I suspect my opinion will annoy you guys, but...

[Snome]

...does no one else think that some of the chaps in the Asian postings look a bit on the young side of legal? Even if they are legal, I don't like to see men look like boys. I say let boys be boys, they'll be adult (and legal) soon enough. I hate to be contentious but surely there's something not quite right in lusting after men who look younger than the legal age?

 

[slimjim]

The issue with most Asian guys is that they generally DO look younger than their " western " counterparts, but I can assure you.... and I speak as an ex-SuperModerator here.... that ALL posts are checked and if it was considered by the team that a model might be too young that post would be removed. The protection of the forum, and the posters, is paramount.

 

[Snome]

ALL posts are checked and if it was considered by the team that a model might be too young that post would be removed. The protection of the forum, and the posters, is paramount.

When you say "too young" are we talking about under 18? It's just that I know that under 18 pics would be illegal in the UK but some European countries would be ok with 16+

 

[slimjim]

Minimum age for GH is 18 yrs.

 

[mrduke]

Well said slimjim! Kudos!

 

[JonnyFantastico]

Um, Integritas.... I don't think that his opinion was being ignored nor his question unanswered. Sometimes, simple is best, dude. No disrespect intended.

 

[Tom]

We are not annoyed. If you find a post that you think is inappropriate,
clink on the red triangle and report it. It will be reviewed in case we've missed it or haven't seen it yet.
We remove many posts because of age related issues. We check the websites to make sure there is a age compliant statement. There are many eastern European sites that people generally look much younger than they are.
Anything you find that you are uncomfortable please report.

Slimjim said it best "The protection of the forum, and the posters, is paramount."

 

[Tjerk12]

For me this subject is trickier then it seems in first sight. Half a year ago I did a lot of work on an Asian video with a young lad in it. After hours and hours of work I felt suddenly uncomfortable and threw the whole bunch away. First I did not understand why I had that strange feeling. The boy looked very young, in my opinion hardly sixteen, but as mentioned above, the boys in Asia really look young for their age. So that could not really be the reason for feeling uncomfortable. Suddenly I understood why. It seemed to me that the boy was not really the master of his senses. He seemed to be overwhelmed by the situation he got into. Not able to offer proper resistance, following his own will. That’s the point, that’s were the discussion and the law should be based on. People should be able to make a proper personal decision. Using drugs (including alcohol, and also money can be a drug) to force people to do things they normally would not do is not decent. The criterion of 18+ for porn is far too simple and illogical. In medieval until 1800, children married at the age of 12 or 13. In The Netherlands it is strictly forbidden to sell kids under eighteen alcohols. The number of minors with a life threatening delirium is still increasing! Laws should have certain flexibility and appeal to the source of evil. I think that drugging a 25 year old boy to make porn is a major offence and should lead to severe punishment.

- In The Netherlands they changed the law for porn in 1985 to 16+, but in 2002 they changed it again, to 18+. Since 2010 also porn with animals. Porn with actors who look younger then 18 is also forbidden (even when there is proof that they are 18+).
- In Sweden pornography is legal and free from 15+.
- In the U.S. porn films have to pass an obscenity test (actually they all pass). In most states porn is 18+, in some 21+.
- In Japan it was till the end of the 90’s not allowed to show genitals on film. They have no problem with the combination of sex and violence, nor teenage sex.

You see that there are some differences in our world.

For me they could make porn free 16+, because it seems a bit silly that youngsters can fuck around, but are not allowed to see it on film. However any abuse of actors (of all ages) should be severely punished.

And for the forum: you are totally right to keep 18+. It prevents problems.

 

[Tjerk12]

For me this subject is trickier then it seems in first sight. Half a year ago I did a lot of work on an Asian video with a young lad in it. After hours and hours of work I felt suddenly uncomfortable and threw the whole bunch away. First I did not understand why I had that strange feeling. The boy looked very young, in my opinion hardly sixteen, but as mentioned above, the boys in Asia really look young for their age. So that could not really be the reason for feeling uncomfortable. Suddenly I understood why. It seemed to me that the boy was not really the master of his senses. He seemed to be overwhelmed by the situation he got into. Not able to offer proper resistance, following his own will. That’s the point, that’s were the discussion and the law should be based on. People should be able to make a proper personal decision. Using drugs (including alcohol, and also money can be a drug) to force people to do things they normally would not do is not decent. The criterion of 18+ for porn is far too simple and illogical. In medieval until 1800, children married at the age of 12 or 13. In The Netherlands it is strictly forbidden to sell kids under eighteen alcohols. The number of minors with a life threatening delirium is still increasing! Laws should have certain flexibility and appeal to the source of evil. I think that drugging a 25 year old boy to make porn is a major offence and should lead to severe punishment.

- In The Netherlands they changed the law for porn in 1985 to 16+, but in 2002 they changed it again, to 18+. Since 2010 also porn with animals. Porn with actors who look younger then 18 is also forbidden (even when there is proof that they are 18+).
- In Sweden pornography is legal and free from 15+.
- In the U.S. porn films have to pass an obscenity test (actually they all pass). In most states porn is 18+, in some 21+.
- In Japan it was till the end of the 90’s not allowed to show genitals on film. They have no problem with the combination of sex and violence, nor teenage sex.

You see that there are some differences in our world.

For me they could make porn free 16+, because it seems a bit silly that youngsters can fuck around, but are not allowed to see it on film. However any abuse of actors (of all ages) should be severely punished.

