Comment on Forum Rules Here

[The E]

LoveLOS

Truthfully... pussy is pussy to me. Whether it's 18 YO pussy or 35 YO pussy.

If I am attracted to the female, she's the LAC, and she let's me fuck her, I most likely will. I am not going to go to jail over pussy and therefore I follow the established laws, whether they be in Alabama or Pakistian.

We can sit here and debate when a female is old enough to make her own decisions about sex. Some may think it's younger, some may think it's older... heck, I have female friends that consider girls under 21 stupid, dumb, and vernable regardless of what the law states. But if you fucked a willing 20 YO does that make you a bad man? It's all a matter of opinion. You say 18 and I say LAC, whatever that may be. But I will again warn you...

The LAC in some places is ABOVE 18. So please don't go on the rest of your life thinking that 18 is the golden number. You may end up behind bars and have to register every time you move into a new neighborhood.

[LoveLOS]

E,
Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree it is one matter to have sex when you were a child also, but I have to think back to my teenage years and reflect the maturity and decision making abilities of my conquests of those days:

My conclusion is that, despite the LAC, a sixteen yr old girl is still a child in a woman's body, and an adult needs to respect how fragile she is at that stage of development. Now that you are an adult, I seriously urge you to consider the effect your actions have. A child will likely be more deeply affected by your actions than would another adult who has the mental and physical maturity to deal with a sexual situation.

Hell, 18 is probably too young also, as you note, but that is where the line is drawn in much of the world, and, significantly, that is where Jackson drew the line for us.

And I thank Jackson for clarifying his position in the matter also...

This does not constitute a flame, just a statement of a strong opinion. Just becaue something is legal, does not make it acceptable, and visa-versa. Nobody much gives a rats ass about legality on this forum anyway, in case you haven't checked the local laws in most states in the USA, PROSTITUTION is illegal here; but that is still the topic of the day on this forum!

You also make note that 16 year olds are not in your "personal preferences," unless, of course, they happen to be in Alabama, where they are at top of the list ("perfectly good pussy"). Somehow that just does not make sense to my feeble reasoning.

LoveLOS

[The E]

my previous post was not meant to offend anyone, nor was it meant to show my "personal preferences". being in my 20's i am probably one of the younger posters on this board. i have been in the hunt since i was 16 years old. i do it for the sheer thrill. i am not a child molester, nor do i have an interest in **** girls. but younger guys may be interested in finding younger girls. i was a member of this board back before it was in this great format and i wanted to find "younger" girls becasue i didn't want to mess with old farts. but at the time i was like 19 or 20 so i was always looking for girls that were around my age. and like i said, the lac in alabama is 16, so i was always looking for girls between 16 to about 20. i love my freedom too much to break any laws conerning the lac. i am positive that almost every guy, at least once in his life has meet a "younger" girl and he should be aware of the lac where he is.

i mean, why turn down perfectly good pussy if it's legal? and i have read many post time and time again where they wanted to and the girl solicited them, but they turned it down because she was 17 and he failed to realize that she was the lac.

and as far as the comment concerning this forum reflecting the laws associated with each country/ state... i was referring to the lac (like you didn't already know that). being caught with a prostitute is one thing... being caught with an **** prostitute is another.

and one last point. i'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but there are some places in the world where the lac is above 18. 18 is a standard that american's just have stamped onto thier brain, but the truth is that it doesn't apply to many states or to the rest of the world. that's why i made the suggestion. no need to start a flame war about it. this website is all about posting information. i only wanted to add more useful information to the site.

[Freeler]

LoveLos,

Needless to say I totally agree with what you're saying.

The E said: "I believe that this forum should reflect the laws that are enforced in each country."
Does The E mean that illegal activities in general can not be mentioned on these pages?
That would mean a nice little clean up, leaving only the Singapore and The Netherlands sections...

Child abuse is child abuse, the LAC is not meant for grown ups to see how low they can go and definitely not for paid sex with minors, it is meant for people of similar age to get together without too much hassle.

I very much doubt the reasons behind making sites that show 'legal ages of consent'.

[LoveLOS]

Gee Jackson,
I know how you feel about child molestors. Any comments on Mr E's stated personal preferences? I personally find the need to carry such a reference while travelling quite repugnant.

