Opinion nonnude web models would you

The FreeTheNipple campaign is the long and well-documented fight to allow nudity on Instagram. As the platform's terms of service remain unchanged, the folks at Treats! magazine decided to take matters into their own hands. The magazine photographed 10 popular Instagram models-including Rocky Barnes, Sahara Ray, Ellie Gonsalves, and Jasmine Sanders-fully nude for the latest issue aka treatsissue10 , which will hit stands next week. to take girls from a digital platform that is restricted and censored to a print platform that is unrestricted and uncensored," said founder and photographer Steve Shaw. United States.

Courtesy: Treats! Anna Herrin. This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below. More From Fashion.

Agree to disagree if you must.

Excellent idea nonnude web models thanks how

In college, I wrote a thesis on pedophilia which stemmed from a group discussion in an English class. The TA had asked if a book on how to molest a child by a child molester should be published. Of course, everyone in the class but me agreed it should not be. When the TA spotted my lack of agreement, she asked why and I simply responded "What better way to protect your child than by getting into the head of the person most likely to do it. Learn their tricks and teach your child not to fall for them.

Funny how that works. Stop and think. Does everyone here feel that Google's in the clear here? I'm sorry I can't agree it is, especially knowing that child pornography is illegal on a global scale. There is absolutely no reason why any search engine should display images from the search text "child porn", "kiddie porn", etc. Prove me wrong. OK, here goes. How can you be sure that these words are only used to search for child porn? How can you be sure that you aren't filtering anti-pedophile sites, for example, that offer help and advice to victims?

Keyword filtering is notoriously unreliable - e. library filters blocking access to breast cancer information because they filtered the word "breast", or sites discussing the UK country of Middlesex. Moreover, Google did not instigate the man's search. He was searching for child porn and happened to use Google as the tool to use it.

Therefore, the fact that he used Google is irrelevant. He is a pedophile who was actively looking for photos of child pornography. Maybe Google was the reason he amassed such a large collection, but it didn't instigate the search nor instil the interest in such material in the man. Removing the tool that he happened to use in this instance would NOT stop future abuse from happening, just force a change of tactics. Under which country's laws would it filter?

A search that results in pictures of 16 year old girls would be legal in Europe but illegal in the US. How can Google effectively censor one country without removing legal content from another? Under what authority can it do so without becoming a censorship tool for the US goverment.

What a can of worms would be opened here - there are many things that are benign under Western culture that are unacceptable to muslim countries - which laws should they filter under? Bear in mind that Google has local offices all over the world so "it's based in the US" would not necessarily trump local laws. No, Google has no responsibility here.

you are talented

Blaming Google is like blaming the post office because it allowed photos to be sent, or the phone book because that's how numbers used for obscene phone calls were found.

First of all, Google does not publish information, it indexes it. Google might allow you to find a child porn site, but it has no hand in creating the site to begin with.

Attacking Google would simply encourage these people to use other, less obvious, means of finding and sharing material.

The magazine photographed 10 popular Instagram models-including Rocky Barnes, Sahara Ray, Ellie Gonsalves, and Jasmine Sanders-fully nude for the latest issue (aka #treatsissue10), which will I started making an Excel database of all agencies and models. Download it and help me to complete it and see how many models I and you we are missing! If you know more models missing from my list, inform me via chat and email (even if you don't have the photos but just model name may be helpful to complete my list, I will look later for photos) New Preteen Super Models. Only Legal Content! Nonude Child Models by Child Models Agency

If Google are used at all here, better for police to use it themselves to find the sites and go after the people committing the crimes, rather than impose a de facto ban and push these people further underground.

Show me one. I want to clarify, because I think the point was overlooked: What circumstance would any search engine allow an IMAGE search on "child pornography". Text, I agree, is an entirely different ballgame and trying to do anything here is a waste of time. The guy has some merit if his sears were done via image searching. Text is an entirely different ct because it doesn't list images, but sites to them, meaning one extra step needs to be taken and blame away from the search engine.

But there is NO extra step needed for image sears. They're displayed. Try this: Open Google and type "Kaley Cuoco" in the web search. Lots of sites and a couple of images on the results. Now do the same under the images search. Understand now? I can say that a search for "pedophilia" under the web search isn't going to yield you pictures of a nude 8 year old girl having sex with an adult but who the hell knows what you'd get under the images search. I'm not that damn stupid to try it.

Given the replies to this blog, I'm attesting the "common view" that Google isn't partially liable isn't the correct one. Hell, a damn caution message with the results would be better than NOTHING. Ah, maybe that's where we're not seeing eye to eye. I'm thinking of broader sears e. using Google to find pedophilia sites or galleries and communities where underground photo swapping take placewhile you seem to be assuming pure image search e.

