Re-upped to mediafire
http://anonym.to/?http://www.mediafire.com/?8neqjta5ylc

I have reviewed this work. Although it is perfectly innocent and free of sexual content, it is very likely that pedophiles will masturbate to the nonstop pictures of the naked child, therefore it should be banned.

>>3
is there any picture of a semi attractive child that most pedos don't masturbate too?

>>4
Sounds like a scientific investigation is required. I think we have at least one odd person who doesn't want to cum inside a tweenager to act as a control group, let's see what happens.

control test

control test

11

control test

>>5-32
Once again, reverse psychology yields epic results.

>>39
And when I say ">>5-32", I by no means wish to exclude >>33-38, however, I did not notice this was still ongoing when I started to compose my reply. Sorry for the interruption.

Hmm... opening the vlad-gates may destroy the forum under a sheer wave of loli, so we'll call this test "in progress" for now.

>>42
Nice candids.

Any trouble fapping yet? I am keeping an open mind until we hear from the control group.

>>45 I am keeping an open mind until we hear from the control group.

LOLOL I think you did already.

Oops, I mean, I am disgusted and outraged by this perversion and demand that you stop immediately.

Pic related, it's the sort of horrid filth up with which I will not put!

In the process of downloading a lot of Luanne, will re-up to mediafire a bit later on, along with any sets pre->>43 that you like (the others are singles).

<-- doesn't look like sport's candy to me... I knew she was a lesbian, straight girls don't bend like that. What is so awesome about her is that she came out at such a young age, and also that she was having fully-body orgasms with her girlfriend from the age of 14.

>>52

Who would save that, let alone fap to it. Stop flooding this place with your crap douchebag, nobody wants to see it.

Go outside. Watch a movie. Fuck your girlfriend more. I don't know, just get the fuck out.

>>54

Moralfag

>>54
The control group is present, the experimental method is now valid. Now, ephebos, this picture set is officially unattractive to the control group, so what do we think? Flexibility is a youthful trait, as it the patience to actually train at something beyond the mundane, this girl is a winrar.

One of these days suede is going to get a visit from the partyvan.

>>59
Possibly, but not due to the content of his website. All legal content being posted here.

I'm quite the pedo myself.... I just noticed that we all tend to be masturbaters on the planet...

>>61
errr the biggest masturbaters on the planet... sorry

>>60

>All legal content being posted here.

Much appreciated.

I wonder what I'm going to be v& for first then. Anyone care to speculate?

>>63
hmmmm I dunno owning some weapon that the British government bans without knowing that there was a ban?
Btw... do you have any knives you can't account for?

Tax evasion, it's how all big-time criminals are brought down.

>>64
Nothing illegal. It's still legal to carry a folding, non-locking pocket knife as long as the blade is less than 3" in length. Frustratingly, I dropped one of mine on a bus and never got it back. I should probably get a new one some time.

>>65
I'm not required to pay taxes, so that one sort of fails.

Have you been keeping up your archery obligation, Suede?

"All English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy."

Still legal, still enforceable.

>>68
No, but I was thinking about it. It's still legal to kill a Welshman with a longbow in York, I think.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/nov/07/uk.queensspeech20072

Close enough, I'm sure they'd let it slide before it got to court.

>>67

rabble rabble sponging scum rabble rabble dreg of society rabble rabble

>>70
Bitch should get kicked out for wearing Ugg boots to school. I almost got thrown out for not fastening the top button of my shirts.

>>70
Scots, and it has to be from the city walls.

You're opff your rocker if you think this isn't incredibly sexualised, which is enough to get you assfucked in prison.

>>74
"Sexualized" isn't illegal, "sexually explicit" is. In the United States, that means vaginal intercourse, oral intercourse, anal intercourse, oral-anal contact, bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse.

>>75

>oral-anal contact

But not oral-oral or oral-vaginal? Loophole GET

>>76

> But not oral-oral

That would be called "kissing" and is legal.

> oral-vaginal

Illegal under "oral intercourse", see list above.

>>75
It's a good thing the guy who owns this site is a US citizen, right?

The law exisits to prevent exploitation of minors, and is a good thing. In what way is this minor being exploited?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Commercial exploitation to provide fap-fodder for the pedo who wants to feel like he isn't scum by fapping to mostly-naked rather than completely naked kids.

Or... you get the idea, yeah? None of the pictures posted anywhere on the site are exploitative of the children involved, or present a danger to children. Now, I'll be amazed if everyone finds them as interesting as some of our ephebophiles, but so what? We could all post some threads about things we are interested in to an equally compelling extent, that might be fun for everyone? It would certainly be more productive than blandly stating disapproval or invoking laughable "knowledge" of the law to cover-up personal discomfort.

