
12 31 year-old Fatima pushing the boundaries a bit here, flaunting the curvature of her breasts and even letting a hint of bra poke through. Don't worry, Duk - she'll be getting 20 lashes tonight for this one!
Moderator: Community Team

To be fair, I reported those pics because of the pornographic nature, not because of the age in question. I somewhat agree with GabonX. It is very difficult to see the difference between certain ages. Personally I'm against posting early teenagers, but not late teenagers. The difference between those two is usually clear. The latter it's nigh impossible to differentiate from people in their 20's, especially when you're talking about asians.Dukasaur wrote:I would advise you not to do that.mrswdk wrote:Why were my pictures deleted?
Will repost more once I'm posting from my laptop again. If Sym is allowed to fill this thread with men, I am allowed to post pictures of a girl's face.
You were very lucky that KA decided to let you go with a warning. Next time it will be a ban.
Like I said, you were very lucky to get off with a warning. Don't push your luck.
- Posting a picture of someone who is obviously engaged in coitus is pornographic, even if the point of insertion is not shown.
- The pained expression and the degrading logo attached to the picture clearly implied that it was some kind of abusive sex, possibly even non-consensual, which makes it the worst kind of exploitation porn.
- The age of the model can't be stated with certainty, but she certainly looked under age, so it may have been criminally actionable.
Hot damn.mrswdk wrote:
Luckily the only thing that's smouldering about this lovely lady is her eyes. Don'tcha just love em!
Did you report the rest of this thread or just those two posts?waauw wrote:To be fair, I reported those pics because of the pornographic nature, not because of the age in question. I somewhat agree with GabonX. It is very difficult to see the difference between certain ages. Personally I'm against posting early teenagers, but not late teenagers. The difference between those two is usually clear. The latter it's nigh impossible to differentiate from people in their 20's, especially when you're talking about asians.Dukasaur wrote:I would advise you not to do that.mrswdk wrote:Why were my pictures deleted?
Will repost more once I'm posting from my laptop again. If Sym is allowed to fill this thread with men, I am allowed to post pictures of a girl's face.
You were very lucky that KA decided to let you go with a warning. Next time it will be a ban.
Like I said, you were very lucky to get off with a warning. Don't push your luck.
- Posting a picture of someone who is obviously engaged in coitus is pornographic, even if the point of insertion is not shown.
- The pained expression and the degrading logo attached to the picture clearly implied that it was some kind of abusive sex, possibly even non-consensual, which makes it the worst kind of exploitation porn.
- The age of the model can't be stated with certainty, but she certainly looked under age, so it may have been criminally actionable.
Actually only one of those two posts.mrswdk wrote:Did you report the rest of this thread or just those two posts?waauw wrote:To be fair, I reported those pics because of the pornographic nature, not because of the age in question. I somewhat agree with GabonX. It is very difficult to see the difference between certain ages. Personally I'm against posting early teenagers, but not late teenagers. The difference between those two is usually clear. The latter it's nigh impossible to differentiate from people in their 20's, especially when you're talking about asians.Dukasaur wrote:I would advise you not to do that.mrswdk wrote:Why were my pictures deleted?
Will repost more once I'm posting from my laptop again. If Sym is allowed to fill this thread with men, I am allowed to post pictures of a girl's face.
You were very lucky that KA decided to let you go with a warning. Next time it will be a ban.
Like I said, you were very lucky to get off with a warning. Don't push your luck.
- Posting a picture of someone who is obviously engaged in coitus is pornographic, even if the point of insertion is not shown.
- The pained expression and the degrading logo attached to the picture clearly implied that it was some kind of abusive sex, possibly even non-consensual, which makes it the worst kind of exploitation porn.
- The age of the model can't be stated with certainty, but she certainly looked under age, so it may have been criminally actionable.
The one with the burka duh.mrswdk wrote:Ohh, kinky. Which was the one you liked?
This sort of reminds me of some people's reactions to gay marriage. Then, of course, people were trying to argue that it would lead to paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, etc. Dumbass fear mongering, but some people were adamant.waauw wrote:To be fair, I reported those pics because of the pornographic nature, not because of the age in question. I somewhat agree with GabonX. It is very difficult to see the difference between certain ages. Personally I'm against posting early teenagers, but not late teenagers. The difference between those two is usually clear. The latter it's nigh impossible to differentiate from people in their 20's, especially when you're talking about asians.Dukasaur wrote:I would advise you not to do that.mrswdk wrote:Why were my pictures deleted?
Will repost more once I'm posting from my laptop again. If Sym is allowed to fill this thread with men, I am allowed to post pictures of a girl's face.
You were very lucky that KA decided to let you go with a warning. Next time it will be a ban.
Like I said, you were very lucky to get off with a warning. Don't push your luck.
- Posting a picture of someone who is obviously engaged in coitus is pornographic, even if the point of insertion is not shown.
- The pained expression and the degrading logo attached to the picture clearly implied that it was some kind of abusive sex, possibly even non-consensual, which makes it the worst kind of exploitation porn.
- The age of the model can't be stated with certainty, but she certainly looked under age, so it may have been criminally actionable.

OMG, mutant!Symmetry wrote:
The first two season were awesome. Don't judge me.Symmetry wrote:Lol- you watch Heroes.

Huh?warmonger1981 wrote:Boo that man.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsZTFSfXaw
You know you can just use the youtube function? Just place everything after the 'v=' between the brackets.warmonger1981 wrote:Boo that man.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsZTFSfXaw

Isn't that one of the guys from 'Running man'?mrswdk wrote:Jong Kook: