Age rule discussion re: Christina Applegate and others.

[Sam Spade]

Guys, Christina was born 25th November 1971, which means she did not turn 18 until part way through season 4 of Married With Children.

So please make sure that any caps or video of Christina from Married With Children are from season 5 or later or if they are from season 4 that they are not from episodes 1 - 12, to be on the safe side, all posts from MWC must contain information as to what season they were taken from, and in the case of season 4, what episode they came from, any posts without this information will be removed without notice.

[since84]

^^^Don't really understand this!!
It's not like she was nude, so what's the problem?
And last month i posted a reply in another thread in here. Where i told people that the top and bottom-less girl on the pictures, only were 15 years old. That reply got deleted by the admins!!

So nude 15 years old girls are ok, but fully clothed are not ??!!!

[grossnex]

Originally Posted by since84

^^^Don't really understand this!!
It's not like she was nude, so what's the problem?
And last month i posted a reply in another thread in here. Where i told people that the top and bottom-less girl on the pictures, only were 15 years old. That reply got deleted by the admins!!

So nude 15 years old girls are ok, but fully clothed are not ??!!!

Rules are rules my brother.

I posted clips from all seasons with the blessing of mods at the time (about 3 years ago). They're gone now & rightfully so. VEF needs to protect itself & has been consistant when enforcing rules. I understand your frustration, but it is what it is. Check with the mods in the section before you post if you're unsure what's wanted or unwanted to save yourself the headache.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by since84

^^^Don't really understand this!!
It's not like she was nude, so what's the problem?
And last month i posted a reply in another thread in here. Where i told people that the top and bottom-less girl on the pictures, only were 15 years old. That reply got deleted by the admins!!

So nude 15 years old girls are ok, but fully clothed are not ??!!!

We will move these latest posts soon but in response to Since84's post above. which should not go unanswered.
What he wrote in answer to one post was
The same pics were in "Se og Hør", and the text said that she was only 15 years old (just so you know). Before the 90's, it was very normal that the girls in "Se og hør" and "Ekstra Bladet) was 15 and 16 years old
If the text on the photos used had shown she was under 18 they would have been deleted. If you or anyone has any evidence then you just have to scan them and send them via PM to any mod from that section.
We do need some supporting evidence before we delete posts though if you have anything Since84 then please forward it to us.
We have very little info on "Se og Hør" on VEF, it is mentioned in just 8 posts in the whole of the forum.

[since84]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

We will move these latest posts soon but in response to Since84's post above. which should not go unanswered.
What he wrote in answer to one post was
The same pics were in "Se og Hør", and the text said that she was only 15 years old (just so you know). Before the 90's, it was very normal that the girls in "Se og hør" and "Ekstra Bladet) was 15 and 16 years old
If the text on the photos used had shown she was under 18 they would have been deleted. If you or anyone has any evidence then you just have to scan them and send them via PM to any mod from that section.
We do need some supporting evidence before we delete posts though if you have anything Since84 then please forward it to us.
We have very little info on "Se og Hør" on VEF, it is mentioned in just 8 posts in the whole of the forum.

I don't want them removed. I thought that people should know that the girl were only 15 years old (which were not against the law in Denmark).

[zplonk]

I don't get it either. As long as Applegate isn't nude, why is the forum scared of being sued by whoever? Nude is nude, and it seems ridiculous to expect that Applegate would be nude in Married with Children, so why limit screencaps to season that she was under 18? Banning the showing photos of underage children, I get that. Even then you have problem because do you follow Kansas rules (age 16) or California rules (age 18) In all of the EU, the age of consent is 16. My main complaint is that you seem to follow the wishes of whoever complains about whatever pic is shown. In other words, this is a PORN forum, yet you apply Sunday school rules, based upon complaints of those who can't stand porn, and the Seven Words that can't be spoken. Where in the rules does it say that on this here porno forum we will adhere to the sensitivities of the most sanctimonious, with 19th century Victorian morals? I guess you're afraid of being sued. That's fair. But 1. exactly how often have you been sued? Not threatened via Cease and Desist letters, because every vindictive older woman whose husband left her for a younger model can whip one of those up in 15 seconds. But an actual suiing? 2. Have you ever thought about calling their bluff? Sorry, mate, but it seems ridiculous to run a porno forum with Sunday school rules and to cower in fear for every complaint. Listen I DO get that every forum is not a democracy, and that it's run like a dictatorship, but this is just my humble opinion, please don't delete this! I suppose should add that I totally respect you and your rules, and that talking back to the admins is sacrilege.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by zplonk

