Legal or not, content like this is made for pedos.
 

Just checked some of slicks sites.

Yadayada... legal content ... blablabla ... they have no right to ask for documents ... yadayada ... legit sponsors ...

Now go to http://www.extremepink.com/ and tell me if most of these girls even look like they are 18./ I dont care if they are 18 or 45, fact is that they are there because they look -15. That's just encouraging pedos to rape their daughters, neices, students and so on.

when I was 18 I looked like 15 too

it's completely legal and no reason to shut down sites like that
ok, ethically dubious, but 100% legal and that's what should matter

It doesnt matter if you have a point, they did something thats not allowed under US law.

Thats not a personal opinion its a fact.

That link is on his network page http://www.slicksnetwork.com/ so I think it's his

this is a side point to the topic -
Im not having a go at the company in hand here but its stuff like that the reason why i wont promote any of the teen revenue girls content. Ok all legal, but wow. they do look very, very young.


I also have not clicked on the link

http://bbp.juggcrew.com/m/racks/281p...ts=MzQ3OjM6MTg this babe is milf! lol

You got a strong point there...

next to be shut down: light speed

after that?

we're all a bunch of pedos to you huh PMDave? Maybe you're in the wrong line of work. I hear there's some televangelist stations looking for staffers.

Sorry but lightspeedgirls all seem to be past puberty or atleast in it.

And if you dig girls that are 18 but look like 12-13... well yeah you are a pedo.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/200...jcorbino28.jpg

This guy looks like a murderer.

"I'm not a murderer yadda yadda, I would never hurt a fly blah blah"

I don't care if he did anything illegal or not. Just look at him, he looks like a murderer even if he is the nicest guy in the world. His face just encourages other people to murder their wife, daughter, friends and so on.

i agree thats some sick shit in my mind, but if they are 18+ then whatever, if fat white men enjoy that shit than fuckem

Well shit. I better take down my mature site. I don't want it to make some one rape my grandma :disgust

:1orglaugh

My first click on that site got me:

http://obscenethumbs.com/

Hmmm.

A great list of top referals"

Little Teen Collection 6563 - 12311 ExtremePink.com 5209 - 7384 Teen Palace TGP 3439 - 3172
Alex-thumbs.com 2317 - 2472 Vestal Girls TGP 1547 - 1356 Gals.girlstested.com 1278 - 2903
Teen Girl Holes 720 - 788 XXX-Teens-XXX 670 - 851 Brutal INCEST TGP 339 - 332
Agenthun 316 - 300 Go Girls 265 - 302 Teen Tonic 265 - 417
So-So-Young.com 165 - 367 PICS 4 ALL 164 - 169 Incest Paradise 164 - 193
NoShameGirls 155 - 161 Allure Teen 155 - 130 Tgp 2 Post 148 - 208
Yoho Teenies 147 - 348 TeenSmoreTeenS 130 - 210 Daily Incest 129 - 157
Sexy Schoolgirl 117 - 97 SweetSchoolGirls 114 - 119 Raw Teen Thumbs 112 - 150
Daughter Next Door 93 - 185 Sweet-Girls 93 - 112 Ae Teen Pages 82 - 122
Pussy Cute 79 - 181 Teen Sweet 77 - 139 Just Barely Legal 72 - 166
Nobull Hardcore 64 - 155 Secret Teen Video 61 - 111 Young-and-virgin.com 58 - 98
Xtreme Orgy 58 - 49 Atg-art 54 - 160 Go To Nu 53 - 115
Hourly Pic 43 - 31 Lucky Virginz 43 - 86 school virgins 40 - 76
Russian Virgins 39 - 89 teensart.com 39 - 79 Meet 4 Sex 37 - 84
Incest Next Door 36 - 48 Young Nymphs 34 - 110 Real Russian Teens 31 - 59

If someone is going to become a rapist I seriously doubt a fucking picture is the cause of it. That is like saying people who look at porn will all one day rape hot women, it is ridiculous. If they have rape tendencies it is in THEM not because they looked at a picture. Just like people saying Heavy Metal music caused people to kill themselves. BULLSHIT if a person kills themselves they had issues before they heard the music. Those issues needed to be dealt with not the music. The fact that people blame music for the actions of the person shows they weren't very observant in the first place of the person’s problems and if they were THEY might have been able to save their life.

