Library camgirl busted

[SexySteph]

Just as an FYI Kat never pretended to be underage as far as anyone can tell. She at one time made a joke and trolled someone about a comment made to her and Juju has taken that and ran with it. (Even after she herself said it was probably a joke. Yeah I seen Juju say that with my own eyes live on cam.) Anyway, members in her room were having a very distasteful convo but that's not on Kat by any means. No more so than when I was in a room earlier today and someone asked the girl if her cat could join in on the show. Gag. So yeah the reason Kat was not banned was because there was no proof she did anything wrong.

So no the hater does not have a point when the person she is attacking hasn't done anything against the rules. Kat is not my cup of tea but I will stand by the fact that MFC acted accordingly in not banning her over this.

I also never seen MFC telling her to change her name. Did I miss something in that? Katsumi is a popular name in Japan as far as I know. Nothing jail bait about it. And she changed it before the petition crap even happened for a third time since the first incident even.

I was going by screenshots on that chick's website. Kat definitely did take part in that conversation more than she should have, including telling guys wanting to turn out their kids, to adopt after 6 to save tons of money. This is wrong. She should not have done that. To me a model should ignore, ban, tell guys to shut the fuck up.

I was there that night. She let the convo continue which maybe she shouldn't have but she definitely wasn't giving them tips like "adopt after 6". Where are you getting this?

The name thing I heard Kat say in her room. She had a name with "jailbait" in it and was contacted by MFC to change it. Obviously she was just fucking around with the people who were ragging on here. She is only 18 so I can understand her being immature.

No she didn't. She JOKED about wanting to use the name JackyJailbait or something similar but when she applied as a model MFC wouldn't let her use that name. So it never even got that far. They turned her down before she was a model.

 

[JimsX]

No she didn't. She JOKED about wanting to use the name JackyJailbait or something similar but when she applied as a model MFC wouldn't let her use that name. So it never even got that far. They turned her down before she was a model.

I stink at posting pics, so I will just give the link. It's the first of the Kat pics halfway down the page:
http://www.jujuluvs69.com/katsumisecret-open-thread

I stand corrected on the name thing. I must have misunderstood what she said. I am actually trying to defend her here, but doing a lousy job.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

No she didn't. She JOKED about wanting to use the name JackyJailbait or something similar but when she applied as a model MFC wouldn't let her use that name. So it never even got that far. They turned her down before she was a model.

I stink at posting pics, so I will just give the link. It's the first of the Kat pics halfway down the page:
http://www.jujuluvs69.com/katsumisecret-open-thread

I stand corrected on the name thing. I must have misunderstood what she said. I am actually trying to defend her here, but doing a lousy job.

yeah....that's a premium saying that, not her.

Also, I can't believe how out-of-proportion that joke has gotten. It's a fucking joke. Actually I think it's kind of funny. :dontknow:

Adults acting like children....and no, I'm not talking about age-play here.

 

[IndicaDesires]

No she didn't. She JOKED about wanting to use the name JackyJailbait or something similar but when she applied as a model MFC wouldn't let her use that name. So it never even got that far. They turned her down before she was a model.

I stink at posting pics, so I will just give the link. It's the first of the Kat pics halfway down the page:
http://www.jujuluvs69.com/katsumisecret-open-thread

I stand corrected on the name thing. I must have misunderstood what she said. I am actually trying to defend her here, but doing a lousy job.

Katsumi wasn't the one that said the thing about adopting after 6. One of the members that took her name and put it in their own to show that they are fans did

 

[JimsX]

yeah....that's a premium saying that, not her.

Also, I can't believe how out-of-proportion that joke has gotten. It's a fucking joke. Actually I think it's kind of funny. :dontknow:

Adults acting like children....and no, I'm not talking about age-play here.

I will show myself out.

Read that 3 times and didn't notice.

