The only thing better than a naughty girl is a naughty Disney girl!

(I'm such a dirty perv)

15 My Ass!-- Her rep claimed she was "17" when the first set was taken but I think that was BS to try and prevent them from being circulated. They were even posted uncensored on reputable (but edgy) news sites like The Huffington Post (and they're still there in the archives) and I doubt they would've done that if she was underage. Look what happened to that fagball Perez Hilton when he posted the Miley Cirus crotch shot. Somehow I think Ariana Huffington is a little smarter than Perez Hilton.

Bobbathefett I think you better give stop playing with your Star Wars figures and grow up a little. Get out of your Geroge Lucas fantasy world.


Also let me point out you're a real Dickball for having the nerve to come here, a total newbie, just joined, and with two lousy posts, and bitch about a veteren contributor's post. Capster has posted some great stuff, you've done nothing (except maybe blow up the Death Star with your toys, a 40 year old man who's still into Star Wars. Pathetic!)-- It's assholes like you that are the reason people like DeepatSea and other great contributor's have left this forum---- Shut up and go away!!!!!! No one wants you here!

According to Wikipedia (I know - not always the most accurate site, but it does have her birthdate to be December 1988, which seems accurate), she's 21 now (at the time of this post), and the first set was "leaked" in September 2007, so she would have been 18 at the time.

Ok just to inject a little bit of rationality into this "debate", it doesn't matter when the pictures were released, it matters when they were taken.

If anyone would bother to check the EXIF meta data on these jpegs, you'll see that they were all taken throughout 2006 by a Motorola Cell phone. And I think it's very probable that the time stamp inserted by the camera was correct, given that most (if not all) phones automatically update their clocks from the cell tower. So that said, according to IMDB, VH was born on Dec 14 1988, meaning that she was 17 in all of these pictures except for one of them that was taken on Dec 20.

In any event, I don't care about this magic line that people have drawn at the arbitrary age of 18 years old. Some 18-year-olds are less mature than some 17-year-olds. Biology doesn't care about how old you are, every girl matures at her own pace according to her genetics. So I think it's all good as long as she doesn't look like a prepubescent child.

I agree with you - on the part about this "magic line".

Also, how did you check the meta-data from the JPegs?

Thanks.

I see the EXIF data in ACDSee Pro 3, which I use as my default image viewer, as you would in any decent image viewing program like Microsoft Office Picture Manager.



However I think you don't even need any of that because if you right click the jpeg (in Windows XP) and go to properties, then select the tab at the top that says Summary and then click Advanced, the meta data is there too. Note that the 'date taken' time stamp in the EXIF info has nothing to do with the regular 'date modified' or 'date created' in the file properties.

Thanks a bunch, troter.

Also, after searching for a while (which is something I do not normally do, since I don't which sites are safe and which are set up for viruses), I found several pictures of her first "release" as well as the second "release". Since the second set is already posted here, I can post the first set (only 5 pictures), if anybody wants to see them.

If someone wants to see them, let me know - also someone would have to tell me how to post an image into this topic.

Holy crap! 15! A bit young for me......I think I'll remove those photos from my computer now...... (I assumed that when the pictures were released, they are actually taken about a year earlier.)

Oh my God you're gonna own me and make me your little bitch! I'm so freightened! You're so powerful and mighty! You are truely a great, great man and I made a terrible error to tangle with you! Your mighty powers make me shiver! You Are a God!!!!!

Wow this forum is going downhill! All the good old posters are leaving and it's being populated by a bunch of delusional psycopaths! People with some serious issues. It's getting very disturbing around here, and this doesn't bode well for the future of this forum.

A bunch of psychopaths? Nobody in this post had said anything even approaching disrespectful/rude/unduly critical of anyone else, until you came out with this out of nowhere:



All that because the guy has the name Bobathefett. And how exactly do you get "...and bitch about a veteren contributor's post...", when this was what Bobathefett posted right before you said that:



But worst of all, rather than admit that you fucked up, like a babyish little boy who can't admit when he's wrong, you accuse people of having issues for punching back in a fight that you started for no reason. I don't care what Sarah Palin thinks, the only word that fits a person like you is RETARD.

Anything UNDER 18, even 17 + 364 days is too young. But moderators do not exist so unless you complain to MrSkin's sponsors and users NOTHING will be done about posting this type of content.
-thefaceman

Faceman, you're at this game again?? You should have learned your lesson last year. You titled your last post "Creepy". Does that mean you're as "creepy" as these guys since you watched endless reels of underaged nudity and reviewed it at this very site?

Are you accusing Mr. Skin of being "creepy" for showing excerpts from films YOU listed, like their slo-mo from Romeo and Juliet?

I didn't see you complain about the underaged nudity that was posted to the movieboard at http://www.moviesnxs.com/ An example is somebody uploaded Katja Bienert who was 13 in "Schulmaedchen Report 13". She didn't look that young so why didn't you "come to the rescue" with one of your "warnings" like the white knight that you imagine yourself to be? Is it because moviesnxs.com is part of the graphicsnxs.com network with which you're affiliated?

Read all about Faceman's early reviews and lists, folks:
http://www.cndb.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.ph ... 9&start=15

Are you seriously saying that a girl can have sex legally for years before she can pose topless or naked?

Here in the uk we used to have page 3 girls start at 16 before the stench of americanisation infiltrated our land.

Fucking numpty.

Thora Birtch was naked in American beauty and she was like 15 or 16 and that was allowed. Im not justifying anything, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Not really..... The US is a weird country. We have all kinds of hang ups. Theoretically two 17 years olds who have sex can be each charged with statatory rape, although it pretty much never happens....... One thing that has changed in recent years is females being charged. It was pretty much unheard of 5-6 years ago, but now there are frequent stories about a 35 year old female teacher being charged for banging her 16 year old students..... Previously it was "nod, nod, wink, wink, way to go kid" but now the law has started to look after underage males as well.


Whether on not someone is charged with statatory rape seems to me to depend mainly on the age difference. Even a girl as young as 11 or 12, the male is seemingly never charged if he's 12-13.... on the other hand if he's 17, he's probably in trouble.








How old was Kiera Knightly for her nude scene in The Hole?????
Like 16 or something like that.

Underage nudity is allowed in US films and art if it's "artistic and non sexual", but how and where you draw the line is subjective.


Say what you like about US hangups with sex and nudity, and yes compared to Europe we have plenty..... but compared to much of the rest of the world, The Middle East, Asia, Africa.... we're pretty swinging!

and for all those hangups, it's still the porn capital of the world.