Do you find this image acceptable? NSFW?

First off, it’s not child pornography. The picture is displaying a depiction of a small child’s bare butt, but otherwise clothed. – no sexual message is being sent (at least not to me).

Second, I doubt it’s NSFW. The picture itself is tame compared to 90% of the stuff that passes through.

Third, I have a hard time with your assertion that spanking a child is child abuse. That’s a huge stretch by any estimation.

All that said, this isn’t my cup of tea. I see this as more of a satirical (even dark) look at Christmas customs and traditions than anything else. (the naughty and nice motif).

But to call this pornography? Not in any contemporary sense of the word. You may be put off by it, but that’s more a reflection on you than on the picture.

It is just terrible.
The textures are blurry, there is obvious stretching, almost no work went into lighting, you can not see any shadows or ambient occlusion, the beard is obviously a solid object, and not properly rendered hair.
And worst of all, the wooden logs look like sausages.
I would send the creator an angry message that he has to step up his game.

Also, that is the worst armchair I have ever seen.

Absolutely not acceptable! The fire is burning with no protective screen or glass panels in front.

Haha, at first glance I genuinely thought Santa was making a sewing repair to the tear in the girls’ onesie.
His look of incredulity aimed at the prying nature of the accusing viewer.

@elbanditoroso Who said child pornography? Your assumption then is clear.

@LornaLove
”Who said child pornography?”
You did, in the tags.

@LornaLove – you assigned it a heading (category) of child pron

@LuckyGuy
Not to mention that any embers that fall out would land right on the carpet.

@ucme True, who suspected for a moment a kid would wear leopard skin onesie with the ass cut out. Oh well, it’s nice to see how each person sees this picture. @ragingloli Yes, I did in the tags. As I see it as such. However the question remained neutral. I do see this as child pornography, which part is not? Also if you had checked the artist out, most of the spankings of the children is carried out in BDSM wear. The fact people find this as acceptable and also joke about it is sad. Perhaps that is why there is so much kiddie porn about. (If you are confused about BDSM and spanking maybe look it up.)

None of it is real.

@elbanditoroso I found this on an images search for BDSM spanking and Santa Google Images. I was looking for a female spanking Santa (for a change) This image is there. My search was ‘female spanks santa BDSM’

This is a perfect example of the sick perverted world we live in today. The silent majority is constantly told to be tolerant and shut up.

@BeenThereSaidThat Or make jokes about it.

Disgusting!

Excuse me, @beenthere – because I don’t agree with @lorna’s assessment of art, I am sick and perverted?

Something’s wrong there.

Art is by nature subjective. That doesn’t make either of us evil or wrong or right. It is a matter of opinion.

Geez!

@elbanditoroso Art is subjective by nature you are right. If you enjoy images of kids in tight onsies with the ass cut out getting a BDSM spank, who am I to spoil it for you and many others?

I was not joking, as I said, that was my genuine initial thought.
Child pornography in any form repels me, but that pic just seems rather weak & fucking pathetic, not enough to enrage me at all.

@LornaLove – argument over. You didn’t read what I wrote (“this isn’t my cup of tea”), and now you personalize the argument by calling me names.

This is no longer an issue-based question, you are being personally nasty.

Remind me not to discuss anything with you any more.

@LornaLove
I would like to see you go on a crusade to ban violent movies and video games.
Murder and assault is illegal, and yet movies that depict, and games that make players perform these things, often in graphic and gory detail, are allowed.
Why? Because none of it is real.
Hey, let us ban BDSM while we are at it. Because it is simulated torture, and as we all know, torture is illegal.

Let me add that, while there is no evidence to suggest that completely computer-generated images of child pornography actually exist on the Internet, this does not mean that a well-done completely computer-generated image would not be harmful to real children. To the lay person, including the vast majority of child predators and vulnerable children, such images may more than suffice for the pernicious task at hand. There is every reason to believe that offenders who obtain and distribute such images on the Internet can and will use them in much the same manner that they currently use images with real child victims, that is, to fuel their fantasies, to whet their appetites for real children, and to groom real and vulnerable children for sexual encounters by lowering their inhibitions, desensitizing them to the sexual acts, and convincing them that the behavior is acceptable and fun. In short, there is no legitimate place in our society for lifelike, photo-quality images of children engaging in explicit sexual conduct, whether that image involves a real child who has already been victimized or is a seemingly-indistinguishable image that is used to entice innocent and vulnerable children into becoming real victims themselves.

here

@ragingloli It’s already done and as outlined, it serves to gratify pedos. I wish I could ban violent movies too.

@elbanditoroso Where did I call you a name?

I think some people take offense to just about everything. I don’t like or dislike the photo. I don’t see child abuse or porn in this particular shot and I’m far from outraged that it’s on the Internet.

YouTube search “Shrek is love, Shrek is life” for something much more disturbing. Though, I didn’t take offense to that either.

@LornaLove
I will leave it to your imagination of what I think about people who want to enact thought crime legislation.

I don’t care for it, but I do not consider it child porn. Why does this have to be a “BDSM spanking” and not just a good old fashioned spanking? It’s Christmas. It’s Santa. The kid was naughty not nice, apparently.

@anniereborn True, however, most of the images this artist creates has ‘mommy figures’ dressed in BDSM attire, I guess this one was a special seasonal one. As I mentioned in the question this artist seems to enjoy this genre, particularly when it was placed under BDSM in the Google search.

I’ve never seen ‘naughty kids’ spanked with an ass hole cut out of its onsie. Maybe this type of spanking is more effective?

It’s gross. Nothing anyone can say will convince me that there wasn’t sexual intent with the creation of that image. Super gross.

@BeenThereSaidThat: “This is a perfect example of the sick perverted world we live in today. The silent majority is constantly told to be tolerant and shut up.”

Is there anything that you are not being persecuted for?

@LornaLove

The artist and their overall body of work was not your question though. This particular image is. And about this particular image “eh” is about as strong a feeling as I can muster.

BTW: it’s not child pornography as there isn’t anything pornographic about it and no actual child is involved.

@Darth_Algar I hear your point, however, many images as identified by haters of child pornography understand that many graphic or other type of images do often satisfy people who enjoy this type of perversion. Perhaps the context was important and should have been put in my question. Agreed.

