what does this have to do with zango again?
-
-
conversations one thing, you are posting naked pictures of kids on an adult porn forum. Keep it up, we will have tons of pedos here soon, thats all we need.
One of the things you fail to see is the " context " in which the pictures are used. The context the pictures on the site we are talking about in this thread is that the pictures are on an adult porn site. Go look at the site/join page its packaged in with a tons of porn. They charge people to see more naked kid pictures, its not like it is an art gallery site or some shit.
Now you take a picture of a 8 year child naked and post it to a porn messageboard. Not very smart IMO and I don't think GFY would like this very much.
A picture of a naked kid taken by their parents in their photo album, in that context no i don't think there is anything wrong with it. I think there are very very few cases where you can have a naked child's picture online and it be ok or legal. How does a child consent to having their naked picture looked at by millions of people online ? Seems like exploiting them to me. Just my opinions, take it for what it is worth.ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
i am learning that now, that is more common then I realized when I made this post. However, the "lifes style" is one thing, taking pictures of the kids and putting them on a website and charging money for people to see is another, no matter what society you live in. There is nothing about the nudist life style by looking at nude pictures of kids online, only lifestyle that is, is the pedo lifestyle.ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
will originaly i posted to counter what you said about nude beaches ( see thread title ) I am not talking about any website or any of that other stuff you guys seem to associate with being nude
nudity is not sexual ..........people are sexual
a person can be 10000X more sexual fully clothed then a person butt naked on a beach
Comment
-
I did not save the URL, so I can't.
The examples you have shown are more "erotic" than the example he sent to me. Your models were posing, his were not. Just 3 kids playing at the nearly empty beach.Last edited by TexasDreams; 02-24-2007, 01:01 PM.Comment
-
all this thread does is show who really has an overly paranoid/active imagination with very little knowledge as to what is and isn't perverted/child porn.Comment
-
I agree but the keyword is "person" ... we are talking about children. big difference in my opinion. Posting pictures of naked children, whether they are at the beach or laying on a bed, is just wrong imo whether the pictures are " sexy " or not. Where do you draw the line, so you think a picture of 8 10 year old boys and girls playing twister naked is ok ? They are just playing, it is " natural" nudity is not "evil".will originaly i posted to counter what you said about nude beaches ( see thread title ) I am not talking about any website or any of that other stuff you guys seem to associate with being nude
nudity is not sexual ..........people are sexual
a person can be 10000X more sexual fully clothed then a person butt naked on a beach
IMO there are rare cases where child nudity could be ok, and it would be on a site that is really an " art site" that has artistic value, not some nude beach pictures of kids mixed in with a porn site.ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
I do not doubt that there are pedos that flock to sites like that, just like there are pedos that flock to playgrounds, elementary schools, and National Geographic.
Doesn't change the fact that no porn has been shown in this thread, and that the example Will sent me last night was even less so.
He obviously has no clue as to what CP is.Comment
-
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
You are obviously not very bright, so I will type slowly for you.
In order for me to authorize you to my ICQ, I have to delete someone else. You are not worth that, and your timing sucked as I was busy. So, rather than get into some long, drawn out ICQ debate with you, I put you on ignore. You can't send it to me.
If you wish to send it to JTF, and have him send it to me, I most certainly would not have a problem posting it. However, I doubt that even JTF would find your example to be pornographic.Comment
-
Haven't been around the world much have you? Nude beaches are all over the place and especially in Europe you see a lot of nudists that simply go to the beach for a day with their families. No problem and nothing sexual.
If the first thing in your mind is CP when you see a kid naked, I think you need some serious help and get out of this business, you obvisously been in it a couple days to long.
SebsComment
-
No fucker, i want you to post it. You are the one that ragged on me because i wouldn't post it, you think that there is nothing wrong with it, you keep talking about how innocent the image is and that i am totally wrong... so then fucking post it.
let me break it down slow for you.... t h e r e a r e o t h e r w a y s t o s e n d s o m e t h i n g o n l i n e o t h e r icq.
what is your email, or is your email full too
back peddling is a bitch, if you scared to post it then you shouldn't be talking so much shit about me not posting it and that there is nothing wrong with it.
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
Comment
-
Pussy server - I suggest you remove those pics from your server, if they are yours. And prey that you don't get banned for posting them here
Just because the girls are posed and they are in B+W doesn't wrap the art category around blatent CP
For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)
All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202Comment
-
Hmmm, I'm not sure about that - I never visited the site that was posted in the first post, but the pics from Pussyserver are CP. Not porn in the sense of porn, but sexual exploitation of children flies under the CP flag as well.
Why is the woman in the background, not in the foreground? Because the focus is on the naked girl.
You can take naked artistic pictures of children without being full frontal.
Masters-of-fine-art-photography, mys ass.
For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)
All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202Comment
-
I'm pretty sure they're not on his server.
Back to the first post.
I think that kinda sites are clearly fronts for voyeur type pedos.
..but then again, there's nothing wrong in taking kids to nudist camps, or being naked in the sauna with your kid or whatever.. you just don't take pics of it and put them on the internet..
..and I'm off.Comment
-
...oh yeah, and I think posting those pics on an ADULT ENTERTAINMENT FORUM is in very bad taste if not illegal. Doesn't matter if they're technically cp or not...and I'm off.Comment
-
I Buy My High Quality Traffic Here, You Should Too!
Comment
-
You were able to get my ICQ without asking me for it, don't you think you can figure out one of my email addresses?No fucker, i want you to post it. You are the one that ragged on me because i wouldn't post it, you think that there is nothing wrong with it, you keep talking about how innocent the image is and that i am totally wrong... so then fucking post it.
let me break it down slow for you.... t h e r e a r e o t h e r w a y s t o s e n d s o m e t h i n g o n l i n e o t h e r icq.
what is your email, or is your email full too back peddling is a bitch, if you scared to post it then you shouldn't be talking so much shit about me not posting it and that there is nothing wrong with it.Comment
-
It's not John Ashcroft - it's the photos of Jock Sturges.
from wikipedia:
Many of Sturges' works feature young girls and boys in the nude. As such, some critics have claimed that his work is child pornography disguised as fine art. In April 1990, FBI agents raided his studio, confiscating his equipment and his work, and alleged he was creating child pornography. The art world and naturist communities were enraged, and publicly defended him. After over a year of investigation, the case was thrown out by a grand jury. Eventually Sturges got most of his work and equipment back. Later in the same year, his work came under attack by Christian conservatives led by Operation Rescue and Focus on the Family. Protestors picketed at major bookstores around the country which stocked his works. Sturges received more support from civil libertarians and artistic associations. Sturges also defended himself through a series of talks and interviews.
For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)
All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202Comment
-
Ok I'll waste a minute to try to bring a little logic into this.
Question for all the people that are pro-nudist beaches and such: Why on earth would you voluntarily allow your child to run around naked in an environment that has to have a higher per capita pedo ratio than a Micheal Jackson New Years Eve party?Comment
-
I most other countries other than North America all beaches are nude.Comment
-
As I said before
I guess it takes a thief to point out a thief because I dont see anything close to what I thought CP was in the sturges pictures I posted
and quoting myself...
and dont complain to me about the pics complain to amazon...explain to them that this book dosent meet your moral standards etc etc
http://www.amazon.com/Jock-Sturges/dp/3908247357
not CP..............
Comment
-
I'll further this comment with:
Why would anyone be for an obvious adult website that posts such pictures of naked children?
I'm not questioning taking your kids to the beach, clothed or not, but the person monopolizing off said public pictures should be judged differently.
That, and however "artful" those pussyserver pics were, it really is disturbing seeing them on this board.Your post count means nothing.Comment
-
-
pussyserver THANK YOU
my thoughts exactly but better said.Comment
-
LOL for one I was not on the beach...
Regardless of what the people were thinking on the beach, that is now irrelavant since it is on the INTERNET. It doesnt matter what their life style is once it gets put online, people looking at these pictures have nothign to do with their life style.
This is the first time I have seen nude children on a pornsite.
Note to rest of GFY, piss off Stuey by arguing with any of the people he works for and he will be sure to disagree 100% with you every chance he gets.
So Stuey, what do you think about this site: purenudism.com ? Besides trying to argue with me, do you think there is anything wrong with nude pictures of kids on a porn site ?ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
PS: The guy that took those pics that Pussyjig posted is a fucking pedophile. Anyone who doesnt see that is a moron.
Pussycoon should have his ass beaten, gfy account banned and playstation taken from him for being so fucking stupid as to post them on an adult webmaster forum.Comment
-
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
-
oh come on man don't tell me that you can't differentiate between nude kids playing on a beach and pictures of them on some CP internet site. We probably all as children have been naked at the beach.....I know I was.
There will always be someone around that will try to exploit the innocent
Comment
Comment