So if it's non-commercial, all is good? Hooray for charity!

>>84
Define "commercial exploitation".

>>84

>for the pedo who wants to feel like he isn't scum by fapping to mostly-naked rather than completely naked kids.

Hmm... they would be nude if the law permitted it, and be no more or less exploitative in real terms. Certainly, if they make you feel uncomfortable with clothes on, then yeah, you'll shit yourself if they took them off, but then that's still just a personal response.

>>88 they would be nude if the law permitted it,

In America, at least, the law permits it. You can buy David Hamilton books off Amazon or at any retail book franchise.

You can find a picture of a girl attractive and interesting regardless that the arbitrary assessment of the current, localalised law deems sexual intercourse with an equivalent-aged girl illegal.

Or you can feel uncomfortable at your response to the picture, and get all hissy about it, I suppose.

That some people have direct mental links between skin and nudity, between nudity and sex, between sex and rape, does not mean these mental links are valid or universal.

>>89
Here in the UK also. In fact, the law couldn't care less about the sort of pictures we're discussing.

What UK law is dedicated to stamping out is realistic pornography that depicts children being penetrated because it is used to naturalise sexual contact with a potential victim, i.e. the law is focused on convicting people who are coercing unwilling children into almost-certainly harmful situations, not people looking at pictures of tweenagers earning money wearing string thongs, or artistic depictions of the human form.

>>91
What in the name of piss-shitting christ is the deal with that picture? I am confused now.

>>92
This one's static. It's a character sketch I'm building for a comic, the girl part-inspired by Corky's magnificent nose. That gif's a demo of structure for a friend who is learning to draw.

The comic will probably never happen, to be honest, and I'll just end up improvising without a script as usual. Still, it's fun.

Threads like this make me love downloadthemall.

>>87
You think all those pictures were produced and distributed for free out of the good of some awful parent's heart?

>>95
What?

>>95

As much as I'm sick of these anti-paedofags with their incessant bawwwwing, this is true. Stop trying to fucking defend it. Ultimately, child models are child models, the insinuations are bloody there, and they were intended to be there. "BUTBUTBUT NO EXPLOITATION OFDJL LOLOL" - ssh. Accept what you are and quit being in denial, it doesn't suit you.

I know there were some models earlier in the thread but I doubt you can prove that these are models.

>>95
You didn't answer the question. If you had you might understand that this is a non-sequitur argument that attempts to link "people under the legal age of consent earning money" (itself a selective and odd way to categorise humanity) with "exploitation".

The implication that people are pretending that this isn't fap-fodder is also odd and in direct opposition to the words typed. Once again it comes down to this notion that "out there somewhere" is a person we imbue with such moral and intellectual weakness that they simply have to glance at the contorversial thing we are discussing (be it violent computer games, child models, horror films, drugs, pornography, etc) and they suddenly become on the brink of the very worst incarnation of evil wreaking havoc and misery, yet be in denial and undetectable to others, and if only we could stop this person from having this thing, then a disaster could be averted. But this person is no-one we know, have met, or can actually think of, yet they somehow must exist for the counter-argument to work, so QED "they exist".

The thing is folks, I remember this same moral hysteria surrounding... Dungeons and Dragons.

Before the War on Drugs there was a concerted hysterical campaign to flood Western society with the idea that D&D and the like were as evil and corrupting as what some people are suggesting child models are, and similar scare tactics were employed, and the same straw men were built and set alight, and the same unengaged members of society went about believeing that D&D was harmful, exploitative and wrong, and then re-spewed this prejudice on-cue without really thinking about where they had picked it up.

If you don't believe me, get your self a copy of the old Tom Hanks film "Monsters and Mazes", and then please never be fooled by a similar line of non-reasoning again.

>>99
I disagree with you completely. Teaching girls to use their physical attractiveness to make money is plain wrong. It provides them with a skillset allowing for the manipulation and exploitation of men. Girls should be taught they are worthless, sexual meat, but not taught that that meat has any value.

>>99
I did answer the question. The children are being exploited by the parents to appeal to grubby little men on the internet for however much a set of pictures of a suggestively posed child costs.

Waitwaitwait.

You're on this site, and you're concerned about people being "exploited"?

>>102
So this equates "children earning money for their family" with "exploitation"?

Okay, what if they didn't earn money for it, would that still be "exploitation"? Or is it the fact that they are designated children by law that makes this "exploitation"?

