Daniel Radcliffe

[Ganymede]

Ironic sidenote: all of these pictures that are not allowed here on LPSG were posted on AOL today, the main headline store.

I understand the owner's desire to not have these pictures here, but I don't think there'd be any problem now that they've even been on AOL. Then again, if anyone wants to see these pictures, all they have to do is go to AOL now.

 

[DGirl]

Hurry up and turn 18!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn he has a tight body!!! I want to see the REST!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[prince_will]

lol....we'll he's closeish to my age, so i can call him smoking hot without being called a pedo. lol. 19 is awesome.

 

[Ganymede]

One of the pictures has been posted on Wikipedia, and they're all over the Internet. Anyone interested in seeing them will have no problem finding them elsewhere.

Daniel Radcliffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

That's the one that was being referenced when I saw someone make the Nair comment.

 

[prince_will]

haha, i like the jeans one. he looks packed. mmmm, radcliffe.....

 

[D_alex8]

Ganymede, I don't know whether you are being deliberately dense... but... the reason these images are problematic here is because they become part of a sexualized discussion, which is something they are not at wikipedia. Context is crucial here.

This forum is titled "Celebrity Endowments".

Someone just above you wrote: "Damn he has a tight body!!! I want to see the REST!!!!!!!!!!!".

And someone just above me wrote: "i like the jeans one. he looks packed."

Those sexualized comments are what is problematic, and what distinguishes their being posted here from their being posted at non-sexual sites such as AOL or Wikipedia.

Try actually reading through the JustUsBoys link I gave before, and you will see exactly the same rationale given there:

---> Daniel Radcliffe & Equus - JustUsBoys.com Gay Community

Now quit whining just because you can't ogle a 17-year-old here.

 

[prince_will]

well, i do kinda agree with Alex there. he makes a point. i guess there should be no links but is talking about him bad?

 

[Ganymede]

No need to get patronizing. I understand the theory perfectly. I'm just pointing out the irony that AOL and Wikipedia are able to post pictures that a self-proclaimed sexualized forum is not. Usually, it's the other way around: pictures that are acceptable on a sexualized forum would not be acceptable on a mainstream forum. In this instance, apparently, it's the opposite. Please don't mistake discussion of nuance on my part for lack of understanding of the nuance. And please cease with the personal insults, calling me "dense," etc.

This reminds me of the time that Madonna, in her early 30s, was accused of child pornography for her semi-nude spread in Vanity Fair: MadonnaShots

And before you start with your offensive BULLSHIT nonsense about me wanting to "oogle" a 17-year-old, BITCH, keep in mind that I am not the one who started this thread. And then do me a favor and fuck off, you Drama Queen.

Ganymede, I don't know whether you are being deliberately dense... but... the reason these images are problematic here is because they become part of a sexualized discussion, which is something they are not at wikipedia. Context is crucial here.

This forum is titled "Celebrity Endowments".

Someone just above you wrote: "Damn he has a tight body!!! I want to see the REST!!!!!!!!!!!".

And someone just above me wrote: "i like the jeans one. he looks packed."

Those sexualized comments are what is problematic, and what distinguishes their being posted here from their being posted at non-sexual sites such as AOL or Wikipedia.

Try actually reading through the JustUsBoys link I gave before, and you will see exactly the same rationale given there:

---> Daniel Radcliffe & Equus - JustUsBoys.com Gay Community

Now quit whining just because you can't ogle a 17-year-old here.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

hey, don't yell at Alex. He's good people.

 

[Ganymede]

Well, tell your "good people" to stop accusing me of utter nonsense. Read back over all of my posts and see that I myself never expressed any desire to see these pictures. I merely commented on where the pictures are available for viewing, and on the unusual nuance in this situation. And, sorry, but it's my policy to yell at people when they accuse me of something like wanting to "oogle" a 17-year-old. That aside, no "oogling" is necessary, because these pictures are everywhere today -- even CNN! All you have to do is sit and wait for them to be shoved in your face.

 

[tripod]

He just said "Deliberately Dense"... he never accused Ganymede of oogling young boys... and certainly didn't deserve to be called names, he is trying to keep this site clean and free of impurities, don't take offense at what he said in the post, and you should appologize to Alex, Ganymede, you insulted him for no reason, he wasn't messing with you at all...

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

You're overreacting because you took offense at his "intentionally dense" and "quit whining" remarks, which in the grand scheme of things that are said on this site, was very minimally offensive at worst. You could have made your point about nuance and context (which was actually a good point) without getting your panties so bungled up. Simmer down.