And I know in some cases people show NO SIGNS of wanting to kill themselves. My best friend’s father shot himself. There were NO signs that he was depressed or wanted to die. So there are exceptions to that, but my point being music or looking at a picture does not make people commit suicide or rape someone. There is something deeper to deal with.

I am not in anyway saying I support pedo shit, I think they should all be shot there is no cure for people like that. I am saying that a picture does not cause people with deep issues like that to commit rape. It is in them and they are going to do it whether they see a pic or not. The thing I do not like about it is what the actual taking of the pictures does to the actual child in the picture and so on. Some could argue that seeing those pics helps them not to commit rape on a child. I saw a TV show, I believe 60 minutes or something, when a guy was saying that by looking at porn it was actually helping him to stop wanting to commit rape. That is bullshit too. THE GUY HAS ISSUES and any photo is not the reason.

Porn does not make EVERY SINGLE PERSON behave in the same manor. If a person is going to hurt someone it's because they have it in THEM and if it isn't a picture it could be something as easy as watching a little girl or boy getting off the school bus. THEY ARE SICK AND NEED TO BE BANNED FROM SOCITEY FOR LIFE OR JUST FUCKING KILLED. THEY ARE A WASTE OF LIFE. (The rapist not the people with the site in this thread, just wanted to make that clear hehe)

I believe some of the 14 thumbs they questioned were Lightspeed Girls.

Alex.. Which is the "illegal content"? The thumbs or the text links?

If it's the sponsor gallery thumbs, why aren't the sponsors who shot the content being questioned too? Should they be?

Corona, the thumbs rotate, there is no way of knowing which 14 thumbs were there when the screencaps were made.

I like the way you said it better. I took the long route. LOL That made me laugh out loud. Thank you! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Brujah, it isn't clear that any of the content in and of itself is illegal. But the dwelling on "tiny parts", "hairless parts" and "extremely underdeveloped girls", combined with terms like "so so young" "incest paradise" and "young and virgin" creates an atmosphere and an implication that some or all of the models are not of age. It is pandering to pedophiles.

Did you know it is illegal to sell sugar and claim it is cocaine? you get the same sentence, intent to sell narcotics... even if there were no drugs.

More importantly, it is all questionable enough to look really bad on Foxnews or on the Senate floor.

I had four paragraphs typed out equating his statement to the same used by many groups who are against porn altogether.

Then, I remembered this is GFY, so I changed it to a one liner before submitting. :1orglaugh

Nice post :thumbsup

No, I didn't know that. That's pretty fucked up too IMO.

So in this case you're saying it's likely the context of his sites that are "illegal content" and not the actual content itself?

What's your take on the sponsors who have all this young looking content on their tours and hosted galleries?

So glad we all agree that contont like that is made to please pedos.
If it encourages pedos or not was actually not the point I was trying to make.

i agree with it

Legal or not, I wont touch any of that shit. Even a porn guy has to draw the line somewhere.

slick = guilty until proven innocent and the sentance has already been served. nice to live in china isnt it.

that type of shit should be illegal, i thought it was illegal already.

It is illegal if you don't have the docs to prove it's legal.

I didn't follow the whole story, but it seems it has been going for a few days now, so he had a few days to prove himself innocent...

Remember guys, that is all sponsor-owned content, much of it if not all of it from sponsors that many of you also promote. Slick is just an affiliate using that content in good faith like any other affiliate, and the 2257 statements from ALL of those sponsors I've looked at all say that their content is legal and their models of legal age at the time of production.

If you want to call someone's ethics into question you best include the sponsors themselves in this little tirade, Slick seems to be taking quite a fall all by himself here.

I don't see where anybody can mistake the girls as under age. Some look young but none of them look sick young.

The thumbs I see now are ok for the most part but when I first made my post there were alot of thumbs where the girls looked like 12-15.

