18- foot fetish site?

[Relent<]

I was invited to join a foot fetish site with models that were younger than 18. No big deal, but when I start to look at some of the pics, I see a bunch of twelve year olds!! Maybe its the equivalent of "sasami" and "Pan" ticklers, but it creeped me the hell out! It wasn't anything sexual, just little girls posing their feet, some poses stranger than others. This is the site:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't find it particularly good, but for those of you who like "young" feet, i guess...

MOD EDIT: Removed link as per rules. Though I note that we've had this same conversation about a hundred times before.

 

[Budweiserbob!]

>_>

Have you reported the site? I would...

12 kids posing their feet for sexual purposes is not right!

 

[BigNorm]

under 18 is a big deal, even if they just had 17 year olds. but yes, it's not pornography, but guys whack off to it, so it's sexual, and then it should be reported.

where do we report this kind of crap?

thanks for the heads up, relent.

 

[Relent<]

I aksed one of the dudes on the site about it and he said that there were no sexual pics on their site and that it was all legal. if guys did beat off too it, then that was their thing and didn't concern them.
I don't particularly agree, but he has a point...

 

[U.N.Owen]

I agree things like this are unpleasant, but if they have parental consent, it isn't actually illegal. Illegality hinges on "explicit sexual content." The law defines that as sexual contact, and genital nudity with clear intent to arouse. Bare feet are not explicit sexual content. It's tempting to report it to the authorities, but trust me, they aren't going to care: they have enough trouble keeping up with actual child rape sites.

That aside, what kind of parents let their kids be used like that?

 

[BigNorm]

yeah, and even if people can go there to get off on the pics, all of them are from magazines and modeling sites. it seems their only crime is giving sick and horny people a buffet of pics, bringing the pics all together in one place. but personally i detest the site. i signed up and gave my 2 cents, even changed my name, and had them remove some obviously bad material, about 2 pics of two 12 year olds in skimpy tops and thongs showing their bare butt. and it took was me demanding it to be removed for them to remove it. those sick people didn't realize that that stuff is bad. at least i feel good in doing my part.

 

[Relent<]

I tried to do it politely by asking them to maybe cover the hineys up a bit, but that works too...

were you bigfootluver? If so you really broke your foot off in their ass! lol XD

 

[CheshireCatNY]

I remember there was a notorious kiddie-feet website called "Tyflas" (The Young Foot Lovers Association) that actually somehow got standard payed models, all children, to do foot and tickling pics/clips. My question is what parents approve of that kinda shit? In time the site got shut down thankfully but there have been many copycats since and their pics are still floating around and popping up in various places.....twisted....foot/tickling fetish or not, thats just wrong....

 

[Budweiserbob!]

Either the parents are desperate for the money or are just bad parents.

Either way it is pretty wrong. >;(

 

[Relent<]

I agree, but so far they haven't really crosse the line; don't get me wrong they came close with the kiddie thong shot, but at least they haven't posted FJ's or nude models. Then I'd be absollutely appalled.

 

[BigNorm]

I tried to do it politely by asking them to maybe cover the hineys up a bit, but that works too...

were you bigfootluver? If so you really broke your foot off in their ass! lol XD

you found me! 😀 i liked that name since it was contridictory to the title of the forum.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Excerpts from the article ‘Legal child porn’ under fire, by Deborah Sherman, http://www.msnbc.com/news/730491.asp?cp1=1

March 28 — The photos of 12-year-old “Amber” cavorting in a swimsuit and various skimpy outfits wouldn’t have raised so much as an eyebrow if they had been posted on a family home page. But on lilamber.com — one of a growing number of “preteen model” sites operating in the legal gray area between innocent imagery and child pornography — they have drawn the attention of the Justice Department and prompted a congressman to declare war on the “reckless endangerment” of such kids by their parents and Web site operators.
....
(Rep. Mark) Foley, R-Fla., was informed by the Justice Department earlier this month that, at his request, it had instructed the FBI to review the pre-teen sites in order to determine whether they are breaking any laws. Foley also asked a House Judiciary subcommittee to hold hearings on the subject, which would allow parents of the girls and the Web site operators to be subpoenaed.
....
MOST CUSTOMERS ARE ADULTS

There is ample evidence that the sites, which sell photos and videotapes to members, cater primarily to adults, very few of whom are in the market to hire models. Many — if not most — customers are sexually interested in children, and some are pedophiles, according to law enforcement officials and children’s advocates.

