>pedophilia isn't next
>there is no slippery slope
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html
>tfw born too late to reap the benefits of pedophile acceptance
>tfw born too soon to reap the benefits of pedophile acceptance
>>43648597
there's a picture where she's fully naked and you can see her vagina in the source.
>>43648736
There totally is.
Totally naked.
On a major news source.
>>43648597
Seeing defenders in the comments...
>>43649187
If you see a woman with her tits out and you get an erection, you're a pervert :^)
>>43648597
I definitely wouldn't share naked photos of my children with the entire internet.
the one on the road is kinda tasteless
Admiration knows not the bounds of age. To admire the beauty of prepubescent girls is entirely healthy, unlike feeling such hate for people online. You have my pity.
I'm not seeing any slippery slope.
Now, if you linked to laws making molesting kids legal, then you'd have something.
>>43649339
Molestation is like rape. Rape is still illegal even if a male is raping another male.
Consensual sex between a child and an adult is the slippery slope.
>>43649187
More defense... I don't even
>I see parents all the time who posts their kids pics naked in bathtubs and other garbage on facebook. Here a guy does it as a professional because his daughter looks like a open minded carefree child. He is inspired by that and that is fine. Parents have become so close minded about how children are raised. As if they are superior to others, which of course is not the case. This is how children develop mental instabilities and narrow-mindedness and then by that time parents are wondering why their kid is such a horrible person because "i know I raised my child right" is their excuse. I am sorry to off on a rant here but this kind of nonsense with "bad parenting" drives me insane.
>>43649259
>I definitely wouldn't share naked photos of my children with the entire internet.
Yeah, i would just share with my buddies.
>>43648597
Send her to church until she's ashamed of her body. It's what god would want.
Report Huffington Post for cp
>>43648597
>The images and the stories behind this father-daughter road trip are really amazing. It is a beautiful collection of images and was probably a really fun and amazing trip. Who are we to criticize the photographic and parental choices this man made?
>Sure, there are sick and twisted people out there, most of which are likely the people who really wasted their time and energy berating this father. Facebook, instagram, twitter, etc. are all full of provocative teenage bathroom-selfies and people choose to attack an actual artist? It is sad and depressing.
>Think about this. Had this been a father-son road trip, I would guess there would have been little to no backlash. For some reason it is socially acceptable to see boys and men running around mostly naked all time. No one would bat an eye if there was a photo of a father and son in front of a beautiful landscape at sunset while they were peeing off a cliff. Everyone would think it was great father son bonding. Make the subject a female and the world goes up in arms.
>Why is it socially acceptable for men to walk around half naked, but it is instantly sexual, distasteful and wrong for a woman to show any skin above the waist. Sure, there are bizarre exceptions, like bikinis on the beach, but why is that acceptable when walking down the street in just a bra would not be acceptable? American moral standards... One of the biggest contradictions in the world. However, it is also an argument for another time.
>Also worth mentioning is the fact that this is only an issue because it involves a white American family. Had this set been shot by a photojournalist in a war-torn third-world country, no one would have through twice about it. Many people would probably think it was art or interesting or needed to be shared. Why is it socially acceptable to publish images of naked children playing in bombed out streets next to burning military vehicles, but this father-daughter road trim is unacceptable?
>>43649514
pedo detected
>>43649725
No, just against the Church's demonization of sex and nudity in all forms. The brainwashing fucks kids heads up and makes them sexual deviants as adults. If everyone wasn't mentally ill or neurotic about sex in the first place we wouldn't have problems like pedophilia.
>>43649514
Modesty ≠ Shame
>>43648597
Even more...
>What does it say about those of you who see those pictures as pornographic? If you see them as pornographic doesn't that make you the perverts? Because the only way you would view them as such would be if you found that little girl arousing. She's a 2 year old girl, and nothing that I see about those pictures is remotely sexual, and the definition of pornography is thus: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. I for one, do not feel sexual excitement seeing those pictures.
>they are nothing but pictures of a child playing and enjoying life. get your mind out the gutter.
>The saddest day of my young life, was when I got too old to go around without a shirt. I spent many summers swimming and playing with just swimsuit bottoms on.
>Haters gonna hate. And those so called 'Christians' sure do serve up a lot of hate.
someone call MODS on HuffPo
>>43649256
Yes, Ireland, that is actually how it works.
>>43649629
It's not CP, just like nudist sites aren't, for the same reason that nudist sites aren't.
>>43649959
>The brainwashing fucks kids heads up and makes them sexual deviants as adults
Any proof or are you just making shit up again?
>>43649451
>photographing a child in the nude and posting it online is raising a child right
send help, i feel my left arm going numb
No reason to vilify the human body. I don't care about these pictures because there's nothing to care about. There's nothing bad here, the human body isn't bad. In non-western countries literally no one gives a fuck because they're not afraid of naked people. From an artistic perspective these pictures are kind of bad.
>>43649979
>>43648597
At this point, one hopes that these are parodies:
>I feel the people that are saying those things are the sick ones who assume that he is doing it in a sexual way. I agree also with his comment that she will have many years to feel unsecure in her life and not feel pretty. He obviously loves his daughter and the photography is beautiful.
>Dirty minds are what made those photos dirty. Nothing about that little girl or her pics is dirty. Only in the minds of those people.
>This is a child, not a toilet. Nothing about her is dirty, she is beautiful.
>It is okay to let a child be a child. Protect them from the dirty minds and dirty hearts of people who would steal their innocence. And I have a child and a grandchild. We don't leave her with strangers, but the saddest thing is, the people who are mostly hurting kids aren't strangers. They are the people in our lives that should be trustworthy. Nothing about this child is dirty.
>Children's time at that age is short, and we should do whatever we can to make childhood just that for our young ones. The weight & expectations of the adult world will come soon enough!
>Having personally lived it, yes, the ones we should be able to trust most are the some of the ones we should be most wary of. Sadly.
>Some nice photographs. It's pretty obvious who the sick people around the internet are, and they're all over the place trying to force their opinions and agenda down other peoples thoats[sic]
>... many people take photos of their young children without clothing, and they share them with other people. You do have a good point about perverts who would post the images on their own sites. However, I do not believe that the father is perverted, nor does he deserve the accusations that he is using his daughter for pornography.
