GFY sponsoring "lolita" ? hmmmmmm
 

this banner:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/images/ref.jpg

This site:
http://www.magicnude.com/webmasters/

This content:
http://www.met-art.com/c32/120103_4.htm


Isent that a little TO close to "lolita" ?

without $$ the owner of that site would be a CP lolita SOB..

Now he's just an advertiser.. that's how things work
in the magic world of adult.com.

all 18+ so what's the problem?
http://www.met-teens.com/l.html

why you should stick your nose in this matter ? fucka :321GFY

.

ohhhhhhhhhhhh dear

lol

haha, I thought you were shutting down lolita sites.

But on a serious note, their contant is now 18+ ( used to be underage before ).

http://www.met-art.com/c32/120103_4.htm
sure.. this model is SURELY 18+... IDIOT

I can not understand the problem of Lolita? In Europe this is a description for girls in real teen, schoolgirl and girlie outlook

.. in other words; you sell cheat kiddiporn?

Why don't you people realise this:

70 % of girls who are 18 - actually look like 18
15% look rather like 19-21
15 % look like 15-17.
It is simply true.

in europe fucking dogs is also OK

In the U.S. naked teens (under 18) is ok. What's your point?

exploiting chldren = bad

I know, lets go boycott all the bookstores tomorrow.

87 % of statistics are made up on the fly. ;)

43% of GFY already knew this.

yes , your thoughts are very correct. I'm still doing that my way.
but it's wasn't the point of the thread. on a serious note , you woudn't see the banner on gfy if we were talkin about real cp/lolitas

I saw no porn in that site at all actually.

Lolita or not lolita... This site HOT! :thefinger

There are a lot of people in this biz which don't care for ethics or moral as long as they make money with it, and at the same moment they wonder why adult-business has such a bad reputation.

yeah - it used to be under 18 chicks in MET, but now they're 18+ (so I've been led to believe). In EITHER case there's nothing illegal about it. Nothing wrong with it, in fact. What's wrong is all the old guys whacking off to those pics and knowing that the girls are underage.

The models are't being exploited, either.

:2 cents:

Exactly, I didn't see anything worth whacking off to there but I'm not a pedo. It looked like the art you see in fancy books all over.

... that is not the point, the point is who you target ... and this is what I dislike. in my eyes it is childporn, by the definition of law iti s not. my opinion obviously is not lensman' s opinion.

so true :thumbsup
we have to take their word that ALL MODELS ARE 18+ (they don't look like it, but hey not all girls look like the age that they realy are)

damn fucking right, this beauty just turned 15 ... would you fucking believe it ??

<img src="http://www.flexonline.com/mro/final_women_bb/images/FDBE0401.jpg">

63.5% will probably beleive you:winkwink:

if the model IS over 18 then it's you who are discriminating against her.

my thoughts exactly,
i love that he actually gave exact percentages, HAHA,
hey polish, can you give me an approximate number in thousands

WOAH!!!, what a hottie

Brad Shaw should have a field day with this :P

That really all depends. Even photographs of OBVIOUSLY legal women can be considered child pornography if the situation depicted is one which is obviously meant to portray her as a child or as underage. The definitions are getting a lot more general as authorities and lawmakers try harder and harder to crack down on CP. Depicting a model in a little schoolgirl outfit in a classroom might be ok, but if you write "Grade 5 class" on the chalkboard behind her, you can be charged with child porn. A lot of it is up to the interpretation of the community as well. Many people have made the mistake of thinking that just because the model is of age they are ok, and ended up spending a LONG time in jail for it.

44

DISCLAIMER: MODELS ON MET ART.COM WERE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHEN PHOTOGRAPHED

Where the FUCK do you get your facts from dude?!?!

i haven't looked around MET in awhile but I have seen CHILDREN - not borderline girls - girls maybe 12 years old on their tour.

No doubt the photography qualifies as art but not for a moment would I accept that all models are 18+ just because some representative from the company said so. They have as much credibility as the AdultBouncer stooges who spout that company's bullshit 'We used to have some problems with stolen content but everything is totally legal now'.

I believe the content is art - I also believe at least half, probably more, of MET's members are pedophiles.

I was gonna say that :(

Except I was gonna say 75%

wow, Andy Dick has really pumped up.

Same thing applies to lightspeed and they seem to get your panties in a bunch, so what's the difference here?

and there are a lot of hyporcrites in this biz who pretend to have ethics and morals.

oh great, now I'm going to have dreams of this beast chasing me around the forest tonight...

amen

Even if hypothetically speaking they've got under 18 there it's legal even in the US. You can order that kind of stuff from any major bookstore chain, and some even stock it right there. There's a difference between nude photography and pornography. Which is why taking a pic of your kid playing in the tub isn't illegal.

I think the true issue at hand here is should such sites, even though they are legal, be promoted right alongside porn sites?

I think it's very questionable to say yes since you'd be targeting porn surfers for a site you are saying really isn't porn at all.

That's just my opinion. Artistic underage non-porn shouldn't be anywhere near porn sites. I wouldn't even want to see such sites put their 18+ pics on TGP's.

art? just throwing this out... ;)

hmmmm. In my time in school, and through all my Art History classes, nowhere did I ever study photos like this, nor have I ever been told by an art teacher that this is classified as art.

How come there are no museums full of this art?

Artistic photography?

try Dietter Appelt, but pics of nude children is not art man.

http://www.hainesgallery.com/DAPP.bio.html

I have helped organize Dieter exhibits, THAT is art, not naked kids.

:winkwink:

photography with naked children as the subjects just like photography of naked homosexual men or naked elderly people can be art. Check out a library's art section or bookstore and I am sure you will find books with photos or drawings of naked children.

what you can't do is eroticize the children, have them in anything that is close to a sexual situation whether it be by themselves or with others.

to each his own i guess.

but as soon as Sleazydream adds a banner on his site, it becomes PORN, staright up old school naked girl pics. Porn, no way around it.

I also do not think there is any way you can hang a picture of a nude 10 year old on the wall and step back and say, 'Wow, this picture says something to me, this is creativity, this is art.'

naaah man, it, just a picture of a naked child.

i guess its how you look at it, but I have worked in art museums and given tours of art ranging from Dale Chihuly venician glass, and Basquiat and Lichtenstein, even Koontz, never studied or had an exhibit of naked kids thats for sure.

I was just throwing this out....

And we arent really talking about pics in the library are we? we are talking about a asite that gets adult webmasters to send it traffic, thus turning it into porn.

Does MET art put out books? are there photos in the library?

;)

In know quite a few webmasters promoting it. I dont because i dont have traffic for it, and i dont have traffic for it because it seems like a very controveral site esspecially with its background, and I dont spend time generating traffic that might come back and bite me in my ass.

I never doubted that there is money in it, but I dont like being anymore of a target that I can help. :)

Its a site like this that is legal that will attract more attention than an illegal site, and Personaly I dont like that kind of attention.


Morals dont belong in the this business, but you need to be able to have a grasp on local & global morals, and stay within those lines, or close to it.

Thats exactly what i thought when i saw that pic.

Talk about a roid freak.

I signed up for a trial on metgirls or met-art about half a year ago to see what I would be promoting. Some of the video content looked pretty sus, they showed nudists that definitely looked underage.

Only the person who shot that content - if it was a proper shoot with releases and IDs - can confirm or deny this, but the fact that a few people have said that met *used* to have underage girls makes me wonder if they haven't removed everything they should have.... I cancelled at that point and didn't let it rebill. Haven't sent them any hits either.