This photograph is definitely different in it’s nature, and even though there could be some question about the actual age of Sonja-Maria, she is unquestionably post-pubescent, whereas Brooke was not. That plus the heavily applied make-up on Brooke, the obviously staged posing, the non-family photographer, etc.
I’m curious about what has happened over the last year. The posting of Brooke Shields has 500+ comments, and this one has none. Well, one now. I for one intend to continue stopping in and enjoying the photos, history lessons, and commentary.
http://www.Mansturbate.Blogspot.com hardcore chat room, hardcore chats, free chat rooms, free chat room, free chat, adult chat, gay chat, online chat, free sex chat, free adult chat, live chatTube site,chat, chat rooms, chat room, sex chats, sex chat rooms, sex chat, free sex chat, hardcore chat,, single chat, lesbian chat, chat site, sex chat rooms, voice chat, webcam chat, web cam chat, cam chat, video chat, voice sex chat, webcam sex chat, cam sex chat, video sex chat, voice sex chat, bdsm, swingers, transexual, shemale, role playing, roleplaying, flirting,live cams,sex cams,sex chat,live sex,teen sex chat,shemale webcam, live sex chat,nude webcams, free nude cams,nude web cam,aiwomen,big tits,tranny webcams,adult chat,teens,teen sex pics,adult cam,lesbian webcam,dating,shemale sex,tranny webcam,dildo cam,videos chat,blacks cams,latinas cams tube,voyeur webcam,sluts dating,gangbang porn,facials sex,oral webcam,bisexual webcam,butts sex,orgy cams,blow,tubewebcam rooms, webcam girls,webcam chat,sex cam,sexcams,webcam sex,
This girl looks more like a woman age 28 to 32, and it’s not pornographic because there’s no sexual whatever going on in the picture and a US judge said that the controversial pictures of Brooke Shields as a child nude was not pornographic because there was no sexual whatever going on in the pictures, which is correct by us standards!!! Which was the decision write down in the early 1980s, so what are the rules nowadays is up in the air so to speak!
i need your sex vedio
[…] Sonja in Her Bath […]
I think it’s a lovely picture. Not in a sexual sense, but aesthetically. I don’t see anything sexual or paedophiliac about it.
[…] the other hand, two photos I would consider almost equal in their intrusions into familial privacy (here, here) had different fortunes here on this blog, as they would in the real life too. Popularity of […]
It’s the old belgium pedophile network again.
want photo sexy nice
this the usa freedome is what we got its not like she was sucking his dick and she was so what thay are sick in head
My God, you must be the dumbest son of a bitch ever. Freedome? Please tell me your stupid ass hasn’t contributed to society’s gene pool. For fuck’s sake, how do you spell ‘freedom’ and ‘they’ wrong in the first place???? Besides the fact that THERE IS FUCKING SPELL CHECK ON THIS PAGE, you inbred moron!!!!!!!
wow dude chill — damn —
Oh wow. A photo of a naked child and the worst comment on here is a spelling nazi.
This photo is not a museum or gallery material. This should just had stayed within mom-daughter’s album, not even to be seen by any male family. If they were good photographers enough, what need to be covered should had been covered. Why did not use the nearest soap suds to cover those pubic hairs? The state of the bathroom itself is nothin but scatter, sorry to say that. Comparing to Brooke Shields similar photo, this one did not leave any imagination… Brooke’s except for her being underage and screaming foul later in life, everything there was beautiful, the scenery and the pose, wherein what needed to be silhouetted was silhoutted. Come on people, if that part of suds is move a little lower to the right, it could be more prettier and has a little mystery left. Now that is what art and beauty is, not all given, should had left some imagination for the audience.
Yeah the bathroom is a bit of a scatter. Otherwise nothing wrong with the photo. Soap suds and hair leave plenty to the imagination. Not every photo needs to be carefully thought out to be artistic as it then just becomes unnatural.
