rawTOP

Unless you give details, that type of comment isn't particularly helpful. The rest of you guys who commented, I'll respond when I'm less tired (just got back from a bike ride).

Every now and then when I'm deleting accounts I see a comment that they're deleting their account because the site is hard to navigate. If you feel that way, can you explain what exactly is difficult about the navigation? That said, I understand that we're pretty rigid on things being posted in the correct area, and I can see where "the correct area" is confusing sometimes. If you can explain a better way to handle content categorization, I'm all ears.

This has been suggested previously (I'm too lazy to look for the other thread, if someone finds it, I'm happy to merge them). But yes, what you're suggesting makes sense, but is not possible with the current software. In a few years if I move the stories to something I develop, then I can sort by things like last post by the original poster.

^^^^ What he said ^^^^ To which I'd add that certain types of speech are abhorrent in modern society. Imagine if someone wanted to speak on why white people are genetically superior to brown and black people. Some of these topics are personal to our community since those conservative speakers often mention things like how marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Or that people should not have control over their own bodies (that assertion on abortion affects our trans brothers and sisters, and even bug chasers). So yes, many college campuses will not allow hate speech. If that bothers you, then it says a lot about you. Universities also don't tolerate fiction being presented as fact. You get to have your own opinions, not your own facts. When science generally agrees to certain facts they typically have gone through multiple rounds of people trying to disprove them (that is literally the "scientific method"). In those cases you're free to publish a paper that tries to argue otherwise and convince the experts in the field that they're wrong. But a university probably won't want you standing in front of a crowd and attempting to discredit years of work by a community of experts. At most they'll want balance and you'll be one of several voices in a debate on the issue.

There isn't actually a mobile version or a desktop version. The website is "responsive" which means the interface changes as you make your web browser narrower or wider. Which means a desktop computer can mimic a mobile experience, but a phone can't mimic a desktop experience.

Just logged in as you to see what you see and you're right, it's not in Settings. On the desktop version there's a drop-down that lets you go into Messenger and tells you when you try it that it's disabled and asks if you want to re-enable it. BUT that isn't an option on small screens. I've enabled it for you. If others are having the same issue, login on a computer and do it from there.

When I look at your account it says you've disabled your messenger. The option to enable it should be in Settings.

It should be next to the bell. But it isn't, clearly.

Click on the "hamburger" menu in the upper right corner. Then you'll see an envelope icon. Click on it and you'll have the option to start a new message.

I see what you mean. (I rarely message people, so hadn't noticed). But you can always go to Messenger and type in their handle and start the message thread that way.

If you had your profile deleted, there is no proof you are who you say you are. This is why we discourage people from deleting their profiles.

I get that, but if someone comes on the site and starts posting a bunch of unwanted stuff the established members of the site can stop them dead in their tracks by downvoting the posts. That is one of the factors that determines whether you can progress to the next membership level. Basically, if you haven't proven yourself, you don't get to determine whether other people progress and get more abilities on the site. And the more we trust you, the bigger voice you get.

Use downvote in that situation. It has a clearer meaning of disapproval of the post itself, rather than the topic being discussed in the post. Correct.

Just wrapping this up. I've re-enabled 'sad' (it was in there, but disabled). And I added piggy 🐷. Like and upvote can't easily be combined because like can't be disabled and making like upvote would result in a weird UI/UX. I think that about takes care of it.

Or a lube like Crisco. If bottom puts that up his ass it often comes out all white and frothy, like he had cum in his ass. You see this is a lot of black-on-black videos.

Scat is considered legally obscene. It is not tolerated on this site. PLEASE report the image and the person will be banned (for quite a long time).

Yes, that is possible. I just need to come up with icons for it (unfortunately the system doesn't accept emoji characters). But first some thought needs to be given to which ones are best and whether any of the existing ones should be deleted just so there's not an overwhelming number of choices. Right now the options are: Like (+1) Thanks (+1) HaHa Confused Upvote (+1) Downvote (-1) I'm thinking confused should be deleted. And like should be merged in with Upvote. 😈/🐷/🔥 I think horny / piggy / hot would be a good choice. I think this is what you were getting at when you said zucchini (but probably meant eggplant). Eggplant is specifically about dicks. But the question is which of those is best in the widest range of situations? 😡 Angry might be useful, but it will be unclear whether the person reacting is angry at the poster, or shares the poster's anger at something. 😢 You mentioned sad, but I'm not really seeing that as a common reaction on this particular site. What are people's thoughts on that? What are people's thoughts on this? If I'm going to make changes I want it discussed first to make sure the changes are good ones.