And for the forum: you are totally right to keep 18+. It prevents problems.

 

[LuiM]

Porn with actors who look younger then 18 is also forbidden (even when there is proof that they are 18+).

Well I actually understand what you mean and (maybe) I understand the worries of those behind that, but firstly: who then sets the rules on how does someone look at 18 - and secondly: does this rule apply to other areas of life as well (for example if a police officer checks your ID when you drive a car, does he punish you if you look under 18, but you're actually 18+)? Or for example is someone who looks underage (but is 18+) and he passed all the exams still forbidden to go to high school? - I mean if the look is more important as the actual age...

LOL I know I'm being silly with this questions but so is this law in my opinion. It only reflects what I call "fear of human sexuality" in general. I've been reading some articles lately on today's mainstream movement even in gay erotica itself. 30+ (and this time I'm not joking!) is becoming a major trend in known gay magazines, fashion, movies and so on. How come?

Well thanks to strong anti-gay movement (especially in USA) who often equalizes homosexuality and pedophilia - Boyish look is becoming more and more a threat to gay movement itself. Gay boy (who in history of gay movement had an important role next to gay man) is actually slowly vanishing from mainstream (& political) gay agenda. In this sense I understand also this Dutch law you mentioned which to me expresses nothing but fear of not being politically correct with general trends of current adult entertainment.

 

[Tjerk12]

"Porn with actors who look younger then 18 is also forbidden (even when there is proof that they are 18+)."

It of course becomes difficult to apply a law such as this. For example, what looks young to one person, looks older to another --so in these kind of cases an offence might effectively be termed an 'affront to the public conscience'? But laws are often arbitrary and imperfect.

Another difficult law in the United Kingdom is that 'extreme pornography' is illegal. What is extreme is not clearly defined --it could mean very hard BDSM, or it could simply mean gagging. Or if the models become visibly and genuinely upset in video? I read of one arrest that was made in Northern Ireland (part of UK) on the basis of this law.

So what do we do? How do we best protect ourselves and maintain a safe environment? I would say we need to use a little common sense, and, as I said before, to set limits in one's own mind, to be aware of the issues and the complexities, the laws of one's own country and, of course, international law.

A lot of laws have a certain amount of wishful thinking. In the Netherlands we have a lot of silly laws. I think it will be possible that they make a law that it is forbidden to rain at Queensday, our national holiday. And when it rains, they will say: how is that possible, it's against the law.

 

[LuiM]

A lot of laws have a certain amount of wishful thinking. In the Netherlands we have a lot of silly laws. I think it will be possible that they make a law that it is forbidden to rain at Queensday, our national holiday. And when it rains, they will say: how is that possible, it's against the law.

:rofl: )

 

[slimjim]

I was talking to an Indian friend of mine a while ago about the ban there on smoking in public places. I asked him what Indians who smoked would do, he said that Indians would do what they do with all new laws they don't like... " they will ignore it... what are they going to do, lock up 300 million people?"

 

[Snome]

There is a ban on smoking inside public buildings in the UK. I think it appeared first in Ireland, then Scotland and finally in England & Wales. It seems to be working. Many people report feeling the benefit of being able to go to pubs, restaurants, cinemas, soccer matches, dance halls etc without having to breathe other people's second-hand smoke. I think it is a good idea.

 

[Snome]

It's not that bad in the UK. Smokers are being made to feel like outlaws and the govt is getting huge sums in taxation from them but then they get their own back by using up almost the entire NHS budget on their end-of-life-care packages. Most smokers either stop (like me) or they soldier on paying ever increasing costs. It's their choice but I've felt great since I stopped smoking, 10yrs ago, and I'd support a total ban of tobacco products. If you're gonna ban grass, then you may as well ban tobacco too.

 

[XMan101]

As a long time smoker I totally approve of the banning in eating establishments, but on the other hand, even though i rarely visit any pubs these days that's the unfair side.

As much as I agree with having smoke free pubs , there should have been a limited number that could be licensed for smoking , same way alcohol is licensed, so at least there is a choice. The current legislation has really helped to kill off many pubs, many long established pubs too, and although not entirely to blame I've no doubt it went a long way towards giving them a final kick ! Even non-smokers have said how the atmosphere isn't the same anymore, not that they liked the smoke, but there was something cozy to some about a nice fuggy pub .

I'll bet I know which pubs would still be full if we had had some licensed for smoking

 

[Snome]

Even non-smokers have said how the atmosphere isn't the same anymore, not that they liked the smoke, but there was something cozy to some about a nice fuggy pub .

Spoken by a true smoker!

I've never heard any non-smoker say this. I'm in and around pubs fairly often and most folk I speak to are happier to go into pubs these days because they can breathe.

Also, I know of no pubs that have closed as a direct result of the smoking ban. Most pub-frequenting smokers I know still go to the pub and then slip out to the front door - or into the beer garden - for a smoke with their fellow smokers.

Most pubs seem to be managing quite well. The number of smokers who have stopped going have been easily replaced by new punters who now go because there is no 'fuggy pub' atmosphere.

 

[XMan101]

Spoken like a true ex-smoker ) )



Hasn't this topic changed somewhat drastically

 

[Snome]

Spoken like a true ex-smoker

Touche. You got me! :rofl:

 

[Snome]

Hasn't this topic changed somewhat drastically

YES, we've been very deftly steered off-topic!!!! :angry: