CC Bill and These Non Nude Pedophiles - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

s9ann0 · 04-09-2002, 11:09 AM

I stick to shagging my dialer

cherrylula · 04-09-2002, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scootermuze
The FBI has gotten involved in the way that these sites are being promoted.. They say they are "modeling" sites established to promote thier models, yet are being promoted on adult sites, or sites other than modeling sites. The feds have a problem with this..

EXACTLY! Now when mainstream youth corporations begin to promote these teen fashion sites, perhaps that would change things.
Personally, I don't agree with the likes of Ms. Spears saying something like (not a direct quote) "i just dress this way to perform, and i don't think i have to take responsibility for it as a role model if young girls want to imitate me." And I think I am probably correct in saying that most of Britney's sales are from teen girls. Her albums and crap are not for sale at LE SEX SHOPPE, thats for sure. And we all know that 99.99% of TEEN girls do NOT own credit cards or join paysites.
I guess ccbill and ibill better get their $$$ while they can on this issue.... I do not support it at all and hope that visa thinks about taking action over this opposed to some crap like not processing for bestiality. I figure shit like this won't go on for much longer with all the assholes getting thrown in jail lately.

Kimmykim · 04-09-2002, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cherrylula

I do not support it at all and hope that visa thinks about taking action over this opposed to some crap like not processing for bestiality.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way cherrylula. Either you want Visa to take action against sites that are legal, up to and including not processing for your site, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think anyone here has said they particularly like the things that Visa dumped, the issue has always been where they started and where they might stop. Or not stop.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Not going to be a debate this time Labret, at least not as far as I am concerned.

Regardless of anyone on this boards personal feelings about these sites, the bottom line is that as defined under federal law, they are legal. Customs has looked at these sites and has no issue with them at all.

Our TOS clearly states that anyone under the age of 18 without their clothes on is not something we process for. Our TOS does not prohibit clothed people of any age in single person shots.

On a personal level, I'm not too sure about the parents of these kids, but then again I wouldn't allow my son to be in the average Calvin Klein ad, which is neither here nor there in the matter.

As far as attacking CCBill, I'm so used to it, it really doesn't bother me one bit. We've dumped sites that are legal in the past, we've complied entirely with Visa regulations, hell, we even canned the beastie entirely -- unlike some processors who'll do the charges with everything BUT Visa, or the ones that are trying to get Visa to allow them to continue to process the fake beastie sites. But no, the bitching goes on... and on... yet the people that scream the loudest keep right on cashing the checks we send them every week.

That last part isn't really directed at anyone in particular keep in mind, just a musing on my part...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We even canned the beastie sites..."

Judging by US regulations you shouldnt have been processing for them in the first place...

I can careless about your debate with Labret or however many times you have had to deal with this. This has to do with my personal use of services by a company who hides behind fashiopn along side these fuckling pedophiles...

Ask yourself this.... who is paying to see these sites?

Ask yourself... are these images the same as a commercial?

Ask yourself... why the emphasis on the girls age? These people brag about the girls being 13, they put big flashing age categories of 14, 15,. 16... if this was just fashion, why so much focus on the girls age?

Also if this was fashion, why no contact to get the girls to be able to mdoel, you overlook all OTHER codes used to define CP, my bet is CC Bill doesnt have a fucking clue what CP is... they need to attend a forum on it, as someone erlier said,.. thats onle ONE of the things used to determine CP.

Ask yourself... why do they NEED to let you know the girls are undr 18 ie up2017-fashion.net

Then think about the parent who most liekly dont know what the pics are being used for, havent you seen the news lately?

I bet if CC Bill would ask these people for Parental Permission slips for these 14 year old girls they dont have them.

So thinking about whos paying to watch them, why they constantly focus on"shes 14..." and the URLs obvious "up-2-17, looks to me like some serious underage suggestions...

Thyere are many variables in decoding what CP is... unfortunealt CC Bill must let the $ cloud this formula.

oh one more thing.... when we started doing "non nude" it wasnt teen. I have been a hard player in the NON HARDCORE adult scene... my girlfriends amateur site which uses CC Bill is NOT HARDCORE,... mostly NOn Nude, but its not teen...

Non nude has been around for years... its not "Non nude" thats wrong, its when people house galleries of 14 year old girls in hotels, hiding behind the "shes not nude" line.

You cant brush this off, im alredy talking to the host.

If I cant get what I want through CC Bill, then i shall through the host...

One day youll regret not taking a stance against this now.

I havent read all the posts since I started this... I have calmed down but now I seem to be getting pissed again... so to everyone I apololgize, but this shit is fucking with me, now I see they will only try to brush it off...

Kimmy dont you have a son? Maybe he'll get tricked into doing a couple photo shoots for a company that does "jeans" commercials and then maybe CC Bill can proces the site...

"up2-17boys-in-jeans.com"

because like it or not, thats how these sites operate, by trickery.