 

[Ganymede]

At the very botton of his message to me, under the link to the other site, there is this message to me:

"Now quit whining just because you can't ogle a 17-year-old here."

He just said "Deliberately Dense"... he never accused Ganymede of oogling young boys... and certainly didn't deserve to be called names, he is trying to keep this site clean and free of impurities, don't take offense at what he said in the post, and you should appologize to Alex, Ganymede, you insulted him for no reason, he wasn't messing with you at all...

 

[Ganymede]

First of all, I don't wear panties. I free-ball. Second of all, I had already made the point about nuance -- but nuance must be understood in order to understand the point I was making about it. Third, you're right; there are a lot of snide comments on this forum, which is why I keep trying to remind myself not to get involved in discussions. However, I'm not going to apologize for reacting strongly for being accused of wanting to do something that even the moderators of a site called "Large Penis Support Group" don't want people to do. I think any rational person would react strongly to being accused of this. This whole thread is about how you shouldn't do what this person accused me -- without a fuckin' shred of evidence -- of wanting to do.

You're overreacting because you took offense at his "intentionally dense" and "quit whining" remarks, which in the grand scheme of things that are said on this site, was very minimally offensive at worst. You could have made your point about nuance and context (which was actually a good point) without getting your panties so bungled up. Simmer down.

 

[tripod]

I just thought he was joking... Alex has a dark sense of humor and his speech is not very flowery...

 

[prince_will]

At the very botton of his message to me, under the link to the other site, there is this message to me:

"Now quit whining just because you can't ogle a 17-year-old here."

oh boy.....can't you guys kiss and make up? this fighting makes me anxious.

i could understand both of your views.
Ganymede has a point because it is kinda weird that regular people like CNN and AOL host these pics and LPSG can't.
Alex has a point too because these types of sexualized pics with a minor aren't really allowed, and those rules should be respected.

but i guess both of you are kinda exercising unneccessary harshness.

don't come after me, now. i'm just saying.....

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

First of all, I don't wear panties. I free-ball. Second of all, I had already made the point about nuance -- but nuance must be understood in order to understand the point I was making about it. Third, you're right; there are a lot of snide comments on this forum, which is why I keep trying to remind myself not to get involved in discussions. However, I'm not going to apologize for reacting strongly for being accused of wanting to do something that even the moderators of a site called "Large Penis Support Group" don't want people to do. I think any rational person would react strongly to being accused of this. This whole thread is about how you shouldn't do what this person accused me -- without a fuckin' shred of evidence -- of wanting to do.

Alright, whatever man. Just didn't seem like something worth having a strong response to. I'm quite sure Alex wasn't trying to offend. Posting direct links to pictures on Wikipedia is very near to posting the pictures themselves, and it had already been articulated at length and in detail why the owner of this site doesn't want that.

 

[mindseye]

We've been asked from multiple parties to intervene in this thread.

The pictures of Daniel Radcliffe in the Wikipedia article are not nude pictures, nor do they portray Radcliffe in an exploitative manner.

We can't control what people think when they see the pictures, but that's not a reason to censor the links. By way of analogy, the galleries contain a picture of joyboytoy79 (clothed), riding a horse, and we're not going to insist that he take the picture down because someone might find the horse attractive.

My understanding of our requirements regarding minors and exploitation is this:

• We cannot host pictures of minors, clothed or unclothed.
• We cannot link to pictures of minors that are nude or that depict minors in a sexually suggestive manner.

Based on that understanding, I'm not removing the link. However, I'm going to ask that people recognize that this is a touchy and borderline case, and that talking about a minor in a forum called "Celebrity Endowments" is just asking for trouble. There are some productive comments within this thread regarding the wisdom of this role as a career move, and on the potential for young actors to be stereotyped -- let's continue that discussion, and move away from talking about Harry's peepee. (And expect this thread to be locked if that doesn't happen.)

On a personal note...how come all the drama this week centers around people named Daniel?

 

[pseudocognomen]

wow, talk about hung like a horse!
oops, sorry... that was the horse.

personally, I'd rather see some pics of Joanna Christie :wink:

[edit]: Okay, regarding wisdom of career move I'd say it's pretty smart. He can't play Harry Potter the rest of his life and if he gives a good performance in a very difficult play he'll certainly get kudos as a serious actor.