Quote - > Quote - > Quote - It might also be worth remembering that a scene of a naked child getting ready / in the process of a bath falls under child pronography even if the scene itself is otherwise innocent in tone and depiction, especially when camera blocking or suds in the tub would cover enough of the child.

o.0 how on earth did that get into the topic?

That which is allowed or not and "implied but not seen."  In your OP, such an image might be allowed if the result is implied but not shown, as should a scene of a sufficiently covered child at bath time oppoed to a full frontal of a child standing next to the tub.

For example, the political considerations of showing an obviously British funeral with the pall bearers carrying a horizontal Port-A-Potty still might not be allowed, even if there was no actual poo.  "Implied but not seen."

oh no the poo is quite clear. very visible. no implied.

no port-a-potty though.....just maggy thatcher. OH and a flag....

 

and implied but not seen? that covers a WHOLE slew of things....I could go to random pictures in the gallery and go it IMPLIES she is going to have sex and there fore should be removed.

or it IMPLIES she is going to be nude and therefore her breasts would be bared in a pornographic way and there fore should be removed.

I think I shall post a ...black box.....that should be safe.

https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/

Commission Closed till 2025