Home > voting-page > I am very disturbed by this…

I am very disturbed by this…

July 20th, 2009

wtf-pics-naked-fam

Submitted by Basatot

164 Responses to “I am very disturbed by this…”

  1. Jazzroach says:

    There is SO much wrong with this!

  2. legen says:

    oh… dear lord O_o

  3. R Car says:

    Hey, kids gotta learn sometime.

  4. Kelly says:

    dude… this is f**ked up. the girl is stroking the dad!

  5. Alexthecomie says:

    this is the Amish way to teach kids about the birds and the bees

  6. HarrisonRHW says:

    Wasn’t one of these used by the title character in Brüno?

  7. Madame Blavatska says:

    …in the future… I see… THERAPY!

  8. Schlake says:

    I’m sad that you took four months to post my submission and that you put someone else’s name on it as the submitter.

  9. lorien1973 says:

    A family that plays together, stays together!

  10. raznarukus says:

    OMG its the Aristocrats!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Blonde Moment says:

    @raznarukus
    OMG it soo true lol

  12. Ann Onymous says:

    Hey, full-body merkins are making a comeback!

  13. punkasin says:

    where the fuck is this??

  14. Becky says:

    Words…. fail….me…. holy crap!

  15. chocomuffin says:

    … why are they so fluffy?

  16. Sarah_the_walrus says:

    There’s something very, very wrong with this family.

  17. Nigel Dog says:

    Costume outtakes from Jim Carrey’s The Grinch Grows Up??? It’s like H. R. Puffinstuff disturbing.

  18. General Tuna says:

    This lot’s kids should have a sleepover with the Hitler doll girl.

  19. Clara says:

    This is probably the first time I’m actually floored by this site… totally WTF.

  20. family_values says:

    @clara agree!!!!! i have never been at such a loss lol

  21. simO))) says:

    furries doing it wrong

  22. S. says:

    I recently saw a video clip of this photographer somewhere. She comes around with this hand-knit naked outfits and then does family portraits:

    http://www.videosift.com/video/Hand-Knit-Naked-Suits-Make-Great-Family-Photos

    I don’t think it is bad.

  23. kiki_birdball says:

    OMG this is so WTF?! i agree with @Clara. also, lolz thats my name

  24. S. says:

    I find it hillarious that they felt a need to blur out bits in the video clip.

  25. blackFOX says:

    yep… yeah… thats pretty disturbing!

  26. bordingbunny says:

    what is the origin of this photo??

  27. AnnaRexia says:

    @S.
    There’s a video clip of this crap? Ugh. This is why furries should not be allowed to procreate.

  28. this is... says:

    OLD

  29. Fuhad says:

    I Never normally comment, but this is SHOCKING and wrong, with the little girl touching daddies….Now i need a dose of Megan Fox to get this Sick photo out of my head.

  30. Identity Crisis says:

    *LMFHO* I laughed out loud and woke everyone up…
    Seriously, throw their wooly asses in the warm water wash. They’ll be the size of Barbie and Ken when they come out.

    Oh, and Daddy O was quite generous to himself when he knit his suit wasn’t he? I think he knit Momma’s boobies too.

  31. o0o0o says:

    forward this to CPS, quick!

  32. TJ says:

    Isn’t this a repost? Or maybe I saw it on failblog…

  33. -Redsands- says:

    OMFG !!!

  34. maven2k says:

    The mom’s kind of hot…

  35. Edison T. Allere says:

    i was thinking wintery nudist colony…

  36. Bryonia says:

    @AnnaRexia

    Those are not furries. This is more of naturist thing.

  37. Bryonia says:

    BTW, the FBI is on their way. Have a seat over there.

  38. emklatstnod says:

    so wrong so unbelievably wrong.

  39. Captain Obvious says:

    Holy shit ! BUT still awesome.

  40. Patone says:

    Holy shit.

  41. Miss Trauma says:

    Edison T. Allere :
    i was thinking wintery nudist colony…

    thank you, i am so glad that i am not the only person that thought, “winter wear for nudists, maybe?”

