Over the past couple of weeks we have received requests to remove a number of pictures, from both the subject themselves and their legal representation. The content of these requests raised a number of issues regarding the pictures we allow.
We have since taken further advice and determined a need to change the rules.

With immediate effect, you must not post still or moving images of persons under the age of 18 or images of persons which were taken before they reached the age of 18.

Any topic containing pictures or video of persons under 18 or with valid suspicions of being under 18 will be edited or removed by the moderating team.


fmforums was never intended to be an 'adult site' and this is still the case. We allow members from 13+ and our rules strictly prohibit any pornographic or obscene images. However, with a large worldwide membership we have responsibilities regarding the content of topics and how, when combined with user comments, these can be interpreted by the wider audience.


Thanks

Thats a pity though it is fully understandable and I had been wondering for a while if that might happen here. A lot of the other male photo forums had gone 18+ a while back so that was a bit of a selling point for here e.g. posting Bieber well before the others could etc.

Finally, good move.

The world has gone censorship mad. Big brother has scored yet another goal.

What about all the photos on famousmales.com? Plenty of those are below age.

it's a shame... but if it stops some posters calling others idiotic names because they fancy a 16 or 17 year-old then that's got to be a good thing.

The LEGAL age has never stopped them...it's how old they THINK someone looks, so a young looking 18 year old will still get the silly comments!

The sad thing is that you're right. Oh well...

Yeah cause it's all just imagination and not like the fact they look extremely young is their main appeal to some.
I mean surely it's mere coincidence than the age of those teen celebs is always given in the title.

That is a pretty standard was of introducing a person. Like on the bbc news site the first thing they say about someone likely to be unknown is age/occupation.

If this site is threatened with legal action, and the new rule helps to prevent such a thing from happening, then I will support that.

It really is not especially looking at how hardly anyone feels the need to mention the age of a celeb once he's over 20.

Looking at the first page of view now I see someone in their 20s with age occupation listed. It is also likely to be skewed by the fact that those in 20s plus probably have built up sufficient recognition to not need a mini bio at the start of each post.

This makes no difference to me, a bit of a shame for the younger members. But these forums are wisely moderated and I am sure there is a reason for this rule, as well as others.

I don't like porn myself (just a personal taste) or fake pictures, so I go to these forums because they are different, just actual pictures that are mostly erotic in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand one cannot deny the lust that is the driving force in sites such as this, and the explicit comments, so I guess pictures of 16-18 year olds are bound to cause controversy.

As a larger issue, though, the present denial of teenage sexuality will not have a happy ending IMO.

some 17yo allows hot pics to be taken of himself at a pro-photoshoot, they get posted on facebook, lots of girls say dirty things. and that's fine.

it gets posted on here and suddenly because it's lads saying things it's a problem. that's homophobic isn't it.

pity fmf can't operate an opt-in for stars that want the publicity. (aka one direction).

wonder if the Phil is worried that the crazy americans will try and extradite him; or if an arrest of a certain someone has got him spooked.

i can understand the administrators of this site pulling/not posting photos for
legal reasons. for instance copyright infringement. for the longest time the age
for celebrities was 16. now i have not seen any photos of an actor/celebrity
taken when he was between 16-18 posted on this site that was legally dicey
in terms of content. so i think the certain people who asked for certain photos
to be removed whether the celebs themselves or the copyright holder simply
don't want the photos on a gay website. it has nothing to do with the legal
diceyness of the photo's content.

i'm betting the adminstrators of this site will in the near future up the minimum age
limit to 35.

It's a good and necessary move.

Thanks moderating team.

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. I think its also interesting to note that sites similar to this one hosted by other European countries don't seem to have the interference or influence from wider outside conservative entities that we seem to be increasingly susceptable to here in the UK.



Whats that all about then?

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.

it's an easy rule to follow and it keeps people out of hot water ...

this site wouldn't be legal probably if it were in the US. The site contains nudity and allows members 13-17 y/o to join ... a D.A. would pounce on that pretty quick here in some jurisdictions. I of course don't agree with it but that's how some of the indecency laws are set up.

BRILLIANT move

Sensible move ....

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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??

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.

Brilliantly put!