To be clear the laws I'm talking about don't apply to private videos you may have at home. AFAIK (I'm not a lawyer), you can film your fucks all you want with zero documentation and it's fine as long as the person is actually 18+. The problems I'm talking about start when you upload or share it with someone else. Here in NY, it's legal to fuck someone who's 17. (I can now fuck someone 1/3rd my age!) But video taping that encounter is illegal. I would then be in possession of child porn. (Compare that to Holland where if the sex was legal, the video of it is also legal, which is hard to enforce, but much more sensible.) If you were to be prosecuted for simply being in possession of the video the prosecutor would need to prove that someone in the video was under 18. But the moment you upload the video to a website the documentation rules come into effect, and the prosecutor does not have to prove the person was over 18 – you do. The prosecutor only has to prove you didn't keep the required records. Even if you prove the person is over 18, they could still proceed with the prosecution based on the fact that you couldn't supply the records when requested (though I doubt the courts would be very kind to their case). Driving the 17 year old from Jersey City, NJ to Manhattan, NY and then fucking him is a federal crime. That's "trafficking". If he takes the PATH train all on his own, then it's legal. What's a little unclear is whether a (<18) teen can take a naked picture of himself. AFAIK, technically it's illegal (which seems stupid). When it gets really messed up is when the kid texts that pic to his boyfriend/girlfriend, the kid is now guilty of distributing child porn. He can be labeled at sex offenders for the rest of his lives – even though it was a pic of him which he took with no one else's involvement and sent to someone he were in an intimate relationship with (who's legally seen everything in the pic). And with any (x-rated) video, if you upload it or share it (e.g. text it to someone else) without consent (or the person withdraws consent), then you could be tried under "revenge porn" laws. This is why it's important to get the person to sign a model agreement. But even with a model agreement the model can say they were coerced / drunk / high and it's as if no model agreement was signed. This is why professionals in the porn industry have a camera on models from the time they enter. That lets them show the entire engagement to prove there was no coercion and that the person did not seem to be drunk or high. Just a few examples I encounter pretty routinely… I get hit up on Twitter pretty frequently with people asking for me to share pics of them. I always say no and tell them I'll retweet pics, but won't upload them. With retweets if I have a good faith belief that the content is legal, then I'm fine. But the moment I upload the pic I'm subject to a whole bunch of other laws. The other thing that happens with some regularity is a model contacting me demanding that I take down pictures of them. I tell them I have a license from my sponsor for the images/videos. And that the only way my sponsor would distribute them to me is if the producer had a signed model release. Which means they were fully aware they were shooting porn for a commercial website at the time, they were paid, and they signed a model release. They usually threaten me few more times. Each time I tell them to go talk to a lawyer. They always say they will (the great indignation), but I never hear from the lawyer.

The point is that if you don't go through those steps you video can't legally be uploaded anywhere. If anyone uploads a video of you without having gone through those steps you can sue them. And likewise, you can be sued if you do the upload.

A one-time fee of $1 is basically free 🙂 I was going off my memory rather than looking at the page. Since there are no recurring fees and it was so cheap I remembered it as free.

Age verification in the US is regulated by "2257" a law that's been pretty well gutted since it was first passed. There was a provision in it that allowed for the feds to just knock on your door and demand to see your records. That warrantless search was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court this year. So now the feds need a warrant and to get a warrant they need reasonable suspicion that you're not keeping records. Which means someone has to rat you out. But if you shot a lot of scenes with your boyfriend and then you have an acrimonious breakup – voilà, there's someone who might want to rat you out. Anyway, 2257 is about record keeping. So if the model is 49 and you don't have proof he's 49, then you're guilty and go to prison. Doesn't matter what he looks like. In other words, the law isn't about whether the person is underage, but how well you did record keeping. It's rather fucked up. But I worry a lot of the "fans" (OF, JFF, RFC) models are not keeping proper records when they shoot scenes and post them as "independent producers" and that the situation will eventually blow up. I've also heard of a well-known European producer who doesn't so proper record keeping. If you're shooting porn and want to upload it (anywhere, not just for commercial purposes), it's good for you to keep actual proof of the guys' ages. To do that properly I HIGHLY recommend the app "Quick 2257" (Google Play, Apple's App Store) it's free and it was developed by (or probably for) Larry Walters – one of the top porn industry lawyers. Do what that app tells you to do (it's not hard), and you're covered. One of the quirks of 2257 is that non-US ID is legal for scenes shot outside the US, but not valid for scenes shot in the US. It's not a Department of Labor issue of foreigners working illegally in the country – because it applies to scenes with no pay. Put simply porn with a non-US resident cannot be legally shot in the US. Though one possible way around that is with local government IDs that don't verify immigration status, such as NYC ID, but you can only get those in certain places and you need to be a resident of that locality. That said VERY few people have been charged with 2257 violations, and that number will go down now that the feds have to have a warrant. But I can see them getting a warrant for one "fans" model, and in a plea deal that person gives them what they need to get the a bunch of other fans models and so on. Oh, and I should mention 2257 documentation is only half of what you need. You also need the person to sign a model release that specifies what you're allowed to do with the video. Those are more complicated than age verification/documentation. So no recommendations there. One you get off the internet is better than nothing, but to do it right requires a lawyer.

