GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

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)

fünkmaster 01-28-2005 03:25 PM

Perfection Jeff and his 13/14/15 year old non nude sites.
 
... we shall never forget where he is coming from.

http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...threadid=87169

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerfectionGirls
Anyone have info on this? Just got a letter from ccbill saying that as of Nov. 15th they will no longer process "teen" under eighteen year old sites. While I agree that the child porn and other garbage needs to be controled and or eliminated, there is a huge market for legitimate teen model websites. I happen to run a couple that are totally non-nude and are tasteful teen sites.
I also understand that these processors are getting a ton of heat from Visa i.e. the $750.00 we all had to pay and what not.
What really pisses me off is that I got this letter from ccbill at 9pm est on Friday and I got a whole 6 days to shut down my site and find another processor. It is my understanding that they have known these changes were coming for over a month without one word to their webmasters. To make it worse.. they collected the $750.00 and sold me a new, dedicated server in the last few days $2400.00 without one word of these changes that will effect 30% of my sales.
With the new Visa restrictions I can not just go find another processor without having Visa's stamp of approval and since my paperwork is still being process through ccbill I am totally fucked. I might not be able to be up and running again for over thirty days.. Why the hell did they not give us warning? I mean I do 200K a year in sales at ccbill and no warning? Bull Shit. I guess I am just fucked.


davethetruth 01-28-2005 03:28 PM

That's fucked up.

:mad:

Jace 01-28-2005 03:39 PM

no, we shall NEVER forget

unless money is involved to make us forget

that is the way it works, right?

Tuga 01-28-2005 03:41 PM

Yes it is fucked up.

Paco, of Large Cash. 01-28-2005 03:42 PM

uh, teen model site? Yah, RYGHT!

sick fuck

Doctor Dre 01-28-2005 03:44 PM

I can't beleive that guy is still arround

pushpills 01-28-2005 03:47 PM

and he owes Ipods all over town.

MetaMan 01-28-2005 03:53 PM

why the fuck did pornkings take on this guy is my question?

RRACY 01-28-2005 03:54 PM

CCbill stopped processing for under eighteen NN sites and he came here to protest. :321GFY This was the defining moment for this creep.

MetaMan 01-28-2005 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRACY
CCbill stopped processing for under eighteen NN sites and he came here to protest. :321GFY This was the defining moment for this creep.


i guess shaving countless affiliates isnt. :helpme

flashfire 01-28-2005 03:55 PM

I guess some people will do anything for money

Libertine 01-28-2005 03:56 PM

So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

fünkmaster 01-28-2005 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

... and another pedo just came out of the closet. added to mylist.

Libertine 01-28-2005 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fünkmaster
... and another pedo just came out of the closet. added to mylist.

You put me on "your list"? Well boo fucking hoo.

Fucking pussy :321GFY

PerfectionGirls 01-28-2005 04:05 PM

Read the whole fucking 3 year old thread. hahaha!

Never once had a site that featured an underage girl... period.

Read the thread you drama whore.

Jesus Christ.


:1orglaugh

fünkmaster 01-28-2005 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerfectionGirls
Read the whole fucking 3 year old thread. hahaha!

Never once had a site that featured an underage girl... period.

Read the thread you drama whore.

Jesus Christ.


:1orglaugh

http://images5.fotki.com/v58/photos/...bs_down-vi.jpg

Paco, of Large Cash. 01-28-2005 04:14 PM

I still do not understand how it is a person can try and justify something by using money as a defense ... it makes no sense to me.

I wish he had a daughter, then he may understand ... actually, scratch that ... maybe for the non-exsisting child it is better that he not cause he would most likely .. you know.

Originally Posted by punkworld
So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

What is the purpose of a clothed 'teen model' [?] and please do not try and tell me it is no different from the magazine Seventeen, cause it is.
I bet if you looked at the member database you would see 95-99% of the first names are mens, and the other few % are for dumbasses that need to use their spouses CC.

I do not have children so I am not being a protective parent.
I do not believe in the arguement 'that is how things were done in the old days' and for many good reasons, but the main one ... yah, that is because at fourteen half their life was already over (average age of death was 28-30).

andrej_NDC 01-28-2005 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan
why the fuck did pornkings take on this guy is my question?

$$$...but they can lose more in the long run by working with scammers...

