dAVe80 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 **** it, a 'simple' Google brings up nothing but news articles or 'censored' pics. You know those sites that are like youtube, but with Mommies and Daddies hugging with no cloths on? Try looking there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 **** it, I'm drunk anyway. I don't care I'm going to bed. **** the get Germans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Anyone spotted the ice rink yet? Yes, if it's the one in the bathroom. There's talk that the gymnast who's in some of these pictures was under 18 at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Anyone spotted the ice rink yet? Yes, if it's the one in the bathroom. There's talk that the gymnast who's in some of these pictures was under 18 at the time. Would that matter as long as she was over the legal age of consent? These pics were not taken with a view to entertaining the public, she was not "exploited" for the sexual gratification of the masses. The moral values on display throughout this whole incident are utterly bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 **** the get Germans Nooo. Becker/Graff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 If there's one thing that can make morals go out the window it's bewbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Anyone spotted the ice rink yet? Yes, if it's the one in the bathroom. There's talk that the gymnast who's in some of these pictures was under 18 at the time. Would that matter as long as she was over the legal age of consent? These pics were not taken with a view to entertaining the public, she was not "exploited" for the sexual gratification of the masses. The moral values on display throughout this whole incident are utterly bizarre. Yes it does matter - if it was in the UK. Although the age of consent is 16 it is an offence for two consenting 16 year olds to take sexy pictures of each other. They are both essentially creating child pornography sex abuse images as its 18+ to model for sexy pictures. Share a sexy picture of a person under 18? Yep.... you are now sharing child pornography sex abuse images. This runs true, regardless of "consent" or the purpose the images were created for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Anyone spotted the ice rink yet? Yes, if it's the one in the bathroom. There's talk that the gymnast who's in some of these pictures was under 18 at the time. Would that matter as long as she was over the legal age of consent? These pics were not taken with a view to entertaining the public, she was not "exploited" for the sexual gratification of the masses. The moral values on display throughout this whole incident are utterly bizarre. Yes it does matter - if it was in the UK. Although the age of consent is 16 it is an offence for two consenting 16 year olds to take sexy pictures of each other. They are both essentially creating child pornography sex abuse images as its 18+ to model for sexy pictures. Share a sexy picture of a person under 18? Yep.... you are now sharing child pornography sex abuse images. This runs true, regardless of "consent" or the purpose the images were created for. And should you view any part of the page containing these images, you could be charged with viewing child pornography and up a registered sex offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 The point I failed to make was a moral one rather than a legal one. Now suddenly, because one of the girls *might* be 17 it's wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismail-villa Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Anyone spotted the ice rink yet? Yes, if it's the one in the bathroom. There's talk that the gymnast who's in some of these pictures was under 18 at the time. Would that matter as long as she was over the legal age of consent? These pics were not taken with a view to entertaining the public, she was not "exploited" for the sexual gratification of the masses. The moral values on display throughout this whole incident are utterly bizarre. Yes it does matter - if it was in the UK. Although the age of consent is 16 it is an offence for two consenting 16 year olds to take sexy pictures of each other. They are both essentially creating child pornography sex abuse images as its 18+ to model for sexy pictures. Share a sexy picture of a person under 18? Yep.... you are now sharing child pornography sex abuse images. This runs true, regardless of "consent" or the purpose the images were created for. Feck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 The point I failed to make was a moral one rather than a legal one. Now suddenly, because one of the girls *might* be 17 it's wrong? No. Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 The point I failed to make was a moral one rather than a legal one. Now suddenly, because one of the girls *might* be 17 it's wrong?No. Not at all. Sorry, I assumed that was implied in the post I was replying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 The point I failed to make was a moral one rather than a legal one. Now suddenly, because one of the girls *might* be 17 it's wrong?No. Not at all. Sorry, I assumed that was implied in the post I was replying to. I meant morally too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 The point I failed to make was a moral one rather than a legal one. Now suddenly, because one of the girls *might* be 17 it's wrong?No. Not at all.Sorry, I assumed that was implied in the post I was replying to.I meant morally too. I know what you meant. We have our wires crossed. I assumed that the original post was implying that now it has been discovered that one of the girls may have been under 18 it is wrong, whereas before it was fine. It wasn't aimed at you, basically. You're clearly fine with it regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 The point I failed to make was a moral one rather than a legal one. Now suddenly, because one of the girls *might* be 17 it's wrong? It's wrong in either case, but shouldn't have people who have accidentally viewed those images on the same register as paedophiles and rapists, it's simply not 'that' wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted September 9, 2014 Author Share Posted September 9, 2014 Pictures of vaginas are just... great. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismail-villa Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Pictures of vaginas are just... great. Nah. Vaginas aren't really visually appealing. But bewbs and booty, hell yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Agreed. Boobies, fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 The point I failed to make was a moral one rather than a legal one. Now suddenly, because one of the girls *might* be 17 it's wrong? It's wrong in either case, but shouldn't have people who have accidentally viewed those images on the same register as paedophiles and rapists, it's simply not 'that' wrong. I agree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts