Emperor: What is Your plan here? First You ask the question if this sponsor is okay and after the tread start going You decide to announce Your "research" - its a motherfucker - don't market it? And You do not tell why! Thats some kind of research.
Personally I admit I prefer hot "MILF" but if the site really is okay and the models have the age above 18 why do You want to bad mouth the sponsor.
Also regarding the 2257, I know its a pain in the ass for many US webmasters - but even US is a great country its only a little part of the world and its the only place where 2257 is required. It will never reach Europe as an ex so why should the site need to fullfill the 2257 requirements?
Hey! BTW: An idea in future could be european webmasters and US webmaster working together. When I say european I mean the good old western european countries :)

I've promoted this site through various channels for a while. I use their FHG's at my blog.

the result? signups.

I've talked to guys in email about legallity and seen them quoted several times about legality and while i can offer no garuntees i do know that they say they do not promote condone underage photography. they do not attempt to make sales for people looking for that kind of content. they do not welcome that kind of marketing. they shoot only consenting adult models.

so for whatever that's worth that's cool.

look at this gallery for example:
http://hosted.met-art.com/generated_.../922213/24180/

that's some of the most incredible content in the industry imho and i love listing it. its amazing softcore.

2257 exempt? Unlikely. but i'm not hosting it on my server anyways so who cares, as long as i've been assured they're of legal age.

They're not guiltier about marketing to the folks looking for just over the border 18 folks than many, many programs who are owned by folks right in our kneck of the woods.

If you're uncomfortable marketing the 'just recently 18' crowd might want to take a good look at some of the programs you're promoting. I can think of several sites offhand that have these types of sites in their programs.

I'll put my 2 cents in here.

I signed up to MET last month.

After going through the first 3 years of their archives I had seen enough preteens to make me cancel my membership.

When I asked them about it, they denied it all and said they couldn't find any and claimed they only go back two weeks in the archives (bull). Why does it say 1999 in the archives then?

I even told them specifically one set that I remember that had a 10-12 year old girl in it. It was very obvious,,, no hips, no tits, no hair, nothing. She is a child. That whole guest photographer set is all children from that particular series (attitude series). He then responded that it doesn't exists. I even offered to give him a url to it if he gave me a temp pass to get back in. Again, denial.

In total I'd say that 10 percent of the early years is all children.

While perfectly legal and non-explicit, it does NOT belong in a site being promoted by pornographers.

I suggest not touching them. Preteens and porn do NOT mix and opens yourself up to all kinds of trouble.

not only that, even if the model IS 18+, protraying her as under 18 in explicit content IS ILLEGAL and considered child pornography.

It's law in both the US and Canada. While it's burried in US law, it's clearly stated in the canadian Age of Consent laws and Child Protection acts. In Canada anyone distributing, producing and selling the product can be charged under these laws and face STEEP penalties.

I know I saw the same thing looking through their site, thus my post about there definately being children on their site.
Admitted the images I saw were beautiful photographs, with out being overtly sexual...but still children under the age of 18 naked, and several with spread legs.
Again...quite possibly completely legal even in todays political climate, but not something I will continue to promote.

Just because a books cover is PG, does not make the content of the book safe.

Quite honestly even if they cleaned the whole site out and took all the definate pre-teens out I wouldn't feel safe promoting them without signed and dated proof every girl on their site was off legal age at the time of the shoot. Which being overseas they feel they do not need.

since i've promoted this site many diferent times at many different channels i'm lauching my own investigation into the matter.

wish me luck.

bleh.

i'm done with this topic. time to move on.

Not that it really matters, but Hegre isnt danish, he's norwegian ;)

I happen to reject galleries that uses sponsors that try to create this virtual KP...even if the models are 18 it just completely creeps me out to see 18 year olds dressed / acting like 12 year olds. They're definitely trying to cater to a segment of the population that I don't want visiting my sites.

I'd been busy the last few weeks and not much out here... so I come late to the party:

As an affiliate with Met-Art I have access to their member section, and as an European I'm problably not as narrow-minded as the US laws (reflecting the thinking of many US citizens) - hence my comments:

1. in recent years there's been no content published by Met-Art which really looks "under-age". You might find some sets (5,6,?) in the pre-2000 section which are a little dubious, but these are all pictures well below the quality of today and hardly worth another look (plus: they'd been published over and over on TGPs at the time = they are well known).

2. Met-Art's address of business in NEW YORK/USA - would they really risk this exposure to US litigation if they were doing anything non-conform with US laws?

3. you can find heaps of sets which are of high aesthetic value featuring models well in their twenties - those are the ones I pick to promote Met-Art! The decision to sign-up with the site is in any case with the surfer, and if I don't push anything even remotely suggesting 'young' then I don't believe that I'm fostering this mind-set...

Getting listings with Met-Art content is another story, though: they are a little over-exposed, plus many sites have them blacklisted (same way of thinking I find in several posts above)...

Food for thought: personally I have actually more problems with a lot of these so-called "reality sites", where girls are portrayed as willingly to have sex with any old fart showing off a flash car or some cash... I'm thinking of sites like "Girls For Cash", "Teen Hitchhiker", and the like (where all girls might look legal).

What's about these twisted minds who take this for real, and how will they react if a young girl says "NO" to their advances?
Are we (indirectly) encouraging RAPE?

I stand corrected sir - they all look the same to me ;-)

Cheers! |viking|

If a chick wants to fuck for cash (we're talking fantasy sites here anyway) That is not rape. I don't see your point George.

The point is: these guys get the FALSE impression that any young chick will say 'yes' to a bundle of cash (or are quickly impressed by other signs of wealth, or promises of fame) and have sex with any stranger. Have you never heard of the twisted idea "no" from a girl really means "yes"? And that's then rape.

Anyhow: I thought I had made it fairly clear in my initial post - at least for the ones with more than one braincell ... |devil|

The sexualization of very young looking girls is dangerous