You would not hook up with the 18 year old I posted above? Her elbows too pointy?

uziq wrote:
get therapy man. a much better investment of your time and energy than whatever darkness you are pursuing now.
I am no longer going to post my adventures on here. You can follow my content on reddit where I will be posting my stories to /r/SluttyConfessions. That is where redditors go to post their craziness in anonymity.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Don't you think that you, with multiple toxic relationships at tidal frequency (including "lol read this post about me grooming this person with mental health issues for sex later"), making out with underlings, constantly ducking soldiers, spiking dogfood with broken glass, and unable to prepare actual meals for yourself because you're an adult who can't handle kitchen chores, and whatever the heck else you're up to in life that you won't bring up here, hardly gets to talk about people acting strange.
or they're a very private person. i don't have my kid on my social media pages. then again me missus made bubs an instagram account.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Girl I know started dating some older guy. He has two kids. I saw his Facebook. Zero pictures of him and the kids. Reddest of all flags.
If a person with kids doesn't have at least some pictures of themselves and their kids on their social media it means they either don't really care about the kids or don't have a relationship with them. And I feel that there are very few legitimate explanations why someone would not want to have a relationship with their kids.
But if a band decides to publish a picture of you as a child naked there's nothing you can do about it.uziq wrote:
i agree with cyberger's.
there's something tacky and distasteful about uploading (non-consensual) pictures of your kids to social media. baby pictures for likes and follows. all your toddlers early memories made into a gawping spectacle for half-bored and nosey acquaintances.
the idea that it's 'weird' or 'a red flag' to not broadcast all of your intimate family moments on social media is basically mentally ill.
Paedophiles barely have to to create child porn any more, the parents are spraying that stuff all over the internet.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Mac's red flag comment didn't really sit well, but I didn't feel like replying to it at the time.
Parenting and tech publications are full of articles on why you shouldn't post pictures of your kids (or other people's kids for that matter) on the internet.
It's perfectly reasonable to to keep your scrapbooks and photo albums private as if online image sharing never became a thing. It would be strange even now to see someone slap prints of bath time on the physical walls of their children's elementary school. The police would probably be called.
he could have easily claimed the misuse of his likeness or made some sort of copyright claim.Dilbert_X wrote:
But if a band decides to publish a picture of you as a child naked there's nothing you can do about it.uziq wrote:
i agree with cyberger's.
there's something tacky and distasteful about uploading (non-consensual) pictures of your kids to social media. baby pictures for likes and follows. all your toddlers early memories made into a gawping spectacle for half-bored and nosey acquaintances.
the idea that it's 'weird' or 'a red flag' to not broadcast all of your intimate family moments on social media is basically mentally ill.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62789436
sounds like a cash grab to me, to be honest. a 10-year statute of limitations is generally a good idea to restrict frivolous uses of justice.The defence had argued that Mr Elden had enjoyed being the "Nirvana baby", noting that he had re-enacted the photograph in later life.
Mr Elden's parents were paid $200 (£173) for the photo in 1991 by what was then a relatively unknown band.
Last edited by uziq (2022-09-05 03:29:45)