Daniel Radcliffe

prince_will

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
2,039
Media
51
Likes
355
Points
403
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
[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.

yeah, but so early in his life? i think he could have waited a bit. although it is smart to do this as the peak of his fame, it could have negative stuff (<----lack of a better word due to tiredness) on his career.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The only negatives would be if he wanted to do wholesome roles the rest of his life and found it more difficult to land those types of jobs (and obviously if he's taking on a less-than-wholesome role, that's not what he wants), or if he came off as desperate for an image-makeover like Elizabeth Berkley, in which case he would most likely be relegated to a punchline and not taken seriously anymore. If he chooses strong material and gives strong performances, then the latter won't happen. Berkley became a joke (if she wasn't one already) because Showgirls was a trashy, exploitative, godawful piece of shit. Same deal with Alyssa Milano, who the day she turned 18 started signing up for every softcore porno she could get a casting call to (even creepier since her agent at this time was her mother). Even if that does happen, there's a chance he could rebound later, as Alyssa eventually did, after she stopped suing everybody for looking at her naked without paying her for the privelege.
 

prince_will

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
2,039
Media
51
Likes
355
Points
403
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
ah, that's who i was thinking of! Elizabeth Berkeley. she killed her career with Showgirls. well, i wonder if Equus (<---sic?) is going to be any good? i'd hate for him to go through all that for a shitty play.

he does have some big balls though (relax, not in THAT way....dirty minded people.) i would have NEVER done something like that when i was 17. i'm still too self-concious.

and i need to watch Showgirls one of these days. it might be a good laugh.
 

D_alex8

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
8,055
Media
0
Likes
1,379
Points
208
Location
Germany
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
First, I'd like to thank Ganymede for this delightful PM:

Ganymede said:
Fuck off, bitch. I wasn't trying to "oogle" a 17-year-old. It's not my fucking fault that YOU can't read, bitch!

Second, I'd like to point out that Ganymede also started a (now-removed) thread yesterday in which he asked for a video that features a 16-year-old girl, and which he knows full well cannot be posted here, as per previous threads.

I am not sure what point he wishes to make about desiring to view under-18s here. But it certainly appears that he wishes to make one. :rolleyes:
 
G

Ganymede

Guest
First of all, fuck off!

Second of all, I took a break from the forum for a period. Before my break, that video was here. When I got back, it was gone.

Third, I had no idea she was under age.

Fourth, this is somewhat related to the topic of this thread:

a. The video in question was filmed in England, where they have different laws about age of consent.

b. The pictures of Deniel Radcliffe are from England, where they have different laws about the age of consent.

I'm not your bitch. Don't hang your shit on me.

First, I'd like to thank Ganymede for this delightful PM:



Second, I'd like to point out that Ganymede also started a (now-removed) thread yesterday in which he asked for a video that features a 16-year-old girl, and which he knows full well cannot be posted here, as per previous threads.

I am not sure what point he wishes to make about desiring to view under-18s here. But it certainly appears that he wishes to make one. :rolleyes:
 
G

Ganymede

Guest
I didn't post direct links to the picture on Wikipedia. I posted a direct link to the article about Daniel Radcliffe on Wikipedia, which contains the picture.

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.
 

DanielForever

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Posts
185
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Location
England
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
So iiiiiiiffff you took a photo of a naked five year old in a nation where there is not limited concent to sexual what not, it would be ok?

all this holla'in would get your house burned down in Northern England

hehe
 

D_alex8

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
8,055
Media
0
Likes
1,379
Points
208
Location
Germany
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Fourth, this is somewhat related to the topic of this thread:

a. The video in question was filmed in England, where they have different laws about age of consent.

b. The pictures of Deniel Radcliffe are from England, where they have different laws about the age of consent.

While the age of consent is lower in the United Kingdom, this has no bearing on indecent ("sexualized") imagery featuring under-18s there. The Protection of Children Act (1978) made it illegal to take, cause to be taken, own, or distribute images of an indecent nature featuring under-18s, and past cases have established a precedent for this to refer to things as innocent as "bikini" and "swimsuit" poses, for example. This legislation was extended to include pseudo-photographs of under-18s in sexualized contexts under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Sexual Offences Act (2003).

That is why Radcliffe's UK-based site and other sources publishing these images have been cautious about highlighting the artistic merits of the enterprise - to cover their backs against such claims of "indecency/sexualization". When people here are asking about his cock, etc., though - then clearly the situation has become sexualized, and consequently, is problematic.. hence mindseye's comments about this thread needing to appraise Radcliffe as an actor, and not in terms of his naked/shirtless appearance. One well-known UK celebrity site which has permitted these images in the context of a highly sexually-charged discussion, is taking a real risk, imho.

At any rate, my contributions on this and other similar threads (involving images of Matthew Broderick taken when he was 15, images of Kevin McDaid taken when he is believed to have been 17, etc.) have had only one concern, as stated already... to protect LPSG from ridiculous attacks from those whose intent is to close down sites that discuss sexuality openly.

This should not be taken to mean that I am a philistine of some kind, and it is likely that our views on this matter, ultimately, are not that different at all. To this end, I am copy&pasting one of my previous posts on this subject below, which explains my position in cases such as this one in a more detailed way:

It's very tricky (if not impossible) to tell [if a model is over 18]... and you can be certain that many images that are seen daily across the internet feature underage 'models' without anyone being aware of it. For me, it's a case of knowing the provenance of images rather than gauging anything from the model (unless, of course, they are blatantly pre-pubescent or something equally unambiguous, such as having their date of birth in the image, etc.). In this case, the images originated on a Russian speciality 'boylove' site that dealt only in models aged 13 to 17.

