Is this site CP? To close? OK? Feedback Please!
 

http://www.virginsphotos.com/maintrials/

Is it CP? If not, is it too close? I just had some friends of mine find a gallery from this site on my TGP and they were alarmed that I promote CP. I don't and so I am asking you all for your opinion.

The style of this site is meant to mimick a well known CP group of sites, magical-*.com nymphets-*.com etc... So if they aren't CP, they modeled the site to directly and unmistakeably appear to be like the CP sites. Opinion on that point?

The 2257 is kept in the Ukraine. They bought a shitload of porn from the Czech firm that got busted for CP... Opinion on that?

Thanks for your help and opinions on this matter.

why would you even post a suspected CP site here?

Here we go again....

Because it is run by a sponsor that I think has a GFY account and is in a few sigs here.

Also, Paycom and Ibill do the billing.

They have a 2257... nothing on there looks suspect though. just young girls.

Doesn't look to me like cp AT ALL. :2 cents:

http://www.xxl-cash.com/sites.html

Sponsor.

Gives me no impression that any of those models are underage.

Nah xxl-cash is ok, they are even stating the age under the pics.

There are even quite hairy girls on that site and only ver less of them look like they could be underage.

People should start getting banned for posting urls here and accusing them of cp.
1: If theyre correct then this is simply not the place to post it.
2: What happens most of the time is innocent people get accused of running cp sites. Bad bad bad.

OK, but the site is done in a style that was pioneered and created by a CP site. Basically it is a knock off of the CP site it is trying to replicate.

I am asking that if it isn't CP, does that fact bother anyone or not bother then and why?

Vrocks. That stuff in your title is messing up the tables big time in Opera.

:::::: stuff?

You seem to surf a lot on CP sites. :winkwink:

Location: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::\\:::::::://::::::: ::::::\\:::::://:::::::: :::\\::\\:::://:://::::: ::::::::\\:://:::::::::: :::::::::\\//::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::

Btw that magazine format if you're up to that is pioneered by met-art and their models are all legal too.

yeah, I was wondering how the hell he knew that

No, I used to crack porn sites back in the day and we had to have a blacklist because CP surfers ask for those sites.

:eek7

and how the fuck would you know that?

Totally agree with you on this. Too many idiots make posts like this.

Only one girl looks too young and thats only in logo, rest looks fine.

Everybody knows who teen sites are target to, they have to look young otherwise it'd hardly sell as teen.I doubt posts like that without any real proof that they're underage even if their age is stated as 18 on the pages and not advertised as underage or similiar are really neccecary because they just might damage a sponsors reputation and won't help in any way.

There is no reason why a russian sponsor should produce stuff outside russia just to look more legit.

If you don't like to have very young looking but legal girls on your TGP just ban underage looks.

:2 cents:

I think you are all missing my point. I didn't say, XXL-CASH is promoting underage sites, I said, this site is done in the style of one and is basically trying to capitalize on it and I was asking for your opinion on it, not your opinion of me.

Is it just me or are the player haters in the house today? Fuck!

Can't you make a decision for yourself. Geez... If it looks to young for you then don't post it.

Don't worry I don't hate you :Buck:

If you're up to the magazine style I think met-art was the first who did that and they're respected and around for some years.I don't know those nude underage model sites so I can't really tell but I remember there were some mag style sites around too.

I agree, nowhere near cp

If the 2257 is in the Ukraine then there is no 2257.

That said, the site doesn't look any worse than MET etc.

Both photographers used to do "art", both saw the light of
international law.

Both are clean now. If you have doubts, ask for a pass to the
members area, don't spread rumours!

Yeah, I know Met_art was "ART" about 2 years ago because it made it to our blacklist. But it seems that about 1 year ago the site went 18+ and it is notable. That is why I actually promote them from time to time. I am happy they did it. Win-win for everyone!

I can form my own opinion about this and I was asking for yours, @ the content guy, so now I must ask you, Can't you form your own opinion about it and express it?

Yah I was wary after "Bad Sisters" , so I asked to see the members
section.

Don't slam a program because of a photographer reformed.
Do some homework.

If it still stinks in your nose, don't sell it.

I don't touch Met cause I'm still not 100% they won't pull the
archived stuff. (my opinion)

You're a fuckwit. Two possible scenarios with a post like this. One, it is indeed child porn and you're posting links to it. Great idea, dumbass! Two, which is far more likely, you're dragging an innocent webmaster's name through the mud. Both are fucked up situations, and you should be reamed with a baseball bat for bringing it to the board. You're a fuckwit.