Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29-05-2009, 01:58 AM   #1
mynameis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,549
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default Your Obscene Printed Manga is Illegal....

U.S. Manga Obscenity Conviction Roils Comics World

* By David Kravets Email Author
* May 28, 2009 |
* 12:00 am |
* Categories: Crime, The Courts, porn

In an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.

Christopher Handley, described by his lawyer as a “prolific collector” of manga, pleaded guilty last week to mailing obscene matter, and to “possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.” Three other counts were dropped in a plea deal with prosecutors.

The 39-year-old office worker was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Handley’s guilty plea makes him the first to be convicted under that law for possessing cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography. He faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

Comics fans are alarmed by the case, (.pdf), saying that jailing someone over manga does nothing to protect children from sexual abuse.

“This art that this man possessed as part of a larger collection of manga … is now the basis for [a sentence] designed to protect children from abuse,” says Charles Brownstein, executive director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. “The drawings are not obscene and are not tantamount to pornography. They are lines on paper.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/
__________________
I can no longer have fair and intelligent conversation with people here, without them resorting to the use of personal attacks. I have been targeted as a scapegoat for my defensive actions. I cannot discuss new topics and stop the rampant amounts of misinformation when it happens, where it applies. If it can happen to me it can happen to you.
mynameis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 09:06 AM   #2
rhydra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,828
Likes: 133 (70 Posts)
Default

Looks like art galleries and other art collecters will be seriously worried since a lot of artists like to push the boundaries of convention. Not a very short step from legislation tantamount to the "degenerate" art where the German government decided what was art and what was not.
__________________
Man is a tool created by the Universe to mark time.
rhydra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 09:10 AM   #3
brainfreeze
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Love
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

The problemw with depicting child sexual abuse in comics is, where does the collector get his material when comics are no longer the stimulus they use to be? What next? Photos of real abuse? That's where the problem comes in.

It's the same with writing about sexual abuse. It's legal to write and read "fictional" accounts on child sex. Titilation for a sick mind, IMO.
brainfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 09:22 AM   #4
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

It's absurd to legislate against drawings, no matter what the content.

The argument used to criminalise possession of photographs of child abuse (as opposed to making of them, which was already illegal of course and rightly so) was that children were incapable of consenting to these acts and that even possession created a demand for this abuse. Nobody could really object to this, apart from paedophiles and their apologists.

But there was always a concern among civil liberties activists that governments would then use this as a stepping stone towards policing what goes on in people's heads. And that is exactly what has happened - nobody has been abused in a drawing. Now that they have got this through, there is nothing to stop them criminalising more and more art until eventually it becomes an offence to view any image that the government disapproves of, e.g. an image of Jacqui Smith in jackboots.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 29-05-2009 at 09:24 AM.
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 09:32 AM   #5
brainfreeze
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Love
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
It's absurd to legislate against drawings, no matter what the content.

The argument used to criminalise possession of photographs of child abuse (as opposed to making of them, which was already illegal of course and rightly so) was that children were incapable of consenting to these acts and that even possession created a demand for this abuse. Nobody could really object to this, apart from paedophiles and their apologists.

But there was always a concern among civil liberties activists that governments would then use this as a stepping stone towards policing what goes on in people's heads. And that is exactly what has happened - nobody has been abused in a drawing. Now that they have got this through, there is nothing to stop them criminalising more and more art until eventually it becomes an offence to view any image that the government disapproves of, e.g. an image of Jacqui Smith in jackboots.

Manga Art? PMSL Was Tracey Emins (?) unmade bed art? the subject of art is subjective. No surprise that the depiction of child rape is passed off in the name of art, I guess.

If I was a struggeling artists trying to earn a name on a big scale I'd draw the toruture pics Obama doesn't want to release and open a show called, Fucking For Art Of It

Last edited by brainfreeze; 29-05-2009 at 09:33 AM.
brainfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 11:28 AM   #6
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
The problemw with depicting child sexual abuse in comics is, where does the collector get his material when comics are no longer the stimulus they use to be? What next? Photos of real abuse? That's where the problem comes in.

