Kind of important

SirMoby · 2006-01-19, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagi_AFF

The models used in those particular GEO ads are StreamRay Cam girls who must submit two forms of ID in order to work with StreamRay.

I'm sure that she's over age but I don't like her looking so young. I know that's just my personal preference.

Are you saying that AFF does NOT have a copy of her IDs on file and that you're relying on a third party to verify the age of models in your promotional material?

Sagi_AFF · 2006-01-19, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirMoby

I'm sure that she's over age but I don't like her looking so young. I know that's just my personal preference.

Are you saying that AFF does NOT have a copy of her IDs on file and that you're relying on a third party to verify the age of models in your promotional material?

The images are hosted by StreamRay. You should also know that last year StreamRay and FriendFinder Inc merged and are now owned by the same parent company Various Inc. So essentially AFF does have a copy of all the IDs. I have sent an e-mail to 2257@streamray.com just to verify the age of this model.

SirMoby · 2006-01-19, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagi_AFF

The images are hosted by StreamRay. You should also know that last year StreamRay and FriendFinder Inc merged and are now owned by the same parent company Various Inc. So essentially AFF does have a copy of all the IDs. I have sent an e-mail to 2257@streamray.com just to verify the age of this model.

That makes sense.

Halfdeck · 2006-01-19, 05:37 PM

She does look underage to me, and I wouldn't use that banner. Still, there's nothing in the text "innocentleila" that implies she's underage. If AFF has her valid ID then that's good enough for me. It might still be a good idea to remove her from the ad and create a teen niche filter for webmasters that want to filter out portraits of youngish looking models.

Toby · 2006-01-19, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

...Still, there's nothing in the text "innocentleila" that implies she's underage.

By itself no, but in combination with the youthful appearance...

Perhaps I go a little beyond the line on this topic. I don't even allow the words "teen" or "young" to be used on galleries submitted to my TGP's. I'd rather there not be any question about the content on my sites in regards to age of the models.

MrYum · 2006-01-19, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

By itself no, but in combination with the youthful appearance...

Perhaps I go a little beyond the line on this topic. I don't even allow the words "teen" or "young" to be used on galleries submitted to my TGP's. I'd rather there not be any question about the content on my sites in regards to age of the models.

Yup

I tend to scrutinize teen sites very carefully myself. None of the teddy bears and braces bullshit...and I wouldn't touch that banner with a ten foot pole.

ecchi · 2006-01-23, 01:51 PM

Quote:

there's nothing in the text "innocentleila" that implies she's underage

Actually there is. At a glance a surfer is very liable to see this as "innocent ******". (Edit- the board apparently automatically deletes the word I typed in bold, and replaces it by asterisks. If you have not yet guessed what the word is, think of the book by Vladimir Nabokov, or the film directed by Stanley Kubrick, that now is taken to refer to underage girls.) As I am assuming that the people at AFF are not idiots, I have to assume this is deliberate. Coupled with the pic, I can only see this as a deliberate attempt to grab customers who are after underage girls.

Quote:

If AFF has her valid ID then that's good enough for me.

Yes, fair enough, but the point I am making is that if you use that ad on TGP galleries, or free sites that rely on trades or LLs you are liable to get blacklisted because the other WM objects.

Quote:

I wouldn't use that banner

You don't get the choice to not include it. If you use the AFF code on your page that puts a geo specific message on your page it also puts a random selection of pictures from AFF on your page, with the text underneath them. As I said at the start, I doubt if the WM is even aware that this picture appears on his site. That is why I started this thread, so that WM's using the code could see the type of material that is put on their site sometimes if they use AFF's code.

DJilla · 2006-01-23, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

By itself no, but in combination with the youthful appearance...

Perhaps I go a little beyond the line on this topic. I don't even allow the words "teen" or "young" to be used on galleries submitted to my TGP's. I'd rather there not be any question about the content on my sites in regards to age of the models.

Toby/Mr Yum: I am not directing my comments to you personally but only use your post(s) to illustrate a common example of many other posts I've seen at many boards. I'm not trying to piss anybody off OR tell them how they should run their business.... just some food for thought that I'm sure is written in an overly harsh way because I just hate hypocrisy.