  42. Nene says:

    This is an art piece by Anna Maltz, who knitted these “nude suits” and others for an exhibition, One Size Fits All These people are not a family, they are professional models.

  43. miki says:

    Nudists in winter!!

    But that is so gross…

  44. Jason says:

    look at how small the boys penis is!

  45. Rocky Lolo says:

    @Nene
    Yeah, I can tell the little girl is touching daddy’s penis in a real professional way.

  46. The little girl is grabbing her dad’s package. Isn’t there a law against that … even if the package is made of felt?

  47. scabby says:

    So that’s where that photo turned up. I’ve been looking for it everywhere.

    Father will be pleased…

  48. Michelle says:

    K I’ve seen a lot of WTF in my life, but my jaw actually dropped on this one. W. T. F. indeed.

  49. Bryonia says:

    Nene :
    This is an art piece by Anna Maltz, who knitted these “nude suits” and others for an exhibition, One Size Fits All These people are not a family, they are professional models.

    She should have destroyed this photo instead of letting it get on the internet. It’s what I would have done.

    I’d rather have seen knitted Superman in the wheelchair flexing at the motorbike.

  50. Bryonia says:

    Update already, damn you!

  51. The What Now? says:

    Nene :
    This is an art piece by Anna Maltz, who knitted these “nude suits” and others for an exhibition, One Size Fits All These people are not a family, they are professional models.

    I’m all in favor of freedom of artistic expression and I generally give artists a lot of leeway with their subject matter, but anybody who shows a six-year-old girl playing with an adult male’s penis can not just use the excuse, “It’s art,” and say that everything’s okay. That’s just plain messed up.

    All that being said, I thought the Aristocrats comment was hilarious.

  52. Monkeyfart says:

    Ah, I remember these characters on Sesame Street. They were great!

  53. cheewowwa says:

    holy shit this is fucking disgusting

  54. Final Judge of WTF says:

    This poor little girl is now destin to a life in the porn industry. Tragic.

  55. Final Judge of WTF says:

    It starts getting weirder when you consider that someone had to buy the materials and stitch these outfits together. What kind of person would spend time on that endeavor? “Hey honey, it’s dinner time” “Be right there, I’m still sewing the ball sack onto the porn suit.” “Well, make sure you wash your hands after.”

  56. bitchplz says:

    OH GOD WHAT NO O.O WHY?

  57. My first thought is “calm down, everyone.” No one is touching anyone’s penis.

    There is a fetish about wearing full-body crocheted suits. You can find anything on the internet.

    The little girl is not doing “porn.” Nobody is doing porn. Nobody is naked.

    Fucking Americans.

  58. Caylee says:

    @TJ
    Something similar on failblog, but not this specifically. There was an asian girl in a suit like this with a penis, with a smug look on her face, awfully creepy…

  59. bobsagetsuncle says:

    Hellbound Alleee :
    My first thought is “calm down, everyone.” No one is touching anyone’s penis.
    There is a fetish about wearing full-body crocheted suits. You can find anything on the internet.
    The little girl is not doing “porn.” Nobody is doing porn. Nobody is naked.
    Fucking Americans.

    so I take it you’re the best buds with the pedobear

  60. Cecona says:

    @Hellbound Alleee
    I agree, people are over reacting. The little girl isn’t touching a REAL penis and none of them are actually naked. Nothing about this is illegal, it’s just….really wtf.

  61. BoneFish says:

    this is so great in many ways.

  62. kanarflop says:

    …. WOW… o.O

  63. Final Judge of WTF says:

    Hellbound Alleee :My first thought is “calm down, everyone.” No one is touching anyone’s penis.
    There is a fetish about wearing full-body crocheted suits. You can find anything on the internet.
    The little girl is not doing “porn.” Nobody is doing porn. Nobody is naked.
    Fucking Americans.

    Are you saying you don’t see anything wrong with this picture? In other words, if your neighbors next door were standing like this in the driveway you would not think anything of it? You are either lying or moron.

