If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Japan Times)   Pic of F-cupped 11-year-old in bikini reported to ease anti-Japan tension in China   (japantimes.co.jp) divider line 534
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

198592 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2005 at 1:07 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



534 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-22 01:43:36 PM  
/honk honk
 
2005-05-22 01:43:52 PM  


I hear she's dating an American serviceman stationed in Okinawa.
Or soon will be.
 
2005-05-22 01:43:57 PM  
Alas, the competing energies of libido and destrudo.

In America, I think destrudo has won out.
In Western Europe and Japan, I think libido has won out.

In psychoanalysis, libido is the energy from Eros, the desire to create (i.e., life instinct). Destrudo is the energy from Thanatos, the desire to destroy (i.e., death instinct).

Why does America have a preoccupation with its death instinct?
 
2005-05-22 01:44:12 PM  
Nice! Why can't the United States do the same? Here's Pamela Anderson. Now hand over the oil!
 
2005-05-22 01:44:34 PM  
Yota: so is several police departments.
 
2005-05-22 01:44:45 PM  
Hmm. Not that I condone such actions or anything, but one of my groomsman from years back told me (he was born in japan) that the age of consent over there is 12.

Not that every 12yo goes out and immediately starts prowling around. Just that they're given the power to make the choice for themselves.
 
2005-05-22 01:44:52 PM  
In Mexico, menudo has won out.
 
2005-05-22 01:44:59 PM  
Sweet Statutory! (sp?) lol, kinda sick that shes only 11 and someones taking these pics.
 
2005-05-22 01:45:24 PM  
Hahaha, now that is an F-cup...at least! (pops, NSFW)
 
2005-05-22 01:45:25 PM  
Link is already farked.

lots of pervs in here today.

/yah, i clicked it too.

//now off for a walk to Diedrich's for a cup of coffee and to enjoy this nice day.
 
2005-05-22 01:45:33 PM  
eighteen shmeighteen. I'd hit it.
 
2005-05-22 01:48:47 PM  
Greg Rebellion

In Mexico, menudo has won out.

Clever!
 
2005-05-22 01:49:05 PM  
I had an F cup by the time I was 12. Am now a GG cup...yes, boys, that's an H cup.


//////too bad I'm a lesbian
 
2005-05-22 01:49:32 PM  
*Formats hard drive and says 50 Hail Marys*
 
2005-05-22 01:50:09 PM  
Asian trifecta complete, Japan trifecta now in play.

Personally, I think that if a certain topic has gotten 100 Trifectas in the history of Fark, it deserves its own tag.

/Nihon! Nihon! Ganbatte!
 
2005-05-22 01:51:03 PM  
C Cup, About 12 or 13 years old. And wearing a push-up top.

/corner cell, please.
 
2005-05-22 01:51:53 PM  
RyoShin:

I often wonder if America would be as perverted (on average) if we were as open with sexuality.

I saw a study that showed there was a link between church attendance and number of rapes per capita.

Everyone wants to have sex. If you think sex is evil, then you are either evil, or the person you want to have sex with is evil for temping you. And that's where the problem comes from.
 
2005-05-22 01:52:19 PM  
theteacher

Pics?

/had to be said
 
2005-05-22 01:52:31 PM  
theteacher:

I had an F cup by the time I was 12. Am now a GG cup...yes, boys, that's an H cup.

//////too bad I'm a lesbian


Large cup size doesn't count if you're fat.

/just guessing
//going to hell
 
2005-05-22 01:53:43 PM  
The animated gif at the top of the screen says it all. NSFW!
 
2005-05-22 01:54:44 PM  
vulgar_power:

"This is one Japanese import I won't be boycotting," gushed one admirer. Another said, "She doesn't look 11. She's gotta be 18."

isn't it entirely possible that the above statement is true? i mean, this story originated on teh internets, right? right?


That's my theory. Besides, if she looks like she's 18, then there's nothing wrong with being turned on. It's not like the pictures are exploitive, there're just bikini shots.
 
2005-05-22 01:55:22 PM  
Farkers have clicked on the above link 12152 times

We sure are a curious bunch...
 
2005-05-22 01:58:40 PM  
What's worse? Staring at a picture of an 11 year old and pretending she's 18 or staring at a picture of an 18 year old and pretending she's 11?

