some of these girls may be under 18. Oh horror. How would i know? It's anyone's guess. Perhaps try to see it as comedy as opposed to sex. I know - we are hoist by our own petard as a self confessed 'fetish' site but, be assured, I doubt anyone was harmed or even sexually aroused during the making of these images. Good clean fun. try not to dissapear up your own backsides. Get over yourselves.

--Link removed.--

"try not to dissapear up your own backsides".

Is there any real need for the attitude?

The owner of this forum has set a policy against pics and video featuring minors, as a safeguard against having it shut down. It makes sense not to have pics of minors mixed in with messy blowjob pics, does it not?

I have no idea if the youtube post you included features minors.I'm guessing barely legal? I guess its up to the mods to use their individual discretion.

all i can say is wow!! awesome find!! ive been looking for the after shot of one of those for years...i believe its at 1:04. Thats not even the best one though. again great find

Apologies for the attitude. I just hate the paranoia that often accompanies some ostensibly innocent images. Hope you all enjoy - without ill will, vexation or frivolity.

innocent or not, that content is NOT allowed here !!

"innocent or not" you say? Ask yourself a question. if it is innocent then what is the problem? Who are you allowing to dictate your thoughts & actions? does the internet promote true freedom or is it a tool for making 'thought crime' a reality?

I have no way of verifying the age of these young ladies. I see no coercion, no exploitation - just think they look amusing with pie on their faces.

What "content" are you referring to? Which part of the clip constituted a transgression?

I'd trade one clip like this for hours of middle aged women rubbing foodstuff into their vaginas.

I can tell you right now that quite a few of the sets in the vid were from the old Pretty Pied Girls Yahoo Groups.

Most of those pics were done by a guy who has harassed ladies in the community and also tried to stalk some of Rich's girls from slapstick stuff.They should not be posted here at all.

Under age content of any type is not allowed here , you yourself said some maybe under 18, those are the rules of this sites owner. You abuse the rules...you get banned.

When you're in prison for child porn, then you may care if they are under the age of 18. And so would the rest of us. If you post under-age stuff to a fetish website, you endanger all of us. So get a fucking clue. And can the attitude. Asshat.

Couldn't have said it any better, thanks from a fellow Atlanta wammer.

Knowing full well that every one of the girls got tricked into sending said pics to a well-known scam artist who promised "photo shoots that paid $3000" once they sent him "some audition pics".... I can't really see them as "innocent images."

As for "I doubt anyone was harmed"... Tell that to the girl I talked to who felt "emotionally violated" after finding this out and said she was gonna find a good lawyer.

You probably didn't know the backstory, seepytea. It's up to the mods to decide on this... but given the way these pics were obtained, I can't condone it on a personal level.

--Rich

Had no idea of the 'backstory' or any inkling that anyone suffered in any way - not nice to think that - just looked like people having fun. I would remove the link myself if I were still able to do so and would totally understand if the moderators choose to do so on the basis of knowing that the images were obtain under some form of deception.

Still don't agree that those type of images are in anyway pornographic though...

geez i had no idea...that sucks...

I am pleased to see manners improved here before I took notice of this thread. To be clear, the policy is not a concern about whether or not specific images were created with pornographic intent or originally promoted as pornography. There is no honest way to deny a sexual component to the community and much of the media produced specifically for this community.

Therefore it is not absurd to suggest that some of these forums constitute an erotic context. Perhaps much media, like a frame grab from a movie scene where paint is spilled on an actress or a candid video of a news anchor in a dunk tank, unarguably have non-erotic origins. Still, presenting them here changes the context. Personally, I believe, even with no hint of nudity or sexual acts, it is still unethical to feature minors in such a situation .

Legally, there is much in this world that can be defended. Yet there is more to enjoying life than making the most controversial choices you can defend before a federal judge. A very low level of attention from authorities can be extremely disruptive. Given the choice between a UMD that scrupulously excludes all content featuring underaged subjects or a UMD that misdirects the time and energy of federal agents who could instead be chasing down real menaces, it should not be hard to argue why the former has been chosen.

To me it seems that steering clear of minors is an incredibly trivial sacrifice to make in exchange for a venue where adults can discuss adult WAM as . . . well . . . as adults. I hope this helps to clarify any misunderstandings that may exist regarding the rules. Sometimes with specific cases, action will be taken quietly and discussion discouraged to avoid feeding a troll. However, when it comes to general policies, I believe questions and discussion are welcome. On the other hand, deliberately violating those policies is not.

Regards,
messydom

PEOPLE!!!!!! Its not hard, just use you head when making decesions, this is an adult web site. whats so hard about figuring out , what should and should not get posted. Oh its is reall a shame that the girl got scamed, but I refer back to my first line, Use your Damn head, before doing something, sounds like the girl had alreday spent her $3000 when she sent the pics, DUH! sorry rich, she wasnt innocent.

Uncle H

Eh, we've had the "under 18" debate on here plenty of times...and, as a matter of principle, I'm on your side Seepytea (your reference to the thought police isn't terribly off the mark, I think).

Having said that, you can't really blame the forum for choosing to steer clear of what could be a real hassle.

As for the joker at pretty pied girls, yeah, that was just fraud.

i figured that some demented s.o.b. would be the only way that sooo many different girls could have their photos on soo many yahoo group sites. At least we know that the ken photos are legal girls, right?

Eh, "demented s.o.b." is a bit strong...it's just run-of-the-mill fraud. Completely apart from the throny question of the ages of any of the girls, promising something of value in return for pics, and then not delivering, is fraud.

I'm not so sympathetic to broad claims of "emotional violation" and the like, though...especially when dealing with adults.

First I'm hearing of this -- fascinating. The explanation of how the con worked puts the presence of kids in a handful of those photos in context (i.e., the girls who sent in their photos were pied by whoever was handy). If you don't know that, it is kind of creepy.

Not that I'm saying I approve, mind you, but you have to admit, that guy came up with a cunning and obviously very effective scam. Plus, he managed to recruit some cute black & Latina "models," which 75% of our non-fraudulent producers have yet to do....