but does ron shag chickens ?

Only when you're watching...

i knew that!

the smarter you get, the more often it will happen. It's like magic.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*bangs keybord with fists in a fit of rage*

Of course you did, it's the rest of them that didn't realize it was a rhetorical question... ;)

That seems to be the way laymen use it, but actually the term "pedophile" is misused quite a bit around here and elsewhere. The technical psychological term refers to an interest in prepubescent children only. This does not imply that having sex with someone under 18 (or photographing them, either) is okay, because the law obviously needs to make distinctions, however arbitrary (in some European countries, for example, the age of consent remains 16, not 18).

the inevitable 'erotic pictures of 12yo girls is OK' hahaha was waiting for that one...

haha :1orglaugh

>> Any adult (18+) who likes to look at underage girls in a sexual way is a pedophile.

I don't think thats strictly true I mean some 15 year olds can look 18+ and some 18+ year olds can look 15

I think whats creepy is guys that are attracted to girls that look really young like -15 like you usually see on those non-nude teen sites

age and appearance are deceptive but guys that go deliberately for young girls because they are assholes and can't handle chicks their own age suck too

and guys that go for chickens

I stick to shagging my dialer

EXACTLY! Now when mainstream youth corporations begin to promote these teen fashion sites, perhaps that would change things.
Personally, I don't agree with the likes of Ms. Spears saying something like (not a direct quote) "i just dress this way to perform, and i don't think i have to take responsibility for it as a role model if young girls want to imitate me." And I think I am probably correct in saying that most of Britney's sales are from teen girls. Her albums and crap are not for sale at LE SEX SHOPPE, thats for sure. And we all know that 99.99% of TEEN girls do NOT own credit cards or join paysites.
I guess ccbill and ibill better get their $$$ while they can on this issue.... I do not support it at all and hope that visa thinks about taking action over this opposed to some crap like not processing for bestiality. I figure shit like this won't go on for much longer with all the assholes getting thrown in jail lately.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way cherrylula. Either you want Visa to take action against sites that are legal, up to and including not processing for your site, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think anyone here has said they particularly like the things that Visa dumped, the issue has always been where they started and where they might stop. Or not stop.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We even canned the beastie sites..."

Judging by US regulations you shouldnt have been processing for them in the first place...

I can careless about your debate with Labret or however many times you have had to deal with this. This has to do with my personal use of services by a company who hides behind fashiopn along side these fuckling pedophiles...

Ask yourself this.... who is paying to see these sites?

Ask yourself... are these images the same as a commercial?

Ask yourself... why the emphasis on the girls age? These people brag about the girls being 13, they put big flashing age categories of 14, 15,. 16... if this was just fashion, why so much focus on the girls age?

Also if this was fashion, why no contact to get the girls to be able to mdoel, you overlook all OTHER codes used to define CP, my bet is CC Bill doesnt have a fucking clue what CP is... they need to attend a forum on it, as someone erlier said,.. thats onle ONE of the things used to determine CP.

Ask yourself... why do they NEED to let you know the girls are undr 18 ie up2017-fashion.net

Then think about the parent who most liekly dont know what the pics are being used for, havent you seen the news lately?

I bet if CC Bill would ask these people for Parental Permission slips for these 14 year old girls they dont have them.

So thinking about whos paying to watch them, why they constantly focus on"shes 14..." and the URLs obvious "up-2-17, looks to me like some serious underage suggestions...

Thyere are many variables in decoding what CP is... unfortunealt CC Bill must let the $ cloud this formula.

oh one more thing.... when we started doing "non nude" it wasnt teen. I have been a hard player in the NON HARDCORE adult scene... my girlfriends amateur site which uses CC Bill is NOT HARDCORE,... mostly NOn Nude, but its not teen...

Non nude has been around for years... its not "Non nude" thats wrong, its when people house galleries of 14 year old girls in hotels, hiding behind the "shes not nude" line.

You cant brush this off, im alredy talking to the host.

If I cant get what I want through CC Bill, then i shall through the host...

One day youll regret not taking a stance against this now.

I havent read all the posts since I started this... I have calmed down but now I seem to be getting pissed again... so to everyone I apololgize, but this shit is fucking with me, now I see they will only try to brush it off...

