GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
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)
-   -   Little Lupe is... (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=734104)

tony286 05-20-2007 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVF (Post 12452199)
You pimped your wife out on the net...that means you sold YOUR soul out to the devil also doesn't it?

You see how people can twist shit around?
I pimped nobody she built the site and she was the one who called me to say its time to quit your day job lol . Im not a pimp,I dont use or abuse woman sorry actually have talked some really hot ones out of doing porn because it would effect their long term career choices. I know lots of people here think pimp is a cool term, I think its a another word for scumbag.

Aussie Rebel 05-20-2007 11:48 PM
missed it

Webby 05-21-2007 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 12461908)
I love rebills !! :) :) :) :) :) :thumbsup :thumbsup
Of course it rebills well - it's easy to sell fantasies to pedos, or did you not know this or not wish to accept this?? :pimp That is the only reason it even has any success.

DWB 05-21-2007 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12451122)
Sorry if you sold your soul for a couple of dollars then thats you not me.
You are foolishly assuming that I have a soul.

Some things just are what they are no matter how hard to believe it's not true. You no doubt have members on your site that are sex and porn addicts. You (and the rest of us) are contributing to their addiction and degradation of their life. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, I'm just laying the facts on the table.

The truth hurts, but at the end of the day we are ALL doing this so some fuck can jack his cock and shoot a load of sperm into his lap. Nothing more, nothing less. Either you are a pornographer, or you're not. There is no middle ground here, no matter how much you want there to be one. :2 cents:

DWB 05-21-2007 03:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12462884)
Of course it rebills well - it's easy to sell fantasies to pedos, or did you not know this or not wish to accept this?? :pimp That is the only reason it even has any success.
The fact that anyone can get away with legal content like this and sell it to pedos is brilliant if you ask me. Everyone who joins her site knows she is of age, but they still join. They simply like the look of a young girl. The girl is 18, so be it. I love looking at 18 year old girls too, and if that makes me a pedo, add it to the list right behind "tranny aficionado." :upsidedow

mattz 05-21-2007 03:06 AM
Yeah, everyone is into looking at women who look like they're 15

mattz 05-21-2007 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ismokeblunts (Post 12448441)
she's not that cute at all in my opinion...

the only reason her site sells like hotcakes IS because she looks like she's 14 and she sucks some big old greasy cock...

i still haven't promotoed her yet, and i doubt i will. this is a blatant attempt at selling some sort of pseudo-childpornography in my opinion. say what you will about it, defend yourself by saying "oh! but she IS 18! it is legal!"

i defended teenrevenue's stance on the arguement previously in the arguement over models like topanga and chloe, but i have a hard time defending them on little lupe. she looks ridiculously young to begin with, do you have to doll her up like a 10 year old girl when she's getting pounded from every angle? it was one hting when cutesy little chicks were posing naked in braces. but you took the young look TOO FAR on this one, and made it hardcore...

thats got to be something to be proud of...

I 100% agree with that statement

mattz 05-21-2007 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ismokeblunts (Post 12448441)
she's not that cute at all in my opinion...

the only reason her site sells like hotcakes IS because she looks like she's 14 and she sucks some big old greasy cock...

i still haven't promotoed her yet, and i doubt i will. this is a blatant attempt at selling some sort of pseudo-childpornography in my opinion. say what you will about it, defend yourself by saying "oh! but she IS 18! it is legal!"


thats got to be something to be proud of...
edit: except for the last paragraph, just saw that Aaron didn't do that

BVF 05-21-2007 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12454551)
Simple test BVF - ask the "average member of the public" if they ever considered modeling as pimping? Modelling has nothing to do with pimping.
No..."modeling" isn't considered pimping...

However, "nude modeling" or modeling where there's a dick in her pussy, ass, or mouth, is considered "ho'ing" or at the least "exploitation"...

It's the person making money off of it that is considered pimping...

