The Age-Play Debate Thread

[ramblin]

Don't have much to add, but this thread has been a really interesting read. For me the term "little" and the age-regression idea make sense, and I get the appeal. I get the surrendering/depending/nurturing dynamic. I get power-play, though putting the two together seems a little off. The term "daddy", however, evokes really uncomfortable feelings, both in this context and even in the more popular "sugar daddy" term. The role the non-little seems to be playing especially in power-based age play just does not feel anything like the role of a father.

 

[Red7227]

Does anyone else feel the term age-play covers a bit more of a broader scope than is being discussed here? I was under the impression that it covers playing at any age

My knowledge of age play starts and ends with a picture of a fat 60 year old German man wearing a diaper, bonnet and sucking on a dummy. It was burnt into my brain when I was much younger and has left me scarred for life.

 

[Rose]

Does anyone else feel the term age-play covers a bit more of a broader scope than is being discussed here? I was under the impression that it covers playing at any age

My knowledge of age play starts and ends with a picture of a fat 60 year old German man wearing a diaper, bonnet and sucking on a dummy. It was burnt into my brain when I was much younger and has left me scarred for life.

Lol! Well that would probably be closer to adult diaper, but that would technically fall under age-play or age-regression too.

 

[Sevrin]

No one is worried about middle-aged people in diapers.

I think the problem with AP comes in when one party, say a cam model, with a very youthful appearance, who is no longer legally a minor, simulates sexual engagement as a minor, whether that model be male or female. In Canada, you can even get busted for CP if the model is the age of majority, if the materials in question suggest that the model has not reached that age. And you can get busted for simply writing about such acts even if are purely fictional.

Most cam models in schoolgirl skirts don't fool anyone that they're under age, and most don't pretend to be. They're just models role-playing. There are a few who can easily convince people that they might not be 18 yet, though, and they can theoretically get into trouble over it, and not just with MFC.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

No one is worried about middle-aged people in diapers.

I think the problem with AP comes in when one party, say a cam model, with a very youthful appearance, who is no longer legally a minor, simulates sexual engagement as a minor, whether that model be male or female. In Canada, you can even get busted for CP if the model is the age of majority, if the materials in question suggest that the model has not reached that age. And you can get busted for simply writing about such acts even if are purely fictional.

Most cam models in schoolgirl skirts don't fool anyone that they're under age, and most don't pretend to be. They're just models role-playing. There are a few who can easily convince people that they might not be 18 yet, though, and they can theoretically get into trouble over it, and not just with MFC.

That maybe the law in Canada, and quite probably the UK. But it is almost certainly NOT illegal in the US. In the 2002 case Ashcroft vs the Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court rule struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech."

From the Wiki

Before 1996, Congress defined child pornography with reference to the Ferber standard. In passing the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, Congress added the two categories of speech challenged in this case to its definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means." The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

The second provision would cover camgirls giving the impression that they are underage.

Of course MFC is free to make whatever rules they want, and as MFC normally does enforce them or not at their whim.

 

[MintyFlowers]

Just to add on to something that was mentioned, in Japan, it's legal to draw porn depicting minors, and yes even little kids that are drawn to be "5 years old." So anything from incest, rape, gore, tentacles, with minors depicted is legal.

Although I can't say that bringing in Japan's statistic of lower rape would be extremely relevant because in GENERAL Japan has lower crime rates than the U.S. and higher social capital. However, their measure of "crime" is also different compared to ours because majority of cases that go to court, win 99% of the time because Japan tends to only prosecute if they feel that it is a "sure victory." Also, as someone else brought it up, yes, there are a lot of reasons as to why a Japanese woman would not report rape.

Although I don't think it needs to be said, but this is just an example and I am in no way condoning Japan's sometimes confusing and rather vague law when it comes to regulating sexuality.

------------------------------------

Doing a cursory search in a few peer-reviewed academic journals, I haven't really seen any research. Only one article says that research hasn't found a causal relationship between age-play and pedophiles raping/abusing children.

