Globill

Apparenty Globill are no longer going to accept adult sites with Twink content on them!!

What do you guys think about this?

Discrimination?

Especially as they still process for Teen sites which is exactly the same but a straight niche!

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=138724

Regards,

Lee

Here is a piece of the original post on GFY that prompted this...
Quote:
Thank you for your activation request. Unfortunately your activation request cannot be accepted. We are unable to provide our billing services for websites which contain images of twink content, regardless of the nature of the images and regardless as to whether said images are legal or not.
Please understand that we make no statement as to the quality or intentions of your website. This is simply our editorial policy. We regret this incompatibility and hope you are able to find what you are looking for elsewhere.







I contacted GloBill not as a client (which I am) but as the owner of GWW... I asked them about not only this policy but the webmaster relation aspect... here is there response which btw is a cut and paste:

Quote:
Hello Gary,

Young teens, male or female, are acceptable as long as all models are at least 18 years of age or older.

However, the words twink and lolita have come to be associated too strongly with underaged content, and it is simply the use of those words that we are currently not allowing.





I do understand the avoidance of underage content - I'm all for it and support it!

But when did twink come to represent under age or even become synonymous with Lolita? This is news to me and I keep up on things like this LOL

What's your opinion... I'd really like to know.

Regards,
Gary-Alan

Most of the 'twink' sites I see seem to imply the guys are 'very young' and I can't blame Globill for doing this. With Visa on their ass to comply (seemingly), with the government doing all it can to shut down porn sites with unneeded laws, it makes sense.

Twink has become synonymous with Lolita because so many morons put up twink sites (sorry if I've insulted anyone but they disgust me) and love to imply "the web's youngest guys" type bullshit.

I don't think it's homophobia at all -- they approved one of my gay sites just this week.

Quote:
I don't think it's homophobia at all -- they approved one of my gay sites just this week.






I agree with on this point Rick... I don't think it's homophobia, BUT Globill still accepted a teen girl site from an associate of mine the other day. I DO think it's a problem, though.

I have sites with them as well. But I still think the editorial policy is too wide ranged. If the site says twinks and the content is iffy SURE don't accept it as part of policy. I had this happen when I did work for someone and there were pics that processor decided could be questioned - we changed them.

But to ban an entire word? Isn't that going too far when it's NOT the same as lolita?


GA

The problem with thes is that most of us have been using twink to specifically imply that the models are of legal age.

I do not use young boys, school boys etc. as they may be misinterpreted to imply that the content is questionable.

The word twink is intended to imply that thel content is legal. I think it more specifically describes the models as being 18 through 25. I would think they would be more worried about teen sites.

They need to be careful in their review policy to see that the content used meets their guidelines. They need to make the webmasters submit proper documentation upon demand.

As I said in my previous post in this thread, I rarely use descriptions of my content such as young boys, school boys etc. as they may be misinterpreted to imply that the content is questionable, but the word twink was developed to avoid that sort of thing when using legal content.







Mr. Licious

What would you do with all the sites that have "Barely Legal" somewhere in their name/description?

WHERE do you draw the line?

Does Globill allow the words 'barely legal'?

They yanked meatholes.com when people complained and it was all legal footage, they didn't want to be associated with that garbage.

If gay webmasters stopped this "young twink' shit, it would be ok. You never see 'young bears' or 'young hunks' but young twink is the norm.

We're hurting ourselves.

Then again, I'd love to see 'teen' removed from every site on the Internet

I have to agree with Licious here. I've always assumed that anyone using boy (& esp. young boy, etc) meant underage and that twink meant 18 & up.

I don't really think they meant anything homophobic by their actions (it's very possible that VISA & their regulations had something to do with it), but I think they could have used a little common sense here. Twink is probably the most common term on the net in searching for young (18+) guys…and the vast majority of it is legal.

Just me 2 cents though. )

Gotta disagree with you on "young hunks" etc.
I've seen a lot of sites that you use that definition.
Do you pull them too?

It seems to me that we all have the right to either use GloBill or not, so perhaps going to other billing companies will get the message across.

What disturbs me is I'm told they won't approve new sites with the word twink but allow the old ones to remain?

Double standard there