/can't decide
//not really atracted to young girls
 
2005-05-22 02:00:20 PM  
::Takes a first class seat to hell::
 
2005-05-22 02:00:31 PM  
 
2005-05-22 02:01:45 PM  
'Yup...she's 11....hips ain't wide enough for 18...'nuther words....she ain't got no swing in her back yard....
 
2005-05-22 02:01:59 PM  
We're living in a strange new world where "Japanese Hooters" is no longer an oxymoron.
 
2005-05-22 02:02:02 PM  
Such things wouldn't be tolerated in America:

-----------------------

New rules to crack down on child pornography

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Producers of sexually explicit material must be able to prove the subjects depicted in their photographs and films are adults, according to new government regulations approved Tuesday by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

To implement a government crackdown, Gonzales signed final rules that establish detailed procedures for inspecting pornography producers' records to ensure children aren't being used as performers in sexually explicit depictions.

Pornography producers who violate the new requirements would be subject to prison terms of up to five years on the first offense and up to 10 years for subsequent offenses.

Porn producers must keep detailed records that verify the identity and age of each individual depicted. The new regulations, to be published in the Federal Register, also update the definition of "pornography producers" to include producers of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct published on the Internet.

The regulations implement recent congressionally-approved amendments to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2003.


- http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/childporn.regs/index.html
 
2005-05-22 02:04:39 PM  
Conversion chart...though still large, not US "F".
 
2005-05-22 02:05:40 PM  
From the PROTECT Act of 2003:


SEC. 504. OBSCENE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1466 the following:
`Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children


`(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--

`(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

`(B) is obscene; or

`(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

`(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

`(b) ADDITIONAL OFFENSES- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--

`(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

`(B) is obscene; or

`(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

`(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

`(c) NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

`(d) CIRCUMSTANCES- The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is that--

`(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;

`(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;

`(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;

`(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or

`(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States.

`(e) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant--

`(1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and

`(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction--

`(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or

`(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.

[Bold ours.]
------------------------------

You can look up the public law yourself at the Library of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
 
2005-05-22 02:05:59 PM  
This has future Law & Order: Special Victims Unit written ALL OVER IT.

I bet dollars to donuts that Stabler roughs up the guy taking these pics of the girl.
 
2005-05-22 02:06:35 PM  
Fecal Pandore If you go to hell for that I'll buy you a beer. I'll be the one standing over by the lake of fire screaming and gnashing my teeth.
 
2005-05-22 02:06:35 PM  
This girl, who is over 18, is a Japanese J I think
 
2005-05-22 02:07:55 PM  
Hmmm....

Isn't the age of consent in Japan like 15?

/Four more years!
//Has Asian feaver
///Deveopling Asian plague
 
2005-05-22 02:09:51 PM  

/Oh, that said F-'cupped'...
 
2005-05-22 02:09:55 PM  
tonesskin:

Her parents should have been drawn and quartered because they let her wear a skimpy bikini, but the people who couldn't keep their eyes off of her were ok?

Hmmmm. Seems like it should be the other way around if any way at all.


And how exactly are they to know her age?
 
2005-05-22 02:10:29 PM  
GIS for 'big' tits' 'Asian' = 5420 results.
 
Yst
2005-05-22 02:12:25 PM  
Yeah, 11 years old is officially against the rules on pretty much any terms whatsoever and according to virtually all imaginable measures of good taste.

I mean, the way I think about it, personal moral objections aside, looking at it solely from the perspective of Canadian law, sure, 16 year olds are legal regardless of circumstance, and sure, 14 year olds are legal as long as one isn't in a position of power, and sure, 12 year olds are legal if the other partny is no older than 14, but 11 is illegal absolutely no matter what, and I figure for good reason.
 
2005-05-22 02:12:30 PM  
NokNoKCPU

1) In the pictures being discussed, there is no nudity (and even if there were, that doesn't make it child porn). There is no depiction of explicit conduct (this usually means sex, masturbation, grabbing of boobies, shots clearly meant to draw attention to genitals).

2) The Supreme Court has already overturned several parts of this law you posted. For one, they have thrown out the "appears to be" a child. What does that mean? Does that mean that if I look at a 40 year old with a sucker and a diaper, I'm looking at child porn? Or an 18 year old who hasn't fully matured? So the appears to be has been thrown away.

3) The SLAPS quotient is a very important point, and no, that doesn't mean how much the pictures make someone masturbate (serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value)

4) The cartoon stuff was laughed out of court, as was the bolded part. How can it be child porn if there is no child (the laws are meant to protect children, not cartoons). The court also asked Congress how one would actually AGE a cartoon!

