This is from
http://www.lolitasex.com meta tags. Fantasyman already posted this in another thread, but still CCBill processes for it. Lolitasex does not have underage models, however they are preying on pedophiles and illegal content promises to make their money. CCBill processes for them... and why? This site sure looks illegal in it's meta tags promoting child porn. "13,14,15" "lolita girls age 14-17"> What in Gods name is that doing on their site? That is illegal in my books, but that is just my opinion. I am disgusted that CCBill processes for these people and I would never use them as my credit card processor. Dirty scum bags. They have known about this site for a long time and they still do nothing about it. What gives?
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0" name=GENERATOR>
<META
content="lolita, lolita sex, lolita bbs, young lolita, russian lolitas, little lolitas, lolita porn, preteen lolita, nude lolitas, lolita art, lolita girl, naturist, teen, underage, naked, illegal, mpeg, video"
name=Keywords>
<META
content="An Lolita Gallery of young nude russian lolita girls Age 14 to 17"
name=Description>
<META
content="lolita, lolitas, nude teenage girls, naked teenage girls, naked teens, naked young girls, teen nudism, teenage nudism, young teens, underage, under age, under-age, underage models, under age models, under-age models, underage girls, under age girls, under-age girls, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year old, junior high, little girls, under 18, amateur teens, amateur girls, amateur teenage girls, amateurs, amateur models, cheerleaders, highschool cheerleaders, schoolgirls, nude, nudity, innocentangels, nudes, nude pictures, adolescent, pubescent, photography, david hamilton, jock sturgis, panties, panty, youth, borders, barnes & noble, art photography"
name=Classification></HEAD>
You be the judge. Yuk.