I don't get it either. As long as Applegate isn't nude, why is the forum scared of being sued by whoever? Nude is nude, and it seems ridiculous to expect that Applegate would be nude in Married with Children, so why limit screencaps to season that she was under 18? Banning the showing photos of underage children, I get that. Even then you have problem because do you follow Kansas rules (age 16) or California rules (age 18) In all of the EU, the age of consent is 16. My main complaint is that you seem to follow the wishes of whoever complains about whatever pic is shown. In other words, this is a PORN forum, yet you apply Sunday school rules, based upon complaints of those who can't stand porn, and the Seven Words that can't be spoken. Where in the rules does it say that on this here porno forum we will adhere to the sensitivities of the most sanctimonious, with 19th century Victorian morals? I guess you're afraid of being sued. That's fair. But 1. exactly how often have you been sued? Not threatened via Cease and Desist letters, because every vindictive older woman whose husband left her for a younger model can whip one of those up in 15 seconds. But an actual suiing? 2. Have you ever thought about calling their bluff? Sorry, mate, but it seems ridiculous to run a porno forum with Sunday school rules and to cower in fear for every complaint. Listen I DO get that every forum is not a democracy, and that it's run like a dictatorship, but this is just my humble opinion, please don't delete this! I suppose should add that I totally respect you and your rules, and that talking back to the admins is sacrilege.

Talking to, or back to admins is not sacrilege, though rehashing something that has been discussed, at length many, many times is punishable by death.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with us being sued, it has everything with us doing what is necessary to protect this forum, ourselves and our members from being prosecuted for distributing child pornography.

It is precisely because we are a hard core porn forum, first and foremost that we have to be very rigid on this point, it was decided by the mods several years back to have an age rule, and that age was 18, in the UK 18 is the legal age to do most stuff kids look forward (or not) to, drinking, gambling, getting married without parental consent, getting a tattoo, posing in porn magazines, movies etc.

Where would you draw the line?, seeing an actress in sexy attire such as a bikini or skimpy shorts and top, 17, 16, 15, 14?????

Again I say, this is the rule, we expect all members to adhere to it, if you like seeing under 18's then this is not the forum for you.

[Naed57]

The "of age" rules are indeed rules. And we should follow them. But one of the mods got on my case about comments I often include with some of my dvd captures, for example.... "Al is looking at Kelly's tits," and "she has beautiful tits." I really don't understand how comments like that can be against the rules even if I make similar references in my many posts. It wasn't any of the moderators listed in the above post. It takes some time to post quality dvd captures. And to see them deleted because of harmless comments like the examples above is sad. This is a forum about erotica. It's sexual in nature. I see no reason why some of my posts are being deleted for because of sexual references. Can someone please explain why?

[Sam Spade]

I must admit to not liking some of the comments some members add to their posts, I do realise this is a porn forum, but I do not really want to read how someone enjoys choking their chicken whilst looking at images or video of a celeb.

I enjoy dressing up as Margaret Thatcher and getting the local hoodies to beat me with rolled up copies of Gardeners World magazine , but you don't see me posting about it, do you?

[Naed57]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

I must admit to not liking some of the comments some members add to their posts, I do realise this is a porn forum, but I do not really want to read how someone enjoys choking their chicken whilst looking at images or video of a celeb.

I enjoy dressing up as Margaret Thatcher and getting the local hoodies to beat me with rolled up copies of Gardeners World magazine , but you don't see me posting about it, do you?

Sam, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my question in a manner of how I expect an administrator to. What are the rules regarding things like the wording of posts? Your answer doesn't clarify what the rules are my friend.