• NudeCelebForum has been moved from the vBulletin to the XenForo platform.
    For additional information, see: NCF Moved To XenForo
  • New threads will not be visible until approved by a moderator.

  • Welcome to the forum!
    You must activate your account in order to post and view all forum content
    Please check your email inbox & spam folders for our activation email, then follow the link to validate your email address.
    Contact Us if you are having difficulty posting or viewing forum content.
  • You are viewing our forum as a guest, with limited access.
    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
    Membership is absolutely FREE! Registration is FAST & SIMPLE.
    Register Today to join the first, most comprehensive and friendliest communities of nude celebrity fans on the net!

Celebrity Videos - cleaned

blueoystercult

Socially Isolated Since God Was A Boy
Staff Alumn
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
318
Infraction Reversed

This infraction has been reversed.

Reason:
I saw red when I first read it but on reflection I see what he was trying to do, and though he did post a comment in the content thread, it was with good intentions and also I must take into account his new member status and give him the benefit of the doubt. The comment shouldnt have been posted, but I should have moved it to the discussions forum and had a quiet word as I would normally do with new members to advise them so they don't make the same mistake again. I like to think I'm big enough to admit when I got it wrong.
 

blueoystercult

Socially Isolated Since God Was A Boy
Staff Alumn
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
318
Infraction for lookingmonroe: Comments In Content Threads

Post: Bella Thorne
User: lookingmonroe
Infraction: Comments In Content Threads
Points: 1

Administrative Note:
Why you have just been infracted


Message to User:
I'm sorry but I have penalised your account for posting comments a content thread. Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules and confine comments to the discussions forum to prevent further infractions
Thankyou for your attention
BOC


Original Post:
Point of clarification please.... Kiera Knightley was also underage and her pictures are still on the site. What is the difference?
 

blueoystercult

Socially Isolated Since God Was A Boy
Staff Alumn
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
318
Point of clarification please.... Kiera Knightley was also underage and her pictures are still on the site. What is the difference?


As far as I know this was true of three incidences. The Hole caps [topless], the Liam Duke Photoshoot of 2002 [slightly revealing], and the Bend it Like Beckham premier [bare midriff].
All have now been removed.
The answer to your question is There's no difference at all. Just some stuff that slipped under the wire.
Now here's why.
In the UK the ages are different. A girl cannot be photographed topless until she is 16 and cannot be photographed fully nude until 18. It is slightly different again in Europe, different again in Scandanavia, and so on. In the US [to my knowledge] the age is 18 and 21. This board is hosted in the US and US laws apply. That is quite important to remember
Knightley appeared topless in The Hole at 16 but it was a British film. It's likely neither poster nor moderators at the time were aware of her age or the limits. One tends not to consider an "underaged" girl will be allowed to be naked or semi-naked in such a provocative manner in a mainstream western movie. Consider the shitstorm over Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, and the controversy over Anne Hathaway in Havok even though she was 22 at the time. Id be curious to know if the film was shown unedited in US cinemas. If so that also poses some questions of the US classification bureau. We can discuss and debate the rights wrongs and hypocrisies of a nation with draconian morality laws that in the same breath practically prostitutes its young female celebrities but those are philosophical points. The law is what it is and this board cant take on that kind of legal war just so a few people can get off posting what are essentially revealing pictures of an underaged girl on a forum devoted to nudity. Surely this should not have to be underlined?
However there is also a difference between some caps slipping under the wire and the predatory nature of the feeding frenzy here over Bella Thorne. The moment she turned 18 it was as though someone had fired a starter gun and every shot of her ever taken in a bikini or in underwear was being posted on an ADULT BASED forum. Not in a fashion magazine or some celebrity gossip rag. An ADULT BASED forum. Turning 18 doesn't make that right if she is under 18 in the photos. Anything taken from this point on is fair game legally and no one could care less. Anything taken before this point is not fair game, and posting this stuff is dubious. Legally and (in my opinion) morally

On a personal note I don't see the attractions. I've never seen the appeal of 16 year old girls, even when I was 16, and always preferred my women to look like women and not children or famine victims. But hey. I'm odd that way.
BOC
 
Last edited:

blueoystercult

Socially Isolated Since God Was A Boy
Staff Alumn
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
318
Infraction for zinetowkos: Money Generating Redirect

Post: Lady Gaga
User: zinetowkos
Infraction: Money Generating Redirect
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Message to User:
I'm sorry but I have penalised your account for posting via links that are not allowed. Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules to prevent further infractions
Thankyou for your attention
BOC


Original Post:
 
Top