Nappy-Headed Ho's

[Guest]

Lord. I promise you that the posting of Melanie Griffiths encouraging her daughter to smoke was seen as a virtual crime on SF sites and I do not deny I said that.

I am still unclear why it was a problem. On a SF site clearly the act of smoking isn't considered a crime. The act of posting a pic of someone 17 was the crime; not because she was underage by smoking, but by the fact that some people would drive sexual pleasure form it.

 

My point was therefore that most of the world would find it ridiculous that a 17 year old could not be considered attractive. Now if she was engaged in a sexual act you would have a point in California law. BUT she was not. She was smoking. if she had been wearing high hels on a foot fetish site the smae problem would have arisen, or wearing fur here. The smoking part of it is irrelevant in that respect yes.

 

To me sex means sex. Not heels smoking or fur. To crack down on people who find 17 year olds wearing fur heels or smoking is paranoia gone crazy.

 

It is like I once posted a pic of a supermodel wearing fur lifting her baby up. NO WAY was the baby the object of interest to anyone. BUT there was fur so the fact that a fetishist may find the pic errr...useful.....was a problem . Why???? It was her own baby daughter and a beautiful photo, and suddenly its a crime.

 

Likewise the Melanie Griffiths pic. It was a nice shot of a mother and daughter bonding....there was nothing sexual about the pic but it was a nice candid pic. Post it on a fetish site for smoking and it creates parnaoia because of the net police. The climate of fear is Taleban like. Except it does not come from Afghanistan fundamentalists it comes from the "free love" state of California. And that is what I find bizarre.

 

Yet from there eminates political correctness dogma.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Lord. I promise you that the posting of Melanie Griffiths encouraging her daughter to smoke was seen as a virtual crime on SF sites and I do not deny I said that.

I am still unclear why it was a problem. On a SF site clearly the act of smoking isn't considered a crime. The act of posting a pic of someone 17 was the crime; not because she was underage by smoking, but by the fact that some people would drive sexual pleasure form it.

 

My point was therefore that most of the world would find it ridiculous that a 17 year old could not be considered attractive. Now if she was engaged in a sexual act you would have a point in California law. BUT she was not. She was smoking. if she had been wearing high hels on a foot fetish site the smae problem would have arisen, or wearing fur here. The smoking part of it is irrelevant in that respect yes.

 

To me sex means sex. Not heels smoking or fur. To crack down on people who find 17 year olds wearing fur heels or smoking is paranoia gone crazy.

 

It is like I once posted a pic of a supermodel wearing fur lifting her baby up. NO WAY was the baby the object of interest to anyone. BUT there was fur so the fact that a fetishist may find the pic errr...useful.....was a problem . Why???? It was her own baby daughter and a beautiful photo, and suddenly its a crime.

 

Likewise the Melanie Griffiths pic. It was a nice shot of a mother and daughter bonding....there was nothing sexual about the pic but it was a nice candid pic. Post it on a fetish site for smoking and it creates parnaoia because of the net police. The climate of fear is Taleban like. Except it does not come from Afghanistan fundamentalists it comes from the "free love" state of California. And that is what I find bizarre.

 

Yet from there eminates political correctness dogma.

 

Well it would have been nice if you clarified earlier that it was on SF (smoking fetish?) sites that this was a problem. I don't follow those, so how was I supposed to know? I've learned the importance of clarification in a post.

[Guest]

Yes I beg your pardon.

Apologies yes it does mean smoking fetish.

 

So imagine if the issue had been fur. That Melanie was seen buying her daughter a sexy fur coat, and there is clearly some errr...encouragement going on.

Then that is posted here; her daughter is clearly under 18 and in the heat of her being attacked by PETA over it, it also becomes the subject of fear when we talk about it because of the age thing, and we get exposed by PETA through it as having images for sexual gratification of a "minor".

