teen revenue

[lizaanddel]

Just signed up with teen revenue, ie. little summer little april etc.

I'm new to galleries, and just want to make sure everything it above board (as you's will understand) what i really want to know is that the girls on thier site are all legal, please someone clarify this for me as i looked at thier 2257 and saw stuff about appeal courts etc.

reply much appreciated folks

[daveydude]

Those girls look scarily young. The video trailer for Little April is fucking creepy as well. I'm sure they're over 18 though, Teen Revenue would have surely got busted long before now if they weren't?

[lizaanddel]

thanks mate

anychance of more girl on girl shots with faith for my galleries?

[lizaanddel]

just to be on the safe side i'm going to give it a pass

[-HF]

legally you should be fine, it is a question of taste though. Little April and stuff always gives me the creeps.

[lizaanddel]

not my cup of tea either, i just want to make plenty of cash

[domtheboy]

I think from a legal point of view you should be okay, I doubt very much that a company would be stupid enough to shoot underage girls and not cover their assess with 2257 compliant documents. The industry (particularly in the US) comes in for so much scrutiny these days (it has got more intense since I started submitting galleries and I only started off last November) that it would be really easy for law enforcement to shut them down if they were doing anything underhand.

If you were really concerned probably the best thing to do would be to consult the sponsor directly. At the end of the day they will always be keen to have more people pushing their products, so it would be in their best interests to alleviate your concerns. Just my 2 cents :)

[SGS]

Not casting aspersions on any program in particular but when the legal side is done its all about conscience. Are you happy to push a product and are you happy with the type of customer that the product is obviously aimed at?

[domtheboy]

Not casting aspersions on any program in particular but when the legal side is done its all about conscience. Are you happy to push a product and are you happy with the type of customer that the product is obviously aimed at?

That is actually a much better question to ask yourself. Even if you were 100% certain that the content was legit, what kind of market is it pandering to ? Again all comes down to your conscience. Personally I'm not sure I like the idea of pushing sites promoting very young looking girls. MILF's are miles better ;)

[ukwebmasters]

spot on SGS >>

Not casting aspersions on any program in particular but when the legal side is done its all about conscience. Are you happy to push a product and are you happy with the type of customer that the product is obviously aimed at?

just say it out loud :::

the type of customer that signs up for a little april subscription will typically be men who become sexually aroused by images of underage girls in the nude, irrespective of the fact that content on the site is 100% legally compliant.

thread starters reply :::

'not my cup of tea either, i just want to make plenty of cash'

o.k. - go for it ...

[Geezer]

not my cup of tea either, i just want to make plenty of cash

But you need to have your own lines drawn and never cross them.

You seem like you have just been asking if it's acceptable to promote this. I'm sure had more people have said "yes it's all legal and there's nothing wrong with it" you would be promoting.

Go with what you are comfortable with, just cos it's legal doesn't mean you will feel OK about promoting it.
I have big problems with maxhardcore andf could NEVER promote his site in any way shape or form, no matter what the monetry gain would be.

[daveydude]

You could argue that having underage looking (but legal) girls on a site allows the kind of guys who are into it to have a legal outlet so there's less demand for the real thing.

It's still fucking creepy though. Sites where the girl is very young looking, and where her age is not actually stated on the tour, are pandering to some pretty fucked-up people.

[Grisey]

It just comes down to personal perfence, if you feel thats its wrong don't promote it, if you want to make money then do.

[JT]

You could argue that having underage looking (but legal) girls on a site allows the kind of guys who are into it to have a legal outlet so there's less demand for the real thing.

It's still fucking creepy though. Sites where the girl is very young looking, and where her age is not actually stated on the tour, are pandering to some pretty fucked-up people.


Yep I wouldnt feel comfitable promoting it either.

[mOBSCENE]

It actually says on the tour, first page, Hi, my name is April. I'm 5'4", 104 lbs and I just turned 18. So it's not like trying to make out she's underage. She looks very cute and is being marketed as a "college girl". I would ask the people who have posted negative comments about her look to ask themselves if they have ever posted pics/videos of girls in pigtails, braces on teeth etc, because that could well be construed as pandering to a certain kind of market, even down to the use of the word "teen".