 

[JimsX]

Katsumi wasn't the one that said the thing about adopting after 6. One of the members that took her name and put it in their own to show that they are fans did

Yeah I need to work on my reading skills

 

[IndicaDesires]

yeah....that's a premium saying that, not her.

Also, I can't believe how out-of-proportion that joke has gotten. It's a fucking joke. Actually I think it's kind of funny. :dontknow:

Adults acting like children....and no, I'm not talking about age-play here.

I will show myself out.

Read that 3 times and didn't notice.

Lol it took me a second. I honestly can't see anywhere that she said ANYTHING in the conversation, though

 

[Teagan]

@Jim Her website is a piece of shit where she has deleted comments of people who have disagreed with her. Its a one sided convo for the most part with misinformation. I would highly suggest taking it with a grain of salt. Actually.. less than that lol.

While Kat should have maybe banned people saying the stuff they said she is in no way responsible for what they said. But unless you were there at the time of things I would highly suggest you reserve your judgment if it's based solely on some screen shots on a crazy persons website.

Again Kat is not my cup of tea but if all your info is coming from Juju then you are highly uninformed on the whole situation. She is on a rampage to try to publicize herself more out of jealousy.

@Billy Both her talking about mentoring and the incident in question actually happened at the same time. She was talking in MO about both in the same posts. She was politely told a one on one mentor program would pale in comparison to all the help a girl could get here on ACF from a ton of other models. (Im paraphrasing and not quoting one model specifically.) She didnt like that to much, started her crusade, and now the mentor thing. Which I will just say she is highly unqualified for to say the least but that's just my opinion.

 

[JimsX]

@Jim Her website is a piece of shit where she has deleted comments of people who have disagreed with her. Its a one sided convo for the most part with misinformation. I would highly suggest taking it with a grain of salt. Actually.. less than that lol.

While Kat should have maybe banned people saying the stuff they said she is in no way responsible for what they said. But unless you were there at the time of things I would highly suggest you reserve your judgment if it's based solely on some screen shots on a crazy persons website.

Again Kat is not my cup of tea but if all your info is coming from Juju then you are highly uninformed on the whole situation. She is on a rampage to try to publicize herself more out of jealousy.

Yup, I was wrong. Read over more of the site and it's obvious she does not give two shits about Kat, MFC, or the public. She just wants attention.

 

[SarahLove]

I think she (juju) wants to be a “den mother” of sorts to younger models, hence, the “mentoring” website she started. That’s really how this all started, she got butthurt when she tried to mentor the model in question was rebuffed.

Then the age play thing comes along and she sees it as a means to an end, which is to exact revenge and have the model banned. She starts a petition (which is later removed) and goes so far as to tag screen caps of the model on her website with model’s real name.

She removed those tags but it’s pretty clear that she was actively encouraging harassment of the model because another tag was a third party website that posted even more personal information about the model and her relatives as well as some hateful comments.

I think she makes some valid points and it is probably time for public shows on MFC to come to an end. But it’s also obvious that she has a personal vendetta and is trying to promote her website.

Great comments here. I wish she'd realize so many people know all this is how it all went down and quit pretending to be "doing it to protect the children." I cringed watching the local news broadcast how she's trying to come off so upright and mature after all the childish shit she's done.

I really hope no sweet new cam models get wrapped up in that mentor site. It would be one thing for a model with experience, success and a good attitude to start something like that (even though this and a couple other forums exist that are very helpful already so I don't think its necessary) but this crazy lady doesn't have any of those things except a reputation for starting drama in the public eye.

The hater may have a point but MFC adressed it. Now she contacted the authorities for a model who is over 18 and hasn't done anything illegal:

Juju says she handed the petition to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which told her the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now looking into it.

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
FFS. :angry4:

The ludicrousness of this absolutely leaves me speechless.

 

[JessieWolfe]

I think I also read on that site that not only models but members can mentor new models? Correct me if I am wrong as I lightly skimmed it.

