View Full Version : Teens In Ponytails And Such ...
ArtWilliams
2009-04-22, 01:01 PM
I am filling my new directory with "single girl" sites -- you know, women with their own sites. I don't mind the BDSM, gagging and other extreme stuff as long as the woman appears to be consenting. What really gets me, and I refuse to add, are teen sites where there is an implication of the model being under 18. Women with ponytails, stuffed animals posed in a youngster's bedroom and other crap like that really strikes a nerve with me. Does anyone share this with me or is feeling, "there is a 2257 page and it says she's 18 so I don't give a shit"? I know I am an accredited pornographer but that stuff and implied rape sites are not acceptable in my opinion. Thoughts?
anasporn
2009-04-22, 01:07 PM
Well, my sister got pulled over when she was 23 ... because the cop thought she looked too young to drive even (learner's permit age 15, license age 16)! So I tend to cut the "over 18 but look baby-faced" some slack, because my sister is almost 30 and still gets carded for buying cigs (legal age 18) not to mention her stuffed animal and Barbie collection ... and this fall I get to start getting her back for all the "Big 3-OH" jokes I have had to endure these past (mumble unintelligibly) years.
Yes, the type of surfer who goes for these kinds of sites may be ... er, "questionable" in taste, but as long as the gals are of legal age and they have proper records I tend to be okay with it.
The "sleep" sites I refuse to touch, too close to "soft rape" for my tastes.
I hear ya Art. I refuse to list that kind of content as well.
There's a big difference between someone looking much younger than they really are, and deliberately dressing and using props to make the model appear to be younger than legal age.
My wife is almost 40 and she wears a ponytail and likes stuffed animals. And she has a poster of a wolf in our bedroom. She does her damdest to look younger than she is too. LOL.
I try to not make judgments on visual implications as they can be too subjective. Words are a little less subjective since we have dictionaries that give them common meanings. Models portraying babysitters are often shown in the setting you describe, and they generally look 18+ and of course, they have 2257 records.
I'm of the opinion that as long as it can be proven the model is of legal age, it should be legal to use the images. If the model is portayed explicitly as under 18 (even if she is 20), I'll GTFO and never consider dealing with the site in question again. That doesnt mean I'll use such content, it means I'll not hold it against anyone that does
On a side note, I won't have anything to do with imagery involving violence or defacation.. I don't avoid it because I think its bad or sleazy, I just don't like violence and defacation. This cuts me out of lots of legitimate fetish business, but so be it. For those of you that are into fetish material, best of luck to you, but it just isnt my thing. You can have my share.
NwSebas
2009-04-22, 04:32 PM
Yah, I always thought sites geared towards that market were creepy.
Greenguy
2009-04-22, 08:16 PM
It's all personal preference if you list them or not. Personally, I don't care since I enjoy the fantasy of all kinds of porn, not just pigtails (which my wife wears on occasion....and she's far from teen lol)
rayadp05
2009-04-24, 02:09 PM
To me, they usually don't even look that young anyways.
The legal system and biology get a little out of synch, so we have fantasy to fill the gap. No harm done as long as the models are legal.
The legal system and biology get a little out of synch, so we have fantasy to fill the gap. No harm done as long as the models are legal.
LOL. The legal system and the legal system are a little out of sync. You can legally do all kinds of dirty hardcore sex stuff with 16 year olds in most states, but you cant look at a naked picture of them while you do it.
SheepGuy
2009-04-24, 06:56 PM
I don't have a problem with it. I know a few strippers who do the ponytail and stuffed animal thing to make a little more cash.
If it fulfills a fantasy in some guy with a credit card's mind, and is legal, why not?
I'm not going to join the thought police.
NY Jester
2009-04-24, 11:45 PM
Im not against it. Im against the real shit. But I cant say that seeing someone dressed up in a plaid skirt and white shirt with ponytail and black leather shoes makes it a bad thing. I personally feel that most if not all do it in a playful so far over the top way that it comes off as totally fake - if that type of site helps get a guy off and keeps him from living it out..Im OK with it.
anasporn
2009-04-25, 09:29 AM
But I cant say that seeing someone dressed up in a plaid skirt and white shirt with ponytail and black leather shoes makes it a bad thing.
