At what point does posting candid pictures on a fetish site become creepy?

[chicago]

Ok, you find it creepy in your opinion. But why would a random picture of you eating an ice cream cone be considered "creepy"? What is creepy about it?

The creepiness factor lies in the fact that the photographer takes the picture without permission and then takes that picture and posts it online. The creepiness lies in the fact that it's done in secret as to not "get caught."

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Children are in an entirely different category altogether. What applies to kids doesn't necessarily apply to adults. If you want to argue that it should be illegal to post candid picture's of women's feet, you'll need to find some other line of "logic" by which to make your point. I'm not at all comfortable discussing kids at all on an adult fetish site, and I'm certainly not going to get into the completely off-topic discussion of posting kiddie pictures. Just to be clear, I'll be ignoring any further references to children.

I never said it should be illegal to post candid pictures of women’s feet. The one you posted above I have no problems with because the woman’s identity is protected. If it were to include her face, that would be a different story because I don’t think that would be fair that her identity is being passed around on a fetish site without her knowledge. I agree that what applies to children doesn’t necessarily apply to adults to a certain point, like the inability to give consent. But an adult can’t give consent if there is no opportunity to give consent, and just like it’s not fair to sexualize children because they don’t know what’s going on, it’s also not fair to sexualize an adult who doesn’t know what’s going on and may not be okay with the idea of being sexualized for a particular site.

 

[primetime]

The creepiness factor lies in the fact that the photographer takes the picture without permission and then takes that picture and posts it online. The creepiness lies in the fact that it's done in secret as to not "get caught."

Then you must feel the same way about ALL candid photos, whether they are on sexually-oriented websites, television shows etc or non-sexually oriented media. That means anyone taking any candid photos to "enhance" their media site is creepy. So whether you have a food lover who takes shots of people eating at various eateries for the simple concept of discussing the food itself must be creepy. You must mean each and every "candid" shot must have an interaction with the people in the photos and get their permission, even though they are not using it for commercial (make money) use.

How do you know ANY websites you visit where there are candid, random pictures of people on it, the photographer got their permission? You would be creeped out with every single site like that? If so, more power to you. You must get creeped out a lot then....

This whole "creepiness" thing is based on the eye of the beholder. The question is, is it the action of taking the picture itself, or the intent behind it if it is a sexual one?

 

[chicago]

If a picture is taken of someone without their knowledge or consent, I think that's wrong, no matter the purpose. Mores if the photographer is worried about "getting caught" and takes step to avoid such.

 

[primetime]

Which goes back to my question. Is it taking the candid picture itself, or the "intent" behind it? It really is splitting hairs and it comes down to someone's own viewpoint. A person taking a photo of someone eating an ice cream cone may or may not be thinking "I don't want to get caught", they are just taking a photo because they want to put it on their site for discussion. They are not even thinking twice about it.

If you want to consider the "intent" of the photo being on a sexual site for sexual gratification purposes as "creepy", then I have no issue with it. But the same thing can happen with people taking photos of women's feet in public. He may not be thinking "what if I get caught?" he could be thinking only about how he will enjoy seeing it on his site. It really is splitting hairs.

 

[TJDoom]

The one thing that is getting conveniently ignored in the justification attempts is the consideration of another human being. Everything else is desperately trying to be flipped in some way, but that is getting glossed over. Why is that? At some point if you're taking huge amounts of candids for sexual gratification, you decide it's worth any consequences or disgruntled subjects.

Yes, this is a fetish site, but does that mean throw basic kindness and consideration out the window in the name of desire? That isn't eye of the beholder. The arguments deep within maybe, but you're making a choice that has consequences and risks and deciding it's worth it at somebody else's expense. If you like it, ok, but call it what it is.

It's not like people have uncannily weak stomachs here or in the fetish community. Cuckolding is certainly niche yet you're still dealing with consenting adults. Couples sharing stories and pictures get permission from those in the pics (even just body parts) to post them anywhere. They could just as well decide, "Screw that I'm getting MINE," but they mostly don't out of? Consideration.

 

[chicago]

I'm just saying that's how I perceive it. If the phto was just about ice cream, the photographer wouldn't be so worried about getting caught doin something wrong. If it was innocent, why not just ask to take the pic?

 

[rhiannon]

Also, you're like the biggest prude of the forum, and I am surprised to hear you talk about doing modelling. You come off like someone who lives alone with a bunch of cats arguing on the internet because you have no friends and nothing better to do.