Idk I think this all spewed into a weird marketing ploy, but it will blow over and karma will come soon after.

 

[Teagan]

I think I also read on that site that not only models but members can mentor new models? Correct me if I am wrong as I lightly skimmed it.

Idk I think this all spewed into a weird marketing ploy, but it will blow over and karma will come soon after.

Okay so I am not the only one thinking this. I swear she really wanted to start a mentor thing for money and when told it wasnt a good idea she freaked out and left and is now using this whole thing to start a side business thing she shouldnt be running in any way. She is completely using all of this to her own favor. How sick. Children my ass.

 

[mynameisbob84]

My favourite thing about the site (beside any comment that disagrees with her being deleted on the grounds that it's "not relevant") is the poll. It's something to the effect of "Do you support this campaign?" but there's no option for "No" :?

 

[Guest12345]

I think I also read on that site that not only models but members can mentor new models? Correct me if I am wrong as I lightly skimmed it.

Idk I think this all spewed into a weird marketing ploy, but it will blow over and karma will come soon after.

I honestly don't think this "drama" will ever end. I gather they will just keep morphing their "mission" since their involvement has garnered them the most attention/interaction that they've ever had online.

Thinking back at the timeline

- KatsumiChann makes negative comments and disses 2 very well known models.
- Fans and friends of those models naturally react to defend their friends.
- KatsumiChann mostly clears it up with one model, still has drama with the other model
- JuJu & Crew become fully engaged and become the main people fanning the flames of the drama with Katsumi willingly engaging them, thus new battle lines are drawn.
- JuJu & Crew create the petition specifically to ban Katsumi (even though it's a specious argument)
- The Petition gets debated everywhere
- The Petition naturally doesn't get MFC to react much and eventually gets taken down
- JuJu & Crew pivot and create a new, weird, nebulous "mission" which is to takedown MFC as a whole entity, but it doesn't get much traction/attention as the first petition
- Things quiet down for a little. (THIS IS WHERE I HOPED EVERYTHING WOULD END AND PEOPLE COULD MOVE ON).
- The 2 library show incidents "occur" and JuJu & Crew mobilize to suddenly include this as "evidence"

What worries me about all of this is:

#1 - JuJu has successfully injected herself as some "Cam Authority", when she wasn't initially involved in the beginning of this at all. Can you imagine news outlets running to her for comment whenever cam stuff gets publicized especially with her huge bias?

#2 - I don't ever see JuJu & Crew stopping since they have an impossible goal and I imagine they will just piggyback whatever the "hot topic" of the moment is to get themselves more attention/press.

It's pretty sad to see the cam community devolve like this into basically politics when it seemed to working just fine on it's own. Do they really want the government involved that bad? I don't think anything good can happen if the gov't started paying attention to camming ...

 

[JimsX]

My favourite thing about the site (beside any comment that disagrees with her being deleted on the grounds that it's "not relevant") is the poll. It's something to the effect of "Do you support this campaign?" but there's no option for "No" :?

I also liked how she seemed shocked that she allowed MFC to use her image on its other sites when she became a model. I wonder if she mentors models to read their contracts before they sign.

 

[Teagan]

My favourite thing about the site (beside any comment that disagrees with her being deleted on the grounds that it's "not relevant") is the poll. It's something to the effect of "Do you support this campaign?" but there's no option for "No" :?

I also liked how she seemed shocked that she allowed MFC to use her image on its other sites when she became a model. I wonder if she mentors models to read their contracts before they sign.

Apparently there was a NO option at first and she took it off hahaha. I wonder why.

 

[Lexi Emerson]

Hey guys, I am sure most of you don't care (I certainly wouldn't) but keep in mind this thread is accessible to these ladies. I just don't want anybody mob attacked by them if they read something they don't like or something!

 

[Alexandra Cole]

#1 - JuJu has successfully injected herself as some "Cam Authority", when she wasn't initially involved in the beginning of this at all. Can you imagine news outlets running to her for comment whenever cam stuff gets publicized especially with her huge bias?