It's the same with writing about sexual abuse. It's legal to write and read "fictional" accounts on child sex. Titilation for a sick mind, IMO.
I disagree, brainfreeze, this is "thin end of the wedge" stuff that follows a very familiar pattern with governments.

They don't bring in repressive legislation all at once, they bring it in piecemeal, starting with groups that are (rightly, in this case) pariahs. So back in the late 1990s, when governments were terrified of this newfangled internet that they didn't understand and couldn't control, they started passing laws to give themselves more power to control the internet.

And how did they sell this to the public? By claiming it was to "protect children" from paedophiles. But it hasn't stopped there, has it? They have spread their tentacles ever more tightly around the internet ever since.

Likewise, they knew that they couldn't get away with interfering with people's right to travel abroad. So they started off by taking passports off known football hooligans - after all, who could object to such a thing? Now of course they want everyone to tell the government their exact travel itinerary whenever they travel abroad, and on it goes...

In the case of these drawings, you're saying that the law should be based on what a child abuser might find erotic. This is the same sort of thinking that prevents parents filming their own children at school plays in case it gets in the hands of a kiddy fiddler.

Trying to police the content of people's heads is the real "What next?" here. Here's an account from someone who I personally know, who was a very senior Home Office psychologist who had to deal with sex offenders in prisons:

"Amongst my many case histories from my 20 years in the criminal justice system I had a number of individuals who, for reasons of situation, were isolated from access to images of their preferred 'sexual' outlet - this did not reduce their interest in the behaviour - it merely caused them to produce their own material by adapting ordinary photographs, making sketches and writing stories."

For many years the most popular masturbatory icons of fixated paedophiles were the pictures of children who carried the title of Miss Pears and were used in the advertising campaign for Pears soap. All soft focus and romanticised.

Although by no means a universal truth the tendancy is for many fixated paedophiles to prefer the 'romantic innocent child image' whereas the regressed paedophile may well seek out images where the child is presented as the 'sexually aware little adult'- ie dressed in clothes that one would normally associate with a much older age group - often wearing make up.

Catalogues that have childrenswear sections are often found amongst the personal possessions of arrested peadophiles - along with cuttings from local papers containing pictures of school swimming teams, travel brochures depicting children playing on the beach, videotapes of the t.v. series Grange Hill - the list goes on and on and the images used as icons are far more likely to be ones considered as 'everyday' than ones 'specifically produced'."


So indeed, "What next?"

What you need to realise here is that the people drafting these laws are very clever and know what buttons to push to manipulate people into supporting their agenda, which I dare say is quite different from your own.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 11:40 AM   #7
brainfreeze
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Love
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
I disagree, brainfreeze, this is "thin end of the wedge" stuff that follows a very familiar pattern with governments.

They don't bring in repressive legislation all at once, they bring it in piecemeal, starting with groups that are (rightly, in this case) pariahs. So back in the late 1990s, when governments were terrified of this newfangled internet that they didn't understand and couldn't control, they started passing laws to give themselves more power to control the internet.

And how did they sell this to the public? By claiming it was to "protect children" from paedophiles. But it hasn't stopped there, has it? They have spread their tentacles ever more tightly around the internet ever since.

Likewise, they knew that they couldn't get away with interfering with people's right to travel abroad. So they started off by taking passports off known football hooligans - after all, who could object to such a thing? Now of course they want everyone to tell the government their exact travel itinerary whenever they travel abroad, and on it goes...

In the case of these drawings, you're saying that the law should be based on what a child abuser might find erotic. This is the same sort of thinking that prevents parents filming their own children at school plays in case it gets in the hands of a kiddy fiddler.

Trying to police the content of people's heads is the real "What next?" here. Here's an account from someone who I personally know, who was a very senior Home Office psychologist who had to deal with sex offenders in prisons:

"Amongst my many case histories from my 20 years in the criminal justice system I had a number of individuals who, for reasons of situation, were isolated from access to images of their preferred 'sexual' outlet - this did not reduce their interest in the behaviour - it merely caused them to produce their own material by adapting ordinary photographs, making sketches and writing stories."

For many years the most popular masturbatory icons of fixated paedophiles were the pictures of children who carried the title of Miss Pears and were used in the advertising campaign for Pears soap. All soft focus and romanticised.

