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

[mlly147]

good rule change!

I wonder how old Leo was in your avatar pic?

[TINKERBELL]

FINALLY!!!

[x2k]

But one question remains. The advice received, is it based on 'other cases' of forums being looked at in close detail by legal advisers

No

It seems as if the legal community is drawing the parameters even wider than those set by the law

Not true. Once again, and hopefully for the last time, the law states that images must be 18+. We've simply adhered to that like most other websites already have.

If a group of females (young, or old) were making these comments, there wouldn't be as much 'unwanted interest' as there is now. So there is an element of homophobia there.

I strongly refute that. The comments posted are often sexually explicit. Any comments in response to images on any site (regardless of the demographic of its user base) can be considered obsence when read in the context of an image of a 16/17 year old. There is not homophobia here, but our decision that enough is enough as we don't want to tread a legal tightrope.

Straight sex in movies attracts a lower rating than gay sex does.

Not sure what seedy sources you get your porn from, but the age rating for movies which depict sexual intercourse is 18 - irrespective of where the sausage is hidden.

it would need someone with a lot more gall, and even more money to fight the issue more thoroughly. Which isn't really possible here.

The advice received was sound, but not a madatory enforcement of law. WE made the decision here. There is no fight to fight.

But do not see why some unelected people are allowed to interpret the law in a certain way. Because they're in a position to set policy.

As the board owner and mod team decided on the rule based on a clear understanding of the law, it was our prerogative to make the decision to raise the age.


Jumbler - I have now explained this to you for a third time and will not do so again. I think we've been fair giving you as much detail as we have (as we could've just changed the rules and said "deal with it") but you're taking liberties with our time now.

This board has thousands of members, but you've replied here at least a dozen times. It almost feels like you've developed an obsession over it.

Therefore, I do not want to hear any more on the matter from you. If you can't stop asking the same things and making insinuations over and over, then we will be forced to close this thread so no-one can reply. We will also take the measure of suspending your account for a period of... oh I dunno... let's say 18 days - that would be poetic.

So please, just move on.

[AlexKidd]

All I can add is to agree with this...

Personally I don't disagree with this move, as at the end of the day all that matters is the integrity of these forums and in all honesty the new rule only affects a tiny number of posts on here.

The one thing I do find disturbing though is that this move is a conservative one and that is always a bad thing, always feels like a step backwards.

...and say that whatever the reason, this instinctively feels wrong. I would say I find it slightly patronising that I can't be trusted to moderate my tone when commenting on 16/17 y.o pics, but then I accept that some people really can't and frankly no one wants to get into the wishy-washy grey area of deciding which comments are okay and which are considered offensive. Presumably, though, people can still talk about 16/17 y.o celebs without the pics? I.e. in the discussion forums.

Heigh-ho. Off to google for pics of Jack Laugher diving...

[Acham]

Seems incest is not only fine, but actively encouraged on this site now. So might want to get onto that next.

[Astron]

Oh get over it already, if you have such issues with the fact that you can't perv over your barely legal twinks anymore go elsewhere.
It's boring now and the fact it's so frigging important to some viewers just proves how necessary this new rule is.

[AlexKidd]

I'm not sure where incest comes into it, but to respond to Astron's point people are just voicing their opinion, which I assumed was the point of opening the thread to discussion. I find the intimation of terms such as 'perv over barely legal twinks' pretty negative and not particularly helpful to the discussion. Just because someone happens to prefer younger guys makes them no more a 'perv' than someone who prefers older guys or bears or women as well as men.

[Astron]

People aren't just voicing their opinions, they moan and moan and moan, even though the mods explained over and over in great details how this came to be and fully knowing that it's a done thing nothing they say or do will change it. Ladsnet has always been strict about the rules.
It really is time to give it a rest.

Just because someone happens to prefer younger guys makes them no more a 'perv' than someone who prefers older guys or bears or women as well as men.

It actually does, that's sorta why the laws are the way they are and we have the situation we're discussing right now.
Besides starting pointing fingers at other things that should be banned too/instead is even less helpful and petty.

This post has been edited by Astron: Aug 7 2012, 12:24

[BigBoy51]

the administrators of this site have said the new rule change was done for more or
less legal reasons. i can see that being the case if there was some kind of copyright
question in regards to whatever photo(s). i first became aware of this site right at
about the time the minimum age for male celebs was raised to 16. now in the
subsequent period of time i have not seen a single photo of a 16 or 17 year old male
celeb or one taken of a male celeb when he was 16/17 posted on this site that in any
stretch of the imagination could be called tacky, obscene etc..... i've seen more risque
photos posted in issues of BOP or Tiger Beat.

so while i bow to the administrators new ruling i have the distinct feeling that the
aforementioned non-specific complaints were probably from celebs themselves
or the photographer/copyright holder who did not want any even remotely vaguely
cutely sexy photos on a gay site. as a fellow poster has said- if that's not homophobic
what is?

[Astron]

I can see now why x2k was so frustrated.

[dixie]

I can see now why x2k was so frustrated.

I think I can hear our two Admins smashing their heads again a wall.

[ladsnet]

Can someone please explain how the site is actively encouraging incest, as I appear to be too dim to have noticed or to 'get' that one

[Fcukleo]

good rule change!

I wonder how old Leo was in your avatar pic?

It looks like mid nineties leo, so I would say he was about twenty. But thankyou for your concern.

[dixie]

I think they were referring to the comments made in the latest Jedward thread.

[Tiuri]

i have the distinct feeling that the aforementioned non-specific complaints were probably from celebs themselves
or the photographer/copyright holder who did not want any even remotely vaguely cutely sexy photos on a gay site

You mean those "aforementioned non-specific complaints" that completely fictional and not in any way based on facts????

I think I can hear our two Admins smashing their heads again a wall.

Make that two admins and a mod

[rarebit]

Seems incest is not only fine, but actively encouraged on this site now. So might want to get onto that next.

Yawn

[Struan]

Would a maximum age be considered? There have been posts in recent months of old/fat guys that only seem to have been posted to wind people up or cause disgust. Eric Pickles etc.

[x2k]

Would a maximum age be considered? There have been posts in recent months of old/fat guys that only seem to have been posted to wind people up or cause disgust. Eric Pickles etc.

Given that there's no law against it, I don't think we should be discriminating against the chubby chasers or dilf/grilf lovers

[PUllio]

I think they were referring to the comments made in the latest Jedward thread.

There is also a recent Treadaway thread (with kissing) plus some Olympic brothers;

I am afraid I contributed to all these threads and yet I have no intention of committing incest, in case anyone is concerned.

This post has been edited by PUllio: Aug 7 2012, 19:56

[harry64]

What I don't understand is -

You can watch 16 or 17 year old lads shirtless or clothed on television, watched by millions, but the same images can't be posted on here, watched by a few hundred