  64. bip-d-bo says:

    The dad looks Asian.

  65. twilson82 says:

    @Hellbound Alleee

    Seriously? Calm Down? There’s a lot fetishes… like raping children, you sick bastard. How does that make this ok?

    What you are, French?

  66. Ohlol says:

    I agree, people here should calm down.
    First, no, there’s no law against this. Children are not forbidden to touch fake penises. It’s not even forbidden to allow them to see real ones, since naturism is not illegal…
    Secondly, no, the girl won’t be traumatised by this, and has no destiny in the porn industry.

    There is wtf in this picture, but nothing wrong.

  67. Ohlol says:

    Generally speaking, in countries where religion is separated from the state, what is forbidden is sexual contact or representations with children. Real nudity, representations of nudity, or contact with genitals in a non-sexual way is not illegal.

  68. mrsachmo says:

    at least her tiny hands make his fake pink ape penis look HUGE!

  69. Bea says:

    Damn hippies.

  70. WhoNose says:

    Show me yours, I’ll show you mine. Oldest game in the world.
    Mmmh, furry…

  71. Muta says:

    Why are they wearing shoes?

  72. truthseeker says:

    I’ve seen pictures from this series of images posted on a thousand blogs, all with the same strings of hysterical “WTF” comments, but I’ve never even ONCE seen the images attributed to the actual artist who made the suits.

    Her name is Ana Maltz, and among other things, that set of suits is actually ABOUT the very prudishness & absolute squeamishness around NATURAL HUMAN NUDITY that always seems to be on display in these little ZOMG-fests you lot like to throw…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpscPtUkBzM

    Seriously, y’all need to grow the f*ck up…

  73. zipster says:

    OMG WTF!!! doesn’t even cover it.
    why are their ankles so thin?
    they’re definitely related, they all have small feet, and a blurry aura around their skin.
    kinda expecting a grinning E.T. to walk up to them, smoking a fat blunt.

  74. MyssKytty says:

    This is too disturbing for words… Except, of course, “WHAT THE F#CK!?!?”

  75. Mental Mouse says:

    @simO)))
    SimO FTW!

  76. taintsauce says:

    Honestly, the photo would be hilarious (in the fucking with the idea of covering ourselves to hide the naked form kind of way) if that little girl wasn’t gently cupping her dad’s furry shaft….

  77. The What Now? says:

    taintsauce :
    Honestly, the photo would be hilarious (in the fucking with the idea of covering ourselves to hide the naked form kind of way) if that little girl wasn’t gently cupping her dad’s furry shaft….

    That’s my point exactly. My only problem with this is that the young girl is fondling the man’s penis. (Don’t freak out—I know it’s not his real penis). But even the representation of a kindergarten girl playing with her father’s (Calm down—I know it’s not really her dad) is pretty messed up. To those who said there’s nothing wrong with nudity—you’re right. But it’s not the representation of nudity thats the problem, it’s the representation of incestuous touching. That’s just icky.

  78. The Jungle N says:

    WTF!!! WTFitude to the max. What is wrong with people?

  79. BobvonTexas says:

    i hope this his real penis is not inside that thing O_O

  80. MODOG says:

    Heh, seen this pic before.

    So let me get this straight; those of you who are saying that her touching a cloth penis is wrong also thinks that the model vagina boys play with in sex education class in high school is wrong because those boys are not of legal age?

    No, wait, I’m sure your Christan day-schools don’t allow sex education…or thinking.

  81. BTW says:

    Boys get to play with model vaginas in sex education classes these days? Thats new, we only got shown how to put a condom on a banana and a strict talk about STDs. :(

  82. Aristocrats says:

    @raznarukus

    GET IT? THE ARISTOCRATS!

    lol, good one.

  83. Just Me says:

    @Schlake
    Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Call the Waaaaaamulance!

  84. Dana says:

    The sad thing is, Anna Maltz probably got a grant from the NEA. In other words, our tax dollars paid for this “art”. The woman looks a lot like Mariska Hargitay! Eww.