Pitfall when studying this sort of topic:
not very many people are going to admit to wanting to abuse children.
Most likely can only do archival studies.
Or if you want to seek out actual pedophiles, your only sample would probably come from prisoners, but there's the issue with informed consent, and can you generalize your findings to potential offenders, and those who are pedophiles but have not done anything?

Just my thoughts on the subject. I apologize for it being very unorganized.

 

[Tristyn]

Disclaimer-- I'm not an age player, but I've been in the kink community for 7+ years and have met a lot of age player couples and singles who have taught me more about their kink. Also, this post might be trigger-y.

So, here are a few things that pop to mind, in no particular order or completeness:

A lot of age play is totally non-sexual.
Some age players only engage in non-sexual roleplay.
It's not even always a multiplayer activity -- some people enjoy solo age-regression as well.

Age players are interested in roleplaying scenarios (sexual or otherwise) with informed, consenting adults -- not minors.
It is possible that a minority of age players are ALSO pedophiles … just like it's possible for someone to enjoy consensual sex AND be a rapist ... but it's far from the 'norm' from what I've seen/read/experienced.

It is a common misconception that 'infantilism' and 'pedophilia' are the same thing -- they're not.
To quote wikipedia:
"Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding[11] but infantilism exclusively involves role-playing with other adults;[12] infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any other form of child sexual abuse.[13]"
Wiki isn't the most reliable source, but it's pretty easy to find more substantial information if you want to.

Not ALL age players play an underage role -- taking on the role of a younger college co-ed, even if not underage, is still a form of age play.

Age play is a form of roleplay, and like most roleplay, it lives in the fantasy realm. As a kinkster/bdsmer/whatever, I dabble heavily in humiliation, degradation, consensual non-consent, impact play (to the point of marking, tears, distress, begging), and many, many other activities that would be illegal or otherwise ill-advisable outside of a consensual (children can't consent) roleplay scenario.

I participate in scenes where I enslave, degrade, and use men -- that doesn't mean that I actually believe that men should be abused, or that I get off on GENUINE abuse. I don't.
I participate in scenes where I am taken advantage of sexually/physically -- that doesn't mean that I actually want (or get off on) legitimate exploitation or non-consent. I don't. I'm strong and independent and know what I want / don't want.

There are lots of very taboo-seeming things that consenting adults can do in the name of fantasy exploration, but that doesn't mean that they're actually advocating for violent or non-consensual behaviour.
Unfortunately, it is possible that some age players (and BDSMers, for that matter!) may also happen to be violent, awful people, as I said, but that is going to be true of any sub-group, regardless of how taboo or vanilla.

On a personal level, most forms of age play just squick me out, but being around my share of well-adjusted, normal people who just happen to enjoy age play has, at the very least, chipped away at a lot of my personal bias.
Especially when I consider all of the taboo and dark shit that I am into -- and that I'd rather not be judged too harshly for.

PS: I apologize if any of this is coming off as defensive -- I'm really tired and my wording might not be on point.
PPS: I so appreciate having a community where, even when people disagree on sensitive subjects, there's no insane mob mentality. :thumbleft:

 

[Megin_Mystery]

First of all, I am the type of person that will choose helping someone over hurting them (unless it's consensual ). This is my first post on here and I look forward to participating in this forum.

I was a lifestyle Dominatrix for 10 years and decided to 'retire' and try online. I am finding the transition a little difficult because knowing a sub or another Dom on a personal level, is almost impossible over the web. Being with a sub in person was always consensual, ID's checked, etc. Sometimes, I worry that guests/basics (or premiums with their parents credit card #) are under age and it turns me off. I dislike the word MILF and clearly state that I will ban you for asking me to be your mommy. I do not participate in incest role-play, but, I will not condone those who have names like MILF_(fill in the blank) or Baby Doll or High School Tramp.
I agree with certain points on both sides of this topic. I believe that the only motivations we truly know, are our own. No matter what type of chat room you run, there will be risks. The psychological aspects of any fetish/kink will be different for each individual. Things can get sticky (pun intended) over the interwebs. At the end of the day, it only matters what you think of yourself, and being content with your choices. I do not like shaming or bashing, I try to understand to the best of my ability.

