Eewwwwwwwwww! I was looking up sample photo quality...

[Deja Q]

Of digital SLR cameras...

http://www.pbase.com/image/25237575

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

[Blue-Jay]

1. That's very disturbing.

What kind of person thought that would be a good idea? Some sick fuck, no doubt.

ugh

[Don_G]

2. Post It In The Free Republic

With Agent Mike's phone number and e-mail address. :evilgrin:

[Xithras]

3. Now, why would someone do that?

It's not pornographic (pedophilic?), but it's too suggestive to be cute either. Flipping wierdo's.

[RC]

4. That picture is so terrible

that you had to share it? My response is "So what, it's just another picture of a kid among others."

The sickness I see is with some of the responses here.

If I would have come across this web site on my own, I would not have thought anything bad about any of it. It's just another picture. The RW prudes have corrupted this country.

[Deja Q]

5. OMG, now we're all repuke prudes! The USA has been far more prude though.

Sorry, but that picture IS suggestive, and in a very tacky way. You'd often see adult women (and men) pose in adult mags like this. But toddlers?!

Parents might think it's cute, but others might get the wrong impression. (the guy who did it is a professional photographer, but still...)

Also, look at the US's history in terms of prudiness. There was a time when showing ankles was a sin - just think of how they'd react to that photo now! :-)

[Blue-Jay]

6. It's a naked kid with a feather boa!

I'm no prude, by any means, but that oversteps the limits of good taste. It's not like a cute baby butt picture that all of our mom's have. It's dumb, not cute, not artistic, and I'm sick for thinking that?

Would you take a picture of your kid (assuming you have one) in a get-up like that? I certainly hope not.

[bratcatinok]

9. That's your opinion and

you're entitled to it I suppose.

I don't like the picture because it shows a 3-4 year old girl vamping with only a red feather boa on. There's nothing prudish or rightwing with thinking it's inappropriate for a toddler to be encouraged to pose for sexually provocative pictures. And yes, it could be sexually provocative to a pedophile.

Furthermore, it's posted on the Internet where anyone can have access to it.

[RC]

10. And you don't seem to have a problem that it is linked here

so more people can see it?

[bratcatinok]

14. And your point is?

You were the one who had no problem with the picture and made the comment about RW corruption.

Please don't put words in my mouth. My previous post didn't address whether I had a problem or not with the picture being linked here so I'm unsure where you came up with your question.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Not quite as sick....

as the entire industry of dressing up eight year old girls in hooker chic for prepubescent beauty contests.

[Tom Kitten]

8. sometimes ya just gots to wonder

what kinda thought process makes a person go "yeah this is a good idea"
now excuse me gotta go pick up the kids!

[qwertyMike]

11. Jeezus

Doesn't anyone see this shit?
Naked girlchild.
Red boa.

Padering pedophile

[DS1]

12. I don't much care for the pictures, but the fact that he thinks he has

'skillz' with Photoshop is the most frightening part :puke: :thumbsdown:

[Reciprocity]

13. The person who did this is sick.

Child Pornography
Child pornography is material that visually depicts children (real children as well as computer-generated depictions of children) under the age of eighteen engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity, including lewd exhibition of the genitals. Child pornography laws were recently amended to include computerized images or altered (morphed) pictures of children, and counterfeit or synthetic images generated by computer that appear to be of real minors or that were marketed or represented to be real child pornography (legal definition).
http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/porndefinitions.htm