minx

Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Fri 29/03/24 06:21:43 GMT

Translate page FROM gb -> TO de fr it nl es pt jp

Translate page TO gb <- FROM de fr it nl es pt jp

WetlookPro

Message # 18062.2.1

Subject: Talking Re: Re: All of this blather about underaged models

Date: Mon 05/09/05 09:12:01 GMT

Name: soak_ed de

Email: soak_ed@hotmail.com

Website: http://justaddwater.grayhost.net/

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: Make Donation (you can change amount)

Previous Reply
Next New Message
Active List Archive

I agree completely with Sopping.  Roscoe, your definition is purely a personal one and that is fine if that is whtt you believe.  Intent is not illegal when it comes to viewing pictures of people that are not naked or engaged in sexual activity.  If someone takes a picture of a naked child in a provocative pose, the intent is ppretty clear, that is child porn.  If there are photos on Pilt ee that show teenage girls fully clothed in the water, even if the "Thought Police" catch you at you computer jerking off,you still have not commited a crime unless you were doing it in public and then the crime would be performing a lewd act in public or some such thing.  If some people on this forum like pictures such as those on Pilt ee and others don't so be it.  This has been an ongoing discussion every time these links are posted.  Let's give it a rest.  As long as the pictures are not pornographic, and standards for pornography exist in almost every country, and fully clothed pictures of girls playing in a lake come nowhere close to violating these standards, then if you don't feel moraly correct viewing them, just move on.  It is a waste of time and bandwidth to protest every time pictures like this appear.  When the law enforcement folks start trying to determine the viewers intent in viewing an innocuous picture, the world will be so fucked up that will be the least of our problems.
In reply to Message (18062.2) Hello Re: All of this blather about underaged models

By Roscoe B.C. - us Mon 05/09/05 07:33:24 GMT

Website:


There are two factors that set my kiddie porn alarm off, intent and encouragement.  If someone takes a picture of a kid having fun in a fountain because it looks like they are having fun, that's not porn, because the intent of the picture (and the behaviour) was probably not to create sexual arousal.  When someone posts that picture to a forum where the intent is to post pictures that others will find arousing, the intent is kiddie porn, and will be seen that way by society.  It very much parallels the fine line between fine art nude photography and Hustler magazine.  The difference is mostly in the intent, not so much the content.

 

The second issue is encouragement.  Posting pictures of underage people in a forum that is all about sexual arousal, may just encourage someone with pedophile tendencies to feel it's more acceptable, and act on those tendencies.  I don't know if data supports that, but I guarantee people will think that.  That's why the laws exist, people have been arrested and their computers confiscated for viewing, and forums have been closed.

 

For this very reason, I don't like candid stuff where the people in the picture were not trying to be seductive, and I get angry when someone posts images of underage kids.  Healty adults instinctively want to protect kids from pedophiles.

 

The law considers intent.  The difference between an accidental death and a murder is just intent.

 

If this was a forum about fountain design, maybe the rules could be different, but it's not.  

In reply to Message (18062) Hello All of this blather about underaged models

By Sopping - katakai1@verizon.net us Mon 05/09/05 04:29:24 GMT

Website:


I don't get it.

 

I am not talking about national laws here, just common sense. It is OK to take and publish a picture of an infant, a young child, a lovely young woman---of ANY age...As long as she is, playing in the park, petting a small dog, sucking on an ice-cream bar, or sitting on a fence wearing a bikini etc etc. - whatever. No problem, no porn, no nothing.No cries of alarm!

 

Why can said young lady be innocently wading in a lake? Is it OK for her to be standing by the lake then? Or possibly just getting her feet wet? At what point does she wade to sufficient depth that the button of the "anti-porn police" is pushed?

 

There is not the slightest element of porn in these pictures.You know it, I know it, we all know it.

 

But, on this site, we have postings by slobbering voyeurs of "Busty,Sexy teen-models" and similar porn-come-ons all the time. Big time! If I were to waste my time on these sites, I am sure I could identify some underage bimbos. But why bother.

 

S:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: Make Donation (you can change amount)

All WAM Drunk Sex Orgy Clips4Sale
Wetlook-Online

Minx Movies - M12 - Dressed in Wet is now in the Download Store
Download Store

Minx Movies - M15 - Wet Me Now is now in the Download Store
Download Store

Minx Movies - M14 - Get Wet With Me is now in the Download Store
2ipmd65.jpg2ipmdg2.jpgckfbj77.jpgjapgs25.jpgzgjbt99.jpg Download Store 2fpbs94.jpgkijws74.jpgrlsps97.jpglasbjg7.jpg2fptg96.jpg2gpdde7.jpg


Minx Movies - M8 - Mask Of Wetness is now in the Download Store
Download Store



[ This page took 0.026 seconds to generate ]