This thread makes me think of MichelleY. I don't care who you are; if you look like that, you shouldn't be taking pictures of yourself topless, and then say "nice, eh?" You're setting yourself up for a verbal beheading.

God, I'll never get those pictures out of my head...she was easily pushing 250-300 pizzounds.

man, Mario sure has an enviable amount of stamina...

*shudder*

I don't think I ever saw that, thankfully.

You know what makes it all better? My boobs. Yes. Yes they do. And if Sybs would get off her lazy ass and show us HER titties, it'd be even MORE BETTER.

um... she's underage.

Only for another 5 days.

I want to second this.

Oh dear.
Um..

She's not underage in her own country, so she can post her boobies legally and happily.

Oh dear god, I've just looked into this. At 17 Sam Fox won page three girl of the year, and even though now most newspapers want 18+, the Daily Sport happily puts 16 year olds in.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Does seem a bit weird, doesn't it.
But then I really don't rememeber anyone in the media mentioning it before.
Has there ever been an outcry?

In Britain? Naw, we're a bunch of pervs.

It got all legally around here a year or so ago, which is fair enough, but I remember the good times when there were new boob shots nearly every day!

Yes recently the laws regarding age limits and photography changed. Before a person of legal age for consensual sex (16) could pose for certain 'Artistic Nude' shots and skimpy lingerie...

Now models must be over the age of 18, apart from in Scotland where it is legal to take the pics but not legal to distribute or publish them (fecking stupid), to part-take in images that portray any full or partial nudity that may be of a sexual or suggestive nature. The laws are still very confusing so most photographers just call a blanket ban on working with models under 18.

I would. They are still legally children after all.

I know, I have a strict policy here I will not shoot models under 18 and I don't even do the nude work. I basically believe if you are not legally able to sign a contract yourself then you are not old enough to work with me.

That's such a contentious issue. I mean, when I was sixteen I was was studying and working two jobs to pay the rent, I was a full member of society and having to pay all that crap like council tax, could get married, join the army and die for the country in which wasn't allowed to vote.

The age needs to be the same for everything.

I agree, the legal age for everything should be made flat out 18. This is when people in the UK are classed as adults. This should include smoking, sex, marrige lisense to drive ect.

It's totally stupid and confusing to have different levels set at when a person can and can't legal do things. So you can get married at 16 but you cannot legal enter into a monetary contract without an adult's consent, just fecking stupid Mr Blair...

Really Jobe?
You could have waited until 18 to have sex?

I'd be quite happy for it all to be lowered to 16.
Most financial institutions would happily apply their own rules about lending money to 16 year olds, as most do now, although, you can get an endowment policy at 17, but then that's not credit.

Hardly any 16 year olds get married, and I don't think it would hurt them to vote either. Let's face it, how many other them would be bothered anyway? Or maybe they would, and that would wake up everyone else and get people into stations?

Institutions can go it alone, they have that right, including the DVLA and such. They could raise it to 18 of they wanted, just as they can take your licence off you, but I think for a legal limit 18 is way too old for the age of consent for sex.