Topic: Child Models

Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #5,101

What is MCs opinion on the permissibility on erotic child modeling i.e. pictures of children posing seductively in their underwear?

Is it really wrong? It seems awful at first, but is it really?

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #90,198

Fuck off, pedo scum.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,199

LOLICLICKED

SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,201

I prefer hardcore CP, myself.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,202

fuck off, to4str

Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,203

You are a moron.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,204

@90,201 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
I loved him.

You need to do a dump thread for all those pics you got.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,205

@90,201 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
lol i saw that guy on tv

nah hardcore cp is undeniably abuse

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,206

@90,203 (Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k)
explain why?

Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,207

who does it hurt and how?

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,211

You'll have to make up your own damn mind; nobody can do this for you.

(Edited 35 seconds later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,215

@previous (G)
My mind is not yet made up, but I am interested in what other people think.

Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,233

@90,198 (B)
How is a love of walking cause for being called scum?

Ryan !PArADOx9ZU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,492

@90,201 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
lol I saw this guy this morning when we watched the balcony scene in my history class.

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,521

@90,233 (Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA)
that was never funny. please stop

Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,539

@90,492 (Ryan !PArADOx9ZU)
Were they his glasses or did someone give them to him? He was such a contradiction, I loved it.

Ryan !PArADOx9ZU replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,551

@previous (J)
I'm not sure. He was definitely an interesting character.

Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,557

@OP

> erotic child modeling i.e. pictures of children posing seductively in their underwear?

You wrote that with your hand masturbating so hard, your hand feel asleep and will soon fall off. Good riddance!

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,562

Images like this were commonplace in newspapers and magazines right up until the early 90s. Obviously there is nothing wrong with this type of thing: the only ones who ~~really object~~ bawwww about it are trolls, moralfags and batshit crazy Republicans.

InB4 sup Toastr

(Edited 32 seconds later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,563

@90,557 (Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous)
Some people don't know what pedos mean when they say child modeling. They think it means kmart catalogues lol

Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,565

@90,562 (L)
That is a different issue, though. I agree 100% there is definitely nothing wrong with non-sexual naked images of children.

Oh look, it's this thread... joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,575

Again.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,581

@previous (Oh look, it's this thread...)
Quality Post!

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,590

@90,565 (J)
Nah, not a separate issue at all. There'll always be fucktards who scream "Think of the children", assholes who censor everything they don't like, and piece-of-shit trolls who think whipping up a moral panic makes them hardcore. That's why your sixty-nine year old grandma can be arrested for possessing nude baby photos, amirite?

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,595

@previous (L)
They are separate issues in that one could support one and oppose the other.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,605

@previous (J)
No. Moralfaggots consider any picture of an unclothed minor to be child porn, and trolltards would call it CP just to ~~cause trouble~~ act like fucktards. Don't believe me? Take a look at anonymous B's reply.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,608

@previous (L)
Are you TGcomix? lol

I am a moralfaggot. Any picture could be used as child porn, but obviously we can't ban all pics of children. Porn is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think child modeling should be illegal. I don't think it harms children.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,636

@previous (J)
Given your replies, I can't seriously believe you're a moralfag. Your views on the subject are too intelligent and reasonable. AnonB is a stereotypical moralfaggot, spouting hate and abuse without even considering the question. His type of blatant faggotry is far more common than rational discourse, which is why you can actually go to prison for reading a fucking comic book in the USA.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,639

@previous (L)
I am a moralfaggot for myself. I wish that everybody was a moralfaggot, but I recognise that you can not force someone to be a moralfaggot and that when you try, you just make it worse.

psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,641

I don't give a fuck as long as they aren't being coerced to do so.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,648

@previous (psychopath !PAHVpsycho)
Obviously coercion is wrong, and I guess a little extra leeway is probably needed for children.

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,842

@90,636 (L)
Mad? I'm just not a pedo sympathiser. Of course children in erotic poses is wrong, it's indefensible.

OP's brand of faggotry should not be tolerated.

(Edited 18 seconds later.)

Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,873

If you see a small child, and the first thing that comes to mind is sex with it: try not to have sex with it.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,083

@90,842 (B)
Fuck off, troll. No one gives a shit what you think.

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,087

@previous (L)
Sup to4str? You mad?

Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,088

@91,083 (L)
hey to4sty

Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,089

@91,083 (L)
sup to4str!!!1!/!!/!!

(Edited 7 seconds later.)

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,091

@91,087 (B)
@91,088 (P)
@previous (Q)

Already said inB4 sup to4str:

@90,562 (L)

Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,092

I think it's wrong to dress them up in sexually suggestive clothing and for them to pose in provocative ways, but swimwear and the like doesn't seem so bad.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,093

@91,091 (L)
So? I can't say hi to my favorite angry homosex pedo slap dick?

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,095

@previous (Q)
Modz can confirm I'm not To4str - faggot.

Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,097

@91,092 (R)
So, this 1960s advert is "wrong"?

(Edited 48 seconds later.)

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,098

@91,095 (L)
oh, sorry. Sup not to4str!!1!1/1!/

Anonymous Q double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,099

@91,097 (L)
if you sit around searching the google for adverts with little 1/2 naked children, you might be a pedo

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,103

@previous (Q)
Didn't answer the question, faggot.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,105

@previous (L)
you weren't asking me, queer-mo. I was making an astute observation.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,107

@previous (Q)
Well, I'm asking you now, dog-fucker. Is the advert "wrong"?

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,109

@previous (L)
I don't give a fuck. I was drinking Sprite when I read your fucking headline.

Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,110

@91,097 (L)

No. And I never implied so in my post.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,115

@91,109 (Q)
Not my fucking headline, cocksuck. Now crawl back to your basement and fuck your fat whore mother up the ass again.

Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,118

@91,110 (R)
> I think it's wrong to dress them up in sexually suggestive clothing and for them to pose in provocative ways

So, the child in the ad isn't dressed up in sexually suggestive clothing (underwear) and posed in a provocative way (opposite an attractive half-naked woman)?

Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,123

@previous (L)

> >I think it's wrong to dress them up in sexually suggestive clothing and for them to pose in provocative ways
>
> So, the child in the ad isn't dressed up in sexually suggestive clothing (underwear) and posed in a provocative way (opposite an attractive half-naked woman)?

That's right, apart from your classifying underwear as sexually suggestive.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,124

@91,115 (L)
That could take ages, sorry.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,130

@previous (Q)
Faggot.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,132

@previous (L)
lol 10/10 bud

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,133

@91,123 (R)
Then, you'd have no problem with child modeling sites, which generally depict fully dressed children engaged in normal activities (dancing, dressing up, playing in the park etc)?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,135

@previous (L)

That's right. Now, where are you trying to go with this?

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,136

@91,132 (Q)
14 year-old permavirgin tries to look hardcore.

Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,143

@91,135 (R)
Just pointing out that the word "wrong" is extremely subjective.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,144

@91,136 (L)
Why you mad, tho?

Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,146

@91,143 (L)

Right, and that's where the consensus of the majority is useful.

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,147

Dress it all you want, but at the end of the day lusting after children is wrong, to4sty.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,148

@91,144 (Q)
Confirmed faggot. Fucking luzer can't even come up with an original comeback.

Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,150

@91,146 (R)
You already know that consensus can be highly inaccurate.

Anonymous L triple-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,151

@91,147 (B)
Fuck off, trollfaggot. Already told you nobody cares what you think.

Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,152

@91,150 (L)

Not really. There's usually a consensus for a very good reason. Yeah, outliers are not uncommon, but for issues of "morality", the mean usually represents the rational-minded.

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,155

@91,151 (L)
Quality rebuttal, chap.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,156

@91,152 (R)
> for issues of "morality", the mean usually represents the rational-minded.

That's a rather broad generalization isn't it?

Is this painting high art or child porn? I should point out that there are many "rationally minded" people who would consider it CP.

(Edited 36 seconds later.)