If you equal being considerate of others feelings with being prudish, that is your call.
But I indeed do modeling, I am allergic to cats, married and have plenty of friends - probably BECAUSE I am considerate of other people's feelings. 🙂

 

[voided9]

I have nothing to contribute to this thread except that rhiannon is awesome.

 

[chicago]

I have nothing to contribute to this thread except that rhiannon is awesome.

I concur.

 

[smokinj]

I never said it should be illegal to post candid pictures of women’s feet. The one you posted above I have no problems with because the woman’s identity is protected. If it were to include her face, that would be a different story because I don’t think that would be fair that her identity is being passed around on a fetish site without her knowledge.

This is what I'm saying, if you are taking pics of women's feet and can't see her face there is absolutely nothing wrong with it IMO. She has NO idea her feet are being 'used' so to speak, the person taking the picture is covert about it and we can all go back to our hum-drum lives as if nothing happened. I still don't see the problem with it.

 

[TJDoom]

What if a hospital nurse had a foot fetish and attended to coma patients? What if said person took some pics in a way that you couldn't make out where it was? They could throw on a bracelet or some nice shoes to snap some photos. No big deal. They have no idea it's going on.

 

[chicago]

If all you can see is feet, how do you know they're not attached to a child?

 

[Filthyweasel]

OK this is from half a thread ago but I don't visit often. Kinda smug that my thread is still going strong. Anyways, the post this came from was mainly just stale piss, picking apart and analyzing sentence-by-sentence (I should be flattered) a post I wrote within a few minutes, and coming to to some of the most dipshit conclusions speculating about my personality that I've ever seen. I'll ignore most, but THIS made me laugh.

Actually, it seems clear to me that the OP to this thread and others like it are mostly campaign ads for guys wanting to be in with the in crowd. But hey, if that's what you want, go for it. I've never involved myself in fetish gatherings. For me, I find far more potential in everyday people. Most of them are not so hung up on the morals of tickling. Excuse me, the "etiquette" of tickling.

Mate, do you know me? Like at all? You likely wouldn't, since I've been going to gatherings since '09 and people know me well enough just fine. I've never tried to 'get in' with anyone. I went to hang out and socialize with new people, and that's something I've never needed to 'try' to do. I just do it and make friends, it's not hard. A little secret: there is no 'in-crowd' - there are only the people who think there is because they were ignored for being a jackass or a creeper, and they invent the 'in-crowd' idea to justify their own actions and butthurt - a clique that has some kind of draconian membership standards. They never blame themselves, only those who shut them out, who just happen to be a majority and a cross-section of all walks of life. However, in finding 'far more potential in everyday people' that would mean that you have actually been to a gathering or munch, met fellow tickle enthusiasts and managed to actually come to the conclusion that one is better than the other. But as you said you've 'never involved yourself with that'. So where does the comparison come from? Basically that entire statement just cancelled itself out as you wiffling and waffling about something that you know jack-shit about, and that's not me speculating anything about you...you proved it in your own words - you can read them, they're an inch and a half above these words. Now, I personally have no problems at all with everyday people, seeing as how kinksters are also everyday people, but I still get what you mean. Every vanilla girlfriend I ever had knew about what 'I find sexy' right from the getgo. They never had a problem with it, and they had fun. So did I as a matter of fact, but playing with someone like that utterly *pales* in comparison to playing with someone who is actually into it too. There is completely no contest in the level of connection, total freedom of attitude and openness of expression you have in doing what you love with another tickle enthusiast, finding out their variations on doing what you love, and exploring both together. You wouldn't know this of course, and you admitted as much, but that didn't stop you from drawing a comparison in the *next sentence*.

Oh and I've seen you now more than once harken back to my statement that if you can creep out a BDSMer then you're the problem. I stand by that and really, it's quite funny reading what you say to try and justify against it, going as far as poking fun at it in some silly mock situational roleplay post later on. Try justifying that point of view when you've got a DM tossing you out on your arse for something as small as personal space violation at a BDSM play party. One rule that always comes up in the kink world, whether it's taking pictures or inappropriate touching: don't do shit without asking first, to anyone, anywhere. Your screenname is quite appropriate I must say. Sums up the most utterly wrong and frowned-at philosophy in the tickle community in 4 words.