Sadly though, which ever way I look at this picture, I do not see the need to have a hole cut out to spank a child. Perhaps many are now more vigilant. As I am in the mainstream BDSM community I guess I am super aware of the connotation of this photo, while some might stay innocent about it. As a strong community member, I am safety aware at all times.

@LornaLove “I hear your point, however, many images as identified by haters of child pornography understand that many graphic or other type of images do often satisfy people who enjoy this type of perversion.”

Better that than pornographic images of actual children, no?

Gross as this is, we can’t make a law or something against it. Nobody is actually getting hurt by the existence of this image. That would be a line of censorship that I would not be willing to cross.

Art is subjective yes, but some ‘art” such as this has such obvious pervey overtones.
Portraying Santa, with a sadistic pervey gleam in his eye, spanking a bare bottomed little girl ( or boy ) is not “art”, in the truest sense of the word, it is perverted art.
What is the picture portrayed a priest spanking a bare bottomed child with the same lascivious look in his eye or a teacher, coach, pervy grandpa?
Same thing, totally inappropriate.

@Mariah Nobody is getting hurt ‘in’ the image. Pandering to the naughty delights of a certain sector of the population is detrimental to society as a whole. In an ideal world, I know will never exist, images of kids being spanked in a leopard skin body suite along with ass cheeks peeking out of it should not fall into the category of a playful naughty child. The artist also, by the way, makes these images for ‘Deviant Art and does them to order and is commissioned. I wish too, child abuse had not been so prolific so that the innocence of many had stayed just that. Innocent sweet images. Unfortunately the surge of pedophiles or once hidden pedos is just gaping too wide open to be ignored.

I agree that the image is creepy as fuck and is not contributing anything useful to society. However, we can’t ban images for that reason. Where would we draw the line? This would be a really fundamental change in freedom of expression that I wouldn’t be comfortable with.

“Detrimental to society” has been used as a justification to ban all manner of things throughout the ages. That justification doesn’t fly, not in a society that values freedom of speech.

@LornaLove: “Pandering to the naughty delights of a certain sector of the population is detrimental to society as a whole. ”

I agree with @Mariah regarding where we would draw the line. And no – this isn’t a slippery slope argument. Rather, nearly everything fits into this category currently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings

Wacko, not at all nice to see!

It was weird.

So you are shocked. Allow me to extend my congratulations to you.

You got exactly what you were looking for in this world that exists only to trouble you.

I have many questions:

Will you describe the process by which you became the Guardian Of The Internet? Was there a vetting process? What other cranky prudes vied for the position?

How did you develop the sense of smug righteousness needed to desire the job?

How exactly do you determine what is and is not suitable for the rest of us?

Do you feel great pressure with the responsibility of saving us from ourselves?

In a comment you posted under another question you stated that alcohol should be banned “full stop.” So the families of every maker, distributor and seller of booze should starve on the street.

Islam bans drink and look how fucked up they are. Thanks, that’s a world I want to live in.

Pleasure, indulgence, humor, and most significantly individual freedom to choose, I’m sorry these concepts are lost on you. But far worse you feel that your narrow mindedness should be foisted on all others.

Savor your outrage and sense of superiority. I suspect it’s all you have in this world.

This is a fairly typical Fluther exchange… people with a limited experience of these kinds of images don’t recognize that it is child pornography, and having weighed in, now feel the need to protect their stance.

@SecondHandStoke How does not condoning inappropriate artistic expression involving children make one a cranky prude? Pffft! Sexually exploiting children in art or otherwise is not suitable, period. Pleasure and indulgence are fine, if you’re talking beer and cheesecake not sexually harming children for your own fucked up gratification. Individual freedom to choose does not include deviant acts of harm against innocent kids.

@Coloma

Where precisely is the line of propriety drawn? Who shall we appoint to draw it? What agency shall we create to enforce it?

It’s a funny picture, to quote @LornaLove, full stop. Jesus Harold Christ.

The Internet is full of content that is roughly a billion times “worse.”

What if instead the image is a plea against violence to children inflicted by so called saints?

Jesus’ middle name was Harold? I did not know that.

^ “And if ya don’t know now ya know.”

-Biggie Smalls

Whatever

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaTT859Yk0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8O1TKksy8M

“WON“T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?”

(Who don’t actually exist in this image.)

@SecondHandStoke Nah! My narrow minded only extends to the abuse of children. (As well as a few other things). I think that we should all be ‘keepers of the net’. As best we should, since most kids sit on it unsupervised. Regards the comment about ‘banning drinking’, I am just attacking with the anger and bullshit that people attack smokers with. @dappled_leaves I agree and feel the same way. Unfortunately the whole answer section started badly when it was implied that I was a pedo because I saw something that apparently was not there. @Darth_Algar Ignorance that is all I can say to your last post. Which part of ‘men get gratification from these images just the same way as real images’ didn’t you get. Media spurs on what is known as the norm. Sadly.

@LornaLove

I get it, and I say what is the issue? No one is being harmed by these images.

@SecondHandStoke I don’t give a shit what you choose to look at, even if it is child pornography. if that blows your sausage go for it, but please! save our kids.

@Darth_Algar The image portrays a bare assed kid around 5? being spanked by a dirty old man (Santa) you can interchange the man, daddy? Uncle? I’m surprised you find these harmless. I suppose the other image of the mother dressed in BDSM bondage, with hand marks on a kids ass also Okay. I have to laugh seriously. The media is being harmed plus I find it offensive. Child abuse is being seen on the TV here daily and the massive controls that they are trying to put in place.

I am about as far away from a prude as I can imagine. I feel indignant that people find images like these, it also could be a kind of innocent ignorance. Okay and yeah carry on….......... I really couldn’t give a fig about what you think, it’s sad people need to be educated point by point with chalk and a black board.

you are an enemy of freedom, as far as i am concerned.

@ragingloli freedom to abuse children? Yes I am. In any shape or form, drawings, photographs or other.

@LornaLove

Get this through your head: no child has been harmed in the making, distribution or consumption of this image.

Understand that before you call others ignorant.

@ Darth Algar, How can you be so certain? Who knows what pervey Santa lurks out there, getting their jingle bell rocks off on images such as that?
Providing provocative images for perverts to lust over is not harmless.
The majority of sex offenders have massive collections of pervy materials to feed their deviant desires and for many, these materials push them over the edge from mere harmless fantasy to acting out their sickness on others.