There are some pretty fucked up people in this world - by the standards of the moral minority, everyone on this board is fucked up and evil because of what they do. I for one would prefer that these fucked up people join regulated sites like Little April or Max Hardcore and watch over 18's rather than going to illegal sites where under 18's are actually involved and in danger. Not having young looking girls on the net will not stop people being fucked up - research suggests there are many more people secretly fucked up in this way than you would imagine (not just the weirdo hanging around the park, but the businessman in his Porsche with family too). So if they have an outlet, which is legal and gets no one harmed, isn't that a good thing? There will be some who argue that providing such an outlet only encourages them to go deeper into their depravity, but be careful - these are the same people who will argue that all pornography fuels the fire of depravity and inevitably leads to rape, or that gay porn sites are inevitably going to get men interested in boys somewhere down the line...

Disclaimer: I sometimes play devil's advocate

[SGS]

I would ask the people who have posted negative comments about her look to ask themselves if they have ever posted pics/videos of girls in pigtails, braces on teeth etc, because that could well be construed as pandering to a certain kind of market

Not to knock this particular program but to answer your question no I haven’t and I wouldn’t even dream of it in a million years.

[mOBSCENE]

Shaved pussies then? I once saw a campaigner on the TV who said the models in girlie mags only had their pussies shaved for one reason - to make them look underage and thus to pander to fucked up men. So if you ever post pictures of girls with shaved pussies, there's another reason to be uncomfortable...

I hate it when people in this industry start discussing what kind of porn is "nice and proper" and which is disgusting and loathsome. Plays right into the hands of those who would destroy us. For me, what is unacceptable is minors, animals and any kind of force.

[ChemicalEyes]

Shaved pussies then? I once saw a campaigner on the TV who said the models in girlie mags only had their pussies shaved for one reason - to make them look underage and thus to pander to fucked up men. So if you ever post pictures of girls with shaved pussies, there's another reason to be uncomfortable...

I hate it when people in this industry start discussing what kind of porn is "nice and proper" and which is disgusting and loathsome. Plays right into the hands of those who would destroy us. For me, what is unacceptable is minors, animals and any kind of force.

There is a big difference between the TR sites and girls/women with shaved pussies.. gotta be at least 50% of worlds male population prefer women shaved.. not that many into underage looking girls.

[mOBSCENE]

Just signed up with teen revenue, ie. little summer little april etc.

I'm new to galleries, and just want to make sure everything it above board (as you's will understand) what i really want to know is that the girls on thier site are all legal, please someone clarify this for me as i looked at thier 2257 and saw stuff about appeal courts etc.

reply much appreciated folks

Incidentally, the court appeals stuff you mention refers to a US court judgement about 2257 not applying to secondary producers, and doesn't apply to this particular content producer. It's a ruling which some US sites are using, or will attempt to use, in defence against the new 2257 regulations.

[Grisey]

.. not that many into underage looking girls.

I'm sure Teen rev sales stats would beg to differ with that :onguard:

[SGS]

Shaved pussies then? I once saw a campaigner on the TV who said the models in girlie mags only had their pussies shaved for one reason - to make them look underage and thus to pander to fucked up men. So if you ever post pictures of girls with shaved pussies, there's another reason to be uncomfortable...

I hate it when people in this industry start discussing what kind of porn is "nice and proper" and which is disgusting and loathsome. Plays right into the hands of those who would destroy us. For me, what is unacceptable is minors, animals and any kind of force.

Interesting to see that big programs like Lightspeed are now distancing themselves from the “teen” market as well. The wind is starting to blow and it’s quite obvious where the powers that be will concentrate their attentions first.