Yeah, you'd think an authority on camming would be a little less alarmed by such phenomena as cam contracts, trolls, and capping.

 

[Sevrin]

Juju's kind of making herself a target for doxxing by wading as deeply into this as she did. She may end up getting a little more attention than she planned for.

 

[Azhrarn]

Now that I’ve learned more about this issue, I feel that MFC has been really negligent in not policing it’s site adequately. Releasing the cam girl who performed the public show, and warning off other cam girls from continuing such shows are adequate responses in terms of damage control, but are completely inadequate as far as addressing the underlying issues. And that’s troubling, because these types of issues play perfectly into the hands of those who want to regulate the internet under the pretext of protecting the public. Nothing good ever came from governmental involvement, but the government is just one actor. Now that MFC has gone mainstream news, there’s no telling what other actors are watching.

Realistically speaking, MFC will probably need help in terms of people reporting problematic issues, and that being the case, I’m really concerned by the attitudes and comments I’ve seen in this thread. Attacking Juju at this point is really unnecessary, as I expect her to disappear. Apart from her web design skills being awful, she can’t build a career out of persecuting one cam girl. However, although incomplete (some of the most damning comments appear to have been censored), the screenshots speak for themselves. Most forums I’ve been on, any one of those comments would have resulted in an immediate perma-ban, and that would have been under a best-case scenario. And I’m sure the active participants all knew that. So the fact that this was allowed in a sexually oriented chat room is just inexcusable.

As for KatsumiChann, I don’t understand how a cam girl isn’t responsible for what goes on in her room. She could have and should have stopped the conversation at the start. She has the power to ban anyone in her room after all. As for her only being 18, all I can say is, there really is a double standard with regards to the way that men and women are treated when it comes to sexual offenses. Women can and do get slaps on the wrist while men get the book thrown at them.

 

[Nordling]

Interesting. I just spotted this:

Bad Juju
@menacing4models
I'm not captain save-a-ho or someone who wants to help a model OUT of camming. I'm more for empowerment. TRUE empowerment.

When Egos soar?

 

[rockstarforall]

I knew the girl who got busted at OSU personally. Sad to see her busted for something like that.

 

[Teagan]

Now that I’ve learned more about this issue, I feel that MFC has been really negligent in not policing it’s site adequately. Releasing the cam girl who performed the public show, and warning off other cam girls from continuing such shows are adequate responses in terms of damage control, but are completely inadequate as far as addressing the underlying issues. And that’s troubling, because these types of issues play perfectly into the hands of those who want to regulate the internet under the pretext of protecting the public. Nothing good ever came from governmental involvement, but the government is just one actor. Now that MFC has gone mainstream news, there’s no telling what other actors are watching.

Realistically speaking, MFC will probably need help in terms of people reporting problematic issues, and that being the case, I’m really concerned by the attitudes and comments I’ve seen in this thread. Attacking Juju at this point is really unnecessary, as I expect her to disappear. Apart from her web design skills being awful, she can’t build a career out of persecuting one cam girl. However, although incomplete (some of the most damning comments appear to have been censored), the screenshots speak for themselves. Most forums I’ve been on, any one of those comments would have resulted in an immediate perma-ban, and that would have been under a best-case scenario. And I’m sure the active participants all knew that. So the fact that this was allowed in a sexually oriented chat room is just inexcusable.

As for KatsumiChann, I don’t understand how a cam girl isn’t responsible for what goes on in her room. She could have and should have stopped the conversation at the stat. She has the power to ban anyone in her room after all. As for her only being 18, all I can say is, there really is a double standard with regards to the way that men and women are treated when it comes to sexual offenses. Women can and do get slaps on the wrist while men get the book thrown at them.