@Darth_Algar I called you ignorant. If you want to fight for your right to wank over kids then do so. As I said, chalk board, arrows and markers are needed? I’ve been insulted all through this thread and even in a round about way called a pedo.Then a prude. What a joke!! I can see exactly why no important discussions are carried out for the most part on fluther, it’s like a kindergarten at times.

I really thought healthy discussions around this could be had. Instead attack and defend. I’d be ashamed to defend this shit, personally.

@Coloma Has it really been shown that pedophiles viewing images like these is actually correlated with acting upon their desires? If you could cite a source for that claim, my views might shift somewhat.

In contrast, I’ve always heard it like this: pedophilia is not a choice, and many pedophiles are actually perfectly aware that acting upon their desires would be monstrous. But they can’t just make their desires go away. It is of course much healthier for them to relieve themselves with images like these, that did not involve the exploitation of any real child, than it is for them to seek out real child pornography or shift into actually abusing a child. So I always thought that this kind of stuff was actually helping to prevent some real abuse from occurring.

@Darth_Algar There are many articles and psychological studies about a possible causal effect of pornography on sex offenders behaviors. You can do your own research. The fact is however, that many, many, violent sex offenders have been found to have extensive collections or porn and an insatiable habit of using such materials to fuel their dark fantasies. Pedophilia is not a choice as is being a sociopath is not, however, some of the worst sexual serial killers have had boatloads of porn in their possession when apprehended.

When dealing with deviant individuals these sorts of materials can be very dangerous, just like handing a bottle to a violent alcoholic. They may not cause the mental health issues behind these behaviors but they certainly fuel the fire in vulnerable individuals.

@Mariah Indeed it is not a choice, who would choose such a socially unacceptable sexual behavior that harms people for life? There is a small minority of sexual deviants that have decided not to act out on their desires. The percentage is very small. They have also opted not to look at suggestive images in any shape or form so as not to encourage erections and excitement in relation to children. The old theory of ‘association’ as demonstrated by BF Skinner, a theorist. His main premise was that of ‘human behavior being controlled primarily by reward and punishment (in the most simple form). Orgasm of course is a reward. Then the association is more deeply entrenched.

@LornaLove Well said, and yes, it has also been shown that the brain chemistry reaction to sexual arousal may be even more addictive in many individuals than almost anything else. The dopamine and other feel good chemicals are off the charts. Orgasm is a huge reward, along with the co-corresponding ritual of the fantasy build up, arousal and then culmination of release. sadly this release is often at the expense of others.

@LornaLove

I am not, as you so politely put it, “fighting for my right to wank”. I’m “fighting” for freedom of goddamn expression. You know, it’s one of those pesky little things this nation was founded upon and prides itself in. As the saying goes – I may not like what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it. You’re advocating banning something that has harmed no one simply because it offends you.

@Darth_Algar I realize that I am flogging a dead horse, however, it does offend me and also probably many caring parents and children too.

Unfortunately media, which includes, newspapers, television, art, Internet and many other forms do promulgate what is seen as normal. Or the norm. (This is kind of off topic since I say that in terms of regular porn and adults). For example, spitting on a woman as she blows you is now all seen as very normal due to an influx of more violent porn. However, violence as depicted by normal as media and therefore a standard in society will never be acceptable to all people. Leaving some people confused. (Where is the freedom in that?)

However, I would then deduce from your statement that since you say that you are fighting for freedom this then is a form of expression you desire to see more of??

“Freedom of expression?” You are kidding. Please tell me you are kidding when you call child porn “Freedom of expression.” Whose freedom? Those of the children? No. They have no freedoms. You’re demanding freedom of expression for perverted men. Or hopefully I misunderstood.

@Dutchess_III There is a huge, huge difference between child porn, in which an actual child was exploited for its making, and the image linked in the OP. Nobody in this thread is promoting freedom of expression as it pertains to child porn.

But yes, images like the OP should not be illegal because as many of us have been arguing, who decides where to draw the line? Being told what we can and cannot paint is a huge invasion of our freedoms.

@Coloma @LornaLove Thanks for the info, I’ll research to confirm whether what you’re saying is true. If so then that does change my views on these images (I already found them gross and creepy and not okay, but did not see any tangible harm as a result of their existence). It does not change my opinion, however, that we cannot legislate on this matter.

Yes I find it acceptable. There are worse things in the world and it’s only a picture. Are you new to the internet lol?

@Mariah The FBI have already legislated it. That is why they have people on the Net 24 hours a day to get rid of it. That is why they have report sites. There is a line and it is easy to determine. Images depicting child abuse are illegal.
@Blackberry Nope I am not.

@LornaLove This is news to me. I looked it up, and here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

“The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting” that “depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene” or “depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in… sexual intercourse… and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value.”

I don’t know who judges whether something has “serious value” and how they make that judgment call. I don’t know where the image you linked would fall on the spectrum. I disagree that it is easy to determine the line. I know that I got a gigantic icky feeling from the image you linked, but I’m not a big fan of creating subjective laws based on whether or not you get an icky feeling from something.

Wiki!

Here is what the FBI say:

Let me add that, while there is no evidence to suggest that completely computer-generated images of child pornography actually exist on the Internet, this does not mean that a well-done completely computer-generated image would not be harmful to real children. To the lay person, including the vast majority of child predators and vulnerable children, such images may more than suffice for the pernicious task at hand. There is every reason to believe that offenders who obtain and distribute such images on the Internet can and will use them in much the same manner that they currently use images with real child victims, that is, to fuel their fantasies, to whet their appetites for real children, and to groom real and vulnerable children for sexual encounters by lowering their inhibitions, desensitizing them to the sexual acts, and convincing them that the behavior is acceptable and fun. In short, there is no legitimate place in our society for lifelike, photo-quality images of children engaging in explicit sexual conduct, whether that image involves a real child who has already been victimized or is a seemingly-indistinguishable image that is used to entice innocent and vulnerable children into becoming real victims themselves.

the link is above. I cut and pasted from my prior comment.

I’m out from this subject now. I realize that some here need to fight for the freedom of expression regardless of who gets harmed.

Oh come on. Not a single person in this thread is indifferent to the harm of actual children. The main debate here is whether or not a computer-generated image of a child being victimized does actually harm real children, and to what extent it’s OK to infringe upon expression in order to protect people. I doubt anybody would argue that striking a balance between safety and liberty is not a difficult task.

The children…

Why would the reason of “thinking of the children” be such a popular tactic for every manner of manipulation?