  85. truthseeker says:

    @Dana
    Actually, no, the sad thing is all you Broken Internet Children spending so much time on 4chan that you’ve warped your perceptions into seeing everything as kiddie-porn.

    Plus, if I recall correctly, Anna Maltz actually did those suits while she was still in school, and bought all the materials with her own money.

    So don’t worry: Your parent’s taxes aren’t paying for things that scare you, like, um, “art.”

  86. Ohlol says:

    @The What Now?
    Incest is sexual relation between close family members. Incestuous touching has a direct sexual intent, and there’s none represented here.

    @Dana
    Were I a US citizen, i’d prefer having the governement pay some hundreds dollars for woolen suits to every demanding artist than billions for the army. Let’s put things in perspective here. Your tax dollars in this matter mean absolutely nothing.

  87. FML says:

    omg…that girl is learning to be a slut!!

  88. BoneFish says:

    they should have made the son’s junk bigger..

  89. Dana says:

    @truthseeker
    Thank goodness. But “my parent’s” taxes still pay for lots of other similar art, um, “crap”.

  90. AnnaRexia says:

    @Dana
    It still isn’t as disturbing as an “art project” featuring pictures of a guy shitting into a jar. Art is subjective, but damn, that was some fucked-up stuff!

  91. Dana says:

    @Ohlol
    Not a US citizen? Citizen of where? Germany? France? Netherlands? Italy? Or some other country that the army has liberated from oppression in the last century? It’s OK. If some dictator rolls you up in the next century, I’m sure we’ll bail you out again.

  92. JOHN IMPRESSIVE says:

    this shit aint legal you know

  93. MODOG says:

    @Dana

    Wow. I have an American flag, an apple pie, a noose, a “We don’t like gays, they are destroying the American family/ homosexuality is ok…only if the two girls are hot” bumper sticker, a cross, a bible to shove down in someone’s face, a Hummer/SUV, and a “America for Americans” t-shirt for you. I think all of that will match your hate and loathing very well.

  94. Belle says:

    Hellbound Alleee :
    My first thought is “calm down, everyone.” No one is touching anyone’s penis.
    There is a fetish about wearing full-body crocheted suits. You can find anything on the internet.
    The little girl is not doing “porn.” Nobody is doing porn. Nobody is naked.
    Fucking Americans.

    Well put! <3

  95. Greg says:

    @Madame Blavatska
    I believe I will need therapy after this trauma.

  96. Dana says:

    Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions.@MODOG

  97. Ana says:

    This is REALLY f*cked up…

  98. The What Now? says:

    @MODOG

    Dude, that ain’t sex education class. That’s a completely different situation. If my daughter’s sex-ed teacher came into school wearing a fake penis and said to her, “Here, check this out. See what it feels like,” I’d put her in a different sex-ed class and have some harsh words for the teacher. I would, by the way, put my daughter in a sex-ed class at that age. I’m no prude, I just believe there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

    @Ohlol

    And if you don’t think the man, woman, and two children in this photo are mean to represent a family, I strongly believe you’re misinterpreting the image. Think what you want, but if an artist shows us a man, a woman, a young boy, and a young girl, all standing together in a posed photo, I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to think they’re a group of strangers.

    I will allow for one possible scenario that would make this photo okay: The four actors are posing for the pic, standing straight and looking into the camera. Then the little girl turns around of her own accord and grabs the male actors fake penis, saying, “Hey, what’s this?” The man is slightly embarrassed and responds along the lines of, “Oh, you probably shouldn’t touch that,” which explains the smile on his face. If that’s what happened here, then it’s just a humorous outtake from the photo shoot. But if this was the intended image and the photographer said, “Okay, little girl, now take the man’s penis in your hand,” then it crosses a line that I personally believe shouldn’t be crossed.

    So those are my feelings on this photo in as much detail as I can express them. I’m not being reactionary and I’m certainly not going to rail against the NEA—tax dollars should support art and culture as much as they support anything else.

