thoughts on fakes of young starlets

[Otwo2]

Underage is not allowed here. Just accept this rule or go somewhere else i guess!

- Celebs only
- One topic per celebrity
- Only fakes

does not say anything about underage, at least in this section. in the amateur section if it says

[DEMOGORGON]

Hey all, my two cents on the matter:

Fakes by Vargas, Mr. Roboto, O2, Griever, and others, are works of fantasy. Nobody under the age of consent is being exploited, and that is undeniable.

Fakes are artistic in nature, and that's the bit that we as people always have trouble with isn't it? Art being controversial, or art that pushes the boundaries. That's the beauty of art. If art is to be censored for it's content then why even have art? Why even bother with freedom of speech?

Now, having said this, I am completely aware of the issue the other site faced, and how it wasn't moderated, and eventually lead to it's demise. And rightly so. Those kinds of pictures are exploitative and are not an artistic expression. It was simply CP and that's all there is to it. Everybody here agrees that exploiting children is wrong, and I'm certain that no artist here would condone the act of a man/woman who decides to exploit a child.

This is a conversation we need to continue to have though, because it's a tricky topic to cover. Works of fiction/fantasy are only that and nothing more, even if based off of real events/people/places. I'm hoping that we can express our fantasies here, much in the same way that people can express their fantasy to cum on the picture of an unwilling participant, which is a completely whole new topic for a different day! Let's keep the dialogue open, and respect everyone and their opinions, and be thankful we have this wonderful ability to express ourselves and our ideas.

[Mr. Roboto]

Hey all, my two cents on the matter:

Fakes by Vargas, Mr. Roboto, O2, Griever, and others, are works of fantasy. Nobody under the age of consent is being exploited, and that is undeniable.

Fakes are artistic in nature, and that's the bit that we as people always have trouble with isn't it? Art being controversial, or art that pushes the boundaries. That's the beauty of art. If art is to be censored for it's content then why even have art? Why even bother with freedom of speech?

Now, having said this, I am completely aware of the issue the other site faced, and how it wasn't moderated, and eventually lead to it's demise. And rightly so. Those kinds of pictures are exploitative and are not an artistic expression. It was simply CP and that's all there is to it. Everybody here agrees that exploiting children is wrong, and I'm certain that no artist here would condone the act of a man/woman who decides to exploit a child.

This is a conversation we need to continue to have though, because it's a tricky topic to cover. Works of fiction/fantasy are only that and nothing more, even if based off of real events/people/places. I'm hoping that we can express our fantasies here, much in the same way that people can express their fantasy to cum on the picture of an unwilling participant, which is a completely whole new topic for a different day! Let's keep the dialogue open, and respect everyone and their opinions, and be thankful we have this wonderful ability to express ourselves and our ideas.

I really appreciate how articulated and on point is this comment by DEMOGORGON. I boldened/underlined the parts I find more relevant, and want to mention the fact that most ppl here finds totally acceptable to get turned on and fap and come over the pic of an unwilling girl that many times is UA, but then the same ppl questions fakes cause the celeb us U18. That's not how logic works, guys.

[Mr. Roboto]

I will also quote myself from another thread, just because I think is relevant to the discussion here:

"I'm a fakir. My main concern has been the legal approach towards faking, specially when UA headshots are manipulated with legal bodyshots to produce, well, starlet / young celeb fakes - I was chatting with a follower and he/she just send me this from Colombia, of all places:

"Pseudopornography, pornographic material in which images of minors are virtually inserted in pornographic scenes in which children were not involved in a real way, will not be classified as child pornography. According to the ruling of the Court, artificial child pornography, "involving minors created from an unreal pattern, either by drawings or animations of all kinds, that is, do not represent a human being with real existence", neither can it be taken into account within the causes of a crime." Translated with google, spanish speakers will pardon my french por favor

the link in spanish: https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/j ... ulo-744085

So, in at least one western country UA fakes are not considered Porn; I assume that all the other stuff (cum on pics, requests, chats and discussions, etc) would be treated with more leniency.

Nothing that happens here is remotely as bad as CP, and not as bad as revenge porn; all this is fantasy, and the authorities have their plates already full. The problem with COPP is that the admin was a spineless limped dick twat that allowed CP to creep in the forums.
That said there's always a self righteous prick that will try to shut this copp down no matter what, so maybe all forums should be hosted in Colombia, hehe (have you seen the girls there? DAMN)"

the full thread: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=497&p=29619#p29619

[Mr. Roboto]

And because not everything can be serious and articulated and blah, here you have funny stuff:

[Icumforcim]

Here’s my quick take on it. I feel that those who think it’s ok to start fapping/faking UA girls kind of contradict themselves. I mean let’s be real here: I’m pretty sure almost everyone on this site whether they want to admit it or not has found one celeb or girl they know that wildly turns them on, because they are very attractive, only to find out they are UA. If they are like kids, then that’s one thing, but most of the time they are in their mid to late teens and are already developing their womanly bodies, which would naturally turn us on as men. That’s why I think it’s confusing that some think that once a girl turns 18 it’s automatically ok to start sexualizing them however they want, when almost nothing changes between the ages of 17-18. I mean if you’re waiting for a girl to turn 18, then that alone means that you already find her sexually attractive, right? Do I condone actually doing things with minors? Not at all. But this is all just fantasy, and as long as people keep it fantasy, there’s no physical harm done to either side.

