Yesterday...

Are you genuinely this stupid or are you trying to deflect discussion away from the actual point?

Post your hand with a timestamp.

Wait I just got the joke. Fuck me.

America is too fucked beyond this point.

Found the kike.

...

I don't get it.

Found the puritan Christcuck.

They're not even fully naked, you retard. They're trying to sell young girl underwear. Do you want them to model young girl's underwear on a fully grown Pakistani man? Would that make you feel more comfortable?

Nigger.

Kike.

Reported for being a pedophile.

why are europoors so retarded?

the only thing worse than a pedophile, is a pedophile who can't at least have the balls to admit he's scum

Pedophile absolutely six million percent confirmed. Every time one of you sick fucks gets confronted it's like you all rattle off the same list of pedo-defense talking point.

Well, it would make the Pakistani man feel right at home.

All of our children should be born fully clothed, and they should not be allowed to remove those clothes until they are 18 years of age. Baths in full attire. All to protect my Christcuck sensibilities about muh nudity. Rabbi Yeshua demands humility.

nice logical fallacy, pedokike

I didn't realize sexualized underwear ads were a normal state of being. Were you the photographer by any chance?

Dunno, maybe I'm just a huge pussy, or maybe I'm not phsyically capable of doing it, or maybe I feel I have too much to live for (who doesn't think that these days - yet, who ACTUALLY has too much to live for? Few indeed).
What's your excuse?

You refute your own fucking argument before even ending your retarded strawman greentext.

...

Europe is already Muslim it seems.

How is it sexualized? They're just standing there modeling underwear that isn't even that provocative or "skimpy".
They're not bending over, spreading legs, making fugg me faces, or anything like that. They're literally just standing there.
They're even covering up their chests, for fucks sake. Maybe you're just projecting your perverse fantasies onto the image. I think you doth protest too much.

You're arguing that naked children and children in skimpy underwear are both fine. I'm just making fun of what an obvious pedophile you are, Schlomo, try not to get so upset.

He's engaging in massive context denial, as though a nude child at a pool with family or something is equivalent to a nude little girl posing before a jewish photographer at the behest of a jewish advertising agency next to a nude model who swallowed an ocean of jew sperm to get the gig so that it can be publically displayed.

Definitely a pedo of the kike variety.

Some enterprising degenerate user could take advantage of this. Re-ignite a genre. Jewesses getting fucked by "Gnatzis" and/or gentiles. Remember those millennial jews striking a pose at the hololhoax museum? Perhaps some "concentration camp" porn?

I would say we could meme kikesses getting BLACKED but I think we all know that most BLACKED porn involves jewess porn actresses to begin with LARPing as white women. Hard to out jew the jew there.

Is that what your attorney told you to say during your last trial for possession of "tasteful artistic nudes"?

What's skimpy about the underwear they're wearing? And would you consider any modeling of children's underwear to never not be sexualized?

Sick bantz, Christcuck.

Oh, wait, my bad, you're the faggot who is engaging in context denial.
Stop engaging in context denial you faggot.
I mean, Christ, that sort of imagery could cause a sexual emergency for the New Europeans.
Thankfully Allah has seen fit to remove your strength from you so the grand Religion of Cuck™ic Jihad can come forth to impose clothing upon your women and children, but only after raping them.

Here you show either a clear exemplification of your own degeneracy, or a demonstration of your lack of understanding of Jews.
Jews don't get demoralized by their women fucking other people - Jews get AROUSED at such prospect.
You can't outJew the Jew, because the Jew has no honor in the way you do, has a twisted mentality unlike yours, and so the Jew isn't disgusted at seeing his women get BLACKED - he's into it.
So either you're just a degenerate faggot who wants to see White people fucking Jews in porn, which would probably be Jewish-made if it were made at all, or else you just fundamentally do not understand your enemy.

Are you telling me that posing in underwear is provocative given no sexual connotation surrounding it?
Would you say the nude females in classic European art are whores for being naked too?
You're fucking deluded m8.

Its underwear you fucking heeb context-denying homosexual.

Fucking why?
Children don't buy underwear based on fucking advertisements, and nor should adults be concerned with such. Who the fuck is going to see a child's underwear such that they need to be advertised?
You're a weird mother fucker, ya know that?

You're too far gone.

...

Yep.
Doubly so when you're talking about a woman - or a child - posing in underwear for an advertisement for a fashion brand which will be posted in public spaces.
[*CONTEXT DENIAL INTENSIFIES*]

No way that is Paris, looks more like some nigger infested country.

WHAT YEAR IS IT!?

In only panties
That must be why their nipples are fully exposed.
In other words "Let it happen, goy!".

For a second there I thought the bottom part of the picture was a brochure for a zoo.

My excuse?
I don't live in Europe, thank god.

So all underwear is sexual? You're legit fucking retarded. Every man, woman, and child is secretly a total slut under their shirt and pants by your definition.

To see if they like the look of it before buying it? Why else you fucking mong.

Sadly it's not 1942.

It was Hitler's mistaken trust in both Britain and Italy that lost the war. You want to go farther back than 1942.

I mistakenly clicked on your pics. Thank you for not including any dicks.

I just want to know where the tits on the grown woman went. She didn't have much more than the kid.

I'm not quite certain that the book actually supported pedophilia (yeah, I read it). And it was actually written by a Russian, in English, and published in Paris by a (((jewish publisher))). Can't say we can blame that one entirely, or at all, on the French.

Fair enough.

Yep.
Nope.
What does being a slut have to do with anything? Underwear is sexualized, just as nudity is - deal with it or continue to deny reality. You're just engaging in more context denial - a person wearing underwear =/= a person posing in ONLY underwear (only half of a set, given female standards, in this case) for the purpose of public advertisement =/= a child posing in ONLY underwear for the purpose of public advertisement.
You're very disingenuous, which makes me think either you're a shitposter or you're just genuinely a pedophilic faggot, or perhaps just a retarded eurotrash douche.
Children don't buy underwear, and again, who is going to see their underwear such that what it looks like matters? This is not some 25 year old woman, wondering if men will like her panties, that we're talking about here.
You're incredible disingenuous.
So pedos can oogle a little girl in her panties, you imbecile.

You're very welcome.

Oh no! Not the nipples! The barely noticeable nipples unless you really look for them are slightly showing! The nipples of an undeveloped child! Dear YHVH, this is sickening!

If you really think nipples are hypersexual, I hope you never get the chance to have a daughter. I don't want to think about all the perverse shit you'll do to her in the bath.

The book showed the damage it does at least

Quite a question.

Yep, you're a Jew.
Why are you putting words into folks mouths now? That something is sexualized =/= it being HYPEREXTREMESEXUALIZED9000, you disingenuous pedophile.
More context denial.
A father seeing his nude daughter in the bath =/= A Jewish photographer taking pics of a topless little girl for use in a public advert.

You're disingenuous and are engaging in rampant context denial. You deserve a ban.

The pose mimicking the mother IS blatant sexualisation

Is that even the mother?

...

Seriously. Its like he wants to create a sexual emergency.

So nipples are Jewish?

That is the fucking point of the ad, obviously they hire non related models. Mom is sexy and your little girl can be too

Standing still, covering your chest, and having a blank expression on your face is "sexy". You must get boners interacting with literally every woman ever.

...

who gives a fuck.

They literally were. Being an artistic model was considered scandalous so it was often prostitutes that did it part time.