Because by natural design humans are compelled to react without thinking when it comes to our precious spawn.

You don’t think Germany’s Nazi party didn’t place great importance on (certain) of Germany’s children?

“Child pornography”, “blows your sausage.” Thank you for that lesson in straw man arguments. Defame to discredit your enemy… Who doesn’t know that one?

You should keep such as your OP for the cesspool of Facebook.

“It’s a system of beliefs
That makes you look down
On the whole human race
From a comfortable cloud

And you’ll never come down
And you won’t come around
Yeah, you’ll never come down…”

@LornaLove “However, I would then deduce from your statement that since you say that you are fighting for freedom this then is a form of expression you desire to see more of??”

What part of “I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it” is difficult for you to understand?

Wow, wow, lots of commentary and a lot of ”mission creep”, as to deviate from the actual gist of the question.

As far as the actual question goes, and how it was asked, do I personally find the image acceptable or not, qualifying it for any particular audience notwithstanding, I don’t care for it, not by what it is supposed to say—or not, but by the execution. As @ragingloli stated (yes, a very rare agreement) the image is hard to look at because of the janky execution.

The artgument about the overt sexuality that is supposedly there is laughable to me. Certain people doing certain sexual things want to point fingers at others doing the same in principal because it is not the way they feel fornication should be done; laughable.

@LornaLove

“Your right to wank over kids.”

Whatever shred of credibility you might have had has just been vivisected.

Oh boy, the following is gonna be good…

@SecondHandStoke Likewise. I felt that way the moment you launched into a personal attack on me instead of answering the question. You’re rude and abusive. So right now credibility in your eyes means jackshit to me. Sorry to pop your over inflated ego.

Like I said a discussion, not personal attack would have been interesting. A debate even. It appears that I can’t have an opinion because then I am not only lofty, prudish, and Muslims are fucked up, Pfft. The list is endless. I forgot you cannot debate when there is only one opinion and that is yours. I have zero respect for you so your opinion is now worthless.

Oh and by the way, every time you type here, me and my partner nearly pee ourselves with laughter. So your ‘oh boy, the following is going to be good’ was also appreciated haha!

So for now, like other abused minorities, I’m no longer interested in this thread because it has degenerated into a pile of cow pat.

“it has degenerated into a pile of cow pat”

You’ve contributed quite a lot of that “cow pat” yourself.

” For example, spitting on a woman as she blows you is now all seen as very normal due to an influx of more violent porn.”

In what world?

Time to spank this Q. soundly and put it to bed.

It’s free speech. Welcome to the Internet.

Sick, perverted fucks are just as likely to jerk off over your kids pics on FB, a sobering thought.

Ha, end of sick story finally!

It’s over, right?

I’m right…no, I’m right…no, I am…you’re mean and I don’t like you…it’s porn…no, it’s not…then you must be a child molester…I don’t care what you think…blah blah blah. How old are we, people? So ridiculous.

This shit goes on all the time here, some people fucking love babbling on & on &...

Well..art, porn, free speech, it matters not, the fact is inserting children into anything of a sexual nature is not appropriate. End of story. Doesn’t take a degree in psychology to make this brilliant deduction.

@ucme How does one have a discussion without some babble anyway?
If nobody babbles there is no discussion. lol

@Coloma Babbling involves a certain amount of saliva dribbling from the mouths of the babbler, I mean, this is typing, but still.

@ucme I think babble is also about enthusiasm and passion, better too much babble than deaf, dumb and blind even if you do play a mean pinball. ;-)

@Coloma What you have there is psychobabble…Tommy :D

@LornaLove

So you and your mental and emotional clone (I wondered for a moment if anyone could suffer a relationship with one as wound up as you. Do you two wrap up together in your warm fuzzy blanket of insecurity and hate?) soiled yourselves laughing at my comments.

I, on the other hand cried, as people like you take public office, fuck, your kind teach our children.

You accused me of mustering a personal attack, while you take things a step beyond and suggest that I am a paedophile for my belief in the First Amendment.

Credibility?...

YOU DECIDED TO GO ON A TIRADE ABOUT PAEDOPHILIA AND THOSE THAT YOU DEEM PERVERTS AND CHOOSE THE WRONG IMAGE AS PROOF. Just as well as a relevant image would likely have violated Fluther’s terms of service. Oh wait… why don’t you post some true child porn. Please?

I know you dream of a world where every citizen is equally oppressed. I’m going to fight your kind to the end.

I would love to buy you a few rounds of kiddie drinks.

Not for your sake, but that of everyone that must come in contact with you.

@SecondHandStoke Check yourself out dude. You spew vitriol like Vesuvius. I see a seriously scorched pot calling the kettle black.
Inappropriate sexual images of children should not be considered part of freedom of expression.

I wonder what James Madison would say? I’m pretty sure a picture such as this would have resulted in the artist being hung back in 1787. lol

This may be beside the point, and I admit I didn’t read all the comments, but it looks to me like the ‘female’‘s head is bigger than Santa’s, on a small body… creepy.

Check me? Vitriol?

I prefer to think of it as sarcastic levity in the face of A. Serious. Issue.

The pot calling the kettle black?

@LornaLove and I are coming from entirely different cants.

“Some people are just out to have a bad time.”

-Mexican immigrant busboy to me after a couple bitched and whined during and after a perfectly fine dinner we served them.

@Coloma “Well..art, porn, free speech, it matters not, the fact is inserting children into anything of a sexual nature is not appropriate. End of story. Doesn’t take a degree in psychology to make this brilliant deduction.”

There is no child in this image. End of story. It doesn’t take a braintrust to figure that out. Nor is the image isn’t self particularly sexual.

@Darth_Algar Right, no actual child, but the insinuation remains the same.

Your perceived insinuation means shit. Call me when an actual real child is somehow harmed by this image.

loli:

Torture in the BDSM realm can be very real.

The difference is that it is consensual.

@Darth_Algar Portraying child abuse with sexual overtones in art may only be insinuation but doesn’t make it right. Shit or not, it is still inappropriate and distasteful.

@SecondHandStoke You spew out hatred like a fountain on crack. Projection much.You don’t know me, how dare you judge me? Because my opinion doesn’t match yours. I can’t be bothered to argue with you anymore and frankly you are abusive. You feel sorry for my partner, I feel terribly fearful for yours. Particularly if said partner does not agree with you. Or worse has an opinion. NOW there is oppression. Your hatred and venom is to be ignored. Goodbye.

