Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: z_x_x_z]
    #4867554 -

I dont know what to think of these, although obscene is definitely not what im thinking.

Obscene pictures are those that portray women as objects of sex and lust, and merely focus on body parts. These seem like theyre more creative pictures with a focus that goes beyond nudity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: SoulSuuckinJERK]
    #4867641 -

haha funny thread!


--------------------
?Religion is science, politics is Hollywood, and 50 cent is more influential than Dali Lama; welcome to the future?
-Fontaine

"Blessed are the peacemakers." Matthew 5:9

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Bi0TeK]
    #4867699 -



That hand looks around 63 years old. WTF


--------------------
:orly:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Bi0TeK]
    #4867758 -

I dont find any of them obscene..at all, in fact wow very nice! very beautiful, and very ripe, and the shrooms are nice as well!  :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Bi0TeK]
    #4867787 -

Those pix make my  :mushroomgrow:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Thor]
    #4867877 -

Thor said:
From the mosteroticteens.com website:

Quote:
The actors, models, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the creation of such. MET-Art hereby certifies that this website, and all graphic images associated therewith, is EXEMPT from both the recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 18 U.S.C. ? 2257, because no images of "actual sexually explicit conduct" are contained within.




Thor, as someone who works in the porn industry, let me warn you that that particular 2257 compliance statement could be considered quite invalid in interpretation, so don't use that as a basis for believing they are 18+.


--------------------
"Human suffering has been caused because all too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence of a word in the dictionary does not mean it necessarily refers to something definitive in the real world"
--Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"

"It is the mind which creates the world about us, and even though we stand side by side in the same meadow, my eyes will never see what is beheld by yours."
-George Gissing

"Without a firm idea of himself and the purpose of his life, man cannot live, and would sooner destroy himself than remain on earth, even if he was surrounded by bread."
--Fyodor Dostoevsky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Kremlin]
    #4867969 -

wow, those pics show such nature...


--------------------

http://www.myspace.com/sarasotafnb
http://www.wcwtampa.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Microcosmatrix]
    #4867981 -

Microcosmatrix said:


That hand looks around 63 years old. WTF


whoa wtf is right.. damn lol. i didnt notice that shit


--------------------
Banez' PF Tek For Beginners

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Banez]
    #4868073 -

they look like artistic hands

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Kremlin]
    #4868149 -

Kremlin said:
Thor, as someone who works in the porn industry, let me warn you that that particular 2257 compliance statement could be considered quite invalid in interpretation, so don't use that as a basis for believing they are 18+.


As I pointed out, they sell the book with all these nudist pics on amazon.com

Do you realy think amazon would have sold the book for all these years if it was classed the slightest bit dodgy???

I think not  :smirk:

--------------------



--------------------
PROMOTE BACTERIA. THEY'RE THE ONLY CULTURE SOME PEOPLE HAVE.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Bi0TeK]
    #4869794 -

Thor said:
Dude they are, the company that owns the rights to those photos are in California USA. They'd be fined/arrested if they werent by US laws, so they are of age.

I'm surprised you guys think they aren't of age, have you seen an 18yr old teen girl lately? I think you guys forget not all 18yr olds look 18, hell some 14yr olds probably look 18.



did you request the photo ID and model release from the MET Site? when you do,
remember that those pics are several years old and then make your assumptions
simply because a sites disclaimer states that the girls are of legal age doesnt
mean that they truely are, dig a little deeper and you fnd that at least one is
under the age of 18

MET has and still hosts many of the works of David Hamilton, a well known
photographer whom had produced many works such as The Age Of Innocence, much
of which contains nude photographs of girls ranging from 14-20 years of age
MET also hosts many woks by Jacques Sturgis, another photographer thats produced
photos of girls in the same age group and even younger, bt are quite controversial photographers



Bi0TeK said:
Kremlin said:
Thor, as someone who works in the porn industry, let me warn you that that particular 2257 compliance statement could be considered quite invalid in interpretation, so don't use that as a basis for believing they are 18+.


As I pointed out, they sell the book with all these nudist pics on amazon.com
Do you realy think amazon would have sold the book for all these years if it was classed the slightest bit dodgy???

