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

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

Father, photographer, Child Pornographer.

Hindus don't have shitloads of gods they have one multi-faceted one and are very open to accepting fresh facets - seems pretty flexible to me by religious standards. Buddhism comes in quite a variety of forms too. So does Christianity - over 30000 denominations and counting - but that one has rather a different feel to t'other examples of religious plurality somehow... :sus:
 
^^
I think the Hindus are onto something, if you were running the show, pissing people off then making them happy again on the ultimate grand scale of things, whilst having to both love people and also condem sume for a variety of unfathomable and odd reasons that were all of your won design and making.....you'd need a few helpers just like father Christmas and the tooth faery :D
 
Good-O =D

Am currently rewatching old episodes of Shooting Stars. Not sure that they'll come in handy for pedantry purposes any time soon but you never know :D

EDIT: That's pedantry purposes not pederasty purposes... or maybe they will come in handy... is that the topic I spot somewhere in there?!? 8o
 
This is a tricky one. I can't be asked naming n quoting so will just get down to business.

I agree with the people that say nudity n sex are NOT the same thing. Yes they can be intertwined but not necessarily always. So thus, in that respect nowt wrong has happened.

The people that say children's nude pics are natural n are showed/ shared amongst close family n friends n have been for generations - are also quite right, in my opinion.

Where I have issues is the consent n the Internet. I understand that in terms of naked pics amonst family members, no consent is given - HOWEVER, when it comes to the Internet those pics are more likely to get into the wrong hands.

But, and I think it was SHM whom expressed so (apologies, if not), why should society change ways because of a nasty group of people eg paedophiles??? This is true, but are we?

We have not always had this multi media n less of the 1984 issue, so to speak.

I see that Raasy has been getting a hard time here. Whilst, TO A POINT, I can relate to what some of you are saying,'that it's people who think of the pics in that certain way, have the issues,' (someone I knew used to complain against this sort of thing, was almost obsessive, n turned out to have paedophiliac creams himself) - in terms of Raasy, I think that he is putting himself into the shoes of the child n of the "propaganda," there is a difference between a child seen by close relations n millions on the chat.

I am a parent n I won't put My child online because she not given her content - and is unable to give me her consent for me to do so.

I can also understand the argument that it is often close family who tirn out to be sexual abusers. So I guess it's a tricky one - and I guess I've not fully answered the question really. That's because it 's a complex one. It is fascinating, however, to see all the different opinions, the rational behind the opinions n the passion for against this. It 's not straight forward - n in some ways, I do agree that a child's innocence has been ruined by all the propaganda / witch, along with the group of people who have harmed our child.

So I guess I re-ask the question. Where do we draw the line between protecting a child's innocence (allowing naked pictures etc) n keeping our children safe (disallowing naked pics)????

Over n out !

Evey
 
Sammy G said:
How does disallowing naked pictures of children keep them safe?
Click to expand...

You tell me, I was asking the question :D

My answer would be, in terms of photographs, as is the discussion here, there is less chance of paedophiles getting old of their pics however, the children themselves will not know if someone has, say, done stuff with their photographs so maybe in that respect , 'keep them safe' was not the appropriate terminology.

I guess another question could be "Is it appropriate to remove / disallow nude pics of children on the Internet or by doing so , are we letting sick-minded individuals dictate how children should be shown in social-media settings ?"

Evey
 
Sammy G said:
Fair enough.
Click to expand...

I 've been keeping up with this thread, having some personal stuff similar n being a parent myself. And I must admit some of the posts are really good, illustrate good argument n reasoning.

As a parent, I too, fell for the propaganda n intertwined nudity n sex but as I think SHM (???) said they are very much different n even so, it is a part of growing up. We are taking away the innocents of children in disallowing pics - I never really saw it that way but it is very true n very valid. As a parent, I was scared to take a picture of my child in the bath, smiling having fun playing with her toys etc. it is a shame that parents feel this way because it is natural n when they are in adult later life it is good to show their partners n embarrass them for teasing purposes.

However, I won't put my child's pics online. (Bar Facebook where only a few close friends- I've videos of her on a walk in the country with myself) but my reason is that she is not able to give her content to allow it. If I was to say, put a photo of her on Bluelight as has been asked of me a few times, I would feel VERY wrong in doing this. Even if she said "Mam, you can put my pic up, please, Mam!" She has still not properly consented for me to do so, in the way that she is not able to comprehend what it really means to have her photograph placed on the Internet n the consequences of doing so, ie it stops becoming my personal property n is the property of the WWW. This, in a way, is similar to people with LD / MH issues when asking do they have the capacity to properly consent.

As my child's "protector," the content is my responsibility n I have to use that wisely n carefully as, after all I am responsible for another human being. So thus she is not able to give content, I feel that it is wrong to consent on her behalf in that way in regards to placing pics on the net. There's also the fact that certain people are not allowed to see her n I don't want her pic getting in front of eyes of a "sick-minded individual(s).

I think, and I cannot answer for him so this is on complete assumption, that when Raas was discussing content, he probably meant similar reasoning (Raasy, apologies if I'm wrong here), it doesn't mean that he, or anyone else has 'issues,' just that their opinion is different to others opinion. We all have different opinions n that's what makes life exciting. Opinions can never be wrong. Fact can, of course be proven with by evidence, or lack of evidence. Opinions are, well opinions. Raas has every right to have the opinion that children can't give consent so their pic shouldn't be broadcasted.

I do think, that this witchhunt will affect the child in question, rather than the actual photographs themselves. Debates like these need to be had. People are getting frightened n where will it stop. I joke with my child when she's naked n she laughs n says "I'm naked!" N looks at herself. Does that make me a pedo? No. Children need to explore themselves n not to believe that the body is something to be ashamed of.

Where will it end n where should the line be drawn???? What's people 's opinions on child content? Should we consent on their behalf with pics or take a step back as the child does not have capacity to properly give consent?

Evey
 
Eveleivibe said:
However, I won't put my child's pics online. (Bar Facebook where only a few close friends- I've videos of her on a walk in the country with myself) but my reason is that she is not able to give her content to allow it.
Click to expand...

When you put things on Facebook, you're actually surrendering it to the company which owns Facebook. You might be able to restrict the wider public's access, but you're still effectively putting the images / video online for any Facebook employee to use as they wish.

Your child's life is controlled by you for as long as they're under your roof, so of the thousand decisions which you make for them on a daily basis without requesting their consent, why should their picture be any different?

I'm sure that subjecting a child to a religious education which they grow to resent is far more potentially harmful than a nonce potentially jacking off over a photo, but do you object to children being marched off to church / mosque / shul / whatever in the same way?

Perspective is a wonderful thing.
 
Interesting post n some very valid points.

I am a Christian n used to love Christian assembles. I'm going to be careful here as this could take the thread off course so will say that I feel they give the child morals - a lot of the bible stories had a hidden message in them n singing hymn well that gave a sort of togetherness. As for RE - if it's done appropriate - I don't see how it can harm the child(ren) ie overview of several of the religions. It arms them with information, which can, in my opinion, only be a good thing. "Is is bliss but knowledge is power!" is one my quotes n applies here. However, in some respects, I hear what you're saying. Marching children off to church, so to speak is kind of forcing them to follow one religion - and as minors are not able to comprehend the many different religions n what they'd like to follow, if any. For this reason, and the fact my family are atheists (I've no friends cause I rowed with them all) n would point blank refuse to go, I have not had my child christened. I may that, that should be her choice when she's old enough to understand, research n choose for herself.

I hear what you say re consent - however , day to day stuff, I have no choice, it's what I signed up for when she popped her little head into the world. But I do have a choice when it comes to photographs so i choose not to put them online.

As for Facebook. Yes you're right. I didn't think about that. Will have to think about taking them down from there (I 'm kinda being a bit hypocritical really - so they need removing from Facebook too).

Evey
 
BecomingJulie said:
Looking at a photograph is the ultimate one-way communication. A photograph is just an arrangement of points of light as they existed for an instant in time, captured and reproduced by some chemical or electromechanical process.

I can see that some people might find this counter-intuitive at first, though.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the science behind a photograph has any relevance. I mean yeah the same science applies to child pr0nz photos, but all they are is a arrangement of points of light as they existed for an instant in time, captured and reproduced by some chemical or electromechanical process. Forgive me if I am wrong but are you saying that a photo is noting more than an arrangement of points of light as they existed for an instant in time, captured and reproduced by some chemical or electromechanical process. Sorry I am really confused by your post.
 
Last edited:
HouseFever said:
I don't see how the science behind a photograph has any relevance. I mean yeah the same science applies to child pr0nz photos, but all they are is a arrangement of points of light as they existed for an instant in time, captured and reproduced by some chemical or electromechanical process. Forgive me if I am wrong but are you saying that a photo is noting more than an arrangement of points of light as they existed for an instant in time, captured and reproduced by some chemical or electromechanical process. Sorry I am really confused by your post.
Click to expand...

I too am confused by this. Regardless of the science behind photography, a photograph can have a huge impact on any given situation. The old say is "a picture paints 1000 words".

If we were to go down this road we could argue that life is really meaningless as all we are is atoms (the big bang theory). Like HF I wonder what the science behind a photo has to do with the photograph contents.

Evey
 
BecomingJulie said:
My point was, that looking at a photograph is strictly a one-way thing. Someone looking at a picture cannot influence the subject of that picture in any way.
Click to expand...

Ah i understand. So, for instance, a paedophile can perceive the photo a specific way and maybe perform degrading act to it but it does not change the photo of the child. It's all based perception n how each person perceives the photograph, right?

Thus it's not the photo itself that can change but how it can be perceived.

Evey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top