Ho, ho, ho, what has this thread showed? That Santa Clause can rile up y’all. He spreading around some Christmas spirit, paddling a butt, some action he shouldn’t be in it. Some would think this thread has got to go, but it is bringing out the love, so ho, ho, ho…..

@LornaLove

My partner has something that you do not.

My respect.

@SecondHandStoke You mean you respect her because she’s a good little woman that never challenges the master? Egads…I can only imagine what it would be like to be in relationship with you. Poor woman.

The statement above is best answered by “the good little woman” herself.

Please stand by.

Feedback: I reported the image to the UK Internet Watch. The answer was pretty much what I had thought initially. Although deemed pornographic in nature, depicting a child in a suggestive and compromising position and could be determined to be a picture used in the process of grooming, the UK Prohibitions do not allow them to remove from another countries server. The picture was hosted in the USA. Each country has it’s own Internet watch and many regular people join this watch in a bid to protect children from grooming and unacceptable images.

I understand that each individual is different, and has rights. I do also consider that they have no rights when it comes to children that are underage. Our jobs as adults are to protect children from grooming and suggestive images that suggest even for a moment that this is acceptable.

@secondhandstroke, whether you respect me or not is not even up for discussion. I tend to go with the respect of myself and the rights of children or other people who are subject to sexual offences. Whether in the cloak of art, hidden in the guise of freedom speech or used insidiously in media images that are depicted as norm. The norm decides societal prescriptions and patterns of behaviors, both subjective and objectively. Those that deviate from the norm and can cause to others should be removed. Those that could cause harm to others should be challenged by all.

The good news it that should this image become linked to UK hosting the image would be removed.

@LornaLove Well done and well said, you certainly have my respect.
Never back down when dealing with clowns. lol

@lornalove get off your fucking high horse, people share different views than you. It’s a form of self expression, simple as that. Censoring the Internet because certain things might be offensive to others is a terrible idea. Free speech and openness is what makes the Internet so great. Deal with it or move to North Korea.

@Silence04 So you think art that depicts pedophilia or real child porn is okay? Yes, everyone is entitled to their sentiments on an issue, but I stand firm in that inappropriate sexual depiction of children should be censored. @LornaLove is simply decrying inappropriate portrayals of children in fact or fantasy, what’s so hard to understand about that?

For the gajillionth time: there is no child, no pedophilia and no pornography in this image. It might offend you personally, but the right of free expression outweighs your right to not be offended.

@Darth_Algar Yes, however, for the gazillionth time as well, regardless, it is still inappropriate sexualizing of of a child, therefore perpetuating pedophilia as an art form.
Ya know, there are many truths. I think @LornaLove cleared things up quite well.

@Silence04 You appear to have missed the point of the question by that much that you almost ended up on Yahoo answers instead.

@TheProfoundPorcupine I would have got a better debate on Yahoo. Haha!

@Coloma

You read something sexual into it. Most others here do not.

@LornaLove

You are not looking for true debate. Haha!

Instead you seek mindless agreement.

Scan all the comments above. The Lurve has spoken.

Don’t get of your “fucking high horse.” Use it to travel directly to shitty Yahoo Answers.

”The good news it that should this image become linked to UK hosting the image would be removed.”

Censorship is good because XXX XXX X XXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXX.

@LornaLove and all others that feel they must criticize art and defend the poor, poor children:

The first entry on my profile is a link to Amnesty International’s US website.

I have made it easy for you to shut you stupid yap and actually take some action instead.

This is also an opportunity to GET MY FREAKING USERNAME RIGHT if you are going to address me.

@SecondHandStoke I’m sure I’ll be modded for this, I’ll take my chances, but your user name really should be Second Hand JOKE! Your debate tactics are to insult and railroad and bulldoze others, hardly the stuff of intelligent debate.
Mindless agreement? Hardly, debate is about inserting many points of view and the ability to embrace many different opinions, all of which have merit. All that’s happened here.

I wonder how you would feel if someone made a drawing depicting a child of yours in a compromising position? Somehow I think your defense of free expression in art might be altered if someone you knew insisted on displaying a pervey pic of your child over Santas knee. Again, there are many truths and I have certainly conceded that while the subject may not be a real child the content remains questionable. BOTH of these opinions hold
truth.

Soooo…what say you answer how you would feel if somebody you knew created a similar picture invilvong your childs image and insisted they hang it on the wall for all to see, because, after all, it’s only art. Would you be okay with that?

@SecondHandStoke I find you amusing. Perhaps you feel your brash, attacking stance on this in someway applaudable? I tend to think if you spoke to men like this in a bar, they’d more than likely disable your ‘yap’ for good. I have a strong sense you save this for females. As you have commented many times on my questions with what I would consider more noise and less substance.

You continue for your right to enjoy pornographic depictions read depictions of children regardless. Perhaps you enjoy it, I can’t say that is your right, because adults do not have a right to fight for the right to look at images of children that are not acceptable. I’d feel ashamed if I were you. Your other verbal attacks on me were moderated from a prior question I had posted and probably more that I haven’t yet seen.

Do you consider that your answers give you credibility? Are you one of those slight men who hide behind a computer and yell at (mostly) females because secretly you are plagued by insecurities? Yes, I am questioning you know because of the abusive trawling and personal attacks you have on me.

If you read, I think you can read up to a degree. This is not about my opinion entirely. This is deemed a pornographic image. Which part don’t you get?

Do you consider that this site is for abusive retorts to people who pose questions about issues that are important to them? Example: ‘I hate chocolate, I think chocolate smells strange and it gives me a migraine when I eat it’.

Your reply? ‘Go suck eggs your brainless idiot and shut your trap, chocolate tastes great!’

Since you have attacked me in many questions including this one, this is what I think.

I find your responses idiotic, you don’t read any evidence links or other contrary to your belief and need, your base arguments are based on insults, you have no substance to what you are saying as far as I can see and this leads me to one conclusion. ‘Are you drunk and not of sane mind’ at the time of posting.

you judge me as a prude, an idiot oh the list goes on. I’d pretty much sum you up as a empty vessel not too much education and a drinking problem who has little regards for what others think actually.

or just plain nuts.

if we could assign theme songs for users I’d suggest this for a special someone. :)

@jonsblond haha…the morning fluther scene, gimme my coffee dammit!
This can be another special little tune for some. lol

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1b3d_nqlVk

I quite like this one

Everybody sing… Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, TRY and love one another right nooow!
Man, it’s a tall order sometimes ey? lol

I am sure we can all agree that censorship in all its forms must be condemned and its advocates hanged

I cannot believe all this has come from that one image. There are SO many far far worse images out there. Do you have it in for this one particular user on the Deviantart website or something?

