The thing is, Max, that it's not illegal to be hairy.Originally Posted by maxpower
Michael
The thing is, Max, that it's not illegal to be hairy.
Michael
I'm sure Max thinks it should be. Lol.
Ya that is true, using twink content as its own set of problem, but does really suck that I am in a reviled industry and even fellow gay adult webmasters look down on the legal content I offer. I was talking to Dave (David DeCoteau) today and seems this problem goes way up the ladder, most filmmakers that create R-soft X movies that really are intended for gay viewers and are a bit sexually exploitive too can not even allow any of their films being seen on my our your site because many in their industry look at XXX like something to be reviled.
Sam's is just venting is my guess (have been their) the fact they did offer to look at the documents means it will only take a extra few days to work it all out. This is frustrating, but its just a hiccup I am hoping, yet it is good to know if they are continuing and even accelerating some kind of a CP witch hunt. Come on guys if you want to limit the age of models to 21 then just say so, if not some of the 18 year old might look 16, and some of the 16 year old might look 20. But get real is this really the problem we have to be running around trying to stop? Are their not real CP around or photographers drugging models or something to spend your time worrying about.
Ya I do, but in fact I can pull out some laws agents being Harry and Fat. Some places still have indecency laws on the books that has been used to fine or jail men overweight and harry men for showing their fur in public LOL.
I came to play trust me
okay, there's NO discrimination going on here. people have to prove their age to work in any legal job in the u.s. if a twink model can prove his age, he can work - simple as that. there's no question here of not using them - but when a guy who looks potentially maybe 16 goes to buy beer, by law he must ALWAYS be carded. same here - only the custodian is responsible for the i.d. rather than the model.
First, models are not employees. Since you aren't hiring them, there's no issue of discrimination because they are not entitled to equal opportunity protection. They are contractors, not employees. Unless you're a government organization, a business owner (i.e., a contractor, in other words, a model) has no rights for "equal treatment" in procurement; a company is free to choose the company they wish to do business with.
Second, every employer discriminates every day. If you advertise for a PHP programmer, and the guy who shows up can't decipher the simplest line of code, he isn't qualified, and you are discriminating, rightfully and legally, by choosing to only hire someone qualified for the position you are seeking to fill. Even if you were hiring models as employees, if the model's "looks" are a bona fide part of the qualifications for the job (and clearly they are) then you can absolutely choose not to hire them if they do not meet your criteria - as long as that criteria is consistent among everyone who applies.
Boyfunk has had some youthful looking 18 and 19 year olds that have worked for us, and many of the models on our site are young looking. One of the reasons that we have so far avoided buying content from other producers is we cannot absolutely ensure that any content we buy is legal. Given the Brent Corrigan matter, it would be entirely possible for an unethical photographer (or model) to provide faked IDs, to shoot the model months before their 18th birthday and then fake the production date to be after the model turned 18, or the like. By shooting our own content, we are in the position of being able to physically examine the ID documents of all of our models, check them against the ID verification book we use, compare the signature of the model with the signature on the ID, and other things to take every reasonable precaution to ensure the model is of age.
In that way, we can perhaps provide a higher level of assurance to our affiliates that we have personally inspected and verified the ID documents and ages of all of our models to the best of the abilities we have.
That of course won't stop Visa or an IPSP or merchant provider from questioning us and asking to see the IDs, and we can also understand that the combination of youthful models and suggestive language may cause problems in compliance.
At the end of the day, I applaud both Epoch and CCBill for their stance on this; let's not forget that Neova did not do this, and it's clear where it landed Aaron as a result. Likewise, I would suspect that some of the smaller companies that are processing for the questionable Russian sites may find themselves having problems with Visa down the road.
For my money, a conservative but reasonable approach to underwriting and compliance is definitely the way to go. It may annoy me momentarily, but ultimately it benefits all of us if it ensures that the processors will be around in the long term.
Debating the morality is irrelevant, everyone has his own oppinion - what should matter here is the law and common sense.
It's alright to have twink models on your site, but you shouldn't portray them as being underage (giving them a teddy bear,lipop or have an old man with a twink making it look like he is with uncle Jim or daddy).
Remember that in Canada, depiction of sexual acts under the age of 18 is illegal. Litterature, pornography and illustrations (cartoons) that led to believe that the subject is under 18 is illegal - even though the model is older than 18.
We are in an open market and one should be careful and aware of the pornography laws in the world. Staying away from what is portrayed to be underage is common sense and the law in Canada.
btw, Sam, for what it's worth... I took a look at your site, and while I can see why they would ask for the IDs, every model I saw could plausibly be 18, and I didn't see any language or props that would imply underaged models.
I can't say the same thing for a lot of the Russian/Eastern European sites... but it looks to me like you're on pretty safe ground.
Wow I am not going to super impose some special standard on gay content that str8 content proviers do not even see as a issue. You know how many str8 teen gild sites have (teddy bear,
Not that I use any of these things as of yet, but I am not going to limit my or your rights to express content at least in the same ways as the str8 market does. WFT are you guys talking about? Why does every group always think they are more ricottas or more ethical than another. If you ask me its all PORN
Can we not at least be equals here at the bottom of the barrel?
Sean,
No one's putting you down, and if you took my comments that way, I'm sorry, not what I intended.
All I was saying is that, for our own peace of mind, we produce all of our own content and therefore don't have to worry about whether some photog somewhere took a shortcut.
Doesn't mean we'd be immune to a model with an exceptionally good fake ID - that's happened to some of the best companies - but we just felt that, since we were already a little "edgy", taking the precautions of being able to examine IDs in person reduces the risk slightly. There are several excellent content brokers who I would trust to supply a good product, just that it's one area that we choose to be a little more conservative about.
btw, more ricottas? As in cheesy?
Was not talking about you man, just getting up on my soap box is all. To tell the truth you post was so long I did not read much of it but will now though. Not that I think its a bad thing to have long posts but I have drank to much coffee to read many long posts.Sean,
No one's putting you down, and if you took my comments that way, I'm sorry, not what I intended.
All I was saying is that, for our own peace of mind, we produce all of our own content and therefore don't have to worry about whether some photog somewhere took a shortcut.
Doesn't mean we'd be immune to a model with an exceptionally good fake ID - that's happened to some of the best companies - but we just felt that, since we were already a little "edgy", taking the precautions of being able to examine IDs in person reduces the risk slightly. There are several excellent content brokers who I would trust to supply a good product, just that it's one area that we choose to be a little more conservative about.
btw, more ricottas? As in cheesy?
I know it was cheesy, the whole “I have a dream thing” but I can be a cheese ball sometimes. And I do think shooting plushy stuff could be really fun.
Max,
Some lines shouldn't be crossed.
Meaning: IF the model is of age but looks underage - you don't project them into looking even younger AND have them in sexual situations.
Be Who You Are!
heh...btw, more ricottas? As in cheesy?
Be Who You Are!
See I don’t know, I hate to draw lines with LEGAL content to me this negates the LEGAL part.
I think using twinks in plushy content could be really expressive, and all the color and items like stuffed purple snakes would create something visually appealing. Content like this is normally just for fun and really pretty artistic in some cases, not really about CP, or really hard-core themes at all.
As far as the “sexual situations” last time I checked this was PORN forum right? I think they have people that are into art photos someplace LOL
Was it not you who just said:
funny, looked like it was just in the same post too.Content like this is normally just for fun and really pretty artistic in some cases
Sorry but I fail to see reason behind your posts. You don't read and admit you don't read based on "too long" but instead, form an opinion as if you did read something. A HALF ASS OPINION BASED ON ASSUMPTION for that matter.
Be Who You Are!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks