Maybe this is because I don’t have kids or like kids, but to me the baby is basically a “prop”. It might as well be a doll, or a football or something. Not trying to dehumanize the child, but to me, the baby isn’t even the focal point of this. The post is about the new Mom, a young woman who decided to become a nudist/PN. When I look at this post, that’s what I focused on first and foremost. I understand the complaints about underage nudity and have been one to point out questionable things in the past. Is it a “slippery slope”? Yeah, most things in today’s society are. But personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with this post or it’s context.
And, Give how easily you can actually change or delete the baby or editing the baby that doesn’t like actual baby nowadays it is not that hard to see what I think anyway .
The only thing I was thinking about was I hope that the baby doesn’t poop while not wearing a nappy/diaper otherwise there’s nothing wrong with the picture
Not gonna lie, the idea anyone could find the picture “sexual” makes my skin crawl, that’s soooooo creepy. The caption itself tho, that’s kinda borderline but I get where the poster was coming from in a body positivity kinda way
Whilst breastfeeding a child is generally accepted, even on FB or IG, showing a child, let alone a naked one, on this website ought not be acceptable. This site has plenty of sexual explicit content. To mix actual depictions of children here is wrong.
Had the child turned its head to the camera, the child would not be breastfeeding, and the number one rule would apply. Are you really going to allow the turn of a head to decide what is acceptable to allowing underage nudity on this site?
This argument is nonsense. It has nothing to do with breastfeeding. It has to do with that it’s a picture of a baby, which by cultural convention people see in a nonsexual light.
I’m a little more sympathetic to the argument about context. That’s why, for example, I don’t allow otherwise innocent pictures of child nudists; they might not look so innocent next to a “spreadie”.
But this is a picture of a baby. I find it hard to believe anyone would see it as racy in any context.
NWO, your argument seems to be “no underage nudity” unless really underage as a baby. Try as I might, I cannot make sense of that one.
Just how old of an infant is the point you think showing underage nudity becomes an issue here? 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? You’ll never be able to define that line. Hence, it is far better to not have a line there, and keep with the ‘under 18 years is not allowed.’
We all know there are perverted souls out there in the world, and some of them get off to images like this. You start to attract those types here, and this place starts its journey downhill. You might think you will be able to curb the tide, but you won’t. You are feeding sick minds with posts like this on this website where a click of the Random button shows a spreadie, an erection, and more.
Make your site a place where those sickos will not find their pleasure.
so help me out here. If the photo does not show infant genitalia, you are fine with the photo?
So if some pervert displays an adult going down for oral sex on an infant – the adult’s mouth totally covering the infant’s genitalia – you see no problem with the photo? I’ve taken your literal words and shown how wrong-minded those words can be.
This is one reason NWO cannot write enough words to cover the spectrum of perverted imagery. Far simpler to exclude all minors from the scenes. That you think I am the sick one shows how you are very naive or how far you’ll go to include children in what ought to be an exclusive adult website.
NWO, your opinion of me is meaningless. I’m just another viewer of the website.
If you think this viewer is sick-minded for calling you out of (unintentionally?) attracting the truly perverted, well, we differ on who is sick-minded.
That other viewers have a warped sense of where a line should be drawn that would included some very disturbing images should tell you more about your decision than anything else.
I’d draw the line to prohibit any underage subjects.
You draw the line at naked underage unless really underaged.
Another draws the line at infant’s genitalia, despite a clear warning that that line is suspect.
i realize you’ve backed yourself into this corner, and that if you change your position you lose face with dozens of your viewership.
Instead of doing the right thing, you wish to discredit me with innuendo. Play nice. Do right. The vast majority of your viewers will appreciate it.
What a highly intelligent response. When you cannot discuss a topic, ask to ban the opposition into silence.
Should I have asked for you to banned? I mean, you did imply that you have no issue with images of adults performing oral sex on an infant, if that adult makes certain the infant’s genitalia is fully covered. You never denied it.
Do you see how silly it i to call for the banning of ideas? Soon, everyone is banned.