  99. Christian says:

    Brüno was running around Berlin, Germany with the same suit while promoting his movie. See a pic here:
    http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/foto/_bin/index.php/Berliner+Zeitung/brueno_in_berlin/12

  100. pet my WTF says:

    What I learn from this picture is white people’s skin is pink.

  101. lilla says:

    i think this is quite a special and magical family moment. SO JUST BACK OFF WILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????!!!!!!!!! jesus!

  102. JR says:

    “Normal” shoes? What’s a good wool anatomically correct suit if you’re not going to have feet?
    Go big or go home, people.

  103. KRISTI says:

    what the hell… this is wrong in so many ways… OMG.

  104. jules says:

    This is so sick and disturbing,what the hell was they thinking of?They should be locked up!

  105. Katherine says:

    Umm… yeah, I’ve got nothing to say.

  106. Steve says:

    Brings a new meaning to MILF. Mother I’d like to Furry.

  107. Ohlol says:

    @The What Now?
    They’re probably a family, I’ve seen a short film about the artist that showed her making another family pose. Fun fact was that the editor blurred the suits. But anyway that was not my point, I don’t think the link between these people matter.
    My point is that nothing sexual is occurring in this pic. And also that the woolen penis is not evil, it doesn’t corrupt any who touches it – and I do think that insinuating that it does is to give way to a effectively reactionnary idea about sexuality and about what can it be associated with, and that your beliefs are not personnal ones (as if such things could be personnal) but a christian hangover.
    Children are curious about what is usually hidden and I suppose the kid wasn’t told to touch it. But even if that was the case, it wouldn’t be of any consequence.

    @Dana
    I’m from a country that used its ICBM, aircraft carriers, submarines, jet fighters and bombers to fight its own dictators in the last century. Oh wait, no, in fact all those were never used.

  108. Gustavo H.R. says:

    WHAT THE FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF***!?

  109. kosher ham says:

    @Jason
    and why, *ahem*, are you looking at boy-penis?

  110. Aoife says:

    OMG! Those children came out of that woman’s vagina!!! They TOUCHED her VAGINA!

    INCEST!!!!

  111. disEllusion says:

    @Ohlol I agree, completely. Nudity =/= sexuality or sex. The end.

    @Dana: You *do* realize that America hasn’t actually fought in every war in every country that ever was, single handedly saving the populace from “evil” Ultimate Showdown-style, right? Right?!? (*please* say yes)

    Honestly, if Bush *needed* to fight a war with a country that Bin Laden *wasn’t* hiding in, he should’ve sent troops to Darfur to stop the genocide still taking place. But I guess all those refugees needed to have some oil fields before America would save them, huh?

  112. The What Now? says:

    @Ohlol

    I find the conclusions you are jumping to very interesting. First off, I’m not Christian. I’m not even religious. People are able to have personal beliefs that are not molded by a religious philosophy. That being said, I still hold that if this photo was directed to be a shot of a little girl holding a man’s penis, it’s messed up. However, I do not believe that’s what it was. Children are, as you point out, extremely curious about such things. I know, I have two kids. The thing is dangling there at eye level, the kid probably just saw it and decided to see what it felt like. This is not a sexual photograph. More than anything, it’s kind of silly. Did I have a knee-jerk reaction it it when I first saw it? Yes. Probably based on overprotectiveness of my own daughter. Did you have a knee-jerk reaction to my comments? Yes. Probably based on pre-existing notions of Americans and Christianity. By the way, I want you to know there is not animosity in my comments to you. I’ve actually found this a rather lively discussion.

  113. goodcleanliving says:

    Individually, they put a lot of thought into their footwear to match the Angora Anatomically Semi-Correct suits.