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,157

@91,148 (L)
That's some nice oc you got there, bud. Your mom has sure got some beefy arms.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,161

@91,155 (B)
Yeah, about the same quality as this, you whining little faggot.

Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,162

@91,156 (L)

Look, I get your point--whether something is sexually suggestive or not is up to the individual. Not everyone is going to agree, because it's totally subjective. On the other hand, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Where this line lies is where you and I disagree, and that's okay. Neither one of us is going to convince the other to see differently at the end of the day.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,164

@91,157 (Q)
Business as usual: Anons Q & B contribute their opinions to MC (animated).

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,165

@91,161 (L)
But mine was true. Children in any kind of "seductive pose" is always wrong.

And again, well done avoiding my point.

Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,166

@91,164 (L)
Your rage is beautiful.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,170

@previous (B)
isn't it though?

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,175

@91,165 (B)
> well done avoiding my point.

Already addressed in these posts, if you'd bothered reading them:

@90,590 (L)
@90,562 (L)
@90,605 (L)
@91,133 (L)
@91,156 (L)

Of course, you didn't, because you're an ignorant little fucktard who thinks he's right 100 percent of the time.

Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,178

@91,166 (B)
@91,170 (Q)
> Your rage is beautiful

So is your faggotry, boys.

BTW: Pwnt before you even started.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,183

@previous (L)
To4str, you so crazy.

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,184

@91,175 (L)
If you get off on children, you're a sick fuck. No amount of bullshitting is going to change that, to4str.

Anyway, I'm bored of you now. Enjoy being a dirty pedo.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,189

@previous (B)
> Enjoy being a filthy homosex pedo.

FTFY

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,190

@91,183 (Q)
@91,184 (B)

Stereotypical ad hominem attacks. You lose the argument by default. Pwnt again, faggots.

(Edited 25 seconds later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,191

@91,189 (Q)
That too, my dear Balfo.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,192

@91,189 (Q)

Anons Q & B engage in more quality bonding time together (animated).

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,193

@91,190 (L)
Well, you can attack the relevancy of what was said by calling them ad hominem attacks, sure. But you lose by default first, because you are To4str and we can all tell that it's you

> pic related

Anonymous Q double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,194

@91,191 (B)
Balfo? lolno.

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,195

@91,193 (Q)
If you honestly believe I'm To4str, then ask one of the mods for confirmation. If you don't, then you're a chickenshit faggot who doesn't have the balls to put his money where his mouth is.

BTW: you won't ask, because you already know I'm not To4str.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,196

@previous (L)
Oh yeah, because it's impossible to pick up new UID and IP, To4str. You could confirm this by posting your usual namefag, also. (or is your account one of those fancy 1 topic, 11 reply UIDs?)

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,199

@previous (Q)
Put up or shutup faggot. You won't take the bet because you know you'll lose.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,201

@previous (L)
Don't throw this on me, bud. You can ask mods for confirmation of yourself too. but you won't, cause sup To4str!!!/!1!1!!

(Edited 15 seconds later.)

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,205

@previous (Q)
Nega, if you're there, please confirm for this chickenshit faggot that I'm not To4str.

Cheers, The Master

Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,206

@91,201 (Q)
BTW: I had the balls to take the bet, you didn't.

You lose again - faggot.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,209

@previous (L)
> implying that your offer of a 'bet' was in any way an actual challenge
> implying the one without gay porno saved to his HD is the faggot
> implying you have skill

are you trying to imply something To4str?

Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,231

@previous (Q)
Don't need to imply anything. You're a worthless little faggot who's contributed absolutely nothing to this thread beyond his own butthurt - strereotypical trollfag bevavior.

You must be such a fucking luzer IRL.

Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,233

@91,209 (Q)
BTW: it was a bet, you lost because you didn't have the balls to take it.

Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,234

@91,231 (L)

Anonymous Q double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,242

@91,233 (L)
If you had any balls you'd namefag when you post topics like this.

Anonymous Q triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,276

> still waiting for that confirmation

Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #91,307

> 64 new
> oh you..

Minichan