HOME | DD
NowiGreen — Baby New year 2018 (Rosie)
[NSFW]
#nowi
Published: 2017-12-31 21:57:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 8022; Favourites: 133; Downloads: 145
Redirect to original
Description
The 2018 of
Mature Content
Edits done by
Thank you so much for allowing to be the Baby of 2018~
Please support Rosie by become a patreon at > www.patreon.com/Blackroseseduc…
Enjoy the new year everyone~
Related content
Comments: 60
NowiGreen ! Are you ok? Do you need help? Is something wrong?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope I'm fine thanks ^,~ you okay there...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not after viewing this. This looks like some shit straight out of a horror movie. It is very disturbing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you seem to have horror and Erotic mixed up...
you see Horror is based around intense fear or shock.
These include Psychological, Slashers and monster movies above others.
Erotic however would include Fantasy, Romance or Thriller.
Now any question~?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So this is an erotic thing? You a fucking pedo or something!? I never said it was erotic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no, paedophiles are attracted to children... not diapers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The picture is called "Baby New Year" and you instantly brought eroticism into the discussion despite me never mentioning it. What other conclusion am I meant to come to? If you don't want this kind of confusion don't post pictures of diapers or alternatively don't put "baby" in the title.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
=w= I guess the term "Sugar daddy" shouldn't be used either because it would imply some sort of incestuous relationship? by your logic.
Or Foxy, or calling on a chick... as to not imply bestiality.
How about you learn the context of the photo before commenting like a half whit.
I know this may be ironic coming from me, but you have to grow up and learn things for yourself.
the artist of whom you will find a link to in the description, I assume you are capable of going their, though at this point it seems I shouldn't trust you with the most basic of tasks however i can ensure you that she can inform you on the topic and explain it to you far better then I am able.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. "Sugar daddy" and "foxy" have set definitions, are common phrases, and not used outside of the intended context. When a picture titled "Baby New Year 2018", depicts a female character who is mostly naked in front of a crowd of thousands (who are cheering), and you describe it as erotica how else am I supposed to take it?
You say I didn't pay attention to the context, but having just put this into context, how else can it be taken?
Diapers are a fetish, I understand that, and as weird as I find it, live and let live, let bygones be bygones. But when you put "baby" in the title and when throughout the course of this conversation you describe this as "erotic" this appears to go beyond a mere ABDL fetish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's been a long standing secret tradition that the turn of the new year with the ball dropping is all a clever ruse to wow the public into thinking THAT'S the event. No, the ball is simply a grand representation of what's really happening: the crowning of a new Baby New Year!
How are they selected? Well... let's just say be careful about making resolutions you can't fulfill!
their was that really that hard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know about the New Years tradition in Times Square NYC where the giant ball drops at exactly midnight at the dawn of the new year. I am also well aware of the symbolic meaning of New Years, that it is a time of new beginnings, a time for a fresh start, thusly resolutions that most people will give up on after 5 days.
I ask you what about this image made it obvious that representing that meaning was your intention? I see a title called "Baby New year 2018" and a picture of a mostly naked girl in a diaper looking horrified as they are forced to wear a ball gag (a common sex item, used largely for BDSM) and then being displayed to the public. This on its own is kind of horrific, and while I can see how that does keep true to the symbolism of New Years (if you squint and turn your head sideways while dimming the lights a bit) when questioned you brought eroticism into it. You get a picture that already was a bit rapey in tone and only confirm that suspicion that there possibly was that sexual undertone by bringing up eroticism.
This is no longer about the symbolism of New Years. This is now about the fact that this image is morally unsound at best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you awesome of another bdsm subject known as "public humiliation"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am aware of this but that is not my point. My point is that the nature of the image combined with the title "Baby New year" and your admittance that it is erotic raises serious questions about the moral character of this image. You may depict the character in the image as an adult (or at least of a consenting age) but a quick browse of your gallery reveals various similar images but featuring an underage character as the focus.
This in mind I must emphasize the fact that the title of this image is specifically called "Baby New year" with particular emphasis on "baby".
An ABDL fetish and a public humiliation fetish are nothing to get worried about on their own (the former more so than the latter). But with the title of the image and the consideration of the rest of your gallery taken into consideration. The question is raised as to whether or not an attraction to children is in some way involved.
If this has nothing to do with receiving sexual gratification from minors then I recommend putting more thought into not only the titles of images, your comments, and most importantly the content you want to be associated with this account in order to avoid confusion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
allow me to put your mind at rest.
Babies dont have boobs cant tease and arnt interesting
if im dating a guy i want him to hold a conversation, if its a girl id like breasts
Neither can a baby do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know they don't. But that doesn't matter to a pedophile. I'm not saying they have to have breasts or hold a conversation, to someone who is into underage people that isn't a concern. What I am saying is that given the content on your deviantart page this is an easy assumption to make.