  114. AFtERBIRtH33 says:

    The What Now? :@Ohlol
    I find the conclusions you are jumping to very interesting. First off, I’m not Christian. I’m not even religious. People are able to have personal beliefs that are not molded by a religious philosophy. That being said, I still hold that if this photo was directed to be a shot of a little girl holding a man’s penis, it’s messed up. However, I do not believe that’s what it was. Children are, as you point out, extremely curious about such things. I know, I have two kids. The thing is dangling there at eye level, the kid probably just saw it and decided to see what it felt like. This is not a sexual photograph. More than anything, it’s kind of silly. Did I have a knee-jerk reaction it it when I first saw it? Yes. Probably based on overprotectiveness of my own daughter. Did you have a knee-jerk reaction to my comments? Yes. Probably based on pre-existing notions of Americans and Christianity. By the way, I want you to know there is not animosity in my comments to you. I’ve actually found this a rather lively discussion.

    Ahem … sounds like it … Just don’t take it so personal, ‘K? Thanks! Jesus love you :)

  115. Reversetelevision says:

    @AFtERBIRtH33
    uhhh…
    who gives a fuck?
    you have ruined the picture with your seriousness :(

  116. What a terrible family photos hehehehe :)

  117. The What Now? says:

    @AFtERBIRtH33

    And I love Jesus. Just not in THAT way. :)

  118. The What Now? says:

    @Reversetelevision

    You’re right. Let’s stop being serious. Here’s what I should have posted way back in the beginning:

    When these folks get a Brazilian, it REALLY hurts.

  119. Brock Brawnson says:

    Mother-of-God

    ok..
    1. the daughter is fondling the dad.
    2. the mom has a huge bush.
    3. the dads chest hair looks like an ink-blot test.
    4. only the son is laughing
    5. a. they are all wearing shoes.
    b. the daughter has rain boots.
    6. the mom’s boobs look like cones

    id go on… but i need to go be sick now.

  120. L@$^ says:

    That’s Sexy. The little girl is acctually fondling her dad under the suit. She is gonna be a prosititue when she is older. That picture can make some one very horny.

  121. L@$^ says:

    SEXYYY!!!

  122. ppg says:

    Wow, this discussion was very, very close to bring Hitler to the scene, Iam giving 10 Internets to the first of you who put down when it was!

  123. POISON says:

    someone hurry up and photoshop Pedobear into that picture!

  124. EclipseKirby says:

    I don’t even know where to begin with this…

    -That such costumes exist in family edition for entire families
    -that they sell
    -That people wear them outdoors
    -The father/daughter action going on there

  125. SamaRR uh says:

    @Hellbound Alleee

    Are you denoting this creepiness by saying it’s ALL OVER THE INTERNET?
    Ohhh, okay I get it those parents just have fetishes for wearing naked costumes that they’re pushing on their children!
    Ahh, I get it, now it’s okay.

    Thank ya kind stranger.

  126. Emipiredude6 says:

    it would be ok if it were just the adults
    but the kids!
    who the f**k would do something like this

  127. Guy Smiley says:

    @Hellbound Alleee

    So if the man “pretends” to finger the little girl, it’s OK, right, but cause he’s not really doing it. And if he “pretends” f*ck the little girl, it’s ok because he’s not really doing it, right?

    Fucking Europeans

  128. Snarky fact checker says:

    @Dana

    Y’know, as a citizen of a country (Canada) that fought in two World Wars at the beginning and not just when it became clear who the winner was, I get a little tired of the USA acting like they single handedly won either of those wars. As for all the “dictators” the US government got rid of in South America, ask a Chilean how they felt about being “liberated” by Pinochet. I for one hope never to be “liberated” of my oil, or water, by my southerly neighbour.

  129. germie says:

    What the shit is this?

  130. Anna says:

    @The What Now?
    There’s no one here playing with genitals. The father is wearing a full-body-coverage suit. The child is playing with some interesting bits of that suit (and, incidentally, they are the easy part for her to get to; could have something to do with it). I agree this is totally (as someone above put it) W. T. F. But not illegal. After watching a video of another family, I’m thinking the kids will have a good laugh about this as well as their parents.

  131. Anna says:

    pet my WTF :
    What I learn from this picture is white people’s skin is pink.