Honestly all I have to say to this is .. :roll: and :shhh:

 

[IndicaDesires]

As for KatsumiChann, I don’t understand how a cam girl isn’t responsible for what goes on in her room. She could have and should have stopped the conversation at the start. She has the power to ban anyone in her room after all. As for her only being 18, all I can say is, there really is a double standard with regards to the way that men and women are treated when it comes to sexual offenses. Women can and do get slaps on the wrist while men get the book thrown at them.

This is a job for us. It's not really good for us to ban high tippers/regulars for making jokes. Although, I probably would have politely asked them to cut it out, but that risks offending them.

 

[Alcon]

What an absolute dirty fucking filthy RAT that hater was, to go snitch on her like that.

Funny thing, the hater had her name published too and has already deleted her FB and Twitter. Her name will be attached to this for the years to come.

This is why I argue that broadcasting with people in the background is never a victimless crime. Those people did not consent or know they were on film. Adult oriented or not, consent is needed. Say for instance someone watches this vid of her and recognizes someone in the background. They comment on the video, or somewhere else and tie that person to her posted video. The bigger the video gets the more the random person is tied to it and so on. An updated article may even include that someone has been positively identified in said video and may even try to interview them. Thinking a bit more story is a great thing only. Victim of course declines and is appalled he is now involved in such a thing and all he did is go to the damn library that day for school. But now his name is forever tied to a sex site video scandal. It may effect his future in schooling (more and more are using search engines to look at potential applicants), his job profession (imagine trying to become a politician with that popping up on your google results), his future jobs (again employers are googling now more than ever), etc. Someone elses life may forever be changed all because someone chose to broadcast in public. It may not happen exactly like this of course, there is 1,000 variables but it would not be hard to screw up someones elses life this way. Heck someone may even wrongfully identify someone in a background of one of these capped shows (they do pop up everywhere as we all know) and the same thing would happen to the poor person.

I'm a little late to this party... but couldn't all of the above be equally said about someone who goes out and shoots a video on their smartphone and posts it up on YouTube, and it becomes notorious for some reason - any reason? By that standard I don't see how you couldn't say that shooting any potentially viral video in a public place is victimizing people. If you standard of action is, "if 1,000 variables all go right this action I take could screw up someone's life", then none of us could do any actions.

Obviously, the best solution is for people to be adults and realize that where no wrong is committed, a person doesn't just become a bad person by being involved in a situation they had no control over to no fault of their own. Then this entire matter would settle itself. It's only because of this weird guilt by association people have, which is creating even more guilt, and so on...

 

[Sevrin]

Obviously, the best solution is for people to be adults and realize that where no wrong is committed, a person doesn't just become a bad person by being involved in a situation they had no control over to no fault of their own. Then this entire matter would settle itself. It's only because of this weird guilt by association people have, which is creating even more guilt, and so on...

In the real world, people don't always behave like adults, though. Do they? No one has the right to put others, especially children, in a potentially embarrassing situation simply for their own monetary gain. To do so is not what I'd call "behaving like an adult".

 

[Alcon]

Obviously, the best solution is for people to be adults and realize that where no wrong is committed, a person doesn't just become a bad person by being involved in a situation they had no control over to no fault of their own. Then this entire matter would settle itself. It's only because of this weird guilt by association people have, which is creating even more guilt, and so on...

In the real world, people don't always behave like adults, though. Do they? No one has the right to put others, especially children, in a potentially embarrassing situation simply for their own monetary gain. To do so is not what I'd call "behaving like an adult".

So if a person goes out on the street and shoots a video for her YouTube channel with bystanders passing by, and makes money off her YouTube hits, she's violating the bystanders' rights? Because there's literally millions of YouTube videos shot in public places and it's almost certain not everyone making those videos obtained the consent of every single person appearing in them.

 

[Azhrarn]

At the risk of introducing common sense into a thread where posting smileys seems to be considered a noteworthy contribution, I’d like to try to get to the crux of the matter. Generally speaking, consent is not needed if one is filming in a public area. However, this principle only applies to non-pornographic works. With regards to pornography, the overriding principle is that anyone appearing on camera has to be of legal age and has to give their consent.