A more intelligent response would have been to deny that was your actual intent. That your previous position was lacking a complete address of infant nudity here. Do you see how using words is more helpful that the knee-jerk response to attempt to silence others would be?
Yeah. Only reason I haven’t is I try to set this blog apart from the rest of the heavily censored internet. But I think this has gone on long enough (longer than you may know).
He’s been consistently disruptive despite multiple warnings. And as he himself said, I should be looking out for the average user on this site, not catering to weirdos.
NWO, if you are so confident in your decision to display images of naked infants, why did you pull the image from your Discord page? Oh, you acknowledge that the image might be controversial, but you do not wish to engage in the discussion here.
@Mr. Lee. Because I’m just a user there, gotta go by their dumb rules. Kinda like you’re just a user here.
P.S. Yes your comments are held for moderation now (but still not blocked), so you can take that as a final warning sort of thing.
When I saw this picture, I only saw a naked lady posing with the infant. It didn’t occur to me that the infant’s nudity can be an issue. I mean, it’s pretty natural for children at this stage, to be either naked, or be clothed in only a towel. Still, I would be more careful in future. I agree it’s a fine line and could be crossed without thinking.
Thanks anonymously for pointing out the rule, I will be careful in future. And NudeWorldOrder, for understanding my cultural context.
Lazy Assassin, you seem to be the only willing to express an understanding of my post. Thank you.
If I saw that image on any other generic site, I probably would not have given a thought to it. But on a site like this one, I believe the line must be drawn, thick and bold, as to underage nudity. As stated previously, visitors here are one click away (Random) from seeing more explicit images, well actually one scroll down to a wide open spreadie.
It is the mixing of such images that causes a real issue. Other sites realize they would be inviting the truly perverted to view their content. NWO has a draw an almost impossible line to determine what is or is not allowed here.
Maybe this is because I don’t have kids or like kids, but to me the baby is basically a “prop”. It might as well be a doll, or a football or something. Not trying to dehumanize the child, but to me, the baby isn’t even the focal point of this. The post is about the new Mom, a young woman who decided to become a nudist/PN. When I look at this post, that’s what I focused on first and foremost. I understand the complaints about underage nudity and have been one to point out questionable things in the past. Is it a “slippery slope”? Yeah, most things in today’s society are. But personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with this post or it’s context.
And, Give how easily you can actually change or delete the baby or editing the baby that doesn’t like actual baby nowadays it is not that hard to see what I think anyway .
The only thing I was thinking about was I hope that the baby doesn’t poop while not wearing a nappy/diaper otherwise there’s nothing wrong with the picture
Not gonna lie, the idea anyone could find the picture “sexual” makes my skin crawl, that’s soooooo creepy. The caption itself tho, that’s kinda borderline but I get where the poster was coming from in a body positivity kinda way
Rules:
1. No real underage nudity.
Whilst breastfeeding a child is generally accepted, even on FB or IG, showing a child, let alone a naked one, on this website ought not be acceptable. This site has plenty of sexual explicit content. To mix actual depictions of children here is wrong.
Let me put this another way…
Had the child turned its head to the camera, the child would not be breastfeeding, and the number one rule would apply. Are you really going to allow the turn of a head to decide what is acceptable to allowing underage nudity on this site?
This argument is nonsense. It has nothing to do with breastfeeding. It has to do with that it’s a picture of a baby, which by cultural convention people see in a nonsexual light.
I’m a little more sympathetic to the argument about context. That’s why, for example, I don’t allow otherwise innocent pictures of child nudists; they might not look so innocent next to a “spreadie”.
But this is a picture of a baby. I find it hard to believe anyone would see it as racy in any context.
NWO, your argument seems to be “no underage nudity” unless really underage as a baby. Try as I might, I cannot make sense of that one.
Just how old of an infant is the point you think showing underage nudity becomes an issue here? 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? You’ll never be able to define that line. Hence, it is far better to not have a line there, and keep with the ‘under 18 years is not allowed.’
We all know there are perverted souls out there in the world, and some of them get off to images like this. You start to attract those types here, and this place starts its journey downhill. You might think you will be able to curb the tide, but you won’t. You are feeding sick minds with posts like this on this website where a click of the Random button shows a spreadie, an erection, and more.