P.S. VeronicaChaos, you remind me a bit of AFP. I love your rawness, chaos and creativity :romance-heartbeating: :romance-heartbeating: you are so very talented!

 

[BouncingBecki]

I've heard people say on here that mfc doesn't allow age-play but all that I've read so far is they don't allow incest (which I'm sure covers incest role-play). I don't think Daddy/ lil girl or mommy/ boy role-play is the same thing as incest role-play personally. It's not "my mommy", it's "mommy" and it isn't "my daddy" it's "daddy". Like a title or position, the same as "master", "slave" would be. No one implies these people condone slavery anymore than age-play condones incest or pedophilia. Anyway, I was wondering if mfc really does have a rule saying we can't do role-play while on cam?
p.s. sorry if this isn't the most clear post, I'm super sick right now and on all kinds of cold meds lol

 

[AmberCutie]

I've heard people say on here that mfc doesn't allow age-play but all that I've read so far is they don't allow incest (which I'm sure covers incest role-play). I don't think Daddy/ lil girl or mommy/ boy role-play is the same thing as incest role-play personally. It's not "my mommy", it's "mommy" and it isn't "my daddy" it's "daddy". Like a title or position, the same as "master", "slave" would be. No one implies these people condone slavery anymore than age-play condones incest or pedophilia. Anyway, I was wondering if mfc really does have a rule saying we can't do role-play while on cam?
p.s. sorry if this isn't the most clear post, I'm super sick right now and on all kinds of cold meds lol

I think this is the rules page that people are referring to. http://wiki.myfreecams.com/wiki/Online_ ... rification

Additional monitoring of inappropriate content
Even in cases where models are verified to be over the age of 18, they are still subject to the following guidelines:
* Models that "look too young" in the opinion of our trained administrators will be removed.
* Model may not present themselves as minors in any way, including but not limited to: altering their visual appearance (e.g. wearing too much makeup, wearing unneeded dental braces, pigtails, etc.), creating inappropriate usernames (e.g. LittleGirl16), or participate in age-based fantasy or role-play.
* Models that draw attention to themselves as potentially being under the age of 18 will be removed.
* One of our core principles is not to censor users on this website; however, we do make an exception for any topic surrounding the legal age of models and pedophilia in general. Chat logs of users are moderated for such inappropriate content, and any user in violation of our rules is removed from this website.

 

[Jupiter551]

As MintyFlowers pointed out, the research on whether or not simulated child porn scenarios...and obviously we're not talking about any other age-play scenarios...are harmful to children, is inconclusive.

As we knew all along, if you engage in this sort of stuff with clients it may lead to them abusing children...or it may not. We don't know. Scientists don't know, psychologists don't know, we don't know.

Generally speaking, human beings who think about something enough end up expressing their thoughts in their behavior, ie acting out, breaking the law, etc.

I think there's a fair argument to be made that some pedophiles (and people with other fetishes, lesser consequences) appear to have great difficulty controlling their urges, and it just defies common-sense to suggest you can satisfy (or banish) an urge by constantly half-gratifying it or substituting it.
:dontknow:

 

[mynameisbob84]

Apparently the "I can be 12 if you pay me" video found its way on to change.org. It would be one thing if there was categorical proof that she was encouraging pedophilia but all that's being achieved by websites like that being made aware of out-of-context videos like this is endorsing the viewpoint that camsites are shady places and encouraging tighter guidelines and scrutiny and regulations. Which I think would be a bad thing in the long run. Moral censorship could cripple camsites and any model who ever so much as dressed up as a schoolgirl could be in the firing line.

 

[Aella]

I see nothing wrong with any nonharmful action between consenting adults. I see nothing wrong with being aroused by someone pretending to be 12. I'm glad most other people here seem to be very tolerant of kinks. You go guys!

 

[SexySteph]

Apparently the "I can be 12 if you pay me" video found its way on to change.org.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard...