Who said that, you disingenuous context-denying pedophilic hebrew?
I called you a Jew because you pretend seeing a child's nipple in a public advert for a fashion brand, wherein the child is in her panties only, standing directly next to a topless adult women in a seductive pose wearing similar panties, is innocent and equivalent to classical european artwork depicting the adult female form (which is still sexualized, mind you, unless you're some sort of eunuch or homosexual - or a pedophile, like yourself).

This isn't some kid at the beach, this isn't some kid at one of your public baths, this isn't some kid in the bath at home - this is a little girl, topless, in her panties, standing next to a fashion thot, being photographed by some weirdo for the purpose of using her nude image in a fashion advertisement which will be posted in public. Its disgraceful, the context being important in that conclusion - the context you keep bending over backwards trying to deny.

You're a disingenuous context-denying pedophile who I name as Jew.

I don't see the point you're trying to make here, and my question remains unanswered.

Yep.
If you don't think so, only more evidence to suggest you're a pedophile, not to mention the evidentiary support for you being disingeuous and deny context.

Upstanding non-Jewish European people.

Why the fuck would an 8 year old cover her nipples with her mother you kike

Better questions: What sort of person would create a fashion advert for public presentation wherein an 8-year-old girl has to cover her nipples? What sort of person would defend this practice as equivalent to classical european artwork or being nude in the bath around parents, or that opposition to such would be mere 'Christcuck' ideology in action?
Answer to both: A pedophile.

That's some grade-A mental gymnastics there. I'm saying a child in her underwear isn't sexy, and you're saying it is. I think that says more about you than it does me, tbh.

Daily reminder the German National Socialist government banned porn
==But they did not ban tasteful nudity==
Tbh I would have 0 issue with this ad, ==but thios is not the world for it==, with all the perverts niggers and rapists in it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the human body and much less anything to be ashamed of about the human form.

Yeah, it was far more the story of a man's descent into degeneracy and madness.

For the record, I didn't know what I was getting into with that book anyway. I saw it at a used bookstore, had heard of it before and it had this cool old school canvas cover. I was basically called a degenerate for reading it in public. Still not sure if she was flirting with me or not. Dammit, have I been an autist all these years and not know?

Agreed it's a blatant perversion of mother daughter bond

Please don't post such disgusting smut on this board! The white Aryan female body is disgusting! Ugh!

t. Christcucks ITT

wonder what her family is like…

Good wordplay, kike, but you're already exposed.

...

You really are the worst of the cuckchan slime that has wandered in here as of late. Its a true demonstration of the absolute state of this board that you are allowed to post.

Reported for intl. Try harder next time.

grow a thicker skin, it's just a meme after all

Kill yourself.

...

Sexualisation, you complete fucking imbecile.

Wow, you sure got me, you fucking pedophilic heeb.

Sorry. You're right. You find children in underwear sexual in nature.

Please stay away from my daughter if you see us at the beach.

((( )))
I guess it's true, (((they))) cry as they hit you. Well, I can't wait for the DOTR.

I know I am.
We're seeing levels of context denial here that shouldn't even be possible.

Yeah, I've noticed it as well. You say a kid in underwear isn't sexual, and the Jew projects and over-corrects to try and fit in and not be shown as the outsider.
The Jew cums to a picture of your daughter at the beach as he calls you a pedo for not getting a boner to a girl in underwear.
Truly sickening group of people.

ATTEMPT TO FORM CONCENSUS, QUICK!

I do. Do want to normalize actual live women discarding modesty in favor of being a free spirit? We can see where that's gotten us.

The Jew shrieks as he's been found out. He claims it's a raid, coordinated attack, an attempt to consensus crack. All because he's upset people don't find children in underwear sexy.
The only context I need is one where you get your own personal oven for spreading this filth on here.

...

...

stop sperging

I reported him.

It could also be good old-fashioned American puritanism as well. As much as I love my country and its history, several hundred years of vigorous moral policing and religious revivals has left many Americans with absurdly puritanical ideas about anything that they deem even vaguely sexual, including and especially nudity. This also isn't a new phenomenon; Englishmen in the fucking Victorian era noted how prudish Americans were anywhere nudity was present.

A little girl playing on the beach topless is one thing. A little girl posing in short shorts topless, covering her chest alongside a grown woman doing the same thing is obviously not innocent or playful.

Yeah, I think I'll filter and report as well. I'm tired of giving Shlomo attention.

You Jewish pedophiles are truly disgusting creatures. All you have is context denial and projection, because we can all see you for what you are.
The context you deny - that a girl in only her panties next to a similarly clade fashion thot in a fashion advert is sexualIZED (that is, has had a sexual role attached to it) - is clear as day for anyone who isn't a context-denying pedophilic hebrew, and your own projection is nigh-impossible to ignore.
Just disgusting. Absolutely disgusting, and innately Jewish.

Pretty much.

Oh, look, they opened up a new proxy.

Form that concensus.

I've reported all your sick pedo posts, and your disgusting brigade of cuckchan jewish allies, but the mods here are such shit it probably won't even matter. Thus is the state of Holla Forums - if you think it sexualizes prepubescent girls to be placed semi-clothed in fashion adverts next to adult semi-clothed women, you must be the pedo goy!
A travesty.

Yeah, it's a good thing we ignored them. That turned out well.

What would be the meaningful difference between this current ad and an ad that used the same photo as a reference for a drawn work as far as your morals are concerned?

And there's that word again.
More context denial. Disgusting.

Let's clear this up:

Do you see now, Jewfriend?
To find something sexy - as you've clearly projected repeatedly - is to find it sexually attractive or exciting.
To find something sexualized - as you've denied being the case with the little girl in her panties next to a nude woman with her nipples exposed for a fashion ad - is to suggest it has had a sexual role attributed to it.

Its kampfy town, user.

Explain to me how not finding a girl in underwear sexual makes me a pedo, Mr. Goldstein. You and your shill buddies are the only ones projecting the sexual connotation onto a fucking child. An innocent child and the thing that pops into your mind is sex. Fucking blow your brains out kike.

God damn you are truly a disgusting mentally-gymnastic sick kiddie-diddling heeb aren't you?
Again, its like you WANT another sexual emergency situation to arise - which you probably do, hoping it'll open up a route for you to have a child bride like your neighbor mohomo'd the pedo goatfucker that your wife really REALLY seems to like.

I haven't even brought morals into it. Surely you can understand that women having their nude likeness displayed publicly encourages other women to do the same. And surely you can understand where that leads.

I already have, repeatedly, Mr. Bergblatz.
You're engaging in context denial, even in the quesiton you asked.
See:

and

This has been explained to you.
But you're disingenuous, and you deny context, because you're a pedophilic hebrew.

Nope, the Jew who photographed her nekkid next to a similarly presented fashion thot did that user. You're just denying it. Because your'e a pedophile and a Jew.

Case in point. Don't you have a temperance league meeting to attend or something?

So you attribute human morality to drawings as well? Holy fuck, let's run through this check list:
-hates white female beauty
-projects sexual fantasies onto white children
-and now admits to hating anime

If there was any conceivable way someone wouldn't see your posts and immediately assume you're a raging kike shill, they definitely do now.

Disgusting and so incredibly Jewish.

The result of devaluing modesty speaks for itself.

Got em!

Yep.
Okay.
Context denial + just straight-up bullshit.
Pathetic.

Sure thing Schlomo.

Women are beautiful - but not when photographed by gross kikes to sexualize them to sell merchandise.
The Jew who took that photo was projecting sexual fantasy onto the little girl by juxtaposing her with a sexualized nude adult fashion thot.
Anime is great, but the degenerate hentai imbibed by philosemites is grotesque.
You're disgusting. A disgusting Jewish pedophile.