Although by no means a universal truth the tendancy is for many fixated paedophiles to prefer the 'romantic innocent child image' whereas the regressed paedophile may well seek out images where the child is presented as the 'sexually aware little adult'- ie dressed in clothes that one would normally associate with a much older age group - often wearing make up.

Catalogues that have childrenswear sections are often found amongst the personal possessions of arrested peadophiles - along with cuttings from local papers containing pictures of school swimming teams, travel brochures depicting children playing on the beach, videotapes of the t.v. series Grange Hill - the list goes on and on and the images used as icons are far more likely to be ones considered as 'everyday' than ones 'specifically produced'."


So indeed, "What next?"

What you need to realise here is that the people drafting these laws are very clever and know what buttons to push to manipulate people into supporting their agenda, which I dare say is quite different from your own.
The Maga images are not a matter of "what the paedo might like" it's wrong in that it depicts children in the sexual act. It's wrong no matter how you want to justify it no matter what other agenda you suspect the government may have.

I'm aware of the more subtle pics paedos like, I've said before there are pics of me as a kid around, I lived the abuse in those pics, even the suble ones were taken under duress and show an unhappy kid whose boob tube slipped unawares or like those of my sis, showing off the new knickers she just got ect

But hey, paedos have rights too, give them their wank fodder, because as you point out, they'll find it in the most innocent of images. Let's spoon feed them great big dollops of Manga porn on top!

Are there any non paedo types on here who do not find Manga's child porn offensive, and if so please explain the beauty you find in this art, cause I'm at a lose here.

Last edited by brainfreeze; 29-05-2009 at 11:42 AM.
brainfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 12:06 PM   #8
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
The Maga images are not a matter of "what the paedo might like" it's wrong in that it depicts children in the sexual act. It's wrong no matter how you want to justify it no matter what other agenda you suspect the government may have.
I completely disagree with the idea of banning drawings on the grounds that someone finds them "wrong" - or indeed of banning parents from filming their own children at school plays or prosecuting parents who have photographed their own baby daughter in a bathtub.

I also believe that David Irving should not be imprisoned simply for saying things about the Holocaust that most people find "wrong".

Quote:
I lived the abuse in those pics
And that goes to the heart of what all this is about. It seems to me that your buttons as a former abuse victim are being pushed by people with an agenda.

The "thin end of the wedge" that I was talking about is already happening in other things that the Common Purpose legislators behind these laws disapprove of. Are you aware of the restrictions on "extreme" porn that became law this year?

Under this new law, the following people are being criminalised:

*** the BDSM community (of which I am part, and this is where I come in on all of this) - an estimated 10% of the adult population, i.e. up to 4 million people (a newspaper survey found that around 50% of people had at sometime engaged in some form of BDSM activity)
*** the Goth community, members of which enjoy material featuring depictions of death that could easily be counted as pornographic under the proposed definition
*** people who own low-budget thrillers/horror films

And all because a woman who had a fetish for being strangled (Jane Longhurst) died at the hands of a serial killer. Obviously it was an extremely nasty business for her and her mother (who started the campaign to get this law passed) but I don't see why all the people listed above have to suffer because of it.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 29-05-2009 at 12:07 PM.
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 12:14 PM   #9
brainfreeze
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Love
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
I completely disagree with the idea of banning drawings on the grounds that someone finds them "wrong" - or indeed of banning parents from filming their own children at school plays or prosecuting parents who have photographed their own baby daughter in a bathtub.

I also believe that David Irving should not be imprisoned simply for saying things about the Holocaust that most people find "wrong".



And that goes to the heart of what all this is about. It seems to me that your buttons as a former abuse victim are being pushed by people with an agenda.

The "thin end of the wedge" that I was talking about is already happening in other things that the Common Purpose legislators behind these laws disapprove of. Are you aware of the restrictions on "extreme" porn that became law this year?