Yeah... sorry to be personal, but just using an example... people that let this go... need a little example to reassure them ...

kmanrox · 04-09-2002, 02:03 PM

why bother arguing with her, they condone sick pedophile shit, can she be any more blatently clear?

damn

disclaimer: the above is in jest and not to be taken seriously

(kinda)

cherrylula · 04-09-2002, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat
For fucks sake...

These are fully clothed teenagers - GET A FUCKIN GRIP.
Even if they were naked they are not going to be classed as porn - no sexually provacative poses.

I'm a pedo now just because I think a 16 yo is pretty? (seeing as it's completely legal for me to marry a 16 yo - you can go and get fucked right there)

(spelling edit)

No, but when you use your credit card to join a paysite with teenage girls posing provacatively and proceed to jerk off and fantasize about fucking them, its a little different. I agree its not necessarily "porn" because there is much skin on tv alone and that's not "porn," but where are they marketing these teen sites, and what type of people are joining, huh?

Yes fantasies are okay, but I do think that these teen fashion sites are giving the wrong message. Although "mandy" age 14 might LOOK like she wants to get fucked in her pictures, in all honesty she probably does not realize this and probably does not realize the message she is getting across to the pervs who are joining.

I'm a chick, I like to dress sexy and look cute, but at the same time there are guys out there who assume that because you dress a certain way you are sending out a certain message. I might pose nude online, but I sure as fuck don't walk around innappropriate places in sexy clothing giving guys the wrong idea..... I don't think there has been any instance of a judge letting a sex offender go because the victim was dressed in a short skirt and "she wanted to get fucked"

My point: Let kids be kids. Its wrong to exploit children like this, clothed or not. If a guy needs to jerk off to little girls, I am sure he won't have a problem doing so.... BUT DONT FUEL THE FIRE. In some countries there are cultural differences and some things are accepted differently. That is understandable. But how would you feel if your 15 year old daughter was paid a couple hundred bucks and then exploited on a teen fashion site?? I sure as hell would not allow it. For fucks sake, get her some singing lessons and enter her in star search or some shit..... sex sells but keep things in their proper place. And it is all cause and effect... maybe people really do need to boycott certain things to help stop this CP crap. Sooner or later the shit's really going to hit the fan.

Minors and porn DONT MIX.

Warphead · 04-09-2002, 02:06 PM

I'm with Fletch morally, if I was a processor I wouldn't do business with a site like this. Marijuana is illegal because they say it leads to other drugs, I wonder what this leads to.

but I don't think it should be illegal. Nothing is more dangerous than legislated morality in my opinion. Especially when you consider our business.

In a perfect world (or a non-shitty world) parents wouldn't allow their children to pose on a site like this. Didja read that article in AVN about these sites, it was the parents that made my stomach turn.

But then, hundreds of sick fuckers dress their 8 year-old daughters up like hookers and call it a beauty pagent and nobody raises an eyebrow. Jon-benet anyone?

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 02:10 PM

Kman, hahaha I have learned one thing for sure over the years... never argue with a woman... and 2, youre even dumber if you try to argue with a woman on a msg board hahaha...

Im not really arguing, hope Kimmy sdoesnt percieve it as such... im mroe thinking outloud while I focus on the real attack on these fuckers. (up2-17 and the likes)

Its cool Kimmy, no need to argue. Your point has been we understand totally how CC Bill works and what it supports.

Sorry to hear this...

Moerw or less thinking outloud.

Dualcpu · 04-09-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

That seems to be the way laymen use it, but actually the term "pedophile" is misused quite a bit around here and elsewhere. The technical psychological term refers to an interest in prepubescent children only. This does not imply that having sex with someone under 18 (or photographing them, either) is okay, because the law obviously needs to make distinctions, however arbitrary (in some European countries, for example, the age of consent remains 16, not 18).

I am just saying that that is how most people would label a 20 year old looking at nude pictures of 15 year old girls.

cherrylula · 04-09-2002, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way cherrylula. Either you want Visa to take action against sites that are legal, up to and including not processing for your site, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think anyone here has said they particularly like the things that Visa dumped, the issue has always been where they started and where they might stop. Or not stop.

I hear ya KK, but I'm a little confused.....? Okay so maybe you're saying that all porn sites are illegal including mine? Never thought about that... I just figured that what I am doing with my site is legal because well, I don't break any laws that I know of. But I suppose pornography is technically illegal/obscene and that is what you mean.

I will also add that there are a LOT of things in this industry that personally I do not endorse, yet I recognize the fact that they are legal practices and thats the way it goes (as in girls who don't read the fine print). I often hold back and refrain from even giving my opinion in these matters because it is out of place and does not matter.
However, if these non-nude teen sites are legal, then uh why was that guy arrested? THAT is what makes me nervous.

But hey, I do understand business and well, business is business. Ccbill really doesn't owe anyone an explanation on this.... but perhaps these incidences can help us to define a better understanding of what works and what does NOT work for this industry. Maybe that guy really is a good person, and thought he was doing something perfectly legal with all the right intentions..... he was obviously using services from big companies who did not see any wrong in what he was doing, but BAM! arrested. And now even if this guy was in church every sunday and a good citizen, because of the blurry, undefined niche he was selling his life is pretty much done.