You're also assuming that words and phrases used to search for this material will be obvious and not used for anything else. Sure, if somebody's going to search Google images for "pedophilia" or "naked 8 year old having sex", maybe your idea would make sense. Unfortunately, it's not that easy.

Non-Nude Webcam Model VLOG: How to protect your privacy as a webcam Model privacy ??

To begin with, it's well known that pedophiles will use codewords to describe their activities. I don't know them, but let's take an obvious one - "lolita". Blocking images and sites based on that word would not only block some child porn, but also images and discussion of the novel, 2 film versions, possibly pictures of the cast and crew of those movies as well.

An image bookmarked "Stanley Kubrick on the set of Lolita" could be blocked as often as "8 year old lolita porn". From a free speech point of view, totally unacceptable.

As codewords and euphanisms become more widely known, more innocuous material would get blocked.

opinion. Your

So then, we're faced with a dilemma. Should Google block all images and risk blocking a lot of legitimate content? How exactly would they filter it?

Funky Tween Girl. A closeup of a cute little brunette tween girl with blue eyes wearing a black hat. Shallow depth of field Non-Nude Content. showing of 12 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 12 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Download ( photos): gogreenbabyshop.com 02/15/ Dashboard Groups Index gogreenbabyshop.com Feb 15, Due to the nature of the Usenet News System, this web site is intended for ADULTS ONLY. You must be at least 18 years old to use this site

SafeSearch does a relatively good job at filtering porn, but how would it filter adult porn from child porn? How would it tell the difference between different kinds of "unacceptable" images? the only way I can think of is manual filtering, and that is impossible to do on this scale. Then, of course, there's the wider issues - what happens when a search engine stops being a blind indexer of content and becomes a censor of that content?

Should a private American company become guardian of the internet? How would you deal with them if your site is wrongly filtered? How would you even know? What happens when anti-drugs groups demand the same filtering, or anti-racism groups demand that historical pictures of lynching be removed, for example?

No, the price to pay is far too high. I say, Google is not responsible for this content. They should work with authorities to indicate suspect content when it arises. Unless some kind of additional filtering is introduced, what we're talking about here is blind indexing of every available image. If those images include child porn, and they're pretty much bound to, then the Google index will include it for searching. So, unfortunately, this will remain a hypothetical discussion.

Maybe searching for "pedophilia" or "10 year old getting it on" will return a goldmine of images. Maybe it won't. I suspect not, meaning that pedophiles have to be more creative. meaning that Google would have a much higher false positive ratio. Either way, that's not the point. My previous post's main point was this - the guy wanted to find child porn and he found it, in this case using Google. If Google didn't index it, maybe Ask. com or MSN or Yahoo or another engine would.

Maybe they'd drift further underground, being less detectable. I agree with Bonehead, post 7 above mine. I have been online since and despite various sears for questionable material, I have NEVER stumbled across child porn. To my mind, therefore, it must be something already underground, and to make Google a de facto internet police would only make it more so. his would harm children in the long run - if it's harder to find, it's harder to prosecute those responsible - and therefore Google should not be held responsible for whatever tiny percentage of blame can be placed in their hands.

Google are the easy target, but they are absolutely the wrong target.

Moral14 Mar pm. decline21 May am. Twinrova ok what about the computer companies? they make the machines that can access google, without a computer google is worthless.

so i guess they are responsible and should build something into their firmware? car companies should design their cars to be unable to run people over as well as sidewalk companies make sidewalks you can't drive on?

cause that makes it so easy to just drive along down them right. come on. anything can be used incorrectly or illegally. why should a search engine display results for those kinds of sears? for the same reason you want a book published. if you search for terms like that you will find far more research results, support groups, studies, news, etc etc. the search engine and the computer doesn't know what the image result is either, and nor should it really have to, but i could easily photoshop an image of a post-it note with the words No More Child Pornography on it as a logo for a company and label it nochildporn.

jpg or something.

are not right

yeah that is a bad logo and poor naming sme the computer doesn't look at the image the way we do. anyway, thats a long reply considering i am really hoping you are just playing devils advocate. You'd be arrested faster than anything. Publishing a book about pedophilia is quite different than what we're talking about here. It's illegal to "publish" these web pages and yes, we know they're out there.

But as I've replied already, it should be up to search engines to warrant a caution message or blocking, I'm open to both on this type of image search. And before I get the whole "But what about porn to minors? Stop that too? Hell, I'll bet some of you had a dad who tossed you the latest issue of Playboy when you were younger. But not one taught you how to screw an 8 year old girl when you're I'm truly sorry if you people don't understand this point but I had to say my piece.

ideal answer apologise

Chronno S. Trigger21 May am. Read the rest of his post and use his quote in context. Why stop with blaming Google for allowing you to search for illegal things. Let's force them to record any IP address of anyone typing in anything referencing illegal material into the search engine. Good luck researching that high school paper on arbitrary age limit laws. FBI officer, I was just looking up information for a report.

