Underage posts and incest in the stories section

Share your thoughts and opinions regarding anything MousePad-related. Theories, experiences, questions and answers are all encouraged.
rickhatman
MousePad Regular
Joined: 11 Feb 2007, 13:02

17 Apr 2007, 04:02 #1

Over in the flames section, there was a post about incest in the stories section and whether or not those should be banned. One of the main arguments for not banning it was the whole "if you don't like it don't click it" thing. Also some people posted the idea that many people's first exposure to bare feet are those of female relatives. I posted a response comparing such stories to the underage posts that get deleted. But in the flames section that whole topic turned into a love/hate fest between Ali and isbees so I figured I'd post my response in this section as a discussion and see what people thought about it and maybe we can actually discuss these topics instead of having two dudes exchange anti-semitic/anti-arab comments to each other.



Here it is:

To an extent I see the whole point of "if you don't like it don't click it" kind of deal, however, we don't always go by that for other types of posts. For example, if I wanted to post some magazine scans of barefoot pictures of 17 year old Hayden Panettiere almost certainly my post would get deleted. And while some people might claim a legal issue, there is none with such pictures as if a magazine could post barefoot pictures of a girl under 18 without legal troubles then so can we. People who are opposed to such things don't just ignore it. If you don't believe me, just check out the webshots posts in Foot Model Content and I'm sure in at least half the posts there will be some guy who complains about the age of the girls with something like, "Most senior pictures are taken the summer after Junior year so those girls are probably 17 years and 11 months not 18 you pedophile."



But back to the whole incest issue, in other discussion or flames topics I've read many people claim, and I would say for the most part that I'm in agreement, that liking feet is no different that liking breasts or butts or legs or whatever. Just as some men like big butts (and they cannot lie Image ) we like women's feet. It is true that for many of us, the first barefoot woman we saw was our mother. However, this in and of itself does not make incest stories acceptable. For a good many of us as well, the first breast we saw or touched was our mother's at least those of us who were breast fed. I dare say, I wouldn't find many people who would find it acceptable for breast related incest material to be presented. And to take it to the ultimate level, all of us who weren't C-section births, the first vagina we ever experience was also our mother's as we were being born.



So I say either all materials that do not violate the law be welcome here, or we pick and choose what we allow. And if we are going to ban something that is offensive to most, let us ban incest related material.
Reply

usa02
Platinum
Joined: 16 May 2002, 09:48

17 Apr 2007, 09:12 #2

We had a member once that wanted to do away with Stories(something along those lines).



I have to agree with the idea. It's become a wasteland with a few good stories buried under "I sniffed my bosses feet" and "Hot sister or sister action".



I've seen better stories at places like Giantesscity and The Den. Stories was the first thing I found when I came here and it sucks a bit to see it fall so far so fast.



















There's no end to the love you can give

When you change your point of view to underfoot

Very good

You may be flat but you're breathing




Image





6-16-06 :D
Reply

monkfish blues
MousePad Hall-of-Famer
Joined: 14 Jul 2006, 23:47

17 Apr 2007, 20:52 #3

that was all hashed out already by the mouse and mods



it is all taken as fantasy, even though writers swear it happens to them as non-fiction, but, alas, we all know it doesn't Image



underage women are clearly easy to define, so and so will be 18 on so and so date, there is no ambiguity



the only stories I ever read were jen sorel, but it could be a guy writing them and not a girl, so I stopped going to that section
Reply

rickhatman
MousePad Regular
Joined: 11 Feb 2007, 13:02

18 Apr 2007, 00:17 #4

Thanks Jill Image I enjoy reading your posts too. Egomunchie, I would have to agree that foot images are not pornographic in and of themselves, unless they are meant to be that way. Here's what I'm saying. I don't think doing foot shoots is appropriate for minors. By this I mean a minor (under 1Image should not be allowed to be photographed specifically for a foot fetish website or something like that. If a girl in her late teens (16-17) takes a picture with her friends that includes some feet (flashing a sole to the camera, etc.) this should be allowed to be posted as the people involved did not do this for explicitly sexual reasons just to be playful. The same goes for magazine or photoshoot pictures of underage girls. If Teen People, for example, can publish photos of Hayden Panettiere barefoot or showing toes, ship these publications across state lines, and do whatever without any legal implications, why is it wrong to publish these exact same photos on the pad (excluding any copyright laws which would apply to all posts not just underage ones). Webshots does not get in trouble for posting pictures of senior pics and so forth so we would not get in trouble for the same. As I said before, if you decided to set up a foot fetish photo session with an underage girl that would be bad. But how could providing a path to material which is already legal be illegal? The reason I mentioned Hayden Panettiere a couple of times is I found a couple of HQ barefoot pictures of her on usemycomputer.com from her Parade magazine photoshoot. So if you are interested, either go there and check it out or comment on this with your email address and I'll send you a link. But that's how I feel, enjoying barefoot pictures of 17 year old girls is a totally different thing from child porn which is unarguably wrong.
Reply

SoulofAPoet69
Registered
Joined: 12 Jan 2006, 05:45

18 Apr 2007, 03:26 #5

If a female model be it an underage model or otherwise signs a release form for the shoot she does then the photographer/magaizine/tv show/web-site/publishing firm has every legal right to do with that photo what the seem fit to their needs.



If the photo(s) are used on a blatant foot fetish site then yes there calls in the question of legailities, but again a release form is a release form and you enter a gray area.



