Disgusted with what I found on boyfriends phone

[SincereOnlineGuy]

Could the dudes quit angling for the website and/or copies of the photos in this thread?! :sick: FFS.

 

Having nieces around 12 yrs of age, I've never met one of their friends or anything who looks LEGAL. It's not just whether or not someone has boobs or doesn't have boobs. An 18 yr old without boobs still has a more mature face than a freaking 12 year old. I don't know what planet some of you are living on where you are confusing pre-teens with 18 yr olds. I think you haven't met many 12 year olds and are going by movies or TV or something.

 

Regardless if the girls are legal or not, I'd be disgusted by my man saving pre-teen looking porn pics

 

 

The ONLY person in this thread confusing pre-teens with 18yo's has been THE OP.

 

EVERYONE else is wagering confidently that all subjects were 18 years of age at the time of being photographed (IF they were at least partially nude in the first place, which still hasn't even been established).

 

 

And no one here is angling for the website. We're just observing that the one person who believes herself to singularly hold the key to this vast plethora of underage porn will not do what's right by society and call the authorities and blow the whistle on the whole thing.

 

If this literal fountain of youth is so captivating, it is rather amazing that so very few people amid the vast realm of web surfers have ever heard of it. Were it that conspicuous for its 14yo photo spreads, the site would be as familiar as is

Edited August 17, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[SincereOnlineGuy]

I said that in this thread!!!

 

Of course they were naked, it was PORN!

 

 

 

I read all of your previous posts and not one of them stated clearly that these were nude photos.

 

 

Perhaps I should share with you the

 

"Full Definition of Pornography" (as offered by Merriam-Webster):

 

 

"""

 

Full Definition of PORNOGRAPHY

 

 

1

 

: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

 

 

2

 

: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

 

 

3

 

: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence> """

 

 

 

Once again, each of those qualifies Miley Cyrus, who, once again was not nude while on stage.

[emva07]

underage porn sites aren't "familiar" because they are illegal.

 

They may not be familiar to most because most aren't into kiddy porn but they are out there. If they were to become "familiar" they'd be shut down.

 

underage human trafficking is also a fairy tale that we all make up and there aren't men who sleep with these kidnapped girls. :rolleyes:

[emva07]

ah yes, another poster who likes to give dictionary definitions for the purposes of playing devil's advocate even though he's probably just snickering at his computer knowing very well what OP meant by porn of 12-15 year olds.

 

 

But alright....the defenition says "depiction of erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement"...whatever this behavior might be, OP's SO is looking for females that look 12-15 to be depicting this erotic behavior to cause HIM sexual excitement.

 

What is pedophile according to Merriam-Webster?

 

- sexual feelings or activities that involve children.

- sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.

 

Alright, lets say for your purposes these girls aren't naked.....she DID say it's pornography

.....and what is the definition of pedophile? not necessarily having sex with underage girls.....it can be as simple as preferring children engaging in sexual activities (not necessarily getting naked).......and what is it for? to cause sexual excitement

 

Oh snap....so he is looking at pedophile pornography???? :confused::confused::confused:

 

 

ALSO:

 

Gorilla Theater posted:

 

"You're getting awfully worked up defending a guy who likes to look at pics of what at least appears to be nekkid seventh graders."

 

OP liked his comment, she never countered the fact that they were naked.

[GorillaTheater]

The ONLY person in this thread confusing pre-teens with 18yo's has been THE OP.

 

EVERYONE else is wagering confidently that all subjects were 18 years of age at the time of being photographed

 

You're overstating your case again (whatever it happens to be, and I'm not sure I want to know).

 

It's quite possible these are indeed underage girls, for the very reason veggirl suggests: there's really very little that stops an underage girl from posting pics of herself online, naked or otherwise.