@anniereborn You are correct, much worse, but…this image was the topic of conversation so it got filleted as it was what was presented.
@ragingloli Not all, all the time just some, sometimes.

^^ I cannot believe all this has come from that one image.
You can’t? How long have you been here? ~~

Typical “lovefest” question, per for the course.

I know where the shanks are hid, anyone want to know? ~~

@Hypocrisy_Central You mean “par” for the course, not “per.” Now, let’s debate par vs. per. lol

^ Hey, if I didn’t make typos, Galli would have no reason to be here pointing them out. ~~

@ragingloli “I am sure we can all agree that censorship in all its forms must be condemned and its advocates hanged”

That is such an American point of view. I am surprised at you.

Mrs. Stoke here, guest posting.

@LornaLove wrote: I feel terribly fearful for yours. Particularly if said partner does not agree with you. Or worse has an opinion.

As said partner, I can tell you that my political opinions are often diametrically opposed to those of Mr. Stoke. We are both staunch voters who regularly cancel each other out at our polling place. As a one-time journalist, I have more opinions than you can shake a stick at. Mr. Stoke and I choose to enjoy what we do have in common, and respect one another where we differ. We are independent adults who choose to be together, and find some spark in our differences.

Regarding this particular image, I think it is in bad taste (and horribly executed) but most people would not consider it porn. In fact, I think the constant consideration of sexuality in children is a very modern development. There was a time not long ago when a child’s bottom was viewed as a fairly innocent thing—think of the little Coppertone girl in the sunscreen advertisements. There was also a very recent time when corporal punishment was absolutely common and accepted. We have actually diluted the judgmental and violent nature of Santa’s prototypes to bring things down to simply “naughty” and “nice”. In German popular culture, their version of Santa (called literally “ChristmasMan”) has a devilish sidekick named Krampus who punishes those who misbehave. Krampus is not satisfied with merely leaving coal in the stockings of naughty children; he beats them with sticks and, if they are very bad, hauls them off in chains in a sack on his back.

In historical context, then, this image is crude but not really very shocking. And if you are somebody who does get off on this sort of thing, I suggest you research some Victorian-era holiday greeting cards. They are even more twisted and the art is a lot more skillful.

I now return this space to your regularly scheduled SecondHandStoke.

@Mrs_SecondHandStoke, thank you for your excellent, informative and balanced viewpoint. It would be great to read more from you in the future.

I have one final statement for this thread; would have let it go ages ago, but I stumbled upon this article yesterday. Please read it. It is very high quality.

I learned a lot from that article but there are two main take-aways here for me:

1. There has been virtually zero research conducted on pedophilia.

And how could there be? The only sample of the pedophilic population that anyone can find are offenders who got caught, and that is a very skewed sample. No meaningful data can be found from that.

So claims above that images such as those from the OP are linked to actuation of pedophilia are not backed up by anything. It’s like if you studied only rapists and found that they tended to watch porn and then came and told me that people who watch porn often commit rape. You’re missing out on the point that most nonrapists watch porn too.

Since claims that these images are linked to actuation are unsubstantiated, I stand by my belief that freedom of expression trumps.

2. There are no resources for help for pedophiles who do not want to commit. They cannot seek counseling because counselors are mandated reporters.

The one thing that people managed to agree upon in this thread was that nobody chooses to be a pedophile. Talk until you’re blue in the face about how monstrous pedophila is, but that’s not going to prevent pedophiles from being born, nor is it going to prevent them from offending once they are born.

I agree that pedophiles are the scum of the earth if they offend. If they don’t, they’re just people who were born with a very long and hard fight ahead of them against society and against themselves.

You want to help the children? Support the implementation of programs that allow people born as pedophiles to seek help in their commitment to non-offense.

Do those with thoughts of pedophilia have to be reported or just those that have engaged in it?

Mandated reporters have to report anybody who they believe poses a significant threat to themselves or others. I am sure many counselors would believe that a pedophile with access to a child would fall into this category.

@Mariah 1. There has been virtually zero research conducted on pedophilia.
And how could there be? The only sample of the pedophilic population that anyone can find are offenders who got caught, and that is a very skewed sample. No meaningful data can be found from that.
No one is looking or care. To most it is a one-size-fit-all when it comes to pedophilia. After a decade or more of high sensational abductions for sex, Samantha Smart, Polly Klaas, Tara Burk, Jaycee Dugard, etc. people have been trained to believe they are throw away people because all children (after they have been born) or innocent and only a monster would harm any; and any sexual contact is harmful, even if the child initiated it. Maybe long after we are all dead, some useful study will be done on it, but not right now.

I feel it is even pointless answering this and anyway I have been too busy to read all the comments. However, I get that the general majority feel that ‘depictions of a child in a suggestively sexual pose, should be allowed due to the general consensus that above all and anything freedom of expression is important to many of you all.

Also someone mentioned that a child having a paddling on their bare backside was okay, well, that is debatable. A stranger (Santa) paddling my kids bare ass, would get a swift kick up his backside to say the least. Furthermore, some of the points I mentioned included that this artist had a ‘mother’ dressed up in bondage gear, paddling a child’s backside.

I personally do not care if Victorian art followed the same twisted perspective on life, I still think it should be thrown in the rubbish tip. However, today images are just very easily seen (as opposed to Victorian days) by anyone.

I realize that pedophiles have an issue we should all feel very sorry for them, just like we should try and understand rapist, have compassion for them, as well as any sex offender? according to some of the comments. Unfortunately though @Mariah that is not where my heart lies. If this is the case then they too should be protected from such images correct?

This question, which should have been a mindful debate turned into something else of which I don’t care to analyze. The usual oh! the mob says it’s Okay, so I’ll jump on the bandwagon and agree mentality. Crikey stand up for your opinions like I have. You either feel depictions of sexual acts on kids, is a great idea. Then good for you, then say it. Say you love looking at images like that. Why you are all saying it should be allowed for freedom of expression for another person namely a pedo and not you of course is beyond me.

