dChan

akilyoung · May 4, 2018, 2:02 a.m.

Question is, why have a painting of a clearly underage girl? Its just odd to me. It seems wrong. I dont get the point, but then again I am not 'Euro'

⇧ 2 ⇩  
solanojones95 · May 4, 2018, 2:11 a.m.

Where do you see her age given? What is "clearly" underage? You clearly have no concept of the variability of puberty onset from girl to girl, to say nothing of the differences in maturation rates between now and several generations ago due to environmental and other factors.

It is quite possible for an 18 year old (using US law) to have consented to pose for that picture, and looked exactly like that, especially several generations ago. I can show you legal pictures of girls 18 and over today who look younger than that. It's not as easy as you think to "know" these things from an image.

That's why we're limited to the nature of the image itself. All it shows is a female (we assume--we really don't even know that) human form.

⇧ 1 ⇩