The issue is that Visa/Mastercard is global and they have pretty much the same rules around the world. Because they're stricter than most laws, it's their rules that have to be followed. In some ways this is good because it means complying with one set of rules rather than hundreds of national and state laws. Oh, and the UK is not a "liberal country" when it comes to porn. The UK is actually very conservative. Russia is way more liberal than the UK (at least for straight porn – they're not particularly fond of anything gay). Crypto is a porn webmaster's wet dream because there are no chargebacks. BUT any crypto service with a Visa/MC gateway (and in some cases funds transfer to banks) will terminate your account if they know you're using it to buy/sell porn. Why? Because of Visa/MC rules (or bank rules). Yes, if you jump through a whole bunch of hoops you could use crypto, but the average porn buyer will never go to that much hassle.

The "fans" sites (OF, JFF, RFC) are filling the gap of legal porn with an amateur style. The issue is that, as a site owner, you can't just let anyone upload anything. Section 230 protected site owners under a very specific set of circumstances (they couldn't "approve" uploads, but had to respond quickly to reports of problems). Well, both the Republicans and Democrats want to replace Section 230 because in different ways they don't like what's happening on Facebook and Twitter. (Trump is currently threatening to veto funding for the military if it's not abolished completely.) So there's no guarantee the Section 230 protections that allowed the big tubes to do what they did will even be in place in the next year. What that means is that all the big tubes will probably have to dump the content uploaded by unverified users. So there's no point of recommending another site – because it'll just be a case of whack-a-mole. Even when you shoot a video in your bedroom with a fuck buddy the legality of uploading that to a site is a bit complicated. You should have proof of his age. You should have a signed model agreement that gives you the right to uploads. Otherwise legally it's just for private use. Because it was shot in a place where there was the expectation of privacy, he owns the video just as much as you do and you can't violate his rights. Even if it's shot outdoors in a park where there's no expectation of privacy, because it's sexually explicit you could come up against revenge porn laws if you post it. Things are much clearer when it's a group of OF/JFF/RFC models shooting a scene together and then uploading it to their fans pages. Clearly there's an expectation that it will be used publicly for commercial purposes. Which is why I say the fans stuff is what will dominate the "amateur porn" market going forward.

As you may know GMail has had a couple of outages the past few days. This has resulted in email bounce notifications from my mail server, which then got ingested by a script I run to turn off emails for email addresses that are bouncing. So if you're on GMail, you may see a notice here that you need to reconfirm your email address. If you don't do that you won't get any more emails from Breeding Zone.

I should mention that I'm sorta kicking myself that my social site and hookup sites aren't up and running with video uploads. But after all this I'll be doing video uploads differently than I had originally envisioned. Unverified users will be limited to videos that are 2 1/2 minutes or less. They will need to identify the source of the video (the original website for promo clips from porn sites, or that it's a personal/amateur video that they have the legal right to upload). To upload videos longer than 2 1/2 minutes the user will need to provide documentation on who they are, by submitting a scan of a government issued photo ID, plus some other form of identity. So basically I'll be doing a combination of Twitter's approach (with short videos) and PornHub's new approach (with longer videos). The difference is that I'll only need to stick to what is legal, not the stricter Visa/Mastercard standards. I do plan on having a store, but just for things like t-shirt, sex toys, etc. and it will be on a completely different domain. All this drama just goes to show I can't sell memberships to sites with user generated content. (So no, you won't be able to pay to get more private messages.)