 

[Dr. Vollin]

The one thing that is getting conveniently ignored in the justification attempts is the consideration of another human being. Everything else is desperately trying to be flipped in some way, but that is getting glossed over. Why is that? At some point if you're taking huge amounts of candids for sexual gratification, you decide it's worth any consequences or disgruntled subjects.

Yes, this is a fetish site, but does that mean throw basic kindness and consideration out the window in the name of desire? That isn't eye of the beholder. The arguments deep within maybe, but you're making a choice that has consequences and risks and deciding it's worth it at somebody else's expense. If you like it, ok, but call it what it is.

It's not like people have uncannily weak stomachs here or in the fetish community. Cuckolding is certainly niche yet you're still dealing with consenting adults. Couples sharing stories and pictures get permission from those in the pics (even just body parts) to post them anywhere. They could just as well decide, "Screw that I'm getting MINE," but they mostly don't out of? Consideration.

This might be the best post in this thread; I was thinking along just the same lines as I read it all.

As far as the ice cream eating analogy: I wouldn't find a picture like that "creepy", but that doesn't mean I'd appreciate it or shrug it off. It's not about intent; it's all about the act. No matter how the picture is used, it was still taken without my knowledge, and I wouldn't care for that at all. It doesn't come down to whether the picture is used for sexual purposes or for something more innocent. It does come down to the word TJDoom used; consideration for others, which seems to be a foreign concept to some. Why the need to take such a picture without asking first, when that would take only a few seconds?

 

[chicago]

OK this is from half a thread ago but I don't visit often. Kinda smug that my thread is still going strong. Anyways, the post this came from was mainly just stale piss, picking apart and analyzing sentence-by-sentence (I should be flattered) a post I wrote within a few minutes, and coming to to some of the most dipshit conclusions speculating about my personality that I've ever seen. I'll ignore most, but THIS made me laugh.



Mate, do you know me? Like at all? You likely wouldn't, since I've been going to gatherings since '09 and people know me well enough just fine. I've never tried to 'get in' with anyone. I went to hang out and socialize with new people, and that's something I've never needed to 'try' to do. I just do it and make friends, it's not hard. A little secret: there is no 'in-crowd' - there are only the people who think there is because they were ignored for being a jackass or a creeper, and they invent the 'in-crowd' idea to justify their own actions and butthurt - a clique that has some kind of draconian membership standards. They never blame themselves, only those who shut them out, who just happen to be a majority and a cross-section of all walks of life. However, in finding 'far more potential in everyday people' that would mean that you have actually been to a gathering or munch, met fellow tickle enthusiasts and managed to actually come to the conclusion that one is better than the other. But as you said you've 'never involved yourself with that'. So where does the comparison come from? Basically that entire statement just cancelled itself out as you wiffling and waffling about something that you know jack-shit about, and that's not me speculating anything about you...you proved it in your own words - you can read them, they're an inch and a half above these words. Now, I personally have no problems at all with everyday people, seeing as how kinksters are also everyday people, but I still get what you mean. Every vanilla girlfriend I ever had knew about what 'I find sexy' right from the getgo. They never had a problem with it, and they had fun. So did I as a matter of fact, but playing with someone like that utterly *pales* in comparison to playing with someone who is actually into it too. There is completely no contest in the level of connection, total freedom of attitude and openness of expression you have in doing what you love with another tickle enthusiast, finding out their variations on doing what you love, and exploring both together. You wouldn't know this of course, and you admitted as much, but that didn't stop you from drawing a comparison in the *next sentence*.

Oh and I've seen you now more than once harken back to my statement that if you can creep out a BDSMer then you're the problem. I stand by that and really, it's quite funny reading what you say to try and justify against it, going as far as poking fun at it in some silly mock situational roleplay post later on. Try justifying that point of view when you've got a DM tossing you out on your arse for something as small as personal space violation at a BDSM play party. One rule that always comes up in the kink world, whether it's taking pictures or inappropriate touching: don't do shit without asking first, to anyone, anywhere. Your screenname is quite appropriate I must say. Sums up the most utterly wrong and frowned-at philosophy in the tickle community in 4 words.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

What if a hospital nurse had a foot fetish and attended to coma patients? What if said person took some pics in a way that you couldn't make out where it was? They could throw on a bracelet or some nice shoes to snap some photos. No big deal. They have no idea it's going on.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

None whatsoever.