The author here alludes to the interesting way in which British Law addresses “Obscene Publications”. Apparently, from what I’ve read, it’s all based on context…a lewd or sexually explicit photograph might be legally deemed as such if it stands alone, but if it is part of a museum exhibit or collection, it may be considered completely legal and acceptable. I’m pretty wary of anyone who considers a photo of an under-18 nude woman as “art” (i.e. the Brooke Shields photos), but I think it’s interesting and thought-provoking how the subject of this photo came out and essentially scolded people for extrapolating a sexual connotation from it. As far as censorship goes: I’m more of a writer/reader than a visual artist, but anytime I hear of a book being formerly or currently banned, it makes me want to read it SO MUCH MORE.
http://www.Mansturbate.Blogspot.com Tube site,chat, chat rooms, chat room, sex chats, sex chat rooms, sex chat, free sex chat, hardcore chat, hardcore chat room, hardcore chats, free chat rooms, free chat room, free chat, adult chat, gay chat, online chat, free sex chat, free adult chat, live chat, single chat, lesbian chat, chat site, sex chat rooms, voice chat, webcam chat, web cam chat, cam chat, video chat, voice sex chat, webcam sex chat, cam sex chat, video sex chat, voice sex chat, bdsm, swingers, transexual, shemale, role playing, roleplaying, flirting,live cams,sex cams,sex chat,live sex,teen sex chat,webcam rooms, webcam girls,webcam chat,sex cam,sexcams,webcam sex,shemale webcam, live sex chat,nude webcams, free nude cams,nude web cam,aiwomen,big tits,tranny webcams,adult chat,teens,teen sex pics,adult cam,lesbian webcam,dating,shemale sex,tranny webcam,dildo cam,videos chat,blacks cams,latinas cams tube,voyeur webcam,sluts dating,gangbang porn,facials sex,oral webcam,bisexual webcam,butts sex,orgy cams,blow,tube
send me similar photos, very interested inn these subject, TY
Broooke’s mom Terry gave her permission for the photos and the way everything turned out it might have been the gutiest move of its kind ever concieved since it skyrocked Brooke’s career. The publice has kept her in their minds from that point on. Would I as a parent done the same? NO! But I think it was a calculated move (the movie Prettyy Baby) to spark her daughters acting career and there is no denying it worked.
Nudity is not pornographic, tis only the human body.
Brooke, painted up and posed, crosses that threshold, imo..
I really do not see anything pornographic about this image. Bathing is a normal routine.
Reblogged this on prettymangaandanime and commented:
Another Controversy. another mold breaker.
It is quite sad that the links are now Impossible to go to..
Sexual organs are sexual, and the public display of sexuality is pornographic. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Well I just zoomed the pic up to 400. There is some hair but you can only see her sex organs in your imagination – no porn here.
I disagree with both Matthew and ..mySe..
First of all, pubic hair can’t exist without sex organs – so they are an extension of the sex organs. And many people find pubic hair as arousing as the sex organs.
So that’s the wrong approach.
But why should it even matter whether this photo is sexual or not?
There is nothing evil about erotic stuff.
As for Matthew, I disagree that this is pornographic.
“Display of sexuality” or “pornographic” to me means the act of having sex -by any kind of penetration, including masturbation. This image involves no penetration. Otherwise if we are talking about seduction then even hair,make-up or perfumes can be considered pornographic
Why this over the top reaction with underage nudity is beyond my comprehension.
Pre-pubescent children should not have sex. We can all agree to that.
BUT if it is only a nude picture, then nobody is having sex. So why the fuss?
Not to mention, this girl Sonja, no matter what her numerical age is – is clearly post pubescent.
For me, there is no problem even if she has sex.
As for nudity – to bare yourself in-front of someone is an act of love towards that person.
When you don’t hide anything and present yourself in full – you prove that you have complete trust over that person. Trust – there can be no bigger proof of love than that.
There is nothing wrong with this picture. Anyone who sees anything porn in this picture, sees their own imagination, what is not in the picture. She wanted the photo, she wanted to show to the people. Her mother made this photo and she also wanted to show to the people. Because it’s art. If you think the body of a girl between the age of 6 to 17 is a sinful thing, something to hide, something to deny, which should be ashamed, the problem is with you. If YOU don’t want to see it, it’s okay, so don’t watch it. It’s simple. Peace and tolerance.
Iconic Photos 
Interesting.
