Author Topic: NM (Read 1930673 times)

TAMU, Knower of Ball · « **Reply #10775 on:** November 10, 2021, 11:03:31 PM »

Dr. B, first, I'm pretty sure you just quoted Missouri state law which wouldn't apply to a case in Chicago. I'm also pretty sure 573.507 is a Missouri state law setting up standards for adult cabarets. I'm also pretty sure the law has since been repealed. None of this has anything to do with child pornography.

My comment about the breasts not being underaged was poking fun at you because I think you are mixing up child pornography with obscenity. Child pornography is videos, pictures, or digitally created images indistinguishable from a photograph (i.e. not paintings) of a nude minor or of a minor performing a sex act. Obscenity is many things but includes exposing a minor to pornography. In federal laws and I believe most state laws on obscenity, paintings do not qualify as pornography otherwise we'd have a lot of parents locked up after taking their kids to the local art museum.

Apologies to everyone for the weird rabbit hole. Knowing this stuff is an unfortunate hazard of my profession.

Hards Alumni · « **Reply #10776 on:** November 11, 2021, 06:11:20 AM »

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on November 10, 2021, 10:33:38 PM

"Definitions.
573.500. As used in sections 573.500 to 573.507, the following terms mean:

(2) "Nudity", the showing of either:

(a) The human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering; or

(b) The female breast with less than a fully opaque covering on any part of the nipple.

573.507 is the law against public display and sending a picture probably qualifies"

Posting of naked breasts, even if not of children, in a toddler play park is likely chargeable as child pornography. Just like if a player sends a picture of his Johnson to his teenage babysitter.

Of course responsible adults removed this. More so, the claim of art falls by the wayside by her sign wording. It is funny, and more so, she implicated herself with digital evidence in a potential crime.

Nope, you'd lose your court case 100 out of 100 times.

Look no further than absolutely zero people charging indecent exposure as child pornography.

And I think it is pretty funny how much we shy away from nipples. You can show an entire breast on television as long as the nipple is blurred out. 100% of humans have nipples. A country full of prudes.

Galway Eagle · « **Reply #10777 on:** November 11, 2021, 08:05:48 AM »

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 11, 2021, 06:11:20 AM

Nope, you'd lose your court case 100 out of 100 times.

Look no further than absolutely zero people charging indecent exposure as child pornography.

And I think it is pretty funny how much we shy away from nipples. You can show an entire breast on television as long as the nipple is blurred out. 100% of humans have nipples. A country full of prudes.

Insensitive to mastectomy patients

Hards Alumni · « **Reply #10778 on:** November 11, 2021, 08:10:31 AM »

Quote from: Galway Eagle on November 11, 2021, 08:05:48 AM

Insensitive to mastectomy patients

I should change it to 'have had at some point' but I know you're just yankin my chain.

Galway Eagle · « **Reply #10779 on:** November 11, 2021, 08:14:44 AM »

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 11, 2021, 08:10:31 AM

I should change it to 'have had at some point' but I know you're just yankin my chain.

Wow gonna ignore those with Athelia?

https://www.healthline.com/health/no-nipples

Hards Alumni · « **Reply #10780 on:** November 11, 2021, 08:18:47 AM »

Quote from: Galway Eagle on November 11, 2021, 08:14:44 AM

Wow gonna ignore those with Athelia?

https://www.healthline.com/health/no-nipples

I have a very specific prejudice.

The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole · « **Reply #10781 on:** November 11, 2021, 08:21:35 AM »

Dr. B thinks this is pornography too I bet.

TAMU, Knower of Ball · « **Reply #10782 on:** November 11, 2021, 08:42:59 AM »

I want to go on record as saying that I have no problem with people having a problem with that painting being posted at a park. I think that's a completely valid stance to have. I was just surprised by child pornography being brought up

Hards Alumni · « **Reply #10783 on:** November 11, 2021, 08:44:29 AM »

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 11, 2021, 08:42:59 AM

I want to go on record as saying that I have no problem with people having a problem with that painting being posted at a park. I think that's a completely valid stance to have. I was just surprised by child pornography being brought up

No no no, you're on this hill with me.

Galway Eagle · « **Reply #10784 on:** November 11, 2021, 09:50:01 AM »

Odd question but this got me wondering, to my knowledge a woman (or man for that matter) touching a man's chest is not considered sexual assault, but doing so to a woman is. Now TAMU maybe you could enlighten me to this subject? But it would seem that in order to fully embrace the idea that a woman's chest isn't sexual that you'd have to remove that sexual assault repercussion. But if you did remove that I think we can agree that there'd be a lot of chaos and inappropriate touching. So wouldn't it be more productive for safety & equality to consider male and female breasts sexual?

rocky_warrior · « **Reply #10785 on:** November 11, 2021, 10:36:35 AM »

JWags85 · « **Reply #10786 on:** November 11, 2021, 12:48:17 PM »

Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 11, 2021, 10:36:35 AM

nm

Thank you for keeping the thread on topic

The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole · « **Reply #10787 on:** November 11, 2021, 12:57:05 PM »

Quote from: Galway Eagle on November 11, 2021, 09:50:01 AM

Odd question but this got me wondering, to my knowledge a woman (or man for that matter) touching a man's chest is not considered sexual assault, but doing so to a woman is. Now TAMU maybe you could enlighten me to this subject? But it would seem that in order to fully embrace the idea that a woman's chest isn't sexual that you'd have to remove that sexual assault repercussion. But if you did remove that I think we can agree that there'd be a lot of chaos and inappropriate touching. So wouldn't it be more productive for safety & equality to consider male and female breasts sexual?

You don't have to touch genital areas to have it be considered sexual assault. Unwanted sexual contact could include me putting my hand on the small of a woman's back, or a woman (or man) touching my face, etc.

Miss Katie’s · « **Reply #10788 on:** November 15, 2021, 05:44:58 PM »

Does anyone remember the name of a bar that was next the Jes Res in the early 60s?

wildbillsb · « **Reply #10789 on:** November 15, 2021, 06:28:15 PM »

Quote from: Miss Katie’s on November 15, 2021, 05:44:58 PM

Does anyone remember the name of a bar that was next the Jes Res in the early 60s?

the Stratford?

warriorchick · « **Reply #10790 on:** November 16, 2021, 09:33:01 AM »

I just got on the scale after getting back from a 14-day cruise and only gained 2 pounds.

That's got to be some sort of world record, right?

Hards Alumni · « **Reply #10791 on:** November 16, 2021, 09:34:12 AM »

Quote from: warriorchick on November 16, 2021, 09:33:01 AM

I just got on the scale after getting back from a 14-day cruise and only gained 2 pounds.

That's got to be some sort of world record, right?

Norovirus?

warriorchick · « **Reply #10792 on:** November 16, 2021, 09:58:47 AM »

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 16, 2021, 09:34:12 AM

Norovirus?

If I had Norovirus, I would hope I would actually lose a little.

I am going to say it was pacing. I didn't eat and drink everything in sight as one is wont to do on those trips. Taking a few laps around the ship every day probably didn't hurt, either.

GooooMarquette · « **Reply #10793 on:** November 16, 2021, 07:39:17 PM »

Quote from: warriorchick on November 16, 2021, 09:58:47 AM

If I had Norovirus, I would hope I would actually lose a little.

I am going to say it was pacing. I didn't eat and drink everything in sight as one is wont to do on those trips. Taking a few laps around the ship every day probably didn't hurt, either.

You must be a good swimmer, hey?