Michaelious 05-21-2007 03:44 AM
She look far to illegally young but that is the point...nice site..

Webby 05-21-2007 03:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy (Post 12463154)
The fact that anyone can get away with legal content like this and sell it to pedos is brilliant if you ask me. Everyone who joins her site knows she is of age, but they still join. They simply like the look of a young girl. The girl is 18, so be it. I love looking at 18 year old girls too, and if that makes me a pedo, add it to the list right behind "tranny aficionado." :upsidedow
Well.. apart from the fact that it is illegal in a number of western countries to basically tart up talent as kids in a porn scenario... The whole marketing concept is based on a pushing as young as possible.

It is questionable "everyone who joins her site knows she is of age" - the first impression is that of a 12 year old kid - a deliberate impression. I was around when two law people saw some images and the dialog went .. "Damn, she looks like a friggin 12 year old!" - they were not impressed. At the same time, stuffing 2257 up as a tongue in the cheek "defense" is a joke - this would most likely be prosecuted in a few countries and, remains to be seen what shit may hit in the US. Even the jurisdiction of the holding corp/2257 records would kick their asses off the island, irrespective of any laws - they just don't care about the niceties of laws when it comes to this stuff.

Now... sure would never hinder your ambitions at casting an eye over 18 year olds DWB *lol* Lupe may be a 20 something, but the set decoration and the styling of her sure is not intended to make her look even 18. Compare other shoots of her when she is not playing in the nursery with her coloring book and she looks a little different.

Na... don't rush to add pedo to your resume - "tranny aficionado" has a nice ring to it :1orglaugh

PS... Think there is a niche in having 18 year olds tarted up as grannies?? A decent stylist can do that nicely - blue rinse old ladies complete with knitting patterns - "wheelchair sex" :winkwink:

Webby 05-21-2007 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVF (Post 12463181)
No..."modeling" isn't considered pimping...

However, "nude modeling" or modeling where there's a dick in her pussy, ass, or mouth, is considered "ho'ing" or at the least "exploitation"...

It's the person making money off of it that is considered pimping...
Think we got a difference in the use of this word "pimping" BVF :pimp Neither "nude modeling" or porn shoots are particularly known as "pimping"...

Quick explanation from wikipedia...

Quote:
A pimp finds and manages clients for prostitutes and engages them in prostitution (in brothels in most cases and some cases street prostitution) in order to profit from their earnings. Typically, a pimp will not force prostitutes to stay with him, although some have been known to be abusive in order to keep his prostitutes in line or to maximize profits. A pimp may also offer to protect his prostitutes from rival pimps and prostitutes, or from abusive clients. He can also enable a prostitute to work in a particular area under his control. Pimping is a sex crime in most U.S. jurisdictions.
In that case... every shooter in the US is committing a "sex crime" :winkwink:

DWB 05-21-2007 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12463277)


In that case... every shooter in the US is committing a "sex crime" :winkwink:
I already think they are. But everyone in the world is committing some sort of crime, so none of it matters anyway.

stickyfingerz 05-21-2007 05:35 AM
It would be better to take a 15 year old like Tracy Lords was and dress her up to make her look older. Just so the girl "looks" to be of age. The actual age is of no real concern here. Just the appearance.......

sarettah 05-21-2007 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ismokeblunts (Post 12448825)
There's no law against simulated kiddie porn, the laws actually protect it now if I remember correctly.

un uh...

Quote:
U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > &#167; 2256
&#167; 2256. Definitions for chapter


For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;

(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;

(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;

(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.

(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

Iron Fist 05-21-2007 07:52 AM
Sigh - this thread dead yet? Unless I see Chris from TeenRevenue shutting down the doors on Little Lupe, can we all just play along for a little while longer? I'd like to continue making some more cash off her ass.

stickyfingerz 05-21-2007 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah (Post 12463935)
un uh...
Believe it was mentioned that that portion has already been somewhat overturned, but I dont recall details.