The sad part is that the judge who's gonna throw the book at him probably jerks off to dogs and frequents the yahoo teen chat rooms.

Damn its an ugly world. Who's to blame?

Paul -C- · 04-09-2002, 02:27 PM

In the UK it's legal for a 16 year old girl to be topless in a newspaper, so long as she has written consent from her parents.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 02:29 PM

Just to prove my point even further...

Heres a pic.

Think about this being legal, and think of what this leads to.

<img src=http://superbooger.com/she14.jpg>

Now since this is legal its okay right? She's 14, her mommy said it was okay, and the guy with the camera gave her 100 bucks more than shes ever seen in her life, shes only 14, very naive, easy to please....

<img src=http://superbooger.com/she14.jpg>

Imagine it... "Oh youre so good at this.... hehehe go girl get wild... just pose how you want... be free... yeah take this off,... slide this over..... oh there you are.... youre gonna go far.... wow youre a dreamgirl."

Meanwhile click click click taking pictures,... now they end up on the net, gee I wonder if her mom would sign this now.

This is just a little visual to think about when anyone defends these types of sites. This is NOT a Britney commercial, or a sexy Tabacco ad,... this my friend is a young girl being paid to pose in a sexually provactive way. at least in my opinion hahaha

heymatty · 04-09-2002, 02:39 PM

fletch, how do you make that picture illegal?

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 02:42 PM

One could also think about the ways these sites are promoted.

A sexy cigarette ad or something is designed to sell cigs or sell whatever they are selling.

Whats the above pic selling?

If these are models wheres the contact info for them so they can be used to model?

And most importanly, what is she modeling, a 2 piece? Every girl on the site is modeling panties and bikinis... hmm...

Also - whats that look in her eyes? Shes 14 - did the camera guy tell her too look that way? Pouty and teen like? You bet your ass he did.

I worked on porn sets for 5 years, I know exactly what guys do to "get the shot."

I have seen a girl get an extra 500 bucks to take it in the ass, when she showed up for a blowjob scene and nothig more, but was talked into more. Sure its her fault, not comparing the two directly, but this is a minor who has NO SAY SO on what her body is used for or her pics. Again, shes 14.

Sleep well... be glad its not your daughter these guys are exploiting.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by heymatty
fletch, how do you make that picture illegal?

gee could it be that she is being paid to cover up her bikini so it looks as if she doesnt have on panties or a bikini bottom, and shes 14.

Maybe its personal opinion. This whole thread seems to be nothing more than personal opinion.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 02:47 PM

Fact is - if this was totally legal I wouldnt have gotten the owner to change his front page over night would i?

The fucker is scared, he knows Im coming, I am.... ill bring that fucker down ... me and Cilantro.

and Cilantro
<img src=http://superbooger.com/cilantro.jpg

its amazing what professional emails can do nowadays.

hahahaha

Rip · 04-09-2002, 02:50 PM

I think this is an important discussion, but a much bigger issue

I ask, how is this different than the teen underwear section in say your sears catalogue?

Well, I suppose that they don't charge money for membership...

But then what is different from teen fashion magazines?

They cost money and blatently display rather provocative under eighteen girls?

Every major city has it's "kiddie stroll" where underage prostitutes serve the general public, and you can bet that the john's don't ask "are you sure that your legal age" before dropping a c note or whatever

So then one might pose the argument is it better for a member of one of these sites to jack off to the non nude pictures, rather than go on a date with a 14 year old hooker?

Rip · 04-09-2002, 02:54 PM

I guess in a way the girls' parents are probably pimps too aren't they?

I wonder how much money they got paid? I guess it probably went for a bag of weed, couple cases of beer, and a carton of cigs?

I can't think of parents that weren't addicted to drugs signing a release for their child to be photographed that way...

Kat - Fast · 04-09-2002, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rip
I ask, how is this different than the teen underwear section in say your sears catalogue?
But then what is different from teen fashion magazines?

They cost money and blatently display rather provocative under eighteen girls?

So then one might pose the argument is it better for a member of one of these sites to jack off to the non nude pictures, rather than go on a date with a 14 year old hooker?

I have always used these arguments...

What is wrong with you Fletch? What happens when The Right Honourable Reverend of Fucknut County sees one of your sites?
He's going to say 'Hey this webmaster is breaking no laws, I don't have a problem with seeing 20 yo girls being anally fisted'?
I don't fuckin think so...
So, by you passing your own moral judgement on this non-nude site and trying to get it shut down, you are saying it's ok for some altar-boy fiddler to do the same to you.

Get a fuckin grip. Your target isn't breaking the law and nor are you with your site (I assume) so live and let live - until the law changes...

Rip · 04-09-2002, 03:14 PM

Not to confuse where I stand... but there is little if any difference between a site like lil amber (non nude) and any under 18 softcore site (nude)

If anything many people find clothed and semi clothed sites more erotic than say a nudist site

That being said... there is no doubt what these sites are selling

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat

I have always used these arguments...