Right! excellent nonnude web models seems brilliant phrase

It's on the low side because they don't want to punish legal support groups, research papers, law sites. I might point out that a warning message wouldn't do much at all. The guy already had to turn of SafeSearch. If he got a message saying, "this material may be objectionable or illegal," I'm sure his response would be, "yeah, that's what I asked for. You'd have to come up with "dirty" words, and then think of combinations of "clean" words that become dirty, and so on.

Google is designed to search and it does it's job very well; don't blame it for the perversions of the people that use it. But not one taught you I'm pretty sure the physics are similar, if not the same, regardless of age. I cannot prove you wrong because every word of your comment is the plain simple truth.

Google has a moral obligation to not make these sights available for the pervs who enjoy this stuff, yes, I know they can most likely get it elsewhere, but one search engine is a good start. A couple of ounces of hot lead, administered through the skull, can work wonders preventing and curing pedophilia. Joe Schmoe21 May am. It's rather amusing when anyone suggests that Google [or any entity] should filter results, when as the US law reads [as I understand] that it is a crime to even seek it or view it, let alone possess it.

Basically, you are asking these companies to break the law and put themselves at risk in the process of developing filters [a magical technology that will never work].

Bonehea 21 May am. Call me a moron, but I've been on the Internet for 20 years now and have NEVER seen any actual pornography involving children. I've occasionally come across photos of 12 or 1 year olds nude or semi-nude, but not in sexually provocative positions. Now I'm clearly not looking for this kind of material. And I'm not suggesting for a second that it isn't out there. My point is that you don't find this stuff accidentally. In many, many years of trolling for porn, I've come across examples of every perversion and fetish known to man.

Yikes, it makes me shiver to think. Anyway, if my experience is any guide, you have to make a very specific effort to find this type of material. Google may enable that effort, but no more than a gun manufacturer enables a murder. In the US, this question was settled with the Betamax case. Most other countries formally or informally came to a similar policy, you can't hold a company responsible for criminal actions enabled by its products if the product has substantial legal uses. The corollary is that you can't evade responsibility for criminal acts by blaming the product if the product passes the Betamax test.

Even then, the company's liability would probably be civil, not criminal, so the perp is still on the hook for their own actions. Child pornography is illegal almost everywhere, and as far as I know which may be nothingthe law is enforced just about everywhere.

Any cop should be able to use Google just as well to find servers hosting illegal content.

Nonnude web models

So Google is irrelevant in this court case. Slyrr21 May pm. The world is reaping the bitter harvest of it's own hypocrisy.

very valuable

For years, for decades, there are people who have been saying, 'You can't tell teenagers not to have sex. They're gonna do it anyway'. And the drumbeat in schools, media, universities and institutions of 'higher learning' have hammered in the message that there IS no 'right and wrong' and that right and wrong can be anything you want them to be depending on whatever situation you want them applied.

These same people, who demanded that underage kids be taught about sex 'because they'll do it anyway', who demanded that porn and sleaze be flooded into print, film and other media as 'free speech' are now in a cleft stick of their own cutting. They can't say that underage teen sex is ok and that porn is free speech, and in the same breath say child porn is 'wrong'.

They sneered and scoffed at the concept of the 'slippery slope' of moral degradation and now they're caught. These two-faced moralists who demanded that every form of perversion and decadance be made socially acceptable are now stuck trying to defend the indefensible and yet punish those who follow their lead.

It's only a matter of time before incest, beastiality and rape well seek to be included in thier little list of things that must be made legal 'because we can't stop it anyway'.

And while morality and virtue crumble to dust around them, they'll still be sneering at a truth so profound they won't beleive it: 'Abstinance works - every time it's tried.

PaulT profile22 May am. What a load of crap Just in case you're not trolling, points: 1. This stuff has existed for a long, long time. Remember all the cases about priests abusing kids? Those were cases stretching back to at least the '50s, and those are only the ones we know about. This is NOT a new thing, and happened a lot during your mythical moral paradise of the past. It wasn't talked about, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Consider, that nonnude web models join told all

You are talking utter rubbish that has nothing to do with this case, sorry. You seem to be talking about teenagers having sex with each other. The issue at hand is an adult who at least encouraged the abuse of 8 year-old children well before the age of the sex ed classes you're complaining about if not participated in the acts himself.

good piece

Totally different things. Yes, you're right. Now, going beyond the fact that teenagers don't try that every time - hence the need for education about how to stop pregnancies, STDs and the like for when they don't - that again has bugger all to do with the issue at hand.