 

[VeronicaChaos]

Apparently the "I can be 12 if you pay me" video found its way on to change.org.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard...

I find it crazy that people are so upset by this. I was going to post about this in the other thread but it got locked, but since it's been brought up here...

There's a pretty big difference between telling someone "I can be 12 if you want me to be" and "Yes, I'm a 12 year old." The first specifically states that she's NOT 12, hence why she could be as part of someone's fantasy.

 

[Jupiter551]

Apparently the "I can be 12 if you pay me" video found its way on to change.org.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard...

I find it crazy that people are so upset by this. I was going to post about this in the other thread but it got locked, but since it's been brought up here...

There's a pretty big difference between telling someone "I can be 12 if you want me to be" and "Yes, I'm a 12 year old." The first specifically states that she's NOT 12, hence why she could be as part of someone's fantasy.

I didn't watch both the videos but the first one I watched was clearly a setup, and just vindictive to use that model - if they really care about this issue I'm sure there are much worse "offenders".

What is the change.org petition wanting? to remove that model or to stop it on MFC or something more general? I can guarantee you that the wider community would generally find this sort of thing objectionable and lawmakers (if goaded) would pass it in a heartbeat - legal or not I wouldn't be so sure the "outside world" would care to see it your way

 

[Kradek]

What is the change.org petition wanting?

This appears to be the one.

 

[Jupiter551]

What is the change.org petition wanting?

This appears to be the one.

hahahha yeah I think the motive might be just to get that chick banned it seems

 

[Tristyn]

As we knew all along, if you engage in this sort of stuff with clients it may lead to them abusing children...or it may not. We don't know. Scientists don't know, psychologists don't know, we don't know.

Generally speaking, human beings who think about something enough end up expressing their thoughts in their behavior, ie acting out, breaking the law, etc.

I think there's a fair argument to be made that some pedophiles (and people with other fetishes, lesser consequences) appear to have great difficulty controlling their urges, and it just defies common-sense to suggest you can satisfy (or banish) an urge by constantly half-gratifying it or substituting it.
:dontknow:

That's still assuming that people who engage in age play have an attraction to actual minors to begin with, though, and I don't believe that the majority do. There are plenty of other reasons why age-play (on either side of the coin) may be appealing. Roleplaying scenarios that allow us to break through societal taboos and expectations can be incredibly enticing when explored safely and consensually.

Is it possible that there are violent people who engage in age play, or who use camsites as an outlet? Yes, absolutely. As I said before, there are violent people in pretty much every sub-group, no matter how taboo or seemingly vanilla. And yes, it is an unfortunate/terrible reality that some of these people will eventually act out on their violent urges, for one reason or another (or perhaps no reason at all).

But here's some food for thought:

I've had people tell me that I shouldn't be a camgirl because, in doing so, I am commoditizing and sexualizing women -- that I am reinforcing the idea that women are sexual objects. That I am encouraging (sexual) violence against women.

I spend most of my time on cam engaging in roleplaying scenarios where there is a power imbalance of some kind. The kind of power imbalances that lead to people being degraded, used, and 'forced' to do things that they wouldn't want to outside of a roleplaying scenario.

Just by being a camgirl, especially one who engages in kink, one could argue (however rightly or wrongly) that I could be encouraging sexual assault, non-consent, violence or even addiction. Despite being very clear that sexual/kink play of any kind is only okay with informed, consenting adults, and that everyone should play (physically, emotionally, financially) within their limits, there will always be sick and/or violent people out there who may twist what I (or we, as camgirls and porn-peddlers) do to better suit their agendas.

If I were to do a playful bondage scene in which I was tied up and 'taken advantage of', should I be worried that someone will watch it and think that it's okay to tie a girl up without her permission? If I were to do a kink scene where I playfully whimpered/giggled "oh no!" while someone was spanking me, should I be worried that it might reinforce genuine abuse? Even playful scenes with slight power imbalances might be misconstrued or twisted by people with violent and/or sick urges.

I just think that it's a really slippery slope, yanno?

It disgusts me to think that someone might watch me on cam & think that I am condoning or encouraging the sexualization of women, or non-consensual abuse, or any number of other things that I absolutely abhor, but what are my options? That I stop camming because someone might misconstrue my actions or intentions? That I stifle my sexuality because other people might have a sickness or can't control their urges?

I don't condone sexual abuse or violence towards anyone, especially children. And I understand why this is such a tricky subject. Sexual under-age roleplay makes me uncomfortable personally, and is not something that I offer on cam, but I don't think that we should hold age-players (who are only interested in consensual roleplay with adults) accountable for encouraging the violent or sick tendencies of actual pedophiles anymore than a hardcore porn-actress should be held accountable for encouraging the sexualization of (and violence towards) women.

PS: Sorry, Jupiter, I started this post meaning to reply to yours and just kind of went off on my own not-entirely-related tangent.

PPS: I don't cam on MFC and haven't followed the Katsumi thing at all. I didn't even know her name until a few days ago. If she is encouraging the abuse of actual children, that is a different issue entirely. I am only discussing age play in the broader sense.

 

[BarbieLuv]

What is the change.org petition wanting?

This appears to be the one.

hahahha yeah I think the motive might be just to get that chick banned it seems

This whole katsumi thing is one big...

I don't like it when models gang up on other models, regardless of whether or not the fetishes they may or may not cater to personally offend them. And this petition is ridiculous. Leo has no reason to ban a girl who A.) doesn't seem to actually be breaking any rules (yes, I've heard anecdotes that she might shittalk about other models some, but that is NOT an infraction of MFC policy, tasteless as it may be) and B.) is making him boatloads of money. The whole thing reeks of cattiness and drama-mongering by models and members alike.

 

[JessieWolfe]

What is the change.org petition wanting?

This appears to be the one.

what? lol
Why wouldn't people just report her on the site if they think she is breaking the rules.
Why are they taking it off the site to further stigmatize camming

Im confused.

 

[SexySteph]

What is the change.org petition wanting?

This appears to be the one.

what? lol
Why wouldn't people just report her on the site if they think she is breaking the rules.
Why are they taking it off the site to further stigmatize camming

Im confused.

Because she's been reported to MFC loads, she's been even reported to the payment processors and they haven't gotten their way. Basically this is a final temper tantrum.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

What is the change.org petition wanting?

This appears to be the one.

what? lol
Why wouldn't people just report her on the site if they think she is breaking the rules.
Why are they taking it off the site to further stigmatize camming

Im confused.

Because she's been reported to MFC loads, she's been even reported to the payment processors and they haven't gotten their way. Basically this is a final temper tantrum.

Can I just point out that I think it's hilarious when people against age-play act younger/more immature than those who practice it?

 

[JessieWolfe]

Random pondering::

Do you think MFC will remove the age-play rule because of all this drama surrounding it?

 

[Tristyn]

Random pondering::

Do you think MFC will remove the age-play rule because of all this drama surrounding it?

It'll probably depend on which payment processor they're using and how strict their rules are.

 

[LilyMarie]

I've heard people say on here that mfc doesn't allow age-play but all that I've read so far is they don't allow incest (which I'm sure covers incest role-play). I don't think Daddy/ lil girl or mommy/ boy role-play is the same thing as incest role-play personally. It's not "my mommy", it's "mommy" and it isn't "my daddy" it's "daddy". Like a title or position, the same as "master", "slave" would be. No one implies these people condone slavery anymore than age-play condones incest or pedophilia. Anyway, I was wondering if mfc really does have a rule saying we can't do role-play while on cam?
p.s. sorry if this isn't the most clear post, I'm super sick right now and on all kinds of cold meds lol

I think this is the rules page that people are referring to. http://wiki.myfreecams.com/wiki/Online_ ... rification

Additional monitoring of inappropriate content
Even in cases where models are verified to be over the age of 18, they are still subject to the following guidelines:
* Models that "look too young" in the opinion of our trained administrators will be removed.
* Model may not present themselves as minors in any way, including but not limited to: altering their visual appearance (e.g. wearing too much makeup, wearing unneeded dental braces, pigtails, etc.), creating inappropriate usernames (e.g. LittleGirl16), or participate in age-based fantasy or role-play.
* Models that draw attention to themselves as potentially being under the age of 18 will be removed.
* One of our core principles is not to censor users on this website; however, we do make an exception for any topic surrounding the legal age of models and pedophilia in general. Chat logs of users are moderated for such inappropriate content, and any user in violation of our rules is removed from this website.

