Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Tue 16/04/24 12:53:14 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 18062.3.1.1.1

Subject: Re: Re: I think alot of the issue is...

Date: Tue 06/09/05 00:44:44 GMT

Name: G.O.P.

Email:

Website:

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

Intent of the viewer or intent of the forum can be determined about as well as intent of the voter on a ballot with a hanging chad.

In reply to Message (18062.3.1.1)

Re: I think alot of the issue is...

By Blue Ranger - Mon 05/09/05 15:16:32 GMT

Website:

The initial post in this article was about using common sense and I think we have all agreed in our own way to this. Just use a bit of initiative and we will all be fine. Unless you are a sick paedophile you wont find images of children in any way pleasurable. Of course, teenagers are that group notorious for still being children (legally) but behaving in many ways like adults, e.g smoking, drinking, sexual activities etc. I agree with your observation of the viewer's age. I am 23 so can see where you are coming from. Where the age of the viewer is much older and the 'old enough to be her father' comments can be added the idea of 'underage' material perhaps becomes inappropriate. I am certainly not trying to start any arguement with that comment, I think you all know what Im getting at. At the end of the day though, what a man does in the comfort of his own house over just a picture of someone is hardly a major issue as long as it doesnt lead to anything.

In reply to Message (18062.3.1)

I think alot of the issue is...

By DDMan - Mon 05/09/05 10:49:40 GMT

Website:

Its not that the material is illegal. The pictures of girls (we will say 14/15) in a lake playing around fully clothes and not being overtly sexual is NOT illegal to view. The problem is when it is viewed in a sexual manner. Technically, there is no law broken if you find underage girls clothed arousing (although the morality can be debated depending on your age). The problem is in the purpose of the forum (which even can be debated). Some would say this is an adult forum because it deals with fetishes, and therefore the entire forum is available for sexual enjoyment (which is why the forum RULES say no underage photos). The other side is that this forum is NOT entireley sexual, and although it does have its share of adult photographs and topics, it is merely a place for people who enjoy wetlook to gather and have discussions (not all wetlook related).

My personal opinion (being only 21) is that underage girls are ok as long as they are LEGAL photographs (non-nude), but ALSO that the images are that of girls over the age of 14/15 (High school age). Anything under 14 shoudl be stricly prohibited and my basis of that is because here in the state of CA, sex with a minor under the age of 14 is a BIG BIG no-no (you'll be taking it in the rear from Bubba for a LONG time). This is my personal opinion and you can dispute it all you want, as I'm not trying to start a war here.

In reply to Message (18062.3)

Re: All of this blather about underaged models

By Wet Dude - Mon 05/09/05 08:30:20 GMT

Website:

One thing you have to remember here. Links to photos THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE INTERNET are what's being posted here. So the responsibility of appropriateness lies with the person that put the photos on the net, not the people who link to them here. I remember a debate here about the Olsen twins with a link to a Nickolodeon site with them getting slimed. But they hadn't yet reached their 18th birthday. SO WHAT!! The photos were already on the web, this site is just linking to them.

However on the debate of candid photos; No matter what age you are, if you are out having fun and someone snaps your photo, I'm not sure they would appreciate the photo being on the web, whether it's wetlook, innocent or whatever. Private citizens have a right to some privacy. Don't forget, legally, a model release must be signed for photos that show your face. Ever watch COPS on TV. People in the background often have blurred faces because those people didn't give consent to be shown on TV.

In reply to Message (18062)

All of this blather about underaged models

By Sopping - katakai1@verizon.net 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.

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