At this point you're either trolling or just stupid.

...

...

Exactly. Then why is the advert attempting to elicit a sexual response? Who exactly is this specific advert meant for if not for other little girls? Because little girls and their mommies don't need to see half naked children to sell them underwear. There is a tasteful way to market little girl's undergarments. See pics related. Notice the difference between the packaging for prepubescent girls vs post-pubescent women. One is sexualized and one isn't. The packaging for the little girls sells it in the language of children: bright colors, cartoons, bold fonts.

The real reason this frog advert is getting everyone's jimmies rustled is because who all know it's meant to elicit a sexual reaction from. Niggers, jews and pedos.

Both models are underage, even the older one looks about 15. The child even has a nip slip for christ's sake. Eye contact is a magazine/photography trick to elicit a sexual response. Ever notice that all "hot" women on magazine covers are staring directly into your soul? Both of these girls are doing just that.

Stop defending jewish perversion.

I posed that question; I did not answer it.

Not in as many words.

That's literally a public morals objection you're raising there. Apart from that, the question still stands: are you opposed to the fact that the ad in question uses a photograph or are you objecting to the ad in principle? And if so, then why?

Its a cuckchan poster bro, we've had a massive influx since a few things happened.
1. Comcast IPblocked cuckchan the other night, so a bunch of faggots moved over here.
2. Some normalfag tv show had cuckchan Holla Forums in a scene a week or two ago, so a bunch of people got banned and moved over here.
3. A concerted effort is being made by paid shills to distract from Trump cucking on 2A rights and being cucked on DACA by the jewdiciary

There's probably other shit too, but point is, in the last week or 2 we've had a visible increase in the number of cuckchan-tier threads and posts. Its really disgusting, but it will likely fade in time… And if it doesn't, then this place will go the way of cuckchan.

And I expressed my disdain for your Jewish mannerisms.

I literally don't see a sexual connotation with the adult underwear packaging. You're just projecting here. Maybe if she was doing the whole "leg crossed, raised eyebrows, hands on hips" type poses, then I would agree.
So what? What's your point? Do you think children's nipples are sexy?

What is this shit?

Your head is so far up your ass at this point that you can probably do your own dental work.

And because the results of devaluing aesthetics and beauty tend to be much less conspicuous I will presume to speak for them myself.

He's a pedophile jew, user. He'll spend all day every day obsessively arguing in favor of pedophilia until someone puts a rope around his neck.

And you accused 'me of consensus cracking?! Holy fucking shit. The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

Every.
Single.
Fucking.
Time.

Nope. It can be purely consequentialist. What if I just aesthetically prefer my women not acting like sluts? My full reasoning is far more complex, but I don't have to explain Holla Forums of all places why sluts are a net loss for society.

I explained quite clearly in my previous post, so just read that again.

Are they though?
Are they even trying to sell young girl underwear with that advert?
Further, who are they trying to sell it to? Little girls don't buy their own underwear, so are they trying to appeal to the mothers? I
Its just bizarre as an advertising strategy, and clearly is not aimed at the people it should theoretically be aimed at if the intent is to sell little girls underwear.

Kill yourself my man.

Libertarian tier arguments

This has to be bait moralism is important or are you going to spout "muh spooks" just because you want your degeneracy to be allowed

Nobody here is devaluing aesthetics.

what?

Goebbels would disagree. But your kind fear the National Socialists, don't they?

...

He's quite-literally a faggot who came over from cuckchan after he got banned - admitted in a thread IIRC - and his MO is that he likes to post cherry-picked images of spic "Nazis" while yelling about how its okay that the US becomes Brazil because Brazil is like 50% and, I dunno, some ridiculous shit about how we're going to have to go down there and live with them when Yellowstone explodes.
Its fucking innane trash.

Why did you only quote a fraction of my entire post where I said I also take issue with the ad?

So what happened faggot, did you get banned between those posts and these

Let me see if I can break this down. The advert is less about selling the children's underwear as much as it is a "controversial" brand advert that is supposed to elicit a sexual response (or one of disgust) in the people who walk by their store. It's a big PR move by some marketing move to send the signal that the brand is sexy and edgy. The little girls underwear target demo is basically there to set up plausible deniability on the true intent of the advert.

That's why I was asking who is the advert attempting to elicit a sexual response from? The one little kid even has a nip slip. It's obviously sexual. The user I was originally responding to was trying to argue hurr how else would you advertise girls underwear I call bullshit on that.

It's all a bunch of kikery tbh.

>"They're all shills bro. There's no way I'm wrong!"

You even tried to point out this "shilling attempt" is to distract from Trump "cucking" on 2A and DACA, when there are threads up right now proving he hasn't cucked. You're the only kike here trying not only to astroturf and consensus crack against anti-moralism, but fucking Trump as well.

You've been found out. Now it's time for your to shrink back.

why much do the jews pay you and is it really worth it?

Goebbels had no problem with some mild forms of nudity in art. I highly doubt he would've allowed underage girls to pose nude for art. Why are you trying to proclaim would support this ad.

You're a fucking idiot if you think that
< standing there modeling underwear
isn't exactly what the pedophiles cunts love. You need to educate your dumb ass before you open your lie-hole, shitbag.

That guy's a lost cause, user. Either he's doing a decent job trolling, or he's beyond fucked.

*how much

No malicious intent meant, user, I was merely addressing an angle you did not. We got where we are by allowing modesty to be denigrated. When actual live women are rewarded for exposing themselves in public then the behavior becomes normalized and we get pic related.

You aren't arguing that, you're arguing something completely different and using that as cover. We've been over this already.
Not all of them, just you and those two other faggots, including the double-faggot who had to hop on a new IP for some reason.

That certainly is part of it, yes.
Neato faggot.
Nah, you're the kike here m8, projecting as usual even as you engage in your Jewish argumentation strategies. You're disgusting.
Hahaha, no Jew.
You 'found me out' by revealing that you are in support of child nudity juxtaposed with adult female nudity being presented publically, and your sole argumentation is that its totally not sexualized u guiz and anyone who says it is sexualized is just projecting and they're probably just Christian puritans anyway.
You are literally the image presented here:

A sick Jew.

When you say things like "and surely you can understand where that leads", that's a tacit acknowledgement of agreement. If you don't want to be reduced to cheap "gotcha" legalisms then state an actual position or argument.

Of course it is. I'm sure you just want to avoid casting pearls before swine, right?

No, you didn't. You seem to have a habit of assuming that your opponent will fill in the holes and hanging ideas in your reasoning.

More specifically, and advertisement. This wasn't done for art's sake.

In all likelihood, its both.
Then again, you know what they say about pretending to be retarded for 'lulz'…

I've asked this about 20 fucking times now, and you're continuously pulling this pilpul bullshit.
But I'll try one more time.

Why do you find children in underwear sexy?

Exactly, its not to help your people its just to make money. Why this fucking jew thinks Goebbels would even allow something like this is really telling on how stupid or nefarious his kind is

It's just a little girl. I don't see anything sexual. At least there was no nigger boy holding her hand.

It's not my fault you're not intellectually up to the task of understanding my posts.

I have a question for you: do you think it's ok that women behave as sluts?

I have no doubt its going to be a Jewish argumentation strategy.
Calling it now.
Fucking nailed it.
We've been over this already. Repeatedly. (Jewish argumentation strategy #1 on your behalf).

