Originally Posted by
gaybucks_chip
OK, mark your calendars, guys. I'm defending Max on this one here :)
Brian, from what I've understood from what Max has said, the issue isn't the text per se, or anything with mundane compliance (broken links, etc.) My impression is that CCBill's acquiring bank is saying, in so many words, "This site makes us nervous. It has a bunch of young-looking guys AND language that is on or over the edge. Therefore, we think that it's trying to imply underage content, and that violates Visa rules."
Of course, that's conjecture on my part. But from what's been said (they don't want to examine IDs, they just aren't approving the site as-is), I think the whole concept of the site makes them nervous. Probably for the same reason that no reputable processor will process for Mike18. Now, Mike18 may well be legal, and the guys all have IDs that appear authentic... but it just looks and sounds like something isn't right.
Max, as far as how Boyfunk markets itself, yes, we're definitely on the line. But we're actually becoming more conservative, and in the next version of the tour, you probably won't even see language as edgy as what we have now (even though we had no problems with it.)
We aren't interested in marketing to people looking for underage content. Honestly, I'd rather try and encourage those customers to get help, so they don't go out and fuck up some poor 14 or 15 or 16 year old. (You wouldn't believe the stories we've heard from some of our models.) And we may, at some point, try and find a tasteful and non-offensive way to steer the people in need in the right direction. But until then, we're looking to move in the direction of doing what we can to attract clientele with a healthy sexual appetite, not clientele that wants underage boys, whether that means slightly shifting the kinds of models we recruit, changing the language on the site, or both. But that's important to us. Some things are more important than money.