You are about to join the
Discussion : A Ukrainian child porn ring exposed
Discussion is closed !1-15 > 16-30 > 31-45> 46-60 > 61-75 > 76-90 > Total 89 comments
2004-08-12 01:05:29 - Scar
What is the credit card processing company used by the LS-sites? Anybody knows? KuatO?
2004-08-11 21:32:08 - DontArrestMe
Scar,
Just say that you only subscribed to their non-nude sites which featured the same girls just with their clothes on. Their NN sites used the same billing processor as the nude LS sites.
Also, they did have that disclaimer on the sites that it was legal under US laws. It's not like you would've known the content inside the site before you signed up. There were no eagle spreads or butterflies on the site homepage. Regardless of what a few people on this board may say, I'm sure a judge will understand if it comes to that.
2004-08-11 17:30:44 -
For all who have never been into any LS-sites go here:
http://board5.cgiworld.net/list.cgi?id=LSisBACK&now=1
2004-08-11 17:20:43 - Nabokov
The 'butterflies' here mentioned were 'performed' by exactly two models on LS, none of the others ever did, and met great protest by most users. Only a handful customers asked for 'harder' material through the LS forum, but, unfortunately, these were heard.
In the last few weeks before the bust, however, the productions showed a tendency towards 'softer' pictures. This was welcomed by most users, but, needless to say, scorned by the few that wanted still more explicit shots.
Do not claim that, because there were some 'harder' pictures and videos on the LS sites, ALL customers wanted that kind of material. Far from it.
Scar, relax, if the intention of LEA was to arrest customers of LS, they would have done so by now, as in previous busts. If they haven't been at your door already, they probably never will.
Besides, when you subscribed to any LS site, you knew you took the risk of getting arrested for that. Don't come screaming afterwards, when the unhoped for might come true. If you didn't want to take such a risk, you should have leeched the pictures from Usenet, Overnet, or whatever, as so many others do, waiting for others to take the risk of subscription.
2004-08-11 16:47:59 - Scar
Robert K.
Is there any update on the investigation? Have u heard anything from your reliable sources? I am terrified. In the old websites I did not see any porn in the site. Only videos of some photo shoots. There were no spreads or close-ups or any sexually explicit position. I dont even know if the sites exists any more. Is everybody at risk, or just the ppl who subscribed to one of the new, more explicit, LS-sites?
2004-08-11 15:59:47 - Robert K.
Agree with "anti iconomach".
Up until a year ago, they were producing artistic beauty (I only ever saw it on the Usenet, however, I never subscribed).
I was shocked at the material posted starting around late 2003, including LS Magazine. This material was "escalating", seemingly egged on by subscribers in a forum. They produced a lot of material. There was a "tame" version called LS Dreams.
I never saw the butterfly pictures you refer to, but I heard about them. I think these were teen girls of undetermined age.
I was paricularly disturbed by the story that one or more girls "graduated" to more hardcore sites. One called "Teenfuns" has been mentioned.
Comparing LS Magazine with their earlier video sites shows the difference. the photography got much better and the work got increasingly explicit ("spreads").
Are those people who subscribed put at risk from raids by LEAs? Perhaps their customer database was encrypted; I don't know.
2004-08-11 07:43:07 - steve
The thing is: let them say it. We get to decide if we want to look at it. But I think FBI and Interpol shuts it down not because they think it's wrong -- oh hell no -- but because the wrong one guy was making too much fucking money. Which is stupid. As long as the girls are doing well -- and can adjust to it -- there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.
We have the laws in the US -- not because of some moral responsibility -- bullshit -- we have those laws because if we didn't there would be so many teen pregnancies we'd turn into a 3rd world country. And we'll be damned if that's gonna happen. That's already a threat even with the laws.
Shit man, you wanna shut somebody down go to India where a little 9 year old girl without any tits -- without any fucking glamour at all -- has to fuck 10 times a day -- in a dirty little stall -- without any life -- any childhood or any future. Shut that shit down, then I'll applaud.
The thing that actually floors me is that what do you think these LS girls are gonna do now?? Do you think they can just turn it off?? You've lost your fucking minds!! I bet half of them end up in brothels in deplorable conditions in Odessa and I think that's the real tragedy here.
The world has grown up -- but it hasn't. Certain people within it have just tried to twist it into their version of what they think it should be. But I'm not so sure they're really barking up the right tree.