So, first, why do you keep using that word when its very-clearly contextually inappropriate? Its like you're deny the context or something…

Lets fix that:
And here we see point-blank the context denial (Jewish argumentation strat #2 on your behalf), which we also already covered:

So, second, why do you keep engaging in blatant context denial as regards this issue?
Let's fix that again:
So let's see…
You
- disingenuously use a word that does not contextually apply, as explained to repeatedly
- misrepresented the argument, despite it being explained to you repeatedly
- don't understand how the juxtaposition of an adult nude fashion model in only her panties with to a prepubescent girl in only her panties acts to sexualize the little girl
If you're pretending to be retarded, you're doing a damn fine job; albeit, you're still acting retarded.
The same applies to if you're pretending to be a pedohilic jew.

...

And a fully grown woman, both topless in the same pose. To a normal person a little girl is not sexually appealing, but a fully grown naked woman is. The fact that there's a fully grown sexually appealing naked woman is proof that the advertisement is using sex to attract normal people's eyes, so it's not at all a jump to assume the naked child is there to attract not so normal people's eyes.

France has already accepted pedophillia before, sexualizing children is the next step to normalizing it. That's how all bad habbits become okay in a society, little by little. France is must ahead of a lot of other countries.

It's understandable that adult women would give you a boner with that pose, but why would you find a child in that pose sexual? That's disgusting.

...

You're a disingenuous Jewish pedophile.

Do really believe any thats against underage girls posing nude for an ad to have pedophillic tendencies? Would you also be one of those individuals that proclaims that if anyone is against homosexuals to harbor homosexual thoughts as well?

This user gets it.

Says the kike who find naked children sexual.

>

fucking hell I need sleep *anyone that's

We've been over this you disingenuous Jewish pedophile, and your commentary offers nothing as regards the argumentation that juxtaposing a nude little girl and a nude adult women inherently imposed sexualization upon the younger of the two.

You disgust me, you filthy kike kidde-fiddler.

You're building a false equivalency.

It would be more like if you find a picture of a ripped dude in his underwear sexual, you might be a homosexual.

[*CONTEXT DENIAL JUST KEEPS INTENSIFYING*]

Wew what a faggot

The Jew cries out as he strikes you
Notice how when I call you a pedo or a retard, it all runs off you like water off a duck's back, but when I call you a Jew, that's when you go into defensive overdrive? You're a (33) in this thread, all defending yourself against me calling you out on your kike pilpul bullshit.
Hmm….

*(42)
My bad.

...

To use the terms "scantily clad" is to imply you find something sexual about them. Do you find children in underwear sexual, Mr. Shekelberg?

So why can't you answer? Why do you find prepubescent children sexually attractive?

I don’t mean to invoke biblical allegory, but if you recall from Genesis, Eve only started covering herself with the fig leaf after she partook of the tree of knowledge and became aware of her nudity. In essence, covering up is an acknowledgement of nudity as sexual beings. Naked children in home videos taking baths aren’t concerned with their own nudity, they aren’t even cognizant of sexuality yet which is why moms and dads aren’t hauled off for their home video collections. That’s why there’s the “you know it when you see it” test for pornography. The kikes doing these adverts are absolutely sexualizing these young girls. I’m from Italy and remember loving the Garnier commercials because there was naked wimminz, but they weren’t covering up or anything so it was very anesthetized nudity. That one displays all the subtle body language that you notice when you are seen by a girl who is also staring right back at you. It’s perverse enough to get by the censors and the autists that inhabit his forum such as yourself, but not to anyone aware of their surroundings and how the Jews operate.

Checked for he's not a faggot, he's a Jewish pedophile.
Genuinely disgusting.

There you go again, with the context denial.
Here, I'll fix it for you:
Its like you cannot help but deny context.
I've explained it to you. Repeatedly. Several times now. And its like you just can't ge tit.
Let's make it very clear for you, since you're apparently Jewish AND mentally retarded:
The argument is not that 'children in underwear is sexual', rather, that the JUXTAPOSITION of placing a prepubescent girl in nothing but her panties next to an adult woman in the same - the latter CLEARLY and UBIQUITOUSLY utilized in advertising on the basis of sex appeal - innately sexualizes the prepubescent girl.
You have no excuse at this point not to understand that.
In fact, I want you to type it out for me, so that we can be sure you have read it. Go on, type it out, no correction, no 'fixes', type out exactly what is written above.
If you can help yourself from denying the context, that is.

Your last post was a (34) in this thread, all defending yourself against me calling you out on your semitic argumentation strategies, primarily denial of context.
Hmmm indeed.

So we're down to "anyone who disagrees with me is a shill", huh?

If that's your belief then this discussion is ogre.

Bullshit.
Nothing implying sexuality innately therein.

You're doing it again. Now you've gone from 'sexy' to its definition 'sexually attractive'.
I already explained this to you here:

You're still using Jewish argumentation, putting words in peoples mouths even though its been explicitly pointed out to you that those words were never implied to be justifed in-context.

But its like you have a pathologic need to deny context. Either you are Jewish as fuck in your pretend retardation, or you're just genuinely a Jewish pedophile.
Which is it?

No I don't and I hate the fact that pedophiles will get off to this all so some kike can make a profit.

Did you even read the post?
Not anyone - just you faggots.

We've been over this too.

You're just repeating the same points over and over again, ignoring whatever is said to you.
Now where have I heard of something like that before…

"… Gradually I began to hate them."
Oh, right.

Ban the fucking pedo, the add is NOT for men it is to sexualise pre teens and get their mothers to think it's cute.Anyone ok with it should be killed as painfully as possible

Your attempts at distraction are fruitless.

Apparently it never started, simpleton.

Are you literally autistic? Scantily in the context of clothing implies revealing, which in turn implies sexual. I knew you pedophiles were known to have lower IQs on average, but I hoped your kike IQ would balance it out so you could at least make coherent points.

Pic related.
Seriously though, this thread is cancer. This is what happens when cuckchan is unleashed upon us en masse.
-trashy template thread
-faggots arguing devils advocate and LARPing as kike pedos
-jewish argumentation going around and around and around in circles to no end
-some retards sitting in a discord somewhere coordinating their shilling and thinking themselves (((BASED)))

This thread is trash, it will always be trash, and these posters…

(Last two being the same faggot, obviously)
… deserve permabans and should have their posting history revealed.

So you're admitting that the ad is sexual?

I thought I made a decent post :^(

noone checked your cool digits.
also, you have crazy widows peaks pattern baldness, and no wedding ring. why aren't you married yet.

You did, don't worry.

Checked for you did, but the thread is still cancer m80.

Holy shit, did you mistake one of your own posts for something a Jew would write? I think it's time for you to reevaluate your position, my dude.

His argument was that the underwear is scant. Please try reading before responding. Reading comprehension is important for communication.

Linked my posts again and again because you keep bringing up the same points again and again as though those posts never happened, you disingenuous cancerous kike pedo.
I think its time for you to stop denying context, kike pedo.

Oh christ and I missed this shit.
Jesus Christ dude be less jewish.

I never argued that revealing clothing can't be sexual. My position has been consistent in that this girl's underwear isn't revealing, scant, or any of the sort. No frills, no lacey bullshit, etc. It looks like something you would wear to a beach. Now if it were a thong or one of those see-through type lingerie things with the flower patterns or whatever, I would agree.

Leave it to a kike to misrepresent your position then cry for the mods to permaban them as they correct you.

No, no, that's your argument. You just self-destructed!

That looks like a leftist meme it's so bad.