If all you can see is feet, how do you know they're not attached to a child?

Well you see, the photographer can actually see more than what ends up in the picture. He does this with a special power called looking up from the camera.

 

[chicago]

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

None whatsoever.

Well you see, the photographer can actually see more than what ends up in the picture. He does this with a special power called looking up from the camera.

Well you see, I was referring to what others said about there being nothing wrong with posting the picture if the picture didn't have a person's face. So when others, who do not know the story behind the picture, or who the feet belong to, happen up on it, and fap to their heart's content, how do they know those feet are not attached to a child?

 

[Dr. Vollin]

OK this is from half a thread ago but I don't visit often. Kinda smug that my thread is still going strong. Anyways, the post this came from was mainly just stale piss, picking apart and analyzing sentence-by-sentence (I should be flattered) a post I wrote within a few minutes, and coming to to some of the most dipshit conclusions speculating about my personality that I've ever seen. I'll ignore most, but THIS made me laugh.



Mate, do you know me? Like at all? You likely wouldn't, since I've been going to gatherings since '09 and people know me well enough just fine. I've never tried to 'get in' with anyone. I went to hang out and socialize with new people, and that's something I've never needed to 'try' to do. I just do it and make friends, it's not hard. A little secret: there is no 'in-crowd' - there are only the people who think there is because they were ignored for being a jackass or a creeper, and they invent the 'in-crowd' idea to justify their own actions and butthurt - a clique that has some kind of draconian membership standards. They never blame themselves, only those who shut them out, who just happen to be a majority and a cross-section of all walks of life. However, in finding 'far more potential in everyday people' that would mean that you have actually been to a gathering or munch, met fellow tickle enthusiasts and managed to actually come to the conclusion that one is better than the other. But as you said you've 'never involved yourself with that'. So where does the comparison come from? Basically that entire statement just cancelled itself out as you wiffling and waffling about something that you know jack-shit about, and that's not me speculating anything about you...you proved it in your own words - you can read them, they're an inch and a half above these words. Now, I personally have no problems at all with everyday people, seeing as how kinksters are also everyday people, but I still get what you mean. Every vanilla girlfriend I ever had knew about what 'I find sexy' right from the getgo. They never had a problem with it, and they had fun. So did I as a matter of fact, but playing with someone like that utterly *pales* in comparison to playing with someone who is actually into it too. There is completely no contest in the level of connection, total freedom of attitude and openness of expression you have in doing what you love with another tickle enthusiast, finding out their variations on doing what you love, and exploring both together. You wouldn't know this of course, and you admitted as much, but that didn't stop you from drawing a comparison in the *next sentence*.

Oh and I've seen you now more than once harken back to my statement that if you can creep out a BDSMer then you're the problem. I stand by that and really, it's quite funny reading what you say to try and justify against it, going as far as poking fun at it in some silly mock situational roleplay post later on. Try justifying that point of view when you've got a DM tossing you out on your arse for something as small as personal space violation at a BDSM play party. One rule that always comes up in the kink world, whether it's taking pictures or inappropriate touching: don't do shit without asking first, to anyone, anywhere. Your screenname is quite appropriate I must say. Sums up the most utterly wrong and frowned-at philosophy in the tickle community in 4 words.

Well you see, the photographer can actually see more than what ends up in the picture. He does this with a special power called looking up from the camera.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on any forum. You've really outdone yourself here.

 

[Filthyweasel]

Well you see, the photographer can actually see more than what ends up in the picture. He does this with a special power called looking up from the camera.

Uhhh...does everyone else? Like perhaps the people that the photographer decides to show the pictures to? On the fetish site? That is, you know, the whole gist of the thread.

A person who uses sarcasm also has a special power, it's called wit. So please stop trying to be sarcastic, about anything. Ever.

 

[seanwoj]

OK this is from half a thread ago but I don't visit often. Kinda smug that my thread is still going strong. Anyways, the post this came from was mainly just stale piss, picking apart and analyzing sentence-by-sentence (I should be flattered) a post I wrote within a few minutes, and coming to to some of the most dipshit conclusions speculating about my personality that I've ever seen. I'll ignore most, but THIS made me laugh.



Mate, do you know me? Like at all? You likely wouldn't, since I've been going to gatherings since '09 and people know me well enough just fine. I've never tried to 'get in' with anyone. I went to hang out and socialize with new people, and that's something I've never needed to 'try' to do. I just do it and make friends, it's not hard. A little secret: there is no 'in-crowd' - there are only the people who think there is because they were ignored for being a jackass or a creeper, and they invent the 'in-crowd' idea to justify their own actions and butthurt - a clique that has some kind of draconian membership standards. They never blame themselves, only those who shut them out, who just happen to be a majority and a cross-section of all walks of life. However, in finding 'far more potential in everyday people' that would mean that you have actually been to a gathering or munch, met fellow tickle enthusiasts and managed to actually come to the conclusion that one is better than the other. But as you said you've 'never involved yourself with that'. So where does the comparison come from? Basically that entire statement just cancelled itself out as you wiffling and waffling about something that you know jack-shit about, and that's not me speculating anything about you...you proved it in your own words - you can read them, they're an inch and a half above these words. Now, I personally have no problems at all with everyday people, seeing as how kinksters are also everyday people, but I still get what you mean. Every vanilla girlfriend I ever had knew about what 'I find sexy' right from the getgo. They never had a problem with it, and they had fun. So did I as a matter of fact, but playing with someone like that utterly *pales* in comparison to playing with someone who is actually into it too. There is completely no contest in the level of connection, total freedom of attitude and openness of expression you have in doing what you love with another tickle enthusiast, finding out their variations on doing what you love, and exploring both together. You wouldn't know this of course, and you admitted as much, but that didn't stop you from drawing a comparison in the *next sentence*.

Oh and I've seen you now more than once harken back to my statement that if you can creep out a BDSMer then you're the problem. I stand by that and really, it's quite funny reading what you say to try and justify against it, going as far as poking fun at it in some silly mock situational roleplay post later on. Try justifying that point of view when you've got a DM tossing you out on your arse for something as small as personal space violation at a BDSM play party. One rule that always comes up in the kink world, whether it's taking pictures or inappropriate touching: don't do shit without asking first, to anyone, anywhere. Your screenname is quite appropriate I must say. Sums up the most utterly wrong and frowned-at philosophy in the tickle community in 4 words.

Just had to say I agree with this guy totally.

 

[primetime]

You know what's hilarious? Annie included an animated shot of people cheering. Now, was each and every person in those shots approached and told to sign a release of consent of their "image"? Isn't that "creepy" what she did?

Also, look at this picture.....



This picture comes from this webpage: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/secret-of-annoying-crowds-reveal.html

Do you think every single one of these people were approached by the photographer and asked to sign a release waiver? Nope. But the photographer took a photo of these people without their knowledge, without their consent. So, is the photographer and sciencemag.org a bunch of creepy people for dare posting the images of people on their site? According to some of you, it would be defined as "creepy".

The point I am trying to make that just because a photo is taken and put on a website, does not mean it is creepy. It is your own personal viewpoint that makes it "creepy". I understand if you feel that way, and you are not wrong in feeling that way. But don't consider every single instance of a candid picture "creepy".

 

[smokinj]

If all you can see is feet, how do you know they're not attached to a child?

Chance I'm willing to take, besides it would be clear if it was a 'child' and less clear if she's almost 18.

 

[chicago]

You know what's hilarious? Annie included an animated shot of people cheering. Now, was each and every person in those shots approached and told to sign a release of consent of their "image"? Isn't that "creepy" what she did?

Also, look at this picture.....

View attachment 358462

This picture comes from this webpage: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/secret-of-annoying-crowds-reveal.html

Do you think every single one of these people were approached by the photographer and asked to sign a release waiver? Nope. But the photographer took a photo of these people without their knowledge, without their consent. So, is the photographer and sciencemag.org a bunch of creepy people for dare posting the images of people on their site? According to some of you, it would be defined as "creepy".

The point I am trying to make that just because a photo is taken and put on a website, does not mean it is creepy. It is your own personal viewpoint that makes it "creepy". I understand if you feel that way, and you are not wrong in feeling that way. But don't consider every single instance of a candid picture "creepy".

Personally, I would be upset if I was in that picture and it was posted without my knowledge / consent, for whatever reason. However, it wasn't posted to a fetish site until you used it to prove a point. Unfortunately, the title and topic of this thread deals with those candid pictures that are taken and posted on a fetish site for sexual gratification.

Sorry if I turned you on with my applause. That was not my intent because that would be creepy.