What is wrong with you Fletch? What happens when The Right Honourable Reverend of Fucknut County sees one of your sites?
He's going to say 'Hey this webmaster is breaking no laws, I don't have a problem with seeing 20 yo girls being anally fisted'?
I don't fuckin think so...

Get a fuckin grip. Your target isn't breaking the law and nor are you with your site (I assume) so live and let live - until the law changes...

I dont do fisting or anal sites, from what I know here in So Cal fisting is illegal. SO that hypothetical situation is null.

Your stereotypes in your post only lead me to believe the entire post is hypothetically invalid.

---------So, by you passing your own moral judgement on this non-nude site and trying to get it shut down, you are saying it's ok for some altar-boy fiddler to do the same to you.-------

My own moral judgement seems to differ from most, maybe youer the guy jerking off to pics like this?

I got a grip man.

Go join the up2-17 affiliate program... better yet go join the up2-17 Yahoo group... hang around the people who horde these pics and tell me, are they of charachter like you and i, or are the sick fucks? I dare you to go sign up for the Yahoo group and mingle with em, icq em, trade soem photos and see what you get.

Check out the bookmarks for the up2-17 net Yahoo group youll see what this is really about... in the group is where you get access to 6-12 year old girls.

Thats why I am pissed. Investigate before you tell me to chill.

6-12 year olds man, and they use the up-17 way to feed this. Its a big circle, you think up2-17 is the beginning of the chain? think again.

cherrylula · 04-09-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rip
I think this is an important discussion, but a much bigger issue

I ask, how is this different than the teen underwear section in say your sears catalogue?

Well, I suppose that they don't charge money for membership...

But then what is different from teen fashion magazines?

They cost money and blatently display rather provocative under eighteen girls?

So then one might pose the argument is it better for a member of one of these sites to jack off to the non nude pictures, rather than go on a date with a 14 year old hooker?

The difference is that you can't stroll to your neighborhood porn store and get a copy of the SEARS catalog.

If these non-nude sites advertised and marketed their product in a different manner and stayed the hell away from the adult sections of the net, then perhaps they would be perceived differently. Sure, its perfectly legal, but they are taking advantage of some legalities that are yet to be strictly defined and getting away with peddling their "non-nude teenie fashion" sites to adult men who make up the majority of porn net surfers.

THAT is the difference. You can't prevent people from looking at little girls, its the context in which it is done. I really don't care because what is going to happen is the LAW is going to make this decision for us all..... hence the arrests that have occured.

I'll say it again..... if non nude sites as such are legal, then can somebody give me a clear definition of why that guy was arrested.....?? Pretty disturbing.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 03:28 PM

I could also add that on the page with the 6-12 year old girls they pop a banner for "password trading" to pay sites,... so what are they getting to here?

Lets trade passwords for Adult Paysites but this is only teen models, non nude and its legal, yeah okay...

The sites themselves might not be illegal, its how they promote them, and where their traffic comes from that should scare you.

FATPad · 04-09-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rip

I ask, how is this different than the teen underwear section in say your sears catalogue?

The underwear section in the Sears catalog isn't promoted on porn sites as a way to leer at underage girls and get your rocks off in the privacy of your own computer room without anyone being able to know.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 03:36 PM

FatPAD, exactly - not to lite another fuse here, but Sears doesnt promote "browser washers" to clear your cache so you dont get busted like these guys do.

FATPad · 04-09-2002, 03:42 PM

p.s.

If I chop out all the pics of the Sears teen underwear catalog, thumbnail them, put them in galleries on a site called TrueTeenSluts, promote them on The Hun or Thumbzilla or SuperDuperTeensTGP as "Real teen sluts in underwear", place all the emphasis on their "young, nubile bodies", charge $39.99 a month to look at my teens in underwear collection, and never ever sell a single pair of underwear and don't even have any in stock, I'm quite different from the Sear's catalog, even though I'm using the very same pics.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad
p.s.

If I chop out all the pics of the Sears teen underwear catalog, thumbnail them, put them in galleries on a site called TrueTeenSluts, promote them on The Hun or Thumbzilla or SuperDuperTeensTGP as "Real teen sluts in underwear", place all the emphasis on their "young, nubile bodies", charge $39.99 a month to look at my teens in underwear collection, and never ever sell a single pair of underwear and don't even have any in stock, I'm quite different from the Sear's catalog, even though I'm using the very same pics.

Lets not forget make banners with each girls face and put their age in flashing letters on the banners - the way I found this site was a banner that had a picture of the same girl above, her model name is Gabby.

The fucking banner had "Gabby - 13 years old" teen model shit my ass.

They focus on the age too much for this to be legal, thats what they sell - they sell the fact that she is 13 and in bikini nothing more.

UnseenWorld · 04-09-2002, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dualcpu

I am just saying that that is how most people would label a 20 year old looking at nude pictures of 15 year old girls.

I don't believe in perpetuating misconceptions by repeating them, that's all. Lusting after a 15 year old isn't good, but it isn't pedophilia. Lusting after a 11 year old is a different story.