 

And my point is that in most countries of the world she is of consent age and quite entitle to lob her jugs out in The Sun for lorry drivers all over the UK to "enjoy".

[LordTheNightKnight]

Yes I beg your pardon.

Apologies yes it does mean smoking fetish.

 

So imagine if the issue had been fur. That Melanie was seen buying her daughter a sexy fur coat, and there is clearly some errr...encouragement going on.

Then that is posted here; her daughter is clearly under 18 and in the heat of her being attacked by PETA over it, it also becomes the subject of fear when we talk about it because of the age thing, and we get exposed by PETA through it as having images for sexual gratification of a "minor".

 

And my point is that in most countries of the world she is of consent age and quite entitle to lob her jugs out in The Sun for lorry drivers all over the UK to "enjoy".

 

Actually, we'd likely have as much of a problem seeing underage girls wearing fur coats than PETA, but for entirely different reasons.*

 

And who's arguing that she'd be of consent elsewhere? I wasn't. No one else here is. If people on other boards want to deny that different things are legal for people at different ages in different countries, that's their problem.

 

*For example, Casino is a great fur fetish movie, and even Sharon Stone's daughter, at age ten, wears a white rabbit coat for a few scens. I do admit the coat turns me on, actually more than the furs Sharon Stone wears in the latter half of the movie** (mainly because she is mostly screaming an yelling for much of the latter half, and generally acts like white trash with money). Yet I wouldn't actually touch the girl wearing it (although I could now, since she's over twenty by now).

 

And I do admit that is a guilty pleasure, but again, I like the fur, not that it's a little girl wearing it. I know from personal experience how wrong touching kids is.

 

** But the first half is perfectly fine, as she shows an amount grace and elegance in her furs.

[Guest]

Yes but you see my point is that as long as nobody actually exploits kids in that manner anything else is nonsense, particularly with older teenagers; and especailly when its non sexual.

 

Wearing a rabbit fur coat for a ten year old clearly is not a sexual act.

Posting of pics of a ten year old wearing that coat in the den should be forbidden yes; but a seventeen year old no.

 

BOTH engaging in anything sexual should be forbidden everywhere; but smoking and weaing fur is not a crime and the antis in both camps would love to make the connection that we think it sexual ; as would the net police. But the truth of the matter is that it isn't to most; and its absurd to suggest a crime has been committed.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Yes but you see my point is that as long as nobody actually exploits kids in that manner anything else is nonsense, particularly with older teenagers; and especailly when its non sexual.

 

Wearing a rabbit fur coat for a ten year old clearly is not a sexual act.

Posting of pics of a ten year old wearing that coat in the den should be forbidden yes; but a seventeen year old no.

 

BOTH engaging in anything sexual should be forbidden everywhere; but smoking and weaing fur is not a crime and the antis in both camps would love to make the connection that we think it sexual ; as would the net police. But the truth of the matter is that it isn't to most; and its absurd to suggest a crime has been committed.

 

Okay, so I think where this started was me mentioning sex, and you brought up people thinking that pic was sexual as an example of that. That just wasn't clear in your first responses.

 

And I never stated I want to post those pics here. I was just sharing something as a postscript.

[Guest]

Mary had a little Lamb

 

She tied him to a heater

 

Every time he turned around

 

He burnt his ______ _______

 

 

Old Country song lyrics.

 

 

Sex in anything you please.

 

 

 

 

OFF

[FrBrGr]

We started off with nappy-headed ho's and wound up with Mary's little lamb burning his little _ _ _ _ _ - with I don't-know-what in between . . .

 

Go figure . . .

[LordTheNightKnight]

We started off with nappy-headed ho's and wound up with Mary's little lamb burning his little _ _ _ _ _ - with I don't-know-what in between . . .

 

Go figure . . .

 

It's a message board. What do you expect?

[Guest]

Yes that is correct Lord. I was AGREEING with you lol!

 

And givivng you examples of how this hysteria can afect websites over something ridiculous!

