"Candid", "unaware" & "unconsenting" picures/clips - a discussion.

bfrug

Moderator
Aug 7, 2002
7,579
248
83
SE UK
#1
Recently, I have been commenting on the possible repercussions to individuals & in particular to MDFF's the taking of pictures, video & touching people without their consent.

Personally, I feel it is borderline at best, especially when touching individuals in what mainstream media would regard as "perverted actions".

What to the members think please ?
 
Aug 7, 2002
339
8
18
UK
Visit site
#2
Personally I don't think it's acceptable at all. A fetish activity should be between two or more consenting adults. Once consent is removed from the equation, I don't see how that can be justifiable.
 
Mar 8, 2016
64
3
8
#3
makes me a feel a bit uneasy but the last time I chimed in I felt as though I overstepped a boundary.
So back into the foliage I go.
 

jlp90

Active Member
Apr 30, 2018
211
162
43
28
Melun
#4
I don't agree. There is candid and candid.

There is candid where you go find something not showed, like upskirting.
The ladies doesn't openly shoe her tong, panties and all.

And there is candid when you show something the lady already show.
Like her shoe, her feet if she remove her shoe, have open shoe, show her feet in public and all.
That's not the same at all and it need to be treated as 2 different things.

Edit after.
I think you need to add another thing, if the face of the lady is showed or not (the place where it's shot too).
 
Last edited:

bfrug

Moderator
Aug 7, 2002
7,579
248
83
SE UK
#5
I would say at the very least that anything taken to be put onto a fetish forum or used to get "your jollies of" should not contain anything that could identify the subject if the picture is truely candid.

FWIW the Oxford English Dictionary defines candid (in the respect of images) to be : those "taken informally, especially without the subject's knowledge."