?STUD? of the day.

[Guest showme43]

Is it just me or does Aaron's "stud" of the day, Sega, look more like "jail bait" of the day? I hope that's is not the case...sure don't need Asscroft poking around here.

[Hamlet]

It's not just you. I could hardly believe it when I saw that pic this morning. It doesn't just say "jail bait" - it also says, to me at least, "kiddie porn". I hope HooBoy gets rid of it ASAP. I'm sure it's making a lot of people uncomfortable.

[atlnightnurse]

I could not agree more, it makes me sick to look at it, and as you said, It makes me worry about visiting this site which I enjoy as ADULT entertainment. I am in no way interested in anything which looks so young, and wish the owners of this site would understand what the customers are here for and edit those types of postings very carefully.

[+ Lucky]

I have written Hooboy about this. He states that the space is contracted out and he has no control over what appears there. However, if this were my website, I would insist that the jail-bait photos stopped immediately, legal contract or not. DO you really suppose that Aaron Lawrence's lawyers are going to get very far in court if they argue their contractual right to post pics that make boys look underage and available?

 

Hooboy has to decide what the values are that he wants represented here. Of course, we know they are for high-standard client-escort sex!! But over 18 only, and no hint of an appeal to the lollipop crowd.

[Guest Armand Tesla]

That pic is just sick. It should be taken down immediatedly.

[Doug69]

>DO you really suppose that Aaron Lawrence's lawyers are going

>to get very far in court if they argue their contractual right

>to post pics that make boys look underage and available?

 

Actually, as a strictly legal matter, there is absoultely nothing illegal about using photographs of people who LOOK like they are under 18, as long as they really are 18 or older.

 

It is certainly a repugnant picture (some of the ones on Aaron's site of this same person are even worse), but it's only criminal if the model in the photograph is really under 18. The fact that he so clearly looks like he's under 18 is not, by itself, enough to make it a crime.

 

>Hooboy has to decide what the values are that he wants

>represented here.

 

Hooboy can decide for himself what he wants to do, but the excuse which you claim he gave to you -- that he contractually sold the space and has no control over the content -- is both untrue and, as a legal matter, irrelevant. He owns the site. He has the technical power to remove the photograph. If he has any reason to believe that the model in the photo is under 18, the law would impose upon him the absolute obligation to remove it, and would impose culpability on him for displaying it.

 

If I were Hooboy, no matter how much money I made from the advertiser in question, I would take that picture down immediately, unless and until I was furnished with some convincing documentary proof that the model is 18 or older - and even then, purely as a matter of taste, it is not something that I would display.

 

I'm actually quite surprised to see that photo here, and even more surprised that it's not being removed even after you claim Hooboy has been notified of how objectionable it is.

[+ Lucky]

RE: STUD? of the day.

 

Just for clarification, I wrote Hooboy about an earlier picture of a boy whose pubic hair had been shaved to increase his puerile look, not about the picture posted today.

[Bilbo]

RE: STUD? of the day.

 

Remember that this is Aaron's ad. And that Aaron is not only a friend of Hoo's but is also the guy who gave Hoo the idea for this site, and, as such, we all owe him a debt of gratitude, don't we? I am sure that Hoo would not condone Aaron doing anything which is illegal on this site. However, I am also sure that he is going to listen to Aaron's proofs that it is not illegal more than to y'all's protesting that it looks as if it were.

[+ Lucky]

RE: STUD? of the day.

 

Y'all seem to be missing the point. Even conceding that the model may be 18, I don't like the message the picture sends nor the clientele it might attract.

[BigD]

RE: STUD? of the day.

 

I'm pleased to see these responses.

When I first saw the picture, I decided I must protest.

I agree with Lucky. Even if the model were 18, and I

seriously doubt that, it makes me feel uneasy. I -

like most of us on this site - am liberal minded,

but this photo just screams kiddie porn and that

crosses a line for me.

Big D

[Luv2play]

RE: STUD? of the day.