[-HF]

You could argue that having underage looking (but legal) girls on a site allows the kind of guys who are into it to have a legal outlet so there's less demand for the real thing.

you could also argue that having underage looking (but legal) girls on a site allows filtering the kind of guys who are into it and upsell them to the illegal shit at a later point.

while this seems unlikely with sites like TR, i am almost certain this is the sole point of all the still legal "teen model" sites presenting 16 yo. or even younger birds in bikinis and the likes, sometimes worse.
there is a Germany based biller that has literally hundreds of sites of that nature listed.

[mOBSCENE]

There is a big difference between the TR sites and girls/women with shaved pussies.. gotta be at least 50% of worlds male population prefer women shaved.. not that many into underage looking girls.

Hmm, I think people aren't aware of the real scale of this issue. According to the psychological essay by Freund, K. and Costell, R. (1970). "The structure of erotic preference in the non deviant male.", at least a quarter of adult men can be aroused by those who are underage. This doesn't mean they go out and prey on the underage - fortunately the ones who do that are a smaller minority, if still too many of them.

I know this will be denied, but I do have a Master's in Psychoanalysis and understand something of how the human psyche is composed. I'm with Freud in saying that we're all fucked up one way or the other... The difference between right and wrong is when the line between fantasy and reality is crossed in such a way that a victim is created...

[mOBSCENE]

you could also argue that having underage looking (but legal) girls on a site allows filtering the kind of guys who are into it and upsell them to the illegal shit at a later point.

while this seems unlikely with sites like TR, i am almost certain this is the sole point of all the still legal "teen model" sites presenting 16 yo. or even younger birds in bikinis and the likes, sometimes worse.
there is a Germany based biller that has literally hundreds of sites of that nature listed.

Those are the really disturbing sites - I ran across some so called "child supermodel" sites once, with girls as young as seven offered as the "models" for paysites where they feature in suggestive poses in skimpy clothes. Little April et al aren't creepy at all compared to that kind of stuff... The creepier thing is I think it's legal because they aren't actually nude - while the authorities in the US go after legit sites over paperwork for legal models...

[JT]

Interesting to see that big programs like Lightspeed are now distancing themselves from the “teen” market as well. The wind is starting to blow and it’s quite obvious where the powers that be will concentrate their attentions first.


You know Ive never promoted teen sites, because Ive always beleved when the shit hits the fan its going to be the teen sites that get hit first.

But I would never promote a site that is made to pander to pedo's I find it uncomfortable seeing girls with flat chests, little girls clothes and braces in their mouth.

[NumptyNuts]

I had similar issue when Little April was first launched, the site is clearly legal, it sits in the teen niche same as Dave's programme IBWF and I some traffic for that niche.

anyhow I put up a site and did some marketing and overall it generated a very healthy return. Saying this its past its peak as I was advised it would do - LittleApril that is -

Heres a very similar situation - Rachel UK who is a member I put this page together -

http://www.smithslookup.co.uk/bukkake/rachel/1/gallery1.htm

This went in the teen / cum niche and did well the content may be suggestive though its pretty clear the Rachel is older than 18 (sorry Rach)

JT says - I find it uncomfortable seeing girls with flat chests, little girls clothes and braces in their mouth.

What he wants is big breasted girl - I dont think the braces scare him off ;-) On the subject of braces, these are just a prop nothing more and the fact we are having this debate PROVES it was a clever marketing tactic.

[-HF]

thumb 8 and 9 link to the same full size pic, and Rachel supposedly has withdrawn herself from this board.

[dvtimes]

http://www.dvtimes.com/ttt/666.htm

[Geezer]

This went in the teen / cum niche and did well the content may be suggestive though its pretty clear the Rachel is older than 18 (sorry Rach)

How, where, is it clear she is older than 18?
She looks about 14 or 15 to me.

[Geezer]

http://www.dvtimes.com/ttt/666.htm

What was that then, just a late night snack?
I prefer spam on toast in the afternoon :takethat:

[NumptyNuts]

How, where, is it clear she is older than 18?
She looks about 14 or 15 to me.


See thats my point, its about perception, the reality of the sutiation is just a 'shoot' in which the model is wearnig a uniform.

