Teens In Ponytails And Such ... - Page 2

stuveltje · 2009-04-25, 07:50 PM

the only issue i have with porn is, when a girl looks to young in my point of view i wont list it, i dont fucking care the 2257 sais she has the right age, when i think she looks underage and she gives a wrong thinking to guys on the pics, i wont list it...i wont fucking deal with it...

Toby · 2009-04-25, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuveltje

the only issue i have with porn is, when a girl looks to young in my point of view i wont list it, i dont fucking care the 2257 sais she has the right age, when i think she looks underage and she gives a wrong thinking to guys on the pics, i wont list it...i wont fucking deal with it...

BINGO!

papagmp · 2009-04-25, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate

Why?

Read the Child Protections Act: Section 18 U.S.C. 2257

nuf said...................

nate · 2009-04-25, 07:11 PM

Also, what does "look younger than legal" even mean? Is there a trait that humans develop when they turn 18 that I haven't heard about?

Toby · 2009-04-25, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate

Why?

Read my prior posts in this thread. I've already covered that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate

Also, what does "look younger than legal" even mean? Is there a trait that humans develop when they turn 18 that I haven't heard about?

You're just being deliberately obtuse. I don't play that game.

nate · 2009-04-25, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

Read my prior posts in this thread. I've already covered that one. You're just being deliberately obtuse. I don't play that game.

I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind making judgments based on intent when the action is legal. Not that I care what you post or link to or whatever. You are free to do as you please. In the future, I wont ask you about anything else. Have a nice life.

Quote:

Read the Child Protections Act: Section 18 U.S.C. 2257

That's besides the point. We are talking specifically about images that are legal under the law and why some will not post, link to, or whatever to images that are legal under that law.

papagmp · 2009-04-26, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate

That's besides the point. We are talking specifically about images that are legal under the law and why some will not post, link to, or whatever to images that are legal under that law.

You obviously have no clue, nor do you care, what is, and what is not legal.

Say hi to Bubba

nate · 2009-04-26, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papagmp

You obviously have no clue, nor do you care, what is, and what is not legal.

Say hi to Bubba

So let me get this straight. If content is legal by virtue of compliance with the 2257 statutes, it can still be considered illegal under the 2257 statutes? Is that what you are saying.

The law is plain. If the performer is 18 or older, and you can provide documentation she is 18 or older, then you can post naked pictures of her involved in explicit sex acts or lasciviously exposing her genitalia. The law isn't concerned with pony tails, bedspreads, stuffed animals or makeup. As the point was made earlier, that is "mind police" territory.

Further, this thread has always been about content that is in compliance with the federal statutes, that is until you came in and changed the subject.

If you can show anywhere in any of the statutes where the intent of a producer to make a documented 18 year old look younger makes the content illegal, post the bit that says that. I'd like to see it. Since I "obviously have no clue" and you seem to think you do, do us a favor and point it out.

Also, I suggest you refrain from personal attacks against people that have done you no wrong.

papagmp · 2009-04-25, 08:42 PM

Question - is this going too far?

http://www.failpix.net/wp-content/up...1/babyfail.jpg

nate · 2009-04-26, 07:36 PM

Quote:

that makes them look younger that the age of 18

LOL. Who fooled you into thinking that?

papagmp · 2009-04-26, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate

LOL. Who fooled you into thinking that?

ROTFLMAO - I guess Ron White was right after all, you just can't fix stupid.

Licker4U · 2009-04-26, 08:12 PM

You're fucked nate, give up...

Here's your sign....

Pagan · 2009-04-26, 08:27 PM

I can't recall hearing anyone busted for this, but that doesn't mean it won't happen mainly because the responsible producers have their ducks in a row and have the appropriate documents on file. A lot of guys have fantasies about younger partners just as a lot of younger people fantasize about having older "teachers" break them in. If they didn't, quite a few popular websites would not exist. (Grandpas on teens, cougars, etc.) Is the fantasy healthy? I don't know - it isn't my fantasy and I do know it exists, right along with the sleep/rape fantasy.

You have to promote what you feel comfortable with. If you don't like CBT, don't promote it. I don't care for the body fluids, so I don't promote them. I have started doing some solo teen sites where the model is just barely legal. The staging is on the adult side so it doesn't bother me. I did do a site with teens and stuffed animals, but it also matches the paysite (Teddyfuckers). It had teens using stuffed animals to act grownup. And, some girls do still have braces at 18, so that isn't always a good marker. A lot of models use makeup to alter their ages - usually younger looking older. If you don't feel comfortable promoting barely-legal, don't do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you do. By the same token, if you don't want it on your linklists, say so. That's your right. I do still have the right to build within the law.

It is so hard to determine age with a lot of people. How can you tell just by looking at a picture that someone is 17 versus 18? I don't ever recall seeing a visible stamp that changes between 17, 18, 19, and even 20 and 21 with some adults. I also thought the entire idea behind 2257 was to require the content producers to verify these models are of age before shooting, and that the website producers were also required to maintain the same records. Pre-2257 we only had the sayso of the producer.

What does 18 look like?

nate · 2009-04-26, 08:54 PM

Quote:

You're fucked nate, give up...

Here's your sign....

Not according to the supreme court.

nate · 2009-04-26, 09:13 PM

In more plain speech

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the two prohibitions described above are overbroad and unconstitutional... Moreover, the Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Provisions of the CPPA cover "materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in our precedents or in the law of the First Amendment" and abridge "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech," wrote Justice Kennedy.

2009-04-25, 07:50 PM	#1
stuveltje Live and learn. And take very careful notes! Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sunny Holland Posts: 6,157	the only issue i have with porn is, when a girl looks to young in my point of view i wont list it, i dont fucking care the 2257 sais she has the right age, when i think she looks underage and she gives a wrong thinking to guys on the pics, i wont list it...i wont fucking deal with it... __________________ Canadian Sexlinks - submit Erotica search -submit

2009-04-25, 08:42 PM	#9
papagmp That'll teach you to leave your sister unattended..... Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 1,803	Question - is this going too far? http://www.failpix.net/wp-content/up...1/babyfail.jpg __________________ Submit: OutlawFreePorn

2009-04-26, 08:12 PM	#12
Licker4U Mean people suck, nice people swallow, are you mean or nice? Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Lower Alabama-The Redneck Riviera Posts: 2,377	You're fucked nate, give up... Here's your sign.... __________________ Submit to Girls That Squirt , Hairy Pussy Links and Best Wet Pussy

2009-04-26, 08:27 PM	#13
Pagan Perverted Empress Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 5,124	I can't recall hearing anyone busted for this, but that doesn't mean it won't happen mainly because the responsible producers have their ducks in a row and have the appropriate documents on file. A lot of guys have fantasies about younger partners just as a lot of younger people fantasize about having older "teachers" break them in. If they didn't, quite a few popular websites would not exist. (Grandpas on teens, cougars, etc.) Is the fantasy healthy? I don't know - it isn't my fantasy and I do know it exists, right along with the sleep/rape fantasy. You have to promote what you feel comfortable with. If you don't like CBT, don't promote it. I don't care for the body fluids, so I don't promote them. I have started doing some solo teen sites where the model is just barely legal. The staging is on the adult side so it doesn't bother me. I did do a site with teens and stuffed animals, but it also matches the paysite (Teddyfuckers). It had teens using stuffed animals to act grownup. And, some girls do still have braces at 18, so that isn't always a good marker. A lot of models use makeup to alter their ages - usually younger looking older. If you don't feel comfortable promoting barely-legal, don't do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you do. By the same token, if you don't want it on your linklists, say so. That's your right. I do still have the right to build within the law. It is so hard to determine age with a lot of people. How can you tell just by looking at a picture that someone is 17 versus 18? I don't ever recall seeing a visible stamp that changes between 17, 18, 19, and even 20 and 21 with some adults. I also thought the entire idea behind 2257 was to require the content producers to verify these models are of age before shooting, and that the website producers were also required to maintain the same records. Pre-2257 we only had the sayso of the producer. What does 18 look like? __________________ Is it naptime yet?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2009-04-25, 07:11 PM	#4
nate I can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Merica! Posts: 543	Also, what does "look younger than legal" even mean? Is there a trait that humans develop when they turn 18 that I haven't heard about?

2009-04-26, 09:13 PM	#15
nate I can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Merica! Posts: 543	In more plain speech In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the two prohibitions described above are overbroad and unconstitutional... Moreover, the Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Provisions of the CPPA cover "materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in our precedents or in the law of the First Amendment" and abridge "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech," wrote Justice Kennedy.