Confirmed for being an illiterate retard. Nothing more embarrassing than claiming victory and le BTFOing someone else when you're patently wrong in your argument against them. And posting ebin reaction images along with it? Just more icing on the cake for me as I laugh at your pea-brain chugging along trying to keep up with the conversation.

But yeah, I hope you keep posting le BTFO maymays, my dude.

Check the IDs, shlomo. Answer the question, childfucker.
The same word, yeah. Only a kike would be confused by that.

here are some more pics from the brand. suggestive or not? you decide!

Can do, pedo-kike.

The Jew likes to drag you along on their sematic games.
>N-No, not sexual, sexualized
Notice how none of them have actual answered why they find the child in the underwear sexual though. I find their lack of a response and pilpul to divert attention all more revealing than any straight answer they could give.

What the fuck.

That's the idea fuckwit.

The argument is not that 'children in underwear is sexual', rather, that the JUXTAPOSITION of placing a prepubescent girl in nothing but her panties next to an adult woman in the same - the latter CLEARLY and UBIQUITOUSLY utilized in advertising on the basis of sex appeal - innately sexualizes the prepubescent girl.

Disingenuous.
Context denial.
Projection.
You are disgusting.

I did. You're doing it again. We've been over this.

Why do you KEEP DENYING CONTEXT?
Answer the fucking question, kiddie fucker.
WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS TOO….

You're doing it AGAIN.
Nobody is making the argument you're projecting onto them. They tell you as much, explain it to you, and you come back asking the same question again.

This is so Jewish.

Nigger egg layers dont look any different from their more criminal counter parts

...

It has a skirt on the side, not "frills". I can tell you've never been with a woman in her underwear before. But I'm glad you haven't. The last thing I want is for you to get laid and have more kikelings in this world. But who knows, maybe you'd molest your kike children judging by how kids in underwear get you off, so then the kids would grow up depressed and eventually off themselves. Win-win scenario either way.

Oh, right, I forgot this part… WHICH WE'VE ALSO BEEN OVER ALREADY. MORE CONTEXT DENIAL. JESUS CHRIST.

This isn't some kid at the beach, this isn't some kid at one of your public baths, this isn't some kid in the bath at home - this is a little girl, topless, in her panties, standing next to a fashion thot, being photographed by some weirdo for the purpose of using her nude image in a fashion advertisement which will be posted in public. Its disgraceful, the context being important in that conclusion - the context you keep bending over backwards trying to deny.

>8ch.net/log.php?board=pol
The mods are active right now.

...

What even is context?

Oh Jesus Christ m8… The rest of the post was just dogshit from a butthurt kike pedo with no arguments left.

Can you stop arguing via Jewish tactics, or are you incapable of that?

Judging by the older girl's height and figure, she has to be in her early teens. Why do you call white girls thots, Shlomo err Mr. Chad Smith.

...

Oh fuck off you disingenuous kike pedo.
Because she's posing for a Jew photographer in fashion, you fucking slimey kike.

The mods are active right now:
8ch.net/log.php?board=pol

Granting you your premise, do you believe that an underage teenage white girls understands the ramifications of having a Jewish man photograph her naked?
You sure seem to harbor some resentment for young white girls. I wonder why that is. Possible ethnic tension?

Nowhere did you say that you do not find children sexually attractive. Reported.

Why would a child ever need to wear something that reveals the body in public, if not in imitation of the clothes used by young women to show their bodies?

Granting your premise, do you believe that an adult parent thereof understands those ramifications?
Does the Jewish man taking the photos understand it?

Also: She's not a teen, she looks like an adult to me.

Disgustingly Jewish nonsense. Just disgusting and very very Jewish.

Because that was never the argument, kiddie fiddler.

sys.8ch.net/log.php?board=pol

Seriously, what good are the mods if not to deal with shitty cuckchan template threads full of Jewish pedos trying to argue anyone who finds it distasteful for a prepubescent girl in only her panties to be juxtaposed with a sexually-mature woman in only her panties in a public advertisement for a fashion brand is the actual jewish pedo (or just a 'puritan')?

sys.8ch.net/log.php?board=pol

Are we going ethnic food mode again?

It doesn't matter what you say, you're the only one arguing in favor of EXPOSING CHILDREN.

...

your Holla Forums is showing, shlomo

You have been asked the question dozens of times. You cannot answer. Global report for fucking children.
The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

Cite the posts.
Because its context denial.
You're asking "Why do you find children in underwear sexy/sexually attractive?".
Why are you asking that? Its been explained to you dozens of times, and you ignored it, dozens of times. Why?
Answer the fucking question kiddie fucker: Why do you keep denying context?

Returned in kind. In fact, think I'll hit every one of your posts.

Answer the question.
Why are you so disingenuous?
Nobody suggested they found children in underwear sexy.
Nobody suggested whats ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE - a child in ONLY their underwear, juxtaposed with a sexually-mature woman in ONLY her underwear, in a fashion advert - is arousing or appealing in any way.
So, why are you asking people who say they find it distasteful for children to be sexualized via juxtaposition with adults, the latter of whom AT THE LEAST are clearly being sexualized, why they find "children in underwear sexy"?

I don't find children sexy or sexually arousing at all - and I find it DISTASTEFUL for them to be SEXUALIZED through juxtaposition with a very-obvious sexualized adult woman in a fucking advertisement, you disingenuous fucking kike.

I don't see anything sexual in nude women walking around. Anyone that sees nudism as somehow sexual is a fucking purist and should stay away from this movement.

Fucking kill yourself m8.

There's times and places for nudity.

Yeah man free love let's also exploit kids for profit and destroy human relationships forever

I think only his last post was objectionable.

A nude woman, if you're a straight man, is sexual - there may be a great deal of beauty in that, which at least in part acts to accentuate your sexual response.
That's not to say every nude woman at any point in time is like HYERBONER generating - if an attractive woman is nude, even just walking around, she's beautiful, and as a straight male, chances are her nude beauty generates a sexual response to at least some degree.

So why would you put that next to a nude little girl in an advert for a fashion brand?
What is the purpose? Who is it supposed to appeal to? What response is it supposed to derive?
We know the answers.

This whole thread is SO FUCKING JEWISH.

This is fucking ridiculous, this is Holla Forums-tier, cuckchan-styled nonsense, either shitposting or the epitome of hebrew filth, whether direct from the source or as espoesd by philosemitic scoundrels, and its allowed to shit up the board while the mods spend their time banning people for calling Trump a kike or some shit.
Fuck.

Checked for that's the point.
There's an incongruity there.

You retard, he thinks sexualisatio is sexual attraction, he's a bone fide kike

No, that's the other faggot.

Hang em on the same branch

No complaints there.

Shocked by what? The ad isn't sexual, and not even a fucking nipple is shown. Maybe if she wore a burqa like every other woman in Paris you'd be happy.
Are you a burger? Don't turn on the tv (not that you should anyway) if that ad already triggers you, and lucky you it isn't summer or you'd have to poke your eyes out in some beaches.

Somebody check if he criticised the President, he'll be gone in seconds

Chill, and look at his posts.

No disagreement here. I just go softer than "kill yourself" unless the idiocy persists. His other posts were in line with rational thought.

Well that's not true all.

Reported for fucking children.

Is the beach where you go to nonce?

I meant on the one with boobs. With no boobs nobody gives a shit if there's a nipple, they look no different from boys' at that age. Don't tell me you've never seen a young girl topless at a beach or lake.

You mean the adult whose nipple is clearly visible? You may want to examine that picture again.

