On a porn forum after all. I'm not complaining, just asking really. I think it's a shame, because, okay we can share pictures of our favourite porn stars, but we can't share pictures of our favourite thing they do/did, which is what makes them our favourite porn stars in the first place. I'm saying, I think it would be interesting to start a thread called "The hottest anal stills" or something, and we share really hot photos of that which we love. Why can't we? Alternatively, can we post links? Like, post a link to an image found using google image search.
I understand the need to have a policy to meet the standards, but it cracks me up that you can't show simulated masturbation, with clothes on, but you can show a girl with jizz all over her face. That's pretty funny.
This would do. Basically those showing sex act must comply with the law that means they MUST have a record with star names and ID plus must have a record keeper that must be available like 5 days a week for inspection , rather expensive if you ask me , especially if you just rule a forum and are not a producer. Those allowing are taking a risk , their choice. A link is safe because those actually hosting the picture are those who should comply with the law Edited by - LCF on 4/17/2014 2:00:14 PM
^ Great comment LCF. As a former non-porn forum admin one thing I was always doing was ensuring that the forum didn't have anything sexual on it and section 2257 was the reason. Granted that is only a concern for forums based in the USA, maybe the forums allowing sexual pictures are based elsewhere (I know of one supposedly hosted in the Netherlands that seems to get away with outright libel on top of sexually explicit posting, I won't give them advertising here by saying what forum I am talking about other than to say it is not XPT).
LCF wrote: [/quote] This would do. Basically those showing sex act must comply with the law that means they MUST have a record with star names and ID plus must have a record keeper that must be available like 5 days a week for inspection , rather expensive if you ask me , especially if you just rule a forum and are not a producer. Those allowing are taking a risk , their choice. A link is safe because those actually hosting the picture are those who should comply with the law Edited by - LCF on 4/17/2014 2:00:14 PM [/quote] Well said. Thanks. ...does this mean I can start a thread called "post links to pictures of some of your favourite anal babes gettin' their anal on"? Edited by - Electric_Logan on 4/19/2014 11:29:42 AM
We already have this: Best Cumshot Facials EVAR The reason we can have this is because there's no proof it's actually jizz. When you post a pic of someone getting a dick in the ass, there's no other explanation than it really is a dick in the person's ass.
Yes you could do that, as long as the images do not have tube site watermarks or some other such illegal activity associated with them, and as long as the links go to legit porn sites (again, not tube sites) or image hosting sites.
Or, actually, wouldn't the orifice be key to this? For example, a strap on, or a cucumber, or a US Airways model plane going in a vagina would still be outlawed. Then again, a dick going in a tree knot or a donut would also be against site rules. So, I guess it's all about the act of penetration of any sort using genitals.
^ It's actually sex , masturbating whether through a doughnut a fake vagina, a dick shaped dildo or a cucumber is still sex , not to mention the presence of genitals sexually stimulated, asses included
(In case it is not clear, I am merely being facetious and rolling my eyes at the absurdity of our notions of "sex" - I fully understand the site's image policy and why it is important). :)
Just asking for honest opinions, as I honestly didn't think this photo that was taken down violated the focus on genitals portion of the image policy, which was the reason cited. Maybe I misinterpreted this one? Sierra Nevadah Pic No disrespect intended. I do realize the MOD/Admin staff work really hard to keep things humming! Note: The above link now seems to go to a totally different page for some reason. At least its purpose has been served. Edited by - anonymous64 on 5/22/2014 2:30:52 PM
^ Thank you for your added input, Flash! More than anything, I just want to make sure that I don't inadvertently post something that could be deemed inappropriate for this site. I guess it can be a fine line and, according to the judgement of two MODS/Admin Staff, including yourself, the said photo crosses it. That's good enough for me. I'll take your input into account for any future postings.
No problem, as you said, it is a fine line. Some is clearly defined, for example no erect penis. Others, it comes down to a judgement call. How I determine is by looking at the photo, where is it designed to pull the eyes first. The one you linked to, the focal eye point, based on the picture set up was the genitalia. Others are designed to pull more toward the breasts or face first. I would have taken that one down too, had I come across it first.