Haha, that line about models looking 'too young'... :lol: I think all of us can agree that she can easily pass off as a couple of years under 18. But MFC also had a rule against public cumshows for the longest time, and we know how well they enforced that one. Nothing is going to happen to her model account until she specifically does age-play in public chat, which she has not done AFAIK.

That change.org petition is just ridiculous though. Aside from the fact that those online petitions never seem to accomplish anything anyway, I'm positive that if MFC had been considering removing her from the site at any point, they would have removed her by now. By they haven't, so it's not going to happen.
Maybe if she weren't doing this incredibly well, they'd consider it, if they really wanted to follow their own rules for some reason. But probably not even then. It's not like they ever penalize other rulebreaking outside of bathroom stuff/animals (which I assume they penalize, but we don't really hear about it as it probably happens in lower camscore rooms). Occasionally even the men on cam/unverified model on cam rules are neglected. Why would they suddenly enforce their "models that look too young" rule?
(By the way, I'm not saying that I think she should be removed from the site, I don't think she should be, until she literally acts underage on cam. Her appearance alone is not her fault. I'm just pointing out how laxly MFC is handling its rules again - why set them up if you're not going to stick with them? Just remove them.)
The rule about using 'too much makeup' or wearing pigtails to 'present yourself as a minor' is outlandish; how much makeup is 'too much'? If anything, wouldn't very little makeup make a girl look younger, anyway...? And pigtails? I wear pigtails about once a month on cam, and the people in my room don't suddenly see me as younger than I am. I'm aware that I don't have the appearance for that either way, but putting up a general 'no pigtails' rule is ridiculous.
I mean - why. It's just a hairstyle.

They'd better just listen to the things models are actually saying on cam, instead of having silly rules about normal style/appearance-related aspects which are never enforced anyway, imagine a girl shows up on cam wearing pigtails, and then suddenly her feed gets cut off and she gets a fine for 'altering her visual appearance to present herself as a minor'...

This is somewhat off topic now, but MFC should really take a close look at their rules and alter them according to what they actually allow.

I wonder if any of the members who have been discussing and joking about her age in her room have been removed from the site though, which is the last point in that set of rules Amber quoted.

 

[SaffronBurke]

I've heard people say on here that mfc doesn't allow age-play but all that I've read so far is they don't allow incest (which I'm sure covers incest role-play). I don't think Daddy/ lil girl or mommy/ boy role-play is the same thing as incest role-play personally. It's not "my mommy", it's "mommy" and it isn't "my daddy" it's "daddy". Like a title or position, the same as "master", "slave" would be. No one implies these people condone slavery anymore than age-play condones incest or pedophilia. Anyway, I was wondering if mfc really does have a rule saying we can't do role-play while on cam?
p.s. sorry if this isn't the most clear post, I'm super sick right now and on all kinds of cold meds lol

I think this is the rules page that people are referring to. http://wiki.myfreecams.com/wiki/Online_ ... rification

Additional monitoring of inappropriate content
Even in cases where models are verified to be over the age of 18, they are still subject to the following guidelines:
* Models that "look too young" in the opinion of our trained administrators will be removed.
* Model may not present themselves as minors in any way, including but not limited to: altering their visual appearance (e.g. wearing too much makeup, wearing unneeded dental braces, pigtails, etc.), creating inappropriate usernames (e.g. LittleGirl16), or participate in age-based fantasy or role-play.
* Models that draw attention to themselves as potentially being under the age of 18 will be removed.
* One of our core principles is not to censor users on this website; however, we do make an exception for any topic surrounding the legal age of models and pedophilia in general. Chat logs of users are moderated for such inappropriate content, and any user in violation of our rules is removed from this website.