Under this new law, the following people are being criminalised:

*** the BDSM community (of which I am part, and this is where I come in on all of this) - an estimated 10% of the adult population, i.e. up to 4 million people (a newspaper survey found that around 50% of people had at sometime engaged in some form of BDSM activity)
*** the Goth community, members of which enjoy material featuring depictions of death that could easily be counted as pornographic under the proposed definition
*** people who own low-budget thrillers/horror films

And all because a woman who had a fetish for being strangled (Jane Longhurst) died at the hands of a serial killer. Obviously it was an extremely nasty business for her and her mother (who started the campaign to get this law passed) but I don't see why all the people listed above have to suffer because of it.
Is sex with a child ok?
brainfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 12:18 PM   #10
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
Is sex with a child ok?
No.

Should consenting adults who enjoy bdsm with each other be criminalised?
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 12:27 PM   #11
brainfreeze
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Love
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
No.

Should consenting adults who enjoy bdsm with each other be criminalised?
Then why is cartoon child porn - art - acceptable?

No, I don't believe consenting adults should be criminalised for any sexual act they indulge in.

Here's the thing, remember the consenting canibal case?

No, I do not believe we can consent to such extreems. In cases like that professional help is needed, they don't need to feed that kind of fetish.

Last edited by brainfreeze; 29-05-2009 at 12:34 PM.
brainfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 12:44 PM   #12
dusthead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Default

This is a pretty absurd matter isn't it?

I have no real desire to see the images in question. I can think of better ways to spend my time than reading through some nerdy comic containing images of child abuse.

However, the fact that someone has been arrested is pretty dumb. I don't see how they can get away with it. In order to successfully put this guy away for 15 years they will have to bring in new legislation that will make art an incredibly problematic legal matter - In terms of legislation, it would be an absolute nightmare.

I have a feeling some bright spark will eventually educate 'the powers that be' in order to avoid massive legal problems every time Marilyn Manson releases an album or Quentin Tarrantino releases a film.

They may get away with this - I'll be shocked and surprised if they do.

Last edited by dusthead; 29-05-2009 at 12:45 PM.
dusthead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 12:47 PM   #13
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
Then why is cartoon child porn - art - acceptable?
It does not involve sex with children. Unlike photographs of actual abuse, which obviously does involve sex with children.

You have a very genuine concern that such material will feed the fantasies of potential abusers who may develop into becoming actual abusers in the future.

My problem here is that this material in which no child has actually been harmed is being treated as identical to that in which children really have been harmed. This is logically absurd to me.

It would make more sense to me if possession of such material automatically flagged the perpetrator as someone to be monitored, maybe even taken into protective custody and made to undergo compulsory therapy.

As I say, it's he "thin end of the wedge" element that bothers me here, especially as much of it seems to come from Common Purpose.

Quote:
No, I don't believe consending adults should be criminalised for any sexual act they indulge in.
I'm pleased to hear it. The thing is that the thinking behind this legislation has been influenced considerably by the legislation on children. The politicians and civil servants involved were obsessed with "sending out messages on what is acceptable" (a classic Common Purpose phrase btw) and they were particularly encouraged by the way the legislation on children had moved from actual abuse to policing what was going on inside people's heads. They spoke approvingly of this quite a lot in the consultation documents.

It all makes me wonder who will they target next?

Quote:
Here's the thing, remember the consenting canibal case?
I remember it partially, but I'm not up on all the details.

Quote:
No, I do not believe we can consent to such extreems. In cases like that professional help is needed, they don't need to feed that kind of fetish.
I tend to veer more towards the laissez-faire side of the spectrum than the "we need protecting from ourselves" side. I have very little trust of the politicians who advocate the latter because of the way that trust has been so consistently abused over the years. But I wouldn't be so daft as to say nobody needs protecting from themselves, ever.

And for that matter, child molesters are vile scum who are not deserving of any sympathy, let me make that clear once and for all. My concern throughout this has been about the repercussions (whether intended or not) for the rest of us.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 12:59 PM   #14
rhydra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,828
Likes: 133 (70 Posts)
Default

