Chinese FGs like F-cups

[Samurai_Jerk]

Here's another shocker. Most people I know, male or female, talk shit about other people's looks. It has nothing to do with how grown up a person is.

Well then you and your friends are not very pleasant people. Most of the people I like to hang around with are not bitchy...

I'm not talking about my friends. I'm talking about people around me. I hear it from classmates, coworkers, etc.

[sludge]

More Pics (Not Safe For Work):

[Ketou]

More Pics (Not Safe For Work):

Lol, the warning is a little too late isn't it?

EDIT: Oh THOSE pics!!

[canman]

That picture with the girl sitting under some lace curtains is really scary. She looks soooo young in the picture. In some of the others if you didn't know she was 11 years old, she could pass for someone a little older.
But what kind of magazine do these pics appear in. Is it a playboy type, or some other kind of teen magazine.
There was an interesting article in yesterday's Japan Times talking about some of the new girls magazines how they are full of stories about sex, and that they are quite graphic. I think one magazine was called Egg.

"Raunchy teen magazines that'll make daddy blush

By MARK SCHREIBER
Shukan Gendai (June 4)

Home alone one weekend afternoon, Mr. Suzuki wanders into his teenage daughter's room and spots a magazine named EGG on her dressing table. Cracking EGG open, he finds a "Special Section on Sex" whose headline reads, "Key studies into the missionary position, on top, and doggy style!"

Suzuki's eyes bulge from their sockets. His face reddens. Even before reaching sweet 16, his little girl appears to be prepping for her initiation into sex -- if she hasn't graduated already.

EGG, reports Shukan Gendai, is the most popular of about 10 magazines for teenage girls, with a circulation of around 300,000. While contents feature stories on hair styles and makeup, each issue incorporates a section on sex.

"According to reader surveys, it's the mag's first or second most popular section," says an EGG contributor. "Girls know that being skilled at sex is the best way to get the attention of boys they like. And the more graphic the stories, the better."

Among EGG's recent headlines were "The sexual world of men that women don't know. Part I: Erections" and "Ways to enjoy doing it in his car."

"Nuts" -- another teen zine (which sells 100,000) -- recently featured "I can't cook and hate cleaning, but I wanna get married! The complete shotgun wedding manual."

The June issue of "Ranzuki," (200,000 circulation) meanwhile, has "10 pieces of advice for when he sticks it in." (Examples: "Don't bellow out loud. No matter how good it feels, keep your voice down or you'll get a reputation for being a slut." And "Don't dig your nails into his back until he bleeds. But gentle pressure will excite him.")

There's little doubt girls' first sexual experiences are coming at an increasingly earlier age. A survey by the Federation of Nationwide High School PTA Committees issued last February noted that 15 percent of girls had become sexually active by their first year of high school, rising to 29 percent by the second year and 39 percent by the third.

But author Shoko Ieda, well known for her writings on sexual promiscuity in such works as "Yellow Cab," tells Shukan Gendai she thinks the magazines are overdoing it when it comes to sex.

"Perhaps readers won't accept magazines without raw language, but inexperienced girls might take in these stories at face value. Their reading of this stuff makes it easier for them to try it out. That's a problem."

Ieda also had some advice for distraught dads like Mr. Suzuki.

"Fathers these days have very little influence in the home," she says. "Since they do nothing to give girls correct information about the facts of life, girls turn to magazines for information. They should talk to their daughters, not delegate this only to mothers. They should be firm and tell them things they need to know."

As for the magazines, are they merely a symptom of what's happening, or a cause?

"Today's high-school girls, with their wealth of sexual experience, have a strong interest in sex," an editor at EGG tells Shukan Gendai. "They won't be satisfied with prissy contents. Our features on sex are based on conversations with them about their experiences. Since the stuff they submit to us is pretty wild, it can't be helped that they are so graphic.

"Anyway, we haven't received any telephone calls or written complaints from readers or their parents."

[katakori]

First of all, it's not porn]
she doesn't have to be. porn is sexually explicit material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. what is considered "explicit" varies with time and places and mindsets, but the purpose stays the same. 100 years ago, those pics would have been considered porn and so should they today. i am not debating about porn being a good thing or not, i am just saying if she is 11, she should be protected from abuse and her agent and her parents should not be allowed to let her be treated as a sexual object, IMHO.

