Is this another public service announcement?**** off!
Is this another public service announcement?**** off!
It is.Is this another public service announcement?
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.
![]()
Oblig. pic to keep the thread running:
![]()
![]()
Bo Barah channeling Monroe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh my. I will have to go and have a lie down
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that a riding crop I see held in her sexily gloved hand?
The minx!
She's only 23, you'd better watch out.![]()
Bo Barah channeling Monroe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably not but it is legal. Our lass has a mate with 16 year old daughter. The young lass in question is stunningly beautiful and frankly is a really nice kid. As a 50 year old I could pop up to Scotland and marry her without her parents consent, and as @greenbaggyskin points out I could perform numerous sexually deviant acts with her without any legal comebacks. However, if I take a photo of her in her bikini on our honeymoon then I'm committing an offence and will end up on the register.
I think that someone got their priorities wrong there.
She's only 23, you'd better watch out.
Why? Did something make you think of soft pillows?Oh my. I will have to go and have a lie down
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Ok. I've changed my mind. I'm more comfortable with the noncey pics.![]()
Oblig. pic to keep the thread running:
![]()
Net not quite that wide then?Ok. I've changed my mind. I'm more comfortable with the noncey pics.
She exceeds width parameters.Net not quite that wide then?