Is there no law regarding people's ability to consent to nude photoshoots in the USA?
>>43650146
What are Catholic girls
>>43650503
They could simply be opinions different from yours!
>>43648597
This time from the photographer himself: https://archive.today/8xYPb#40%
>So what happened to spark this show? I know a few of your personal social media accounts were reviewed and some outright cancelled and/or deleted because of what happened. The Internet gives everybody a platform for their thoughts and ideals, but it seems to also give people a way to criticize what they don’t like or understand. What’s your stance on this?
>Basically what happened was, I was posting stuff online – which was a personal passion thing – and then a friend of mine who’s an award-winning author/novelist from LA posted a thing on her Instagram about this guy, this dad [who’s] driving across country with his daughter. “It’s amazing, it’s inspiring, and it’s hilarious, and it’s great, you should check it out.” And I got all of these followers. But she’s got a huge, sort of dissenting fan base of these puritanical mommy hate groups of women, and men also, that troll the Internet looking for improprieties and things that they can condemn as impure or immoral. They went onto my account and saw the photos that I was taking and they went crazy and they shut my Instagram down, they shut my Facebook down, and they tried to take my website down. It was all a surprise to me, but they were successful. Luckily for me, I knew people that worked at Instagram, and I was able to get the message through. They looked at my account and they turned it back on. But most people don’t have that luxury. There’s been a lot of big headline stories lately about people who lost their accounts after years of faithful publishing, for exactly the same things, and things that weren’t as bad as what I have photographed.
Chicldren are mad ugly.
also Pedophiles != child molestors. c'mon step up your game.
>>43650723
Not nearly as perverted as most irreligious women.
Once again, show me some proof of the shit your spouting.
>>43648597
>>43648833
she's hot
>>43648597
Even if pedophilia becomes illegal doesn't mean they rape kids 90% of them don't
It would still be rape if their under 18.
But hey its hard to understand.
>>43650779
https://archive.today/8xYPb#30%
>The reality is that my daughter’s two. Sometimes she likes to take her clothes off, and run down in the sand and play on the beach. As a documentarian, for all the reasons I’ve sort of described and the fact that my history is detailed through photographs and archival things that I’ve begin to look back at, I’ve faithfully documented, and I think it’s fine… For me, having my artwork and my photography criticized or condemned – and especially censored – it wasn’t even so much about that it was pictures of my kids, it was about the fact that I as a human being, as an individual, free-standing, adult person in this world, was suddenly being controlled by an outside force. It all comes down to an issue of the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech, the freedom to be who you want to be, and to live freely – it’s living in a place without fear. [I decided I was going] to make an art show about it. I’ve shown dozens of galleries around the country, around the world, and I’m known as a fine art photographer. There’s nothing that differentiates a photograph of my daughter in the desert from any of the character study portrait photography that I’ve done. Just because it’s my daughter, doesn’t make it any different. Even as parents, I mean, I don’t know a parent who doesn’t have a photo of their kid taking a bath in a sink. We document that stuff, we want to see that. We want to hold onto that, because they’re not going to stay that way.
>>43650775
I fucking hate this bullshit excuse. Just say you want to fap to the pics and be done with it.
To the people commenting i mean, not you canadabro.
>>43650917
becomes legal"
so are you telling me the slippery slope is real?
I fear for tomorrow
>>43650820
and this as well. Any pedos here, why do you find them attractive? Why not just attach a fleshlight to a sack of potatoes, it probably is the same thing.
>>43651046
Children are very soft
>>43651124
faggot, wish I could lynch you.
>>43651172
not all child molesters are gay m8
>>43651046
Little girls are pretty, they have soft smooth skin, they're small and cute the perfect size for hugging and cuddling and carrying about. And they're nice, not mean and manipulative like grown women.
>>43648597
What the fuck. Why would he take pictures of her nude? Then post them online?
Jesus Christ. Mind boggling.
>>43651172
>implying I'm wrong
Nudity is not sexual,goy.
Destroy your sex drive goy.
Pedophilic behavior is normal too,goy.
what the fuck, how is this not CP?
It's not like a casual family photograph, they are using a naked child model.
Pedophile here. Can confirm pictures are lewd. Masturbating to them right now. Feels good to be getting my CP from a legitimate, mainstream news source rather than having to troll the deep web.
>>43651220
So essentially, you guys are too pussy for anything else and have to trick small children into "loving you".
And since you're here now, I expect your buttbuddy artfag to be here any moment.
>>43650146
Telling people their own naked bodies are evil will definitely fuck with peoples heads. Also what they do makes nudity and sex 'the forbidden fruit' which causes people to obsess over them. If nudity was common and sex no big deal there would be no perverts. Or at least a lot fewer of them.
>>43651261
This.
Are they innocent pics? Yes. But pedos exist and they sexualize these images, they live on the Internet, and you have to keep that in mind
>Wayatt Newman
>Newmann
Hey goyim,have you been a good goy and accepted pedophilia yet?
>>43648730
so true
>>43650834
Please provide proof for your claim too.
Hard isn't it? Because no studies have been done on this topic.
>>43651258
I'm sure it falls under "nudist photography". It's just as much CP as pictures of naked kids on a nudist site.
>>43651263
You asked what's attractive about little girls, I tried to list some things about little girls that are attractive.
Okay, before I click that link, what the hell is it?
Because fuck, that's kind of scary that it's just on a big mainstream site. picture someone accidentally clicking that at work.
>>43650779
>Basically what happened was, I was posting stuff online – which was a personal passion thing
because posting something online is very personal
>– and then a friend of mine who’s an award-winning author/novelist from LA posted a thing on her Instagram about this guy, this dad [who’s] driving across country with his daughter. “It’s amazing, it’s inspiring, and it’s hilarious, and it’s great, you should check it out.” And I got all of these followers.
what kind of followers?
>But she’s got a huge, sort of dissenting fan base of these puritanical mommy hate groups of women,
women as hategroups #shoesontheotherfoot
>and men also, that troll the Internet looking for improprieties and things that they can condemn as impure or immoral.
"Children can never be dirty, gaizzz"
>They went onto my account and saw the photos that I was taking and they went crazy and they shut my Instagram down, they shut my Facebook down, and they tried to take my website down. It was all a surprise to me, but they were successful.
For posting those online and in public, having one's Instagram & Facebook shut down is not that big of a problem
>Luckily for me, I knew people that worked at Instagram, and I was able to get the message through. They looked at my account and they turned it back on.
Of course, they did; wouldn't want to keep some particular customers unhappy.
>But most people don’t have that luxury. There’s been a lot of big headline stories lately about people who lost their accounts after years of faithful publishing, for exactly the same things, and things that weren’t as bad as what I have photographed.
Facebook & Instagram: luxury items
>>43648597
My parents have naked pictures of me hung about the house.
The only way you can see family photos of naked infants as pornographic is if you never had a functioning family.
I had a degree of sympathy for you, but that sympathy dried up the moment you tar and feather my mother and father as child sex abusers, which is what an accusation of "child pornographer" implies.
>>43648597
This isn't pedophilia, or related, though. This is no more evidence of the growing acceptance of pedophilia and the slippery slop being real, than the iconic image of the Earps and Doc Holliday from Tombstone* was a sign of the growing acceptance of homosexuality.
These pictures are not pornographic. Nudity =/= Child Pornography, no more than Two Or More Men Standing In Close Proximity=Gay Pornography. These pictures really aren't sexualized, unless you are sexualizing them.
*Okay, admittedly Kilmer's Doc Holliday was pretty effete. Say instead it's like calling the iconic seen of the Mexican Standoff between Blondie, Tuco, and Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly** gay pornography.
**Blondie and Angel Eyes are kind of sissy names, admittedly. But if you're splitting hairs that thin, I have nothing for you.
>>43648597
Man, most all little kids like to play naked. I went to the article and I didn't feel anything was lewd or pornographic about images.
What this is, is another example of something like this not being for everyone and really pissing off the puritans and religious freaks who still haven't been able to detach nudity from sexuality.
>>43649187
>though at a certain age is it abuse if it is consensual?
WEE WOO, WEE WOO
>>43651046
>Any pedos here, why do you find them attractive?
Well let's start:
-Little girls have beautiful, smooth, hairless perfect pussies with no inner labia showing. Adult women have disgusting piles of roast beef that looks like a gaping axe wound leaking entrails.
-Little girls have perfect skin and flawless complexion. Adult women pile on 10 lbs of make-up to cover up all their vomit-inducing skin flaws and to make them not look like a decaying corpse.
-Little girls are always honest, happy, friendly and playful. Adult women are always manipulative, insane, lying cunts who only keep men around to satisfy their absurd and irrational emotional needs.
-Little girls are hairless and, like I said before, have perfectly smooth skin. Adult women grow hair on their legs, arms, face and armpits. Either get used to touching something furry, or stubbly.
-Little girls are always lithe, athletic, and at the peak of physical health. Unless they're raised in a trailer park, little girls are never fat. Adult women are usually overweight, if not obese. Even if they work out adult women still get patches of fat and cellulite.
-Little girls never get periods. Adult women bleed for their cunt for 1/4 of the month. When they do they become foul-tempered she beasts who leave foul smelling, blood-soaked tampons and maxi-pads everywhere.
Should I keep going? I could keep going but I don't want to exceed the maximum post length.
>>43651465
You should share some of those non-lewd photos of yours so we can all agree about how non-lewd they are.
>>43651398
Oh alright then.
>>43651542
show some respect and next time use a proxy to hide origin you fuckboy
>>43651554
Yeah I'm with this guy and find myself agreeing with all of his posts. Post the photos so we can all see that the child nudity is completely natural and not lewd or boner inducing at all.
>>43651554
>>43648597
this whole thing is a trap right? when all the gays,pedos,animal fuckers are revealed we get to put them all in one city and bomb the fuck out of it right?
>>43651444
>Facebook & Instagram: luxury items
Have you heard of reading comprehension, you dumb flip? He said most don't have the luxury of knowing people at Instagram so if their shit gets shut down it stays shut down.
>>43651542
>are always honest, happy, friendly and playful
Except when they're grumpy and crying, then you want to hold her and comfort her until she stops crying.
>>43648597
You fucks need to fight for polygamy first
I'm a pedo, but there is literally nothing sexual about this photo. People are just getting butthurt over nothing.
>>43651514
*scene
Of all the things I could have misspelled, a fucking homophone...
>>43651699
There's already reality TV shows about how polygamists are just normal people, My Five Wives, Sister Wives, it's already happening. The Mormons can cover their own shit.
>>43651465
>The only way you can see family photos of naked infants as pornographic is if you never had a functioning family.
No it's not:
>"...research suggests that there may be differential gender effects influencing cross-generational transmission of child abuse, with fathers more likely to abuse their offspring and mothers more likely to fail to protect their children..."
>"...relationship to perpetrator is confounded with age of onset, duration of abuse, and the use of physical force. For example, biological father–daughter incest is associated with much earlier onsets and longer durations of abuse, but with less use of physical force and coercion..."
http://www.umc.edu/uploadedFiles/UMCedu/Content/Administration/Health_Equities/Childrens_Justice_Center/PutnamUpdateCSA.pdf
>>43651817
There was a lot of controversy over it, still not accepted and most Mormons are against it, in public at least
Warren Jeffs was arrested, remember?
>>43651542
Get a pet pig or something, man.
>>43651872
>No it's not:
What does what followed that have to do with anything?
>>43651872
>your parents are actually sexual abusers
>the fact that fathers are more common abusers proves this
Kill yourself.
>>43651554
>unless you reveal details of your life, our default judgement (in ignorance of the facts) on it remains valid, and your experience of it is invalid
So you're literally arguing that ignorance strengthens your position.
And no, I'm not flying 6,000 miles, buying a photocopier, scanning my baby photos, and uploading them. I know for NEETs like you it's much easier, but I actually left home.
>>43651961
I gotta agree, seemed pretty non sequitur.
>inb4 "hurr durr reading comprehension"
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
>>43652117
Well don't you have kids of your own that you can take some non-lewd photos of?
