Thread: Tate Modern Removes Naked Brooke Shields at Age 10 Pic

oo er what about all those Rubens nudes and other filthy painters work filling the London galleries? Are photographs different from painting nude models. What about that dirty bastard who used to do all the ballet dancers and made a statue modeling a naked 14 year old dancer whore, Degas that was him the dirty French pig should have been locked up what!

Well at least the pedos won`t have this pic of a 10 year old to drool over.

It`s nothing more than child exploitation and if it was her mother who allowed it to be taken then she should be ashamed of herself.

Bad judgement by the Tate in the first place.

should Degas Ballet dancer be burned then? those pedos are just everywhere aint they, or so some would have us believe.

Originally Posted by crazy dog

should Degas Ballet dancer be burned then? those pedos are just everywhere aint they, or so some would have us believe.

Degas paintings of ballet dancers circa late 19th century my friend are certainly not the same thing as a 10 years old totally naked girl made up to look much older and photographed in the modern era.

Over-reaction by a terrified nation - one in which phaedopiles lurk on every corner, are grooming one's child on the internet, and are diddlyling them on the drive to school.

Brooke Shields starkers at 10, whether in stills or in 'Pretty Baby' is not subverting the population, and for those it does subvert, they are more likely to look at the (est) 250 million pages of online porn for whatever floats their boat, rather than go and drop their trousers at the Tate Gallery and wank over the gallery floor.

For the police to say their act is 'common sense' is just increasing the paranoia.

^ Oh you forgot the nursery as well.

https://teakdoor.com/world-news/57673...o-nursery.html (FFM - Some more UK Paedo Nursery workers.)

Originally Posted by bretby

Originally Posted by crazy dog

should Degas Ballet dancer be burned then? those pedos are just everywhere aint they, or so some would have us believe.

Degas paintings of ballet dancers circa late 19th century my friend are certainly not the same thing as a 10 years old totally naked girl made up to look much older and photographed in the modern era.

I refer to the Ballet Dancer sculpture oddly done in wax originally and from the naked life modeling of a 14 year old. When it was first displayed the critics and public were outraged at this depiction of an obvious child prostitute. Thinking the way these barbarians who took away the Shields photo, pedos have been drooling over the Ballet Dancer for over a hundred years and hundreds of Bronze reproductions are sold every year, no doubt to pedos. Dont forget to look under your bed, these perverts are everywhere just waititng to drool.

Fair point, bretby.

But thats real, real nasty underclass life. And shame on Sky News for tanking on reporting the details of the offences. They should have printed. Its an authentic issue.

This Brooke Shields hoohah is not

It's illegal to take naked pics of your own kids now in the uk not sure about babies in the nude on a rug, absolutely filthy of course. Also many Schools ban parents of taking pics of their own kids at events like sports days and xmas plays, just in case, well you cant be too caefull can you. Country has gone mad with protection worries but lets parents batter their own kids to death quite regularly, odd that.

Originally Posted by crazy dog

Originally Posted by bretby

Originally Posted by crazy dog

should Degas Ballet dancer be burned then? those pedos are just everywhere aint they, or so some would have us believe.

Degas paintings of ballet dancers circa late 19th century my friend are certainly not the same thing as a 10 years old totally naked girl made up to look much older and photographed in the modern era.

I refer to the Ballet Dancer sculpture oddly done in wax originally and from the naked life modeling of a 14 year old. When it was first displayed the critics and public were outraged at this depiction of an obvious child prostitute. Thinking the way these barbarians who took away the Shields photo, pedos have been drooling over the Ballet Dancer for over a hundred years and hundreds of Bronze reproductions are sold every year, no doubt to pedos. Dont forget to look under your bed, these perverts are everywhere just waititng to drool.

Oh that one which never looked very realistic anyway. Didn`t he later provide clothes for it? Certainly not the same as an actual lifelike contemporary photograph of a completely naked 10 year old girl.

Unfortunately there are many pedos about and I guess they would just love to see these sort of pictures.

I certainly along with most other decent folk would not like to see fully naked photographs of 10 year old girls on public display.

Originally Posted by crazy dog

It's illegal to take naked pics of your own kids now in the uk not sure about babies in the nude on a rug, absolutely filthy of course. Also many Schools ban parents of taking pics of their own kids at events like sports days and xmas plays, just in case, well you cant be too caefull can you. Country has gone mad with protection worries but lets parents batter their own kids to death quite regularly, odd that.

Are you fecking kidding me?? And America get's bashed here all the time for our over reactions and protectionist laws... Fortunately we aren't that bad yet.. Not even allowed to take pictures of my kids at their event's? That would bring out my bad side in a hurry...

Originally Posted by crazy dog

It's illegal to take naked pics of your own kids now in the uk

Bullshit.

Very informative and intelligent contribution there Marmite.There has to be something wrong with anybody who considers any photographic depiction of a naked child as pornographic and who automatically thinks that any such image is a magnet for the dreaded pedos.
Under UK law, an image of a naked child is usually considered child pornography the context is irrelevant. In a strict legal sense, this censorship is justified, the problem is the law itself, which should not define nudity as "pornography". The frequently used term "child abuse images" is used to invoke strong emotions and discredit those who disagree with the current laws.

If you think you can breeze into a UK photo shop and hand in naked shots of a ten year old (lets say) daughter and not get a visit form the Police, then go ahead and try it.

Originally Posted by crazy dog

Very informative and intelligent contribution there Marmite.There has to be something wrong with anybody who considers any photographic depiction of a naked child as pornographic

Undressed children, are endangering the fabric of our society....nay. our very civilization itself.

Those who have eaten from the tree of knowledge know that the human form is dirty and provocative.

If you haven't eaten the forbidden fruit, you wouldn't know, so like shaddup, and put your trousers on.



This advertorial has been paid for by British Home Stores, Benneton, and Mothercare. Check out our catalogues for photos of pouting teenagers posing in starter bras.