By the same metric, this legally designated child is being exploited, or is there a difference? I can be fairly confident more men have fapped to her pictures and films than all of the vlad models combined simply due to wider availability.

See... the issue appears to be that men fap to loli pictures, and that by providing these pictures of thong bikinis, parents are exploiting their children, yet this is a non-sequitur. That is seems to follow, doesn't actually make it so, because the age set by law is arbitrary.

The law doesn't take into account the individual child concerned in each case, and is there to protect children from exploitation when they are being exploited.

This "exploitation" is not the default state. If a child is being exploited by their parents, then the law may be invoked to protect the child.

Invoking The Law is an action of last recourse, not an inflexible, moral guideline to assess a situation.

I aplogise to the readers here at Wish who don't like these sorts of picture, or find them interesting, especially to Rabbit, who got agitated on the Green board. Further, can I ask that these readers start/contribute to more threads that are not about loli? Preferably with pictures that they find as interesting and compelling as the ephebos find Lolly Model and the rest? Because the way things are, this place is going to have a whole lotta loli if you don't.

>So this equates "children earning money for their family" with "exploitation"?

Err, yes? Honestly, I share some of the same tastes as you, but come on. Do you think these children really enjoy what they do or truly comprehend the weight of what they're doing? They don't have the maturity. Do you think when they turn 25 they're going to look back at these pictures and feel pride at how much they achieved as a young'un? Come on.

>>107
In every case? No, there will always be shitty families, and that is when the law is useful. But for most of the time when there is no exploitation taking place, this counter-argument is not valid.

The point is "exploitation" is not the default state. By the same argument, school is exploitative, as there are children who don't know what is going on, what they are doing there, what the implications ot the activities are, and really, really don't want to be there. And indeed we all probably know a family who bully their children to over-achieve, yet this doesn't make the act of children attending school itself exploitative.

>Do you think when they turn 25 they're going to look back at these pictures and feel pride at how much they achieved as a young'un?

Some will, very much so, some won't, same with every childhood activity that puts them in public, including embarrassing teen fashions they actively chose to wear and think are "cool", when with retrospect are shit. It doesn't automatically mean a person will develop mental problems.

>>109
I'd like to clarrify this with the idea that children engaged in penetrative pornography often do develop issues, which is why it is considered exploitative, and is illegal, as it should be.

But the connection between illegal pornography and child modelling is non-existent, despite child skin being in focus in both. It's the same sort of non-connection that declares smoking dope leads unwaveringly to a debilitating heroin addiction, or that fapping to loli models leads unwaveringly to rape, or that playing WoW leads unwaveringly to satanism.

It's because we often feel uncomfortable with the subject that we don't have these sorts of discussion. I'm obviously joking when I say people who take little interest in tween models are strange, you guys are interested in other pictures, let's see them.

Personally I take no interest in pictures of child-looking child models, the ones who haven't developed secondary sexual characteristics like elogated limbs, but I'm not going to waste my time berating people who clearly obsess over them, or consider such people dangerous or necessarily strange in a negative connotation of the word.

>It's because we often feel uncomfortable with the subject that we don't have these sorts of discussion. I'm obviously joking when I say people who take little interest in tween models are strange

I can't speak for everyone but I don't feel uncomfortable with the subject, infact it's of interest to me since I do dabble in the fetish somewhat (borderline, I suppose? some do it for me, most don't). I'd also say that you make great contributions to this board with both your discourse and your images; even if some object to the latter, the former can't really be disputed considering your competition here.

But I can't see it your way with regards to the ethics surrounding these pictures. Personally, I don't care enough for it to stop me fapping, but I still can't agree with it. That said, I know very little about it and I'm now going to look into it a bit more before I even bother debating it, so k, and thnx, and bai.

>>3 I have reviewed this work. Although it is perfectly innocent and free of sexual content, it is very likely that pedophiles will masturbate to the nonstop pictures of the naked child, therefore it should be banned.

You guys do realize I posted that comment as a joke, right? What a delightfully fappable shitstorm this has become, though. Saved!

>>104
They're children. It's got nothing to do with legal designation. Using children in this manner is exploitation. And doing it for free would be both exploitative and financially unwise.

>>159
What distinguishes a child from an adult? There is the legal designation, arbitrarily set to what is considered to be the local "norm of maturity" which may not have undergone recent review, there is biology (all of the girls here then would be adults as they exhibit secondary sexual characteristics, and indeed many of whom are at their most fertile), then there is behaviour and aptitude, something from which is difficult to ascertain from a picture.

