at first, i just thought it was a crime that there was no NSFW on the first page of cc, but now i can't seem to find that thread

WAS IT DELETED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT?

3/25/2008 10:51:45 AM

WHY YES IT WAS GOOD SIR

3/25/2008 10:51:58 AM

part of me is like

the other part is like *whew*

3/25/2008 10:54:28 AM

/message_topic.aspx?topic=517874 RIP

3/25/2008 10:55:11 AM

I think we're all a little saddened...

3/25/2008 10:55:43 AM

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

3/25/2008 10:56:10 AM

I was told to send it to the trash bin by the new owners

They didn't want that kind of filth on their message boards because it presents itself as a legal liability.

3/25/2008 10:58:03 AM

Should I still clean out the history folder on my computer?

3/25/2008 10:58:19 AM

wtf

3/25/2008 10:58:22 AM

nael hasn't realized that this whole site is a legal liability

3/25/2008 11:00:47 AM

that may be so...

but as a site owner, it's hard to ignore the influx of legal issues that have come about in the news recently regarding the soliciting of sex from minors. There is a crack down on such things. It's in the best interest of TWW and all parties involved to stear clear of anything that can be viewed as child exploitation.

We apologize for any inconvenience, and you can feel free to contact us if you have any further questions or comments about this issue.

Thx,
Management

3/25/2008 11:05:24 AM

see, emce got the memo

3/25/2008 11:06:44 AM

so if i post the cfpink pics in another thread, will that warrant banishment?

3/25/2008 11:07:54 AM

i'm surprised it was allowed to last for as long as it did

3/25/2008 11:08:00 AM

from jj.am:

Quote :

"Everyone is 18+, if you don't know what CP looks like check out Jock Sturges"

3/25/2008 11:09:18 AM

I swear she told me was 18

3/25/2008 11:09:40 AM

Quote :

"nael hasn't realized that this whole site is a legal liability"

Quote :

"i'm surprised it was allowed to last for as long as it did"

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

3/25/2008 11:09:53 AM

what the fuck is CP?

3/25/2008 11:16:13 AM

^ according to urban dictionary, "child porn"

aha, or "cunt punt" (kicking a girl in the vagina), apparently

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

3/25/2008 11:17:20 AM

haha cunt punt

3/25/2008 11:18:15 AM

just out of curiosity....


why would anyone want to view a bunch of girls that look like they're 12 year old boys anyway?

just curious

3/25/2008 11:18:18 AM

uh

me

3/25/2008 11:18:42 AM

the FBI won that thread

3/25/2008 11:18:47 AM

TRYYYYYY TO UNDERSTAAAND

TRYYYYYYY TO UNDERSTAAAAAND

TRY TRY TRY TO UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAAND

HE'S A magicman

3/25/2008 11:19:33 AM

sup judge

3/25/2008 11:20:14 AM

3/25/2008 11:21:17 AM

moar liek censorship won that thread

3/25/2008 11:21:31 AM

I was surprised it made 5 pages too, honestly.

3/25/2008 11:22:31 AM

that dude that runs that website has no idea if all these girls are 18
i would say a lot of them were very questionable

3/25/2008 11:23:28 AM

3/25/2008 11:26:15 AM

i'd hit

3/25/2008 11:26:51 AM

I think its probably in all of your best interests that thread was removed

3/25/2008 11:28:13 AM

3/25/2008 11:28:53 AM

3/25/2008 11:28:58 AM

Legally, child porn is anything that depicts minors (people under 18 years of age) performing sexually-explicit acts. And legally, a pedophile is anyone who engages in sexual acts with minors.

But by the original definition, a pedophile is someone who becomes sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children. So someone who jacks off to a 15 year-old is not a pedophile, while someone who obsesses over toddlers is. Nobody knows how or why someone becomes a pedophile, but it does not represent criminal tendencies on the part of the pedophile. It represents a mental illness that needs to be treated.

Having sex with a teenager is considered wrong because teenagers are not entirely capable of rational, independent thought, and therefore cannot give informed consent. However, being aroused by a teenager is understandable and natural in terms of biology. All of the signals are there; big breasts, curved hips, etc. Being aroused by a 9 year-old is not natural, however.

3/25/2008 11:29:27 AM

too many wordz

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

3/25/2008 11:29:46 AM

so what the hell happened in that thread?

3/25/2008 11:29:50 AM

I hope umbrellaman goes to jail and finds out what they do to pedos in there

3/25/2008 11:30:40 AM

trash bin

3/25/2008 11:30:57 AM

you call it child porn. i call them 18.

3/25/2008 11:30:58 AM

3/25/2008 11:32:40 AM

3/25/2008 11:32:55 AM

"Young girls are the biological equivalent of new car smell"
~Tom Robbins

3/25/2008 11:34:48 AM

3/25/2008 11:34:53 AM

http://www.imagefap.com/image.php?id=1102964964

3/25/2008 11:36:23 AM

Quote :

"But by the original definition, a pedophile is someone who becomes sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children. So someone who jacks off to a 15 year-old is not a pedophile, while someone who obsesses over toddlers is."

seriously, though, this is how a lot of people rationalize it (and i'm not saying they're wrong, either)

if the girl's 15 but has all the biology down (breasts, hips, pubic hair, whatever), then she's, by all rights, sexually attractive in the biological sense...biologically, there's nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to a girl who looks sexually capable

if the girl is 15 and is flat as a washboard, and has the figure of a 9-year-old boy, and you're sexually attracted to her, then yeah, i'd say your wiring is a bit off

by that same token, what is "normal"? sexual attraction is sometimes very individual to the person (anyone else take dr. stone's "psychology of the family" course?)

the whole argument of sexuality is stupid anyway...biologically, that crass saying of "if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" is very true...and when people lived to be only 30, it was probably a good idea to get them making babies at 15 or whenever they started having their period...so if an adult man (of pretty much any age) is attracted to a minor, there's nothing wrong with him (in my mind)

the whole pedophile thing exists to protect those same minors because, as we all know, physical maturity doesn't have jack to do with mental maturity...these kids need to be protected from themselves because they're simply not capable (in a lot of cases) of making informed and safe choices on their own (i mean, hell, look at the pics they posted and the creepy guys who fap to them)

realize, though, that i put the limit on the physical attractiveness in regards to being sexually capable of making children...an 8-year-old girl generally does not have breasts or pubic hair or a period, so being sexually attracted to one is very very wrong

i guess you could argue that, by my reasoning, if a girl's 25 and has no figure whatsoever and looks like a child, then you'd have to be a sicko to be sexually attracted to her...meh...too much effort to sort through

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2008 12:20:20 PM

Quote :

"(i mean, hell, look at the pics they posted and the creepy guys who fap to them)"

3/25/2008 12:22:21 PM

If there's grass on the field, play ball. If not, then roll her over and play in the mud.

3/25/2008 12:23:52 PM

haha

to be fair, i was very much referring to the jj.am posters (have you READ some of their comments? )

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : QUESTION MARK]

3/25/2008 12:23:58 PM

yeah, the jj dudes are a bit off the wall.


it's like an unfunny joke sometimes.



"OMG YOUR SO FUCKING SMOKING HOT. CAN WE PLEASE FUCK. MY MYSPACE IS /UGUNGITRAPED"

3/25/2008 12:26:54 PM