Listen: when the earth was lacking people, a young girl started fucking the moment she came into season. Cuz we needed to populate the planet. Babies needed to be born, fed, fields harvested etc. But now things are different. Still, the inherent rudimentary human animal remains.
In 1921 31 year old Charlie Chaplin started fucking his little 12 year old co-star Lita Grey. They got married and had two kids together before he got rid of her. Could you imagine John Stamos giving it to the Olsen Twins back when they were cute little preteens!? Or any adult male older than 30 fucking any one of the hotties that appear on the LS roster or any of the 'clothed' preteen super model sites??
The fact is, some of them are pretty hot and we all want to fuck them. We don't because it's complicated. The images let us fantasize about it -- forget about it -- and leave that little hottie you'll meet at the mall (trust me you'll meet her) alone.
I'm not so sure that FBI and Interpol did the right thing here.
Anyway, until one of those little childwomen steps up and says "this is my fucking opinion -- or rather my opinion about my fucking [and posing like a hooker and then nude and in a sexually explicit manner]" then I guess we'll never really know.
Which I think is what's really wrong here.
2004-08-11 07:42:50 - steve
WHAT ABOUT THE GIRLS!!??
I'd like to know the fate of the girls. Some of whom are very special and gifted by God physically. No one has yet to interview any of them. Give them a voice, I say. Give them a choice. Society is getting more "sophisticated", and so therefore we wring our hands that much harder at what we decide is deplorable. Is it our place to make that decision? In every instance? I would like to hear from one of the girls -- and not in some Oprah Winfrey type manufactured bullshit "I'll tell you what to think" expression. Instead, have one of them say this was horrible, or they fucked me every night and I hated it, or I never got any of the money, or I was on suicide watch on a regular basis and now I'm free -- or on the other side of it -- I loved every minute of it -- it was great -- I had great sex all the time -- they turned me into a rock star and it was a rush -- I made great money -- my family was happy -- and all I had to do was wear nice clothes, six inch heels, look a lot older, show my developing breasts and pussy, and fuck the photographer who I actually thought was cute by the way.
2004-08-11 06:40:17 -
There's a great deal of preaching like some holy saints here, but not a lot of level-headed reasoning, and some people just seem to be naive or jaundiced concerning the exact nature of the works of LS-Studio - maybe they saw some of the recent distasteful pictures but never saw the great works of art they created before they betrayed their artistic integrity. God forbid that anyone actually study LS-Studio's complete oeuvre - one or two recent sets are sufficient on which to base a conclusion in some people's minds. Or maybe it is their job to spread these lies.
There's always an attitude among some people, who have similar "issues" with the works of Mann, Hamilton, Sturges et al. - maybe they wish all girls everywhere were permanently concealed in appropriate dress such as the hijab, until they cease to be children at the magic age of 21. That would keep their own daughters safe from the greedy eyes and sick minds of perverts - it would also make those exact same folks feel much safer that they themselves will not be looking at any girls (including their own) who are under the magic age, and allow them, by benefit of a clear conscience, the privilege and authority to fully persecute people they do not understand. God and the Lord Jesus know that every honest, moral, hard-working person needs a "People like you...", a personal leper/nigger/jew/commie/faggot/bitch to call your own; and if we can't all go in person to shoot them in the desert, well then we just need to root them out from under our bed and in our closet in our own neighbourhood, and paint them with the black brush. Just be sure to tell the all the local folks that the pictures were of a "sick, disgusting, evil nature..." and never let them see for themselves the astonishing beauty that was in there from the start.
Where have I heard this line before: "People like you"? People like you are people like me, only different. Yes, even you! I bet your own great-grandfather had an underage woman... he was probably married and raising children and tending some scrap of land from dawn till dusk at the same age you were when you were at high school. But that's progress for you. I'm not flaming anyone, and I'm not calling anyone's great grandfater a pervert, I just don't think people should be judging others when they are so prejudiced and full of hate, and lacking perspective.
Why don't people just ask these girls what they really want? But they are only children, until they reach the arbitrary age of 21/18/16/14/13 (whichever it is wherever you live), and have no right to an opinion. We all know that children have very little freedom as it is - how can they have freedom of action when you tell them what to do; how can they have freedom of speech when you tell them what to say; how can they have freedom of thought when you tell them what to think? Children (people below the inconsistent and seemingly random age of majority) have no freedom because an adult has to control their every action/word/thought, and so do they not only have no choice, but they also have no free desire - for an adult feels the need to tell them what to want. Obviously, therefore, how can any of these girls have WANTED to be models?
