If MyVirtualCard got shit for Clothed girls, why can this company show them naked???
 

RealityCheckNetwork.com has a customer running a nudist website. I contacted them both via email and through their ticket system. The website in question has pictures of little girls and boys NAKED.

If MyVirtualCard got FRIED here at GFY for doing processing for child model sites where the girls are clothed, why did everyone defend RealityCheckNetwork when I brought this fact up 2 days ago?

When I posted this 2 days ago, a shitload of GFY'ers told me to back off and defended the hosting company. I think that is pure bullshit and totaly out of line with what should be acceptable here at GFY.

what? hypocricy on GFY? surely you jest!

;-)

oh now don't go making sense all of the sudden... GFY and double standards? NEVERRR!

</sarcasm>

i wonder how many of us are actually webmasters

Just Lensman... The rest are trolls I guess.

whos the processor of this site?

It's kinda hard to say without seeing the site, ya know.

I have a site that just my out of state friends and family have access to and I have loads of pics of my kids and family in there...and I'm sure there are some pics where my kids are nude, I mean, they're 2 and 3-it's like pulling teeth to keep clothes on them.

Does that mean I have a cp site? fuck no.

Did you even read before replying?

I stated that the site in question is a NUDIST website. Not a personal site. It is a members, subscription site. The only people who would join such a website are pedo's. True nudists would have no interest in seeing naked people that they don't know. Kinda like you don't have any interest in the pictures in my wallet and I have none about the pictures in your wallet. But if you were my brother or I was the godfather of your kids, I'd have interest in seeing what they look like since I saw them last. How they are growing. Are they in soccer, band, baseball, etc...

This website is strickly for pedo's to buy a membership and then look through 6,000 photos and videos of young kids naked. I am sure that if you looked at their server logs, they'd show that pictures of adults get looked at 5% of the time and kids 95% of the time.

These nudist sites are bullshit.

Billing company for the guy who asked...

X Union-Billing

A billing company that caters to nudist sites and does the billing for the XXL-CASH associated sites that were exposed here at GFY back in Feb/Mar and caused Alex of Angeldollars to have to change his nick because people thought he was Alex of XXL-CASH.

This is the second time you came accross a cp site in two days and are posting aout it on GFY.

Are you purposley trying to find CP.

not smart comment to do

maybe the host was told not to remove the site, so they can bust people joining it or go after people who view it.

I dont think thats legal.

To Alex... it is the same site, didn't you read the fucking shit I wrote? And no I don't go looking for them. And why are you giving me shit dude?

@4pics, as someone stated 2 days ago and from a conversation I had with a host who fixed the situation with the other site I mentioned 2 days ago (Webair), the sites are 100% legal.

No sting operation is going on. The FBI does NOT leave a website up to run sting operations. Sites can be left up to collect evidence and that is all.

ALSO A BIGTIME KUDOS TO MIKE OF WEBAIR!

He fixed the situation with the site they were hosting.

Webair RocKs!

Where the fuck is "nudist website" defined as a fucking membership site? Did you say it was a membership site? It could have been a site for Paradise Lakes or Calienta or some other nudist community or club.

Get a blow job and chill the fuck out.

ok so are we talkin bout a nudist site for some nudist camp that doesnt want a zillion hits a day and therefor charges 99 cents OR a site clearly putting kids naked under the term nudist on the index asking 50 bucks a month?

the intention is what counts...

OK.. The site in question is a paysite. It charges $29.95 to get into the members area per month. It has ZERO affiliations with any particular nudist colony.

The site is VERY similar to this one, http://www.candidbob.com/

Only instead of naked pictures of 18+ year olds, it is naked pictures of kids with a few pictures of adults mixed in for good measure.

Tell me where it says, hey, we just want to sell you a membership to our colony? It does not. It say, hey, you will get to see pics and videos.

Why do nudists need 3 million photos that include naked kids?

Why does a nudist website need 330 gigs of content?

Ok, that's definitely of questionable intent, but unfortunately I don't think it's illegal. :2 cents:

Wow.. you also don't need to be of age to join the site!

Before you start throwing mud, candidbob is not a cp site, its even ccbill approved, Id suggest you compare apples with apples before you post shit

From their site:
---------------------------------------------------
What We Don't Produce And Have No Interest In
Issues Of Concern