“This is legal child porn,” said Ken Lanning, a retired FBI agent who studied deviant sexual behavior during most of his 30 years with the bureau. “It’s not against the law, but it’s exciting and stimulating and arousing for people with a certain deviant interest.”

---------
The bottom line: sites like those are intended for pedophiles and are rightly being watched by the authorities. Anyone who is smart will stay away from underage "model" sites.

 

[Kalamos]

Got it.

"In that case, U.S. v. Knox, the court ruled that language in the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 prohibiting the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” can include “non-nude depictions.” "

"The court upheld the conviction of defendant Stephen Knox on the grounds that videotapes he had purchased showing children posing in leotards were marketed as being sexually exciting."

...

This could mean trouble for those who post underage contents, even innocently.

Lawmakers are not worried about underage models alone.
Lawmakers want to deprive pedophiles of any venue of sexual self-gratification, even technically legal ones.

In their intentions, this might mean stopping all people who casually cater to pedophiles, even if they aren't specifically producing kid-porn.

...

Hope this makes my point over the anime thread clearer.

 

[Relent<]

I guess anime threads are ok bcuz there aren't real little girls involved, but still I don't see how 12 year olds are attractive to anybody. And on the site, what decent parents would their kids where some of these outfits?!

 

[Kalamos]

...

This is not a poll about "ok" or "not ok".
I am arguing that law might state that *that* particular anime picture is not ok.

Let us keep personal feelings and law well apart.

...

A question for you, though: whyever did you post a questionable link to begin with?

 

[Relent<]

man, you're strict, but then again I guess someone has to be. I'm not saying I favor these pics, but I think there is more justification to them than to these girls. I think that little girls feet can be cute (I guess) but not in the way these sites are presenting them. I think it pedipfeliac to say the least, but the law also agrees in a way. There is the matter of parental consent, and the parents allowing this are just as bad as the people presenting it.

 

[Kalamos]

It's an orderly job, but somebody's got to do it.

😉

 

[Relent<]

lol. A noble endeavor indeed.

 

[-Kunoke-]

Yeah...that's just wrong. Kinda makes me a little sick.

 

[Budweiserbob!]

I just don't get how the parents can even agree to let those girls model for these sick ********...

Those kids probably don't even know what they are doing. They probably think it's just some normal photo's.

People who make these sites are sick and it makes me sick to know that these sites even exist. 😡

 

[sole seeker1]

Either the parents are desperate for the money or are just bad parents.

Either way it is pretty wrong.

My guess is that most of the kids whose parents allowed them to pose for photos are approached about "modeling." I'd like to think the majority of parents suppose the photos to be a legitimate stepping-stone into high-fashion modeling when the child gets a little older. :money: I hate the thought that some folks will pimp their children.

I agree with you guys, child fetish sites are sick.

 

[Budweiserbob!]

Just outta curiousity (and I don't personally want to do this)

But how would you feel if someone sent them a virus to shut their sit down?

good/Bad/just as wrong as they are?

 

[BigNorm]

that's a good idea in my opinion. i've often considered designing or using a virus to screw up someone's computer or site that are just flat out assholes to exact revenge.

 

[Budweiserbob!]

I like the idea myself. Shame I haven't got the slightest clue to make virus'.

😛

 

[Kalamos]

What about *lawful* methods, first?
Such as, asking authorities to close those sites down?