[JP]

http://www.dvtimes.com/ttt/666.htm
Well ... that settles it, thread closed ...

:confused:

[daveydude]

How, where, is it clear she is older than 18?
She looks about 14 or 15 to me.

Yeah those are really early pics of her - she was about 18/19 in them. They're probably like 3 years old now?

[daveydude]

See thats my point, its about perception, the reality of the sutiation is just a 'shoot' in which the model is wearnig a uniform.

It's not just "a uniform" though is it. It's a school uniform, which is saying "look at me guys, I'm still at school & I'm sucking all these dicks". It sends out signals, it tells a story. I've got a 2nd class media degree from a shitty university, I know these things ;)

Now don't get me wrong - I fucking love girls in school uniform, (I love fucking girls in school uniform too - I even like it when the girl wears one!) because it's cute & dirty & that's what a lot of guys like I guess. But it doesn't mean I'm into underage girls and it doesn't mean that your average surfer who clicks on a "teen" gallery is a pedo either. But, there is a massive difference between peddling cheeky legal "schoolgirl" stuff, and then having girls in baby clothes with braces who look about 13.

I remember earlier this year Aaron turned down a girl for some modelling because she looked way younger than 18, even though she was actually nearly 20. It's just not something we'd be comfortable with, and that what this debate is all about - comfort levels.

[SGS]

I had similar issue when Little April was first launched, the site is clearly legal, it sits in the teen niche same as Dave's programme IBWF and I some traffic for that niche.

anyhow I put up a site and did some marketing and overall it generated a very healthy return. Saying this its past its peak as I was advised it would do - LittleApril that is -

Heres a very similar situation - Rachel UK who is a member I put this page together -

http://www.smithslookup.co.uk/bukkake/rachel/1/gallery1.htm

This went in the teen / cum niche and did well the content may be suggestive though its pretty clear the Rachel is older than 18 (sorry Rach)

JT says - I find it uncomfortable seeing girls with flat chests, little girls clothes and braces in their mouth.

What he wants is big breasted girl - I dont think the braces scare him off ;-) On the subject of braces, these are just a prop nothing more and the fact we are having this debate PROVES it was a clever marketing tactic.


The problem is the obvious market that this tactic is aimed at and just how comfortable you are with that.

[SGS]

Heres a very similar situation - Rachel UK who is a member I put this page together -

http://www.smithslookup.co.uk/bukkake/rachel/1/gallery1.htm

Personally I find that gallery pretty disturbing.

[Geezer]

See thats my point, its about perception, the reality of the sutiation is just a 'shoot' in which the model is wearnig a uniform.

Take the uniform off and she would still look 14 or 15

[NumptyNuts]

The problem is the obvious market that this tactic is aimed at and just how comfortable you are with that.


What is the obvious market?

Heres another - http://www.spankedschoolgirl.com/ this is a fetish site is this targeting the wrong type of people too?

Here on this site - http://www.getdirtywithjuliet.com/ > The sales pitch states the girl is 'just 18' THE same pitch which is on the LA site.

Basically the whole teen niche / school uniform fetish etc is all a mine field.

[NumptyNuts]

Take the uniform off and she would still look 14 or 15

Thats a matter of opinion, I have to disagree with you

[JT]

What is the obvious market?

By making a girl look underage the market is men who want underage girls.

Making a girl look younger than 18 by making her wear braces, having no breasts and in little girls clothes is appealing to pedos.

Schoolgirl uniform fetish has nothing to do with it. On its own, school uniform is a pretty main stream excepted fetish. But when combined with other factors on purpose make the girl look like a child then you are fuiling the pedos fantasy at having sex with children

[SGS]

What is the obvious market?

Heres another - http://www.spankedschoolgirl.com/ this is a fetish site is this targeting the wrong type of people too?

Here on this site - http://www.getdirtywithjuliet.com/ > The sales pitch states the girl is 'just 18' THE same pitch which is on the LA site.

Basically the whole teen niche / school uniform fetish etc is all a mine field.

Those who are interested in under age girls.