Kimmy dont you have a son? Maybe he'll get tricked into doing a couple photo shoots for a company that does "jeans" commercials and then maybe CC Bill can proces the site...

"up2-17boys-in-jeans.com"

because like it or not, thats how these sites operate, by trickery.

Yeah... sorry to be personal, but just using an example... people that let this go... need a little example to reassure them ...

why bother arguing with her, they condone sick pedophile shit, can she be any more blatently clear?

damn

disclaimer: the above is in jest and not to be taken seriously

(kinda)

No, but when you use your credit card to join a paysite with teenage girls posing provacatively and proceed to jerk off and fantasize about fucking them, its a little different. I agree its not necessarily "porn" because there is much skin on tv alone and that's not "porn," but where are they marketing these teen sites, and what type of people are joining, huh?

Yes fantasies are okay, but I do think that these teen fashion sites are giving the wrong message. Although "mandy" age 14 might LOOK like she wants to get fucked in her pictures, in all honesty she probably does not realize this and probably does not realize the message she is getting across to the pervs who are joining.

I'm a chick, I like to dress sexy and look cute, but at the same time there are guys out there who assume that because you dress a certain way you are sending out a certain message. I might pose nude online, but I sure as fuck don't walk around innappropriate places in sexy clothing giving guys the wrong idea..... I don't think there has been any instance of a judge letting a sex offender go because the victim was dressed in a short skirt and "she wanted to get fucked"

My point: Let kids be kids. Its wrong to exploit children like this, clothed or not. If a guy needs to jerk off to little girls, I am sure he won't have a problem doing so.... BUT DONT FUEL THE FIRE. In some countries there are cultural differences and some things are accepted differently. That is understandable. But how would you feel if your 15 year old daughter was paid a couple hundred bucks and then exploited on a teen fashion site?? I sure as hell would not allow it. For fucks sake, get her some singing lessons and enter her in star search or some shit..... sex sells but keep things in their proper place. And it is all cause and effect... maybe people really do need to boycott certain things to help stop this CP crap. Sooner or later the shit's really going to hit the fan.

Minors and porn DONT MIX.

I'm with Fletch morally, if I was a processor I wouldn't do business with a site like this. Marijuana is illegal because they say it leads to other drugs, I wonder what this leads to.

but I don't think it should be illegal. Nothing is more dangerous than legislated morality in my opinion. Especially when you consider our business.

In a perfect world (or a non-shitty world) parents wouldn't allow their children to pose on a site like this. Didja read that article in AVN about these sites, it was the parents that made my stomach turn.

But then, hundreds of sick fuckers dress their 8 year-old daughters up like hookers and call it a beauty pagent and nobody raises an eyebrow. Jon-benet anyone?

Kman, hahaha I have learned one thing for sure over the years... never argue with a woman... and 2, youre even dumber if you try to argue with a woman on a msg board hahaha...


Im not really arguing, hope Kimmy sdoesnt percieve it as such... im mroe thinking outloud while I focus on the real attack on these fuckers. (up2-17 and the likes)

Its cool Kimmy, no need to argue. Your point has been we understand totally how CC Bill works and what it supports.

Sorry to hear this...

Moerw or less thinking outloud.

I am just saying that that is how most people would label a 20 year old looking at nude pictures of 15 year old girls.

I hear ya KK, but I'm a little confused.....? Okay so maybe you're saying that all porn sites are illegal including mine? Never thought about that... I just figured that what I am doing with my site is legal because well, I don't break any laws that I know of. But I suppose pornography is technically illegal/obscene and that is what you mean.

I will also add that there are a LOT of things in this industry that personally I do not endorse, yet I recognize the fact that they are legal practices and thats the way it goes (as in girls who don't read the fine print). I often hold back and refrain from even giving my opinion in these matters because it is out of place and does not matter.
However, if these non-nude teen sites are legal, then uh why was that guy arrested? THAT is what makes me nervous.

