Fuck i second the motion |thumb even better some Useless creampies |shocking| that i could sell :)

|pokefun| Kinda funny that Useless takes issue with the swinger part, but not the cum in the eye part.

LOL My wife was contacted by a guy in a wheel chair in Tampa that was willing to pay our air fare to Tampa and get us a hotel room and pay us $$$ so he could watch us bumping nasties. |huh After realizing the pitfalls inherintly built into the offer we declined...but it sounded good. |badidea| You never know...

How much was he paying lol?? I can find a local slut and go down there :D

You're dealing with people that want the thrill of something new. New partners, new places and new experiences. I haven't known a lot of swingers but the few I have known love the idea of public places, strangers, being filmed, etc ...

My neighbor pays people all the time just to watch them fuck. I've sat in on a few viewings. Kind of boring if you ask me but then I sell porn for a living.

Not that I mix with those sort of lascivious types...cough...but if I did, I can assure you that the ones I would hypothetically know would be especially discreet and not in favor the idea of "straight" folks watching and knowing about their activities. I can certainly understand the additional excitement of it all, but I don't -hypothetically- know anyone like that.
|jackinthe

As someone who does mix with those "lascivious types", Useless is actually correct. (The world is coming to an end) |couch|

If we just want to swing and not worry about "content", we NEVER mention our site. Because even if we are not taking pictures, as soon as they hear we have a site they want nothing to do with us. :(

There are alot of swingers that are lawyers, doctors, teachers and other professional where discreetion isn't only desired it is REQUIRED for job security.

As you know in this day and age of the internet, it is way too easy for them to be discovered.

I do believe that youngwhoringwives will take care of that quite nicely for you. :-) *see uw's siggy for the link*..

An earlier story on it told more. What they did was paid a girl to have group sex at a private party to see if she'd be good for filming in a movie.

Thats the prostitution.. and the rest was more than likely tacked on to see if it will stick.

I've been away but have a read a bit. So the site is down 100% now? I guess I better yanks some links? Is that what people are doing?

A little naive there I think. Outside of certain parts of California, shoots are considered prostitiution, as it is sex for money- camera or no camera. Using prostitution to commit further offenses constitutes racketeering, which falls under the RICO act. RICO in turn allows the authorities to seize all assets without due process. Kinda hard to pay your lawyers, let alone affiliates this way.
Furthermore, paying the model's travel expenses violates the MANN act, because they are transporting people across state lines to commit indecent acts (white slavery laws)

The only thing they're missing (at this point) is IRS and a way to tie it into the Patriot Act.

This is a very serious case, with ramifications for everyone in the US who shoots content. I suspect it will set an important precident in the industry. Those boys were doing the same things that dozens of other US companies do all the time. Hopefully this will inspire them to clean up their own acts. Regardless, it hits very close to home, and if any industry related case needs our close attention (and support), I think this one is it.

Is that some sort of bizzaro world where the 1st Amendment doesn't exist?

Yes. I waited a day to see if it they would come back up, but when it wouldn't I had to. On my LL I can just deactivate the sponsor temporarily, but unfortunately on my tgp's my only option is to delete the galleries. |cry|

Well here's some more details, with a comparison to an older California case. and a comment by Larry Walters.

It's People Vs. Freeman, Florida Style
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=270764

I dont think that it stems from paying someone to perform in a real shoot, or porn movie. The thing went down when they were paid to have sex at a private party that was not filmed. That was from the informant. So it could be bad for them, but not bad for porn producers in general (which I think is what people should probably hope for? I dunno)

Again it was laid out a bit better in the original article. They arrested them after the informant told them about the private party evidently. That one is going to stick unless the informant was/is a total unbelieveable flake on the stand I guess.

That would change everything. Take the camera out of the "picture" and I think it would be considered prostitution. Jesus, even a simple tape recorder would have protected them.

I pretty much say that to my gf every time. Although $100 is pretty low. but it's like "why are we doing this for free?"

As far as I know, the California law thing is true.

That is strange. It seems like it would have been challenged. Then again, there is a "Non Free Speech Area" around bush and his crony's :) Just look at all the people that get arrested for wearing anti-bush tee shirts. I guess really nothing is surprising these days.

For anyone who is interested, it looks like the sites are back up.

Yes, I believe LA County is the only place in the U.S. where the production of pornography is legal. I think that's what I read.

Do they teach U.S. law in Canada? They certainly don't teach it here. ;)

hehe- We are innundated with US news and culture up here. Most Canadians are more familliar with US laws and politics than their own.

For most of us reading the board since April, 03, we have concluded that Canadians think they no more about US laws and politics. Hell, they even have the solutions to all our ills. :D

:D equals Chop is joking around. If I offended any of you Northerns go get fucked or smoke a joint and protest something.

Emma, certainly I would not want to offend you as I have a trip planned for you.

Yes, but we are too polite to suggest to you how it might be done!