This photograph is definitely different in it’s nature, and even though there could be some question about the actual age of Sonja-Maria, she is unquestionably post-pubescent, whereas Brooke was not. That plus the heavily applied make-up on Brooke, the obviously staged posing, the non-family photographer, etc.
I’m curious about what has happened over the last year. The posting of Brooke Shields has 500+ comments, and this one has none. Well, one now. I for one intend to continue stopping in and enjoying the photos, history lessons, and commentary.
http://www.Mansturbate.Blogspot.com hardcore chat room, hardcore chats, free chat rooms, free chat room, free chat, adult chat, gay chat, online chat, free sex chat, free adult chat, live chatTube site,chat, chat rooms, chat room, sex chats, sex chat rooms, sex chat, free sex chat, hardcore chat,, single chat, lesbian chat, chat site, sex chat rooms, voice chat, webcam chat, web cam chat, cam chat, video chat, voice sex chat, webcam sex chat, cam sex chat, video sex chat, voice sex chat, bdsm, swingers, transexual, shemale, role playing, roleplaying, flirting,live cams,sex cams,sex chat,live sex,teen sex chat,shemale webcam, live sex chat,nude webcams, free nude cams,nude web cam,aiwomen,big tits,tranny webcams,adult chat,teens,teen sex pics,adult cam,lesbian webcam,dating,shemale sex,tranny webcam,dildo cam,videos chat,blacks cams,latinas cams tube,voyeur webcam,sluts dating,gangbang porn,facials sex,oral webcam,bisexual webcam,butts sex,orgy cams,blow,tubewebcam rooms, webcam girls,webcam chat,sex cam,sexcams,webcam sex,
This girl looks more like a woman age 28 to 32, and it’s not pornographic because there’s no sexual whatever going on in the picture and a US judge said that the controversial pictures of Brooke Shields as a child nude was not pornographic because there was no sexual whatever going on in the pictures, which is correct by us standards!!! Which was the decision write down in the early 1980s, so what are the rules nowadays is up in the air so to speak!
i need your sex vedio
[…] Sonja in Her Bath […]
I think it’s a lovely picture. Not in a sexual sense, but aesthetically. I don’t see anything sexual or paedophiliac about it.
[…] the other hand, two photos I would consider almost equal in their intrusions into familial privacy (here, here) had different fortunes here on this blog, as they would in the real life too. Popularity of […]
It’s the old belgium pedophile network again.
want photo sexy nice
this the usa freedome is what we got its not like she was sucking his dick and she was so what thay are sick in head
My God, you must be the dumbest son of a bitch ever. Freedome? Please tell me your stupid ass hasn’t contributed to society’s gene pool. For fuck’s sake, how do you spell ‘freedom’ and ‘they’ wrong in the first place???? Besides the fact that THERE IS FUCKING SPELL CHECK ON THIS PAGE, you inbred moron!!!!!!!
wow dude chill — damn —
Oh wow. A photo of a naked child and the worst comment on here is a spelling nazi.
This photo is not a museum or gallery material. This should just had stayed within mom-daughter’s album, not even to be seen by any male family. If they were good photographers enough, what need to be covered should had been covered. Why did not use the nearest soap suds to cover those pubic hairs? The state of the bathroom itself is nothin but scatter, sorry to say that. Comparing to Brooke Shields similar photo, this one did not leave any imagination… Brooke’s except for her being underage and screaming foul later in life, everything there was beautiful, the scenery and the pose, wherein what needed to be silhouetted was silhoutted. Come on people, if that part of suds is move a little lower to the right, it could be more prettier and has a little mystery left. Now that is what art and beauty is, not all given, should had left some imagination for the audience.
Yeah the bathroom is a bit of a scatter. Otherwise nothing wrong with the photo. Soap suds and hair leave plenty to the imagination. Not every photo needs to be carefully thought out to be artistic as it then just becomes unnatural.
