Naraku
Draconarius
They are obviously post-pubescent. Determining if they are over or under 18 would be impossible without identification.Well, pic 3 shows a bunch of underage girls from a notorious family nudism website as I just figured.
They are obviously post-pubescent. Determining if they are over or under 18 would be impossible without identification.Well, pic 3 shows a bunch of underage girls from a notorious family nudism website as I just figured.
I agree about the use of underage teens on adult websites, or anywhere else for that matter."Tan lines" as a reference for legal age...
My 15-year old daughter has got tan lines after two weeks of a really hot summer and wearing different types of tops, and in my country she is too young display herself on kinky websites and forums (like this one).
In his legal disclaimer the producer of that "Ancient Castle Nudism" video proclaims that "(...) The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since 1958" (...) "Non-sexual naturist films are legal" (...)
Now, if taking stills from a nudism film with underage teens and putting it on a website about crucifixion and sex phantasy might not quite be seen "non sexual" anymore.
I personally disapprove using footage of underage (<18) on adult websites/forums.
I didn't see anyone underage... Forget about itI'm sorry if any photo I posted is considered to contain under age subjects, I didn't think that was the case at the time but I can sort of see why someone may think so. I'll leave it to the moderators to decide whether to remove the pic in question, as I can't.
I didn’t see anything in the dress codes about topless Fridays. Is that mandatory?
But here, at CF, we're often nude ... Is it a problem ?
View attachment 598735 But here, at CF, we're often nude ... Is it a problem ? View attachment 598736
View attachment 598687 Shit! I thought my hand would win with three jacks, but he had four in his hand.
Isn't that Tash from Accounts, I thought Mandy Terry was a brunette?
I'm sorry if any photo I posted is considered to contain under age subjects, I didn't think that was the case at the time but I can sort of see why someone may think so. I'll leave it to the moderators to decide whether to remove the pic in question, as I can't.
/QUOTE]
I have no concerns!
"Tan lines" as a reference for legal age...
My 15-year old daughter has got tan lines after two weeks of a really hot summer and wearing different types of tops, and in my country she is too young display herself on kinky websites and forums (like this one).
In his legal disclaimer the producer of that "Ancient Castle Nudism" video proclaims that "(...) The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since 1958" (...) "Non-sexual naturist films are legal" (...)
Now, if taking stills from a nudism film with underage teens and putting it on a website about crucifixion and sex phantasy might not quite be seen "non sexual" anymore.
I personally disapprove using footage of underage (<18) on adult websites/forums.
Working around the house
View attachment 599493Ooops! I think I just vacuumed up a little rodent and his cute little camera
Agreed. One might argue that the cameraman, or squirrel, is out of place, but what good does this do?But thats absolutely not out-of-place