Even if I'm fucking 36 years old?? Guess I ain't gonna knock on your door next Halloween ... last Halloween I went to class in pink striped flannel pajamas, slippers, and carried a stuffed puppy. Only day of the year I don't get funny looks going out in public dressed like that! A gal in my lecture had the "traditional schoolgirl" uniform complete with a blazer, and I know she was old enough to drink.
Bottom line: it's a fantasy, and as long as the gals are 18 or older I don't have much problem simply because, as you mention, I would prefer the creeps be looking at 18-21 yos in those outfits and jerking off ... with the legal statements on the page! .... than to actually go try to do something IRL where they either don't check IDs or specifically look for ones under legal age.
As mentioned above, the 18 is federal, while some states are lower ... some much lower.
tickler
2009-04-25, 10:35 AM
Fantasy is fantasy.
I'm just thinking how some would classify alien sex fantasy. Where do you fit a nude scene from "Species".
anasporn
2009-04-25, 11:17 AM
Fantasy is fantasy.
I'm just thinking how some would classify alien sex fantasy. Where do you fit a nude scene from "Species".
that's my true perversion ;) send it all to me!
Im not against it. Im against the real shit. But I cant say that seeing someone dressed up in a plaid skirt and white shirt with ponytail and black leather shoes makes it a bad thing. I personally feel that most if not all do it in a playful so far over the top way that it comes off as totally fake - if that type of site helps get a guy off and keeps him from living it out..Im OK with it.
For me it really depends on the intent and actual appearance of the model in question. A 30-something milf dressed in that outfit, and in a matching setting is very obviously role play. A petite 18 year old in the same scenario is an entirely different situation.
It really comes down to the perceived intent. An entire site built around that petite 18 year old in such attire and settings is obviously targeting a surfer with a "younger than legal" fantasy. Yes, still a fantasy and still completely legal, but one that I want absolutely no part of on any of my sites.
ArtWilliams
2009-04-25, 12:38 PM
I agree when people say "to each his own". That's is why we have our own sites. We can decide what goes on it (or not). I have nothing against young looking women (or BDSM type sites). I would and do list those. None-the-less, I personally feel uncomfortable with implied CP (and implied rape). If there is a notion that the person is not consenting then I have an issue.
Toby you put it very well.
For me it really depends on the intent and actual appearance of the model in question. A 30-something milf dressed in that outfit, and in a matching setting is very obviously role play. A petite 18 year old in the same scenario is an entirely different situation.
It really comes down to the perceived intent. An entire site built around that petite 18 year old in such attire and settings is obviously targeting a surfer with a "younger than legal" fantasy. Yes, still a fantasy and still completely legal, but one that I want absolutely no part of on any of my sites.
anasporn
2009-04-25, 01:44 PM
maybe I'm coming on a bit strong on this ... but for eleven years my sister has been bitching about how people think she's a little kid and how she isn't taken seriously, carded for cigs, pulled over *only* for her appearance that time, and always carded for drinks (sometimes multiple times in one night) all because she inherited the "babyface" gene from dad's side of the family. At least my brother and dad could grow mustaches to combat that. As I mentioned, she's 29 now, and if she put on the exact same schoolgirl outift y'all would cry foul about her looking underage ... I am not joking or exaggerating. I guess y'all might call this the model's perspective.
Oh yeah, sister has an extensive stuffed animal collection, a Barbie collection, and will suck on lollipops in places smoking is not allowed.
papagmp
2009-04-25, 01:52 PM
But it's OK to put a teen in a diaper, give her/him a pacifier and put her/him in a crib...............
