Girl, 16, Poses Nude on Magazine Cover :((

Not only that, they wouldn't know about STD's/STI's and unwanted pregnancies.

I don't mind this, if it were one of my kids doing this, I'd be a bit uncomfortable with it, but if they want to do that and they're comfortable, then okay.

 

I really don't know why people do this stuff these days. It may be for money or something, but it just seems crude, using your body just for a magazine company to get profit.

 

Sex sells.
The younger the better.

 

This is what a friend of mine who loves anything sexxy said...

"Wearing stuff like that...or even how they are dressing in public these days is asking for rape, IDIOTS"


That is what he said, sounds harsh..but after the recent pack rape that happened here I'm starting to believe this might be a bad thing...


Don't be a lady gaga-more clothes on until in the comfort of one's room I say

 

aint that the truth!

 

Lolicons and pedo's too much of them. IMO, porn + sexy shit should be -70 years old....unless like a 50 year old is posing lol.

 

Technically this type of thing is Ephebophilia. Since the girl is fully developed physically.

 

*klaimore does not know what that means

 

An attraction to fully developed, yet still young, girls. Females who have already been through puberty, the 15-17 age (usually doesn't include the legal age of consent ages though). There's actually nothing mentally wrong with finding a late to post pubescent female attractive. That's what puberty is biologically for, making a woman sexually attractive to males. The restrictions placed on it are put there artificially by laws based on a sense of morality.

 

so basically its the opposite of lolita XD

 

All of them illegal in that country.

 

There is nothing wrong with finding an 8 year or or a 4 year old attractive.

To be sexually attracted to kids is wrong, but attraction need not always be sexual. Personally I cannot be bothered with kids and I don't see the attraction sexual or otherwise. I do think kids should be pictured naked so that their parents can embarrass them with such pictures as they get older

But seriously, you have to worry if a non-sexual image of a young person(which this is) causes problems for some people, which bit of the pre-enlightenment did their genes miss? Some people seem to have a medieval view of the world, that's not to say all progress is good, but I would think that being able to view a naked child and being allowed to experience that visage in a non-sexual manner should be both a normal thing and a normal response. I often wonder are those who express horror at the sight of a naked kid secret kiddy-fiddlers?

I have a kid of my own, he is 12, I don't want him sexualised before his time, but I must as a parent realise that at some point soon he will become engaged in sexual thoughts. I want him to find his own sexual point of entry, I don't want this forced upon him and I don't want him to force it upon others. This is about respect, of self and others. As a parent I do not claim ownership of my son, I feel I am blessed with the responsibility to help him grow into a better man than I.

To consider the nakedness of another as a sexual hook is to deny what it means to be a person. To be naked and nude is simply that, and the viewer can take what they will from a nude form. To consider the nude or naked as a form of sexual provocation is the responsibiliy of the viewer and not the model.

Having no clothes on is not an invitation to rape or outrage or censor.