Haha, that line about models looking 'too young'... :lol: I think all of us can agree that she can easily pass off as a couple of years under 18. But MFC also had a rule against public cumshows for the longest time, and we know how well they enforced that one. Nothing is going to happen to her model account until she specifically does age-play in public chat, which she has not done AFAIK.

That change.org petition is just ridiculous though. Aside from the fact that those online petitions never seem to accomplish anything anyway, I'm positive that if MFC had been considering removing her from the site at any point, they would have removed her by now. By they haven't, so it's not going to happen.
Maybe if she weren't doing this incredibly well, they'd consider it, if they really wanted to follow their own rules for some reason. But probably not even then. It's not like they ever penalize other rulebreaking outside of bathroom stuff/animals (which I assume they penalize, but we don't really hear about it as it probably happens in lower camscore rooms). Occasionally even the men on cam/unverified model on cam rules are neglected. Why would they suddenly enforce their "models that look too young" rule?
(By the way, I'm not saying that I think she should be removed from the site, I don't think she should be, until she literally acts underage on cam. Her appearance alone is not her fault. I'm just pointing out how laxly MFC is handling its rules again - why set them up if you're not going to stick with them? Just remove them.)
The rule about using 'too much makeup' or wearing pigtails to 'present yourself as a minor' is outlandish; how much makeup is 'too much'? If anything, wouldn't very little makeup make a girl look younger, anyway...? And pigtails? I wear pigtails about once a month on cam, and the people in my room don't suddenly see me as younger than I am. I'm aware that I don't have the appearance for that either way, but putting up a general 'no pigtails' rule is ridiculous.
I mean - why. It's just a hairstyle.

They'd better just listen to the things models are actually saying on cam, instead of having silly rules about normal style/appearance-related aspects which are never enforced anyway, imagine a girl shows up on cam wearing pigtails, and then suddenly her feed gets cut off and she gets a fine for 'altering her visual appearance to present herself as a minor'...

This is somewhat off topic now, but MFC should really take a close look at their rules and alter them according to what they actually allow.

I wonder if any of the members who have been discussing and joking about her age in her room have been removed from the site though, which is the last point in that set of rules Amber quoted.

I don't wear pigtails on cam often, but when I do, nobody thinks that I look younger. They just make "handlebar" jokes or express astonishment at how long my hair is. So that kinda proves how silly that example is in the rules.

 

[eclipse76]

I get a little weirded out when people come into my chat room and start calling themselves daddy, especially since on my profile I am very clear about being a dominant girl. I find it kinda naive to believe that every girl would be into the daddy play and guys think it is ok to come in and say things like "daddy likes that". Freaks me out a bit, since I dont participate in that roleplay.

Even if you were a woman into DD/lg, it doesn't allow random "Daddys" to insert themselves in your kink without prior discussion and consent. They act as if any submissive or lg were up to grab by anyone, thus completely overlooking the consensual part of SSC.

I think this thread is conflating two very different things and it prevents people to reach a middle-ground position:
- age play as understood within a BDSM context, which is yet another power exchange situation, where the little choose to act immature and innocent and where her Daddy takes a protector/caring role. It has nothing to do with underage sex fetishization. cf. SaffronBurke explanation.
- age play requested on MFC: although it could be asked by genuine members into DD/lg, most of them seem to be actually attracted to children and/or childlike features. They play out their pædophiliac/ephebophiliac tendencies. Which triggers the "icky" factor.

 

[Jupiter551]

I think if MFC gave the model a warning/suspension for it she'd likely stop, I doubt she's committed enough to age-play to risk her newly found amazing income, on the other hand people and companies don't usually like being forced into doing something.

I don't see them making this cost MFC more than she's earning it, so it comes down to how MFC chooses to handle it.

 

[Red7227]

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015 ... ?CMP=fb_gu