ooh, it's such a provocative thread. i'd love to sleep but i waana see what happens next.
Daniel Radcliffe
- Thread starter wat2dowit it
- Start date
She looks outstanding from behind in a pair of black panties, I'll say that much for her.
crap. i was hoping for an explosion or a makeup session. oh well, bed seems nice. :tongue:
yeah, but so early in his life? i think he could have waited a bit. although it is smart to do this as the peak of his fame, it could have negative stuff (<----lack of a better word due to tiredness) on his career.
The only negatives would be if he wanted to do wholesome roles the rest of his life and found it more difficult to land those types of jobs (and obviously if he's taking on a less-than-wholesome role, that's not what he wants), or if he came off as desperate for an image-makeover like Elizabeth Berkley, in which case he would most likely be relegated to a punchline and not taken seriously anymore. If he chooses strong material and gives strong performances, then the latter won't happen. Berkley became a joke (if she wasn't one already) because Showgirls was a trashy, exploitative, godawful piece of shit. Same deal with Alyssa Milano, who the day she turned 18 started signing up for every softcore porno she could get a casting call to (even creepier since her agent at this time was her mother). Even if that does happen, there's a chance he could rebound later, as Alyssa eventually did, after she stopped suing everybody for looking at her naked without paying her for the privelege.
ah, that's who i was thinking of! Elizabeth Berkeley. she killed her career with Showgirls. well, i wonder if Equus (<---sic?) is going to be any good? i'd hate for him to go through all that for a shitty play.
he does have some big balls though (relax, not in THAT way....dirty minded people.) i would have NEVER done something like that when i was 17. i'm still too self-concious.
and i need to watch Showgirls one of these days. it might be a good laugh.
he does have some big balls though (relax, not in THAT way....dirty minded people.) i would have NEVER done something like that when i was 17. i'm still too self-concious.
and i need to watch Showgirls one of these days. it might be a good laugh.
viewfromthetop1
Sexy Member
exactly. if someone thinks that a bare male chest and torso is pornographic they definitely have problems.
First, I'd like to thank Ganymede for this delightful PM:
Second, I'd like to point out that Ganymede also started a (now-removed) thread yesterday in which he asked for a video that features a 16-year-old girl, and which he knows full well cannot be posted here, as per previous threads.
I am not sure what point he wishes to make about desiring to view under-18s here. But it certainly appears that he wishes to make one.
Ganymede said:
Second, I'd like to point out that Ganymede also started a (now-removed) thread yesterday in which he asked for a video that features a 16-year-old girl, and which he knows full well cannot be posted here, as per previous threads.
I am not sure what point he wishes to make about desiring to view under-18s here. But it certainly appears that he wishes to make one.
First of all, fuck off!
Second of all, I took a break from the forum for a period. Before my break, that video was here. When I got back, it was gone.
Third, I had no idea she was under age.
Fourth, this is somewhat related to the topic of this thread:
a. The video in question was filmed in England, where they have different laws about age of consent.
b. The pictures of Deniel Radcliffe are from England, where they have different laws about the age of consent.
I'm not your bitch. Don't hang your shit on me.
Second of all, I took a break from the forum for a period. Before my break, that video was here. When I got back, it was gone.
Third, I had no idea she was under age.
Fourth, this is somewhat related to the topic of this thread:
a. The video in question was filmed in England, where they have different laws about age of consent.
b. The pictures of Deniel Radcliffe are from England, where they have different laws about the age of consent.
I'm not your bitch. Don't hang your shit on me.
First, I'd like to thank Ganymede for this delightful PM:
Second, I'd like to point out that Ganymede also started a (now-removed) thread yesterday in which he asked for a video that features a 16-year-old girl, and which he knows full well cannot be posted here, as per previous threads.
I am not sure what point he wishes to make about desiring to view under-18s here. But it certainly appears that he wishes to make one.
I didn't post direct links to the picture on Wikipedia. I posted a direct link to the article about Daniel Radcliffe on Wikipedia, which contains the picture.
So iiiiiiiffff you took a photo of a naked five year old in a nation where there is not limited concent to sexual what not, it would be ok?
all this holla'in would get your house burned down in Northern England
hehe
all this holla'in would get your house burned down in Northern England
hehe
While the age of consent is lower in the United Kingdom, this has no bearing on indecent ("sexualized") imagery featuring under-18s there. The Protection of Children Act (1978) made it illegal to take, cause to be taken, own, or distribute images of an indecent nature featuring under-18s, and past cases have established a precedent for this to refer to things as innocent as "bikini" and "swimsuit" poses, for example. This legislation was extended to include pseudo-photographs of under-18s in sexualized contexts under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Sexual Offences Act (2003).
