Where's "Kid Muscle"?

[GlamLeatherPunk]

What happened to the "Kid Muscle" thread in this forum? It was really getting good, and now, all of a sudden, it's disappeared! I didn't see anything in that thread that was pornographic--and certainly not the way some threads I've seen on this board--so what's going on here?

[TheMM]

Someone most likely complained to a mod here and that mod removed it due to the near-pornography status that the thread was because it showed underaged minors.

Speaking of which, I've notice a couple threads also dealing with minors in this general area of the forum, namely with teenagers. Interesting double standard, is it not? Children are bad to have on here, but when they get a few more years on their bones, it's perfectly fine.

[Maverick0095875]

Originally Posted by TheMM

Someone most likely complained to a mod here and that mod removed it due to the near-pornography status that the thread was because it showed underaged minors.

Speaking of which, I've notice a couple threads also dealing with minors in this general area of the forum, namely with teenagers. Interesting double standard, is it not? Children are bad to have on here, but when they get a few more years on their bones, it's perfectly fine.

who r the the mods here anyways?

[mordre_t]

Frankly, as this is pretty obviously an erotic website, I'm not comfortable with any depictions of pre-18 year olds. I mean, you have to be 18 to register, right?

I am not the one who complained, but just having that thread on the forum made me feel a lot less comfortable putting the URL into my browser. We live in a hyper-vigilant age and you can get in a lot of deep shit pretty easily.

[Jaypat]

I have to say a couple of words about this. I write stories in which High School kids have sex with each other. And in many cases they’re still minors when they do it. Now, I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you don’t know when I say this actually happens in America's high schools. So what does this mean? Are we supposed to pretend it doesn’t happen? Or are we supposed to know it happens and just not talk or write about it?

There have been movies like American Pie, and if you go back a ways, Porky’s that have dealt pretty specifically with teen age sexuality. And these movies have been pretty main stream. And let’s not forget all those teen slasher movies. They always had plenty of sex. So when did writing about teen sex become unacceptable around here?

I’m not defending the kid muscle thread because frankly I don’t know what that was about. They weren’t kids. They weren’t adults. They were some kind of freaky mixture of the two which I found somewhat disturbing.

But there are some people out there that feel that sex between high school kids should not be written about, unless the kids are over 18. I just want to know, if it happens in real life, why can’t we write about it? Why is it a forbidden subject?

[Corwin]

I've started to respond to a number of these posts, and stopped before I could put my thoughts into words. It is a hard topic to discuss. Stories about muscular, super-strong kids are free speech. Fantasy images where no child is actually involved is also free speech, or so SCotUS has ruled.

This site has always been a community, or so I like to believe. We might imagine, or perhaps know, that there is an overt erotic element in what goes on here. We have debates about whether this is a gay site or not and what eroticism is permitted. With kid muscle, we began to have a debate about whether it is OK to eroticize images of children. In some ways, we weren't even allowed to have that discussion when one member admitted to getting a "boner" over the images posted. There is enough of a squick element to the topic that it shouldn't be short circuited.

Eroticizing children is more of a social taboo than eroticizing muscle. The 'Kid Muscle' thread seemed to grow like a weed, pushing boundaries in a way that I certainly felt uncomfortable with. One member claimed the images were adult bodies with child faces, while others made clear the very young nature of the fantasy subjects involved. Is it OK for over 18 adults to have sexual reaction to hyper-masculine children? Are there boundaries to the 'all things muscle' that this site promotes? I don't recall us, as a community, having those discussions. Furthermore, there is an owner of this site. If a television network can be fined for showing Janet Jackson's breast, do we put in harms way the owner of this site by making flagrant sexual statements about fantasy images of children?

It appears the thread was deleted. I'm not sure whether that was a bad or good thing. I do know that at this time I agree with that action. If you disagree, then make your case and let the community decide.

[soccerstud88]

Hey Guys I am making a kid muscle blog! Its going to contain the images that were scene on the thread before they were removed and new one's as well, stories etc.. It is how ever going to be private. If you wan't to join the blog you can Private Message me with your email address and I will add you to the site list! I was originally was going to try and start the thread back up on this site but I don't wan't to offend people. Hope to see some of you there on the site!

[wrestler]

The kids, albeit their heads are too young to be used in images of an erotic nature and mordre_t has captured the sentiment perfectly.

[ts1976]

I certainly felt uncomfortable with the thread and am not sorry it was deleted. Where kids are concerned, and even in fiction and images, my feeling is that they should be allowed to simply be children and not have to deal with complex adult issues such as eroticism and all it involves.

I also agree with Corwin. It would be really unfortunate to make trouble for the owner of this forum. It would be a shame to undermine the work that goes into maintaining it. Plus, we'd all miss the forum if it were to become unavailable, that's for sure.

