• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Father, photographer, Child Pornographer.

I don't see why they are a potential source of embarrassment when she's older. Her behaviour is not unusual, there is no Jeremy Beadle material here. She is two years old doing what most two year olds do some of the time, going around naked. There is nothing sexual in the pictures so any embarrassment comes from learned moralistic assumptions about nudity. The pictures aren't even about nudity, that's just a normal by-product of being a very small child (who hasn't learned all that embarrassing shit we all get indoctrinated with). And in half the pictures she's clothed anyway.

Where I live, on St David's Day small schoolchildren, all of them, get photographed in national costume. They are made to do this. The pictures then get published in their thousands in local newspapers. The national costume is stupid, unflattering, embarrassing. The pictures are forced and coerced. There is nothing natural about them at all. Nobody ever complains about that being child abuse or a potential source of future embarrassment.

The link I quoted in the Huffington Post made it clear these pics were taken in the two favoured outfits of the child, the ones she chooses most. A princess dress or nothing at all. The pics were captured in a natural environment with no coercion at all.

The embarrassment argument doesn't wash with me. Surely a grown up child is far more likely to be Embarassed by an unflattering unfashionable picture released to the print press in the whole of her local community than natural pics of her doing what most other kids do but with the advantage of the pics being taken by her famous dad, with some actual professional merit?
 
F.U.B.A.R. said:
I think the issue here is that some people DO like it and DO look at them, but YOU have no control over who those people may be...
Click to expand...

What's the worst that they could do? Have a toss in front of their laptop on the other side of the world? Put a pair of chuck tailors on her feet and Sammy might have a wank but he's hardly harming the poor lass.

If she isn't being sexualised she isn't being abused. If other people see harmless childhood fun as something sexual that's their problem.
 
I personally think the guy was being a little naive in publishing those pictures in the first place. Surely he could foresee the type of response that he got from some people? No doubt he's a very proud father (as are all fathers), but there are many other less emotive subjects he could have photographed.
 
When is art not emotive? He's a good photographer and he's captured some fantastic moments. If you were standing there would you not laugh, cry or smile at the little girl? Would you have pulled your cock out because she was too cute?

There are sick people out there for sure, but there are also too many worry warts and do gooders looking for the worst when there isn't anything there
 
Bearlove said:
Do YOU like them ? Do you really accept that somebody could accept these images as 'sexual' ?
Click to expand...

Tbh, I've not even seen the bloody pictures =D (and I have no real desire to).... However, I am absolutely sure that whatever the nature of the images, somebody WILL find them sexual and get a perverse kick out of them - there's some bloody funny buggers out there y'know.....
 
F.U.B.A.R. said:
Tbh, I've not even seen the bloody pictures =D (and I have no real desire to).... However, I am absolutely sure that whatever the nature of the images, somebody WILL find them sexual and get a perverse kick out of them - there's some bloody funny buggers out there y'know.....
Click to expand...

I don't know why you have no desire to see them. What are you frightened of? They are good art, well taken shots. Your attitude is an endictment of the fear instilled us by the remote possibility of paedophilia. And they're not even paedophiliac. By worrying about their content you are giving unnecessary power to the corrupted paedophile interpretation of such imagery. You will never change the paedophile perspective. Banning innocent pics of 2 year olds will never eradicate paedophilia. It will, however, eradicate an innocent age of a proper sensibility where such innocence was never sexualised by the vast majority of people. That looks like victory to the paedophiles to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top