-chash from FHGStore.com till thi issues will be finally clarified.

A couple of people on here already said "though i would never do it, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it"