SleazyDream · 04-09-2002, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
guys, you may not like it but if they aren't breaking the law, back off.
do you understand that there is a whole 'nother group of people out there saying,"that 21 yr old is sitting there with her legs spread wide open just for some perverts enjoyment! they should be shut down and the CC processor should be put out of business"

get it?
if its illegal, the law will take care of it. if its not, shut up.

there's a difference between what's legal and what someone does. It's called integrity.

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:08 PM

I'm thinking that if fletch xxx didn't get wood looking at these pics, he wouldn't have so many posts in this thread.
Since he has a problem with a perfectly legal CC processor providing a service to a perfectly legal site, I'd say he must really have a compulsion to keep the talk about this stuff going.

He'll probably use his *fight* against these sites to *research* every one of these damn sites.

Quote:

Originally posted by SleazyDream

there's a difference between what's legal and what someone does. It's called integrity.

No, there's a diference between running a TGP out of your bedroom and understanding the law. Its called intelligence.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 06:14 PM

Your opinion again, could be considered utterly fucking worthless in this thread.

12click your calling me a pedophile in obscure ways will never be forgotten, you just fucked yourself.

SleazyDream · 04-09-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Not going to be a debate this time Labret, at least not as far as I am concerned.

Regardless of anyone on this boards personal feelings about these sites, the bottom line is that as defined under federal law, they are legal. Customs has looked at these sites and has no issue with them at all.

Our TOS clearly states that anyone under the age of 18 without their clothes on is not something we process for. Our TOS does not prohibit clothed people of any age in single person shots.

On a personal level, I'm not too sure about the parents of these kids, but then again I wouldn't allow my son to be in the average Calvin Klein ad, which is neither here nor there in the matter.

As far as attacking CCBill, I'm so used to it, it really doesn't bother me one bit. We've dumped sites that are legal in the past, we've complied entirely with Visa regulations, hell, we even canned the beastie entirely -- unlike some processors who'll do the charges with everything BUT Visa, or the ones that are trying to get Visa to allow them to continue to process the fake beastie sites. But no, the bitching goes on... and on... yet the people that scream the loudest keep right on cashing the checks we send them every week.

That last part isn't really directed at anyone in particular keep in mind, just a musing on my part...

Legality and integrity are two different things. And passing the buck to visa isn't exactly standing up for yourself. If you know something is WRONG but still do it only becasue there isn't a law against it then there is a serious character flaw there.

There's nothing illegal about saying Osama Bib Laten is a hero and someone to admire. It's WRONG though....

If YOU think there is NOTHING wrong with these sites then that's ok, but doing it and not feeling quite right about it (especially with the hint of child porn all around this topic and one person already convicted on it) makes you nothing less than a cheap whore - something that's legal in many places.

Just my two cents worth on the topic. Feel free to cut me up on that opinion as most ususally do when I speak up..........

SleazyDream · 04-09-2002, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

No, there's a diference between running a TGP out of your bedroom and understanding the law. Its called intelligence.

Why is it when a topic scares you that you avoid it and make personal attacks? Think about what I said and answer again if you have the courage within you to deal with the REAL issue here. You're capable of soo much more yet sooo often you fall down to the lowest common denomator.

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SleazyDream

Legality and integrity are two different things. And passing the buck to visa isn't exactly standing up for yourself. If you know something is WRONG but still do it only becasue there isn't a law against it then there is a serious character flaw there.

hey dopey, plenty of people think BJ pics, anal sex, and group sex are wrong too. (damn, I hate spelling out the obvious to the stupid) You draw the line where the law draws the line, you're fine. Anything else is hypocritical when dripping out of the mouth of a TGPer like yourself who links to plenty of things other people think are wrong.

of course you still won't understand.

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SleazyDream

You're capable of soo much more yet sooo often you fall down to the lowest common denomator.

unfortunately, the lowest common denomator is generally you.
I suggest that *you* go back and re-read what *I* wrote.

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SleazyDream

Why is it when a topic scares you that you avoid it and make personal attacks?

Yeah, this topic and your ability to wield your scary intelligence is scaring me to death.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

unfortunately, the lowest common denomator is generally you.
I suggest that *you* go back and re-read what *I* wrote.

I suggest you reread what I wrote and shut the fuck up.

Youre calling me a fucking pedphile here in public, claiming I use this to get off.

Sorry buddy if you only knew.

FATPad · 04-09-2002, 06:26 PM

Well, it's no longer surprising to me why the media constantly portrays all pornographers as KP peddlers and beasty sellers.

Half the industry vocally supports the rights to exist of sites like that. Why would anyone think any different?

SleazyDream · 04-09-2002, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

Yeah, this topic and your ability to wield your scary intelligence is scaring me to death.

same thing again. avoiding the issue.

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

Sorry buddy if you only knew.

I'm never wrong. ask around.

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
I'm thinking that if fletch xxx didn't get wood looking at these pics, he wouldn't have so many posts in this thread.
Since he has a problem with a perfectly legal CC processor providing a service to a perfectly legal site, I'd say he must really have a compulsion to keep the talk about this stuff going.

