Mosteroticteens...good program?
 

www.mosteroticteens.com

I was hoping I could get some feedback on this site...thinking about being an affiliate...anyone else have any luck with these guys?

Thanks for any and all responses


Ea

nothing like young girls to turn a buck.

those girls look very very young

Some models are under 18 years ... I guess its on a par with those Russian lolita sites.

Interpret that however you like. Personally I wouldn't do business with people like that.

neither would I.

tooooo young....

What gets me are all the Adult Webmasters from the US that push shit like this and Seventeen.

:winkwink:

seventeen is just a crock of shit, all those girls are 18. Its just a scam to trick surfers.

The other site in question actually contains girls under 18.
Both sites suck but :mosteroticteens.com
is by far the worst of the 2.

I know the model age, thats not the point.

Dont try and deny the NAME of the fucking thing, its Seventeen, not too obscure of an implying.

Whats with these fuck ass russians? i got an e-mail the other day by a Russian selling content. He asked my what age group, I told him legal. He responed with "in russia 14 is legal" I then responed with "GO FUCK YOURSELF"..ahh fucking asswholes.


later
Ray

Well...I hear what everyone is saying...but Amazon.com sells books of their photograghers work...the same stuff that is found on the site....that's what caught my attention, would Amazon be hooke up with anything sketchy?

EA

Context. You build a gallery of 17 year olds and list it on The Hun (or any other TGP) and it's CP.

did I speak fondly of Seventeen?
I'm not DENYING anything, I think the site is shit and wouldn't promote it.
thought my post above was rather clear.

Hmmm sorry you sounded more disgruntled about them tricking surfers into the 17 fantasy, which is now illegal.

my mistake.

Any promoting those fucking CP bastards deserve to fucking rot in hell. Those girls on there are not 18 and you can read for yourself here: http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...t=lightsp eed

Follow the thread on the first post.

Seriously man, do not promote underage stuff like that; it's just plain sick. There are TONS of LEGAL teen sites to promote...like mine, hehe. No seriously though, don't risk it and promote CP.

Cassie

Thanks for the link to that thread...after 45 minutes worth of reading posts, I doubt I'll consider even typing that name...let alone market the site. Fuck...I'm new to this shit...I wanted to do a teen niche...girls on Hustlers Barely Legal site to me looks just as young...i thought everybody had to have 18 plus stuff to get hosting and processing?

I'm moving into grandma sex. Shitbags, o2 tanks, and hospital gurneys... the whole works.

Thanks for the heads up everyone.

EA

Just for the record, I don't recommend or condemn any sites we process for, to keep things even among the customers.

However, given the site that's being discussed, make one point -

http://www.mosteroticteens.com/disclaimer.htm

KimmyKim, I respect you and everything, but you know its true that before we made the post on "another bbs" their disclaimer stated that some models were in fact under the age of 18. There is even a link to the cached page (if it's still there) and quotes from the original disclaimer. I doubt very much that they have removed the underage content.

This is their legal statement from late 1999 or early 2000:

LEGAL STATEMENT, PLEASE READ!

It is up to you to determine if these kinds of images are legal in your own area. We can assure you that it is legal under U. S. federal laws and under California laws. As far as we know there are no State laws against this kind of material. But maybe your county or town has a law against it. Images such as the ones displayed can be purchased at large bookstores all over the USA and Japan. Photo Artists such as David Hamilton and Jock Sturges have made careers photographing nude adolescent females. At one point Jock Sturges was raided by the FBI. He won in court because material such as this is constitutionally protected. We are totally against "child pornography" and this ain't it. There are very specific guidelines called the Dost Factors, they come from a 1986 case: U.S. vs. Dost, and were later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit U.S.Court of Appeals. The Dost factors are used to help determine if an image contains the "lacivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" as referred to in United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 Section 2256, and which would make an image "child pornography".We pay careful attention to these factors when selecting images for our site. For a further discussion of the current state of the law in this area see Newsweek magazine, March 10, 1998, p.58. It is our position that all of the models in this web site posed willing and are currently OK with the fact that their images are publicly displayed. Not all cultures are as uptight as we USA Americans are about the nude human body. If we ever received credible information that any image in this web site was produced under questionable conditions which disrespected the model, we would remove it.