[mrbowhunr]

I'll follow Mr. Roboto's lead and add a few funnies of my own.

Cheerleadertryout.jpg (25.37 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

How it Starts.jpg (19.38 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

Jailbait1.jpg (44.19 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

Jailbait2.jpg (27.51 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

Just Kidding.jpg (48.07 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

Play Dumb.jpg (49.24 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

Rohyphnol.jpg (45.59 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

[Mr. Roboto]

LoL

[Mr. Roboto]

Don't know if these qualify as funnies, but I had this guy that wanted to use some of my fakes to make memes (Hebert, back in COPP). Some are better than others. I eventually ended doing some myself (not these two tho)



.

[mrbowhunr]

Nice!!

[HEBERT 3.0]

Hey all, my two cents on the matter:

Fakes by Vargas, Mr. Roboto, O2, Griever, and others, are works of fantasy. Nobody under the age of consent is being exploited, and that is undeniable.

Fakes are artistic in nature, and that's the bit that we as people always have trouble with isn't it? Art being controversial, or art that pushes the boundaries. That's the beauty of art. If art is to be censored for it's content then why even have art? Why even bother with freedom of speech?

Now, having said this, I am completely aware of the issue the other site faced, and how it wasn't moderated, and eventually lead to it's demise. And rightly so. Those kinds of pictures are exploitative and are not an artistic expression. It was simply CP and that's all there is to it. Everybody here agrees that exploiting children is wrong, and I'm certain that no artist here would condone the act of a man/woman who decides to exploit a child.

This is a conversation we need to continue to have though, because it's a tricky topic to cover. Works of fiction/fantasy are only that and nothing more, even if based off of real events/people/places. I'm hoping that we can express our fantasies here, much in the same way that people can express their fantasy to cum on the picture of an unwilling participant, which is a completely whole new topic for a different day! Let's keep the dialogue open, and respect everyone and their opinions, and be thankful we have this wonderful ability to express ourselves and our ideas.

SOMEONE WITH BRAINS-

Please give this man a cookie

[HEBERT 3.0]

Don't know if these qualify as funnies, but I had this guy that wanted to use some of my fakes to make memes (Hebert, back in COPP). Some are better than others. I eventually ended doing some myself (not these two tho)

PLAID-ariel.jpg
meme-ariel2.jpg

Well, there's a ton more where these came from! Thanks Mr. Roboto for sharing my work! YES, it feels gud. I'm not a fakir, but memes me can do, and did. Most are gone with copp.com and filefap, so maybe will share a few here

[Sarge]

Demogorgon IMHO is spot on. As a fakir from many sites (some now defunct and some here know me by other names) I focus on whatever strikes me or the client requests. I think we ALL draw our lined in the sand w/ certain things we will and won't do. I've done "work" for Bonnie Wright, Georgie Henley, Emma Watson, Abigail Breslin, Dakota Blue Richards, The Queen of England, Francesca Capaldi, Anna Sophia Robb, Victoria Justice, Audrey Hepburn, Mary Pickford etc etc etc... I've always made it a point to use legal documented "bodyshots" when producing work.

Just my 2 cents... looking forward to posting here soon!

Cheers

[kk1039]

I have to agree with Demogorgon here as well. I don't like to stray into the underage area myself for personal tastes, but anyone who knows my fakes knows that my personal tastes in fakes probably have their own whole different moral discussion for another time.
As far as I'm concerened, if the source material used for the fakes didn't come from anything that did harm to the person, and was simply altered through creative use of software, then it's purely a work of fiction.

Out of curiousity I would like to know how other fakers feel about my work, and if it is crossing a moral line or not.

[Mr. Roboto]

Demogorgon IMHO is spot on. As a fakir from many sites (some now defunct and some here know me by other names) I focus on whatever strikes me or the client requests. I think we ALL draw our lined in the sand w/ certain things we will and won't do. I've done "work" for Bonnie Wright, Georgie Henley, Emma Watson, Abigail Breslin, Dakota Blue Richards, The Queen of England, Francesca Capaldi, Anna Sophia Robb, Victoria Justice, Audrey Hepburn, Mary Pickford etc etc etc... I've always made it a point to use legal documented "bodyshots" when producing work.

Just my 2 cents... looking forward to posting here soon!

Cheers

Good point made by Sarge that must not be overlooked: most fakirs use always legal and documented bodyshots (aka porn), so we're not encouraging or enabling abuse or anything harmful