Second, I doubt she's only eleven.

actually, me neither. wouldn't be the first japanese girl that is presented as being younger than she really is.

[sludge]

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

In Middle East you can not show your ankles, drink beer or look at porn, yet in the State it's OK.

In Bali, You get 20 years for possession of Pot, Yet in Canada it's not a problem.

Many countries you can drink at Any Age, yet in the USA you need to be 21.

And 11 year old Models in Japan seem to be OK.


I want to know who comes up with these Arbitrary Ages.
(not much different here than what you would see at your local public beach, and if you still think it is porn, You better Stay away from the beach)

[Socratesabroad]

i say she's learning an important lesson about the power of her beauty at an early age. she ought to use it while she has it. maybe she'll ugly up by the time she hits college (or junior high ).

If you weren't such a regularly-posting member, this would clearly be a clear attempt at trolling.

You said similar crap (i.e. "Fugly!") on the thread about the Nisei Week beauty queens.

When will you grow up and quit criticizing other people's looks?

First of all, I was only half serious when I posted that (thought there is definitely some truth to it). How was I critisizing her looks? I said she was cute. As for talking shit about the beauty queens, they are putting themselves up to be judges based on how they look. That makes them fair game, PERIOD!

I'll side with SJ. I thought his post was tongue-in-cheek and I took it so. But gkanai's berating is unwarranted, to say the least.

A 'beauty queen,' by virtue of the term itself, is open to criticism of appearance as much as a self-touting 'Ivy League grad' is open to critiques of intelligence. So if posters questioning the mental faculties of certain Ivy Leaguers aren't considered to be trolling, then neither is SJ. Similarly, do posters that ridicule the mental faculties of an Ivy Leaguer also need to 'grow up'? Hardly. They're impolitic perhaps, but not immature.

[GuyJean]

First of all, it's not porn]
she doesn't have to be. porn is sexually explicit material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal..

I think what I meant to say is 'she's not even nude'.. If you're 'sexually aroused' by looking at an 11 year old in a bikini, I guess it is porn for you.. One man's porn is another man's... daughter.

GJ

[AssKissinger]

Nice website sludge!

[FG Lurker]

[quote="GuyJean"]One man's porn is another man's... daughter. ]
Every man's porn is another man's daughter...

[This is a pen]

One man's porn is another man's... daughter. ]
Every man's porn is another man's daughter...

Even Gay Porn?
Now I am Confused!!

[FG Lurker]

One man's porn is another man's... daughter. ]
Every man's porn is another man's daughter...

Even Gay Porn?
Now I am Confused!!

I was going to add "hetro" in brackets, but I figured everyone would manage to figure out that much on their own. Guess I overestimated!

[katakori]

I think what I meant to say is 'she's not even nude'.. If you're 'sexually aroused' by looking at an 11 year old in a bikini, I guess it is porn for you..

i did understand. but that is my point precisely. you can't tell me these pics are meant for anything else.

(not much different here than what you would see at your local public beach, and if you still think it is porn, You better Stay away from the beach)

it is the intent that is a problem in this case (and many others). it is the same argument that has been put forward people who print kiddy porn as if it was photo albums from holiday at a nudist beach.

so, if it is ok to publish underage girls in bikini because that is how they are at the beach, it should be ok to publish even younger kids totally naked too, because that is often how you would see them at the beach, right?

again, it is a matter of perspective and purpose. you can't tell me these are normal pictures you would want to take of your daughter, while at the beach. neither can you tell me you would want strangers to see pictures of your girlfriend or wife wearing this and posing like this.

again, the comment about the "not safe for work" earlier. would you feel comfortable looking at an 11 year old girl in bikini when your boss/wife/mother suddenly comes into the room...?

just try to remember when you were 11. the whole idea is to protect fragile people from being abused. displaying a girl in sexually provocative poses and semi-nudity is "abuse".

n.b.: no one is saying girls in minority tribes should not get married at 11, but their culture and environment is not the same as ours and therefore we can only talk about what we can understand/related to (i apologize to all the anthropologists on the board).