* Exploitation Of Children
1. We Don't Cater To, Encourage, Or Seek Out People With An "interest" In Nude Children Out Of The Context Of Naturism.
2. We Discourage The Focusing Of Attention On Children Who Are Not Engaged In The Family Naturist Lifestyle
* Close-ups Of Body Parts
1. We Do Not Have Close-ups Of Genital Areas Or Participants In Suggestive Poses.
2. Those Wanting Sexually Oriented Materials Will Find Ours Wanting.
* Portraying Sexual Behavior
1. Movies Of Authentic Naturism Are Not Obscene,\lewd,\sexually Oriented,\lascivious, Or Pornographic.
2. They Document A Healthy Lifestyle And Are Educational.
3. Nudism Is A Lifestyle Not A Sexual Behavior. Hence Our Videos Have Educational And Documentary Value.
4. These Are Not "adult", Sexually Oriented (r) Or (x) Videos. You Do Not Have To Be 21 To Order.
* Modeling And Posing, Especially Of Children
1. We Have No Pornography, Obscene Material, Lewd Material, Lascivious Exhibition Of The Genitals, Prurient Conduct, Vulgarity, Or Close-ups Of Body Parts.
2. There Is No Posing For The Camera.
3. No Playboy Type Of Products.
* Why Buy From Us?
1. Because You Can Be Assured Our Products Are Authentic, Legal, And In Good Taste
* Who Might Possibly Buy From Us
1. We Do Not Encourage, Support, Or Take Responsibility For Individuals Or Groups Who Have A Pedophilic/voyeuristic Interest.
2. We Have No Association With Such Groups Or Persons.
3. We Will Not Sell To People Who Show Sexual Interests.
4. We Do Not, Nor Do We Intend To, Cater To Those With A Particular Interest In Nude Children Outside Of The Context Of Purenudism.com Your Correspondence Shows Such An Interest We Will Not Deal With You.
* Exploitation In General

We Feature All Real Naturists In Real Nudist Camps, With Families And Kids, As Is Normal In Real Family Purenudism.com Exploitation Is Involved
----------------------------------

Sick site wich obviously gets a lot of pedos signing up.

Exactly.. So why did My Virtual Card get persecuted here on GFY and have its advertising dropped? It also wasn't doing anything illegal. It was doing something in bad taste, processing for child models sites with pictures of girls wearing bra and panties.

Why is Reality Check Network not having a Reality Check and removing nudist websites from its network when it knows exactly why the owners are running it?

Maybe because they also are members? Maybe because they enjoy the free admin access?

Ask ccbill why it was approved, I never understood why you can release a 2257 compl site with voyeur pics...

that text I quoted is not from candidbob, its from the site V-rock is talking about.

The first part may be a valid question...but I think you are really over-reaching on the last part.

My answer would be that there is a difference between sexualizing children in their poses and setting, as opposed to them running around in their natural state.

I personally am not comfortable with a nudist site like that, don't get me wrong, but I'm just saying what I think the reasoning is.

Follow the advice of your own nickname. THINK!

I didn't say anything was wrong with Candid Bob. Reread the ENTIRE thread before you start telling me that I am talking shit about Candid Bob. I said the Nudist site is like Candid Bob in that it is a collection of images, not a front for a specific colony or resource guide on being a nudist.

The comparison IS apples to apples in that they both collect photos and then sell a membership to view them. I never said Candid Bob was in bad taste and I never said Candid Bob had girls under 18.

Here is the quote,

do a search for the processor mentioned in google, some shady domains/keywords showing up.

You can because only sexually explicit images are covered by 2257 and require documentation. These incude genital to genital, genital to anal or genital to mouth contact between models or masturbation.

Topless photos and nudes do not require documentation.

Unless you have something to say that is based in fact, I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave this thread.

Awesome jack ass

Thats exactly the stupid thing about this whole 2257 rule, didn't they put that up to knock down the CP?

Glad I made my monthly visit to GFY... got nosey and cut and pasted the url you left in the fucking post above and was disgusted by some sorry no pussy getting motherfuckers! (Whoever runs that site) :(

SixNine

All sites collect photos and then sell a membership to view them.

2257 is supposedly for knocking out child porn, Quashe. But 'real child porn' I guess. As in where the children ARE being sexually molested in the photos or are posing in sexual suggestive ways.

The idea was to have another charge to throw at someone. It came up because a man was taking photos of himself and a seventeen year old girl who TOLD him she was 18 at the time. They couldn't convict him because he wasn't knowingly molesting her.

With 2257 they can say he had an obligation to obtain government issued ID's before photographing her sexually.

That is why some people in law enforcement think we are all a bunch of idiots here at GFY for getting so flustered over 2257. The intent of the law isn't for TGP owners or legit companies, it is for going after child molesters and child porn producers.

I don't know how to break this to you, but pictures of naked kids is not CP.

CP by law has nothing to do with naked kids, but rather what they are doing, or is being done to them in the pictures.

No shit sherlock.

Fact is this shit is (mainly) targetted to pedos, so it might not be actual CP but the intention is the same not? Its just a smart move to stay under the law just like NN underage sites.

Im sure he knows just like 99% of the ppl here do... thing is MVC probably never carded for cp, but 7yo nudist pics are pretty bad imho too... if theyre still carding for those sites then why did they post their 'we stopped' announcement...

if I am correct MVC is not processing for the site in question ;) Its X Union-Billing

exactly.

V_rocks. I can understand you being pissed off about your place getting "fried". If your point is there doing something also, then cool. But to say right out that becouse its a nudist site there catering to pedos is a bit over the top.

Might be over the top but why not as an owner of a nudist site remove the children? You would think they know it attracts pedos right?