Why ask, when you already know all the answers; and why bother to ask, when you are going to tell the girls what to do/say/think and want? Especially why bother to ask when you can tell the whole world your version of the story, and describe the horrors while 'protecting' everyone from actually viewing the art for themselves?
Yes, it all went off the rails, and they lost themselves, went too far and lost control. Many people saw it coming and warned them, even begged with them to return to the clean artistic work they began with. Those people have a clear and explicit understanding of what art is, and agree that increasingly more of what LS-Studio produced in the last year does not fit into that category (what with the obsessive focus on genitals and unneccesarily spread legs, not to mention the three 'infamous' 'butterfly' girls who accelerated the descent into pornography - this is about the only thing kuatO says with which I agree, as it is the only rational and completely non-hateful thing s/he has said) - but many people also agree that what LS-Studio were creating upto about one year ago was thoroughgoing excellent photographic art. Nobody can deny the legitimacy of that clean, early work; neither can they deny the unacceptability of the more recent work - but they would have to be fools to believe that the latter, obscene material in some way invalidates their earlier work. The only folks who were hostile to the clean art works from the beginning, before this scandal, were the pedo-paranoid, crusading, lolita-iconomachs, who believe and wish that a 'person' is not a person, and can not be sexual until they attain the age of 21 years - which makes perfect sense: if children do not enjoy full freedom of action/speech/thought/desire, they can not enjoy full freedom of sexuality. If they are allowed some partial freedom, and a partial identity, then they should possess a partial sexuality - but how much? Can they feel sexy, think sexy, speak sexy, act sexy - or, even, look sexy... and without having to practice sex with others? Or is this just another part of them where you can just tell them what to do/say/think/feel?
At the point in the life of LS-Studio where people could have made a difference, too many people just sucked it all up and yelled for more, more, faster, harder, and they are the folks who are to blame for this shameful and tragic situation, for money speaks louder than virtue, and good-taste is always sacrificed to greed, and the money-men always triumph in the end over the artists. But the photographers will most probably be the most hated as they 'pulled the trigger', but they were only following orders.
It is a moral issue concerning whether an individual looks at porn or not - as koatO says- whether they choose to look at women being depicted as sex-beings, or whether they choose to lay their eyes on clean, but nude, tasteful photography which portrays a woman as a beautiful being with a soul and a heart and a mind, as well as a voice. The same applies to women under the age of 21, or under 18, or under 16 or even younger. The age of consent is not there to stifle a young person's sexuality, nor is it intended to reinforce the views of puritans who believe that children are asexual beings, that sex should not exist outside of marriage, or that sex is bad, or that it is wrong to see the beauty and the sexual allure of people who are below a certain age, or whatever social dysfuntion someone wishes to promote; it exists to protect children, as well as to deter people, who should be old enough to know better, from having sexual relations with children. Young women who are younger than the age of consent still have their own sexuality, and are still sexually attractive to look at. It should be acceptable for such young women to be depicted in the clean, but nude, tasteful photography which shows their beauty as well as their soul, their spirit and their intellect; rather than the kind of pictures which make them look like sex-creatures. If people want to look at the first kind of picture, even "people like you", then they should be able to, but nobody should ever see the latter type of picture, not least because it is made in dark corners which are fertile ground for sowing the seeds of exploitation. People will always want to look at young girls, for some people it might be just a phase, for others it might be a lifelong passion - but they are still people, and you have to respect them and teach them and guide them towards photography which is acceptable, not persecute and punish them for something which is as much out of their control as the color of their skin. Even "people like you" were attracted to underaged persons at least once in your life (when you were the same age), but that didn't do you any harm, did it? At the same time, there will always be girls who are happy to pose for the clean, acceptable, and even nude, type of photography, even the sort which celebrates their sexuality without being a sexual display - the kind that LS-Studio used to create, once upon a time - and I believe they should be allowed to do that, and that such artists should be allowed to work without fear and without having to operate on the fringes where their talents are as vulnerable to exploitation by ruthless 'businessmen' as the girls are. LS-Studio did create legitimate works of art, and many of them are stunning - and if anyone claims it was never art, they are either telling lies or never saw the best work - but as soon as the girls opened their legs and the camera started to zoom in, well, that was when they started to produce child porn. Whether the girls were abused or not, that was when they began to exploit those girls, when they gave up making art and decided just to make money. None of those girls deserved that. They were all betrayed, along with anyone who ever believed in their art.