[Socratesabroad]

n.b.: no one is saying girls in minority tribes should not get married at 11, but their culture and environment is not the same as ours and therefore we can only talk about what we can understand/related to (i apologize to all the anthropologists on the board).

Bollocks. Japan's a minority tribe in a global sense, i.e. one ethnic pop. largely limited to permanent residence in one area. So bollocks to the 'logic' of respecting minority tribes' customs and objecting to Japan's.

Katakori, you can assume the intent behind the making of the Irie photos and object to the photos on moral/philosophical grounds. Squash the photos, though, and you advocate action based not on evidence (the photos aren't illegal) but on intent as you divine it. Worse, you impose your moral views on others - so much for respecting the law, much less minority traditions.
In my view, imposing one's moral views on someone else isn't always wrong, but then again I'm not - as you are - trying to simultaneously argue that I'm unable to understand different cultures and environments and that I must respect their practices.

[dimwit]

One man's porn is another man's... daughter. ]
Every man's porn is another man's daughter...

Even Gay Porn?
Now I am Confused!!

I was going to add "hetro" in brackets, but I figured everyone would manage to figure out that much on their own. Guess I overestimated!

Well there are exceptions. One might add 'One man's porn is another man's grandmother' or for that matter 'One man's porn is another man's pet.'

[FG Lurker]

One man's porn is another man's... daughter. ]
Every man's porn is another man's daughter...

Even Gay Porn?
Now I am Confused!!

I was going to add "hetro" in brackets, but I figured everyone would manage to figure out that much on their own. Guess I overestimated!

Well there are exceptions. One might add 'One man's porn is another man's grandmother' or for that matter 'One man's porn is another man's pet.'

Even someone's grandmother is someone's daughter.

As for the pets.... I think I'll just leave that one alone.

[katakori]

i understand, but i disagree. i meant minorities in the sense of "minority", not nation, not ethnicity. by minorities, i meant small group of people that usually do not share enough of the main culture of a country for example. by minorities, i meant "the people who get married at 11 years old" as mentioned by someone else earlier. and not the fact that less than 50% of the world's population is japanese, which also means minority but not in the same sense.
in general, minorities are treated as an exception by the authorities of the countries they live in, because their lives are usually so different that the same rules cannot apply to them. generally speaking, they also have a declining population and a very young life expectancy. that is why i mentioned them as being exempted from the "child" thing when a girl gets married at 11.

unlike what your comment suggests, i am not trying to impose my view to japan or anyone else, i am just saying japan is very close to many western countries when it comes to legal protection of minors, and yet very far away when it comes to moral issues related to pornography. yet, just like in any country, if there is a law and you get around it, you are not a criminal, but you can't argue you are a virtuous person. the agent of this girl is scum. he knows it. you know it.

if not, please explain to me what other intent you might see behind these pictures, rather than arousal of men, and i will listen carefully as i am always looking at excuses to watch semi naked girls and pretend i am doing something else...

just to refresh your memory before you answer the previous point:




http://www.fuckedgaijin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8629
http://www.fuckedgaijin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8384
http://www.fuckedgaijin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6251
etc. etc.

i am not the one to say what japan (as a whole) should or shouldn't do. i just say there are laws here that are not being respected (in a general sense) and that the perverse effect of this is that people end up finding normal to see 11 year old girls in bikini in provocative pictures.

now, if all this still doesn't mean anything to you, let me just ask you how many guys you would like to see jerking off while watching a picture of your daughter (whatever her age) in bikini like the one above before you agree that this girl's agent is scum?

[Samurai_Jerk]

i am not the one to say what japan (as a whole) should or shouldn't do. i just say there are laws here that are not being respected (in a general sense) and that the perverse effect of this is that people end up finding normal to see 11 year old girls in bikini in provocative pictures.

There is nothing illegal about those pictures in Japan or even the US which is probably the strictest in its definition of child porn in the Western world. It's not even illegal to show girls under the age of 18 nude. Have you ever seen a Jock Sturges (sp?) photo book or the movies "Pretty Baby" or "American Beauty"? Brook shields was only about 12 when she did the nude scenes in "Pretty Baby" and Thora Birch was 16 when she did the topless scene in "American Beauty" (see below).