>>43650945
>The reality is that my daughter’s two. Sometimes she likes to take her clothes off, and run down in the sand and play on the beach.
Just because she is two, it does not mean that all her actions are to be condoned.
>As a documentarian, for all the reasons I’ve sort of described and the fact that my history is detailed through photographs and archival things that I’ve begin to look back at, I’ve faithfully documented, and I think it’s fine…
Fine in one's mind does not make something fine.
>For me, having my artwork and my photography criticized or condemned – and especially censored – it wasn’t even so much about that it was pictures of my kids, it was about the fact that I as a human being, as an individual, free-standing, adult person in this world, was suddenly being controlled by an outside force.
Other people don't agree = "controlled by an outside force"?
>It all comes down to an issue of the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech, the freedom to be who you want to be, and to live freely – it’s living in a place without fear.
*Says to 18-yr-old daughter* "See my daughter, I was exercising my freedom with your naked 2-yr-old body.... for freedom!"
>[I decided I was going] to make an art show about it.
Because all should see some person's 2-yr-old daughter... naked
>I’ve shown dozens of galleries around the country, around the world, and I’m known as a fine art photographer. There’s nothing that differentiates a photograph of my daughter in the desert from any of the character study portrait photography that I’ve done.
A troubling notion to what the photographer has done before
>Just because it’s my daughter, doesn’t make it any different. Even as parents, I mean, I don’t know a parent who doesn’t have a photo of their kid taking a bath in a sink. We document that stuff, we want to see that. We want to hold onto that, because they’re not going to stay that way.
"It's ok because others do it also."
So what is it with Britain and Pedophiles?
Any nudity in our post-Victorian society is pornographic.
>>43650632
There are. You have to be 18. Unless you're a nudist. I have no idea how things like this aren't persecuted, so there must be some sort of exceptions. All I know is that even if some girl sent me nudes or if I had the opportunity to take pictures of a girl and she was under 18, I would never do it. Fuck that, it's just not worth it. It's not even technically legal if she only looks under 18.
>Parents literally bath with their children sometimes
>But taking pictures that everyone on earth has taken of their kids is wrong
>>43652433
It's a parent's duty to protect their children from the sexual gaze of shameless pedos. For the child's own good the parents should keep those photos off the internet.
>inb4 samefagging
None of my posts have made a contradiction.
>>43649339
DELIVERING
>>43651542
I wish I knew what you looked like. I doubt you're anywhere close to attractive, you piece of shit.
>>43652580
Top source m8
![woman-with-money[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Fl8b0GW.png "woman-with-money[1].png")
>>43652580
>Her mother was approved of this photoshoot.
Cha-ching!
>>43652722
If you're gonna be a pissbaby be mad at the guy who asked the question, not the guy who gave an honest answer
>>43652750
is there no low women will not sink to?
>>43652695
Alt Link:
https://archive.today/Dmbs1
>>43649698
BASED RED RESPONSE
A
S
E
D
![facepalm[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Wu0Q2xc.jpg "facepalm[1].jpg")
>>43652580
>>43652926
https://archive.today/wVX78
>Brooke Shields's mother had Gary Gross photograph her daughter, then a model with the Ford agency and signed a contract giving Gross full rights to exploit the images of her daughter. The images were published and exhibited around the time when Brooke Shields was promoting the film Pretty Baby directed by Louis Malle. Shields later sued Gross to prevent further use of these pictures. After lengthy legal maneuvers stretching over many years, an appeals court confirmed that Shields could not invoke her right to annul the contract and that she was legally bound by her mother's signature. The court eventually ruled that "these photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic, nor do they imply sexual promiscuity. They are pictures of a prepubescent girl posing innocently in her bath." The court rejected all Brooke Shields' claims and decided in Gross's favor. In the ealy 1990s Richard Prince appropriated one of these images for part of his work, Spiritual America.
>The court eventually ruled that "these photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic, nor do they imply sexual promiscuity. They are pictures of a prepubescent girl posing innocently in her bath."
What kind of court would rule that?
>>43651662
If I recall the first draft we're basing our plan off of, we're projected to have to glass two cities, actually.
>have to
Well, get to. San Francisco and Berkeley, or San Francisco and Oakland? Decisions, decisions...
Sometimes a child is just a child. Why can't people accept this?
>oh because they are closet pedophiles who feel like they might go on a raping spree if they see the human form of a young girl in its natural state.
>>43653060
>What kind of court would rule that?
One that doesn't bend to your whims? I know it must hurt your little feelings when courts follow the law instead of doing what you want but you're just a stupid flip.
>>43652221
>>43652221
What are you so afraid of? What is going to happen? Is someone getting hurt? Is the child going to be in mortal pain and torture because her body was used in art? Her body in the future may continue to be art.
The human body is not a bad thing, and the only reason you think it is, is because of generations and generations of social conditioning making these new images seem obscene and disgusting when in reality, it isn't. Take a long look at those images. Take in the body of a young girl. If you feel something, then the photography is doing its job.
This is about freedom. Not just freedom of expression but freedom of ones-self. You shouldn't be afraid of new emotions or thoughts or ideas just because you have been told for years that they are bad.
When I first saw these images, I too was a bit taken away. Thinking for a minute, you realize that is what art is supposed to do. It is supposed to take you away.
In the future, people will look back and wonder why anyone cared so much to begin with.
>>43648597
>Shows baby vag
>Warning: Some offensive language below
Dude, you just showed me a baby's vagina. What language is going to offend me after I continue scrolling past that?
>if you ever want to see how Bluepilled and Brainwashed by Feminists /pol/ really is, start a Pedo thread.
>>43653539
>I find female genitalia offensive.
CONGRATULATIONS
You have reached the ultimate faggot achievement.
But let's be serious here, Unless you're sexually attracted to a baby's vagina or just extremely repulsed by vaginas in general, you do not have a reason to be offended, you fucking prude.
If you still are however, I have just the thing to soothe your innocent soul:
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Offended
>>43648833
So because it's not erotic it isn't cp?
Pedos will masturbate to this. The dad is either a retard or a pedo himself.
