GFS websites and age

[ramabanana]

I’ve been enjoying freeones for a while but this is my first post. :wave:

I’ve been looking at some of the ‘ex-girlfriend’ sites and a lot of the girls look pretty young. Given the amount of porn I’ve watched I think I’m a pretty good judge of an 18 year old. So I looked at the compliance statements and I’m wondering if someone can clarify what they mean.

For example the statement on www.realgfsexposed.com states:

“All visual depictions displayed on this Web site, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, are visual depictions of persons who were at least 18 years of age when those visual depictions were created.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Web site are exempt from 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. Part 75 because said visual depictions are not visual depictions of conduct specifically listed in 18 U.S.C Section 2256 (2) (A)-(D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to November 1, 1990, or were produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before May 26, 1992.”

Does this mean that the nude shots on this site that aren’t sexual might be girls under 18? Can a site that looks like a porn site, advertises on porn sites and shows porn really show naked pictures of girls under 18? Other sites I looked at (mainstream, not GF) don’t have this proviso. Am I missing something?

 

[Ace Bandage]

... are visual depictions of persons who were at least 18 years of age when those visual depictions were created.

They created the pictures or videos when the models were at least 18 years of age. That's what that statement means. I don't know how it gets any clearer than that.

 

[John_8581]

Before they close this thread...

Yes, I agree with AR - if any of these girls were underage, then they would run into all sorts of allegations of cp and other major section 2257 issues. Visa or MC would not approve them. And neither would any of the major ISPs, like CCbill, Epoch, DHD Media, or NetBilling...

 

[ramabanana]

OK, so clearly I'm wrong (thankfully - i can enjoy the websites now).

But why add the proviso that depicitions on the site of "non-sexually explicit nudity" is exempt from adhering to the laws on ages? No other site I've seen does this.

 

[ramabanana]

They created the pictures or videos when the models were at least 18 years of age. That's what that statement means. I don't know how it gets any clearer than that.

Surely that refers to what is deemed to be the sexual content. There are ads for diapers that show babies bums and medical programmes that show underage nudity. The law says that this is ok as its not sexual. The sites statement says that the sexual images were created when models were at least 18 years of age but adds the proviso that non-sexual imagery is exempt and thereby implies that they don't need to be 18. Commercial interests are only relevant if laws are broken, if they can do this then there is no reason why Mastercard etc wouldn't accept their business.

 

[Petra]

OK, so clearly I'm wrong (thankfully - i can enjoy the websites now).

But why add the proviso that depicitions on the site of "non-sexually explicit nudity" is exempt from adhering to the laws on ages? No other site I've seen does this.

They're a UK site so they're probably fulfilling both US 2257 law and UK law in the same disclaimer.