As for the story section of this particular forum. Yes the quality of stories has gone down in the last two years. There were posters who got into debates with other posters and basically forced them off this forum. But it's been the same with any message board. There comes a time when the hirachy takes hold and if you don't follow the masses you are pretty much flamed and pushed out. Do I think some of the stories are fabrications? Yes I do. Do I think some of the N/F stories actually happened, yes I do as well. I have read some stories where I can relate to that situation because I've experienced it personally and it can happen.



I do not agree with the stories that involve sisters, cousins, aunts, mothers, in-laws and taken advantage of someone when they are asleep. There is no real erotic value to the stories and they only stand to show that poster as someone who has little to no moral value system.



However I don't agree that when someone posts a really good story and becomes popular for a time that other people, in their jealousy, push them out or ask them to leave. As in the case of SlaveAshley and other female posters before her. It always seems the moment a woman posts on these forums every guy wants to date her, or become her new best friend or tries to be her hero when she is "attacked".



You have to remember one thing everyone. This is the web. And everyone has a private personal life outside of all of this and I am sure they do not spend every waking minute thinking about coming to the Mousepad to see what is going on.



Forums like these are for expression, education, and meeting like minded people who share the same fetish. When it becomes too personal and the posters begin to fight amongst themselves it takes away from things. This why other message boards have failed and gone off line.



Going back to the photo issue. There is nothing wrong with a commercial publication posting pictures or taking pictures of a someone under 18 barefoot. If someone finds that a personal turn-on then that is the individual's own prefrence and obviously there is an issue with that person and they should maybe look at themselves. There is no legal law or moral that says "All feet are sexy and sexual objects". It is only an inviduals own preference as to what is sexy and what constitutes a sexual object.
Reply

rickhatman
MousePad Regular
Joined: 11 Feb 2007, 13:02

18 Apr 2007, 18:50 #6

Well Jill, I've got some strawberries, do you think we could come to some sort of understanding. Image
Reply

trosoft
Registered
Joined: 26 Sep 2005, 20:59

19 Apr 2007, 12:54 #7

Quote:
I truly believe that consentual sex is CONSENTUAL SEX.

I truly believe that feet are not sexual organs.

I truly belive that department store catalogs should not be

censored,





JillSaphic:



If you believe in miracles, so do I!





trosoft
Reply

syncrodude
MousePad Regular
Joined: 07 Apr 2006, 09:33

20 Apr 2007, 01:09 #8

I have to agree that there is no illegal aspect of posting under 18 feet. A picture is a picture. If it is legal in a catalog or a website, it is legal,period. The picture does not magically change legal status when it is grouped with other, like images. So, I do not believe posting here would be a problem.



HOWEVER..........



THere is a considerable chunk of the population who views our attraction to feet as a terribly wierd thing, and consider us ALMOST bad enough to take action against. Now, if sites like this start allowing "underage" material,then the association with pedophillia can be made, right or wrong. I know there are those out there monitoring this group, thinking we are all a bunch of sickos, just waiting for an excuse to come down on us. If they can make even the remotest of connection to pedo behavior, they could get the clout to push ezboard to end it all. So just to be on the safe side, the moderators keep it off. And I think this is a wise precaution. Besides, there is piles of hard drive material here. especially in the enthusiast section.



JMHO



Syd
To quote my wife : " All women love to have their feet rubbed an sucked. It is just some don't realize it yet"
Reply

BiblicalFury
Registered
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 02:16

21 Apr 2007, 22:49 #9

I think it's really best to just play it conservative with anything that can be considered underaged. Short of murder and things like that, almost nothing is considered worse than pedophilia in our society today. With good reason, I'd say. Sure, it's not technically illegal to post barefoot pictures of a 15 or 16 year old girl, but why take the chance? This is a nice safe place for all things feet and it's worth protecting. If you really, really need to look at pictures of a 15 year old's feet, you're probably not the best type of person to have at the site.
Reply

rickhatman
MousePad Regular
Joined: 11 Feb 2007, 13:02

22 Apr 2007, 04:09 #10

Maybe some of the psych majors can help me out with this, but one of my friends, who is a psych major, told me that in her human sexuality class they were talking about ephebophilia, which is a sexual attraction to post pubescent individuals and is not considered a paraphilia, i.e. it is not considered sexually deviant. Interestingly enough, fetishes are considered to be paraphilic. By the way, I don't know if any of you have ever heard the term aretifism, but that is the sexual attraction to people who are barefoot and not as much the feet themselves. So if any of you are attracted to barefoot girls because they are free spirited or vulnerable and they have cute feet then you might be aretifistic while if you can get turned on but just a closeup of feet and have no context with the girl then you are not. But back to the point, I understand why we have a rule about ages because of the whole slippery slope idea. If we changed the rule from 18 to 17 the people could say, well 16 is almost 17 so that's ok and 15 is almost 16 and so forth. While ephebophilia technically means anyone who has passed puberty, it is generally construed to mean people in their late teens. So being attracted to a 12 year old girl who just happened to be an early bloomer would be abnormal. But being attracted to a pretty 17 year old girl is not wrong. What gets me is when people post senior pictures and some a** makes some big deal about how a lot of girls are still 17 for the first couple of month in their senior year and compare enjoying those pictures to pedophilia which is completely different and completely wrong.
Reply