Similarly, a photo request thread that was pulled at LPSG the other day - even though it was for images that even a google search could locate - dealt with subjects who are known to have been 16 at the time they were photographed nude. I dispute that anyone would have been aware that they were underage on the basis of the images themselves, and there should be no doubt that the models in question entered into the deal to be photographed confidently and happily in this instance as a means of showing off their physique; something that they have attested time and again in interviews.

However, when the knowledge that these 'models' are underage is in the public domain and sufficiently well-known that a google search can pinpoint the fact in a few seconds... then that's when images have to be removed. Because if a few people here know immediately, then you can be sure the relevant authorities may know as well, and with incontrovertible evidence regarding age readily available, surely legal action could be brought with greater ease.

Of course, none of this precludes the idiocy of inflexible laws governing that 'maturity and adulthood' commence only on the day that one turns 18, and that all images of this type featuring under-18s must by definition be 'child pornography'. But until we have a case-by-case system that addresses individual maturity and self-awareness, this is the rigid system by which we have to live in order for websites not to be closed down or our personal freedom removed from us. In a sense, this is my answer to your question, though: we don't know merely from 'looking', and neither should we --- because no two under-eighteens (or over-eighteens) are going to look mature to an identical extent. If we believed we could tell categorically on the basis of intrinsic physical traits rather than outside knowledge about the provenance of certain photographs, then we would be as stupid, inflexible and delusional as the law.
[source]
 

Equus14

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Posts
260
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
161
Age
34
We live in a sick sick world where nudity for the sake of art is frowned upon to the point of illegality but depictions of violence in the media and violence on the streets is not only accepted and expected, but often encouraged.

This world needs an enema.

Equus
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,352
Media
154
Likes
6,761
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
This whole Broo-ha-ha is preposterous. I am completely against child pornography but what we have here is a 17 yr old male showing nothing but his torso......... There are several pics of a questionable age in the galleries, you may wanna start there if you are intent on getting rid of "Child Porn" since all we have here is a bare chested male.
I never expected LPSG would be so right-winged puritanical. LPSG is not responsible for what someone may or may not fantasize about.
The really sad part is all the focus on his body and not on the very demanding role he will have in playing Alan Strang. Equus is an amazing play and he is anxious to expand his acting chops.
The content of this brilliant work is far more disturbing than innocent pics from a staged performance. The reason he apperas nude in the play is b/c that is what the role calls for. It's not done in a gratuitous manner but is quite integral to the tone of the play.



:banana:
HORSE
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,352
Media
154
Likes
6,761
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
We live in a sick sick world where nudity for the sake of art is frowned upon to the point of illegality but depictions of violence in the media and violence on the streets is not only accepted and expected, but often encouraged.

This world needs an enema.

Equus


Very well said man and the sad part is in the pics there is NO nudity at all . While the pics push the envelope they ARE still legal and not pornographic in the least.


:banana:
HORSE
 

Lucky_Luke

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Posts
136
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
163
Location
Toronto
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
While it is important to respect the laws of the land, there's no doubt that this site and this section of the forum in particular is populated by some serious 'holier-than-thou' age-crusaders on a moral mission. They spout the same crap in any relevant thread (even in non-relevant threads).

It is not enough for these people to ignore topics they don't like - they feel it is their moral duty to preach about their moral superiority and the moral inferiority of anyone who disagrees with them.

Quite tiresome, and ironically enough, juvenile.
 

Christiaan

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
191
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
163
Location
Donegal, Ireland
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
ah, that's who i was thinking of! Elizabeth Berkeley. she killed her career with Showgirls. well, i wonder if Equus (<---sic?) is going to be any good? i'd hate for him to go through all that for a shitty play.

he does have some big balls though (relax, not in THAT way....dirty minded people.) i would have NEVER done something like that when i was 17. i'm still too self-concious.

I've seen it as a film made about 35 years ago. Peter Firth played the lead, proving that he is very nicely hung. The role Daniel Radcliffe is going to play is quite difficult and very dark. He plays a psychologically disturbed young man who works mucking out the horse stables.

There is one particular horse which is a spectacular animal and the young man in the part in the play is sexually challanged, in that he can't have a proper wank by himself. His sexual fantasies are tied in with riding this magnificent horse whilst being totally starkers and doing so bareback on the horse, so his dick comes into contact with the horse as it gallops. Only this way can he spunk up. The running motion of the horse has got to do it.

Once he's dared to have his rides, he's over come with guilt and since the only soul who's seen his perversion is the horse, he blinds this magnificent beast to hide his shame and keep his secret.

Like I said, it's very dark, not what you'd call a bit light reading before bed time.

I think Radcliffe is desperate to break out of his Harry Potter-Hogwarts rut, so that he's not ever after known only for that role. The role in Equus carries the entire show and it is a very serious play, not porn in any way.

As far as the rubbish about pictures, in the Netherlands, non-sexual nude poses of children over the age of 14 is permitted for those who fancy that sort of thing. Whilst I understand that it's the list owner's right to conduct affairs on the board as he sees fit - it's the Golden Rule you know, he who has the gold makes the rules! But speaking from the European side of the pond, I think it's a bit off that the Internet seems to have to abide by American puritan ideas - as if they owned the Net. I believe the UK gave those folks the boot over 200 years ago.

Well, that's my say, Cheers everyone.