Google Adwords doesn't allow the word "twink" in your description. And I was using it in the context of "no twinks", lol.
Printable View
Google Adwords doesn't allow the word "twink" in your description. And I was using it in the context of "no twinks", lol.
Simply having the word "boy" or "girl" in your name doesn't imply underage models. It's the context that matters, like selecting a name like "veryyoungboys" and then putting questionable pictures in your free area. Adopting a blanket policy of rejecting sites that contain a word like "boy" or "girl" isn't fair. Sponsors should evaluate the site first. I can somewhat understand the paranoia surrounding "boy", but "twink"? Come on... no two people define that word the same!
Furthermore, we have never refused a webmaster's request to provide 2257 docs for content they license. I can't speak for other content providers, but we have kept complete 2257 records since Day 1. Everything is paperless now, and we even maintain an exhaustive Excel doc that cross-references everything to the model's docs. Our many customers will attest to this.
Thats the problem.. To some it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by citiboyz
Regards,
Lee
I dont know about manchecks policy but when I ran some tgps a few years ago I banned the word boy and I never use it on any of my sites. Even my frat sites i try to use the term frat dude rather then frat boy. I just think its a term that suggests children. When I hear the word boy myself I think of young kids. No real reason to use the term in my opinion although I assume i'm in the minority with this. In fact I predict I'm about to be slammed:)
We wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't such a problem with underage material on the web. So it's totally understandable for legitimate webmasters to play it safe, as do we. I wouldn't slam anyone for that.
A corollary issue is 2257, though. If last year's proposed regs should go into effect, it would make any webmaster vulnerable, not just those with younger models. Even bear sites, or mature men sites, would be fair game for prosecution if they didn't have 2257 docs. The expansion of the regs, in my opinion, is to drive the adult internet industry out of business. They're not just picking on twinks.
What are other's thoughts on this?
Ok, hopefully this will end the confusion:
BOY = a young male person
= sb's male child
= immature man
= is a diminutive of bo, a term of address meaning "mate" (UK)
= way of addressing male animal - a way of addressing a male animal, especially a dog or a horse
= boys* = a group of male friends of any age who often socialize together
From Encarta!
Personally I find this nuts.
It is paranoia gone crazy, and what about all the video titles? AEBN for example has over 300 titles listed that contain the word 'boy' in them, does that mean that if I have a mancheck site and upsell to AEBN videos that I can't show those titles?
What if I want to upsell to JustUsBoys? Does that now mean I can't use their content to upsell in my mancheck site?
And so what if 'some' think 'boy' refers to underage... some think 'gays' are satan children so does that make it okay to ban 'gays' ?
I can see how companies need to protect their asses, given the ultra religious zeal being exhibited from the USA but when is enough enough? When will us in the adult industry simply tell VISA to stuff it?
And as much as the USA is a major consumer and all that they are only part of the internet, they do not (despite their assumption that they do) own the rights to set standards for the entire world..
Just my opinion though
Ian
Greetings:
Uhoh. This makes me start to wonder about sites like BadPuppy. A puppy, as we all know, is a young immature dog. Maybe the industry should ban them too, because they're trying to imply they have underage boys, aka bad little puppies, on their site!Quote:
Originally Posted by dalimili
To keep on the animal path: Bears & Cubs. Another common expression. Cubs, aka young immature underdeveloped bears. Better ban that too, it's indicative of CP.
This is a bad bad road to start heading down, and it will only lead to increasingly more ridiculous assertions. This industry is starting to become its own worst enemy......
:goof:
This thread caught my interest, because of some of my shirts. I have designs like "I know what boys like" and "boys will do boys", while I considered these to be completely harmless and cute while designing them, I had to wonder later if anything with boy in the title might be construed as meaning underage. I don't want to be selling shit that makes guys look like child molesters, even though these particular designs are targetted at a younger teen/20 something crowd. Maybe I should do away with all these designs, before they go into production and I find out the hard way that people have a very negative reaction to the term.
I've said it before but "boy" is so not indicative of CP.
My boyfriend and I are going to have a boys night out with some friends tommorow. We'll meet the boys downtown for cocktails, before we decide where we're going to have supper. As boys will be boys we'll dish about who's doing who now, who got hitched recently and whether the boy that's wearing tight bugle boy pants and serving us manhattens would look good waking up in the morning to. And should Bette Midler turn up we'll ask the girl to sing Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy for us. ;)
I greatly agree with Robin. It all depends on which "Spin Doctor" is deciding on whether some is or something isnt.....
Which unfortunately.....paints a broad brush on many things that have nothing to do with cp.
when the word boy is used on its own with no qualifiers, it sounds young to me. that's why sites with 18 year olds on them use it. guy doesn't sell half as well 'cause it doesn't sound as young.
Right. Im talking in terms of a porn site. Jay your tee shorts sound harmles and what Robin is saying is cool also. I think though its better to be safe then sorry when it comes to a porn site.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick