Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Fancy a bit of Ginger? NSFW

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I have pointed out that the pictures which aroused so much debate amongst a group of middle aged men were of a person who was fully clad, and any sexualisation was a product of their own thought processes.

Absolutely shite.

The conversation has ranged a lot wider than that individual picture.

As you well know.
 

BigMac

Old-Salt
The change in the law came about in 2003, that was when sixteen-year-old girls were banned from becoming Page 3 girls. It was one of David Blunkett's brain-children when he was Home Secretary. Subsequent Labour Home Secretaries banned pictures of underage kids who were depicted in cartoon form.

What the fuck does Blunkett care about page 3 pictures? You could stick a picture of a chicken drumstick in front of him and he wouldn't know the difference.
 
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I have pointed out that the pictures which aroused so much debate amongst a group of middle aged men were of a person who was fully clad, and any sexualisation was a product of their own thought processes.
Nonce.
 

Maple

LE
Oh I agree with you 100%.

But, in this current "Woke" age where people are professionally offended by anything that doesn't fit their ideas of what acceptable, then err on the side of caution and don't give them the bullets to fire at us.
I take it you didn't notice how sexually repressed Britain was in the 1970s and so easy it was to offend by showing ladies ankles?
 

Maple

LE
If I understand this correctly, I can have any kind of perverted and depraved sex I like with a willing partner over the age of 16, but if I (Or they) make any kind of sexualised image of them (Before they reach the age of 18 ) then I am (or they are) for the chop.

Well that's been well thought through.
We had one case where a 16 YO girl had been sending nude photos of herself to her boyfriend. The Rozzers found out and they seriously looked at charging her with making indecent photos of a child under 18 :rolleyes:- she would have gone on the Sex Offender's register, and so would her boyfriend who was 17. One of the adults in the constabulary realised how stupid that would have been and what a devastating effect the convictions would be to both the couple and later, when the papers had got hold of the story, the constabulary.

 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Has the internet suddenly run out of photographs of young ginger ladies? :(
 
1.jpg
2.jpg
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
Exactly the opposite.

I’m the one saying not to post pictures of young girls in a thread that is expressly intended for people to post pictures of attractive women.

I’ll assume you are in agreement not to post pictures girls under 16.

Therefore, what you are expressly defending is the posting of pictures of 16-17 year old girls. On the ‘fancy a bit of ginger’ thread.

As I assume you’re a native English speaker I don’t doubt you understand what ‘fancy’ means. If that’s a problem the hundreds of soft porn pics on the thread should provide you with a bit of a clue. So don’t give me that ‘you’re objectifying these girls’ bolleaux.

You can do as much flailing and whataboutery as you like, but it’s you who’s looking like a nonce.
Perhaps you ought to check the opening post in this thread. This thread was started on the back of an article in the Daily Mail about a female photographer celebrating ginger-haired people of all ages, and front and centre of that article was a picture of a girl aged about two. It's people like you who have decided that, rather than continuing that theme, this thread is instead a series of pictures of women in varying states of undress, and when someone posts a picture which could have easily featured in the original mainstream media article, are getting your knickers in a twist, because you think others will think you are a nonce for looking at pictures of little girls. Because this thread is what you have made it.
 
Perhaps you ought to check the opening post in this thread. This thread was started on the back of an article in the Daily Mail about a female photographer celebrating ginger-haired people of all ages, and front and centre of that article was a picture of a girl aged about two. It's people like you who have decided that, rather than continuing that theme, this thread is instead a series of pictures of women in varying states of undress, and when someone posts a picture which could have easily featured in the original mainstream media article, are getting your knickers in a twist, because you think others will think you are a nonce for looking at pictures of little girls. Because this thread is what you have made it.
Fuck off!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top