The other two links are really not in the same category at all in my view.

[SGS]

What is the obvious market?

Now that Johny has used the word I was holding back from myself I think that gallery panders to paedophiles.

[NumptyNuts]

Now that Johny has used the word I was holding back from myself I think that gallery panders to paedophiles.

Ok lets say that is the case, which I do not think is the case at all, surely its better this type of person joins a teen site where the model is legal.

I know what you are saying but nearly all teen sites proclaim their models to be 'Just 18' & or 'Barely Legal'.

The Sport paper often goes as far to show the model clothed and run a count down until she is old enough to pose nude.

[JT]

Ok lets say that is the case, which I do not think is the case at all, surely its better this type of person joins a teen site where the model is legal.

No better in my opinion, its still feuling child fantasies

[SGS]

Just want to add to that a bit…

As Johny says, the schoolgirl uniform fetish is a different bucket of bananas altogether.

Just for arguments sake, just imagine a “nonce” gets caught and his computer is taken away for professional interrogation. In amongst the thousands and thousands of illegal images he has on there on his HD he also has some images from that particular gallery as well. When the police then go on to try to match the images on his computer with real faces to investigate abuse do you think that those images would fall under that net as well? Or do you think that they will find them obviously “over 18” and move on to the next set of pics?

[Geezer]

Thats a matter of opinion, I have to disagree with you

So if you look at pics of 15 year old girls but you say "in my opinion they look 18" that would be ok?

I wonder if that would stand up in court if you had a couple of 1,000 pics of underage girls.

"Your Honour, in my opinion they all look 18" :takethat:

[JT]

I know what you are saying but nearly all teen sites proclaim their models to be 'Just 18' & or 'Barely Legal'.

The Sport paper often goes as far to show the model clothed and run a count down until she is old enough to pose nude.

Your confusing fantasies about having sex with girls under 18 which is legal and having sex with children.

The law on models may be 18 but sex with a 16 & 17 year old is legal. So the sport on showing girls who are counting down to being a model is not the same at all, as someone trying to make a girl look like they are a child

[NumptyNuts]

By making a girl look underage the market is men who want underage girls.

Making a girl look younger than 18 by making her wear braces, having no breasts and in little girls clothes is appealing to pedos.

Schoolgirl uniform fetish has nothing to do with it. On its own, school uniform is a pretty main stream excepted fetish. But when combined with other factors on purpose make the girl look like a child then you are fuiling the pedos fantasy at having sex with children


Ok I see where you are coming from though the fact of the matter is the model is over 18. Its justs props JT they dont say anything different on their pages to what we find of teen sites else where.

To you school uniform is OK - to use your argument then this is targeting men/women who like school girls - last time I checked it was only minors who wear school uniforms.

See mate whats main stream to you is not to others, the one thing we all have in commanis that we all promote sites which are legal, the models are legal and no one is being abused.

The scurge of our industry are the sites that contain illegal content or are only able to exsist as a result of some one else suffering.

:)

[NumptyNuts]

So if you look at pics of 15 year old girls but you say "in my opinion they look 18" that would be ok?

I wonder if that would stand up in court if you had a couple of 1,000 pics of underage girls.

"Your Honour, in my opinion they all look 18" :takethat:

No Geezer, no model ID no promo - thats why its there to protect models and webmasters & surfers.

[SGS]

Ok I see where you are coming from though the fact of the matter is the model is over 18. Its justs props JT they dont say anything different on their pages to what we find of teen sites else where.

To you school uniform is OK - to use your argument then this is targeting men/women who like school girls - last time I checked it was only minors who wear school uniforms.

See mate whats main stream to you is not to others, the one thing we all have in commanis that we all promote sites which are legal, the models are legal and no one is being abused.

The scurge of our industry are the sites that contain illegal content or are only able to exsist as a result of some one else suffering.

:)


Portraying a model as “underage” is not legal in the UK and will get you on the Garry Glitter register.

[NumptyNuts]

Your confusing fantasies about having sex with girls under 18 which is legal and having sex with children.