The author here alludes to the interesting way in which British Law addresses “Obscene Publications”. Apparently, from what I’ve read, it’s all based on context…a lewd or sexually explicit photograph might be legally deemed as such if it stands alone, but if it is part of a museum exhibit or collection, it may be considered completely legal and acceptable. I’m pretty wary of anyone who considers a photo of an under-18 nude woman as “art” (i.e. the Brooke Shields photos), but I think it’s interesting and thought-provoking how the subject of this photo came out and essentially scolded people for extrapolating a sexual connotation from it. As far as censorship goes: I’m more of a writer/reader than a visual artist, but anytime I hear of a book being formerly or currently banned, it makes me want to read it SO MUCH MORE.
http://www.Mansturbate.Blogspot.com Tube site,chat, chat rooms, chat room, sex chats, sex chat rooms, sex chat, free sex chat, hardcore chat, hardcore chat room, hardcore chats, free chat rooms, free chat room, free chat, adult chat, gay chat, online chat, free sex chat, free adult chat, live chat, single chat, lesbian chat, chat site, sex chat rooms, voice chat, webcam chat, web cam chat, cam chat, video chat, voice sex chat, webcam sex chat, cam sex chat, video sex chat, voice sex chat, bdsm, swingers, transexual, shemale, role playing, roleplaying, flirting,live cams,sex cams,sex chat,live sex,teen sex chat,webcam rooms, webcam girls,webcam chat,sex cam,sexcams,webcam sex,shemale webcam, live sex chat,nude webcams, free nude cams,nude web cam,aiwomen,big tits,tranny webcams,adult chat,teens,teen sex pics,adult cam,lesbian webcam,dating,shemale sex,tranny webcam,dildo cam,videos chat,blacks cams,latinas cams tube,voyeur webcam,sluts dating,gangbang porn,facials sex,oral webcam,bisexual webcam,butts sex,orgy cams,blow,tube
send me similar photos, very interested inn these subject, TY
Broooke’s mom Terry gave her permission for the photos and the way everything turned out it might have been the gutiest move of its kind ever concieved since it skyrocked Brooke’s career. The publice has kept her in their minds from that point on. Would I as a parent done the same? NO! But I think it was a calculated move (the movie Prettyy Baby) to spark her daughters acting career and there is no denying it worked.
Nudity is not pornographic, tis only the human body.
Brooke, painted up and posed, crosses that threshold, imo..
I really do not see anything pornographic about this image. Bathing is a normal routine.
Reblogged this on prettymangaandanime and commented:
Another Controversy. another mold breaker.
It is quite sad that the links are now Impossible to go to..
Sexual organs are sexual, and the public display of sexuality is pornographic. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Well I just zoomed the pic up to 400. There is some hair but you can only see her sex organs in your imagination – no porn here.
I disagree with both Matthew and ..mySe..
First of all, pubic hair can’t exist without sex organs – so they are an extension of the sex organs. And many people find pubic hair as arousing as the sex organs.
So that’s the wrong approach.
But why should it even matter whether this photo is sexual or not?
There is nothing evil about erotic stuff.
As for Matthew, I disagree that this is pornographic.
“Display of sexuality” or “pornographic” to me means the act of having sex -by any kind of penetration, including masturbation. This image involves no penetration. Otherwise if we are talking about seduction then even hair,make-up or perfumes can be considered pornographic
Why this over the top reaction with underage nudity is beyond my comprehension.
Pre-pubescent children should not have sex. We can all agree to that.
BUT if it is only a nude picture, then nobody is having sex. So why the fuss?
Not to mention, this girl Sonja, no matter what her numerical age is – is clearly post pubescent.
For me, there is no problem even if she has sex.
As for nudity – to bare yourself in-front of someone is an act of love towards that person.
When you don’t hide anything and present yourself in full – you prove that you have complete trust over that person. Trust – there can be no bigger proof of love than that.
There is nothing wrong with this picture. Anyone who sees anything porn in this picture, sees their own imagination, what is not in the picture. She wanted the photo, she wanted to show to the people. Her mother made this photo and she also wanted to show to the people. Because it’s art. If you think the body of a girl between the age of 6 to 17 is a sinful thing, something to hide, something to deny, which should be ashamed, the problem is with you. If YOU don’t want to see it, it’s okay, so don’t watch it. It’s simple. Peace and tolerance.
[…] See a similar controversy here. […]
[…] See a similar controversy here. […]