I say it's a stepping stone because a paedophile won't go looking for rare Japanese magazines, he'll hang around a playground or befriend a single mother. It's just another way of controlling people. I don't like Manga personally, or depictions of violence, physical or sexual, it is, however, a very thin end of a very thick wedge and also done in a very clever way as anyone who brings attention to possible ramifications spreading further out will have to be treading on thin ice because of the material involved. Maybe one day when it's illegal to possess David Icke DVDs or books people will then wish that they had seen a little bit further than the immediate subject.
__________________
Man is a tool created by the Universe to mark time.
rhydra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 01:07 PM   #15
brainfreeze
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Love
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhydra View Post
I say it's a stepping stone because a paedophile won't go looking for rare Japanese magazines, he'll hang around a playground or befriend a single mother. It's just another way of controlling people. I don't like Manga personally, or depictions of violence, physical or sexual, it is, however, a very thin end of a very thick wedge and also done in a very clever way as anyone who brings attention to possible ramifications spreading further out will have to be treading on thin ice because of the material involved. Maybe one day when it's illegal to possess David Icke DVDs or books people will then wish that they had seen a little bit further than the immediate subject.
If not paedophiles, who is reading these Manga comics dipicting child sex?

I ask again, are there any non paedo types on here who do not find Manga's child porn offensive, and if so please explain the beauty you find in this art, cause I'm at a lose here.

Last edited by brainfreeze; 29-05-2009 at 01:08 PM.
brainfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 01:10 PM   #16
notthisshitagain
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: (˘⌣˘) At home, with my loved one! (˘⌣˘)
Posts: 5,337
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Damn! I have to be careful now then.. gotta erase that gun I drew... people will think that I'm trying to kill people now....
notthisshitagain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 01:12 PM   #17
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
If not paedophiles, who is reading these Manga comics dipicting child sex?

I ask again, are there any non paedo types on here who do not find Manga's child porn offensive, and if so please explain the beauty you find in this art, cause I'm at a lose here.
I've never even seen any of these pictures, nor would I have any interest in them, which is why I haven't commented on them.

My concern throughout is that this is getting in the territory of "thoughtcrime". Not so long ago, it was photographs of actual abuse. Now it's drawings based on someone's imagination. Where does it go next?
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 01:15 PM   #18
brainfreeze
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Love
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
I've never even seen any of these pictures, nor would I have any interest in them, which is why I haven't commented on them.

My concern throughout is that this is getting in the territory of "thoughtcrime". Not so long ago, it was photographs of actual abuse. Now it's drawings based on someone's imagination. Where does it go next?
Who do you think is reading the literature of child abuse?

It's perfectly legal to write fiction, and they do, it's all over the net, but never mind, we all have a right to express ourselves, right down to those who like to fuck children. No harm done, they're just words and drawings. It's not a matter of thought police, more common sense, which seems to have gone out the window.

Funny how the illuminati symbolism, hollywood movies and the music industry can affect those not in the know but images of sex abuse and liturature regarding it has absolutely no effect.

I don't get that either.

Last edited by brainfreeze; 29-05-2009 at 01:17 PM.
brainfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 01:29 PM   #19
darketernal
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I'm not certain he should be given a 15 year prison sentence... however illustrations of children being molested has no redeeming artist value. There at some point must be a line of what is art and what is too extreme, and this crosses that line. I have no problem with this being outlawed.

I know some will say, "yes but if this is banned what next?", however there should be some limits and this most definately is unacceptable.
darketernal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2009, 05:51 PM   #20
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
Who do you think is reading the literature of child abuse?

It's perfectly legal to write fiction, and they do, it's all over the net, but never mind, we all have a right to express ourselves, right down to those who like to fuck children. No harm done, they're just words and drawings. It's not a matter of thought police, more common sense, which seems to have gone out the window.
That's your viewpoint and you're entitled to it. I don't believe the people who are drafting these laws actually care about the children, you obviously think they do. There's no point in going round and round in circles about this.

Quote:
Funny how the illuminati symbolism, hollywood movies and the music industry can affect those not in the know but images of sex abuse and liturature regarding it has absolutely no effect.

I don't get that either.
Neither do I. I'm not a great believer in people being subliminally influenced by Illuminati symbolism, actually.

Nor do I get why anti-porn campaigners like Mary Whitehouse were able to sit through hours, days, months of porn without it affecting them, while being so certain that it would corrupt and deprave lesser mortals like us. The same goes for the policemen and lawyers who sit through hours and hours of porn.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
abuse, art, manga, police, porn

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.