- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2521 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
1613 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 19373
I just wanted an excuse to post her. So then I thought-
ITT ANYTHING YOU WANT.
i.e. images you couldn't think to categorise in another thread but really want more people to see.
|>>|| No. 41945
As someone else in the thread said, we don't make the law, you're welcome to froth at the absurdity of the law but not our attempts to comply with it.
It's very telling that people are this angry about whether we've been TOO strict on the definition of CP - and you wonder why the moderation is so sensitive to it? We learned a long time not to let these sorts of people think they have a home here.
|>>|| No. 41946
Hate to add to this quarrel but Taylor Momsen's 18th birthday was in July of 2011, that is to say several months after this thread was first posted, meaning the oldest she can possibly be in OP's pic is 17.
Sorry lads, just being a good citizen.
|>>|| No. 41949
Thanks mods. Sorry to be a party-pooper to everyone else.
|>>|| No. 41950
I would pay you to go through all pictures on this board, and flag all the underage ones.
Just would like to point out that this lad >>19387 is a nonce.
|>>|| No. 41951
>I would pay you to go through all pictures on this board, and flag all the underage ones.
What makes you think I'm an expert as opposed to just a fan of Taylor's music?
|>>|| No. 41954
voted for as the new first image, if the mods can do that. It'd be a shame to lay bare such an iconic thread as this. Almost 10 years of tradition.
|>>|| No. 41956
Not to labour the point but the fact that there was a child (in the mods' words) pictured at the top of this porn thread for ten fucking years and no-one batted an eye or heard from the rozzers in that time I feel backs up my point about 'the law argument' being somewhat pants.
|>>|| No. 41964
Can someone confirm her DoB, because I want to post a link to her TikTok but I don't want to get banned.
|>>|| No. 41967
I've never researched this because I'm not a nonce, so is it illegal or something to host pictures of a 17 year-old on a thread like this? Aren't they above the age of consent? I'd never thought about the age of the OP pic and wouldn't have guessed she was underage.
|>>|| No. 41969
No, I just assume someone who runs an imageboard would research these things. And is also a nonce.
|>>|| No. 41970
British law is sufficiently broad that almost any image of a child can be considered indecent if someone is perving over it. On one level it makes sense - there's something obviously unsavoury about having a load of pictures of kids if they're not your kids - but it's also slightly Kafkaesque. The mods have no choice but to be extremely cautious.
|>>|| No. 41971
I should say that I'm not a carpet-bagger, I just work in IT.
That hasn't really helped my case, has it?
|>>|| No. 41972
16 for sex, 18 for porn. You may remember that page 3 girls used to be 16 up until...sometime between the late-90s and mid-00s when they last changed around the sex offences.
My excuse is that I did law degree for moments just like these.
|>>|| No. 41973
The law is 16 for shagging, but 18 for porn, as I'm sure we all know. But the law on 'exploitative sexual images' is broad enough that any image of someone underage can be classed as exploitative in the right context, and posting it on a board designated for porn fits right in that category.
It's a very real thing and people really do report you to the feds for it - it doesn't happen often here (largely because of our currently discussed 'overmoderation'), but whenever it does it's usually for an image that absolutely nobody thought was sexual, but it's a child so the choice is delete it or get booted off our hosting service.
It's definitely an odd law when tested to its extremes (labelled stick figures and so on) but it's not up to us to challenge the letter of the law, not if we want the site to remain alive, anyway.
My excuse is that I moderate a website with occasional peado encroachers, which I understand is probably not a great alibi.
|>>|| No. 42073
Meh. The faces and figures that looked good in those clothes aren't like hers. Lamb dressed up as young mutton. The opposite's true too, she looks better in what she normally wears.
|>>|| No. 42074
Porcelain bint with blue paint on her nips and strudel hair with a cheeky hint of jacky danny.
|>>|| No. 42075
You know it's all about her tits. Fuck the MSM, young girls should have positive role models like Ronda Rousey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoUbQxvDVs
|>>|| No. 42076
>The opposite's true too, she looks better in what she normally wears
Sorry lads. I think I would like a go on that, it looks weird on her but what she normally wears is considerably worse and hides her figure.
|>>|| No. 42077
That makes her look as though she's an overstuffed cloth mannequin with poorly-hidden seams.
|>>|| No. 42078
Serious question. Why does she always look like she is half baked and has been dragged to a boring event by her parents. Has she had a stroke? She has the worst resting bitch face I've ever seen
|>>|| No. 42080
Considering how doctored most Vogue photo shoots are, along with the lingerie she's wearing to hold everything in she doesn't quite look like that in real life.
Weirdly even this photo it looks like she is holding her stomach in a bit. If it wasn't for the green hair she could be any woman from a council estate going to do her shopping in Asda. She isn't anything special looks wise.
|>>|| No. 42081
It's getting a bit "pointy elbows, would not bang" in here.
|>>|| No. 42082
I get it lad you have no standards you make this point everytime people aren't thirsty for someone overweight I am getting tired of hearing it.
|>>|| No. 42084
Eyelash isn't even fat, she's just not thin. Perfectly within the normal bounds if you ask me. That's just the thing though, everything about her is completely normal. Totally average. Unremarkable in the extreme. She's got some hefty jugs, but it's not like it helps, they're like a body kit on an '04 Astra.
Maybe that's meant to be her appeal in an age of manufactured supermodel popstars? Are people sufficiently disconnected from real life nowadays that having a normal looking pop star counts as exotic appeal?
|>>|| No. 42086
I don't see why someone needs to be exceptionally attractive for me to ogle their big milkers.
Also I'm pretty sure that she's famous because of her remarkable talent.
|>>|| No. 42087
Remarkable talent, and having rich parents with existing connections in the music industry.
|>>|| No. 42088
I can still get the horn over bang average, I've been in relationships with plenty of average women. Personally I think Eilish is reasonably attractive even in none makeup form, but different strokes and all that, there's no sense arguing over how shaggable someone is in the wanky threaad.
|>>|| No. 42089
Pretty sure it's just the latter two m8, her brother does all the songwriting if I'm not mistaken.
Not like that's unusual in pop mind, it's pretty common for them to be more of a performer than an artist. It's a bit annoying how most people don't seem to draw a distinction though.
|>>|| No. 42090
She is normal but it is normal for a person to be overweight.
I imagine not because you clearly have an udder obsession.
|>>|| No. 42091
When I said that thing about "pointy elbows" last night I didn't mean to imply that you should stay up all night arguing about whether or not her elbows are, in fact, too pointy. Apologies for the mix up.
|>>|| No. 42092
I have no opinions on her elbows but the picture in >>42080 does make her look strangely top-heavy. She's not overweight but none of her body fat seems to be distributed south of her tummy.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]