Now, why not stop sermonizing about a problem which has been fixed already, and get your clean asses into Sudan where little girls are being abused, raped, murdered and orphaned several times a day? Or maybe they don't deserve any help from the so-called christian-spirited crusaders who are busy charging their white horses up and down the internet, because all those little girls suffering in Sudan are BLACK, they don't look like you, they don't speak the same lingo, go to the same church, or maybe because they get married at AGE TWELVE! They aren't exactly "People like you."
With people spreading one-sided lies like I see on this discussion and on others, we can predict the way it is all gonna go down. When this story hits the networks, so-called experts will paint the sky black, the huge number of people who visited the sites will be paraded up main street with their faces also painted black and their cocks in their mouths and rope around their necks, and nobody will know (because nobody will speak) the truth about the beauty and the art of the best works of LS-Studio before they sold out, and such treasures will be lost forever...
2004-08-11 02:21:30 - Nabokov
Whether the LS sites were 'art', however the definition of 'art', is of no importance whatsoever, and has extensively been discussed at the LS forum. Question is whether 'abuse' was involved in producing the sites.
To say of the models involved that there were "fear in their, tears in their eyes...etc. Those are stated facts about those sites." is absolute nonsense, and shows all the more neither the one who 'stated these facts', nor the one who quoted that statement here have ever seen any LS site.
But, what is 'abuse'? Is it forcing a minor to do things against its will? If so, telling your kids to brush their teeth, to finish their Brussels sprouts, is abuse. Don't forget that children in most countries of the world are forced to attend school until a certain age; that's abuse by law.
You'll say that that is different. But, how different? Explain the difference to me. Of going to school we know for a fact that many children do it against their will. You do not know for a fact whether any model posed nude against her will for LS. Which one is 'abuse', then?
To say that anyone younger than 18 years of age is not capable of making decisions for himself, implies that anyone over 18 is. Both statements are nonsense. That age as a delimiter, different age in different countries, is a delimiter for convenience, not based on any measured or measurable development, intelligence, knowledge or attitude of the person involved.
Once more, I do NOT condone any form of abuse. But, let's first establish if there was any abuse involved, before we condemn anyone.
2004-08-10 18:53:38 - JackSprat
Some of these attempts to claim this stuff is legal nudity is just plain stupid, anyone in the US really needs to read up on " community standards " do you really think a judge or jury when shown a bunch of pictures depicting little girls with their legs spread wide or closeup's of their genital's are not going to find that those violate their community standards and send your ass off to a federal lockup for 2 to 5 years? Then there are those credit card records even if they seized your pc and it's clean at the time they can still charge you with receipt of child porn, I think some are living in a fantasy land any judge or jury when show that material is going to hand down a conviction and a long sentence and after you serve that you get to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life and have that follow you every where you go. is it really worth it?
2004-08-10 15:08:35 - triv
for those of you wondering if young girls nude and in "sexually exploitive posistions" is actually art, i urge you to do a little research on an artist called Balthus. One peice in particular which springs to mind is 'The Guitar' - that peice has been in some of the worlds most famous art galleries - and its just as bad, if not worst than some of the LS material
2004-08-09 05:06:33 - KuatO
Lolilover - CP sites in general become popular because people like you support them. They are popular only because of the demand. LS and BD sites were not only "softcore" CP sites. And many of the children exploited were not always happy. Fear in their eyes, tears in their eyes... etc. Those are stated facts about those sites. Exploiting a child, and brainwashing them, and having them pose in front of a camera, is ABUSE!
KuatO
2004-08-08 21:28:55 - scared
Robert K-
Is there any updates on this?
2004-08-07 16:04:59 - Lolilover for ever
in the past LS and BD sites were my only place on the internet where I can enjoy seeing these happy young girls , I was so glad the where not abused or forced to make hard core photos of them and I know for sure that LS team are treating these young girls good . Now there is only bad old CP's boards and sites! and thanks to the LEA and to people like KuatO the become more popular!!! .
1-15 > 16-30 > 31-45> 46-60 > 61-75 > 76-90 >
Total 89 comments