[RPM]

Well, as a matter of principle I think it's a mistake to bow to such mass hysteria, especially one largely created and promulgated by a pop news show like Dateline, and I'm sure I've also said before that this magic-age-18 thing that's erupted over the last century among certain Western countries is also a mistake. But, given all the youth-muscle stories that still exist, those are likely irrelevant discussions here, especially with the thread in question missing. If nothing else, it was a wonderful showcase of top-notch morphs and artwork that represented the best of that forum, and if certain user comments were a problem, then individual comments should be deleted, not the entire thread.

[anpuZA]

It is a difficult choice to make - or topic to debate. The one thing i've learned on the net is this, there are as many "freaky" / "disgusting" / "disturbing" and downright "evil" things that arouse people as there are stars in the night sky. (bit overstated but you get the idea - incidentally i believe 78% of them occur in japan {not the stars}.)

The thing is this - CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS SICK, WRONG, DISTURBING, EVIL and people who like it or defend it should go to their nearest psychologist for 1 or 2, maybe several sessions.

That said, I don't believe the thread actually qualified as child porn, but it was disturbing... to say the least.

I think(hope) it is safe to say that the majority of people who looked at the thread or read the stories, wouldn't think of touching or even think of a real / normal kid that way, but if i had a child and I found his head "artistically crafted" on to some poor muscled schmucks body - I would hunt the fuckr down who did it and "artistically craft" him (or her) into a dining room set.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by RPM

Well, as a matter of principle I think it's a mistake to bow to such mass hysteria, especially one largely created and promulgated by a pop news show like Dateline, and I'm sure I've also said before that this magic-age-18 thing that's erupted over the last century among certain Western countries is also a mistake. But, given all the youth-muscle stories that still exist, those are likely irrelevant discussions here, especially with the thread in question missing. If nothing else, it was a wonderful showcase of top-notch morphs and artwork that represented the best of that forum, and if certain user comments were a problem, then individual comments should be deleted, not the entire thread.

Ya, I agree with the principle. On the other hand, if I were the owner of this site, I'm not sure I'd want to appear on Dateline to defend that principle.

[RPM]

Heh, well I certainly sympathize with that sentiment. But, I guess I've always been overly self-sacrifical - as long as I know the bigger picture's improving, I don't mind taking a hit or going down for it. I know, I'm "special."

[mango]

These were pix of grade schoolers not high schoolers. You've got to be be blind in more ways than one not to see the difference and the anger these pix would create. A few of us know relatives who were abused as children, by relatives usually. That disgusts me and I'll be the last to defend anyone's right to stick that in my face. I didn't complain but the day I see a woman in high heels stomping on kittens in a pic is the day I call my Congresswoman. That apparently turns some guys on. I can empathize with weird fetishes, I know all complex animals are complicated, but if I caught someone in the act of certain fetishes it would make me look for my shotgun. Whether a child or a kitten were the victim. Feelings are one thing, raising some kind of flag over a disgusting pile of shit is another and men who do it are missing a couple screws which I'm sure someone in a uniform will eventually explain to them.

[grubby41]

Well said.

[omelissokomos]

I'm a supporter of Freedom of Expression, but this site is a private enterprise, and our access to it is a privilege and subject to the whims of its owner and operators.

Originally Posted by mordre_t

I'm not comfortable with any depictions of pre-18 year olds. I mean, you have to be 18 to register, right?

These two statements are not mutually exclusive. And, where's the line that defines what's "comfortable"? We'll know it when we see it?

[Muscle_Rabbit]

There used to be a story in the archives somewhere about a teen who had a farm with teen slaves on it that they were perfecting into muscle giants, is that still here?

[nnnrg]

Some quick guidelines based on court decisions (google them yourself)

1) The first rule used to determine whether it's child porn is whether or not a child was harmed in the making of it. This means the child was made to take part in the sexual activity or suggested activity depicted. This one's unambiguous and obvious.

2) The second rule is that it's child-porn if it has a picture of an actual child participating in sexual activity of any kind, and arguably if the child is eroticised. Photoshopping a little girl's face or head onto an erotic picture of an adult woman has been included as child pornography, as has photographing children wearing "too adult" clothing and makeup (which says a lot about the "Joan Benet Ramsey" beauty contests.)

3) The third rule is that even if it isn't pornography, harm can be done by taking a child's picture and manipulating it into pornography, because it can come back onto the child.

4) The disqualifier: If an actual child is NOT involved, it is not actionable child pornography; this is the "Lolita" defense. Lolita, while it's erotic and involves an underage almost-woman, is not pornography because it is purely fictional. No real person exists to be damaged by it. The same could (arguably) go for the "celebrity porn" that shows up in the Nifty, but it's been explicitly decided in court that written stories, while they might be pornographic and thus subject to community standards rules, are not the felonious "child pornography".

However, there is enough risk in hosting the images that it's entirely within reason that the owner of this particular site would choose to refuse to carry them.