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.

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.

Originally Posted by punkworld

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

Originally Posted by fünkmaster

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

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

Originally Posted by MetaMan

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Loryn-Adult.com

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

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.

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.

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:

Originally Posted by punkworld

so you're pretty much blindly following dogmas. :2 cents:

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

I doubt their parents know...:)

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MetaMan

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

Originally Posted by punkworld

You can't imagine greedy parents?

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

I doubt their parents know...:)

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by punkworld

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.

Originally Posted by punkworld

My guess is that in quite a few cases (e.g. eastern european and russian sites) the money actually benefits the entire family, including the girls on the sites.

Does it matter who the sites are for? So long as the girls on them aren't harmed in any way, and aren't forced to do anything they don't want to do, I don't think it's all that bad. Disgusting, maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

Originally Posted by punkworld

Does it matter who the sites are for? So long as the girls on them aren't harmed in any way, and aren't forced to do anything they don't want to do, I don't think it's all that bad. Disgusting, maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

Originally Posted by jimmyf

NO most 15 year old girls do not go to clubs and pretend to be 18. It would be a tiny fraction of them that do.

Maybe the one's you know do, but that dam sure is not most.

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

I think the general feeling is that even if it doesn't harm the children directly the pervert might get so pumped on the content that he feels the need to molest children that dont have anything to do with the internet..

Its def not a clearly defined MORAL or LEGAL stand..

But the point is DOES JEFF STILL PROMOTE this material , and if so post proof , like the sites , and if he doesnt then let sleeping dogs lie..

IF jeff did promote this material and ccbill actively processed the charges , then why wouldnt you be on ccbill's case ??

MANY many people whether they want to admit it or not have profited from this sort of material right or wrong.. ccbill made money from the processing , but they chose to DISCONTINUE this source of revenue due to moral reasons.. Well it seems to me jeff took the exact same stance.. he realise the material may be harmfull and switched venues EXACTLY the same way ccbill did ..

So if you want to say JEFF HAD NON-NUDE underage girls sites , then you should also point out CCBILL processed NON-NUDE underage girls..

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

I think the general feeling is that even if it doesn't harm the children directly the pervert might get so pumped on the content that he feels the need to molest children that dont have anything to do with the internet..

Its def not a clearly defined MORAL or LEGAL stand..

But the point is DOES JEFF STILL PROMOTE this material , and if so post proof , like the sites , and if he doesnt then let sleeping dogs lie..

IF jeff did promote this material and ccbill actively processed the charges , then why wouldnt you be on ccbill's case ??

MANY many people whether they want to admit it or not have profited from this sort of material right or wrong.. ccbill made money from the processing , but they chose to DISCONTINUE this source of revenue due to moral reasons.. Well it seems to me jeff took the exact same stance.. he realise the material may be harmfull and switched venues EXACTLY the same way ccbill did ..

So if you want to say JEFF HAD NON-NUDE underage girls sites , then you should also point out CCBILL processed NON-NUDE underage girls..

Originally Posted by Holly

Yes, it's wrong. You don't do that to your children. Period.