I think not  :smirk:
]



B.Dalton and several other large chains used to carry books by bothe Hamilton
and Sturgis on their shelves, public outcry caused them to pull it from the
shelves and now is available by order only, do you think that any major retail
chain in america would be selling books containing 'child pornography'?

I think yes because I have seen them and I've read the case law regarding them,
Sturgis was dragged into court several times as were many people that have
purchased his material, most were aquitted, based on the fact that it's 'artful'
those that were not, were convicted for photos that didnt qualify as artisic

do a little reading on Paul Rubens, he had a brush with the law regarding whats
considered 'art' and also Jacques Bourboulon (eva ionesco), another photographer
hosted by MET thats well known for underage models

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #4869814 -

whats up with the arm in this pic



--------------------
"To get what you've never had, You must do what you've never done."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: LethalX5]
    #4869823 -

No I do not find these pictures obscene, and i definitely don't think they have any relation to Child Pornography, but then again, they are being posted on these forums where countless people will save them to their computer to jack off to later.
:penis: :penis: :penis: :penis: :penis:


--------------------
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Edited by Exist (10/30/05 10:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Bi0TeK]
    #4876870 -

I suggest you look back and re-read the statements I made. Here are a couple to clear things up,

"Please note that I do not consider the images to be pornography either." (This was in response to a statement you made 2 years ago very similar to the one you you made at the beginning of this thread.)

and

"I do not believe that the images are pornographic. I do believe they are inappropriate though. Do to their age and due to the response of the users w/i the mentioned thread."

Both from this thread discussing them: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1215781/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1

I suggest you all read through it as some important dialogue occured. I previously had gone to the page where the pics originated and the description of the pics were in regards to one of the girls celebrating her 14th B-day as I recall. I am at a public computer and can not research the site at this time to provide any quotations and/or specifics.

Joshua


--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore

Great books for inquiring minds!

"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"

Edited by Joshua (11/04/05 06:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: LethalX5]
    #4877469 -

LethalX5 said:
whats up with the arm in this pic




The girl in the middle's arm? She has it tucked behind her back holding her other arm? Oh and in this shot, the girl on the left looks 11 years old

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you class these pics as obscene? [Re: Boom]
    #4877589 -

Don't those faces look Photoshopped on to anyone else (except perhaps the first)?

Look at the bottom of their chins... see how soft the focus is? As if someone clone-stamped a younger girl's face on to an older girl's body. The focus on the rest of the photograph is quite sharp compared to those areas. Admittedly, the color on the skin tone is quite good and they obviously must have shot the girls in the same poses with the same lighting and carefully color-corrected, but this is well within the skills of any skilled photographer and Photoshop user.

As a graphic artist, I'm convinced that these are cut, paste, and clone jobs to create these children's innocent faces on well-developed, mature female bodies. They're slightly creepy... but that sort of thing is perfectly legal.

:crazy:


--------------------
"I'm afraid of losing my obscurity. Genuineness only thrives in the dark. Like celery."
- Aldous Huxley

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Advice Needed: Taking Shrooms Before Art Class
( 1 2 all )		 SaintR 3,333 23 03/02/18 01:23 PM
by basqueshaman
* I was watching pornograph, when...
( 1 2 all )		 Drewwyann 3,496 23 01/06/09 10:55 AM
by filthee
* Poll: what kind is your favorite kind of Pornography? Jenny 2,831 15 06/09/03 05:53 PM
by Larrythescaryrex
* Need Help Finding Vietnam Pic Dankman 1,533 5 02/27/04 07:37 PM
by Dankman
* wuts your class?
( 1 2 3 all )		 keeponsmoking 3,664 41 05/17/04 08:50 PM
by Anonymous
* Post pics of your cute kids!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 MOTH 12,921 104 05/09/04 07:29 PM
by Grizz
* Cool Smoking Pics
( 1 2 all )		 The_Hobbit 6,645 27 12/15/05 07:07 PM
by Origo
* Caving with the Duck, Part II *with pics*
( 1 2 all )		 LucidDream 3,649 20 03/29/04 09:46 PM
by LucidDream

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
40,392 topic views. 1 members, 175 guests and 266 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.