[Guest]

I figured I'd round out the absurd discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[LordTheNightKnight]

Yes that is correct Lord. I was AGREEING with you lol!

 

And givivng you examples of how this hysteria can afect websites over something ridiculous!

 

At the pic was, she might have been handing her daughter money to go see a movie. That was about as sexual as the pic suggested.

[wallee]

I figured I'd round out the absurd discussion.

OFF

 

 

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280104400842

[Guest]

"Ohioans for Concealed Carry." That is what the hoe is being auctioned for.

 

WTF?????

 

Errr the problem is Lord is that she is lighting her daughters cigarette. While that in itslf isn't sexual...as you rightly say...it is the source of sexual excitement to millions of people! Imagine if she was helping her daughtr try a fur on. We'd like it here yes? And there would be nothing wrong with either as though lots of guys woul like both, they actualy are not indulging in anything sexual as you suggest. So intrinsically there is nothing wrong with the pic.

[LordTheNightKnight]

"Ohioans for Concealed Carry." That is what the hoe is being auctioned for.

 

WTF?????

 

Errr the problem is Lord is that she is lighting her daughters cigarette. While that in itslf isn't sexual...as you rightly say...it is the source of sexual excitement to millions of people! Imagine if she was helping her daughtr try a fur on. We'd like it here yes? And there would be nothing wrong with either as though lots of guys woul like both, they actualy are not indulging in anything sexual as you suggest. So intrinsically there is nothing wrong with the pic.

 

When did I dispute that? I actually stated as such. You're correcting me on the very point I made.

[Guest]

 

No ya daft bugger I am AGREEING with you!!! Just re affirming what you said! That was the whole point. Refining the agreement.

 

We need a new argument now lol any ideas?

[LordTheNightKnight]

 

No ya daft bugger I am AGREEING with you!!! Just re affirming what you said! That was the whole point. Refining the agreement.

 

We need a new argument now lol any ideas?

 

Well the VT shooting is drawing attention from this, and it should. That is actually important. Some bitter guy shooting his mouth off is not an assault against an entire race.

[Guest]

 

No ya daft bugger I am AGREEING with you!!! Just re affirming what you said! That was the whole point. Refining the agreement.

 

We need a new argument now lol any ideas?

 

Well the VT shooting is drawing attention from this, and it should. That is actually important. Some bitter guy shooting his mouth off is not an assault against an entire race.

 

lord = peta member = so obvious.......

[LordTheNightKnight]

 

No ya daft bugger I am AGREEING with you!!! Just re affirming what you said! That was the whole point. Refining the agreement.

 

We need a new argument now lol any ideas?

 

Well the VT shooting is drawing attention from this, and it should. That is actually important. Some bitter guy shooting his mouth off is not an assault against an entire race.

 

lord = peta member = so obvious.......

 

You do know I was referring to the backlash against Imus, right?

[Guest]

What are you saying? On the one hand you are saying Imus and the shooting are unrelated, then that it is a backlash against him. Both seem to me from what I know of it unrelated.

 

As far as I know the Korean lad shooting people is NOT important, as it is an isolated incident and unrelated to a wider social movement.

So though it is a terrible treagedy, it has no bearing on race or social or even gun issues. If he hadn't a gun he could have done it with poison or a knife. Sociopaths do not ned guns, and don't need ideological excuses to act alone like that. Therefore the only relevant discussion is one of psychological implications.

 

Hatred of other through psychlogical imbalance is more common than anyone thinks. This Koran kid hated rich people. Yet the vast majority of people around the world would think he from a priviliged group himself. His problem was one of self imposed exclusion and that is often where psychoses, paranoid delusion etc develop.

[LordTheNightKnight]

What are you saying? On the one hand you are saying Imus and the shooting are unrelated, then that it is a backlash against him. Both seem to me from what I know of it unrelated.

 

As far as I know the Korean lad shooting people is NOT important, as it is an isolated incident and unrelated to a wider social movement.