 

I am under the understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that Aaron Lawrence procures these "young" men in Russia. I also understand that in the former Soviet Union and some of the countries of eastern Europe, selling underage sex is quite rampant, given the unstable rule of law in these countries. It is even quite apparent in places like Prague, which although quite civilized, has the same problem. I have seen this at first hand, when gay guides will pull out picture books of underage escorts for Western visitors. I think HooBoy should disassociate himself and his site from this ASAP.

[BuckyXTC]

I, too, just about had heart failure when I saw Sega.......doesn't look a day over 14, and I'm definitely displeased that this is what Aaron Lawrence is hawking these days.

While I've never met Aaron, nor spoke with him, I don't have a very high opinion of him or his website or his photos for sale business. He may have been one of the first "pioneer" escorts to tell his story and write a book, but that means little to me. It seems pretty obvious that all Aaron is interested in is the almighty dollar, and looks like he'll stoop to any depth to get it. Frankly, I don't care if the kid is 18 or not; Aaron's trolling for pedophiles.

[VaHawk]

RE: STUD? of the day.

 

Just curious as to why you single out Eastern Europe. Seems that a lot of this goes on in both Latin America and Southeast Asia also.

[AaronScottDC]

If you have read anything about Aaron Lawrence, then you probably know that this type of "kid" is what Aaron really finds hot. He recently (in the past year of so) left his long time boy friend for a very young looking Russian boy.... and I do mean boy.

 

So, trying to tell Aaron that these types of pics are not appropriate is not going to get you very far. According to him, they are "Studs". As was discussed in the message center before, Aaron should change the name of his ad from "Stud of the day" to Prepubescent body of the day"

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[+ Lucky]

Aaron seems to have found a niche market for young Russian boys who want to do gay sex porn. Amazing that you can do that these days without getting into bed with the Russian mafia.

[Guest Kenny021]

I don't think the issue here is Aaron Lawrence...he is free to do as he wishes with his own website. However, HooBoy has his own reputation to think of and pics like this one are sure to attract the likes of John Ashcroft and his armies. HooBoy cannot be so stupid as to think that because the "space has been contracted out" he is not capable of taking it down. If he gets shut down, HE and not Aaron Lawrence is responsible for the contents of this website. Let Lawrence take legal action against HooBoy for refusing to carry kiddie porn and see how far it gets. If he is so stupid as to do this, it will bring so much attention to him and his website that it would be like commiting suicide.

 

Those of you who have clout with HooBoy should explain to him what he is incurring upon himself for allowing this pic. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for this.

[OneFinger]

>So, trying to tell Aaron that these types of pics are not appropriate is not going to get you very far. According to him, they are "Studs". As was discussed in the message center before, Aaron should change the name of his ad from "Stud of the day" to Prepubescent body of the day".

 

Aaron Scott, I totally agree with you on this one and feel the picture is totally unacceptable and inappropriate for this site. I certainly appreciate the assistance the other Aaron has given HooBoy and his role in the birth of this site. But, IMHO, he's crossed the line with today's picture.

 

On the other hand, I did go to Aaron's site. The other pictures he displays for "Sega" do lead me to believe that he is probably 18 years old. The picture on this site really does make him appear to be much younger.

[Rick Munroe]

HooBoy did do the right thing. The photo is gone.

[Trixie]

RE: Not gone too far

 

According to my computer, the picture of Sega is still there (Oct. 11 @ 8:12PM) and for the second day in a row. I think at the very least A. Lawrence is enjoying the controversy this set engenders... sometimes people believe bad reactions are better than no reaction at all. And apparently this is the second time Mr. Lawrence has aired this photo set on this site.

It doesn't seem likely that the model in question is under 18, despite his looks. (Perhaps the boy has some sort of glandular malfunction, like Gary Coleman. His penis has obviously gone through adolescence, in any case.) That woud be exceptionally stupid and risky, and I am sure Hooboy would not tolerate it. And obviously, the model is quite happy to pose for the camera... I don't believe he was coerced with anything other than money.