Yes, they even made it a point out that the underage girls having sex were taken before a certain date, so it was legal! :mad:

As I said on that other board as well -- if you believe that any specific images of theirs -- or anyone else's -- are in violation of our TOS, then you should email [email protected] with the urls and images. If the site in question can't produce documentation as to the age of the model then they have two choices. Take it down or get turned off. :)

This isn't a point of legal, it's a point of our TOS --

KK, I ment MET not CCBill.

I don't want to get into a flame war on this -- we've been over it a million times -- but I think it's unfortunate that MET is being promoted like a porno site -- if you look at the images -- at least the ones that I've seen on their affiliate program last I looked -- they are very tasteful, artistic, and not sexually provocative... i think if they had done a more tasteful site w/ emphasis on the photography the site wouldn't be so controversial... last I checked they are promoting the site like a porn site which is lame.

I wouldn't promote them.

Well said.

Wake Up, Boy. Russians are not allowed on CCBill.
This is a Netherlands (owner) and American (hosting and billing) underage lolita site..

I don't have any comments about Russians bad or good. But I will say it once more, MET is in compliance with our TOS now, if anyone should think they are not at any point -- or ANY other site -- email the specific images and urls and either they produce documentation of age, or face the consequences.

KK... I would like that entire site investigated. I've reported them to the e-mail you gave, and to reportchildporn, and even to the FBI. I asked them all to e-mail me back with confirmation that they received my e-mail and were gonna do something about it, but NONE of them answered my e-mail.

It seems that innocent people like bigdoggie get busted and put in jail, but sites like MET aren't. Since, you probably have a better pull on things, since you work there, I would appreciate it if you had him investigate the ENTIRE site. You can copy and paste this message and give it to him. It's not the first time I've been ignored for reporting child porn or SPAM mail.

Thanks KK

MET isn't child porn. It's very artistic and its pics are very artistic. It's a shame that the site can take on an erotic nature since it is classified as an adult site but as KK said, the site is OK with their TOS.

I don't think the site should be shut down.

The TOS says no one under 18 without clothes on eru --

As I understand it, quite a few complaints about their images were made not long ago, and they were given a list of needed docs. What is left on their site is documented.

GFED - from a legal standpoint they were within the law all along. From the TOS standpoint they weren't, so they were given a choice to make.

Actually, I concur with the idea that a nude person who happens to be under 18 (our local idea of what "of age" should be) is NOT automatically porn. In that case, cathedrals are covered with child porn in the form of nude cherubs. I think the mind that sees a nude child and automatically thinks "porn" is the actual sick one.

If it's used on an adult site, I consider it CHILD PORN. Do they put naked pictures of LITTLE GIRLS in Playboy or Hustler? This is not an artistic site. It is not a museum. This site is far from a church. It is an ADULT site where PERVERTS get off on looking at LITTLE GIRLS. They SPECIFICALLY STATED before they MODIFIED their DISCLAMER that they have CHILDREN UNDER 18 in what would be CONSIDERED CHILD PORN after July 3, 1995.


"All of the models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in the following Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions. All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995."


This is my last post in this thread. I am not arguing, I am trying to make a point and have something done about it. There is already one just like it and I already gave a reference to it. They are obviously breaking CCBill's TOS, but CCBill does not care enough to check the site out like I've asked three times already. Just because they changed their disclaimer doesn't mean shit.

Good-looking site. I'd certainly check out their legal standing - who is

"Lawrence A Stanley
ESQ. PO box 2377
New York, N.Y 10185 " That's the name they refer to on the Legal page.

Could that be their lawyer? See if he's in the NY phone book and call him. I like this site and if they treat their affiliates right I'd try an association with them.