Siblings pics from 1994 and 2014... appropriate or inappropriate?

[TruthBTold]

The all-knowing Wikipedia states, "A sex organ or primary sexual characteristic, as narrowly defined, is any anatomical part of the body involved in sexual reproduction and constituting the reproductive system in a complex organism, especially the external sex organs; the external sex organs are also commonly referred to as the genitalia or genitals." However, a breast is a secondary sexual characteristic that distinguishes the sexes of the species but that are not part of reproduction. While the poet of "I would like to titty fuck that stanky ass hoe" may think he is in contact with a sexual organ fortunately or unfortunately he is not. Moreover, I am sure that the individuals in the photos are in fact brother and sister as opposed to 3rd cousin. Or would that make a difference?

[marylander1940]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=titty+fuck

 

Thank you for making things clear again, Master!

[TruthBTold]

When will you people learn, I am only a Viscount.

[+ quoththeraven]

Iappropriate unless brother and sister are lovers, in which case the photo is ill-advised and I hope they're using an effective method of birth control. (Truly voluntary sibling incest doesn't particularly bother me, especially if both are over the age of 18, as these are.)

 

Why? If the second photo were taken when they were teens under the age of 18, their parents knew about it, and child protection authorities got wind of it, I would expect them to get court permission to yank those kids out of there. Slice it however you like, Facebook, Instagram, et al. don't have bans against photos showing female breasts/nipples for the hell of it. Most straight men are turned on by them, appropriately or inappropriately. Otherwise Playboy would never have prospered at first.

 

Anyone thinking of calling me a prude, fair warning: you will be regaled with my stories of nudity, debauchery, and breastfeeding, in public, on the forum.

[+ Funguy]

... Technically breasts are not sexual organs.

 

Mine sure are!!!

[+ purplekow]

They appear to me to be older than 18. Would it make a difference to anyone if the brother had a cloth in his hand and as a result there was not skin to skin contact?

[+ quoththeraven]

They appear to me to be older than 18. Would it make a difference to anyone if the brother had a cloth in his bad and as a result there was not skin to skin contact?

 

A cloth where? I can tell there's a typo (probably due to autocorrect), but I can't tell what word you meant to use.

 

What is the push to validate a do-over of what was a cute kids' photo but is not (imo) an equally cute photo of adults? There are nude photos in my family photo album of me at age 3 or so. My body is facing away from the camera, no genitals (or nipples) can be seen, and it's (imo) a playful, innocent pose. There's also a photo of me at a slightly older age (five, probably) in the tub resting on a bath toy version of an inner tube. (I'm pretty sure I asked for the photo to be taken.) No genitals are visible but nipples might be.

 

I would consider it highly inappropriate to redo those photos as an adult with the same photographer: my father. And I'm not entirely sure what today's police and child protection authorities would make of the original photos, either, although they are not in fact pornographic in the least.

[+ purplekow]

I mean cloth in the hand as it is now corrected. As I attested from the beginning, there are definitely better choices but I do not get a sexual vibe at all off of the second photo. And since the photos are 20 years apart, it seems the subjects are young adults.