He'll probably use his *fight* against these sites to *research* every one of these damn sites.

My problem is with a site who has a Yahoo group with links to 6-12 tear old girls.

The Yahoo group has 3k of members. Pic traders. Password traders.

This site is fueling CP and is also traffic for up2-17 you tell me whats wrong here?

Fletch XXX · 04-09-2002, 06:30 PM

FatPad - man you nailed it.

cherrylula · 04-09-2002, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
I'm thinking that if fletch xxx didn't get wood looking at these pics, he wouldn't have so many posts in this thread.
Since he has a problem with a perfectly legal CC processor providing a service to a perfectly legal site, I'd say he must really have a compulsion to keep the talk about this stuff going.

He'll probably use his *fight* against these sites to *research* every one of these damn sites.

I sit in a room next to Fletch 15 hours a day and can vouch that what you are saying is NOT the case. Maybe you shouldn't "think" so much. Being his girlfriend of five years, and an adult, I take offense to your statement that my man jerks off to CP.

SleazyDream · 04-09-2002, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

hey dopey, plenty of people think BJ pics, anal sex, and group sex are wrong too. (damn, I hate spelling out the obvious to the stupid) You draw the line where the law draws the line, you're fine. Anything else is hypocritical when dripping out of the mouth of a TGPer like yourself who links to plenty of things other people think are wrong.

of course you still won't understand.

Basis of what I'm saying is if YOU know something is wrong yet continue to do it. If YOU don't think there is anything wring with iths quazy chirld porn stuff power to ya, but if you DO think there is something wrong with it yet still take this stance then there is something seriously wrong with you.

example: I won't touch fake rape scenes, nothing illegial about them but I just don't feel right about them so I wont' touch it. Just a matter of my personal integrity and sense of right and wrong.

Are you saying you're fine with pushing the line on child porn as close as you POSSIBLY can to the limit the law will allow or do you have any sense of personal right and wrong in acceptable business tactics?

drunkmonkey · 04-09-2002, 06:33 PM

I had sex when I was 14 with a college girl who was 20. According to law, she committed a heinous act of child molestation and should be charged with a felony and sent to prison. That is what the LAW says, I, on the other hand, would like to send her a great big THANK YOU, BABE. YOU ROCKED MY WORLD! I was a horny punk (as most teens are) and am very thankful for her "molestation".

I have a swedish friend who enlightened me to the fact that America has a serious problem with sex. My friend was 16 at the time and was very sexually active. Fantastic girl who was mature past her years. She pointed out to me that Americans glorify violence yet condem sex. It is okay for a child to watch people getting blown to bits yet they cannot watch people having sex.

I do not believe in morals and, frankly, do not have any that I know of. I live by the notion that as long as I hurt no one, everything is okay. I think laws that are based on morals are very rediculous. Laws, such as the seatbelt law, helmet law, drug laws, etc. are all laws designed by moralistic people who think that they are protecting me from MYSELF.

If these sites are FORCING the girls to do whatever then it must stop. Everyone should have freedom of choice. However, unless anyone is being hurt, then all is good.

My grandmother told me years ago some wisdom that is very applicable to everday life. She said: People see problems in others what they themselves have a problem with. I have seen it so many times with, for instance, a guy who accusses his girlfriend of being unfaithful because HE is sleeping around.

There is much that could be said about all of this but I will save it for future posts. I know I hate to read these long ass posts myself

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SleazyDream

same thing again. avoiding the issue.

sorry dopey. legal is legal. its that simple. anything else makes you pornographers hypocrites.

I don't like these non-nude sites. I also don't like the asian sites where every pic and movie has the chick acting like she's in pain.
its simulated rape, nothing more.
The law finds the asian sites legal. Who am I to decide otherwise and call their processor on it?

And who are you pornographers to decide that you know better than the law?

That will be the third time I've explained my position yet sleazboy and a few others can't say anything but, "the law doesn't matter"

if it bothers you that much, change your processor.

(just as I don't promote asian sites, lets see you put your money where your mouth is, it will at least give you a shred of credibility)

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cherrylula

I sit in a room next to Fletch 15 hours a day and can vouch that what you are saying is NOT the case. Maybe you shouldn't "think" so much. Being his girlfriend of five years, and an adult, I take offense to your statement that my man jerks off to CP.

honey, if you wanted to keep pretending that anyone beside the flech xxx household cared about this shit, you should have kept your mouth shut about the girlfriend thing. kinda makes all the posts the two of you made above look even more silly.

FATPad · 04-09-2002, 06:45 PM

Yea, keep your mouth shut so SpaceClicks can run around accusing more people of frequenting CP sites without basis.

It doesn't look as nearly as silly when someone copies SpaceDog's preferred method of attack and starts throwing out CP accusations.

SleazyDream · 04-09-2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

(just as I don't promote asian sites, lets see you put your money where your mouth is, it will at least give you a shred of credibility)

please explain what you mean by putting your money where you're mouth is? I don't quite get it?