Jesus Christ. I go to take a shit and I come back and this pedo kike is still sperging out. I gotta go to sleep now. I'm sure this kid diddling heeb will take me leaving as some sort of BTFO victory or some shit. That's usually how kikes subvert the rules of the game. Victory by default and the like.

But I'm serious. If I ever see you around any children and decide to cop a feel or show 'em your circumcised schlong, I will, in self defense and within all legally protected actions, destroy you. Remember that.

This is some Weimar tier rationalization and recoiling. Why don't you want our women to observe basic decency you kikes? Could it be that you want them to continue to be whores?
Just goes to show where paganism will lead our society.

What is the message for 8 year old girls you pleb, cover those sexual parts, be like mommy, pester her for sexualising underwear. It's completely to sexualise her by direct comparison. Your thoughts on the beach are ridiculous

...

I don't think that's a nipple. Might be, but to me it looks like she's holding back her boobs and it's just the lighting. If not, her nipples are as big as her tits.

Underwear ads are aimed at teens/adults, not kids. Kids don't ask their parents to buy underwear or socks.
If so they did a shitty job, there are many sexier underwear ads out there (although without the kid I guess since few brands want to be known for being creepy).

Walk around northern LA, it's infuriating that you see so many jews with yamakas out in daylight unafraid.

Your personao taste is irrelevant, it's aimed at the mum and kid to bond over 'fashion' of underwear ffs, the most sexualised item

She's got a big protruding nipple. Those are the most fun to play with.

Because a kid would never see something that wasn't aimed at them…

Don't propagate d&c bullshit. I have absolutely zero belief in any religion but I will bet that I'm more puritanical than yourself AND I have no problem living next to christians.

Is it puritanical to want women not to be whores?

Have you ever been around french children? They are less likely to wear shirts when they are little you retard.

No, that should be normal level expectations.

What I was pointing our is that we'll get kikes like
Posting the exact same picture thread after threat talking about muh human form muh art muh aesthetics, and the pagan mind is totally open to such arguments with no real blocks in place.

Well I would ask, what is the purpose of that photo and then I would ask, would I want my daughters doing that.
The answer to the first would be vanity and exploitation and the answer to the second would be, no.

ITT:
Americucks crying over a naked body.

kek.
This

As much as scantily clad kids shouldn't be used in advertising, it's a totally different world over there regarding nudity in culture, most burgers appear to have never visited the next state, let alone another continent.

Typical tricks.

Maybe this is some kike cp advertising, point is in EU this sort of thing isn't uncommon.
Does it make it right? Probably not.

if this bothers you, you're probably a pedophile.

Yes it fucking is, it would NEVER pass adstandards in UK

kek you kikes would have been run out of here two years ago. Utter scum

Gotta make sure the sand-niggers have the right thing on their mind when they see a little girl walking down the isle towards the bathroom.

Kek yeah maybe not in that shithole, but they'll protect the rest of the damn kid fuckers instead.
France, Germany etc most people wouldn't give a shit.
Don't lump me in with the latest cuckchan wave, you faggot.

Clockwork.

france isn't the UK, they have a different culture surrounding nudity and always have.

and for the "argument" that 'well shes next to some thot'

that 'thot' is a teenager, it's supposed to depict a younger sister trying to dress like her older sister. it's cute. spending years on imageboards getting exposed to pedo scum spouting their child sexualization propaganda has rotted your minds.

fixed that for you

Your end your will not be swift, degenerate.

You fucking imbecile, that is the goal of every kike run media platform, dress and act like you're whore sister or single mother. Where the fuck did these mongs come from, mods have banned the whole section of non brainwashed reddit and cuckchan 'imageboard culture my dude' pedo's. kys

We wonder why society has been torn assunder, when the natsoc board is full of degenerates regurgitating post modern garbage

Germany turned from Weimar to Hitler in a flash. Just goes to show, most people need stern leadership.

Which is to say, they need force used against them, not arguments.

Like clockwork

There is only trash left on this board, fucking mods should be hung first

No,user people need rules and standards without them everything falls apart.

nudity is not inherently degenerate

ebin meme there.

People like this get gas, they are kikes or agents of subversion

We have those, but they are not enforced. keyword: forced

Welcome to the thread, dumbass. Never argued that.

For our own protection we can't just kill upon first infraction, but intelligent action must be swift.

That girl is literally no older than 5, being used to sell underwear for sexually active teens, showing a fucking nipple. But a friendly hand on a knee is sexual assault. Fuck this planet

(((61)))) posts by you are more than enough. Filtered and reported.

It literally is though.

They are French.
It's France.
I'm more glad that there's not racemixing propaganda on there more than there's a little kid.

I say this exactly because I am European, Deutscher, um genau zu sein.
I know our degenerate neighbors
This is normal to them and doesn't require kikery.

That this seems to be a racially homogenous picture of white fertility outweighs the rest.
Kikes and niggers are kikes and niggers anyway.
But this is a treat you won't see often anywhere.

This does absolutely zero fuck all to normalize pedophilia or sexuality in France.
They put nipples in their childrens shows and brothels in them too.
They don't give a fuck.
Okay? They don't give a fuck about these kind of things.
They have zero fucking trouble with this or gain any more "degeneracy" points with this for they are already fully scored in looking at scantily clad children.

And the niggers and kikes who get off to that would get off to that, too.
They will get the rope in due time, but if you think that this will "taint" the French population then you are dead fucking wrong.

Be glad that it's non racemixing because I am.

Aren't those albanians? It's funny how a bunch of inbred, genetic wastes that more resemble a mexican than a german could think they're aryans in any way. Yet they've been given a right to conquest slavic neighbors with immunity.

Checked
Enjoy some anti-degeneracy

To illustrate the point:
If this were an advert for keeping your fucking pit hair unshaved as a woman you'd probably get disgusted at that, as well.
But that, too, is fucking French.
To the French it would be advertising to "breathe air".
In fact, I would call that "a reminder of French" culture.
Remember how fucking French we are? No?
Well start growing your pit hair out, girls. The rest will come back on its own.

This is like advertising drinking in public in Germany.
It's normal.
Some people get disgusted at that, but there's nothing wrong to Germans to drink in public as long as you don't make a total ass out of yourself, but drinking and being drunk is 1488% normal.

Because it's already normalized.

Read the thread, dumbass. It's a long argument about whether this is universally ok, not whether it's ok in France.

Stop posting you fucking mong,

...

I remember when YouTube had those audience stats. They don't anymore right? Not even in some obscure API?

Say what you will about porn but if you are a dude it is ALWAYS a negative and never a positive to watch porn FOR YOU. Who cares about the 'morality' bullshit you should stop watching porn like you should quit a drug addiction.

He's German, they are pure autists in argument, what 'works' there must be right.

It's not universally okay, and neither is speaking French, one of the worst languages.
But they still speak it there.

Because there's literary no justification for a female of any age to have public pictures of them topless. Also this being a company that sells bras/tops yet chooses not to display more of thier product makes this more obvious.

No, they look 100% pure spic stock. It's written in spanish.

No, what works there doesn't necessarily have to be right.
What is more wrong is meddling with things and making things more uniform.
Balkanization and difference is the way to go. not "universal mush".

I'm not saying that this is good ( it's degenerate).
I am saying it's FRENCH. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am saying that this advert means nothing to the French, but in the scale of European politics, a homogenous white picture of fertility DOES mean something.

French men fuck 12 year old friends of their kids and it's culturally accepted, the woman are complete fuckups, this is why.

*French Jews and mudshits

You sure? Their languages tend to sound similar. I could be wrong but the the symbol on this kid's shirt is the double headed eagle.

