Gawd I am So sick of Twinks

I guess wheN I was doing work for bedfellow, their lawyers advised them against using omdels with teddy bears and such like that.

The bottom line -

It's risk management. The more risk you take, the more money you can make. UNTIL something goes terribly wrong.

Actually Bedfellow had one person in the company whose sole purpose was to review the site for ANYTHING that may imply child porn, even if the mosel was 18 and they had proof. It was not a risk they were will to take. They are still around after haow many years. Gee, it was the first site I ever marketed in 1999 and that was with a clicks program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

You misinterpret my post, Max. The bottom line is that you are right. If it's "legal," there's not much anyone can do about it. I was merely expressing my personal opinion about my own discomfort with twink content and its very possible, very real long-term affects on those who participate in it. Why shouldn't we take that seriously?

---

Was not really pointed at you man, but if they are old enough to die in a war or have sex I think taking pics of them having sex is not that big of a deal. I am sure a few people might have a problem with what they did afterwards “not that at this time I film anyone” but you could say that about a 25 year old too. Personally I do not have a big problem with nudity, as long as the models are at the legal age of consent in their area. I do see what you are saying, but its not like they do not know they are having pics taken of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD

People spend way too much time trying to identify some character flaw that sits at the root of sexual tastes or attribute what turns people on to some kinda of personality defect or mental/emotional failing...I mean goodness, we could come up with all kinds of random crap.

---

Well, I suppose that's the standard porn producer's argument. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

I guess wheN I was doing work for bedfellow, their lawyers advised them against using omdels with teddy bears and such like that.

The bottom line -

It's risk management. The more risk you take, the more money you can make. UNTIL something goes terribly wrong.

Actually Bedfellow had one person in the company whose sole purpose was to review the site for ANYTHING that may imply child porn, even if the mosel was 18 and they had proof. It was not a risk they were will to take. They are still around after haow many years. Gee, it was the first site I ever marketed in 1999 and that was with a clicks program.

---

Ya its all a bit of a risk, but I do like pics of guys with teddy bears I think its cute, just like I like pics with guys with a puppy. I think its sweet, does not make me think they are 12 or anything its just props. Their are allot of things I do not like, like fisting, really hard-core bondage ECT but I think its up to the market to decide what works as long as its legal guys I am ok with it. Hell I even think it might be ok to lower the age for nude solos to 16-17, its just people in the US have such a problem with others body’s. All these religious people should keep in mind that this shame about their body’s was a punishment from god, and that Adam and Eve where nude as hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

Well, I suppose that's the standard porn producer's argument. ;)

---

We have to tell ourselves something to sleep at night LOL, but I do agree with that too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD

People spend way too much time trying to identify some character flaw that sits at the root of sexual tastes or attribute what turns people on to some kinda of personality defect or mental/emotional failing..

---

There's so much I want to say about this, but I think I'm going to keep my mouth shut. Apparently, my opinions on this topic are rather unpopular. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

But lets face it a banner that says when mom and dad are away the boys will play pull better than a banner that say click here for the hottest 18-21 years old on the net.

(snip)
It's not the twinks or my taste in twinks that turn me off from the twink market. It's how site owners are portraying them and the marketing methods they use. IMHO THEY are the ones that exploiting the youthful appearance of twinks in ways that are borderline ethical.

---

Bingo. Marketing a site with 18-21 year old guys who are clearly described as "hottest 18-21 guys anywhere" is fine. It's not implying, portraying, inferring, or encouraging pedophilia (or, more precisely, ephebophilia.) Marketing any site implying that the models are underage is, in my book, ethically wrong. I'm torn because I want to defend free speech even when that speech is offensive, but selling a product that portrays sex between two consenting adults in a healthy way is one thing, selling a product that encourages pedophilia is quite another.

We've also wrestled with the idea of a older-younger site. I'm sure it would sell gangbusters, and I'm sure that we could find younger models who would do it for the money... but my problem is, we want the models who work with us to feel good about their work and be proud of it, and I have a hard time imagining that we'd be able to find models (I'm talking about the younger guys, not the older ones) who would honestly feel comfortable doing that kind of shoot.

And I'm also not sure I feel comfortable portraying and encouraging that sort of behavior, because in nearly every case I've observed or heard about from our models, those sorts of relationships have almost always been psychologically or emotionally damaging to the younger person... there are a lot of control dynamics in nearly every case that end up fucking with the younger guy's sense of self, and I'm not excited about encouraging or validating that.

Of course, that's back to the same argument about whether barebacking content promotes barebacking... I know that people go both ways on that... which is why it's still on the table with us as a possibility.

Thx Boyfunk,

At least you know I am not against twinks ites, just they way SOME are presented/marketed/branded. And it's not even so much if it promotes the act of doing something or not that bothers me. It's just the moral lows that some people go to. I mean with all the child predators in the news, why create a site about watching boys in my neighborhood.

As far as bareback, I too was working on a site about that. It was a mutual decision NOT to follow through on moral grounds.

I truly believe that those you have the highest integrity in ALL aspects of their business are the ones that will survive.