Not promoting it is one thing, supporting it is another. Sites like the ones were are talking about gain credibility when someone like you supports their right to exist and make money.
A law is just someone else telling you what to do.

you ever notice 12clicks gets the most vulgar and rude with the people who make him THINK, if but for a second?

12clicks · 04-09-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SleazyDream

Are you saying you're fine with pushing the line on child porn as close as you POSSIBLY can to the limit the law will allow or do you have any sense of personal right and wrong in acceptable business tactics?

you're not very good at twisting words around. You need to be a bit more subtle.

There is *no* pushing the line on CP. The law has defined CP VERY clearly and we're all thankful for the arrests they make.

If the Law doesn't have a problem with it, who are you to decide?

If you start grasping after *intent* where will it end? You've got no proof that pedophiles go to or run these sites. You only assume they do. Thank god no one assumes anything about TGPers. I assume that these sites are run by underage kids looking to make a buck. I also don't bother to look any deeper because I'm uninterested and it is not illegal.

With all the pics you're linked to I could assume your a pimp showing your wares. no?

04-09-2002, 02:03 PM	#55
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,292	why bother arguing with her, they condone sick pedophile shit, can she be any more blatently clear? damn disclaimer: the above is in jest and not to be taken seriously (kinda) __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

04-09-2002, 02:10 PM	#58
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	Kman, hahaha I have learned one thing for sure over the years... never argue with a woman... and 2, youre even dumber if you try to argue with a woman on a msg board hahaha... Im not really arguing, hope Kimmy sdoesnt percieve it as such... im mroe thinking outloud while I focus on the real attack on these fuckers. (up2-17 and the likes) Its cool Kimmy, no need to argue. Your point has been we understand totally how CC Bill works and what it supports. Sorry to hear this... Moerw or less thinking outloud. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me Last edited by Fletch XXX; 04-09-2002 at 02:14 PM..

04-09-2002, 02:29 PM	#62
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	Just to prove my point even further... Heres a pic. Think about this being legal, and think of what this leads to. <img src=http://superbooger.com/she14.jpg> Now since this is legal its okay right? She's 14, her mommy said it was okay, and the guy with the camera gave her 100 bucks more than shes ever seen in her life, shes only 14, very naive, easy to please.... <img src=http://superbooger.com/she14.jpg> Imagine it... "Oh youre so good at this.... hehehe go girl get wild... just pose how you want... be free... yeah take this off,... slide this over..... oh there you are.... youre gonna go far.... wow youre a dreamgirl." Meanwhile click click click taking pictures,... now they end up on the net, gee I wonder if her mom would sign this now. This is just a little visual to think about when anyone defends these types of sites. This is NOT a Britney commercial, or a sexy Tabacco ad,... this my friend is a young girl being paid to pose in a sexually provactive way. at least in my opinion hahaha __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

04-09-2002, 02:42 PM	#64
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	One could also think about the ways these sites are promoted. A sexy cigarette ad or something is designed to sell cigs or sell whatever they are selling. Whats the above pic selling? If these are models wheres the contact info for them so they can be used to model? And most importanly, what is she modeling, a 2 piece? Every girl on the site is modeling panties and bikinis... hmm... Also - whats that look in her eyes? Shes 14 - did the camera guy tell her too look that way? Pouty and teen like? You bet your ass he did. I worked on porn sets for 5 years, I know exactly what guys do to "get the shot." I have seen a girl get an extra 500 bucks to take it in the ass, when she showed up for a blowjob scene and nothig more, but was talked into more. Sure its her fault, not comparing the two directly, but this is a minor who has NO SAY SO on what her body is used for or her pics. Again, shes 14. Sleep well... be glad its not your daughter these guys are exploiting. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

04-09-2002, 02:47 PM	#66
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	Fact is - if this was totally legal I wouldnt have gotten the owner to change his front page over night would i? The fucker is scared, he knows Im coming, I am.... ill bring that fucker down ... me and Cilantro. and Cilantro <img src=http://superbooger.com/cilantro.jpg its amazing what professional emails can do nowadays. hahahaha __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me Last edited by Fletch XXX; 04-09-2002 at 02:49 PM..

04-09-2002, 11:09 AM	#51
s9ann0 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Boston Posts: 4,873	I stick to shagging my dialer

04-09-2002, 02:06 PM	#57
Warphead Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Kiss my yankee dick. Posts: 994	I'm with Fletch morally, if I was a processor I wouldn't do business with a site like this. Marijuana is illegal because they say it leads to other drugs, I wonder what this leads to. but I don't think it should be illegal. Nothing is more dangerous than legislated morality in my opinion. Especially when you consider our business. In a perfect world (or a non-shitty world) parents wouldn't allow their children to pose on a site like this. Didja read that article in AVN about these sites, it was the parents that made my stomach turn. But then, hundreds of sick fuckers dress their 8 year-old daughters up like hookers and call it a beauty pagent and nobody raises an eyebrow. Jon-benet anyone?

04-09-2002, 02:27 PM	#61
Paul -C- Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,255	In the UK it's legal for a 16 year old girl to be topless in a newspaper, so long as she has written consent from her parents.

04-09-2002, 02:39 PM	#63
heymatty Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Scottsdale :) Posts: 2,188	fletch, how do you make that picture illegal?

04-09-2002, 02:50 PM	#67
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	I think this is an important discussion, but a much bigger issue I ask, how is this different than the teen underwear section in say your sears catalogue? Well, I suppose that they don't charge money for membership... But then what is different from teen fashion magazines? They cost money and blatently display rather provocative under eighteen girls? Every major city has it's "kiddie stroll" where underage prostitutes serve the general public, and you can bet that the john's don't ask "are you sure that your legal age" before dropping a c note or whatever So then one might pose the argument is it better for a member of one of these sites to jack off to the non nude pictures, rather than go on a date with a 14 year old hooker? __________________ ...

04-09-2002, 02:54 PM	#68
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	I guess in a way the girls' parents are probably pimps too aren't they? I wonder how much money they got paid? I guess it probably went for a bag of weed, couple cases of beer, and a carton of cigs? I can't think of parents that weren't addicted to drugs signing a release for their child to be photographed that way... __________________ ...

04-09-2002, 03:14 PM	#70
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	Not to confuse where I stand... but there is little if any difference between a site like lil amber (non nude) and any under 18 softcore site (nude) If anything many people find clothed and semi clothed sites more erotic than say a nudist site That being said... there is no doubt what these sites are selling __________________ ...

04-09-2002, 03:28 PM	#73
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	I could also add that on the page with the 6-12 year old girls they pop a banner for "password trading" to pay sites,... so what are they getting to here? Lets trade passwords for Adult Paysites but this is only teen models, non nude and its legal, yeah okay... The sites themselves might not be illegal, its how they promote them, and where their traffic comes from that should scare you. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me Last edited by Fletch XXX; 04-09-2002 at 03:29 PM..

04-09-2002, 03:36 PM	#75
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	FatPAD, exactly - not to lite another fuse here, but Sears doesnt promote "browser washers" to clear your cache so you dont get busted like these guys do. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

04-09-2002, 03:42 PM	#76
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	p.s. If I chop out all the pics of the Sears teen underwear catalog, thumbnail them, put them in galleries on a site called TrueTeenSluts, promote them on The Hun or Thumbzilla or SuperDuperTeensTGP as "Real teen sluts in underwear", place all the emphasis on their "young, nubile bodies", charge $39.99 a month to look at my teens in underwear collection, and never ever sell a single pair of underwear and don't even have any in stock, I'm quite different from the Sear's catalog, even though I'm using the very same pics. __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

04-09-2002, 06:14 PM	#81
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	Your opinion again, could be considered utterly fucking worthless in this thread. 12click your calling me a pedophile in obscure ways will never be forgotten, you just fucked yourself. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

04-09-2002, 06:26 PM	#88
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	Well, it's no longer surprising to me why the media constantly portrays all pornographers as KP peddlers and beasty sellers. Half the industry vocally supports the rights to exist of sites like that. Why would anyone think any different? __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

04-09-2002, 06:30 PM	#92
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	FatPad - man you nailed it. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

04-09-2002, 06:33 PM	#95
drunkmonkey Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: behind you Posts:1,075,324 Posts: 799	I had sex when I was 14 with a college girl who was 20. According to law, she committed a heinous act of child molestation and should be charged with a felony and sent to prison. That is what the LAW says, I, on the other hand, would like to send her a great big THANK YOU, BABE. YOU ROCKED MY WORLD! I was a horny punk (as most teens are) and am very thankful for her "molestation". I have a swedish friend who enlightened me to the fact that America has a serious problem with sex. My friend was 16 at the time and was very sexually active. Fantastic girl who was mature past her years. She pointed out to me that Americans glorify violence yet condem sex. It is okay for a child to watch people getting blown to bits yet they cannot watch people having sex. I do not believe in morals and, frankly, do not have any that I know of. I live by the notion that as long as I hurt no one, everything is okay. I think laws that are based on morals are very rediculous. Laws, such as the seatbelt law, helmet law, drug laws, etc. are all laws designed by moralistic people who think that they are protecting me from MYSELF. If these sites are FORCING the girls to do whatever then it must stop. Everyone should have freedom of choice. However, unless anyone is being hurt, then all is good. My grandmother told me years ago some wisdom that is very applicable to everday life. She said: People see problems in others what they themselves have a problem with. I have seen it so many times with, for instance, a guy who accusses his girlfriend of being unfaithful because HE is sleeping around. There is much that could be said about all of this but I will save it for future posts. I know I hate to read these long ass posts myself

04-09-2002, 06:45 PM	#98
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	Yea, keep your mouth shut so SpaceClicks can run around accusing more people of frequenting CP sites without basis. It doesn't look as nearly as silly when someone copies SpaceDog's preferred method of attack and starts throwing out CP accusations. __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>