>>43653608
Pretty much this.
that said, logic and reason go out the window when children are involved. So it's perfectly understandable why /pol/ thinks this way.
smutty pictures of kids is disgusting and that above all things shouldn't be shoved in people's faces. I think I felt more of a repulsed feeling from OP's image than I did the half-eviscerated tranny that gets posted around here who cut up his balls and put three dicks in its place. In b4 it gets posted.
>>43651600
>show some respect
To who? You're certainly not deserving of any.
>>43653715
>So because it's not erotic it isn't cp?
Yes.
Seriously, the father has never been to >>/hr/ where there's tasteful nudes people jack it to.
>>43651542
>those are actually pretty good arguments
Counter point: they do not have T & A
>>43649187
I thought the Left liked pedos and said pedophilia is normal for a man, or a woman I guess. Now they're saying they're sicko's and that their first instinct shouldn't be geared towards sex whenever they see a naked child.
True, but we're not talking about normal people. The other thing is, how is this any different from Pedo websites jerking it to pics of children? The only difference is this one is acceptable and gives pedo's fapping material.
Which In my opinion if it doesn't hurt any, than why care. I'm not a pedo myself, don't see any appeal in it. But, if they're not rapping children or kidnapping them, or abducting then what does it hurt they have a few photos?
>>43653945
Fix'd
Free fapping material*
>>43653715
>Pedos will masturbate to this.
People will mastrubate to anything. People will mastrubate to pics of your mailbox. Does that make your mailbox erotic? I think fucking not. Besides that, even a pedo couldn't fap to those pics. He'd certainly like them, but when he has access to loli and CP those pics start to look very tame.
>>43648597
How could anyone define this as porn? All those SJW idiots bringing that man down are dumb as fuck.
I wouldn't even call them SJW. It's more like uptight Christians or Muslims who abhor anything with the human body.
If a pedo finds these images "hot," that's just a sick person getting off on shit. Like someone getting off on watching a woman eat real shit.
>>43653715
>So because it's not erotic it isn't cp?
That's the general rule, it has to be sexual for it to be CP. It's why they can arrest guys running non-nude sites because the FBI can call it CP because it's sexual even though they have clothes on but they can't do shit about nudist sites.
>>43653901
Girls butts are round and nice, no cream cheese.
>>43654019
I don't care if people masturbate to my mailbox but I would have a problem with them doing it to my naked daughter.
There is no reason to take photos of a naked child.
>>43654054
Is this sexual? And considered CP? It's literally the definition of art, because someone drew it. The other thing, it's a Vampire (Who is hundreds of years old), a Supernatural Girl (Not even human) and a Ghost (Who is actually legal age, but didn't grow because she died long ago).
>>43654054
They can accuse and arrest, but it's not their decision whether it is erotic or not. It's a judge's.
And it's done on a case by case basis.
>>43654104
Are you dumb? Most parents take pics of their kids when say they're having a bath or something. There are naked pics of me as a young child in our family album.
Why do people instantly attack sex or eroticism to nudity? Most who do are lacking in some way - life experience, some sort of emotional trauma, etc.
Do you also think parents who give their small children a bath are sexually abusing them? Because going on your logic, you do.
>>43654019
loli and CP are disgusting for the same reason that hetero porn is cuck porn. I only fap to tasteful nudes, be it little girls, women, or 2D.
>banning lawful activities because of the unlawful activities of others
So when are you faggots going to advocate gun bans too?
>>43654214
I actually feel the same way.
Throwing a penis in my porn kinda ruins it for me.
Rather watch solo or just nudes. Shit, even cheesecake.
>>43654211
>Do you also think parents who give their small children a bath are sexually abusing them?
Does your parents take photo's of you in the bath and post them online? Really, what is the Art aspect in an child's undeveloped body? I think you guys might be latent pedo's yourselves. I look at that picture and I see nothing, you want Art, this is Art.
>>43654104
Yes there is, it's called art and people have been doing just this since art existed.
There's not a single artist in history that wouldn't tell you that a little girl's body isn't beautiful to look at. Unfortunately your utter paranoia of a specific group of people, who's capacity of evil, you are seriously exaggerating, is kinda rotting your brain.
If people want to spank it to your daughter they're going to do it, pictures regardless. And you'll never fucking know, because that's where it stops in most cases.
So how about you loosen up a bit and enjoy the world and it's people instead of shitting yourself every time you see a child holding someone's hand. Nobody really appreciates your alarmist bullshit.
>>43654214
I won't adopt that principle.
But I respect you.
>>43654304
Here is some ACTUAL ART, look at the attention detail. A faggot photographer didn't just snap a picture of his naked daughter's body to make this, no this took actual effort.
>>43654390
>only i can determine what art is
>>43651542
>>43654390
>this took actual effort
Why can't more artists make stuff like this?
>>43654390
>>43654304
>>43654423
Are you going to subsidize a sculptor's living conditions and life for 2-5 years while he makes that for you?
Your answer to that question is the same answer for yours.
>>43654304
>Really, what is the Art aspect in an child's undeveloped body?
>I look at that picture and I see nothing
Are you an idiot? If you see nothing, why are you injecting sexuality into it?
That's the whole issue. If you went through the albums of millions of parents, you'd find millions of pics like that guy took. His is more artistic.
If you think art is only made by old dudes centuries ago, you're also an idiot.
Did you watch the video at the end of the article? A First Amendment Lawyer basically laughed at everyone who is complaining.
>>43654401
source or you're lying
>>43654181
>Is this sexual?
Yes.
>And considered CP?
No, it's a drawing.
>>43654185
Maybe, but when the FBI arrests you, shuts down your businesses and seizes your assets how much does it matter if they get a conviction? And how likely is it they won't get a conviction?
>>43648597
I bet these fags would cry bloody murder at child pageants.
>>43654423
Are you gonna pay for it?
>>43654469
>>43651542
>-Little girls are always honest, happy, friendly and playful.
Were you homeschooled or something?
>>43654456
>>43654390
>>43654304
>>43654423
Probably because at this point no one remembers what true art is anymore, seriously I could take a snapshot of my asshole and call it Art nowadays.
