is posting non nude teens bad?

[Thatotherguy12]

is it bad if someone posts non nude teens because I have seen multiple galleries

[japavidols]

No, as long as it's within the site rules (meaning as long as it's not in a sexualized or provocative pose).

[Dorine]

And 18+ only of course

[daddy719]

It would be great if the rules could get cleaned up to clear up *any* misconceptions about the 18+ rule. I can understand how someone might get confused...for example, under the not allowed section is this:

We do not permit:

* Any material that promotes or depicts unlawful or inappropriate sexual acts with minors (including but not limited to comics, 3d, captions, fakes, cartoons)
-"minor" anyone under 18

This seems very clear, no one under 18 allowed, ever.

But, that is followed by a list of specific scenarios in which the inclusion of minors is prohibited, including:

a) Pictures of naked or semi-naked children (-12) in appropriate nudist settings, and from legitimate sources.
c) Pictures emphasising genital areas, where the minor is either naked, partially clothed or fully clothed.
i) Any content depicting babies, toddlers, children, preteens (they don't belong on an adult site)

These might confuse some people into thinking that +12 nudes are okay under some circumstances, or that -18 clothed pics that don't emphasis genitals are okay. Why not just change the -12 to -18 to remove any confusion and rewrite the others to make it clear that -18 is *never* okay (which is true, since posting the image to a site with "fap" in the name is, by default, sexualizing the image). Nothing under 18 belongs on an adult site, but the way things are written now I can understand how some people might be confused, especially if English is not their first language.

[japavidols]

Ah, but you clearly omitted several other key things that are also prohibited:

b) Deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked minors in sexualised or provocative poses.
c) Pictures emphasising genital areas, where the minor is either naked, partially clothed or fully clothed.
d) Pictures that depict touching, mutual and self-masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by a minor, not involving an adult.


In case of questionable age the only opinion that counts is ours
We have a zero-tolerance policy against child abuse. Your content will be removed, your account will be terminated and we will report content and all available information to the authorities.


In some cases there may be an element of subjectivity as to whether an image appears to be a child or minor.
Objective factors which will be used to decide, including whether the subject has childlike facial features, is child-sized, has clothing or accessories generally associated with children, and whether, based on the circumstances, the subject is acting like a child

While it's ultimately not my call people need to understand that there should be no u-18 nudes here period. Now as for u-18 I will add that I have seen a lot of fully or partially clothed pics that would probably fall under prohibited here-there's no nudity but they are clearly sexually themed (the girls' breasts are barely covered or the pose is such that they are teasing exposing them). It's really a tossup but as I've said before, if in doubt don't post it here.

[daddy719]

I wasn't trying to be deceptive or anything, I was just picking out the items that seem potentially the most confusing. The other items you included just emphasize that parts of the rules could imply to some that under 18 is okay in some circumstances, which we all agree is not the intent. Since the "prime directive", if you will, is that -18 is never okay, I am just saying that the rules could be edited to make that completely unambiguous, with even less room for misunderstandings.

edit to add: there seems to be some confusion in that, for example, your response seems to indicate that non-nude UA that is non-sexualized is fine (i.e. doesn't violate sub rules a-i) which is what the rules seem to say, while Dorine's response and what I commonly see the mods apply in chat, is that anything under 18 is not allowed, regardless of context/type of image with respect to sub rules a-i. So, I can understand the OP's confusion. Personally, I am more comfortable with an across the board "no under 18 rule" just because sexualized or not the subjects almost certainly did not consent to be posted to IF.

[Dorine]

we could talk about that one week yes
the politic of our site is very clear:NO UNDERAGE NO CHILD ON AN ADULT PORN SITE!

"locked"