A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Just for a treat
Just for a treat  [message #71090] Sun, 14 February 2016 17:38 Go to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13756



Obviously, tumblr being tumblr, this blog will be nuked at some point. Until then I thought you might like to see the endless variety of acoutrements shown, especially if you were raised in the USA, Israel, or an Islamic nation.

While the view may be unfamiliar to some of you, you know the device is convertible, just like a soft top car. The heady joy of lowering the roof and revelling in the fresh air has to be experienced!

[Updated on: Sun, 14 February 2016 17:39]




Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Just for a treat  [message #71093 is a reply to message #71090] Sun, 14 February 2016 20:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Smokr is currently offline  Smokr

Likes it here
Location: the burning former USofA
Registered: July 2010
Messages: 399



OH... my... gosh!
Best... blog... ever!
Some of the most incredibly adorable guys I've ever seen!



raysstories.com
Re: Just for a treat  [message #71094 is a reply to message #71093] Sun, 14 February 2016 22:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13756



Quote:
Smokr wrote on Sun, 14 February 2016 20:42OH... my... gosh!
Best... blog... ever!
Some of the most incredibly adorable guys I've ever seen!

--
I expect it will be nuked soon. Until then, apart from their faces being handsome, and their bodies excellent, it makes a very good anatomy lesson.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Just for a treat  [message #71095 is a reply to message #71094] Mon, 15 February 2016 00:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
James Matthews is currently offline  James Matthews

Toe is in the water
Location: United Kingdom
Registered: May 2015
Messages: 93



I debated posting anything in this thread because people are well aware of my feelings on these sorts of images and need not want to hear them again, however Just a word of warning before everyone gets too excited, and yeah old stick in the mud Westcliff is back again. These guys are clearly under 18 and if for any reason they are found on your hard drive you can expect to be arrested and possibly serve time.

Since anyone with basic computer knowledge will know, if your eyes can see the pictures on the screen, you hard drive has them. (even if you delete them using military approved deletion software)

Some people campaign for the banning of battery eggs. I campaign for the banning of these sorts of pictures. Timmy, I am a guest on your site. I consider you a cyber friend and you do as you please on your own site of course, but sometimes I think some of the content on here or linked to is close to and sometimes over the mark and I hope I am allowed the freedom to express my opposition to them as others are to express their opinions in favour.

Below is some light reading that may perhaps focus the mind. If you don't wish to read boring text in law speak then fine, I'll put it in simple terms - Those pictures on that blog are almost certainly illegal and the law says that anyone viewing them will be held to account if found to have done so.

Section 1 Protection of Children Act 1978Section 1(1) of the PCA 1978[/font-size] creates a number of offences and has been given a wide interpretation by the courts. See Relevant Case Law below. These are either way offences with a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years if convicted on indictment.For an offence under section 1 of the PCA 1978 the prosecution has to prove:
  • That the defendant deliberately and/or knowingly either made, took, or permitted to be taken, distributed or showed indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or possessed them with a view to their being distributed or shown, published or caused to be published an advertisement for indecent photographs.
  • The photograph or pseudo-photograph was indecent. In both section 1 of the PCA 1978 and section 160 of the CJA 1988 a photograph includes an indecent film, or a copy of a photograph or film, or computer data capable of conversion into a photograph. See section 7(4) of the PCA 1978 and section 160(4) of the CJA 1988.

"Quote:"
Whether any photograph of a child is indecent is for the jury or magistrate or District Judge to decide based on what is the recognised standard of propriety. R v Stamford [1972] 2 Q.B. 391. The circumstances and motive of the defendant are not relevant to the question of indecency, although they may be relevant to the question of whether the photograph was deliberately taken or made, R v Graham-Kerr 88 Cr App R 302 CA; R v Smethurst [2002] 1 Cr App R 6, CA.

  • The photograph or pseudo-photograph was of a "child" section 7(6) of the PCA 1978.  On the 1 May 2004, the definition of a child was altered from a person under the age of 16 years to one under the age of 18 years by section 45(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The age of a child is ultimately for the jury to determine. It is a finding of fact for the jury, and expert evidence is inadmissible on the subject, since it is not a subject requiring the assistance of experts R v Land [1998] 1 Cr App R 301, CA. See also section 2(3) of the PCA 1978.

[Updated on: Mon, 15 February 2016 00:34] by Moderator

Re: Just for a treat  [message #71096 is a reply to message #71095] Mon, 15 February 2016 10:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13756



It is well to remind us of that. The lads appear, to me, to be over 18. To you they appear under it. I think it is not as cut and dried as you state, but I am not going to have an age argument over it.

The link is here to show a pleasing trend, that of the uncircumcised male nude in this genre rather than the circumcised one which was ubiquitous online 20 years ago. None of those on that blog appear to be erect, so that can be qualified, rather like the pictures by Otto Lohmuller, as art. Art is awkward, though. The statue of David is art. David was, probably, under 18, David is naked. Other art of naked sub 18 year olds is judged as pornography. Most is judged as art.

[Updated on: Mon, 15 February 2016 14:15]




Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Just for a treat  [message #71097 is a reply to message #71096] Mon, 15 February 2016 11:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark

Likes it here
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 276



To me, it's borderline as to their ages.  Most of then look easily around the age of 18 to me, although I realize that may not mean a whole lot.  When I was a youth, I always looked 2-3 years older than I actually was.  I've also known people for whom the opposite was true.  I heard of a court case in the U.S. a while back where a man was on trial for possession of kiddie porn, for having some porno movies starring a French female who looked to be around age 14 (and, if memory serves me correctly, was often portrayed as such in the movies).  His lawyer was actually able to procure a "Not Guilty" verdict in the case case by flying the "girl" in to testify and having her show proper, official identification demonstrating that she was actually 19 (and thus legal) at the time the movies in question were made.  So while it's certainly good to remember to be careful about what we view on-line, it's also important to remember that looks can sometimes be deceiving.
Re: Just for a treat  [message #71099 is a reply to message #71097] Mon, 15 February 2016 14:58 Go to previous message
The Gay Deceiver is currently offline  The Gay Deceiver

Really getting into it
Location: Canada
Registered: December 2003
Messages: 869




Ironic this... my thoughts were not so much with the relative age of the youths in the photos (although now that it has been summarily drawn to my attention, a few could definitely be under the age of 18, especially the backwards reclining youngster with no evidence of any pubic hair development at all and not because of shaving or waxing either); but, rather with the theme of the Blog itself which purports to exhibit under-endowed youths, where clearly the greater majority of those shown are of average or better size by any scale of measurement I would ever have used, and do employ.

Too, the site owner has snuck in the occasional circumcised youth just for comparison purposes I'm sure.




"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
Previous Topic: The Seven Deadly Sins of Gilligan's Island
Next Topic: How many of these have you done?
Goto Forum: