Softcore content, post 8/24

[lassiter]

I'm curious to get LL and TGP owners' opinions (well, everyone's opinion actually) on the feasibility of making softcore-only sites that actually don't contain "sexually-explicit" content as described by Sec. 2256(2). Will LLs and TGPs generally accept sites with content softer than the definition below?

(2)

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -

(A)

sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B)

bestiality;

(C)

masturbation;

(D)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

We talk so often about "not giving the surfer the hard stuff" on the free end. How little can we actually given 'em and still make sales? I'm asking 'cause there is no way I can be present in my "primary place of business" from 8am -6pm 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and may well have to try and serve softcore-only content on my domains so that I don't come under 2257 inspection rules at all. Does anyone think it's possible to make reasonable sales that way? Obviously it would be easier to sell big-boob sites than anal DP sites. Or would it?



(Note: I work at least 8 solid hours a day on my business, but that's on top of the 8-5 other job I still have, and so I'm usually not "in the office" during DoJ inspection hours. I get the feeling many of us have been ignoring that part of the regs and depending on the lack of inspections and "playing the odds" but my attorney says it looks from the choice of wording and emphasis in the new rules that the DoJ does not intend to ignore that 8 to 6, 7 days a week rule for web businesses and they cannot advise anyone else to ignore it either.)

[Tino]

I would list a pretty face and a pair of tits. And yes I think you could make sales with that. I think the idea is to make it look like that- "this is what you get for free- if you want more- check out our sponsor."

[Sumrpal]

Yes Tino, that is exactly what the Free Porn Sample business model is supposed to be ... what it was at the beginning. A pretty face, a pair of tits, and some good sales text. I couldn't have put it better myself.

People who don't follow this axiom are biting the hand that feeds them.

Personally, I'm hoping against hope that all the requirements of the new 2257 regulations come into effect, are strictly enforced, and are adopted by all other major countries in the world. It would be a boon for all serious, professional adult webmasters.

The notion that surfers will stop searching for porn and buying memberships to porn sites just because there aren't any more free hardcore samples flooding the Net is (as I've previously stated here) idiotic and ludicrous. Surfers will ALWAYS buy access to porn, especially when they can't get it for free. It's a slam dunk.

[Tommy]

I got some non nude stuff listed.
In fact I think women are much sexyer in lingerie then nude

if the pics and the chick were hot, I would list it, daily

the pics and the gallery are gonna have to be high quality

[plateman]

ditto on what tommy said, and i get turned on with a bomb babe in lingerie or panties..

[T Pat]

All my content on Tijuana-Whores and Tijuana-Escorts is soft core. I'm not getting rich but am makeing sales with the little traffic I get, have no problem getting on LL's and TGP's and have better than 5o% retention

[kristian]

Sounds good to me, lassiter I'm considering doing the same thing.

[airdick]

Originally posted by lassiter
I'm curious to get LL and TGP owners' opinions (well, everyone's opinion actually) on the feasibility of making softcore-only sites that actually don't contain "sexually-explicit" content as described by Sec. 2256(2). Will LLs and TGPs generally accept sites with content softer than the definition below?

It is worth noting that only A-D of Sec. 2256(2) is mentioned in the definitions, but not E (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person). It seems to me that content featuring models without pants can be exempt, provided that the models are not engaged in "actually sexually explicit conduct" described in 2256(2)A-D.

Maybe not a big deal, but if you want to stick with exempt content this seems to open a wide range of choices beyond just boobs and panties.

On a related note, I would like to find out what "(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse" means. A lot of people that I know enjoy sadistic and masochistic play, but since it's always consensual we would never think of it as "abuse". It's probably wishful thinking to imagine that the DOJ would feel the same way.

Clearly any type of painful sensation play (spanking, nipple clamps, needleplay, etc) is sadistic and masochistic, but what about plain old rope bondage?
How about bondage where the model isn't even nude?

I know that I'll have to spend some $$ and talk to an attorney experienced in adult law if I want real legal advice, but I would be interested in reading other webmaster's thoughts on exempt adult content.

[bret]

Originally posted by Tommy
...In fact I think women are much sexyer in lingerie then nude...

amen to that brutha.

[Alphawolf]

Well, here's what worked for GG in 2003 in softcore:

http://www.greenguysboard.com/greeng.../softcore.html

[Pornstar Dames]

I think the odd softcore gallery would be a good thing but you couldnt list all softcore because there will always be somewhere who will show a bit more.

I think showing it all can work I always find showing the pussy legs wide open but the face at a bad angle can be alot more teasing than a softcore pic personally.