Taylor Lautner

[mrincognito]

Any new pics? Does anyone know if he has a barefoot scene in Eclipse?

[TheWolf9]

Um, he's a kid

[tiedfeetguy]

He is over 18, so he's legal... no different than the Toegasms models! I wouldn't mind seeing more of his feet, either. I still feel like there's never been a decent sole shot of him.

[bighairyfootage]

I respect that some members arent into younger guys 17 -18 years old and thats ok you think they are "kids" but some of us other members dont think of them as "kids" they are young men close to some of our own ages. any younger than that I agree too young and they are kids Taylor is over 18 far from being a "kid".

[BareFootBoy]

He's got great feet.

[BareFootBoy]

Here's some more.

[mikecalah]

but some of us other members dont think of them as "kids" they are young men close to some of our own ages. any younger than that I agree too young and they are kids Taylor is over 18 far from being a "kid".

Here is even more. For some members of this board Taylor is Silver Fox grand-pa

[shakeexplode]

I read somewhere a while back that he does not like his feet, or being barefoot. Sure hope that changes. ;)

[shakeexplode]

Here's a nice one of the wolf boys. I'm fairly certain they are all over 18.

[lovesoles]

He doesn't like his feet???

Geesh! What's not to like? Maybe if he could find someone to give him a good toe sucking he'd change his mind.

[foot77]

And really who cares..if he's 18, 17 or even 16? Esp when kids that age and younger are having sex and having babies! Besides.. nothing wrong with just showing off their feet.. even if it's only their feet and not their faces included.



I respect that some members arent into younger guys 17 -18 years old and thats ok you think they are "kids" but some of us other members dont think of them as "kids" they are young men close to some of our own ages. any younger than that I agree too young and they are kids Taylor is over 18 far from being a "kid".

[BootsMcGraw]

And really who cares..if he's 18, 17 or even 16?...
The US Government cares, particularly those involved with the United States Code. I highly recommend you read Title 18, Sections 2256 and 2257. The law explicitly states that it is illegal to depict minors involved in sexual acts.

Section 2256:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html


Section 2257:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

The grey area, of course, is what defines a sexual act. For a number of us here, the mere showing off of a male foot causes a sexual reaction. If a sixteen-year-old is pictured showing his feet, that could possibly be construed as engaging in a sexual act, regardless of the photo subject's intent.

The management of FootBuddies would prefer to err conservatively. The cost of legal battles is astounding; and the price for losing is a mandatory five-year prison term for a first offense. I think I speak for the entire management of FootBuddies when I say we'd rather not chance that.

[sexybarefoot]

The US Government cares, particularly those involved with the United States Code. I highly recommend you read Title 18, Sections 2256 and 2257. The law explicitly states that it is illegal to depict minors involved in sexual acts.

Section 2256:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html


Section 2257:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

The grey area, of course, is what defines a sexual act. For a number of us here, the mere showing off of a male foot causes a sexual reaction. If a sixteen-year-old is pictured showing his feet, that could possibly be construed as engaging in a sexual act, regardless of the photo subject's intent.

The management of FootBuddies would prefer to err conservatively. The cost of legal battles is astounding; and the price for losing is a mandatory five-year prison term for a first offense. I think I speak for the entire management of FootBuddies when I say we'd rather not chance that.

Actually need to agree this time. legal stuff aside, its also a matter in integrety.

[jonk]

Boots is right. It's all about content and intent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 16 year old who is fully dressed and barefoot modeling clothing in a department store catalog. Scan that photo, put it on an adult website dedicated to male feet that is plastered with naked men along with posts (and photos) about guys getting off then you've used that photo of the minor in a sexual intent.

Also, keep in mind that if the foot board is implicated in such, all of our emails and profiles are on here as 'members.'

Keep erring on the side of being conservative, FB.