So though it is a terrible treagedy, it has no bearing on race or social or even gun issues. If he hadn't a gun he could have done it with poison or a knife. Sociopaths do not ned guns, and don't need ideological excuses to act alone like that. Therefore the only relevant discussion is one of psychological implications.

 

Hatred of other through psychlogical imbalance is more common than anyone thinks. This Koran kid hated rich people. Yet the vast majority of people around the world would think he from a priviliged group himself. His problem was one of self imposed exclusion and that is often where psychoses, paranoid delusion etc develop.

 

It was the comment that I'm somehow part of PETA, apparently because I'm glad the pointless attention is off Imus.

[ReFur]

Lord is not part of PETA!! ..good grief!!

 

A pain-in-the-ass!! Yes!! 8)

 

PETA!! Not!! He has been around too long guys.

 

Linda

[LordTheNightKnight]

Lord is not part of PETA!! ..good grief!!

 

A pain-in-the-ass!! Yes!! 8)

 

PETA!! Not!! He has been around too long guys.

 

Linda

 

Actually, Charlize Theron just posed with that coat so that we PETA members could post them to look like one of you guys.

[Guest]

Well I thought the same at one point Lord I will admit; so its hardly surprising that someone else had you down as one. Your left field politik and contempt for wealth and judging people , through swipes in threads does give an wrong impression of you.

 

And hey the PETA worst dressed list is one of the best sources of fur pics and who is wearing what

 

But the mole here is not one who is going to reveal themselves through aggressive posturing.

 

But let me say this. To me a PETAphile that is pro fur is still a PETAphile.

That does not include you Lord necssarily, but an anti is an anti is an anti.

Anyone who lends credence to ANY PETA argument...whether that is against foxhunting or anything else for which the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming...helps PETA. Let me reiterate that in my opinion if foxhunting or seal hunting is cruel furs are indefensible.

 

The second thing that we should remember is that there will be people here...again not you Lord...who are PETA. BUT their weakness is women in fur, after whom they secretly lust because the cruelty they percive fascinates them.

Likewise the same is in SF forums. They are FULL of people who think smoking is evil, suicidal and deadly. They don't understand (because they don't smoke theselves and are secretly excited by women who do) that smoking ISN'T perceived the same by those that do smoke, and they don't understand that it is without doubt enjoyable.

 

Haha makes me wonder now if there are fur fetishists who secretly yearn after vegans lol!

 

Anyway firstly let me state I don't think you are PETA, secondly that I can understand why to many you may appear so ; thirdly that it doesnt matter anyway. I would love to engage PETAphiles here; I love tearing after their asses. I do that elsewhere though lol!

 

So anyway; what is your view on the shootings in Virginia you have me confused.

[LordTheNightKnight]

I don't have contempt for wealth. I believe in capitalism, as long as one isn't a greedy, backstabbing bastard.

 

Yet I am against animal abuse, as in torturing or making them suffer, whether to animals we hunt or farm, or to our pets.* You've stated you think animals shouldn't suffer. So as long as we treat animals well, we show we respect them, and what we get from them.

 

I don't consider myself leftist or rightist. I believe in doing what works. If something works, one should keep doing it, and stop pretending it doesn't work just because one doesn't like it. If something doesn't work, one should do something else, and stop pretending it's fine just because one fears change or is lazy.

 

*There are shows about animal police, and some people actually do things to animals that PETA claims animal farmers do. Those people are bastards for doing that, and PETA are bastards for lying honest people do the same (the same way some try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia).

 

EDIT: The thing about the shootings is that unlike Imus's comments, this actually matters to us. We were actually thinking about what to do to stop something like Imus's comments from happening again, as though freedom of speech didn't matter, and as though it was actually damaging in the first place. Now after the shootings, we see something that actually matters, although it sucks that it takes something like this to make us shut up about something so stupid.