But the fact remains that the picture APPEARS to be that of a little boy. Everyone who looks at it sees that particular image, regardless of the actual age of the model. If Aaron Lawrence wishes to display sets of such young men on his website, he is entirely at liberty to do so. However, I feel it is truly in poor taste of him to use this photo to advertise his site on a forum that is open to the general public.

Aaron may (or may not) find this boy sexually appealing. And I have no doubt that Sega would like to be found sexually appealing - anyone who's alive usually does. (And, I therefore have some amount of respect for Sega, for modeling.) But Aaron must know that he's empowering the forces who wish to equate pedophilia with homosexuality (and homosexual prostitution to boot!) by displaying these photos. The reality of the model's age doesn't matter. One need only remember the ex-priest who was recently murdered in a Massachusetts prison to understand what kind of reaction the general public would have.

 

And I don't feel that the M4M Review Site is an appropriate place to challenge the general public's conceptions on gay models who appear very underage.

 

I can only hope that Mr. Lawrence will soon file away this photoset on his website, where those who wish to see it may do so at their leisure.

La Trix

[OneFinger]

RE: Not gone too far

 

>According to my computer, the picture of Sega is still there (Oct. 11 @ 8:12PM) and for the second day in a row...

 

Have you refreshed the screen and/or cleared your cache? It's gone from my PC.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Not gone too far

 

>According to my computer, the picture of Sega is still there

 

I bet you have AOL, right? If you view it on Internet Explorer, it's gone.

[AaronScottDC]

RE: Not gone too far

 

Its gone on my computer, too.

 

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[JamesK840]

Yep, it's gone...

 

I too reacted negatively to the pictures of Sega, especially the first time around. I fully agree it was a good idea for Hoo to remove it, rather then risk the kind of attention it could draw.

 

On the other hand, I recently met somebody I took to be 12 or 14. I knew he had been carded without problem, and somebody that knew him vouched for him actually being 22. Similarly, we were recently discussing an escort, in the Deli I think, who was 18-19, looked younger, and specializes in incest/etc fantasies, but the disapproval of him didn't seem to relate to that at all. So should an escort or porn model be denied work because he *looks* underage? I think most of us agree that shouldn't be the case (am I right?), yet we played a part in removing what could have been his livelihood. (I know it wasn't in this case, he got what he was getting for the shoot at the time of it, I'm pretty sure, though he may miss other work because of the controversy).

 

Further, I'm not sure about this whole 'prurient interests' idea. I know it's the law, but so is anti-prostitution and until just a month ago anti gay-sex. Who gets to define it? If it was made legally, who does it harm? It's not like we'd have a law like Japan had that forcible sex with an underage girl in a porno is OK as long as she's not actually Japanese... If both parties are actually of age and fully consent, it's wrong because...? Just trying to open a discussion here, it's something I've wondered about.

[Luv2play]

RE: STUD? of the day.

 

Simply because that is where this so-called stud is from. If he had been from Thailand, it would have been obvious to most that this was a manifestation of the underage sex trade rampant in that country. But fewer are aware of the same problems in eastern Europe and Russia.

[woodlawn]

Twink Patrol

 

>Further, I'm not sure about this whole 'prurient interests'

>idea. I know it's the law, but so is anti-prostitution and

>until just a month ago anti gay-sex. Who gets to define it?

 

As Doug recently pointed out in another thread, one would think that gay men who want to engage in one type of sexual activity, prostitution, that is illegal would have a laissez-faire attitude toward the sexual proclivities of others and would be the last to condemn anyone for sexual behavior considered "deviant" by the same people who condemn gay sex as deviant. That, as we have repeatedly seen on this board, is not the case. Although members here have no problem crossing legal and moral lines drawn by others, they are quick to draw lines of their own and to criticize those who cross or even give the appearance of crossing their lines.

 

We all know that there are a number of members here who prefer the company of "twinks." Would any of those members care to tell us whether they think there is anything inappropriate about pornography featuring kids who are 18 but look younger, or about hiring escorts who are 18 but look younger?