NOT!
papagmp
2009-04-25, 01:55 PM
maybe I'm coming on a bit strong on this ... but for eleven years my sister has been bitching about how people think she's a little kid and how she isn't taken seriously, carded for cigs, pulled over *only* for her appearance that time, and always carded for drinks (sometimes multiple times in one night) all because she inherited the "babyface" gene from dad's side of the family. At least my brother and dad could grow mustaches to combat that. As I mentioned, she's 29 now, and if she put on the exact same schoolgirl outift y'all would cry foul about her looking underage ... I am not joking or exaggerating. I guess y'all might call this the model's perspective.
Oh yeah, sister has an extensive stuffed animal collection, a Barbie collection, and will suck on lollipops in places smoking is not allowed.
You have a sister? |loveyou
anasporn
2009-04-25, 01:59 PM
You have a sister? |loveyou
|catfight|
mess with my baby sis and I'll have to hurt you ... actually she can do that herself nowadays ...
Wait, considering it's *YOU* maybe we won't hurt you ... you'd enjoy that ya perv! |lol|
LOL sorry to break your heart, but while she ain't legally married she's getting close to the state hitting them with "common law marriage"
...she's 29 now, and if she put on the exact same schoolgirl outift y'all would cry foul about her looking underage ... I am not joking or exaggerating. I guess y'all might call this the model's perspective.
Oh yeah, sister has an extensive stuffed animal collection, a Barbie collection, and will suck on lollipops in places smoking is not allowed.
If she built an entire adult site based on looking "too young to be legal", then I'd still have a problem with it, whether she's really 19 or 29. The actual age of the model isn't the issue.
NY Jester
2009-04-25, 03:56 PM
I understand your position fully Toby and respect it 100% Definitely a fine line in adult with certain subjects. Better safe than sorry but above all you have to do what you feel comfortable with.
anasporn
2009-04-25, 04:46 PM
I also respect your position, Toby (don't get the wrong impression!) et al but I would much prefer a legal model who looks underage than the opposite situation of one that looks 18-20 and actually underage. That said, there are hardcore and fetish niches I personally am not comfortable with.
I also respect your position, Toby (don't get the wrong impression!) et al but I would much prefer a legal model who looks underage than the opposite situation of one that looks 18-20 and actually underage. That said, there are hardcore and fetish niches I personally am not comfortable with.
But this discussion isn't about actual underage models. None of us support that in any way shape or form. There's nothing there to discuss.
From the very first post this discussion has been about legal age models that appear younger than 18 deliberately pushing the 'look younger than legal' aspect. I'm more than a little uncomfortable with that.
And for the record, I'm also not comfortable with many of those hardcore fetish niches.
legal age models that appear younger than 18 deliberately pushing the 'look younger than legal' aspect. I'm more than a little uncomfortable with that.
Why?
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?
Why?
Read my prior posts in this thread. I've already covered that one.
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.
stuveltje
2009-04-25, 06:50 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...
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! |bow|
papagmp
2009-04-25, 07:40 PM
Why?
Read the Child Protections Act: Section 18 U.S.C. 2257
nuf said...................
papagmp
2009-04-25, 07:42 PM
Question - is this going too far?
http://www.failpix.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/babyfail.jpg
tickler
2009-04-25, 07:45 PM
And for the record, I'm also not comfortable with many of those hardcore fetish niches.
I'm uncomfortable with some of them also. CBT scares the shit out of me personally(guy)|cry|, and no girl is ever gonna get to tie me up after seeing that stuff.
But, that doesn't mean I won't promote it.
To each their own I guess.|thumb
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.
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
2009-04-25, 11:06 PM
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 |assfuck|
You obviously have no clue, nor do you care, what is, and what is not legal.
Say hi to Bubba |assfuck|
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
2009-04-26, 09:33 AM
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.
What I'm saying is you obviously haven't read the law. It is illegal to portray anyone, regardless of their real age, in a manner that makes them look younger that the age of 18. Hollywood lobbied, and won an exception but independent producers are not exempt.
So - such contend IS NOT in compliance with federal statutes - both IMO and in the professional opinion of my attorney - who just happens to represent dozens of adult producers.
So get a fuckin clue and read the law before you start assuming something is legal or not.
