Children on JUB

[NotHardUp1]

So, since the beginning of L.M.A.O., JUB has had a strict ban on children appearing on the site in photos or videos.

However, in recent years, it has been tolerated some. They appear sometimes incidentally in non-sexual videos, as well as in linked material to the site, as well as in some GIFs or memes posted satirically. They additionally appear in cartoon form in humor posts or lampoons or attacks.

I most recently saw a thread with lots of them because it featured TV shows.

None of them are sexual.

So, what is the standard? Presumably banned materials are banned at all times. Scat, hate speech, and others are removed in all cases, yet sometimes children remain.

I guess I'm asking, if it's a sliding scale, what is the scale? Are pics with kids let go IF the joke is really good that they appear in? IF the appearance is non-sexual? IF the depiction is cartoon?

It would help to make the standard public instead of discretionary and in doubt. MANY of us self-censor to be compliant, but then see images tolerated anyway in other posts.

And, before anyone suggests it, flagging isn't the answer, as there have been flagged posts that were not removed.

For the record, I am not for banning all of it, only anything even remoted sexual, including undressed children (all the way down to infants), any sexual implicit poses or dancing, and any children made up in any way to appear adult (cosmetics, etc.)

 

[rareboy]

Anything that sexualizes children or lacks a clearly public, socialized context in a general topics, fun and games or politics thread.

Otherwise, I don't see a problem.

 

[gsdx]

I wonder if my video of Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' flashmob would be removed again if I posted it?

 

[eddielee]

I, myself, am not aware of any images of children. My understanding is that they are a no -no, in any way shape or form.

 

[Peloso]

Rules like this just give in to the lie that gay men go after children to recruit them.

 

[Essex Boy]

I assumed that the reason for the total ban was to avoid giving ammunition to the God hates faggots brigade. If there were any pictures at all, even quite innocent ones, of under-eighteens they could say look, there's this gay porn website where members post photos of children! Most people wouldn't check for themselves but they'd put two and two together and assume it was all child porn.

 

[Vannie]

I think Charon might be one of those Children of the Corn.

​

 

[NotHardUp1]

I never thought it had anything at all to do with gay.

My guess is that it was/is an explicit standard to a) never countenance actual child porn, and b) to be absolute so no "innocent" depiction could ever be alleged to be pandering to soft porn. And the latter would be as much legal risk management as it would be owner's ethics.

But, the responses thus far speak to my reason for the thread. Some understand it to be inviolate, while others have reasoned it to be when warranted. There shouldn't be confusion about what is allowed, and why.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I, myself, am not aware of any images of children. My understanding is that they are a no -no, in any way shape or form.

You don't have to look very far to find them, but I didn't point out any as this was an effort to get site to address the shift, not to report anyone's post.

 

[LeicsDom]

I assumed that the reason for the total ban was to avoid giving ammunition to the God hates faggots brigade. If there were any pictures at all, even quite innocent ones, of under-eighteens they could say look, there's this gay porn website where members post photos of children! Most people wouldn't check for themselves but they'd put two and two together and assume it was all child porn.

I assumed it was just being extra careful as any hint of child porn, however unintentional, could result in the site being closed down

 

[Thad1527]

I goofed in the past. When I posted videos that involved young people, like music videos with a large cast. they got changed from being embedded to being a link. (Thanks..I meant no harm )

It's a better way.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I do find it frustrating to not be able to post innocuous stuff, but fully accept that a porn site has every right to be absolute about it.

 

[rareboy]

I agree and sometimes slip. I think of things as normalized...even in the world of homos...and then forget that the blanket of JUB is porn. mea culpa.

I have never even entertained the thought of young children in a sexualized context so this is why I sometimes blunder.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I wonder if my video of Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' flashmob would be removed again if I posted it?

Flashmob? 2005 called...

 

[NotHardUp1]

I agree and sometimes slip. I think of things as normalized...even in the world of homos...and then forget that the blanket of JUB is porn. mea culpa.

I have never even entertained the thought of young children in a sexualized context so this is why I sometimes blunder.

That brings up a different topic, one which is actually TOO HOT to be civilly addressed on JUB since it would digress into histrionics faster than a crime rate thread.

Actual pedophilia is more comprehensible (if not appealing or acceptable) than pederasty, IMO. The psychiatrists have pretty well sussed out the dark recesses of the mind that cause arrested development and a fixation on the child. What there doesn't seem to be good consensus about is the persistence of pederasty, the fixation on youth, more specifically, post-pubescent youth.

I am wondering if the answer is as much the ancient biological trigger of a sexually maturing body (and fertile) as it is the mentor role invariably triggered by admiring youth trying to find their way. The Greek and Turk social patterns, one open, one shamed, of that male bond seems to point to that, but much more than sexualized behavior. And, even though of a lesser taboo, the same holds true for the heteros in the same binary orbit of one another. The adoring younger teen girl to the more confident, older male. And by older, that may be as little as five years older to be considered "grown."

But, our society, in the furor to embrace feminism (and I do), allowed the discussion to be dragged into blanket condemnation of all the old paradigms that included any element of domination and imbalance of power in genders. It essentially threw out the all-too-obvious element that younger mates gained materially and psychologically when appended to an established adult, and chose it. The portrayal of all younger partners as manipulated victims is all too convenient to dismiss the phenomenon and banish it to either perversion or abuse of power.

By extension, our societies STILL shame age gaps, even when among wholly adult members of our society who have reached their majority. IMO, that is every bit as bigoted as hating gays, or anything similar.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

This discussion is super uncomfortable. Kids don't belong on JUB. this is a porn website. The end.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I agree and sometimes slip. I think of things as normalized...even in the world of homos...and then forget that the blanket of JUB is porn. mea culpa.

I have never even entertained the thought of young children in a sexualized context so this is why I sometimes blunder.

Likewise. Some of the responses to a previous thread about a police officer having sex with a minor really opened my eyes to... certain things. I double down on "kids don't belong here." Standing on that.