Thanks guys. Much appreciated!

@ianfontinell-0 said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:

Or at the very least, instead of just waiting to remove off-topic comments the moderation could use the comment section to make a brief statement, maybe that would also help de-escalating this discussion in the comment section.

Agreed. Any communication at all would be nice.

Just came across this gorgeous boy. He might be Italian, but I'm not sure. Any clues pointing in his direction would be much appreciated, thanks!

@MrMazda As I said, ethical considerations matter to me. In this case, we are not talking about rumor or vague controversy. We are talking about someone who was sentenced to 19 years in prison for crimes involving minors. That fact changes the ethical context for me, even if the videos themselves are technically legal.
I am glad this thread has remained visible. At least here, people can state their view openly.

@raphjd Thanks

@cp2000 There are at least 5 more clips with Frankie or AngelFrank in this torrent, which I haven't seen yet. He mentions his own OF account in the clip I have, but I'm not subscribed.
BTW there are 3 torrents in which AngelFrank is listed, but only 1 of them has seeders.

@bi4smooth said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:

But let's not lose sight of the fact that virtually ALL of the content (gay sex) on this site is "morally objectionable" to a significant portion of society - larger in some areas, smaller in others, but significant in ALL areas!

Consensual adult gay content being considered objectionable by some people is a very different issue from raising ethical concerns about material associated with someone convicted of crimes involving minors.

In much of the Western world, public morality has moved on from treating gay sexuality itself as inherently suspect. A criminal conviction of this kind is a different matter entirely. For me, it speaks directly to conduct and character, and it is a legitimate reason to view the person and his work differently.

That is the distinction I am making, and I will leave it there.

@bi4smooth The offender and the content are connected, which is why I do not treat the continued circulation of his work as some neutral matter.

Whether he personally profits from downloads on this site is beside the point for me. The platform still chooses to host and distribute the material, and users are entitled to object to that on ethical grounds.

@bi4smooth said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:

Corollary: When a priest is convicted of molesting an alter-boy, is the entire congregation supposed to drop the Catholic Faith in response? Were his sermons LESS valuable because of his crimes? If you're Catholic, were his absolutions in the confessional rescinded because he sinned? If so, were they rescinded when he committed his crimes, or only after his conviction?

While I agree with part of what you are saying, I do not think the priest example is equivalent.

It would be a leap to demand that an entire congregation abandon its faith because of one man’s crimes. The individual offender, however, must be held accountable and lose the position, access, and authority that made harm possible in the first place.

In your example, the priest should be defrocked, should never again be placed in a pastoral role, and should not be put in proximity to minors or other vulnerable young people. That is the relevant parallel for me. The consequences should remain with the offender instead of being imposed on every believer around him.

That is a really sad trend, and devastating for the families. A quick search mentions a staggering number.

Estimated Count: Industry blogs like Str8UpGayPorn have memorialized roughly 15 to 20 high-profile gay performers who have passed since 2021.

From Helix alone:
Lane Rogers (Blake Mitchell), 31 Dec 2025 - Casey Tanner, 28 April 2023 - Kyle Ross, 29 April 2023, Alex Riley, 22 May 2021 - Jasper Robinson, 21 Dec 2015 - Zac Stevens, 25 Nov 2015.

May they all rest in peace.

@Thebigmattb-0 However, I do not really understand the claim that his crimes and his filming never crossed paths. From my perspective, they clearly did. When someone films scenes with a little person and with other performers who are presented as very young-looking, I do not see how those things can be treated as unrelated to what he was later convicted for.

@ianfontinell-0 said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:

Or at the very least, instead of just waiting to remove off-topic comments the moderation could use the comment section to make a brief statement, maybe that would also help de-escalating this discussion in the comment section.

Agreed. Any communication at all would be nice.

@ianfontinell-0
My main issue was the removal of non-offensive comments that were trying to raise an ethical objection, even if only to reach the one person who might care. That was the point I was making.

@MrMazda As I said, ethical considerations matter to me. In this case, we are not talking about rumor or vague controversy. We are talking about someone who was sentenced to 19 years in prison for crimes involving minors. That fact changes the ethical context for me, even if the videos themselves are technically legal.
I am glad this thread has remained visible. At least here, people can state their view openly.

@MrMazda
I appreciate your response. My comments are not about discussing the legal case for its own sake. I much rather question that this person’s content is available on the platform at all, and that users are not allowed to voice objections to that fact in the relevant comment sections.

From my perspective, this is not simply an off-topic issue. The uploader, creator, and content cannot be neatly separated in a case like this, especially when users are raising legitimate ethical concerns about hosting the material.

I understand that others may see this differently, and I am expressing an opinion. My view is that removing all content by a convicted pedophile would be the more responsible course of action. If there is no other appropriate place on the site to state that view, then it is difficult to see where such concerns can be raised at all.

I have been part of this platform for 14 years. During that time, I have contributed a significant amount of content and even donated money to support the site.
Over the past few months, I have become increasingly concerned about the direction this website has taken. The distribution of this pedophile’s work is troubling enough. What makes it worse is that opposing views appear to be suppressed by admin action, with comments being removed simply for expressing disagreement.
What I find especially unacceptable is the apparent double standard in moderation. When my comments, and others that were not offensive, are repeatedly removed, while comments defending this content remain visible, it sends a very clear message about whose views are welcome here and whose are not.
After 14 years on this platform, I no longer feel welcome. At this point, I am seriously considering leaving the site permanently.