It is illegal to portray anyone, regardless of their real age, in a manner that makes them look younger that the age of 18.
I didn't know that...interesting. Are there legal precedents as to what determines someone looking "younger than the age of 18?" I guess lolipops and pigtails might be suggestive, but...|huh
that makes them look younger that the age of 18
LOL. Who fooled you into thinking that?
papagmp
2009-04-26, 06:48 PM
I didn't know that...interesting. Are there legal precedents as to what determines someone looking "younger than the age of 18?" I guess lolipops and pigtails might be suggestive, but...|huh
Title 18 part 1 Chapter 110 Paragraph 2256 - 11
"(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
papagmp
2009-04-26, 06:58 PM
LOL. Who fooled you into thinking that?
ROTFLMAO - I guess Ron White was right after all, you just can't fix stupid.
What
I click your banner, I come across this:
Few things in life are as fine as a tight little pussy but I’m not all that sure if it’s normal for someone to be thinking that about their own little sister. That said, I’m always amazed at the number of guys that are willing to drag their little sister to some stranger and have her do her first porno - just because the little cunt pissed him off at her. This guy was pissed because his little sister had dented his Harley and the little cunt had no cash to pay for the damages. So, like any loving brother, he sold me her tight little sister pussy to be used in her first porno…………
How many times can you use the word little? Can you use it more times than the girl has stuffed animals on her bed? Or more times than she has little red ribbons in her hair? Or more times than a skilled makeup artist has shades of lipstick?
I think I'd hop off the high horse if I was you, then post the tidbit of the law that makes it illegal to portay any actor in any scene as any particular age, and the method the judge will instruct the jury the jury to follow in determining how old the actor looks.
Making such a determination is impossible, and that is the exact reason documentation of age is central to the law in question.
Given you ideas, we could do away with documenting age altogether and just have kangaroo courts putting people in prison based purely and solely upon guesswork. Get yourself 8 jurors of some fundamental faith, and they would have a good old time sending you up the river for setting up fantasies about guys forcing their little sisters into porno (well except maybe for mormons. They might elect you leader of the tabernacle... Note to any mormons, I kid, I kid).
If your lucky, I'll be on the jury and it will hang and you'll be a free man because I have more goddamn intelligence and actual morality than to allow a man's fate to be decided based on divination and prejudice.
Until you start posting statues or court opinions, I'm done with you.
Licker4U
2009-04-26, 07:12 PM
You're fucked nate, give up...
Here's your sign....
Pagan
2009-04-26, 07:27 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?
papagmp
2009-04-26, 07:45 PM
Until you start posting statues or court opinions, I'm done with you.
Break my fucking heart....................
P.S. Maybe I'll cast you on Bring Me Your Brother - have your little sister drag your ass in and have a hot tranny grudge fuck you for being such a prick.
Title 18 part 1 Chapter 110 Paragraph 2256 - 11
"(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
This is the actual statute your defintion refers to:
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
This is the SCOTUS specifically deeming it uncontitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v.
FREE SPEECH COALITION et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 00—795. Argued October 30, 2001–Decided April 16, 2002
...
Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.
(a) Section 2256(8)(B) covers 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 this Court’s precedents or First Amendment law. Pp. 6—19.
...
The statute, furthermore, does not require that the context be part of an effort at “commercial exploitation.” Thus, the CPPA does more than prohibit pandering. It bans possession of material pandered as child pornography by someone earlier in the distribution chain, as well as a sexually explicit film that contains no youthful actors but has been packaged to suggest a prohibited movie. Possession is a crime even when the possessor knows the movie was mislabeled. The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction. Pp. 19—20.
(c) In light of the foregoing, respondents’ contention that §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are void for vagueness need not be addressed. P. 21.
P.S. Maybe I'll cast you on Bring Me Your Brother
Or maybe you will resort to posting laws that havent been struck down by the supreme court as unconstitianal. I'll not hold my brath waiting.
You're fucked nate, give up...
Here's your sign....
Not according to the supreme court.
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.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.