In the 1980's it seems child pornography was nearly legal
- Thread starter Big Shady
- Start date
Neo Bomber Man
Miracle Seller, , ,
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2000
- Posts
- 2,836
That was fucking hilarious. The 80's just keep getting better & better.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2002
- Posts
- 17,094
Robert said:
All warm and tingly in the groinal area?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 9,358
Robert said:
Oh, well... guess I fell kinda bored? Same new same old lame jokes.
I've kinda gave-up in giving serious answer to any of those.
On the contrary, I'm totally against child nudity (or half nutidy) in commercials.
[please bare with me for my many typos, poor English skills + poor typing skills + few few time to read and write the forums lately]
It's not a '80 thing. World is full of ipocriticy, you know, and you can think of beating the crap out of anyone taking his own little daughter/son's pics on the beach, while majors can anyway promote their products eventually USING children in the half nude, and no one will never ever blink. It's something that saddens me so much I can't even express. IE, last year this big italian fashion designer, namely 'Benetton' [he's supposed to be known out of Italy as well, thought I'm not sure] came up with this big cm campaign with this very young little girl, say 4 or something, shooted from her back, all in the nude except for a couple of angel-like wings. Italy was all covered up with this giant-sized commercial posters. I was horrified. I stayed grim for days and days just tormented in thinking like "one one is caring that little girl will eventually grow-up and possibly regret having been seen nude by so many people, just exposed to public". No one ever care of children's future sensibility, and that's something I hate.
This issue is strong and questionable even as for the case of art, so I seriously think it should be NO MATTER at all in the case of commercials! Damn, commercial is way too mean as a reason to even think about it!
On a final cultural note, it's known Carrol just destroyed all the photos of naked little girls he took, and never tried to made any of them public. I think that's because he realized my very same point, or something like that, for she indeed was fond on little girls, but in a very deeply emotional, aesthetical, artistical way.
And now, please, you American guyz just dont bring up again that M.Jackson argument of yours. That's just for I couldn't care less, it's no sense, no interest, and not even any fun. It never was, and now it's even old, so just *yawn* ok?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2001
- Posts
- 23,659
I was really starting to get into Shito's post, and felt that I could somehow understand the point he was trying to make. Then I scrolled down to the rest where it ultimately ended up with his sig followed with some girl's shorts riding up her crotch. Classic.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 9,358
SonGohan said:
First: no nude at all
Second: art thing
Third and FOREMOST: try to follow the girl's arm (which is the very composition of the picture) and go find the 'photo in the photo', which is the very focus point of the pic itself, and makes the sense of it.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2003
- Posts
- 12,886
Shito said:First: no nude at all
Second: art thing
Third and FOREMOST: try to follow the girl's arm (which is the very composition of the picture) and go find the 'photo in the photo', which is the very focus point of the pic itself, and makes the sense of it.
I don't see the photo in the photo, I've literally been looking for hours.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 9,358
StickmanLoser said:I don't see the photo in the photo, I've literally been looking for hours.
You're kindding, or making fun of me, aren't you?
What the gild hold with his hand it's not a paiting, but an old photo of her own grandmother...