The law on models may be 18 but sex with a 16 & 17 year old is legal. So the sport on showing girls who are counting down to being a model is not the same at all, as someone trying to make a girl look like they are a child

I'm not, I talking about perception and the sport by marketing a girl who is 15 and on her 16th birthday showing her with her tits out is totally wrong, the paper is a sexual publication simple as.

[SGS]

I'm not, I talking about perception and the sport by marketing a girl who is 15 and on her 16th birthday showing her with her tits out is totally wrong, the paper is a sexual publication simple as.

If the Sport did that advertising the fact that her first Bukkake shoot was going up on her birthday that would be seen as child abuse.

The two things are a million miles apart.

[JT]

To you school uniform is OK - to use your argument then this is targeting men/women who like school girls - last time I checked it was only minors who wear school uniforms.

Last time you checked you was wrong then.

Girls can stay in school untill they are 18, and all girls are 16 at some point at school (unless they get pregnant first)

Plus as SGS said the school uniform fetish is a hole different thing. St trinians, hockey sticks, etc etc. It has nothing to do with trying to make a girl look like a child.

[mOBSCENE]

School uniform just a mainstream fetish? In Japan it's a widespread reality called Enjo kōsai where girls aged 13-17 are hired for "romance". Anyone could make a claim that any of these galleries are pandering to paedophiles (which is such a loose and misused term that I am reluctant to use it at all) but I disagree that this kind of thing "fuels the fantasies" - child sexual abuse was a very widespread problem in Victorian Britain, and they didn't have any websites to fuel their perversions, in fact they went "live" straight away on street corners and in houses. The causes are very much more complicated than simply looking at a website and seeing a girl with braces or small tits. So if I like pussies with no hair I am just normal (but why is this so popular? Where is the deep seated attraction to this, maybe in that girl in class whose pussy was the first pussy I ever saw, and the image stuck?) - BUT if I like small tits or pigtails or braces, I am heading down the path of sickness? Then again, if I like a girl in school uniform, it's fine - as long as the school uniform makes her look about 13-14-15-16 and not 8-9?

It's all a question of view and degree. Just for argument's sake - say a "rapist" gets arrested and the police find some legal BDSM, caning, whipping pics on his computer, among the thousands of images of real rape and torture, will they find these pics obviously consensual and just concentrate on the real ones?

[NumptyNuts]

It's all a question of view and degree. Just for argument's sake - say a "rapist" gets arrested and the police find some legal BDSM, caning, whipping pics on his computer, among the thousands of images of real rape and torture, will they find these pics obviously consensual and just concentrate on the real ones?


I do beleive that from a legal point of view in this country even with if the person lets say is getting a caning gives their consent, the person doing the hitting can be charged with asult.

[NumptyNuts]

Plus as SGS said the school uniform fetish is a hole different thing. St trinians, hockey sticks, etc etc. It has nothing to do with trying to make a girl look like a child.


To others its not mate to otehrs its just more fuel for the fire, this is my point its all about perception.

You know that in my time at nochex I dealt with some very off the wall companies and establishments, one of the oddest was the boarding school for adults in Dorset or somewhere like that.

Anyhow the people who owned that were given a hard time by locals and the press saying they encourraged child abuse. the reality is that it was abunch of grown ups that want to play school type fetish games, nothing sexual just 100% pure role play.

As fo St trinians they were kids mate -

[Geezer]

No Geezer, no model ID no promo - thats why its there to protect models and webmasters & surfers.

Oh right so no one will pbulish pics of underage girls on the net, oh right, that's cleared that up then :takethat:

So now we can all look at any pics legally without fear of prosecution because they are all of legal age, well they must be cos they are on the net and would not have been published without ID's and proof of age.

Still if I do get nicked I will just say "but in my opinion..."

[NumptyNuts]

Oh right so no one will pbulish pics of underage girls on the net, oh right, that's cleared that up then :takethat:

So now we can all look at any pics legally without fear of prosecution because they are all of legal age, well they must be cos they are on the net and would not have been published without ID's and proof of age.

