Ok - so now who is still working with met-art? hmmmm???
 

and who has removed the links already?

Its a very interesting question - lets see who puts their money where their mouth is.

Post here when you remove your Met-Art links.

i dont see any proof , those links are certainly questionable ( from what i saw ) , i didnt see any cp images but the intent was certainly "questionable".

I think its a valid question and deserves an answer as to what that was and why its there , but i didnt directly see any cp ( although i didnt go to far in )

I missed it but i have a question. Isnt met-art just nude shots? They dont have porn do they?

Come on Smokey - you saw it as well as I did.

It was removed within a few minutes - and that alone is damaging.

I saw CP on those pages - I dont like it - and I dont like the way GFY has handled it.

these were nude shots of what appeared to me to be 8-10 year old girls def questionable..

i only saw a couple pics they were just nudes.. im not saying its right , im not saying i would promote it, and even if thats all there was/is , i think its not a good idea to be promoting this sort of material alongside regular adult stuff.. BUT , its not cp .. it was "artsy" stuff, but i dont think promoting nude artsy stuff alongside adult material is acceptable in any way

Its obvious you people no nothing about art Photo

The met art links were to a book "Anjos Proibidos"

Hmm thats pretty bad if true. Like full size images or just small thumbs like many sites have. 18+ content but the thumbs cropped in a way that they look underaged.

So explain it to us? Wtf is that book?

Franck, they have girls kissing, exposing their private parts in a manner consistant with USC18 section 2256:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), hahaha8220;sexually explicit conducthahaha8221; means actual or simulatedhahaha8212;
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, hahaha8220;sexually explicit conducthahaha8221; meanshahaha8212;
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

There are some pretty obvious "crotch shots" on their tour, that, while they are not total closeups, obviously and clearly show the model's pubic area (and appear to be intended to do so).

It ain't just art, and promoting it on porn sites is clear proof that the marketing is to porn surfers, not to Sports Illustrated readers.

Alex

Anyone have links to the original thread where more detials are talked about?

And lickmymonster. You do know what "Anjos Prohibidos" means right?

The "Forbidden ages".

not me.......

Doesn't matter... once you mix "art" and "porn", it all becomes porn. You cannot sell images of nude 10 year olds amoungst pictures of adult nude, kissing, and exposing themselves for the camera. The implication is that the site has "sexual material"... and that the 10 year old somehow might be involved.

Do you think that Hustler could run an "art" picture of a 10 year nude in the middle of it's magazine? Maybe Playboy?

Hmmm.

Alex

theres a time and a place for nude art and an even smaller time/place for nude art of children..

I certainly agree there is "art" that is acceptable , but it shouldnt be promoted / displayed on a porn site..

Would you visit a porn video store that advertised videos of naked children "art" on the windows ?

It was full on - CP (sorry, I mean art) - It was a nude underage girl. What more can I say?

As far as the book comment is concerned - do you promote it as well? - if so then GFY.

The users here - at least - do not want anything to do with it.

Im not so sure about the mods any more. :mad:

http://18-209.iicinternet.com/nymphe...proibidos.html

Some photographers produce art, publish books and sell prints.

A nude child is not cp

was this links on the met-art site to nude art books or actual photos on the met-art domain?

http://18-209.iicinternet.com/nymphe...proibidos.html

Looks like 12

Depending on the context, it is. A nuce child on a porn site is, well, CP.

Alex

It looked like the met art page linked to Amazon Books to me.

Absolutely

I agree with that.

Pulling traffic in by pandering to pedos - forgetting any laws, is offensive. Particularly when it's clearly known that mixing child "art" with porn is an obvious no no, irrespective of it's artistic value.

They all need thrown in jail without trial and stop trying to kid each other! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

actual photos from the books i think, its gone now , but thats what i saw, the pic were on met art

I removed all MET ART links.

Good :thumbsup

I have to admit that I feel a bit used by the guy that did the origional drive by drama thread - but GFY fucked themselves here.

They know that anything goes on this board - but one thing will not be tolerated, by any of us, is that.

I missed the earlier threads but after seeing the cached page from google talking about 12 and 13 year olds it took no time at all to remove Met Art links.