It's hosted in the US, you know.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

As someone said above, it's the replies the pictures receive. A non-sexual image of someone under 18 can be made legally pornographic by the context it's presented in.

I was only dimly aware of this. I thought it related to situations where there was a semi-clothed/naked person, or they were in an 'adult' setting. I didn't think it related to otherwise 'innocent' pics.

Which only goes to underline how totalitarian the law is. Do you know if there's been any case law that's upheld that view??

But then those comments should be banned, not the pictures themselves, yeah? We're talking about screencaps of legal-age actors from TV programs that they'd appeared on and photoshoots that are widely available in magazines.

I remember when I first visited this site way back whenever as a wee gay boy, there really wasn't any policing of the content and, yeah, that really wasn't the right way to go about it; protection of children does come first. And eventually the age-limit for subjects posted was raised to 16 because, yeah, that was the legal, technical age where lads are no longer considered children and therefore made sense. But now, for whatever reason, the age limit has been raised above the legal threshold and I suppose I'm just wondering aloud why we should think there's a need for that. Proper, or overkill?

There's always gonna be folks who think 16 is too young to be gawked at, regardless of sexual content. And there's gonna be folks who think 18 is too young as well. Or 20, or 22, or 24. And then there's those who think no age is appropriate for guys to be gawked at. Personally, I'm faaaar past the age where I care about any teen stars or can even get their names straight, lol. But if we're always going to compromise to those who want to prohibit and censor based on fears, instead of deciding for ourselves what is and isn't appropriate based on rationale and suitability, it's really as good as shutting this place down because someone, somewhere, is gonna want that no matter how much we compromise.

And that's my little ramble from a frequent lurker. Cheers!

Well think about it this way. If someone published a book of erotic stories and used fully-clothed pictures of children in it, would that be acceptable?

No, but there's sufficient context, as you say, to enable to change the environment (and its audience) to a sexual one.

Having scanned the law, I'm at a loss as to find a direct reference to ordinary (i.e. non-indecent) images of 'children' (i.e. under 18's). I know this is a little academic here, but the law clearly states that for an offence to be committed, the images have to be indecent/sexual, and the subject must be under 18 (or they were known/believed to be under 18), and/or there was a payment for a pornographic/sexual service. Or, again, if the person was in a 'position of trust' towards the child. Or again, if the 'child' was in a position where they would observe sexual acts.

Seeing that only the 'under 18' bit applied(/s) here (everything else being banned - on this site), I'm still struggling to see how/why that would be illegal. It would, if it was placed alongside an illegal image. But as I said, it would be banned here, so that situation shouldn't arise.

Hmmmmmm. Just re-read that, and thought on it. Does that mean that images of two blokes shagging in one post (from a non-pornographic movie or play), make a fully-clothed post of a 17-year-old indecent, then??

And yet Harry Styles appeared naked at the age of 16 on Xfactor sitting on his bed with just an "X" covering his junk? But that can't be reposted.

And yet at 17 Reece Mastin is half naked on stage every concert and posts near naked pics of himself on Twitter, but that can't be reposted.

SMH...

It's amusing to watch you people argue. The rule has been implemented. Get over it and move on.

Why?? (or am I missing some sarcasm here?).

Pictures on this site have always been non-pornographic and generally images which have already been on tv or available in other forms of mass media anyway.

I assume this new rule change is down to increasing paedophile hysteria / paranoia and the "wont somebody pleaseeeee think of the children" excuse for censorship/control of everything these days.

I have been looking at this site and similar since I was well under legal 16 myself and I think these changes are a shame for younger members in the 13 to 18 kinda age bracket...... although fully understandable if the site is in danger of getting into hot water.

Kinda sad that we have a situation where shirtless pictures of a 17yo Tom Daley or Harry Styles are effectively lumped together in the same category as child abuse images because of 'child protection' or 'legal reasons'.

It was hardly 13-18 year olds commenting on the pictures of the under 18s.

A lot of you are confusing censorship with complex legal matters. For those of you lamenting the poor teenage members, teens have no problem finding fodder for themselves, obviously. Just think of what boys had to do pre-mass-publication.

I think Phil has been perfectly forthright, and since the rules aren't going to change anyway, I don't understand this hysteria from some members. God forbid you have to find pictures of 17 and under boys...YOURSELVES.