Chance I'm willing to take, besides it would be clear if it was a 'child' and less clear if she's almost 18.

Would it really be that clear? I was taller than the average female by the time I was 12. Don't think you could tell the difference between my 12 year old feet and my feet now.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

OK this is from half a thread ago but I don't visit often. Kinda smug that my thread is still going strong. Anyways, the post this came from was mainly just stale piss, picking apart and analyzing sentence-by-sentence (I should be flattered) a post I wrote within a few minutes, and coming to to some of the most dipshit conclusions speculating about my personality that I've ever seen.

Wow, I've heard for a long time that old adage that "the truth hurts." Now I'm finally seeing what people mean by that. It certainly confirms pretty much all my speculations.

Mate, do you know me?

I know your location says Pennsylvania, yet you try to come off as sounding British. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a transplanted Brit and not just trying to talk like them. You know, like Madonna.

However, in finding 'far more potential in everyday people' that would mean that you have actually been to a gathering or munch, met fellow tickle enthusiasts and managed to actually come to the conclusion that one is better than the other.

LOL. Jesus Christ, dude you read a lot into that small phrase of mine. Even though you've already decided what I meant by that, I'll tell you anyway. I meant potential to hang with on a regular basis. Potential to go for fun things like tickling, movies, pool parties, guitar jams, and cracking jokes. I wasn't implying that those who go to gatherings aren't capable of such things, as you seem determined to interpret that way. Gatherings are scarce and far away and involve travel and hotels and you see the people a couple two three times a year. And if that's your bag, baby, go for it. I certainly won't get all knackered over it. But for me, there's much more potential for closer, longer-lasting, more intimate friendships with regular everyday people.

But as you said you've 'never involved yourself with that'. So where does the comparison come from? Basically that entire statement just cancelled itself out as you wiffling and waffling about something that you know jack-shit about, and that's not me speculating anything about you...you proved it in your own words - you can read them, they're an inch and a half above these words. Now, I personally have no problems at all with everyday people, seeing as how kinksters are also everyday people, but I still get what you mean. Every vanilla girlfriend I ever had knew about what 'I find sexy' right from the getgo. They never had a problem with it, and they had fun. So did I as a matter of fact, but playing with someone like that utterly *pales* in comparison to playing with someone who is actually into it too. There is completely no contest in the level of connection, total freedom of attitude and openness of expression you have in doing what you love with another tickle enthusiast, finding out their variations on doing what you love, and exploring both together. You wouldn't know this of course, and you admitted as much, but that didn't stop you from drawing a comparison in the *next sentence*.

LOL. It's hilarious the things you think you know about me. I'm not Hugh Heffner by a long shot, but I've had AWESOME relationships with women who share not only the same love of tickling, but of music, technology, politics, humor, nostalgia, etc. And I can tell you that the relationships you describe that are based on tickling alone utterly pale in comparison. There's so much more to share in life besides tickling, but you wouldn't know this of course, as you've admitted as such.

Your screenname is quite appropriate I must say. Sums up the most utterly wrong and frowned-at philosophy in the tickle community in 4 words.

Why thank you. On the same token, I find your screen name is equally appropriate, and perfectly sums up your say-anything-to-impress-the-ladies approach.

Well you see, I was referring to what others said about there being nothing wrong with posting the picture if the picture didn't have a person's face. So when others, who do not know the story behind the picture, or who the feet belong to, happen up on it, and fap to their heart's content, how do they know those feet are not attached to a child?

So...you're suggesting that a foot fetishist who has likely been observing female feet his entire life, can't distinguish a child's foot from an adult? As long as the feet look like those of an adult, they'll likely be satisfied to just assume they are what they appear to be, until given reason to assume otherwise.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on any forum. You've really outdone yourself here.

Perhaps, but I've a long way to go to outdo you!

Uhhh...does everyone else? Like perhaps the people that the photographer decides to show the pictures to? On the fetish site? That is, you know, the whole gist of the thread.

LOL. Whatever you say there, Casanova. I could have sworn the whole gist of this thread was taking candid shots and posting them. Not the age verification techniques of those who view them.

A person who uses sarcasm also has a special power, it's called wit.

LOL. Sorry to bust your bubble, but I've seen a lot of glaring exceptions to THAT rule. When one resorts to things like bogus sarcasm code tags, it's time to reconsider the effectiveness of one's sarcasm.