No, White French men

It means increased normalization of women being whores. It's not good.

No, it says "nosotros los [something] contra [something] puedan"
And there is almost no other place in the spanish-speaking world that looks nearly this ugly, other than maybe Bolivia, but they tend to look more like native tribes. Mexico is the absolute worse of every country the spaniards touched.

It's a fucking 5 year old mimicking the fertillity ffs, that's blatant sexualisation

Well thanks, user. Still, it's funny they would parade around as nazis when they look nothing like.

What is wrong with that. They are selling underwhere. You should instead worry about all the fucking niggers/muslims, the Redsheilds Puppet President, and the EU.

I don't even mind this. If some nigger in africa laughs at the holocaust and honors hitler I'm more fine with it than pure white skinheads acting like degenerates.

I don't think hitler's issue with these faggots would be their skin color as much as their blatant degeneracy (including, but not limited to, calling themselves nazis).

I'm french and I've never seen an ad like that, disgusting.

...

Who could have thunk?

It's more kikery trying to pass off as local white culture. Same tricks different day.

I love how europoors literally never have a defense for their degenerate, pedo ways

it's always

why am I not surprised

Are you gay?

it's a language that constantly sounds like the speaker is choking on their own spit

ITT: europoors defend child exploitation and blatant pedophilia

OP, be glad they're both white and (presumably) actual females.

Crotchless burkas when?

you wouldn't rather have them parading around shitskin kids? They're already tainted

...

archive.is/vimM7

Found the fags who orchestrate this shit.

Of course they are, niggers and arabs don't want to look at their own women.

of course, only a woman would be this "bold." the ultimate redpill is how pedophiliac and perverse women are.
Most people don't realize it.
I'll bet more mothers have pimped out their daughters in history than fathers.

fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/petit-bateau-marks-100-year-of-the-panty-as-it-prepares-for-the-next-century-of-business/2018020628025
Disgusting. Europeans really do lack basic human shame.
They're like animals.

...

petit-bateau.co.jp/shop/pages/culotte_top.aspx

Hey look, more photos of that same little girl

I wonder how many "private" ones they took as well.

You seem to have a fetish, "user".

I wonder who's behind this post

Indeed, I wonder.

I've read the bible, mister. Literally everything is women's fault.

Registrant Name: Jasmine Loignon
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 41 rue des jeuneurs
Registrant City: Paris
Registrant State/Province: France
Registrant Postal Code: 75002
Registrant Country: FR
Registrant Phone: +33.664598491
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Jasmine Loignon
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: 41 rue des jeuneurs
Admin City: Paris
Admin State/Province: France
Admin Postal Code: 75002
Admin Country: FR
Admin Phone: +33.664598491
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: [email protected]
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Jasmine Loignon
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: 41 rue des jeuneurs
Tech City: Paris
Tech State/Province: France
Tech Postal Code: 75002
Tech Country: FR
Tech Phone: +33.664598491
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: [email protected]

Love the part where he's beating women.

Sadly you're unlikely to convince Americans that naked skin is normal or natural.
BUT YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT
Why are the girls White? What happened to the enforced diversity that is the norm in every regular advertisement? Why aren't they "beautiful coffee colored babies"?
White models were chosen for a reason, to ramp up the lust in the brown hordes.
The photographs are not erotic to Frenchmen, or most other W.Europeans, but to muslims who come from places where seeing a bare ankle is a major event, this is visual viagra.
Intentionally so.

Implying this hideous thing isn't a yid

Lolita is the Spanish diminutive of Dolores. Dolores reference to the virgin Mary, weeping, grieving, crying Mary (dolor, pain, grief)

They are not naked and it is absolute usual to appear in a comparable outfit on the beach.

They sell underwear. How do you suggest to do this conform with sharia?

The context is selling underwear, difficult without showing it.

What slope Achmed? Your slope because you became aroused by some ad and felt the need to rape someone?

Nipples, the Krypton for Americucks. The same population who can’t stop to be offended by “speedos”, while wearing baggy pants in water like a Turk.

We found the Mormon. How is your magic underwear doing?

Daily reminder the Nazis let half naked women parade through the streets.

Not shown with the ad above. Not sexual. Suggestive only from your side.

They are not nude, they are not women. If you feel aroused by tit-less underage girls, there is something wrong with you.

To sell underwear

To show the merchandise

The buyer

Sales

...

...

If I consider myself anything its a Wotanist and thats because they worship the human qualities which we need to fight white genocide. Its also considered the most brutal and violent type of paganist sect in the prison systems, because viking warriors only wish to die in battle.

So judging by her obvious kike features, (using French word for "onion" as an alias?), and a portfolio showing tons of (((connections))) while lacking an academic background, I think its safe to write this off as a kikes kiking. Pedo defenders and shills eternally btfo again archive.is/AlqzR

Probably better in QTDDTOT but you seem to know about noses, ive been wondering, where would this type of nose be from? The kind where you can see up their nostrils when looking straight at them, where the skin on the nostril flares doesnt match the bottom level of the cartilage in how far it goes down.

You're too late, its obvious the director who cleared this is a kikess. Chew glass Jew.

Well this particular kikess has the classic round droopy nose so it wasn't difficult. But I know the one you mean, pic related.

Proof that the girl on the left is prepubescent and/or underage or transgender? She looks around 20.
Women who do not ruin their appearance with tattoos, outlandishly colored hair and exposure to drugs retain their youthful looks. Those who threw their looks away, fund a multi-billion dollar industry trying to look 16 again, while claiming that attraction to youthful looks is "creepy" but hoping that their ruse will attract the very men who would find youth attractive.
I was somewhat with you until you started down this line, now I suspect you're a crypto-feminist.
archive.fo/W2Gg3
Retailers insult their customers all the time, they know that the ones who actually control the spending (women) will get over it very quickly, if they were bothered at all.
Case in point, UK "christmas" adverts for major retailers all attacking White family and White men.
Women lap that shit up and it doesn't affect sales in any meaningful way.

Video proves that the company isn't some kind of White bastion who only use White models. They're full on "coffee colored children" CultMarx, so the choice to use 2xWhite female becomes even more egregious.

Lol I think its a European nose, like Danish or something. I cant place it or find good examples.

Like the poster here who feel aroused enraged about tit- and ass-less underage girls?

One can not easy discard such a possibility, today.
So what do you suggest, should Europeans “bag” their women and children in burkas, not to offend the sensibilities of savages animals, to demonstrated they are not “uncovered meat”? We might introduce make sharia the law.

You've already blown your cover.
You are a kike/leftist.

...

Danish LOL
Americans and the European phenotypes

She looks like a kike could theoretical be a very ugly gentile, probably is.

The 3 that were highlighted look nothing like kikes. They are round and the opposite of a hook with no bump.

Women don't walk around the public street in their underpants, so why allow an advert which shows them in a state of dress not appropriate for a public place? The bone of contention here is the advert, simply remove such adverts.
By the way, don't think that your attempt to confuse standards of decency with "sharia" went unnoticed.
Feminist's formula:
>standards of decency, call it sharia
>find youthful women more attractive than beaten up old hags 30+, call you a pedophile
>actually thinks this will get White men to agree with your feminism for fear of being associated with figures of hate.

I'm sure there are many more examples of this blunt tool in action.

Well this thread is something different.