IF you ever do create a dad/son or a bareback I would not put it in your progame. There maybe some webmsater who will either be offended or afraid you will lose your processing account if you do.

Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boyfunk

Of course, that's back to the same argument about whether barebacking content promotes barebacking... I know that people go both ways on that... which is why it's still on the table with us as a possibility.

---

Hmmm. In rereading my above post I wasn't clear. The above paragraph is a reference to the ongoing controversy about whether watching something encourages people to go out and do it. We've already made up our mind on the barebacking issue; for us, it's not worth putting our models at risk to make a buck. What we haven't totally ruled out is the older-younger idea, IF we could find a way to do it without exploiting the younger models.

And I'm totally with you on the issue of processors... I agree that both some processors and some affiliates might be uncomfortable with that sort of site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boyfunk

And I'm also not sure I feel comfortable portraying and encouraging that sort of behavior, because in nearly every case I've observed or heard about from our models, those sorts of relationships have almost always been psychologically or emotionally damaging to the younger person... there are a lot of control dynamics in nearly every case that end up fucking with the younger guy's sense of self, and I'm not excited about encouraging or validating that.

---

Exactly. Great post, Boyfunk. That was my original point, and it's an extremely valid one to make. Too bad some people in this business are not willing to see beyond "the almighty dollar" to consider how certain content might adversely affect those who take part in it--and even those who watch it.

I'm not going to participate in this discussion anymore, except to say that it's really unfortunate that when anyone brings up an opinion that speaks beyond merely the monetary benefits of our business, that person is then reprimanded for doing so. As if asking people to think about more than the bottom line and consider the "Big Picture" is a crime of some sort. I guess that's to be expected when people feel they are being judged for their livelihoods, but why is it automatically assumed that, by introducing thoughtful discussion, one is judging everyone else?

Guess I'll have to reassess my definition of DISCUSSION board.

I too am done with this discussion.

I think I have made my point that twink sites are ok, even though MOST twinks don't appeal to me unless they are uncut and have some body definition and look at least 20.

It's just my opinion is take the moral high ground in the decisions you make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

I agree with you 100%. The original poster of this runs a tgp and gets many submissions. I run a link list and get many twink sites submitted.
... ...

---

I think a lot of that is evident in that particular arena more so than anything else. I mean with TGP sites, there are a lot of people really pushing the line in just about every aspect. That's why I'd never for the life of me want to run a TGP site and have to deal with the kinds of submissions that come through. It seems to be an area of adult where lots of shady people operate (on the submitting side). It goes beyond twink sites and in to violence-themed galleries and messages, derogatory and racist tones, and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

There's so much I want to say about this, but I think I'm going to keep my mouth shut. Apparently, my opinions on this topic are rather unpopular. Go figure.

---

Yes, your opinions are unpopular and I share them. But I learned to keep my mouth shut.

I'll say only this... I have no problem with models over the age of 18 appearing in porn as long as they look like they are actually over the age of 18. I know that is subjective. But so many of twink sites pander to pedophiles by using underdeveloped models... no body or facial hair, no muscle definition, etc. And to me, pandering to pedophiles, no matter how legal you are, is not a good business plan.

I'll shut up now and crawl back into my hole. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

I too am done with this discussion.

I think I have made my point that twink sites are ok, even though MOST twinks don't appeal to me unless they are uncut and have some body definition and look at least 20.

It's just my opinion is take the moral high ground in the decisions you make.

---

Well man, no offence, but I would not really say you are taking the moral high ground, more like just thinking with your dick, them making “moral” judgments on what your dick does not like. Not unlike a few people I see posting :egg:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xstr8guy

I'll say only this... I have no problem with models over the age of 18 appearing in porn as long as they look like they are actually over the age of 18. I know that is subjective. But so many of twink sites pander to pedophiles by using underdeveloped models... no body or facial hair, no muscle definition, etc. And to me, pandering to pedophiles, no matter how legal you are, is not a good business plan.

---

That's the thing though... it is very subjective. Who is to say where to draw the line on how models can look? If you simply don't approve of their physical traits it seems a bit much to determine that person can not appear in porn.

Now, the message being delivered by the producer is something else entirely. To call guys "schoolboys" or how they dress them up, the copy and text on the site putting forth an impression that just stinks of underage and so on are flat out sketchy and hopefully people won't promote or deal with or process such sites so as to encourage them to go away in the absense of judicial measures.

But what if someone's not presented in such a fashion and just happens to look a way you disapprove of? Is that enough in and of itself to say "pedos!!!" and thrash em? Further, it's simply not the case that middle-aged men are the only consumers of porn. Can 18-21 year olds not be allowed to view material featuring guys their age and similar in appearance to them? My site's a college-aged guy site specializing in more muscular and built guys and our members adore body hair and such, so we don't really deal with twinks all that much, but what I'm getting at is a considerable portion of our members are also college-aged guys who like seeing peer-type individuals and guys similar to them in porn. The same could possibly be true for twink sites.

Maybe I'm too much the libertarian but it always trips my alarms when I see people calling for action based upon subjective judgement. Opinions are one thing, but attempting to regulate against opinions you don't share is another. I am never too thrilled to see people smothering Crisco all over the slippery slope.