The above reflects a general trend that one can come across quite often and really deserves some thought. Everyone agrees that no one wants CP in any context. BUT its disingenuous to cry about political interference on the one hand and then say on the other ooooo, she "looks" too young. Cripes its not her fault and if she is legal and has appropriate documentation and is sponsored by a reputable site how is it that a WM can feel comfortable with "censoring" her from making an income? If one doesn't have the guts to stand up then one shouldn't be in the business. If you are helping to enforce the atmoshpere of fear by self regulating materials that might, maybe, could piss someone off or won't portray porn that is "seeming" to skate close to some edge (in your opinoin) regardless of it being legal then you need to question whether there is another biz that's better suited to your fearful, squimish, gutless, lazy, nature. Legal is legal. There are now a ton of solo girl sites that are legal and use the proverbial "teddy bear" props or coy "finger to the mouth" looks. If you self censor these sites you are falling right into the hands of what you are complaining about in some other post about government over reaching. Of course you can run your biz the way you want. But think about hypocrisy and what it means? Also, how 'bout this "due diligence", know who you are working with, verify the reputable natures of the paysites you sponsor, research, etc. Lazy bottom feeding is repugnant and if a WM is failing to support sites that they know have their shit together and are legal (I mean how much more solid can you get than AFF?) because "they don't want any trouble....

then IMHO they should just beat it out the door. When do people get it through their heads that this is a "trouble" business?

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest...

furrygirl · 2006-01-23, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJilla

BUT its disingenuous to cry about political interference on the one hand and then say on the other ooooo, she "looks" too young. Cripes its not her fault and if she is legal and has appropriate documentation and is sponsored by a reputable site how is it that a WM can feel comfortable with "censoring" her from making an income? If one doesn't have the guts to stand up then one shouldn't be in the business.

Allow me to chime in on this one, since I am a relatively "young-looking" model. I'm 22 now, and I started when I was 18. I've always been fully aware that I look "young", probably because of the small boobs.

I don't like sites that play up pedo lust by making models look as young and possible and selling that angle in their text.

So, what's a "young-looking" gal who wants to make porn to do?

I never have used the words teen or young on my site. (I only mention my age once, on my bio page.) I don't do school girl or teddy bear sorts of shoots. I don't trade traffic with teen sites. My site does not look like a hearts-and-flowers-and-ponies teen site. (It was originally purple, gray, and pink, but I changed the design over to shades of blue, in part to look less "teen"-ish.) I am very quick to correct any viewer who asks in cam shows or email if I am a teen, and tell him I'm not into pedophilia (or hebephilia). I go out of my way to tell people I'm not a teen. If I get emails from affiliates asking about "teen Furry Girl", I tell them I do not run a teen site and I don't try to convert on teen traffic. It might not be perfect, but feel like I'm doing a pretty good job with not hyper-fetishing young g*rls.

And, I just handed down a rule for my affiliates that they are no longer allowed to sell me as "young" or on any sort of age angle. (It's something that's irritated me for ages, but since the webmasters selling me as a teen weren't even converting well/at all, I figured it wasn't worth my time policing.) I can't really blame affiliates who are all over the "young" thing, though, since as a whole, the entertainment/adult/fashion industries are all obsessed with sexy l*ttle girls, and Joe Schmoe affiliate is just following suit.

So, I do believe it is entirely possible to be a young-looking model and not be the next Little April. You don't have to wear pigtails and have stuffed animals on your bed. You don't have to use "teen" and "young" in your screen names and domains. It's a choice, and not all of us choose to portray ourselves as 14 year olds.

2006-01-19, 05:37 PM	#4
Halfdeck You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Haven, CT Posts: 985	She does look underage to me, and I wouldn't use that banner. Still, there's nothing in the text "innocentleila" that implies she's underage. If AFF has her valid ID then that's good enough for me. It might still be a good idea to remove her from the ad and create a teen niche filter for webmasters that want to filter out portraits of youngish looking models. __________________ Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.