There was once a law that black people couldn't vote. I could post that law, but it doesn't mean it is still in effect.
 
2005-05-22 02:13:32 PM  
They'll be saggy before she's old enough.
 
2005-05-22 02:14:40 PM  
2005-05-22 05:28:11 AM offers1999 [TotalFark]

Shouldn't that get the "sick" lable?

No, she's pretty hot.
 
2005-05-22 02:15:16 PM  
correction

The court has overturned OTHER laws that state "appears to be." The protect act may not have been fought in court yet, but the wording is similar to COPA and CPOE which have been overturned. I'm looking for the PROTECT act, but since the wording is almost identical to other laws that have been overturned, it basically is a no-issue.
 
2005-05-22 02:15:23 PM  
2005-05-22 01:44:12 PM LiPPoPeR
Nice! Why can't the United States do the same? Here's Pamela Anderson. Now hand over the oil!

Wow, infect our enemies with hepatitis! The Brits did that with "Ho's For Huns" but I always admire germ warfare...
 
2005-05-22 02:15:59 PM  
NokNoKCPU:
Such things wouldn't be tolerated in America

Sure they would, you just have to follow US CODE: Title 18,2257.

Big_Sexy:
For the record, this is an F cup here in the US.
God bless America.


You forgot Poland!
 
2005-05-22 02:16:09 PM  
You can say "she's not 11" all you want, but she is nowhere near 18. 13 tops, and I'd put at least even money on 11.
 
2005-05-22 02:16:22 PM  
Someone get that girl a burqa!
 
2005-05-22 02:17:27 PM  
I hate it when fat girls brag about their GG or H breasts. It doesn't matter how big they are if the rest of you looks like a blob. I think the perfect size is a large B or a small C.

Those pics are just disturbing.
 
2005-05-22 02:17:43 PM  
Looks like a D-cup to me (which may well equate to a Japanese F-cup). She also looks to be about 13; she hasn't got no hips, but she's still got a skinny kid body. Her being 11 is certainly not out of the question, but her being 18 is.

It strikes me that she may *have* to wear bikinis (so she can buy different size tops and bottoms); I'm guessing it's pretty damn hard to find a one-piece that fits a D-cup kid's size. Her parents still shouldn't be putting photos of her all over the internet, though.
 
2005-05-22 02:19:59 PM  
tonesskin

1) In the pictures being discussed, there is no nudity (and even if there were, that doesn't make it child porn). There is no depiction of explicit conduct (this usually means sex, masturbation, grabbing of boobies, shots clearly meant to draw attention to genitals).

Granted. However, I wanted to educate the general public about the new child pornography laws laws.

2) The Supreme Court has already overturned several parts of this law you posted. For one, they have thrown out the "appears to be" a child. What does that mean? Does that mean that if I look at a 40 year old with a sucker and a diaper, I'm looking at child porn? Or an 18 year old who hasn't fully matured? So the appears to be has been thrown away.

Incorrect. The Supreme Court threw out in 2002 a 1996 virtual child pornography law (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/index.html). The PROTECT Act of 2003 that I speak of is still currently in effect, as they have prosecuted a man by the name of Dwight Whorley under these laws (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/ArchivePress/MarchPDFArchive/05/32505WhorleyPR.p df).

3) The SLAPS quotient is a very important point, and no, that doesn't mean how much the pictures make someone masturbate (serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value)

See above.

4) The cartoon stuff was laughed out of court, as was the bolded part. How can it be child porn if there is no child (the laws are meant to protect children, not cartoons). The court also asked Congress how one would actually AGE a cartoon!

Again, please refer to:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/ArchivePress/MarchPDFArchive/05/32505WhorleyPR.p df
 
2005-05-22 02:20:43 PM  
No way anyone could really mistake her for 18, unless they were trying hard to convince themselves of it.

/wouldn't serve alcohol to her in a bar even if she had ID that said she was 18 (Legal drinking age in Quebec, Canada) even if the manager told him to, let alone hit it.
//would take daily cold showers until she was legal, 'cause doesn't want to even have a chance to go to jail and be labelled a "Sexual Predator" for the rest of his days
///some of those pictures... not porn, but definately trying to be erotic. Definately not innocent pictures.
////wouldn't let any child of that age pose for those kinds of pictures, even if they're not nude.
 
Displayed 50 of 534 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report