@SecondHandStoke partner. I loved your answer which was a great premise for healthy debate and was glad you could answer without calling me various names. Does @SecondHandStoke always call in back up during a debate. Perhaps I need call mine? haha!

@Mariah It seems to me that you started off not liking the image and yet have largely turned full circle by now talking about freedom of expression and going off about there being no research carried out on pedophiles.

Interestingly enough a study published in December looked at the darknet and the traffic that went to various sites. Those that had abuse images represented a small number of actual sites, but they accounted for the biggest chunk of traffic. The report from the University of Portsmouth discovered that four out of every five visits to websites on Tor ended up going to those linked to pedophilia.

The image that started this rather length attempt at a debate might not be an actual photograph, but it still represents an image of a certain kind. So much of sex starts in the mind, so for an individual that loves looking at abuse images this can undoubtedly be enough to create that thought inside their head and turn them on. The artist is clearly aware of this when creating the image and that is where the problem lies.

Any idea of freedom of expression when there are sinister motives and reasons behind it should automatically make that idea null and void.

@TheProfoundPorcupine, I don’t think @Mariah has turned full circle. She’s not said she approves of the image. She has added to her original point by discussing censorship, research into paedophilia and the lack of support for those who may be attracted to children, but who have not and do not wish to offend.

Perhaps you can link to the study to allow people to evaluate the research you’ve found. It would be an interesting addition to the discussion.

Some excellent new input here, too bad I am too exhausted to comment. Suffice it to say, good job everyone!

Jesus Christ this thread has been so full of ad hominids and strawmen that I don’t even know why I opened my mouth again. Read my friggin’ comment and you will see that I am not sympathetic to rapists. I think rapists and particularly child rapists are basically the worst people that exist. I am however, interested in anything that can help prevent a pedophile from becoming a child rapist, and I expect you are too, @LornaLove.

I do not like the image and I never have. I do believe that “it is gross” and “it was created with sinister motives” are not good enough reasons to censor things. There are lots of things that are gross and sinister that still need to be allowed to exist. I don’t think this particular image has any valid reason to exist, but I also don’t think we can ban things on such subjective terms.

The thing that I am most sick of in this thread, and that made me lost respect for your arguments a long, long time ago, @LornaLove, is your tendency to accuse people of enjoying the image personally just because they believe in its right to exist. I hate the image. Calling your adversary a pedophile is a shitty and unfair way to argue and you know it.

If my trying to make a rational point about ways to actually help prevent kids from being abused is going to get me called a pedo, then fuck this thread.

Mariah out.

Sigh! The original question was Do you find this image acceptable of not?. So you either do or do not @Mariah . Last time I looked rapists, child abusers and other were all sex offenders There is no separate box for them in general where we can spend tax payers money of rehabilitating them, when they admit in a documentary the only cure for them most the time is castration. Sure there are a few that live day by day without abusing and certainly don’t nurture their need by looking at drawings or other of kids.

I don’t give a frig if any one respects my argument here. It was a question and after being called various names by various people as well as having thin so called psychological studies thrown in my face as proof that this was okay, I too lost interest long ago. There was nothing at all intellectual about any of the retorts just a jokes and derogatory comments thrown around. (Yes, mine included, but only after being attacked). I realize fluther is not a great debating ground anymore and with that, I will find other places to pose interesting questions). Have fun, all 10 of you that are left.

Like many others, I hate the image but I believe in its right to exist. This does not mean that I hate children or support rape. This should not be complicated.

Done talking about this.

I too hate the image and do think some things should be censored. This also doesn’t mean I don’t believe in free expression but titillating pedophiles with inappropriate fantasy fare is just playing with fire.
People can gorge on all the distasteful items they want but not when it comes to children.

@LornaLove

You have no room whatsoever to complain about the tone of this thread when you’ve done more, with your strawmen and ad hominem attacks, to crap up the thread than anyone.

@Coloma

Sorry, but you can’t claim to be for freedom of expression while advocating things be banned just because you don’t like them.

@TheProfoundPorcupine Those that had abuse images represented a small number of actual sites, but they accounted for the biggest chunk of traffic. The report from the University of Portsmouth discovered that four out of every five visits to websites on Tor ended up going to those linked to pedophilia.
That is because those with pedophilia log ion to those sites dozens of times every hour, so it is not that most ”good-natured” seemingly regular folk is going to them, most never have the nasty, depraved thoughts of those icky people as some have voiced here. ~~

The image that started this rather length attempt at a debate might not be an actual photograph, but it still represents an image of a certain kind. So much of sex starts in the mind, so for an individual that loves looking at abuse images this can undoubtedly be enough to create that thought inside their head and turn them on
Then we have basically come back to perception, and that starts in the eye or heart of those who direct it for themselves. The image is just the image, if it is terrible, obscene, or otherwise is the perception of the viewer. This sex is bad, that sex is OK, and that sex is unethical but not as bad as that over there, all perception. It just amuses me how uneven and backwards it is projected, and everyone believes theirs is right

@Mariah I think rapists and particularly child rapists are basically the worst people that exist. I am however, interested in anything that can help prevent a pedophile from becoming a child rapist, and I expect you are too, @LornaLove.
There goes perception again, surely some place in the world exist where things regular people do here in the US would make us Yankees look like the worse people in the world to them (over in some foreign land). At the risk of ruffling feathers but to make a valid point if one gets past their glass house, wasn’t it decades ago people were thinking the same about gays, that they were defective? If gays are the way they are because that is how nature made them, sadly the same would go for those who suffer from pedophilia, which is how nature made them. Do they have any greater capacity for violent sex crimes than regular folk? I don’t think so, but it is always better to use them as the convenient scapegoat.

The way some people on this thread think, they would believe most men in Japan are sexual predators waiting to bust given the subject matter of a lot of Anime and Dark Hentai subjects that are common over there, at one point read openly on the commuter trains and sold right there in the rack at shops, not hidden like Playboys are here.

@Darth_Algar I’m getting pretty weary of this discussion, but…correction, this has nothing to do with whether or not I like the image personally, it has to do with dangling the drug of choice in front of a pervert. Not any different than not agreeing that one shouldn’t be able to access bomb building plans on the internet so nutcases can engineer bombs in their basements. Not that hard to understand. Some things just don’t need to exist, period.