It doesn't matter how abstinant the kids being raped are - they are still being raped! The definition of that term is that the recipient of the act doesn't want it. Again, even if you had relevant points and I could go on for a long time about how you don'tit's got sod all to do with the issue here. Anonymous Cowar 22 May pm. Symptom of a growing disease.

This man, who is trying to excuse his pedophelia because 'Google made me do it', has obviously fallen into the trap that he doesn't think that what he's doing is wrong. And abstiance does work every time it's tried - you admitted it. The fact that it's difficult is no excuse for wimping out when temptation comes along. And it makes things no easier when parents are told to NOT intervene when kids want to succumb to desires they're not ready to responsibly fulfull.

And as that kind of nonsense sinks into the heads of generations taught, you get people like this guy in Canada. Well - at least you didn't swear. MoralP14 Mar pm.

Nasch22 May pm.

Congratulate, nonnude web models authoritative answer

Besides the utter irrelevancy of your post as pointed out so well by PaulT, I'm wondering about this one: "They can't say that underage teen sex is ok and that porn is free speech, and in the same breath say child porn is 'wrong'. Do you think consensual sex between adults is OK but between teens is not? Or sex within marriage is OK but outside of it is not? How are those distinctions or whatever moral distinctions you do make if not those any more valid than the ones you criticize? Other than that they're different from your distinctions of course, which doesn't mean they're wrong, just that you disagree.

Erica St. John24 Sep pm. idk8 Sep pm. i don't think that it matters how easy it is to recieve it. you should know that you shouldn't be lookin at children like that just think, if you have children, how would you react to it if there was a guy looking at horrific pics of the sort?

A man with rgers20 Dec am. The diffrence between soft porn and hard porn is olny in the eyes of the law!. spelling sorry. FACT Have you ever wonderd If ASD rgers syndrome individuals just like collecting lurge amount of sexual stuff as its a natrail progression. I'm not saying that chrilden must be raped or harmed for the photo shoots but there is a massive market for this thing.

nobody7 Jun pm. maybe instead we should try to make people who think a baby picture thats harmless is porn and make it clear that aint aint goddam child porn unless it depicts sexualy in any way then instead of ilegalising it compleatly let the mture enough to decide whether they want to or not like maybe at 12 they should chose what pictures to be in and how common if the 1 year old wants to risk alot by posingin a picutre nude compleatly nude with a girl if it isnt too sexual to the parents of the childrens point of view then why not if it isnt sexual.

We Are Little Stars e atualizado a cada 15 dias, com 5 looks diferentes com uma media de 60 fotos cada e 2 videos (2 min.) Faixa etaria: de 8 a 12 anos 6 Playboy Models Photographed Up To 60 Years Later. K views. LMA Community member. Few men's magazines are as iconic, or as (in)famous, as Playboy. It was founded in Chicago in by Hugh Hefner, who had to borrow $1, USD from his mother to get the magazine up and running. The magazine has been responsible for launching and promoting Legal Notice Since gogreenbabyshop.com is a minor we are adding this section to our Website. All Pictures of our models are Non Nude, and all abiding by US and International Laws. All photos on this site abide by US and International Laws and contain No Nudity

Quest27 Nov pm. I have already activated my account. Resend activation link. We and our trusted partners use technology such as cookies on our site to personalize content and ads, provide social media features, and analyze our traffic.

You can read more about it and change your preferences here. Facebook Pinterest Twitter. Final score:. Selver Burekovic Selver Burekovic. Ilya Melititskiy Ilya Melititskiy. Wendy Wendy. Luis Sancho Luis Sancho. Catpaws Catpaws. Crinuta Madalina Crinuta Madalina.

Add New Image. Change image Upload Photo Ooops! Upload Edit Image. Twitter Render conversation Use html version Generate not embedded version Add watermark. Instagram Show Image Only Hide Caption Crop Add watermark. Facebook Add watermark.

Change Source Title. Follow Unfollow LMA. Anyone can write on Bored Panda LEARN MORE. Get the latest inspiring stories via our awesome iOS app! Download Bored Panda app! Popular on Bored Panda "Karen" Keeps Leaving Notes Complaining About Woman's Decorations, Woman Responds By Adding Even More.

Incredibly Caring Gay Penguin Couple Hatch A Second Neglected Egg After The Zookeepers Notice Them Trying To Hatch A Rock.

Instead Of Covering Grey Roots, This Hair Colorist Makes Clients Embrace It. This Powerful Animated Short Shows Plastic Waste Transforming Into Ocean Life. Hey pandas, what do you think?

Next related articles:
  • Namitha sex picure

  • 3 thoughts on “Nonnude web models”

    1. I think, that you commit an error. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.


    Leave a Comment