NO PICTURES OR VIDEOS OF MALES UNDER 18 YEARS OLD, Rule change Options

[jlover4eva]

Finally, good move.

BRILLIANT move

[luckydog]

Sensible move ....

[minibw]

Can I ask a question? Because I'm confused.

The age of consent in the UK is 16, correct?

Fmforums is a UK site. It's right there in the html and the tagline.

...So what was the problem?

[bigcore]

Can I ask a question? Because I'm confused.

The age of consent in the UK is 16, correct?

Fmforums is a UK site. It's right there in the html and the tagline.

...So what was the problem?

Sexual Offences Act 2003

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

[harry64]

There's nothing wrong with the content, it's the replies the content receives.

[ic1male]

There's nothing wrong with the content, it's the replies the content receives.

Now I'm even more confused.

I wasn't even aware that pictures of under-18s were being posted. Is Justin Bieber not 18 or something?

[Kev]

This was the only forum that I visit that allowed under-18s. And I always felt weird looking at those "twink" photos.

It's a good move. As long as we can keep the place open.

[JackInFla]

It's a good and necessary move.

Thanks moderating team.

Totally! The mods do a lot of work to keep this forum alive for us.

[minibw]

Thanks for the link and the explanation, though I have to admit that I remain fairly confused. To classify anything on these forums as a "sexual offence," even by the definitions of that link, is a very far stretch indeed.

If we're doing whatever it takes and making whatever compromises to keep this forum running then of course no one should have any objections. But to call this some kind of victory or a "brilliant move," as if it were anything other than taking fearful precautions in the face of conservative prudishness, just seems quite wrongheaded.

Ah, well. Thanks again.

This post has been edited by minibw: Aug 5 2012, 21:51

[jumbler]

This was the only forum that I visit that allowed under-18s. And I always felt weird looking at those "twink" photos.

It's a good move. As long as we can keep the place open.

It's not as clear-cut as that, though. A lot of over-18s are decidedly twinky. Some people like that, some people don't, that's cool. But if I thought hard when I'm visiting site (rather than being hard ), then I'd be uncomfortable with them, too.

Much like when you visit 'certain sites', and they claim to be 'U.S. Code compliant' - which I take to mean they have the performer's verified photo-ID, and age on file. But what if that was false ?? You just committed a criminal offence...

I'm not criticising anyone, I think the mods. do a great job. But it won't just remove all the ambiguities and problems overnight. And it also means that we won't be able to enjoy 'newcomers', be they actors/singers/sportsmen, whatever.

And seriously, I think it's quite possible to 'appreciate' a young guy in a non-sexual way. Not that I make a habit of doing so, but if there's a special someone that catches my eye, well, I might want to keep my eye out for him, whatever movies/tv shows he may be appearing in. Can't do that the same now.

Also, what about 'old posts' - you know, of guys like Tom Daley, which were previously covered by the rules, but now are not. Do they get deleted/harvested/shredded??

The law that makes the posting of under-18 questionable has been in place since 2003, so it's a surprise it's taken this long to change the rules.

Actually, no, because all of the content on here is non-sexual. So these are pics which you could quite legally upload to a facebook/flickr album, or order online prints of, or whatever.

So there shouldn't really be any problem at all.

[PadSpin]

If we're doing whatever it takes and making whatever compromises to keep this forum running then of course no one should have any objections. But to call this some kind of victory or a "brilliant move," as if it were anything other than taking fearful precautions in the face of conservative prudishness, just seems quite wrongheaded.

Brilliantly put!

[jumbler]

this site wouldn't be legal probably if it were in the US.

It's hosted in the US, you know.

[demc7]

who requested this??? I'm guessing Tom Daley, since he's the main under 18 who has been posted here over the last couple years and how anti gay/Middle East his management company is.

[ladsnet]

I enabled comments to this because I thought thats what you would want.. to be able to discuss the change.

However... just jumping to wild conclusions like the one above (which is total crap) will mean we will close the discussion.
Please use your brains when posting.

[jumbler]

However... just jumping to wild conclusions like the one above (which is total crap) will mean we will close the discussion.
Please use your brains when posting.

Exactly. Those comments are a bit 'wild', to say the least.

[y0david6]

as i post photos quite often - i do think its a good idea . most sites like this only allow pictures of guys 18+ . Will have to be careful of pictures in the future

[dixie]

who requested this??? I'm guessing Tom Daley, since he's the main under 18 who has been posted here over the last couple years and how anti gay/Middle East his management company is.

If that was the case then Cher really can turn back time. Daley was 18 month ago.




I'm all for the rule change though. This site is great for many reasons and it would be a shame to see it closed down.

[mlly147]

Would someone in the background of a photo who is under 18 mean that the picture is prohibited? Fans clambering for an autograph, or audience members at a concert? This could mean an end to One Direction posts!

[Astron]

please say yes, please say yes, please say yes...

[jumbler]

This is going to mean a whole range of shows which are suddenly 'uncappable', can't be posted here. And quite a few X-Factor/reality contestants.