I'm thankful I didn't have to see that. I don't care how 'innocent' those pics were - they shouldn't be online much less on a porn/adult site.

Since when did taking pictures of naked kids become art? Sorry, its all CP as far as I am concerned.

Nude children have no place on the internet. I don't care if they were shot by Herb Ritts... it's not art.

Lucky for everyone else in the US such irrational people like you don't make the laws. :2 cents:

Please explain?

naked children is not art no matter what one thinks. you may see something as artistic, but you can bet some sick fucks are looking at it for other reasons. that alone makes it wrong.

Does that mean you think it's OK to post pictures of nude kids?

What's to explain? You can't make a law about everything somebody takes offense to. After a few times of that you find out that nobody likes anything and you've regulated yourselves into sitting in the house watching TV because stepping outside and looking left is against the law.

I don't think it's ok to post nude pictures of anyone. You should all be arrested.

Its about personal standards - on here anyway.

Personal standards are aok. Just can't touch anything near the law. I'm only 26 but I remember nude art from the time I was probably 5 or 6 years old in libraries, even the school library etc. They aren't saying "Oh I believe we shouldn't link to that" they are going off on their hollier than thou rants about how it's not art and it's illegal and they should be shot when fact is they are wrong. If they want to change the law go lobby and if they really want to take a stand they need to stop associating with sites that associate with sites that associate with sites dealing with Met Art. We'll be left with a bunch of moral people sitting around promoting themselves.

lol because someone looks at it for other reasons makes it wrong.. ?

So if some sicko likes naked dogs and gets off on it , its wrong to post pictures of naked dogs..

Sorry , i understand where your coming from .. but there IS a time and a place for it ( not naked dogs thats just sick :) ).. I'm not sure if you have kids , but if you do , you will understand.. I have a picture of my wife and my son as a baby NAKED on my wall , and i have sent it to family friends.. its artistic and i'm very proud of it..

WE ALL agree that regardless of the context of the pictures they shouldn't be on a porn site.. what your saying is there isn't any artisic merit in any pictures of naked children and that just isn't the case.. spin it however you want but thats life..

yeah you know what from now on I am with the republicans

all porn is imoral and should not tolerated

also gay and bi relationships should be illegal becuase I said so

and any religion besides christianity is imoral

give me a fuckin break


the only way to protect your rights is to respect the rights of others

Americans are so full of shit and such dickless cowards how come we have to sexualize every fuckin thing?????????? why cant it be art?????????

why do we constanly try to persecute people for their thoughts?????

crazy and no that wasnt CP it was art from what i saw

I also assume you guys consider the illustrations of nude children in your favorite bible CP as well

and for the record I would still work with them based on the content I saw

totaly harmless and innocent

It was on a porn site - Im still shocked that people here, of all places, dont get it.

i agree the pics themselves werent cp but its about context. Would you visit an adult video store with "artistic" pictures of naked children on the walls and the stores name was " forbidden ages "

cmon now.. lets be realistic

Because "inserter pissed off poster name here" said it's not art.

Then several said if you mix it with adult pictures it's all porn. :1orglaugh So these stock photo sites that have adult nudes, young nudes, and pictures of airplanes are CP pushers now?

Does Met even have a sexually explicit image on their site? I've never seen one.

I don't think anybody would see anything wrong with that - but I'd be very surprised if you had a picture of your son as a 9 or 10 year old naked on the wall and sent it to family and friends......

I was a met member before I knew anything about HTML and to me the whole damn site has always been ART the colors the lighting everything

maybe slightly erotic but art nonetheless

Those Ivory soap commercials always offended me

I write letters to the government everytime a diaper commercial comes on. Sick fuckers and their nudity!

Id shut the fuck up if I was you....

I will not let this be watered down because GFY cant get its act together as usual. Thats the way the game is played here - not this time.

Its the one subject that is untouchable - as it should be.

you have a point , its hard to draw a line . personally the pics although "artsy" didnt seem to serve any artistic purpose , but thats only in my opinion of art.. i think the line is fairly safe where its at without any further clarification.. as long as people dont cross that line and start promoting both together ..