If I am going to make this mistake in thinking you are something you are not then how many other will come to the same conclusion?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
let them if they arn't smart enough to ask, plus who the hell flaunts that kind of thing?
its kinda illegal... like everywhere
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It isn't quite illegal everywhere. The age of consent in Vatican City is 12, in Japan its around 12 - 14.
That's beside the point. The internet provides a certain level of anonymity. Many people take advantage of this on websites like this, you don't need to look far or hard for examples.
Also, you shouldn't need to ask for clarification. If it isn't immediately obvious that the purpose is not malicious or exploitative there is a problem. We had to have this long discussion to clarify this. How do you think the average deviantart user will react. In addition, most won't even engage in discussion.
All I can really do at this point is reiterate if someone needs to ask for clarification the uploaded content isn't malicious then there is something wrong. It doesn't have to be an intentional problem, nor does it take a lot for this mistake to be made. My point is that you need to more carefully consider what you put online and how you title and describe it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well i can always show them the proof like i did with you.
and if they dont engage in discussion then they are idiots.
And i dont care what they think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How are they idiots? No person should be reasonably expected to have to ask a content creator directly about what the intent behind their content is. Even if your profile is just a showcase for commissions the same rule applies.
Its all well and good that you don't care what people think. But this clearly isn't the first time this kind of argument has occurred. Each time you have had to explain the intent behind the content and defend your moral character. This is clearly tiring for you and takes up your time.
If ABDL and public humiliation are your fetishes, fine. Just make sure that it is presented in a way as to not raise alarm and there is no problem. This misunderstanding hasn't happened to just me, nor will I be the last one to be fooled. And yes there will be a lot of people who won't bring up the issue with you. But what if one of them holds some sort of position of authority such a DA staff member or a journalist, and they make the same fundamental mistake as me.
The resulting problems could have dire repercussions for you, and the people who hear about this won't give you the chance I have. This mistake is too easily made and no-one should have to go to you for clarification.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Classic Media outlets are bought up corporate hack jobs, the only people who watch in the senile man in a nursing home or the Trigger brigade
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you know who else had that mindset?
Joseph Stalin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know who else though that.
Martin Luther King Jr.
You know who told us cunts had nukes so we needed to start an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands.
Your stupid war mongering news media outlets. Not just the right wing but the lefts as well because the big suits are greedy vampires who care more about money then the people they fuck over and kill to get it.
I got my fingers crossed next election because the last thing we need is a corporate sellout, a religious loon or a reality tv host.
Its Burnie of Bust.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. The USSR was a collection of Socialist States. Do you know who was in charge of the Soviet Union?
Joseph Stalin!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know that, but that was Communism.
I want less Russia and China.
More Norway and Scandinavia.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Norwegians are pussies. They lost to the Nazis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your talking as if the Nazi party was of no threat.
May I remind you that many countries were invaded and held under Nazi occupation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
what good does fighting a war that will cost more of your lives then the invaders really prove?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then how about something more recent what do drone strikes and arming dictators while also botching your first military raid resulting in not only deaths of civilians but a young American girl.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Drone strikes are for pussies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then Americans are the biggest pussies
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No America strong. They are removing kebab!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yet they support Syria a group or radical islamist while they condem Iran.
We know Syria kills civilian but I guess a contry that back 70% of the world's wouldn't care.
American is the largest terrorist nation on earth.
They kill more civilians, they have done most illegal wars, they have overthrow the most democracies and they threaten violence like its no ones business.
Its no wonder the world think America is the greatest threat to world peace.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok jokes aside.
Which Syria? There are a few at the moment as I'm not sure you are aware, there is a civil war going on at the moment.
The Syrian Arab Republic is led by Bashar al-Assad. They are one of the two committing war crimes. The US does not support them but they are backed by the Russian Federation and Turkey.
There is the Free Syrian Army. They are in opposition to Assad and are backed by America. Their goal is to bring Democracy to Syria and end the atrocities being committed by the Assad regime. They are led by Riad al-Assad.
The final major (but dying) faction is Islamic State In Syria and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS/IS/Daesh). They are the major focus of the US operations in the Middle East at the moment. They are led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a staunch opponent of the US.
In addition, there are various regional militias with multiple in each city. Along with other minor factions such as the Kurdish/Peshmerga in North East Syria.
Also the largest terrorist nation? I recommend you research China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and North Korea. They kill many of their own people and in some cases foreign nationals to maintain power and security. The US is not innocent either but if did any research you would find most of these operations were conducted during the Cold War. There are of course obvious exceptions such as Operations Iraqi Freedom and the Coalition of the Willing. The US has calmed down since 2003.
Once again I ask you, have you done your research? The US is not the largest terrorist state on earth, there are bigger and worse! DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPBcjs…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not disagreeing that there should be limitations when it comes to States arming rebel groups and militias to assist in overthrowing opponents, but this is not the same as what you are talking about in your previous comment.