It maybe the overexposure to porn, webmasters get used to look at girls that look very young but aren't, but it's common sense to think they are underage.

For a short reality check: A friend of mine told me that he hates totally shaved pussies because they'd not look like a woman's pussy. That was after his 34 year old girlfriend shaved her beaver ! So, try not to look at it with the "webmaster eyes" only

So then its ok for mainstream media to produce so called " family" orientated programming with the kid actresses running around in bellyshirts,tight jeans,etc etc etc.?

I totally agree with this although what gets under my skin is to keep hearing webmasters bitching at underaged content providers (im talking girls that ARE underaged but dont necessarely look 12 years old) when in the meantime legit webmasters and guys get hard ons over 18 and older that DO look like they are 12...

If an underaged girl that looks 25 hits on a guy the same age in a club and dont tell him the truth, does that make that guy a pedo? A guy that looks at an 18 years old that looks exactly like a child and gets a hard on is okay though. Im not saying that really young looking girls on a picture will influence the pedophiles, but those who jerks off on that content should stfu when they say they would never get attracted by a girl under 18.

SOme 16 years old girls ARE and LOOK like women and guys are as turned on by them then any other hot chick and that is just a fact. I DO find it disturbing that some solo girls have so much success to look like pre-puberts.

The sponsors bear very little if any responsiblity in this because it isn't the content itself, but the presentation. The thumbs on these sites dwelled specifically on the "tiny" parts and rarely presented the whole model (many of the lightspeed links were closeups of smooth shave pubis, without any contect), or scenes where the model appeared to be in distress or otherwise uncomfortable with the situation. Not all of them certainly but a large percentage of them.

Example, a picture of Josie Junior cropped to show only from her neck to her belly button only would suggest, well, very young. The full frame might not.

The content is likely legal. But I can tell you without any real doubt that I was exactly one click away from what I felt were real CP images on those sites. That adds to the problem, because it makes this into a doorway to CP.

I don't think Slick intended bad directly, but I suspect he followed the cash without paying strict attention to where it was coming from.

I just looked at a pic of 2 guys kissing.........I think I am going out tonight and pick up a bear.

Either the performer is over the age of 18 or they're not. Period. "Looks like" is a subjective term. Let's stick with the law (at least that of the U.S. for this argument) everyone.



Pretty simple.

When I was recruiting for ifriends we had a young gay guy (19) that looked REALLY young. When I submitted his form ifriends refused him because of his looks even though they had the proof that he was not underaged (and it was clear).

I was wondering at the time if this guy could've bust them for discrimination? After all they refused him because of how he looked which is not under his control...

Ok I know they will last for about 60 seconds but here is a random selection of my cache:

http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th4180.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th4147.jpg
http://207.226.163.35/hornyteddy/th218738.jpg
http://207.226.163.35/hornyteddy/th230667.jpg
http://207.226.163.35/hornyteddy/th26591.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th73262.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th71571.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th149065.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th2.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th560399.jpg
http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th369449.jpg

So some of you are raising a fuss because of how the script Slick is running auto-crops the thumbs and not the content itself?

rubbish.

The content certainly IS coming under scrutiny here, in which case the sponsors or those who created it should be bearing at least some of the responsibility. The good news is that According to Slick, several of his sponsors have told him they are willing to pony up with whatever info he needs to solve this dilema.

In fact, I noticed a few of the program owners posting in his thread. I think I saw Nick Baauw in there last night.

By that calculation, someone who looks at pics of chicks who look say 25/30 yrs old, wants to go out and rape them aswell ??

read thread

Whoever own that site better check its trades - several of the urls are registred as potential CP in Denmark! Fucked Up! :mad:

This is actually Max Hardcore's biggest contribution to the adult industry. He went up against the law and won. The law says 18, it's 18. Just like the door guy at the bar...he's not going to let a 19 year old guy into the club because he looks 30. He's going to go by the law and make sure he has ID that shows he's over 21.

hmmmmmmmmm ......

the girls in those thumbs do look very young...but if they are 18+ i dont see the problem