Post-tits $1.99

[goes2fast]

4 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

 

 

 

Mike only expressed an opinion no demands. I have hidden the picture in question because POST-tits and added a warning to the title. I'm hoping Ratpatrol and Mike know each other for such a comment to pass without any offense.   

Now I'm wondering which photo this was?

[datzenmike]

7 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

 

 

 

Mike only expressed an opinion no demands. I have hidden the picture in question because POST-tits and added a warning to the title. I'm hoping Ratpatrol and Mike know each other for such a comment to pass without any offense.   

 

[VFR800]

[VFR800]

[VFR800]

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[tr8er]

On 9/20/2020 at 7:26 AM, datzenmike said:

 Most dictionaries include it being erotic or sexually stimulating by viewing but where's the threshold??? 

 

Yet we keep the Coupe pic threads.  So...

[goes2fast]

[goes2fast]

[VFR800]

[Rat-a-tat-Dat]

Nudity vs Porn:

The distinction is made in terms of the context in which the subject is presented. If the material is created with the sole specific intention to sexually excite, then one could argue that it is pornographic. If it has other aims beyond that singular goal, one could argue that it is not. Take, for example, a nude image of a person displayed in a medical textbook designed to give instruction - definitely nudity, definitely not pornographic. Take works of erotic fiction, which although designed to excite, also hold literary and artistic value beyond that sole purpose.

That being said, the lines of distinction aren't so clearly drawn, and a lot relies on individual response - something can be pornographic yet still have artistic merit. Some (myself included) would argue that this is almost always the case. And something which isn't designed to be arousing might nevertheless provoke arousal in somebody - that doesn't makeit pornographic.

My position on it is that nudity is not inherently pornographic, and that the label of pornography can only be legitimately applied if that is at least one of the deliberate aims of the creator of that work. But it is a characteristic, not a singular defining generic label which overrides all others. Anything more than that is speculative, idiosyncratic and subjective on the part of the individual viewing it, and tells us more about them than any property held by the work itself.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[datzenmike]

My stand is that pornography is the only thing that is pornographic.

[grannyknot]

On 9/26/2020 at 12:28 AM, goes2fast said:

12-13 yrs old maybe?  I think this has crossed the line into Pedophilia.  Even if this girl is 20 yrs old she appears to be a child and we all know we shouldn't be looking at it.

I have no problem with pornography but this is something else.  I'm not jumping on you @goes2fast you mange to find some of the most amazing looking women I've ever seen so please keep up the good work but anything coming close to Pedophilia is abhorrent and disgusting.  

[VFR800]

 

Definitely time to move on from this site if this is where it's at.

 

NOT referring to @goes2fast asian photo of a 18+ model that it is fine to look at. 

 

I will be looking @ it many many times and do not give a fuck what some random "thinks" 

 

 

 

here it is AGAIN so it can be looked @ AGAIN 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by VFR800

[datzenmike]

 

 Asian men and women are generally smaller and slight of build as adults.  Pornography in in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

[KELMO]

3 minutes ago, VFR800 said:

Definitely time to move on from this site if this is where it's at.

 

NOT referring to @goes2fast asian photo of a 18+ model that it is fine to look at. 

 

I will be looking @ it many many times and do not give a fuck what some random "thinks" 

Exactly what he said.

[VFR800]

 

 

[datzenmike]

Well lets not get carried away with youthful looking.

[VFR800]

If it's stored with the US govt the models ID and name then the morality police can stick it.  

[KELMO]

It has been said that men never mature past the 6th or 7th grade mentality so I think that adds some justification.

 

Oops, I think my sarcasm just surfaced.

[VFR800]

 

 

Janessa here is over 18 but maybe not over 20  

 

better clutch ya pearls!!!!!!!!!!    

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[grannyknot]

8 hours ago, VFR800 said:

I will be looking @ it many many times and do not give a fuck what some random "thinks" 

How do you know she is 18+, or do you just want to believe that? Regardless of what I think, the fact is your disgusting fucking pig, go jerk off on that.

[datzenmike]

9 hours ago, grannyknot said:

12-13 yrs old maybe?  I think this has crossed the line into Pedophilia.  Even if this girl is 20 yrs old she appears to be a child and we all know we shouldn't be looking at it.

I have no problem with pornography but this is something else.  I'm not jumping on you @goes2fast you mange to find some of the most amazing looking women I've ever seen so please keep up the good work but anything coming close to Pedophilia is abhorrent and disgusting.  

 

 

To be a pedophile the object of your attraction must be prepubescent, or younger than 10-11 years old. Prepubescent are those who have not entered puberty and haven't developed secondary sex characteristics like breasts for one example.  So looking at the above picture, this argument is moot.