NTSS 05-21-2007 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webby (Post 12462884)
Of course it rebills well - it's easy to sell fantasies to pedos, or did you not know this or not wish to accept this?? :pimp That is the only reason it even has any success.

I was under the impression that pedos viewed cp? no? I'm sure it's not hard to find online.

So why would a pedo want anything to do with the site of an 18+ y/o model? Are you saying they are being tricked into thinking she is a child? It would be hard to find somebody that stupid.

Fantasies? Since when does a pedo go looking for a fantasy?

When someone has a sick preference/obsession as such they don't settle for a mere fantasy. They go for the real thing and Little Lupe clearly is not the real thing.

Any bozo knows before they join that she is over 18 y/o and that simply wont cut for them. So you are wrong in saying that it caters to pedo fantasies...completely wrong you are.

sarettah 05-21-2007 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 12464053)
Believe it was mentioned that that portion has already been somewhat overturned, but I dont recall details.
Pretty much each time the court has ruled against a portion of it, Congress has reacted by amending it to close the hole that the courts ruled on. What I posted is the current version of 2256 and I can't find anywhere that the current wording has been ruled against (not a lawyer though). I don't know about anyone else, but I would not want to be a "test case" on it.

The amendment history, closing the holes that have been poked in it:

Quote:
Amendments


2003?Par. (2). Pub. L. 108?21, § 502(b), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows:
?(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
?(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
?(B) bestiality;
?(C) masturbation;
?(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
?(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;?.
Par. (8)(B). Pub. L. 108?21, § 502(a)(1), amended subpar. (B) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (B) read as follows: ?such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;?.
Par. (8)(C). Pub. L. 108?21, § 502(a)(2), substituted a period for ?; or? at end.
Par. (8)(D). Pub. L. 108?21, § 502(a)(3), struck out subpar. (D) which read as follows: ?such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and?.
Pars. (10), (11). Pub. L. 108?21, § 502(c), added pars. (10) and (11).
1996?Par. (5). Pub. L. 104?208, § 101(a) [title I, § 121[2(1)]], inserted ?, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image? before semicolon at end.
Pars. (8), (9). Pub. L. 104?208, § 101(a) [title I, § 121[2(2)?(4)]], added pars. (8) and (9).
1988?Par. (6). Pub. L. 100?690, § 7511(c), added par. (6).
Par. (7). Pub. L. 100?690, § 7512(b), added par. (7).
1986?Pub. L. 99?500 and Pub. L. 99?591 renumbered section 2255 of this title as this section.
Par. (5). Pub. L. 99?628, which directed that par. (5) be added to section 2255 of this title, was executed by adding par. (5) to section 2256 of this title to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the renumbering of section 2255 as 2256 by Pub. L. 99?500 and Pub. L. 99?591.
1984?Pub. L. 98?292, § 5(b), renumbered section 2253 of this title as this section.
Par. (1). Pub. L. 98?292, § 5(a)(1), substituted ?eighteen? for ?sixteen?.
Par. (2)(D). Pub. L. 98?292, § 5(a)(2), (3), substituted ?sadistic or masochistic? for ?sado-masochistic? and struck out ?(for the purpose of sexual stimulation)? after ?abuse?.
Par. (2)(E). Pub. L. 98?292, § 5(a)(4), substituted ?lascivious? for ?lewd?.
Par. (3). Pub. L. 98?292, § 5(a)(5), struck out ?, for pecuniary profit? after ?advertising?.
Par. (4). Pub. L. 98?292, § 5(a)(6), substituted ? ?organization? means a person other than an individual? for ? ?visual or print medium? means any film, photograph, negative, slide, book, magazine, or other visual or print medium?.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...000-notes.html

who 05-21-2007 09:23 AM
Well I had a look and I don't think she has the appearance of someone underrage. She just looks petite. Having said that, I am aware that the majority of people who like the site are the same people who would have sex with children, if it was legal.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 PM.
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
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