No, it has everything to do with you not liking the image. No one is being harmed with this image. You cannot prove that anyone ever can or will be harmed by it. There’s no child in this image.The image is not pornographic. There’s nothing sexual about it. Well, yes, no, maybe, could be. You see something sexual. @LornaLove does too. Most everyone else in this thread do not see anything sexual in it. That question, whether it’s sexual or not, proves that the entire thing boils down to the subjectivity of the individual. One’s subjective view is not reason to censor something.

@Darth_Algar I’m glad you are so sure of yourself, have you ever thought of taking up mind reading? To parrot @Mariah Over & out.

If you’re not going to address anything I said then why bother replying?

@Darth_Algar I already addressed my perspective prior to you telling me what I do and don’t think, feel, & see. haha
I’m not going to justify, argue, defend or explain my perspective again.

So you’ve referred to it as “pervy”, “sexualizing”, “pornographic”, called it the “drug of choice for perverts”, etc many times in this thread but you don’t see something sexual in it?

@Darth_Algar I see something inappropriate yes.
I said that material like that is the drug of choice for perverts, and yep, it has lascivious overtones, anyone can see that. Just stop already, almost anyone would find that image extremely borderline. I am not seeing anything that isn’t actually there. just stop already, you’re fucking relentless.

Ok, so you do see something sexual, but when I state that you see something sexual I’m “telling you how you feel”? Seriously?

@Darth_Algar I never disputed that, I disputed you telling me that I am biased because I, personally, do not like the image. I SAID. it had nothing to do with not liking the image that it is inappropriate IMO. Sheesh…wtf!

Quote where I called you biased.

@Darth_Algar Quote :

No, it has everything to do with you not liking the image

Insinuates I am biased in sexualizing the image.
You TOLD me that what I was saying was not true. I resent that. Now, bedtime…no more.

No, it implies that your viewing the image in a sexual light is a matter of subjectivity. Which it is. Throughout this thread you’ve “spoken” as if the image being pornographic, or that it somehow harms children, is an indisputable fact. That is not the case. Whether it’s sexual or not is subjective. Whether it harms anyone is not provable. Subjective views and claims that cannot be established are not good enough reason to squelch freedom of speech.

Look where freedom of speech landed France today. haha
Yep, free to bait and provoke terrorist snakes and then cry victim when the viper strikes.
Point is…some forms of freedom of speech are nothing more than invitations for really bad consequences.

That’s where you’re placing your argument now? Seriously? Fucking pathetic.

@Darth_Algar No, not arguing, just stating a fact, if you’re going to provoke the beast don’t cry when you get bitten.
My POV is not hard to compute, freedom of speech and expression carry responsibility.
People can draw, paint, say, do whatever they want but, there are often unhappy consequences.

Yes, I’ve stated many times that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. However this sudden shift from “____ shouldn’t be allowed” to “well say/draw/paint what you want, but there could be consequences” and evoking the events in France just reeks of desperately clutching at straws.

@Darth_Algar What it reeks of is the mistake I made bending over backwards to explain myself one more time in one more way. Mea Culpa, no doubt.
Lets just leave it at, yes, there are consequences and the examples I provided are examples, nothing more. Portraying the jolly old elf as a lascivious and sneering spanker of tots carried the consequence of offending some, such as myself.

And I’ve never denied your right to be offended at whatever you wish to take offense to. My standpoint simply is, and always has been, that your offense is not grounds for censorship.

@Coloma Dear Gawd…well now that we have circled the back 40 for hours to arrive back on the porch what say we have a freaking beer now? Cheers…this Shock Top is for…me. lol

@Coloma, your comment made me curious. Are you in favor of making it illegal to parody Islam because of the negative consequences that can occur?

If we took a screenshot of this thread & showed it to, oh I dunno, some kids, I don’t think they’d find that image acceptable #irony #kidsaresmarterthanyouthink

@Mariah Not at all, just saying that there are consequences to everything and if we choose to bait dangerous people, to poke a rattlesnake with a stick, we shouldn’t be surprised and outraged when they strike back. :-)

Seems a bit inconsistent with your views on the original post, but OK.

@Mariah Well..part of me does think certain things should be censored, but I think the mantra of “there is no right or wrong, only consequences” is probably the best fitting one size fits all shoe.

I am late to the party. I do have an opinion though. I see no porn at all. @LornaLove , you claim you were seeking depictions of women spanking Santa. I find that offensive, and would not seek them myself. Spankings were common, and spanking a bare bottom was considered by many to be more humane, because it stings pretty good without causing injury. Lots of pajamas, especially toddler ones have trapdoors, or more so in the past, allowing for trips to the potty without removing any clothing. Homes in the winters past were often not kept a toasty 80.
I think the depiction is more a commentary of work related stress, and how would it go over if Santa suffered such occupational strain.

Oh gawd this thread continues. I lost interest eons ago.

Anyway @Here2_4 whether or not you care for the images I see (a woman giving Santa a good whipping, as should be, in my mind) is of little consequence to me. As for your opinion regards the photograph thanks, I guess. I see fluther has not changed that much. The usual assortment of ‘let’s fight to the death and gang up on people, since we don’t agree’ so really? No opinions here matter to me at all.

It’s like baby school all over again.

If the people who accept the image find it a great image. Good for you! I am entitled to say it sucks and reeks of fucking child porn. SO quit whining and go find more in the joy that they exist.Or shut the fuck up.

Final answer: to think that the image has been ruled by UK PORNOGRAPHIC sensor boards and would be removed has seem to slide past the denseness of this barrage of wasteland answers. Or maybe not. Maybe having them removed is painful for many and just plain ignorant of others.

Well…if the image is indicative of Santa being under occupational stress, clearly he should take a sabbatical. haha

Oh good lord….

@LornaLove

No one, nobody, here has said it’s a “great image” or indicated that they “approve” (whatever the fuck that means beyond feeling that it has just as much right to exist as any other expression, regardless of personal opinion) of it. If you feel like you are being “ganged up on” it is because you insist upon strawmen and ad hominem attacks towards those who do not share your outrage.

@Darth_Algar Have you not noticed that I have completely ignored your 10 000 replies prior to this one? Get the hint, you bore me.

Proving my point….

Could be a trigger for some who fight with pedophilia. It is Eric worth the spanking and may be, deemed child porn by some

I can’t even see the image, but from the responses I know it ain’t cool. Pisses me off just thinking about it. Society should have zero tolerance for it, hang em high.

I think the difference between a nude photo and pornography is if there is eroticism attached to the pose of the subject.