Libertine 01-28-2005 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paco, of Large Cash.
I still do not understand how it is a person can try and justify something by using money as a defense ... it makes no sense to me.

I wish he had a daughter, then he may understand ... actually, scratch that ... maybe for the non-exsisting child it is better that he not cause he would most likely .. you know.

Originally Posted by punkworld
So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

What is the purpose of a clothed 'teen model' [?] and please do not try and tell me it is no different from the magazine Seventeen, cause it is.
I bet if you looked at the member database you would see 95-99% of the first names are mens, and the other few % are for dumbasses that need to use their spouses CC.

I do not have children so I am not being a protective parent.
I do not believe in the arguement 'that is how things were done in the old days' and for many good reasons, but the main one ... yah, that is because at fourteen half their life was already over (average age of death was 28-30).

Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

andrej_NDC 01-28-2005 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

this thinking is wrong! You cannot say why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok. Then you could also say, why is 14 bad, when 15 is ok, why is 13 bad, when 14 is ok...We all know what is the targetted audience of such site, no matter if its non nude, its the pedo traffic.

Loryn 01-28-2005 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

I don't think it's about the girls in the pictures, I think it's about the 50 year old men jerking off to a 13 year old girl in her panties and bra on her knees!!! :2 cents:

Loryn 01-28-2005 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC
this thinking is wrong! You cannot say why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok. Then you could also say, why is 14 bad, when 15 is ok, why is 13 bad, when 14 is ok...We all know what is the targetted audience of such site, no matter if its non nude, its the pedo traffic.

I don't think he is talking about moving the line back!!! :2 cents:

andrej_NDC 01-28-2005 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn-Adult.com
I don't think he is talking about moving the line back!!! :2 cents:

I was not talking about him, he was talking about 15+, but I think its easy to get what I meant.

Paco, of Large Cash. 01-28-2005 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

- no matter how many dicks one has in her ass, she is 18 (age of majority/consent)

- PRETENDING to be 18 is still pretending and that is what CHILDREN do.

We all know teens try and want to be cool, so they will do whatever trend tells them. So, we all know porn is more popular and mainstream than ever before, so the pressure on pre-majority is more than before.

I am not religious by any means (somewhat spiritual), so that is not my damage.
I am not going to argue (debate) morals and ethics with you cause my mind is made up on this.

Libertine 01-28-2005 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paco, of Large Cash.
- no matter how many dicks one has in her ass, she is 18 (age of majority/consent)

- PRETENDING to be 18 is still pretending and that is what CHILDREN do.

We all know teens try and want to be cool, so they will do whatever trend tells them. So, we all know porn is more popular and mainstream than ever before, so the pressure on pre-majority is more than before.

I am not religious by any means (somewhat spiritual), so that is not my damage.
I am not going to argue (debate) morals and ethics with you cause my mind is made up on this.

First of all, the legal limit for those cocks in her ass is indeed 18, and the legal limit for posing fully clothed is 0. Your point is?

Secondly, not only teens try to be cool, so do adults. Women in their fourties pretend to be in their thirties, slacker men pretend to be well-off, ugly women pretend to be beautiful (make up), etc. The truth is that most people try to be something they are not, and the majority do that because of what society says. You didn't seriously believe women enjoy being on diets, did you?

Basically, you have no valid points at all, and like you already said "your mind is made up" (obviously a result of the culture in which you grew up), so you're pretty much blindly following dogmas. :2 cents:

Libertine 01-28-2005 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn-Adult.com
I don't think it's about the girls in the pictures, I think it's about the 50 year old men jerking off to a 13 year old girl in her panties and bra on her knees!!! :2 cents:

And if those men don't jerk off to these sites, they'll jerk off to clothing catalogues, pictures they take themselves on the beach or whatever, or just their own fantasies about young girls. It may be disgusting, but other than that it's pretty meaningless. If those girls aren't harmed by the pictures, who cares?
I find 60 year old dirty men who watch 18 year olds getting assfucked pretty nauseating, but it's just not my business.

andrej_NDC 01-28-2005 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
so you're pretty much blindly following dogmas. :2 cents:

when you have a 15 years old daughter and she tells you some guy want to shoot her with clothes for a paysite for horny older men, what will you say?