Naked Preteen Brooke in "Pretty Baby."

[Socratesabroad]

yet, just like in any country, if there is a law and you get around it, you are not a criminal, but you can't argue you are a virtuous person. the agent of this girl is scum. he knows it. you know it.

Scum maybe, but not a criminal.

if not, please explain to me what other intent you might see behind these pictures, rather than arousal of men, and i will listen carefully as i am always looking at excuses to watch semi naked girls and pretend i am doing something else...
i am not the one to say what japan (as a whole) should or shouldn't do. i just say there are laws here that are not being respected (in a general sense) and that the perverse effect of this is that people end up finding normal to see 11 year old girls in bikini in provocative pictures.

'Semi naked' 'girls in bikinis in provocative pictures'- what is this, the 1950s??? The girl's in a bathing suit. If bathing suits are too provocative for you, perhaps somewhere with sharia law would be best. I seem to recall that Nigeria had similar views on girls in provocative clothing...

[katakori]

is this inverted-trolling??

i am NOT saying this is illegal.
i am NOT saying bathing suit is too provocative.

i am saying those picture are not art, nor fashion, nor part of storyline in a movie.

they are made so that people feel aroused, and therefore it qualifies as "pornography" in the strict sense of the term.

and AGAIN, if you think i am too backward or old-fashioned or anything (but again, i am NOT talking about myself but rather semantics and legal issues), ask yourself if you would like your MOTHER to be taken in a picture similar to the one above, for some to jerk off.

or, if you find bathing suit so innocent on this girl, ask yourself what you would do to a stranger who comes and take a picture of your girlfriend's tits when you are at the beach and she's wearing a bathing suit...

if it is ok to wear bathing suit and showing provocative poses, why don't women go to buy groceries in their underwear? after all, a lot of them don't mind wearing the same amount of fabric while at the beach?

it is called CONTEXT.

so next thing you are going to tell me groping in trains should be ok because it is cultural. and they are not illegal because there is no penetration or something?? are you a lawyer or a perv??

[FG Lurker]

'Semi naked' 'girls in bikinis in provocative pictures'- what is this, the 1950s??? The girl's in a bathing suit. If bathing suits are too provocative for you, perhaps somewhere with sharia law would be best. I seem to recall that Nigeria had similar views on girls in provocative clothing...

The girl is being posed in provocative ways to display her body. Such poses are not natural for an 11 year old. Further, the resulting images are being marketed as those of an eleven year old with F-cup tits.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with young girls in bathing suits. It is the combination of her age, the posing, and the marketing of the resulting images that creates the problem.

[This is a pen]

is this inverted-trolling??
i am NOT saying this is illegal.
i am NOT saying bathing suit is too provocative.
i am saying those picture are not art, nor fashion, nor part of storyline in a movie.
they are made so that people feel aroused, and therefore it qualifies as "pornography" in the strict sense of the term.

I disagree

and AGAIN, if you think i am too backward or old-fashioned or anything (but again, i am NOT talking about myself but rather semantics and legal issues), ask yourself if you would like your MOTHER to be taken in a picture similar to the one above, for some to jerk off.

1st I doubt anyone would jerk off to my mother's picture.
2nd I can not be responsible for what other's do. Especially when what they are looking at is PERFECTLY LEAGAL.

Someone could look at this Pic (Below) and get all excited about it,
If they do is it now Porn??

Some could even make the argument that this is too provocative.
(Katakori You might want to close your eyes)

or, if you find bathing suit so innocent on this girl, ask yourself what you would do to a stranger who comes and take a picture of your girlfriend's tits when you are at the beach and she's wearing a bathing suit...

Different Issue?? If my girlfriend had said it was OK to take the pictures, Like this girl did, then I would say no problem.

if it is ok to wear bathing suit and showing provocative poses, why don't women go to buy groceries in their underwear? after all, a lot of them don't mind wearing the same amount of fabric while at the beach?

1st Perhaps often it's too cold
2nd I have seen girls in groceries stores and Thought nothing of it.
(Perhaps you have some pedophile issues you need to deal with.)

so next thing you are going to tell me groping in trains should be ok because it is cultural. and they are not illegal because there is no penetration or something? are you a lawyer or a perv??

