Innocent Girls Next Door in Merciless Peril

[wulf]

.

Yep. I doubt either of these girls are above the age of consent. Might want to deep six that one, and err on the side of caution.

[Harry45255]

Hard to tell. I will accept any ruling.

[Edukator]

mmm, great start, Harry. A little concerned about their age though

I must admit that I was also a little embarrassed by the pic originally posted by gowron, these girls really seem to be under the legal age. But it's hard to tell for sure and it can also be the result of a skillful photographic computer editing work (with replaced faces). If the origin of this pic can't be traced maybe it would be prudent to delete it.

We must be very cautious with under aged (looking) material since I noticed that another recent post by a member explicitly asking for videos with VERY YOUNG girls (he insisted on this point) submitted to VERY HARD torture disappeared from this board only after a few hours, presumably removed by the moderator (to be confirmed).

But this is a thread about Innocent (young) girls and I admit having posted many young age looking girls pics here myself, but never without first checking if the source is legit, if in doubt it's better to refrain.

I would be curious to know the moderator's opinion on this.

The difference is often difficult to establish with certainty , for instance all the pics below are taken from legit sites (at least I hope so) and these girls are all supposed to have the legal age, even if they look much younger.

[sirstef]

I enjoy reading your contributions and glad that you, too, are concerned about age legality.

[Ralphus]

I must admit that I was also a little embarrassed by the pic originally posted by gowron, these girls really seem to be under the legal age. But it's hard to tell for sure and it can also be the result of a skillful photographic computer editing work (with replaced faces). If the origin of this pic can't be traced maybe it would be prudent to delete it.

I saw it too and decided since others were concerned, it would probably be a good idea to remove it.

It's been my experience that very few of the questionable images I've been alerted to have actually been underaged material. But in this case, I wasn't able to trace it back to a legitimate site where it could be confirmed, so I erred on the side of caution and took it off the forum.

We must be very cautious with under aged (looking) material since I noticed that another recent post by a member explicitly asking for videos with VERY YOUNG girls (he insisted on this point) submitted to VERY HARD torture disappeared from this board only after a few hours, presumably removed by the moderator (to be confirmed).

Yeah, I took that off, too. But the main reason was he linked to a full-length commercial video, which we're not supposed to do here. That and the request about "very young girls" made it an easy choice.

Guys, don't be stupid and intentionally mention young girls on this forum. The material on our site is edgy enough; we don't need to be shut down for underage material.

[wulf]

I must admit that I was also a little embarrassed by the pic originally posted by gowron, these girls really seem to be under the legal age. But it's hard to tell for sure and it can also be the result of a skillful photographic computer editing work (with replaced faces). If the origin of this pic can't be traced maybe it would be prudent to delete it.

I saw it too and decided since others were concerned, it would probably be a good idea to remove it.

It's been my experience that very few of the questionable images I've been alerted to have actually been underaged material. But in this case, I wasn't able to trace it back to a legitimate site where it could be confirmed, so I erred on the side of caution and took it off the forum.

We must be very cautious with under aged (looking) material since I noticed that another recent post by a member explicitly asking for videos with VERY YOUNG girls (he insisted on this point) submitted to VERY HARD torture disappeared from this board only after a few hours, presumably removed by the moderator (to be confirmed).

Yeah, I took that off, too. But the main reason was he linked to a full-length commercial video, which we're not supposed to do here. That and the request about "very young girls" made it an easy choice.

Guys, don't be stupid and intentionally mention young girls on this forum. The material on our site is edgy enough; we don't need to be shut down for underage material.

Glad you made the right choice. There's plenty of material out there to look at and post, without wandering into what might possibly be underage. Personally I won't ever post anything than even resembles underage. All it takes is one to draw the wrong kind of attention from the morality police. We don't need that.

[La Reine Margot]

I saw it too and decided since others were concerned, it would probably be a good idea to remove it.

When I saw those posts I thought it better to leave it to Ralphus to take care of that. At this point controlling who becomes a member is a time consuming task, which I have to say I'm getting better at. Lot's of banning of email addresses. It used to be that there was ONE out of 50 registrations that was legit, now it's 1 out of 10 or less.

I put permanent bans on hundreds of email addresses, most of which were obvious. In many cases I ban, forever, email endings, mostly Russian. There are some email endings that are annoying me like @yeah.com or rambler.ru which I'm about to ban forever and ever, no one with an email address with those endings will be able to register... ever.

As far as posting pictures of underage girls or the mention of underage girls it's definitely a No No... So, beware.

The insistence of posting such things will result in the loss of privileges.

I remember well when many comments in this forum referred to Amy as a girl next door type. Well, that's something I can agree with.

[Edukator]

I must admit that I was also a little embarrassed by the pic originally posted by gowron, these girls really seem to be under the legal age. But it's hard to tell for sure and it can also be the result of a skillful photographic computer editing work (with replaced faces). If the origin of this pic can't be traced maybe it would be prudent to delete it.

I saw it too and decided since others were concerned, it would probably be a good idea to remove it.

It's been my experience that very few of the questionable images I've been alerted to have actually been underaged material. But in this case, I wasn't able to trace it back to a legitimate site where it could be confirmed, so I erred on the side of caution and took it off the forum.

We must be very cautious with under aged (looking) material since I noticed that another recent post by a member explicitly asking for videos with VERY YOUNG girls (he insisted on this point) submitted to VERY HARD torture disappeared from this board only after a few hours, presumably removed by the moderator (to be confirmed).

Yeah, I took that off, too. But the main reason was he linked to a full-length commercial video, which we're not supposed to do here. That and the request about "very young girls" made it an easy choice.

Guys, don't be stupid and intentionally mention young girls on this forum. The material on our site is edgy enough; we don't need to be shut down for underage material.

Thank you for your detailed and reasoned reply.

I also think that removing the contentious pic is a good and wise decision, BUT then you should also remove the original full sized pic (without captions) which is still present on page 18 of this same thread.

[Ralphus]

Thank you for your detailed and reasoned reply.

I also think that removing the contentious pic is a good and wise decision, BUT then you should also remove the original full sized pic (without captions) which is still present on page 18 of this same thread.

I don't know what pic you are referring to.

[Edukator]

Thank you for your detailed and reasoned reply.

I also think that removing the contentious pic is a good and wise decision, BUT then you should also remove the original full sized pic (without captions) which is still present on page 18 of this same thread.

I don't know what pic you are referring to.

It's the same pic that you already removed, but without the captions, originally posted by gowron.

You can find it at the very bottom of this page (last post):

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=113&start=170