The site doesn't allow hot linking so it goes to their main page. Once there if you put in the url it will go to the picture, that's what I had to do to view it.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - May 22 2014 : 9:16PM
FWIW, if the picture we're talking about is of a brown-eyed blonde with a freckle on her right butt-cheek, I have no idea why that one would be deemed unacceptable, when so many others that display genitalia as, or more, prominently are allowed (edit: such as, for example, the face down/ass up shot in this post by Anonymous64 which has been up for more than a month) Edited by - Harri Patel on 5/22/2014 9:29:53 PM
^ That's actually a very good point, Harry! Only because this photo's posting was repeated in a quote, I think I'll leave the judgement to the MODS on this one, though I'll be avoiding posting such borderline pics in the future!
^ With that photo of Velma, while the genitals are certainly front and centre, it can be argued that you're certainly looking at the rest of the woman as well. I may have still removed it though had I been the one to come across it. In the deleted image however, the genitals and asshole are literally the focus of the photograph. Everything else in the picture is out of focus.
^ That reinforces my previously posted stance against posting such borderline "bare ass with genitalia exposed" end pics in the future. Thanks for clearing this one up, MODS!
Yeah, I really don't understand this forum rule. It makes no sense to me, especially on a website that displays DVD box covers and has forum threads such as 'Scenes with triple penetration', 'Porn Girls improving their Gapes' and 'Best Cumshot Facials EVAR' Whether the images of cum shots are real or simulated makes no difference in law. Read 2257 if you don't believe me. No other adult site that I can think of applies the rules in this way. Even Google's Blogger allows images, as long as they are not used to make money. Bizzarely, it's the images that ARE used to make money on AdultDVDTalk (the Ads and Box Art) are showing sex acts. I should be Moderator here! Then we'd see some positive changes. Vote pornimo! Peace and love, (and keep working on improving those gapes)
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - May 23 2014 : 7:17PM
The images that are "used to make money" are images for which the ADT owners know that the producers of those images have the necessary 2257 paperwork. The ADT owners have no way of knowing whether the necessary documentation exists for random pictures put up by ADT posters. I understand the need for the rule; I just don't understand, and have never understood, how it is implemented when it comes to "images focusing on genitals." It makes me feel like the kid at camp who can't crack the code in the "magic sticks" campfire game.
That wasn't really my main point but anyway your explanation doesn't work. I could post an image from one of the DVDs advertised on the ADT forum page and you could be equally confident it is covered by 2257. e.g. an image from a scene from a DVD with some big dude balls deep in Lisa Ann's butt is sure as hell going to be covered by 2257 but ADT still won't allow it. Edited by - pornimo on 5/23/2014 7:55:47 PM
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - May 23 2014 : 10:21PM
Neither I, nor, more to the point, the site owners, can be "confident" that any photo posted by you is anything. You have no business or other relationship to the site; you're just some anonymous guy who signed up for an account. There is no reasonably practical way for the site owners or moderators to verify the source and 2257 compliance of any explicit image that you might post (let alone multiple images per day that would be posted by multiple users, if it were allowed).
Considering that violations can end up with jail time for the owners, it is up to them to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Not you, nor does it have to make sense to you. When you start your own place and are rising jail time for yourself, you can decide what to put up and what not to. Period. Considering you list text along with images within your claims, along with images that have verifiable documentation along the entire line with those who don't, you don't understand the rules to begin with.And I am assuming based on this that you have, upon your person, the documentation required so if the government decided they wanted to see it, they can visit your home and obtain it. Regardless of the source and whether the originating company has the documentation, you do not have any required documentation upon your person. Edited by - flash on 5/26/2014 10:32:11 AM
Still makes no sense and is still weirdly inconsistent, since ADT allows images of REAL cum facials. But as you say, it's up to the owners to decide what is acceptable on their forum. It's just interesting to talk about.
Our national politicians passed it, not the locals. Of course, our representatives, as in, House of, are supposed to be locally oriented, but good luck with that. The one experience I had with mine was less than satisfactory. It appeared to me that, rather than read my letter for content and understanding, some staffer just scanned it for buzz words and pulled out whatever broadside he, or she, found with said words in the title. Who cares that it failed to address my concerns on any point? Not them, obviously.
I know they are real because I've seen the video of the cum shooting out of the guy's dick and landing on the girl's face. Then I've seen the photo of the girl with the same cum on her face on ADT. All of this is academic anyway because the law says "real or simulated", so even a simulated cumshot is subject to these rules. ...not that I mind these images personally! I'd like to see more images allowed. Just like Electric_Logan first said at the top of this thread, "I'm not complaining, just curious" Edited by - pornimo on 6/3/2014 6:12:54 PM
Posted - Apr 17 2014 : 9:50AM