Make your site a place where those sickos will not find their pleasure.
There’s nothing wrong with the picture you’re the one who is sick minded
Personally I believe that if the babies genitalia is on show that’s when it becomes wrongful
so help me out here. If the photo does not show infant genitalia, you are fine with the photo?
So if some pervert displays an adult going down for oral sex on an infant – the adult’s mouth totally covering the infant’s genitalia – you see no problem with the photo? I’ve taken your literal words and shown how wrong-minded those words can be.
This is one reason NWO cannot write enough words to cover the spectrum of perverted imagery. Far simpler to exclude all minors from the scenes. That you think I am the sick one shows how you are very naive or how far you’ll go to include children in what ought to be an exclusive adult website.
Well, you’re not making yourself look any less sick-minded with that one.
NWO, your opinion of me is meaningless. I’m just another viewer of the website.
If you think this viewer is sick-minded for calling you out of (unintentionally?) attracting the truly perverted, well, we differ on who is sick-minded.
That other viewers have a warped sense of where a line should be drawn that would included some very disturbing images should tell you more about your decision than anything else.
I’d draw the line to prohibit any underage subjects.
You draw the line at naked underage unless really underaged.
Another draws the line at infant’s genitalia, despite a clear warning that that line is suspect.
i realize you’ve backed yourself into this corner, and that if you change your position you lose face with dozens of your viewership.
Instead of doing the right thing, you wish to discredit me with innuendo. Play nice. Do right. The vast majority of your viewers will appreciate it.
Is there anyway of banning this idiot from the site?
What a highly intelligent response. When you cannot discuss a topic, ask to ban the opposition into silence.
Should I have asked for you to banned? I mean, you did imply that you have no issue with images of adults performing oral sex on an infant, if that adult makes certain the infant’s genitalia is fully covered. You never denied it.
Do you see how silly it i to call for the banning of ideas? Soon, everyone is banned.
A more intelligent response would have been to deny that was your actual intent. That your previous position was lacking a complete address of infant nudity here. Do you see how using words is more helpful that the knee-jerk response to attempt to silence others would be?
Yeah. Only reason I haven’t is I try to set this blog apart from the rest of the heavily censored internet. But I think this has gone on long enough (longer than you may know).
He’s been consistently disruptive despite multiple warnings. And as he himself said, I should be looking out for the average user on this site, not catering to weirdos.
NWO, if you are so confident in your decision to display images of naked infants, why did you pull the image from your Discord page? Oh, you acknowledge that the image might be controversial, but you do not wish to engage in the discussion here.
@Mr. Lee. Because I’m just a user there, gotta go by their dumb rules. Kinda like you’re just a user here.
P.S. Yes your comments are held for moderation now (but still not blocked), so you can take that as a final warning sort of thing.
I only want to get rid of a creepy weirdo
Okay
Hi, I posted this pic and I see your point.
When I saw this picture, I only saw a naked lady posing with the infant. It didn’t occur to me that the infant’s nudity can be an issue. I mean, it’s pretty natural for children at this stage, to be either naked, or be clothed in only a towel. Still, I would be more careful in future. I agree it’s a fine line and could be crossed without thinking.
Thanks anonymously for pointing out the rule, I will be careful in future. And NudeWorldOrder, for understanding my cultural context.
You easily add cloth on baby.
And a say it breastfeeding training drolls or something.
Lazy Assassin, you seem to be the only willing to express an understanding of my post. Thank you.
If I saw that image on any other generic site, I probably would not have given a thought to it. But on a site like this one, I believe the line must be drawn, thick and bold, as to underage nudity. As stated previously, visitors here are one click away (Random) from seeing more explicit images, well actually one scroll down to a wide open spreadie.
It is the mixing of such images that causes a real issue. Other sites realize they would be inviting the truly perverted to view their content. NWO has a draw an almost impossible line to determine what is or is not allowed here.
the fact that’s where your mind went when you saw the photo says a lot about you