Still if I do get nicked I will just say "but in my opinion..."

As a webmaster you have an obligation and should do anyhow be 110% sure what the programme is you are promoting.

The 2257 statement its pretty good indication alone with contacting the programme owners and talking with them.

[NumptyNuts]

Portraying a model as “underage” is not legal in the UK and will get you on the Garry Glitter register.

and rightly so, it would prob be a lot better all round if the age of erotic modeling was raised to 21 and make the whole teen niche a thing of the past.

[JT]

As fo St trinians they were kids mate -

You ever seen the films that featured the school "St Trinians school for young ladies"?

http://www.beerandbollocks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=50&stc=1

http://www.beerandbollocks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=51&stc=1

[Antony]

I dunno I always go by what woould my neighbours think if they new I made that site......

Ok so they dont know shit about teen porn and that teen porn makes money .....

Then again if they saw a site saying "this 25yr old takes a 10 inch black cock"
what would they think then?

I guess we can't win LOL

[NumptyNuts]

You ever seen the films that featured the school "St Trinians school for young ladies"?

http://www.beerandbollocks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=50&stc=1

http://www.beerandbollocks.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=51&stc=1


Here - we got this seris of films from St Trin -

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00004CIC1.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[JT]

and rightly so, it would prob be a lot better all round if the age of erotic modeling was raised to 21 and make the whole teen niche a thing of the past.

Thats one option the other option is making sure you dont make your models look like children.

[JT]

Here - we got this seris of films from St Trin -

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00004CIC1.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


So what? The films always made sure that the only sexy girls were the older girls. Cant you tell the difference between the older sexy girls and the children?

This I guess is what we are all saying.

We can tell the difference between making a model look like a child to sell to men who want to see children and the whole school uniform fantasy.

They are not the same at all

[NumptyNuts]

So what? The films always made sure that the only sexy girls were the older girls. Cant you tell the difference between the older sexy girls and the children?

This I guess is what we are all saying.

We can tell the difference between making a model look like a child to sell to men who want to see children and the whole school uniform fantasy.

They are not the same at all

No what I am saying is its all about perception.

I may be worng but the first solo model site I saw where the model had braces was TeenKelly - there is a major difference which is what you first and major point was about - TeenKelly didn't use playgrounds and parks for their photo shoots.

To sum up my views, if people choose to produce content andits 100% legal then so be it. JT you know that when I do any sort of work with cum shot sites I just wanna vomit. Each person has their own personal tastes in what they deem to be errotic.

If you choose to promote a site such as Little April and don't agree with their galleries or marketing then they give you the tools to create your own marketing and you can go direct to the join page.

I dont think they are targeting the pervs out there - They have just got a model and found a niche they can compete and win business in, and that is something WE are all trying to do :-)

[Grisey]

I may be worng but the first solo model site I saw where the model had braces was TeenKelly - there is a major difference which is what you first and major point was about - TeenKelly didn't use playgrounds and parks for their photo shoots.

And now teenkelly/dreamkelly is like http://www.dreamkelly.com/79635881/images/pg2_03.jpg

[JT]

And now teenkelly/dreamkelly is like http://www.dreamkelly.com/79635881/images/pg2_03.jpg

That is just plain wrong in my opinion. Maybe Im just getting old, but I cant see how anyone would think that was OK

[Grisey]

That is just plain wrong in my opinion. Maybe Im just getting old, but I cant see how anyone would think that was OK

Some of teen rev sets ( when i looked last time) were not as bad as whats on kellys frist page. I'm guessing silvercash seen teen rev and they way they market a site and went one worst with the pedo thing.

[Alf Garnet]

To sum up my views, if people choose to produce content andits 100% legal then so be it. JT you know that when I do any sort of work with cum shot sites I just wanna vomit. Each person has their own personal tastes in what they deem to be errotic.

So to summerise. You only promote stuff you like to look at. As you have said, you like to promote little teen girls sites, so can we presume you like to look at little teen girls? :mad: