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

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

Father, photographer, Child Pornographer.

StoneHappyMonday said:
I don't know why you have no desire to see them. What are you frightened of?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing! I have no desire to see them because I don't want to see pictures of other peoples spawn - however bleedin' 'artistic'.

Anyway, You callin' me a fuckin' nonce????? :sus:


Edit: Having now seen these pics (had to really didn't I?), I reckon most of them would have been a damn sight better without the sprog in the foreground...
 
Last edited:
One Thousand Words said:
How about people who don't like it don't look at them and leave the rest of us to live our lives and parent in peace?
Click to expand...

Because it's a photo of the child and the child has no input into how public these photos are.

StoneHappyMonday said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't like it if one of my parents published photos of me online without my permission, clothed or naked. As a child you have no say in the matter. I think an exception can be made in this case as it was for artistic purposes. I don't see it as sexual, just invasive.

One Thousand Words said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, if I had a child I wouldn't want other people who have never even met him/her to already know what he or she looks like. I don't believe anyone should post photos of another person without their permission or knowledge. Children are no exception to this rule and I feel that they deserve privacy more than anyone as they are unlikely to be aware of the consequences of having photos online.
 
No, there is a 2yr old vagina in at least one of the pics. Couple of nipple shots too.
IMG.jpg


Look at that cute little ragamuffin on the left. I bet some old perve is thinking about his tight cheeks right as we speak. Poor sod, having his picture passed around the prison block like a spliff around a campfire.

I bet he grows up to be a right messed up cunt
 
class-a-team said:
Well, if I had a child I wouldn't want other people who have never even met him/her to already know what he or she looks like.
Click to expand...

And yet, the very first thing people do when they go to work in an office is put a photo of their kid on their desk, so every (new) person who walks past can see their pride and joy. And if it's not on their desk, how many times have we seen proud parents take pics from their wallets in order to pass around the office, a show of their 'normality' (I've got a family me, I'm straight and respectable).

We've been showing pics of our kids to strangers for years, way before the Internet. Because we never gave in to the paedophile philosophy as kids as sex objects. Id be fucked if I'd allow the mind of a paedophile dictate my normal behaviour. There was even a thread or post on here recently which pointed out the revoltingness of workers being expected to be interested in other peoples kids.
 
[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
The SAP Scale[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]1[/TH]
[TD]Nudity or erotic posing with no sexual activity[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]2[/TH]
[TD]Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]3[/TH]
[TD]Non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and child(ren)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]4[/TH]
[TD]Penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and adult(s)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]5[/TH]
[TD]Sadism or bestiality[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

This is how the police and courts rate child abuse images.

So I guess in certain contexts these images could be classed as child abuse images.
 
wcote2 said:
[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
The SAP Scale[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]1[/TH]
[TD]Nudity or erotic posing with no sexual activity[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]2[/TH]
[TD]Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]3[/TH]
[TD]Non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and child(ren)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]4[/TH]
[TD]Penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and adult(s)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center"]5[/TH]
[TD]Sadism or bestiality[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

This is how the police and courts rate child abuse images.

So I guess in certain contexts these images could be classed as child abuse images.
Click to expand...

Only the very first word there 'nudity' applies to some of these pictures.

Which to me looks like a definition in the law that needs changing. Let's face it, there's enough crap in the drug laws which bears no relation to drug users (or even dealers) actual behaviour. Hysteria rarely leads to justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top