>>43651542
>Little girls have perfect skin and flawless complexion. Adult women pile on 10 lbs of make-up to cover up all their vomit-inducing skin flaws and to make them not look like a decaying corpse.
This only happens because the make up jew tricks them into buying make up that makes them look better temporarily but fucks up their skin in the long run. It's a dirty long con.
>>43654497
>implying a simple google image search won't show you that child pageants aren't the pinnacle of degeneracy
>>43654390
This coming from someone with two degrees in fine art: PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP
You clearly have as much understanding of art as a deer has understanding of road signs. In fact, from what you've shown me, I'm positive that you have the sense of esthetics of an autistic chimpanzee. Please, never set foot into a gallery in your life. You are not deserving of it.
>>43654515
Wow this guy really is full of himself.
>>43654466
I'm not, it's just stupid, and can easily be used for sexually deprived pedo's looking to vent out their frustration (Really to me it's no different from CP, there's barely anything that separated the two), and is somehow considered Art, which is also insulting to true art.
>>43654476
But, all they're doing is being naked and blushing and placing their hand on each other. So how is that sexual?
>>43654458
>Are you going to subsidize a sculptor's living conditions and life for 2-5 years while he makes that for you?
Welp, time to become insanely rich then...
>>43654547
>This coming from someone with two degrees in fine art:
>two degrees in fine art from professor schlomo shekelsteins college of degenerate art
if you know so much then please show me what you think is good art then?
>>43654415
Glad you're at least shooting yourself and not the messenger.
>>43654546
It's ironic that nudity is considered artful and nonsexual, but covering the sexualized areas somehow achieves the opposite effect.
>>43654547
HAHAHAHA, I touched on a liberal's nerve. Whatever hambeast go back to you cookie crumb, and potato bag chip exhibit before the Janitor mistakes it for trash and throws it all away.
>>43654569
You'd have a heart attack living in Paris or other European country where basically everyone at the Beach is nude - even kids with their parents.
You just have to realize, your opinions are in the vast minority. You need to see a shrink about why you inject sex with nudity. You also need to see a shrink about why you can't grasp the definition of art.
>>43654515
Maybe if you want more big marble sculptures you should commission some like the people who wanted the sculptures you're posting. That's how good art traditionally got made, it was commissioned.
>>43654539
Partially true, makeup ruins women's skin but it naturally get worse as they age, especially if they get too much sun or pick up smoking(ew, gross).
>>43654546
Pageantwhores are so gross dressed up and painted up like whores and with their fake tans.
>>43654549
Full of what, that photography is shit and shouldn't even be considered Art half the time? Seriously all you need to do for the most part is be at the right place and the right time.
Photography is people who wanted to be real Artists but didn't have any talent and went out and bought a camera.
>>43654589
>So how is that sexual?
Because they're legs are spread and posed toward the camera. Also, they're not doing anything else (because there is nothing going on in the background), so the focus of the picture are the girls with their legs spread.
People that don't have autism can tell the difference.
>>43654547
>shameless tumblrisms
Not on my /pol/
>>43649339
Because you're an idiot. Shit doesn't happen over night.
>>43654682
I wish I could, bit of a poor fag. But things never stay the same, so sure I wouldn't mind funding that at all.
>>43654589
To quote a politician "I know it when I see it". It's the poses and how they're covered, it's meant to tantalize and be sexual.
>>43651261
Why not post this as a comment on the site hosting them?
>>43654613
While we're on the subject..
It feels pornongraphic when I think "Could anyone want to fuck this thing"
It feels like a 2 year old girl without clothes when I think it's a 2 year old girl without clothes.
>>43654635
Sorry, I'm not a liberal. And I'm not American so the shit you call art over there is quite out of my area of expertise.
>>43654682
>Partially true, makeup ruins women's skin but it naturally get worse as they age, especially if they get too much sun or pick up smoking(ew, gross).
so does everyone else's skin including yours, also only retards smoke the nicotine jew.
>>43654705
They're spread, but not towards the camera, the camera has an overview angle and they're looking up and towards it. The other thing is nothing is revealed say their chests, they have their legs covering each other's privates and not in any sexual way (They simply have their foot placed in front of their privates). So you're wrong and both accounts.
>>43654764
>literally a photograph of a degenerate family
your degenerate pedo pictures are not art despite what professor schlomo shekelstein told you.
>>43654635
>living in Paris or other European country where basically everyone at the Beach is nude - even kids with their parents
Thankfully, not in the USA
Also, nudity looks like it's declining:
>The naked sunbathers who once crowded Germany's Baltic beaches and city parks are becoming an endangered species due to shifting demographics, the fall of the Berlin Wall, growing prosperity and widening girths.
https://archive.today/jKHm3
>This is especially true for younger people who are far less likely than their parents to strip off their trunks or bikinis in public, in part because they regard fashion as a crucial marker of group identity.
https://archive.today/Xx438
>>43654824
Go be a protestant prude elsewhere. K THX BAI
>>43654764
A head's up would have been nice, also now that I think about it. I've seen that picture posted in the "Pedophilia should be Legal, guise!" so I might know what side of the argument you're coming from.
>>43654797
So why even mention makeup when the point was that little girls have perfect smooth skin and grown women don't?
>>43653715
people have fucked cars and dolphins
>>43649187
>What does it say about society when they see a naked kid and think about sex
Classic pedo projection defense.
Every parent has to bathe their kids when they're little, and yes sometimes they'll just run around naked and mom/dad wont give a fuck... because they're in the privacy of their own home. They might even snap a couple pics to put in a family photo album so they can embarrass their kid in 15yrs when they show the kid's date a picture of their kid's baby booty.
They aren't taking pictures of their naked 2yr old and POSTING THEM ONLINE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.
>>43654866
because a big part of the reason their skin gets THAT bad is because of make up.
>>43654861
kill yourself liberal faggot
>>43654791
I don't think it was our Art, it was in Spain if I remember correctly. Either way Eurocuck, enjoy your shitty art that's made up of naked little girls. Maybe I should get some of my old naked baby pictures for you, and you can hang it up on your wall, degenerate.
>>43654824
Here, have another.
>>43654939
W8 this one has clothes I don't get the issue here.