So earlier I was trolling you guys on another thread and an user got mad so started spam posting youtube videos of the band the scorpions. Other anons responded very positively to his posts meant to drown me out and to the music in general. At the time I didn't think very much of it but then I saw this thread and something clicked in my head. So you guys are mad that this advert in a shop is showing a nude prepubescent girl because it sexualizes them right? Well if thats the case, why are you guys okay with a band like the scorpions? Just look at this album cover. Are you telling me its okay for you to sexualize kids but when others depict similar imagery its evil and perverse simply because they arent you? Im not really expecting any kind of an answer, just the usual plugging of ears and yelling names. Have a good night boys and remember, a huge group of your user base are legitimate pedophiles, not saying you all are but even the ones that arent support people who are without knowing it. All those 80's bands from Europe are FILLED with pedophiles and the fond memories you have of that music is stained with the fact they molested kids on tour. lol

...

I sure hope you don't get a boner from the cover of such magazines, user.
they're all men

You will suffer.

Yea nah go fuck yourself

you came across it on cuckchan and you need to go back

Fucking glorious

not really, european degeneracy is nothing new.
I'm just surprised to see it so brazen in the year 2018. I expect a little more subtlety.

Neither do they in bikini.

So what do you suggest? Should we ban advertisement for underwear, swimwear, holiday on the beach?

Should shops selling such cover up their windows and have a separee inside, like porn shops?
Of course some people will have tickled their perverted urges. For example it used to be that pedophiles covered behind the facade of “nudist” literature, nothing open sexual, but the intent was noticeable in the mix. With the pedo scare of the last decades each and every nudist publication was “cleaned” of any underage looking personal in images. OK, but it didn’t stop here father were accused of sexual child abuse because they shared a bath with their children, families were reported to the police because they let print “nude” photos of their babies.

I think sane people should the standard we measure things and behavior, not the wicked pervert.

Who says that?
Strawman
The band in question no longer likes the cover either.

Shut up kike
American squeamishness and prudery is direct result of the wish to be more jewish.

I agree bro, Americans are such unsophisticated prudes. Pedophilia is a proud European cultural tradition. Hell, child porn was sold legally in some European countries until the 1980s. To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand fucking kids.

Thanks for the fap fuel OP. twitter.com/petitbateau

Consider that this imagery is in France, what do you think the mooslims see when they look at this picture? They see two whores ready for rape. Also, this imagery was made by a pervert even if you would claim plausible deniability. Believe it or not, here in the US toddlers and young children run around without shirts on, we just don't put pictures of them up once they reach an age where we think it's no longer appropriate. It is possible that the French are just inviting a big african man to rape their little girls when they normalize imagery like this.

Mein Kampf chapter XIV

To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.
Titus 1.15

Just stopped by to see if you kikes are still kvetching. This is pathetic even by your usual standards.

So let's summerize all the jewish tricks posted thus far:

Am I missing any?

my sides. reminds me of pic related from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Right in the feels

Lol wut? There are Wotan vikings in prisons? Holy shit do they actually know what their beliefs are and what they stand for? Because what I have seen of the neo-nazis and the tattooed aryan-nation faggots is that they are low-iq retards that would be denied the privilege of reproduction in a society with a working eugenics program.

...

What's wrong? So insecure that little girls turn you on?

What you have to remember is that in France they dont watch American TV. So the population doesnt see girls like that gyrating about in skimpy clothing on a daily basis, so they dont consider a girl that young sexual at all.

Its different in America because you have disney shows that have girls of that age dressed and behaving like whores.

mmd

Wow, you mean the French did something slightly sexual?

Seriously, fuck off with your ridiculous puritanical nonsense. You see more little girl skin at the beach.

What actual important topic are you trying to slide faggot?

And then the Mudslimes get triggered and have a sexual emergency …with a child! They just can't help it.
Why indecency is unacceptable.

Honestly this dilemma seems pretty simple to me. You can debate the intent of the photographers and ad agencies until the cows come home because there's no proof either way but in the end it really comes down to a simple question: would a good parent let their child be in this kind of ad? I think not.

Nowadays even the clothed ads from American companies are pretty sexualized, or maybe it's just the clothes themselves:

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/salt-hair-dont-care-shade-critters-meandkay.jpg

img.4plebs.org/boards/tv/image/1490/95/1490951563738.jpg

img.4plebs.org/boards/tv/image/1490/95/1490951633041.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/collections/stella-cove-white-butterfly-bikini-meandkay-ruffle-butt.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/collections/stella-cove-bikini-pompom-meandkay-rainbow.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/bowie-james-bo-arrow-bikini-meandkay-web-back.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/files/7C3A5146_copyweb4.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/shade-critters-leopard-gold-and-pink-one-piece-meandkay.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/pink-pom-pom-bikini-stella-cove-me-and-kay.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/shade-critters-pink-and-gold-leopard-bathing-suit-meandkay.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/pink-chicken-bathin-suit.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/stella-cove-striped-bikini-pink-blue.jpg

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1765/3337/products/stella-cove-bikini-striped.jpg

All of these come from the meandkay.com clothing store.

I get that they want to show off the product but I don't know why you need an HD picture of a meticulously styled blonde little girl cocking her hip to the side while giving a sultry look to the camera for parents to decide what swimsuit to buy.

Of course this isn't even as bad as the "twerk studios" they have for elementary and middle schoolers now. One opened up near me recently and I saw like 7 and 8 year olds in skimpy leotards and kneepads doing "fuck the floor" motions through the window. It's insanity.

I was in another thread trolling you guys and one user got pissed so he started spamming the scorpions music videos. Other anons jumped in and commended him for his efforts to drown me out and they started talking about how the scorpions are such a great band. I didnt think anything of this at first but then I saw this thread and all the anons pissed at this ad for sexualizing kids and something clicked. The scorpions debut American album "virgin killer" originally looked like
But had to be changed for the American audience. Why is it its okay when something you like sexualizes kids -

(anime, most 80's rock bands, 80's movies etc)

Well my troll effort failed since I cant seem to upload a pic, it just hangs at Posted 100%. I really dont have the patients to keep trying just to rustle you guys.

slippery slope
LGPTOQ
remember what the p is for

As a europoor, i can tell you that i am absolutely disgusted by that ad, and the message is clear.
They are trying to justify some indecent child exposition with "muh art" or "muh puritan bigotry".
Also the anons defending this pedo-bait are most likey kike shills and not euros.

Ageism is a crime goyim. Are you a bigot?

Fellow Europeans

I’m shocked, shocked about European underwear advertisement

this is fucking pedophilia

So I am for banning both the adult female and child being displayed in public with skin showing between the collar bone and above the knees.

The naked adult female does more damage to society since pedophiles are a minority.

You are activating the sex drive of more people with the adult female, which is bad for society.

Looks like your typical anime garbage.

But the other girl isnt remotely an adult, or presented in a sexualized manner.
Nigger I see this shit at the beach every summer, and worse. Kids going full naked and crap.
This is clearly a culture shock between Americans and Euros.

This is normalization of pedophila.

Why did they hang up pedo shit then?
Which has to be normalized?
For the purpose of?
Common enough for them to put public adverts out on the street?

Is right, you nincompoops.

It's just a child. No sexual defining features yet.
The problem is that society is so sexualized that you can't even have this without people thinking about nude women. I still have old photographs of my great grandmother topless at a beach back in 1930-33 when she was 12.

Tl;dr: the naked child isn't the problem. Sexualized jew culture is that makes people think about sex 24/7

Some degenerate jew culture made by the Nazis for you. Turns out the Nazis were all pedos because they not only encouraged and were partially behind the nudist movement, but they also allowed depiction of naked kids in film and print.

This guys gets it.