Girlyfeet (user)2015-07-19 21:09:10
This site sucks because they remove the barefoot photos of the celebs when they were young, when it mattered the most, and leave this inferior junk up there when they were older and uglier. I don't understand the mentality behind this, there is nothing illegal about looking at the feet of young celebs they are in the public eye and these photos can be found anywhere online.
BackInBlack60 (guild knight)2015-07-19 21:24:47
I *just* finished a post on another wall about that:
The problem is, the Admin/Owner has a site rule:
►Uploading pictures of celebs wherein they're younger than 17 is not allowed. Please report such pictures as "Underage". Do not unreport such pictures, or you will get banned.
Further, the 'unwritten' rule is January 1 *after* their 17th birthday. There are two reasons for that, one of them being to allow time for pictures taken *after* age 17 to surface. The other is the *flood* of underage that happens anyway when these 'new girls' are unlocked each January 1.
Technically, you are correct... it's not a porn or fetish site, so *legally* there is nothing wrong. It's just a matter of decorum and good taste to set an age limit, and we already have enough creepy old ephebophiliacs here perving out on teenagers who are two or three decades their junior and younger than their own daughters, which is kinda sick, don't you think?
If you want to complain about the policy, feel free to waste your time by using the 'Contact Us' button, top left of page.
I'm going to go vomit now.
WTF is this, National Chronophila Day for Pedophiles, Hebophiliacs & Ephebophilacs?
Iluvfeet (guild knight)2015-07-19 21:26:15
The problem is older men wanting to look at young celebrity feet. That's sick!
BananaBread (user)2015-07-19 21:28:23
@BIB I also saw the comment you made on the other celeb's page. And although I don't think there's anything wrong with the perverts(they're everywhere, might as well get used to it) the site does have rules and must be followed. I also think the rule is decent enough. We get enough shit as a collective for our fetish, we may as well avoid any more bad rep.
BackInBlack60 (guild knight)2015-07-19 21:28:52
@Girlyfeet... one other thought:
If you *can* use Google to find your underage prey, then why don't you *do* that, and then you don't have to disclose your mental illness to the world here. Don't ask us to do your underage perving FOR you!
@ILF- I love how others are able to be so concise!
facejam (user)2015-07-19 21:51:02
@BIB another reason some don't see a problem with the underage shots is they are underage themselves. So they can't understand. I know you already know that just saying. Too bad we can't stop teens from crashing the web. The world would be a better place.
BackInBlack60 (guild knight)2015-07-19 22:22:21
Also @BananaBread's " I don't think there's anything wrong with the perverts(they're everywhere, might as well get used to it)" is worrisome, i.e., "We have to accept & condone all evil simply because it exists."
@facejam- We don't have *that* many teens here, at least that speak up. Sure, people in their early 20s looking at a 17-year-old... fine. Someone over 30 or 35 pissed because they can't get to 16 & under pics? Not so much. That's worrisome.
Girlyfeet (user)2015-07-20 01:07:09
I know the sites rules, and I know the administrator can run it anyway he chooses, it's just that they make no sense in this regard, as there is nothing illegal about this. Taking the moral high road and pretending one is a righteous person because they claim they don't look at feet a day younger then 18 is dishonest and hypocritical, so don't hand me your BS.
I wish there was a rule about posting endless amounts of red carpet photo ops rather then so-called underage pics of celebs.
BACKiNbLACK60,Sorry to inform you, much of the world already thinks we are perverts anyway, and why do you assume everyone else here are "older men"? You don't know their age, gender, or anything about them. Don't you think any young people want to see this stuff I know I did when I was that age.
Iluvfeet (guild knight)2015-07-20 01:33:25
@GIrlyfeet - and at what age should WF start? Sixteen, twelve, how about ten years old? Seems seventeen years old is plenty young enough, even for the few young men that visit this site. I'm going to stop now before I really start to rant!
BackInBlack60 (guild knight)2015-07-20 01:46:33
BS? I'm *honestly* not interested in anyone under about 30, because I'm a way old fart. Actually, I've almost slipped that up to *40* now. I want *women* and don't give a shit about little girls. If you do, then I hope you're WAYYYYY closer to their age than am I.
*Feet* perverts or BDSM perverts or whatever among consenting adults is one thing. People perving at very young girls is a whole other monster.
If you have issues with the site rules, you're barking up the wrong tree here. We can do *nothing* about it. There is only ONE MAN who could, and we've nicknamed him "Doctor NO." So, you figure it out. I'm done.
^ ^ ^ What he said. @Girlyfeet- I know a *number* of the people here, their age, gender, etc., at least as *self-reported* and we have guys who have *stated* they are 40s, 50s and such looking at the very young.