Your Comparison is Irrational. One Is Violating someone.
The other is a girl who has chosen to take some pics while wearing a bathing suit.

Bottom Line is someone with a Healthy Mind can look at pictures like this and even think the girl is good looking. It does not mean they are pedophiles or looking at porn and jerking off to it.

And for those of you with Sick minds, Well.........seek help.

[katakori]

(Perhaps you have some pedophile issues you need to deal with.)

yeah ok.

[FG Lurker]

Different Issue?? If my girlfriend had said it was OK to take the pictures, Like this girl did, then I would say no problem.

Your girlfriend is (hopefully) older than eleven and therefore better able to comprehend the possible results of her decisions. This is why most societies have "age of consent" laws, minimum ages for smoking, driving, drinking, voting...

Bottom Line is someone with a Healthy Mind can look at pictures like this and even think the girl is good looking. It does not mean they are pedophiles or looking at porn and jerking off to it.

These pictures are not being marketed towards people with healthy minds. That is the core of the problem.

Someone with a "healthy mind" should look at those pictures and think, "Fuck, even if she has the body of an adult she is too young to be posed and marketed in that way."

[Socratesabroad]

is this inverted-trolling??

No. It's disagreeing with someone who's taken a very narrow view of something. The fact that more than one person disagrees with you should not be surprising.

i am saying those picture are not art, nor fashion, nor part of storyline in a movie.
they are made so that people feel aroused, and therefore it qualifies as "pornography" in the strict sense of the term.

It qualifies neither as pornography neither in a legal sense nor in a common (English) sense.

Pornography: n. Material (such as writings, photographs, or movies) depicting sexual activity or erotic behavior in a way that is designed to arouse sexual excitement. Pornography is protected speech under the First Amendment unless it is determined to be legally obscene.

No sexual activity in the photos thus far nor are the photos legally obscene.

OED2 refers to pornography as depicting the behavior/actions of prostitutes, so it's out.

pornography
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction *the pornography of violence*

Again, pornography causes sexual excitement through sexual activity or erotic behavior. As far as I've seen, nary a photo of the young lass showed either. Unless cavorting about in a swimsuit is now to be considered 'erotic.'

and AGAIN, if you think i am too backward or old-fashioned or anything (but again, i am NOT talking about myself but rather semantics and legal issues), ask yourself if you would like your MOTHER to be taken in a picture similar to the one above, for some to jerk off.

If you're talking about semantics and legal issues, I'd suggest you try something else.
1) the photos are legal
2) activity in the photos is not indecent or explicitly sexual
3) the photos are not 'pornography' in any sense of the word

or, if you find bathing suit so innocent on this girl, ask yourself what you would do to a stranger who comes and take a picture of your girlfriend's tits when you are at the beach and she's wearing a bathing suit...

Different legal issues.
1) Parental approval required in Irie's case because she's a minor - not just for photos but any business dealing
2) The photos are consented to, not an invasion of privacy

Your girlfriend is (hopefully) older than eleven and therefore better able to comprehend the possible results of her decisions. This is why most societies have "age of consent" laws, minimum ages for smoking, driving, drinking, voting...

Yes, and this is why minors have parents or legal guardians.

if it is ok to wear bathing suit and showing provocative poses, why don't women go to buy groceries in their underwear? after all, a lot of them don't mind wearing the same amount of fabric while at the beach?

Again, different legal issues.
1) It is OK buy groceries in bathing suits
In Hawaii, people often walk straight from the beach into McD's, ABC stores, whatever. No concern over 'provocative' clothing. You may, however, be required to wear shoes.
2) Total nudity raises issues more of public order and hygiene than morality
Thus, nude beaches and resorts do legally exist and are not outlawed as 'immoral.'

so next thing you are going to tell me groping in trains should be ok because it is cultural. and they are not illegal because there is no penetration or something?? are you a lawyer or a perv??

Once again, different legal issues.
1) The person being groped has not given legal consent to be fondled.
Feigned 'groping' of someone of legal age who has consented to the act, however, is perfectly legal.
2) There's a huge legal step between viewing legal material and sexually violating someone's person

And, no, I'm neither a lawyer nor a 'perv.' But I am someone who likes to exercise my legally protected rights.