You haven't reached the bottom yet. Keep going until you hit Borremans. It's not 4chan, but I'm not listening to these people on the subject of standards and practices.

I looked up Borremans because I'd never heard of him but apparently a book of his work in the photo shoot is some sort pedophilic "code"? Or something like that?

What exactly is the issue with his work? That it depicts nude (but not sexualized as far as Incould find) children? And the children aren't real models afaict either.

I like what I see of his work. Reminds of Francis Bacon. Deeply human art. There's something about that kind of figure work that speaks to the soul.

So yeah, not sure why this artist is "the bottom."

I think it's really creepy that you don't see anything wrong with a child in BDSM gear. And alcohol.

That's actually sadism.

I dunno, maybe you just don't get it. Do you know what sadism is?

I thought the ad was creepy and weird, but you're lying here. There was no " child in BDSM gear" in the photo. Why lie to make a point? That's creepy and weird, too

I made a mistake but everyone knows what picture I'm talking about. It's not a lie.

So it was a child carrying a doll that had BDSM gear. But that's funny cus if the girl was the one in BDSM gear, that would make it wrong? Is that the line?

I'm curious why, if you believed you made a mistake, you didn't edit your comment at the time to avoid propagating misinformation (as the 2 hour edit window was still open when you made this response acknowledging it as a mistake)?

I personally am not familiar with this photo and don't really want to see it, so yes, your comment could have mislead me.

There's no ulterior motive. I just messed up. I fixed it as soon as I got called out on it without objection and I left it there so people can see what the issue was.

If you are going to participate in this discussion, you need to keep up. You're attributing malice where there is none. That means you have to see the picture.

I'm not saying you can't say anything, just that I'm going to dismiss you out of hand.

The child was next to some glasses of wine. Why does that make you clutch pearls exactly?

Have you seen Big Daddy? The Adam Sandler film? Is that also on this level? Feels like the same thing. Child actors in an adult piece of media with sexual and violent and otherwise adult themes.

The thing is I just don't care how you feel. You haven't explained how the kid can consent to this photo shoot or why it isn't sexual abuse.

I want to know if you think it's ok if the kid wears BDSM gear. Yes? No?

Why do you want to know that when you've acknowledged in a parallel thread that that wasn't what happened? It's hard for me to read this any other way than a deflection so that you can discuss a different set of events, which didn't happen, where you feel your arguments would fair better.

Given that we're already talking about a hot-button issue which is the subject of conspiracy theories, that seems dangerous.

Yeah, you're trying to catch me on a typo, but it's not gonna work cus I already acknowledged it.

I do know I hit a nerve with that particular scenario. I got all I wanted. Ok, so let's just move on. Let's get to the fun stuff.

So the line stopped at her wearing the BDSM gear. Why? Why not cross that line? Why is it ok for the bear to wear BDSM gear and for her not to?

I misunderstood. I thought we were having a discussion, but I can see you're looking to deliver a monologue. I'll leave you to it.

Lol. Just stop. It's not gonna work on me. I know what I'm doing. All I did was respond to the Adam Sandler move with my own.

Apparently, if it was the kid wearing the BDSM gear, it wouldn't feel like the same thing. It would feel wrong.

Of course, if anyone feels different, feel free to correct me.