LoveLOS

[The E]

I would like to suggest that the forum rules be changed to reflect the legal age of consent (LAC) in the area of the report. For instance, the LAC in Alabama is 16, but is 18 in Tennessee. If the activity is not illegal, then I believe that people should have a right to post about it. Here is a link to the LAC for different countries and states. I use this like a bible when I travel just in case something is in question. Many countries LAC is as low as 13 for females.

I myself do not participate in sex tours or mess with individuals under the LAC. I believe that this forum should reflect the laws that are enforced in each country.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

The existing Forum rules shall remain in effect. There shall be no discussion of any person or persons under the age of 18 on this website.

Jackson

[Richard1]

You have to make it a complicated enough process to become a "picture viewer" that people can't just post a series of photos or posts some day and wait for it to happen. But simple enough that all the main people who post here (generally defined as senior members) have access.

I think the senior member method as suggested below or even something a little more demanding is the best.

That may have a side effect of making us a slightly more exclusive club in the long run by having a few less regular members (those who don’t really want to post more than once in a LONG time but keep coming here for the pictures) of course those are probably the people costing more than they are worth.

[Brownout]

I would suggest relaxing the prohibition of repetitive posting when it comes to something relatively non-temporal. Examples include 'hot' districts, legal issues, local custom or modus operandi etc.

Most forum users are expected to read back no more than 10 pages without compelling reasons. When time passes, postings scroll down at various rates. If a particular article scrolls beyond a certain point, the author may feel the need to re-post it. The prohibition should be relaxed more if more additions or revisions of the information are made.

[Cronin]

Rene,

So if they don't have photos, then why post anything at all on the Photo Gallery? If you/they don't have a photo to put on the gallery, why do people feel they have some burning need to register their opinion. And you can plainly see, its not just their opinions of the photos. Its pages upon pages of arcane nonsense.

Are their family photo albums at home filled with pages of comments about grandma's latest surgery complications or sister's problems interacting with people of different races? No. They're filled with photos...right?

Thank you's can be PM'd. Comments can be PM'd. Discussions can be posted to general discussions. Just possibly there could be another section added for Photo Discussions. But frankly, I for one would never log into it. They are NEVER as interesting as the photos themselves.

Just my arcane opinion.

Cronin

[Rene02]

But do not forget that some people have no pics to post...

For example myself, I have made some post on the Saudi board, but trust me there is no way one can take a pic of those women...

[RearWindow]

I would agree with Cronin that the Photo Sections be jpg posting restricted, with minimum descriptions added. Maybe make the "minimum" standards used for senior status upgrade requirements the standard for photo gallery viewing.My two monetary units.

[Cronin]

I've just about given up on trying to get people to post photos in the photo gallery. I know Jackson has also made a valiant effort several times.

No matter how many reminders get posted that this is a "photos only" section, there is always a hundred newbies that want to impress everyone with their brilliant erudition on this or that inane topic. That prompts someone else to impress us with their opinion, and it goes on and on...

Wouldn't it be great if the program could select for jpg images when people tried to post? No jpg, no post. I know it does this for message size and even banned words. This wouldn't restrict the comments, but it would make the inclusion of a photo the "price of admission" for posting comments to the photo gallery. Oh well, probably just wishful thinking.

Cronin

[Boxcc]

Joe Zop, I agree with you. I think restricting the viewing of pictures to members only is a good idea. I also like the idea kicking members who have never posted or who haven't posted in X number of months. That would help get rid of all the damn lurkers!

That would save bandwidth for all the truly depraved mongers like us! lol.

[Joe Zop]

The logic of the last post utterly escapes me -- why would you prevent someone from seeing things about their areas of interest and locale, when it's most likely they'd have information to contribute about those areas?

In any event, this is all too complicated. Simply restricting picture viewing to members, and having a process of culling regular members who haven't posted or logged in after X amount of months of membership would save substantial bandwidth and simplify everything.

[Rene02]

Yes I agree...
well, then I think there is nothing we can do.

Or remove the pictures section, but this would be a shame.

Or another idea. When registring, a member has to state where he lives and in which country / place he is interested. Then he can't browse the reports and pics from his place and the single country / place in which he has interest. Then let's say that after 2 posts and 1 month of active browsing, he can see the whole forum.