BradShaw 01-28-2005 05:12 PM

Anyone who does biz with this guy is an idiot.

Libertine 01-28-2005 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC
this thinking is wrong! You cannot say why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok. Then you could also say, why is 14 bad, when 15 is ok, why is 13 bad, when 14 is ok...We all know what is the targetted audience of such site, no matter if its non nude, its the pedo traffic.

I didn't say "why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok". I said "why is 15 fully clothed bad, if 18 getting double anal is ok". I'm not pointing out the relativity of age-limits, I'm pointing out the awkwardness of a single hard line.

In my opinion, something like this would make a lot more sense:
14+ - non nude
16+ - topless
18+ - softcore
21+ - hardcore

Libertine 01-28-2005 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC
when you have a 15 years old daughter and she tells you some guy want to shoot her with clothes for a paysite for horny older men, what will you say?

Thanks for giving another argument for my point: nobody is forcing them and their parents to do it. Saying "no" is a perfectly valid possibility.

pornstar2pac 01-28-2005 05:17 PM

sig placement page one goes into effect, right now

andrej_NDC 01-28-2005 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
Thanks for giving another argument for my point: nobody is forcing them and their parents to do it. Saying "no" is a perfectly valid possibility.

I doubt their parents know...:)

Libertine 01-28-2005 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC
I doubt their parents know...:)

In which case, the sites should be illegal because underage people are unable to sign legally binding contracts (e.g. release forms) without the express consent of their guardians.

andrej_NDC 01-28-2005 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
In which case, the sites should be illegal because underage people are unable to sign legally binding contracts (e.g. release forms) without the express consent of their guardians.

I cant imagine a parent who signs this, either the paysite guy dont explain them the real facts or the kid just fakes the sign.

Libertine 01-28-2005 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC
I cant imagine a parent who signs this, either the paysite guy dont explain them the real facts or the kid just fakes the sign.

You can't imagine greedy parents?

Mack 01-28-2005 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan
why the fuck did pornkings take on this guy is my question?

To answer your question. Pornkings made a business decision to aquire the perfection cash sites and eventually the program. Part of that arrangement involved Jeff being contracted to Handle various items in the content and marketing area for PC for a specified length of time. This part arrangement is no longer in place, therefore Jeff no longer works with Pornkings or for Perfection Cash.

andrej_NDC 01-28-2005 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld
You can't imagine greedy parents?

hmm, probably I dont want to imagine them, thats the problem :)

Holly 01-28-2005 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC
I doubt their parents know...:)

Are you serious? :1orglaugh

The problem with those sites is that the vast majority of that shit is nothing but sorry ass, no good for nothing parents who whore their kids out for a buck. They're specifically sticking their little girls on the net and dressing them in provocative outfits, poses, etc., to get money from older men who are into that shit.

Who would a "teen model" site that charges a fucken monthly subscription fee, be for? Other 13 year olds??? They don't have a credit card. It's the pedos that are lining the parents' pockets, and they damn well know it. I doubt the kids every see a damn penny of it.

It think not only should they have their kids taken away from them, but someone should put a bullet in their skulls.

RRACY 01-28-2005 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly
Are you serious? :1orglaugh

The problem with those sites is that the vast majority of that shit is nothing but sorry ass, no good for nothing parents who whore their kids out for a buck. They're specifically sticking their little girls on the net and dressing them in provocative outfits, poses, etc., to get money from older men who are into that shit.

Who would a "teen model" site that charges a fucken monthly subscription fee, be for? Other 13 year olds??? They don't have a credit card. It's the pedos that are lining the parents' pockets, and they damn well know it. I doubt the kids every see a damn penny of it.

It think not only should they have their kids taken away from them, but someone should put a bullet in their skulls.

Jonbenet Ramsey? One of the reasons for me getting on the net was to read more about her case. Still unsolved. :disgust

pornstar2pac 01-28-2005 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack
To answer your question. Pornkings made a business decision to aquire the perfection cash sites and eventually the program. Part of that arrangement involved Jeff being contracted to Handle various items in the content and marketing area for PC for a specified length of time. This part arrangement is no longer in place, therefore Jeff no longer works with Pornkings or for Perfection Cash.



that's good to hear Mack. hope everything is going well over at pornkings :thumbsup


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 PM.

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