What that video is talking about is the funding and supplying of armed groups who are fighting opponents of the United States (the moral character of these groups is often questionable). They do this to accomplish their foreign policy goals, normally to oppose threats to regional or global peace and stability (e.g. the support of the Kurdish in Syria) or because the loss of support in the region directly conflicts with the United States' National Interest/National Security (e.g. the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war). There are obvious flaws in this strategy, namely that human nature and behaviour is a tricky thing to predict. Either they will continue to be supportive of the US (e.g. Augusto Pinochet) or they may go on to develop their own goals (e.g. the Mujahideen who would split into the Taliban, Al-Qaida, and various other extremist groups). This strategy is extremely risky as noted in the video. This strategy can work, and whether or not the success is for the better or worse is an entirely separate debate. However, I also believe that more consideration and thought needs to be put into the implementation of it because of the risks involved.
However, that is beside the point.
What you were talking about is state terrorism. What that video talks about is collaboration, not quite the same thing. State terrorism is a foreign and internal policy tool that involves the use or threatened use of violence to silence opposition and other enemies of the state.
The barrel bombings and Sarin attacks on civilians in Syria by the Assad regime is a good example of State Terror. The use of these weapons against civilian and military targets shows the opposition and the world the lengths at which the Syrian regime is willing to go to hang onto power and deter major action by opposing forces. For example, a planned intervention in Syria around 2012 was called off in part out of the fear of further uses of such attacks not just on civilians but of the intervening forces.
Another example of State terror is the arrests and disappearances of political opponents in the Russian Federation. Vladamir Putin has been relatively unopposed since 2000. His use of state terrorism has ensured his presidency goes unquestioned (he got elected to his 3rd term with a turn out of 146% in his favour). He controls not only his opposition but the vote itself, removing anyone who dares question him.
In the past 2 decades can you name a single instance of the US employing such means to accomplish it's policy goals? Not really. After the Bush administration ended the Obama administration took a more Cosmopolitan and Diplomatic approach to solving problems and accomplishing policy goals.
The US does pose a threat to world peace but you are overestimating the degree to which it is able to, especially now that powers such as the EU and the People's Republic of China emerging to a degree to which they can match the US. In addition, the US does not use State Terror as a means of accomplishing policy goals, or at least not often, and not very successfully. Saudi Arabia uses terror, the Syrian Arab Republic uses terror, North Korea uses terror, and the Russian Federation uses terror but the US tends not to.
So I ask you, is the US really the biggest "terrorist state"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just think funding and arming people who have been caught both looting and killing civilians belongs under the banner of assisted terrorism.
Until America pulls its forces like they said they would and abolishes dronestrikes that kill far more innocent people I think every citizens killed in such brutal fashions blood is on the hands of the president and until they abolish the immortal use of drones each one should be publicly executed after their last term in office.
I find my own contry to need our ministry torn up by wild animals after claming bombing a HOSPITAL was justified because we needed to "send a message"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Australia, a contry all too willing to make the stupidist mistakes they can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did research into the bombings you are talking about. There was no mention of them being to "send a message" nor did they appear to be deliberate. The bombings were conducted under false intelligence that indicated the hospitals were FOBs for Islamic State militants. The narrative that they were deliberate was pushed by the Russians (who it should be noted deliberately bombs hospitals on multiple occasions) who wish to distract people from the war crimes they are intentionally committing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
false or No bombing a hospital should be punished intentional or not.
Who ever gave the false intelligence should be dealt with severely.
To not hand out swift action would be an injustice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look. Describing Syria as a chaotic mess at the moment just doesn't quite say it, things will get confused, accidents will happen, often fatal. No Australia didn't do enough to convey that striking a hospital was wrong, and more needs to be done to ensure incidents such as this are not repeated.
The problem I have with your statement is that it is easy enough to say that while sitting on the sidelines thousands of miles (or kilometres if you will) from the conflict area. But your statement completely ignores the intent. Judging from what I found the intent was not to hit a civilian hospital but an ISIS FOB. Quite likely those conducting the op were just a shocked and horrified as you were when the news broke. They didn't intend to kill civilians and as a result, their punishment shouldn't be too harsh.
Certainly, those on the ground providing information should do better to clarify said information. But at the same time, they are only human. In a high risk, high-stress environment such a Syria where the sides aren't clear and with territory shifting on a daily, at time hourly basis these mistakes will be made. Killing civilians is wrong, but what those behind the operation should be judged on is their intent more so than their actions.
If information comes out later that shows I'm wrong then so be it, but I for one believe in being innocent until proven guilty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Isis is in shambles and numbers as well as occupied cities has been completely turned to shit.
they have now been forced to scatter like roaches.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes but this incident happened in 2016 at the height of Islamic State's reign of terror. Yes, they are in shambles now but when the strike you were referring to happened they were at their most powerful. The situation in Syria now is not the same as the situation in November 2016.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>