ManCheck Becomes AntiBoy?

Hey All:

A guy I know who submits sites to all of the AENs ran into some trouble for the first time yesterday.

It seems that ManCheck has become AntiBoy all of a sudden. Here's the email exchange that they had:

Quote:

---

Hi David,
please contact me when you have removed the word "Boy" from the title of the below site and I will view it for approval.
Regards,
K. Brady
sales@mancheck.com

---

Quote:

---

At what point did "Boy" become an issue? Why have you approved other sites with "Boy in the title?

---

Quote:

---

Hi David,
the word implies the use of "minors" and no longer meets our site listing
criteria. Basically, use your common sense and refrain from using words
like "young" etc.
Also, please contact me when you have removed the word "boy(s)" from your
previously approved sites.
Thanks.
Regards,
K. Brady
sales@mancheck.com

---

Quote:

---

What's the URL for this policy?
I want Car in on this discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Hi David,
please refer to the "General WEBmaster Policies" within the Webmaster's
forum: http://www.mancheck.com/webmasters/
"Illegal or inappropriate content of any kind, especially any involvement
with individuals under the age of consent, will not be tolerated..."
Again, the words "Boy" and "Young" imply "under the age of consent".
Also, our billing companies have very strict policies regarding this issue.

Regards,
K. Brady
sales@mancheck.com

---

What on earth is wrong with the word "Boy"? I can see a problem with combinations like "young boy" or "young teen boy", but just the word "Boy" alone being indicative of CP? I think not.

Let's look at the straight marketplace. How often do you see the word "Girl" being used? EVERYWHERE. You even see it being used on TV all of the time, ala "Girls Gone Wild" volumes 1-185. Certainly the cable stations aren't refusing the ads because they are "indicative of CP". Even popular culture uses the term "Girl", ala famous songs like "Girls, Girls, Girls!". Were they singing about illegal lust towards minors? I think not.

I refuse to allow such a sexist double standard develop, and am irate to see it being instigated by a company within our own industry. If ManCheck isn't able to recognize or understand gay culture, and if they're not willing to help promote said culture, why on earth are they in the gay market place to begin with?

What's next on their banned word list? "Twink"?

Perhaps we should stop identifying individuals based on their sex altogether, and agree on an androgynous lexicon.

:dunce:

Unless they have a good legal reason, it sounds somewhat extreme to me, especially in light of contemporary gay culture where even 40 year olds call themselves boys, or bois, or boyz or whatever. ASACP doesn't even have a problem with the word "boy". Refer to their "unacceptable" list http://www.asacp.org/list.html.

i've run into this problem with pay per click search engines, some link lists, and a bunch of tgps. i argued the point with one ppc se by pointing out that boy was the male equivalent of girl, and it was hardly fair that they allowed girl but not boy in their listings.

the woman agreed, and the next day, their advertisers could no longer use the word girl.

in a way, i can see where these places are coming from, but they sure do make the internet a smaller and more restricted place. and i know people over 50 who talk about their girlfriends and boyfriends, so it obviously has meanings that ain't just minors.

Greetings:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

and i know people over 50 who talk about their girlfriends and boyfriends, so it obviously has meanings that ain't just minors.

---

Another very good example! We don't call the people that we date my "womanfriend" or my "manfriend", we call them my "girlfriend" or my "boyfriend".

Things are just starting to get way too carried away.......

Well... I didn't have any troubles submitting a site that has "Boy" in it few days ago.... also search on Mancheck shows sites with these titles:

"Cherry in the hand boys porn"
"Young boys massage & fuck "

"Teen boys first marriage night "
"Fresh Boys Love to Jack "
"Young boys like to suck "

And many similiar.... so obviously word "boy" is not restricted.... maybe it all depends how he was using the word in the title, like "pre teen boy" or something similiar, would obviously get his site refused...

I don't know... like I said, I've submited many "boy" sites and never came across similiar problem with Mancheck.

Quote:

---

I don't know... like I said, I've submited many "boy" sites and never came across similiar problem with Mancheck.

---

They are saying that this is a newly enacted policy, and that they are considering annoucing it on their site soon.

------------

The latest from ManCheck (according to management):

If they see any guys on your site that are young looking, they want you to provide them with 2257 info. Not just custodian of records info mind you, but actual model IDs that they can "keep on file" at their location.

I'm sorry, but ManCheck sales are not worth the time or energy it would take to start doing this level of record keeping. We as webmasters are not required by law to have actual IDs etc. on file if we're not the producers, much less provide such records to what amounts to a link site..

Thanks goodness ManCheck isn't in charge of writing 2257 regs, or I'd be screaming for Ashcroft to come back....

Boo!

dalimili - i gather from the original post that this is a new rule...

Yeah... ok, but if it's a new rule, what are they going to do with all older sites? Remove them??

And... what the f*ck "If they see any guys on your site that are young looking,...." means??? Who's going to judge if a model is young looking? I mean this is absurd....

Oh... and it is called "MAN"check :) Not BoyCheck

I can not speak for ManCheck's policy.

I know a number of companies that no longer accept the words boy or girl in site title on descriptions. In those cases, it has a lot more to do with payment processing than it does with understanding one's own culture.

'Boy' is on the Visa red flag list these days. And I suspect that twink is either on that list or soon will be on it, since I was told we have to have a site we have coming up, with the word twink in the domain, needs a 'special' review prior to approval. And we all know, right or not, Visa does what Visa wants.

We have a policy for advertisers that states we can question any image used in advertising. And in the case when pics with younger looking guys are used, we have the right to request the name of the content provider or 2257 information. I know this doesn't affect the general webmaster, but it's a Cover My Ass, my original lawyer suggested.

I would think that a policy change like this, from any company, comes from a logical and/or legal stance; and not just a whim.

I know Michael is at the Phoenix Forum. I'm going to send this thread over to someone at ManCheck.

Gary-Alan

Well anyway... I'm not into twink or boy sites, so I don't care much, but still I'm just wondering what will happen with all those sites that were already submited with word "boy" in it...

I have run into this problem when tring to list my site on a few diffrent link lists. I think it's just silly. As long as the site don't contain underage content then it should be able to be listed. I mean my site is called OutBoy.com, it's not like it's OutUnderAgeBoy.com. Simply looking at sites being subbmitten would solve this problem. Oh well, what can you do.

With all of the Visa woes that AVS/AEN's have suffered, I certainly don't blame them for being ultra-cautious.

I think certain phrases in combination with very young looking models is a recipe for disaster. And with the integrity of a particular twink content provider being called into question, now is the time to be certain that all of your content is SAFE!

I was recently censured by a certain affiliate program regarding my site's use of the word 'chill.'

Quote:

---

Our automatic bot located that you are using forbidden words in pages prommoting our websites. List of the pages:

URL: http://www.waybig.com/ Word: chill

You MUST remove given words immediatelly, otherwise your account may be suspended.

---

Made absolutely no sense. Needless to say, I did not remove the word.

Be thankfull its only the word 'boy' and not the word 'twink' like some other sponsors have decided to ban because they think it means 'child porn'.

Personally, im not a big fan of the word boy myself it can be misconstrued as being underage which is something we dont want, imho.

Regards,

Lee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citiboyz

Simply having the word "boy" or "girl" in your name doesn't imply underage models.

---

Thats the problem.. To some it does.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalimili

= way of addressing male animal - a way of addressing a male animal, especially a dog or a horse

---

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

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.