>>43654889
>POSTING THEM ONLINE
... and in an exhibit, and with a full catalog of the pictures for everyone to see & own...
>>43649451
>his daughter looks like a open minded carefree child
>looks like an open minded child
~Dan "The Cunny Man" Schneider.
>>43654939
not art. it takes no skill to point a camera at something and apply some filters. there are very few photographs that take real skill and these are not one of them.
>>43654843
Yeah, I wouldn't mind going to a bude beach myself. But, yeah another reason why it's probably drying up is because people are fatter than they are back then. It's certainly why a lot of people don't like going to nude beaches here in America, because no one wants to see a landwhale letting it all hang out.
>>43654789
Seeing a naked little girl makes me hard because it reminds me how good it felt to be naked as a child.
As an adult being naked is only slightly more comfortable than being clothed, but as a child I remember being naked felt way better than cocaine.
>>43648597
I don't see anything sexual about the photos in the article. Maybe that is because I am not a pedophile.
>>43654897
Yes, makeup is bad and women shouldn't use it but a girl's skin naturally stops being perfect and unblemished with age. Maybe if she doesn't use makeup it won't be as bad as a slut who uses loads of it but her skin still won't stay as good as it was when she was a little girl, it's just how aging goes.
>>43654995
any picture posted online is pornography
that's what the internet was invented for
>>43650779
>Neumann
>Complains about "morality"
>I know an "award winning novelist from LA"
>I know people at Instagram, they turned my pedo account back on for me
Oh god... I have a feeling /pol/ is about to be proven right again.
>>43654992
Was kinda liberating I'll admit, but then again as a child things were always carefree.
>>43654937
If you would, I could use them for some reference.
I don't understand. How is the fact that pedos will fap to her pictures in any way a bad thing? Who is it hurting exactly?
>>43648597
jesus christ
within a few decades we'll have pedophilia legalized in at least a few european countries
probably starting with sweden
Wait
No
Ok
What if we combined pedo shit AND art?
>>43654682
>or pick up smoking(ew, gross).
>>43654797
>also only retards smoke the nicotine jew.
>thetruth.com invades /pol/
The Anti-Smoking Jew lobbyists are real, they are here, and they are now.
>>43655045
http://forkingtasty.com/forked-with-wyatt-neumann/
>Wyatt Neumann’s mold was shattered when his jewish parents gave birth to him on Native American soil. To know Wyatt would be to understand how this is simply par for the course. His skin, garb and stride exude badass cool but his heart is as tender as the filet mignon he doesn’t necessarily find exciting to eat. His food habits are more for fuel than enjoyment. On the contrary, the conversation had over that food is of paramount interest to him. He’s a true explorer. He soaks in every moment making the best of the precious seconds he’s granted on earth. I admire his way. It’s brash, avante guard, conceited at times but with purpose…and ALWAYS with passion. These days, his kids and wife are his world and he’s one of the best father’s I know. His creative energy has turned to focus on them as his muse. The result is amazing with his soft, tender, caring heart clearly visible through his seemingly contrasting photography. More than a quick glance reveals my point.
If you click the highlited "his kids" it brings you to the link here about the pornographic kids.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html
>>43655100
The private's size looks disproportional to the body size.
I'm gonna laugh my ass off when the kid eventually grows up and asks why there's naked pictures of her on the internet for billions of people to see.
>people get erections from naked children
>they see these images as sexualized or pornography in any way
>have the nerve to call others pedophiles
Top kek
>>43655077
>pedophilia legalized in Sweden
Except when the adult is a cis white male, of course.
>>43655100
Do all white men have such tiny, shriveled penises?
No wonder all your women flock to us.
>>43655100
>>43654969
>>43655133
>>Wyatt Neumann’s mold was shattered when his jewish parents gave birth to him on Native American soil.
>Native American soil
Whites are already erased in their minds. God damnit.
>>43655143
Did you know that Denmark was the only country to commercially produce CP?
>>43655133
It's incredible to me that the same people who angrily declare that I can't decide what isn't art are the same people who declare that I can't decide what isn't porn.
>>43648597
We really need to nip this "post modernism" thing in the bud.
>>43655139
that pic
> "I shoot laser beams from my eye, loser. Start running."
>>43648597
huffpo has a few pedo articles up. They put a new one up like every few months. They really trying to push this. Reminder that this is exactly how homosexuality become a thing.
>>43655120
It's fact that smoking fucks up girls' skin and teeth and nails and also makes them stink and is generally gross. Fuck smokers, they're rude, stinking up everywhere and leaving cigarette butts fucking everywhere.
>>43655153
Large penises are for animals and barbarians, small penises are aesthetic and civilized.
>>43654922
>implying I'm a liberal
kek, fuck off. You're a shit stain on society.
>>43655153
Whatever nigger.
>>43655153
No its because the Church, although respecting the body and human form and thus still sculpted penises, still wanted decency and as such made it not a prominent figure on the models.
>>43655214
>Large penises are for animals and barbarians, small penises are aesthetic and civilized.
Whos surprised that the pedophile is delusional and small dicked?
>>43655214
if small dicks are for the civilised then how come chinks have small dicks?
>>43655165
Were most paintings of small children done by artists who couldn't get non-curly haired ones?
Also, the legs look quite long.
>>43655174
And he's a fucking Jew, every damn mother fucking time. Seriously they're always the vipers in the grass, aren't they?
>>43655238
Someone that subscribes to the Greek/Roman historic sense of aesthetics is delusional? Kek read a book nigger.
>>43648597
As a tranny if I help you guys remove paedo and Islam. Can I live as a full citizen?
>>43655248
There's some civilized Chinks like the Japs and Koreans, just not a whole lot.
Next step Interracial CP.
>>43655295
>psychopathic mentally ill tranny thinks it's better than intelligent functioning pedophiles
Lel
>>43655238
Why do you think all the old statues have small peens? Because they're aesthetic. The only big dicked statues were comical little things all "look at this dumb shit".
>>43655295
Sucks that our only potential allies have to be LGBT, sometimes I would have much preferred death to living.
>>43651046
2D loli perfection>>>>>>>>>>shit>>>>>>>3DPD snot eaters
>>43655295
If you don't learn to spell like an American you'll have to be culled.