That is why Radcliffe's UK-based site and other sources publishing these images have been cautious about highlighting the artistic merits of the enterprise - to cover their backs against such claims of "indecency/sexualization". When people here are asking about his cock, etc., though - then clearly the situation has become sexualized, and consequently, is problematic.. hence mindseye's comments about this thread needing to appraise Radcliffe as an actor, and not in terms of his naked/shirtless appearance. One well-known UK celebrity site which has permitted these images in the context of a highly sexually-charged discussion, is taking a real risk, imho.
At any rate, my contributions on this and other similar threads (involving images of Matthew Broderick taken when he was 15, images of Kevin McDaid taken when he is believed to have been 17, etc.) have had only one concern, as stated already... to protect LPSG from ridiculous attacks from those whose intent is to close down sites that discuss sexuality openly.
This should not be taken to mean that I am a philistine of some kind, and it is likely that our views on this matter, ultimately, are not that different at all. To this end, I am copy&pasting one of my previous posts on this subject below, which explains my position in cases such as this one in a more detailed way:
[source]
This whole Broo-ha-ha is preposterous. I am completely against child pornography but what we have here is a 17 yr old male showing nothing but his torso......... There are several pics of a questionable age in the galleries, you may wanna start there if you are intent on getting rid of "Child Porn" since all we have here is a bare chested male.
I never expected LPSG would be so right-winged puritanical. LPSG is not responsible for what someone may or may not fantasize about.
The really sad part is all the focus on his body and not on the very demanding role he will have in playing Alan Strang. Equus is an amazing play and he is anxious to expand his acting chops.
The content of this brilliant work is far more disturbing than innocent pics from a staged performance. The reason he apperas nude in the play is b/c that is what the role calls for. It's not done in a gratuitous manner but is quite integral to the tone of the play.
:banana:
HORSE
I never expected LPSG would be so right-winged puritanical. LPSG is not responsible for what someone may or may not fantasize about.
The really sad part is all the focus on his body and not on the very demanding role he will have in playing Alan Strang. Equus is an amazing play and he is anxious to expand his acting chops.
The content of this brilliant work is far more disturbing than innocent pics from a staged performance. The reason he apperas nude in the play is b/c that is what the role calls for. It's not done in a gratuitous manner but is quite integral to the tone of the play.
:banana:
HORSE
Very well said man and the sad part is in the pics there is NO nudity at all . While the pics push the envelope they ARE still legal and not pornographic in the least.
:banana:
HORSE
While it is important to respect the laws of the land, there's no doubt that this site and this section of the forum in particular is populated by some serious 'holier-than-thou' age-crusaders on a moral mission. They spout the same crap in any relevant thread (even in non-relevant threads).
It is not enough for these people to ignore topics they don't like - they feel it is their moral duty to preach about their moral superiority and the moral inferiority of anyone who disagrees with them.
Quite tiresome, and ironically enough, juvenile.
It is not enough for these people to ignore topics they don't like - they feel it is their moral duty to preach about their moral superiority and the moral inferiority of anyone who disagrees with them.
Quite tiresome, and ironically enough, juvenile.
Christiaan
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Posts
- 191
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 47
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Donegal, Ireland
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I've seen it as a film made about 35 years ago. Peter Firth played the lead, proving that he is very nicely hung. The role Daniel Radcliffe is going to play is quite difficult and very dark. He plays a psychologically disturbed young man who works mucking out the horse stables.
There is one particular horse which is a spectacular animal and the young man in the part in the play is sexually challanged, in that he can't have a proper wank by himself. His sexual fantasies are tied in with riding this magnificent horse whilst being totally starkers and doing so bareback on the horse, so his dick comes into contact with the horse as it gallops. Only this way can he spunk up. The running motion of the horse has got to do it.
Once he's dared to have his rides, he's over come with guilt and since the only soul who's seen his perversion is the horse, he blinds this magnificent beast to hide his shame and keep his secret.
Like I said, it's very dark, not what you'd call a bit light reading before bed time.
I think Radcliffe is desperate to break out of his Harry Potter-Hogwarts rut, so that he's not ever after known only for that role. The role in Equus carries the entire show and it is a very serious play, not porn in any way.
As far as the rubbish about pictures, in the Netherlands, non-sexual nude poses of children over the age of 14 is permitted for those who fancy that sort of thing. Whilst I understand that it's the list owner's right to conduct affairs on the board as he sees fit - it's the Golden Rule you know, he who has the gold makes the rules! But speaking from the European side of the pond, I think it's a bit off that the Internet seems to have to abide by American puritan ideas - as if they owned the Net. I believe the UK gave those folks the boot over 200 years ago.
Well, that's my say, Cheers everyone.
Similar threads
Photos & Videos
Jakebaby03