We have a tendency in the West to treat people as "our children" far beyond the point at which they could reasonably expect to be able to cope on their own, and we suffer for it socially. I'm sure we could all point to people who are children in behaviour and aptitude well into their 20s and 30s these days.

I'm not disagreeing with the point you make about exploitation in general, and indeed would not collect or post a picture in which I suspected the person had been coerced or bullied into posing. I am disagreeing that this sort of thing is inherently exploitative of the models.

>>158
Trouble-maker.

>>160
I disagree. I think this 'child modelling' (as opposed to legitimate CM i.e. catalogues with kids showing off hideous spongebob raincoats) is inherently exploitative and you're bullshitting yourself.

>>161
Okay, in what ways, specifically? Certainly, they have to "be children" for this sort of work, but this a pre-requisite, not a demand.

>>162
There's no use trying to convince a pedo that he's not a pedo. Hopefully you will get arrested while lurking too much at a park full of children that you claim are not children. For the crime of touching that you claim is not sexual.

In before- I did not have sexual relations with that child.

Suede, Why are you allowing your website to become filled with such filth and standing by with your B& hammer doing nothing... oh wait. Nevermind?

>>163
ad hominem doesn't strengthen a position of an argument. IF this sort of thing is inherently exploitative THEN there are ways this can be demonstrated that simply must extend beyond calling people who hold the opposite view derogatory names...

>>164
For example, if a religious person puts forward the idea that the Bible is literally true, what is a better way to undermine that argument: demonstrating that their religion is a late-in-the-day off-shoot of Zoroastrianism, a religion that pre-dates the creation of the Earth in Genesis by several thousand years, or by calling them a batshit zealot? One way anyone else following the discussion can assess the points of view for themselves, the other nothing is determined or clarrified on either side but the prejudices of both, something that we all knew anyway?

>>161

> I think this 'child modelling' (as opposed to legitimate CM i.e. catalogues with kids showing off hideous spongebob raincoats) is inherently exploitative and you're bullshitting yourself.

So if it's in a catalog, it's all good & moral to wank, and you won't raise any further objections? I have about about a cubic meter of teen swimwear, underwear, and general clothing catalogs that I wank to all the time. So if I upload a couple couple hundred catalog pictures, you promise you raise no further objection? Pic related.

>>161
Mmmm Delias catalog.

>>161
Mmmm Delias catalog.

>>161
Mmmm Delias catalog.

>>161
Mmmm Delias catalog.

>>161
Mmmm Delias catalog.

>>161
Newspapers are legitimate too, right?

>>161
Stock photo services such as Corbis are legitimate.

>>161
Back to the delicious catalogs.

>>161
And ending with the catalogs again, since that's the specific example you gave. I hereby rest my case, which in case you're too dense to get it, is "I'm going to go have a wank now."

Hmm, time to subscribe to the Delias mail-order catalogue...

>>190
Newspapers are a great resource for jailbait pictures, and include them specifically for their ability to shift units.

>>186 >>189
what directory dumper are you using? I can't get Tee's or xchan to do anything useful with kareha...

>>194

>time to subscribe to the Delias mail-order catalogue

I have the complete set from 1997 to present. Recent years have not been as good as in the past, and a few years ago they removed the models from the underwear section (after introducing them only a couple years prior). However, the summer issues with the swimsuits are still pretty killer.

>>195

> what directory dumper are you using?

I wasn't. Back button, copy/paste.

Pic related, two issues of the rare & awesome short-lived Brat catalog circa 1999, and a bit of 2007 Delias in the corner.

>>184
I can object to misuse of catalogues for your pedo jollies.

>>197
I don't "misuse" the catalogs. Catalogs are sent out in the hopes that the receivers will buy things from them. Every couple years I order a cheap pair of panties or something so they don't kick me off the mailing list.

>>198
Letter, spirit, it's all good, mirite?

>I can object to misuse of catalogues for your pedo jollies.

That you can object does not validate the objection. What is the basis of it, beyond personal opinion?

>>200
The moral repugnance of your being.

PS: not a christfag. just heading that one off right now.

>>201
Well, there you have it. Nothing wrong with a solely disapproving stance per se, but no substance to it either.

>>201
"thought crimes"

>>203
I can see your derp.

And your vast, disgusting bulk, but that's neither here nor there.

>>204
You know Schwilly... I'm slowly licking a salted ham thinking of you. Keep that image in your head mein freund.

>>100

That's the shittiest movie I ever liked. I saw it lately thanks to the wonders of the internets.