>>43655376
Pls no shitpost fat neckbeard
Loli is good though
>>43649187
Why did you block out their names?
We can click the links.
Also, it's worth noting how that initial poster is an /a/utist.
>>43655367
Are you a paedo? If so? I understand that you didn't choose it. Just it's too much for a child to do.
I'm sorry, the limit is you.
>>43655322
Don't trigger me. >:(
>muh morals
>muh feelings
There is literally nothing wrong with being a pedophile.
It's acting out on it that's bad.
>>43653715
>Pedos will masturbate to this.
>OMFG!!! Someone somewhere is JERKING IT TO IT!!! We MUST ban it!!!
If I tell you that I'm jerking it to your posts, will you stop posting?
>>43655484
>Just it's too much for a child to do.
how dare you tell us what to do, how dare you presume to tell us you fucking bigot.
Who died and made a tranny God king emperor?
>>43655469
Real kids look like shit.
This is a fact.
>>43655484
Uh, no I'm the one directly advocating against it. So you are with them, alright, degenerates always did like to group together.
>>43655273
>Greek/Roman
Hah, you read a book nigger.
The Greeks thought big penises to be comical and unruly, whereas the Romans exalted big penises.
Jesus, you contradicted yourself in a single sentence. Top cuck.
>>43655521
You look like shit.
This is fact.
And it's why you're so butthurt towards real people you can touch, hold, talk to, and fuck.
>>43655508
Trannies are worse than pedophiles because pedophiles don't rape as much asa they did years ago, while trannies just make parades naked and fucking in front of normal people fucking kids on the head.
>>43655100
>little boys
>>43655508
That I actually agree with, as long you aren't rapping a child, nor kidnapping or abducting looking at some pics ain't gonna hurt anyone in the long run (And is really none of my business.
I'm just surprised that somehow this shitty art (Which shouldn't even be called Art) isn't considered CP. I have a feeling they've busted people for less.
>>43654764
>>43654939
>>43655074
An article about Sally Mann
http://www.pastebin.ca/2970650
>It's exasperating in several ways: because the photographs in question – published in the book Immediate Family, in 1992 – made her famous for the wrong reasons; because critics exaggerated the intimacy of the photos at the expense of their artfulness; and because the American religious right accused her of pornography when her camera was capturing beauty and transience. "I've counted," Mann says. "Out of the 65 photos in the book, only 13 show the children naked. There was no internet in those days. I'd never seen child pornography. It wasn't in people's consciousness. Showing my children's bodies didn't seem unusual to me. Exploitation was the farthest thing from my mind."
>Mann has a gift for provoking strong reactions ("I like pushing buttons") and her pictures of rotting corpses certainly do that. She took them at the University of Tennessee's anthropological facility at Knoxville, aka the "body farm", where human decomposition is studied scientifically. The bodies are mostly left in an outdoor setting and lie there for months or even years. In Steven Cantor's 2006 television documentary about Mann, she is observed happily wandering from cadaver to cadaver, prodding this body part and stroking that one, unfazed by the maggots and reek of decay.
>pedos have invaded /pol/
What the fuck happened?
>>43655594
This happened a looooong time ago.
The difference is that back then /stormfront/ called them out of their degeneracy
>>43655571
Holy fuck her face is super realistic. Again this is why this is true Art, this should be the standard for Art, and we should only get better from here.
>>43655594
Do you really get more upset that pedos are here rather than trannies with their own board?
>>43655553
>projecting
Says the tub of shit that needs a sexual partner that can be lured with toys and candy, kek.
>>43655484
>Just it's too much for a child to do.
Nice demonstrably false assertion.
>>43655521
Or maybe you just live around a load of ugly girls.
>>43655535
Goddamn it, guys stop being stupid.
>>43655594
>pedos INVADED /pol/
Literally where the flying fuck do you think you're posting?
>>43655594
This board is /pol/gressive, shitlord.
If you want to be a racist, misogynistic prick, >>>/g/ is that way.
>>43655547
Wrong you fucking nigger.
Romans thought they were comical, they didn't exalt them.
>>43655629
I don't frequent the faggot board and seeing all these pedos makes me disgusted that I still come to /pol/
>>43655560
>pedophiles don't rape as much asa they did years ago
they still do you just never hear about it since they do a good job hiding it. both are incredibly degenerate.
>>43655588
>she is observed happily wandering from cadaver to cadaver, prodding this body part and stroking that one, unfazed by the maggots and reek of decay.
Wow, these people are psychopaths and I bet she fucks the bodies too.
>>43655594
Oldfags are all pedos fucking newfag.
>>43655643
I'm not sure what your point is. Pedophiles used to stay on /b/ where they belonged. Now they're crossboarding scum.
>>43655635
>implying I actually break the law IRL and am not a paranoid fuck thanks to all of my anti government opinions among other things
>>43655642
Stfu trans and pedo sympathizer.
>>43655654
yes, however, those trannies post on all 4chan, and they do those gay parades i talked before, they are way worser than a pedophile who does nothing but jerk off to CP on his room.
>>43655616
>>43655594
sup youngfags. This was a pedo board long before you stormcucks showed up, and will remain a pedo board long after you're gone
>>43648597
>using Ghostery
It's like you want send your data directly to NSA !
>>43655519
>Who died and made a tranny God king emperor?
The Emperor and then Slaanesh. I'm sorry, but fuck Islam. I understand what bigotry is quite well. I'm subject to it very often, however you can't just let some one stick their dick into a baby or young child.
How can anyone justify paedophilia?
>>43655385
Well sir, edumacate meh?
>>43655560
Never have. Never will.. I think you're thinking of gay drag queens. Massive dfiference.
As tolerable as I am, I've met many a gays that are just terrible people.
Come to think of it? I dislike most other transgender people I've met.
However, I'm good. I just want a socially liberal militaristic society..
Cmon? Socially progressive Fascism. Fuse Libertarian social attitude with a strong national bind?
What would be the problem if we were individuals following the same dedication to our people?
PS. The non-shitty LGBT tend to be really awesome people if you give them a chance.
Unless they're a SJW or a radfem.
Lesbians are so silly.