With regards to public shows, such as those in a library, the unknowing library patrons are an integral part of the production, yet they are being drafted into the video as audience members without their consent or even their knowledge. Think of it, would anyone watch a library show if the library were completely empty? Of course not, and this unknowing participation violates at least five different “Rules for Models”.

-People who haven’t submitted their ID to MFC can’t appear on camera.
-Men can’t appear on camera for any reason.
-Minors, children and babies can’t appear on camera for any reason.
-Videos can’t depict actions that may be obscene according to community standards.
-Videos can’t depict activities that are illegal.

 

[Alcon]

At the risk of introducing common sense into a thread where posting smileys seems to be considered a noteworthy contribution, I’d like to try to get to the crux of the matter. Generally speaking, consent is not needed if one is filming in a public area. However, this principle only applies to non-pornographic works. With regards to pornography, the overriding principle is that anyone appearing on camera has to be of legal age and has to give their consent.

With regards to public shows, such as those in a library, the unknowing library patrons are an integral part of the production, yet they are being drafted into the video as audience members without their consent or even their knowledge. Think of it, would anyone watch a library show if the library were completely empty? Of course not, and this unknowing participation violates at least five different “Rules for Models”.

-People who haven’t submitted their ID to MFC can’t appear on camera.
-Men can’t appear on camera for any reason.
-Minors, children and babies can’t appear on camera for any reason.
-Videos can’t depict actions that may be obscene according to community standards.
-Videos can’t depict activities that are illegal.

No one is disputing that these library shows violate MFC rules- but then again so do many actions that occur regularly on cam. One frequently sees models smoking weed on cam in jurisdictions where it is illegal, or smoking it just slightly off cam but barely veiled. The question is whether there is a moral wrong that has been committed.

So far the only difference brought up between this type of show and public filming that is not wrong is that this is pornographic. The notion is that it is intrinsically embarrassing and harmful to appear in a pornographic video even as someone who is just walking by. You may be right about this, but I think it just underlines how utterly absurd our society's view of sex is. We all agree that someone who just happens to be in their school library and walks by in the background of one of these shows - even is only for a matter of seconds - has done nothing wrong, right? Yet we seem to be basing our argument on the assumption that it is normal to consider such an appearance to be so shameful, so embarrassing, that it could seriously damage such a person's life. And that this judgement would be so basic that it is not worth questioning, and we should base our whole ethical system around it instead.

 

[Azhrarn]

All right, well, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but the whole idea behind having unwitting audience members is that at any time one of them might stumble upon the cam girl and discover what she’s doing. In one of the screenshots that was posted, you can see a small girl speaking to a cam girl who is performing a library show. How would you like to be this girl’s mother, and have to answer her questions as to why a grown woman was taking off her clothes in public and touching herself?

The point you seem to be missing is that exposing oneself in public is usually considered illegal. But as I’ve already pointed out in a previous post, there’s a very clear double standard that applied to women in this area. For example, if a man stumbles upon a cam girl and is shocked by her nudity, I suppose the male viewers would find that amusing. But suppose it was a man who was performing a library show, and he exposed himself to a young woman to capture her reaction on film. Further suppose that young woman was raised in a family that is religiously orthodox. Are you still prepared to argue there’s been no "moral wrong" committed?

And just for the record, you’re the one questioning whether a "moral wrong” has been committed. I’m certainly not. If someone can't intuitively understand that engaging in sexual activities where they might be discovered by minors and children is wrong, well, I don't think there's any logical argument I could make to awaken that awareness. But this is precisely why we have laws. People can and will argue “moral wrong” until the human race becomes extinct. For my purposes it’s sufficient that these activities are illegal in any public or college library and are also violations of the MFC Rules for Models.