But hey, I do understand business and well, business is business. Ccbill really doesn't owe anyone an explanation on this.... but perhaps these incidences can help us to define a better understanding of what works and what does NOT work for this industry. Maybe that guy really is a good person, and thought he was doing something perfectly legal with all the right intentions..... he was obviously using services from big companies who did not see any wrong in what he was doing, but BAM! arrested. And now even if this guy was in church every sunday and a good citizen, because of the blurry, undefined niche he was selling his life is pretty much done.

The sad part is that the judge who's gonna throw the book at him probably jerks off to dogs and frequents the yahoo teen chat rooms.

Damn its an ugly world. Who's to blame?

In the UK it's legal for a 16 year old girl to be topless in a newspaper, so long as she has written consent from her parents.

Just to prove my point even further...

Heres a pic.

Think about this being legal, and think of what this leads to.

<img src=http://superbooger.com/she14.jpg>

Now since this is legal its okay right? She's 14, her mommy said it was okay, and the guy with the camera gave her 100 bucks more than shes ever seen in her life, shes only 14, very naive, easy to please....

<img src=http://superbooger.com/she14.jpg>

Imagine it... "Oh youre so good at this.... hehehe go girl get wild... just pose how you want... be free... yeah take this off,... slide this over..... oh there you are.... youre gonna go far.... wow youre a dreamgirl."

Meanwhile click click click taking pictures,... now they end up on the net, gee I wonder if her mom would sign this now.

This is just a little visual to think about when anyone defends these types of sites. This is NOT a Britney commercial, or a sexy Tabacco ad,... this my friend is a young girl being paid to pose in a sexually provactive way. at least in my opinion hahaha

fletch, how do you make that picture illegal?

One could also think about the ways these sites are promoted.

A sexy cigarette ad or something is designed to sell cigs or sell whatever they are selling.

Whats the above pic selling?

If these are models wheres the contact info for them so they can be used to model?

And most importanly, what is she modeling, a 2 piece? Every girl on the site is modeling panties and bikinis... hmm...

Also - whats that look in her eyes? Shes 14 - did the camera guy tell her too look that way? Pouty and teen like? You bet your ass he did.

I worked on porn sets for 5 years, I know exactly what guys do to "get the shot."

I have seen a girl get an extra 500 bucks to take it in the ass, when she showed up for a blowjob scene and nothig more, but was talked into more. Sure its her fault, not comparing the two directly, but this is a minor who has NO SAY SO on what her body is used for or her pics. Again, shes 14.

Sleep well... be glad its not your daughter these guys are exploiting.

gee could it be that she is being paid to cover up her bikini so it looks as if she doesnt have on panties or a bikini bottom, and shes 14.

Maybe its personal opinion. This whole thread seems to be nothing more than personal opinion.

Fact is - if this was totally legal I wouldnt have gotten the owner to change his front page over night would i?

The fucker is scared, he knows Im coming, I am.... ill bring that fucker down ... me and Cilantro.

and Cilantro
<img src=http://superbooger.com/cilantro.jpg

its amazing what professional emails can do nowadays.

hahahaha

I think this is an important discussion, but a much bigger issue

I ask, how is this different than the teen underwear section in say your sears catalogue?

Well, I suppose that they don't charge money for membership...

But then what is different from teen fashion magazines?

They cost money and blatently display rather provocative under eighteen girls?

Every major city has it's "kiddie stroll" where underage prostitutes serve the general public, and you can bet that the john's don't ask "are you sure that your legal age" before dropping a c note or whatever

So then one might pose the argument is it better for a member of one of these sites to jack off to the non nude pictures, rather than go on a date with a 14 year old hooker?

I guess in a way the girls' parents are probably pimps too aren't they?

I wonder how much money they got paid? I guess it probably went for a bag of weed, couple cases of beer, and a carton of cigs?

I can't think of parents that weren't addicted to drugs signing a release for their child to be photographed that way...

I have always used these arguments...

What is wrong with you Fletch? What happens when The Right Honourable Reverend of Fucknut County sees one of your sites?
He's going to say 'Hey this webmaster is breaking no laws, I don't have a problem with seeing 20 yo girls being anally fisted'?
I don't fuckin think so...
So, by you passing your own moral judgement on this non-nude site and trying to get it shut down, you are saying it's ok for some altar-boy fiddler to do the same to you.

Get a fuckin grip. Your target isn't breaking the law and nor are you with your site (I assume) so live and let live - until the law changes...

Not to confuse where I stand... but there is little if any difference between a site like lil amber (non nude) and any under 18 softcore site (nude)

If anything many people find clothed and semi clothed sites more erotic than say a nudist site

That being said... there is no doubt what these sites are selling

I dont do fisting or anal sites, from what I know here in So Cal fisting is illegal. SO that hypothetical situation is null.

Your stereotypes in your post only lead me to believe the entire post is hypothetically invalid.

---------So, by you passing your own moral judgement on this non-nude site and trying to get it shut down, you are saying it's ok for some altar-boy fiddler to do the same to you.-------

My own moral judgement seems to differ from most, maybe youer the guy jerking off to pics like this?

I got a grip man.

Go join the up2-17 affiliate program... better yet go join the up2-17 Yahoo group... hang around the people who horde these pics and tell me, are they of charachter like you and i, or are the sick fucks? I dare you to go sign up for the Yahoo group and mingle with em, icq em, trade soem photos and see what you get.

Check out the bookmarks for the up2-17 net Yahoo group youll see what this is really about... in the group is where you get access to 6-12 year old girls.

Thats why I am pissed. Investigate before you tell me to chill.

6-12 year olds man, and they use the up-17 way to feed this. Its a big circle, you think up2-17 is the beginning of the chain? think again.

The difference is that you can't stroll to your neighborhood porn store and get a copy of the SEARS catalog.

If these non-nude sites advertised and marketed their product in a different manner and stayed the hell away from the adult sections of the net, then perhaps they would be perceived differently. Sure, its perfectly legal, but they are taking advantage of some legalities that are yet to be strictly defined and getting away with peddling their "non-nude teenie fashion" sites to adult men who make up the majority of porn net surfers.

THAT is the difference. You can't prevent people from looking at little girls, its the context in which it is done. I really don't care because what is going to happen is the LAW is going to make this decision for us all..... hence the arrests that have occured.

I'll say it again..... if non nude sites as such are legal, then can somebody give me a clear definition of why that guy was arrested.....?? Pretty disturbing.

I could also add that on the page with the 6-12 year old girls they pop a banner for "password trading" to pay sites,... so what are they getting to here?

Lets trade passwords for Adult Paysites but this is only teen models, non nude and its legal, yeah okay...

The sites themselves might not be illegal, its how they promote them, and where their traffic comes from that should scare you.

The underwear section in the Sears catalog isn't promoted on porn sites as a way to leer at underage girls and get your rocks off in the privacy of your own computer room without anyone being able to know.

FatPAD, exactly - not to lite another fuse here, but Sears doesnt promote "browser washers" to clear your cache so you dont get busted like these guys do.

p.s.

If I chop out all the pics of the Sears teen underwear catalog, thumbnail them, put them in galleries on a site called TrueTeenSluts, promote them on The Hun or Thumbzilla or SuperDuperTeensTGP as "Real teen sluts in underwear", place all the emphasis on their "young, nubile bodies", charge $39.99 a month to look at my teens in underwear collection, and never ever sell a single pair of underwear and don't even have any in stock, I'm quite different from the Sear's catalog, even though I'm using the very same pics.

Lets not forget make banners with each girls face and put their age in flashing letters on the banners - the way I found this site was a banner that had a picture of the same girl above, her model name is Gabby.

The fucking banner had "Gabby - 13 years old" teen model shit my ass.

They focus on the age too much for this to be legal, thats what they sell - they sell the fact that she is 13 and in bikini nothing more.

I don't believe in perpetuating misconceptions by repeating them, that's all. Lusting after a 15 year old isn't good, but it isn't pedophilia. Lusting after a 11 year old is a different story.

there's a difference between what's legal and what someone does. It's called integrity.

I'm thinking that if fletch xxx didn't get wood looking at these pics, he wouldn't have so many posts in this thread.
Since he has a problem with a perfectly legal CC processor providing a service to a perfectly legal site, I'd say he must really have a compulsion to keep the talk about this stuff going.

He'll probably use his *fight* against these sites to *research* every one of these damn sites. :1orglaugh



No, there's a diference between running a TGP out of your bedroom and understanding the law. Its called intelligence.