    LOL! I was wondering what was wrong with my skin all these years!

  132. Anna says:

    @Anna
    To “The What Now?”
    I’ve now read your later posts, so I’d be obliged if you would ignore mine from a few minutes ago — Thanks!

  133. Smokeytherat says:

    @Christian

    that… i dont even know how to describe that. Other than WTF?????

  134. JR says:

    why doesn’t the man have hairy legs?

  135. nothin says:

    WWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.MAKE IT GO AWAY!

  136. joejohn says:

    Yeah I’m hungry for some burgers.. fur burgers.

  137. Creg says:

    I am scared for life and now think i may be a homosexual…….

  138. d says:

    has anyone thought this was an “oops” shot, and that the girl isn’t supposed to be touching that?

  139. flyguy says:

    @kosher ham
    I was wondering the same thing, glad someone else caught that too

  140. flyguy says:

    @L@$^
    Apparently, that some one(should be one word by the way) is you, you sick son of a bitch

  141. flyguy says:

    @Guy Smiley
    You make an excellent point, I agree. There is nothing good about a little girl touching her dad’s genitalia or vice-versa, whether its fake or real.

  142. flyguy says:

    The Mom is totally do-able. I want to see her real birthday suit.

  143. Kesslee says:

    what. the. fuck?

  144. Edd says:

    @Final Judge of WTF
    Seriously though – in what way is this in any way sexual? The little girl is just curious – surely you as a child asked your parents about their genitals? Why are Americans so repressed? (assuming you are american) – this is a family picture, and not documenting incest. Why do you think that they would stand on their driveway like that? It’s just nudity, and it’s not even that. Are you afraid of your own body? I just think it’s funny…

  145. Zeus says:

    Two words:

    Mach Three.

  146. Maria Jonas says:

    Although I agree that children have to learn about sex sometime, this is certainly not the way to go about it. The daughter touching the fake penis just makes it harder to look at. *shudder*

  147. FireFox says:

    OK, ijits like Dana in no way represent this American’s views.

    I blame our piss-poor education system.

  148. YinYang says:

    @flyguy
    Really, FlyGuy? You say how bad this picture is, and how that girl should not be touching her father’s FAKE genitals, then you say that you want to see the mother naked? You should really change your name to “Hypocritical Asshole.”

    It pisses me off that Americans (of which I am one) actually find something wrong with this picture. Almost every other country has nude beaches or just plain naked people walking around, and yet Americans think that you need to be 17 just to glimpse breasts in a movie. It’s not like that girl is thinking sexual thoughts, she is just curious.

    50% of the world has seen a penis from day one, and the other 50% has seen a vagina from day one. Anyone who thinks that to even see a sexual organ that isn’t attached to you until your 20 is in idiot. Anyone with a computer has access to porn, which basically means that 100% of people with computers (which is a of of people) have seen not only breasts, a penis, and a vagina, but have actually seen them used in sexual acts.

    Oh, and Guy Smiley? A little girl seeing a fake penis and touching it is not the same as a grown pubescent man pretending to fuck a little girl.

  149. Andrew says:

    at lest they are wearing shoes

  150. Human Zoologist says:

    This makes me laugh because people find nothing wrong with a little girl in this situation.

    And it’s not even terrible that a little girl is curiously touching something hanging off her dad’s clothes as she probably doesn’t even know what it is. What’s really wrong with this picture is that the dad looks like he actually likes it.

  151. jamester says:

    (GOOD message) Hopefully there being raised no’ing good and proper sex,(good birds and bees) and maybe the GLP won’t get their hooks into them like they’ve done everywhere else.Oh yea,their actors,sorry,God I love the 1st amendment–

  152. Bedlam says:

    I you people used your brain, youd find the tre meaning of these clothes. It shows your not to be afraid of who you are. I, for one, really think these are interesting.

  153. Shep333 says:

    This is a picture title “The Bashful Nudists” by Mitch Cumstein

  154. John Jayne says:

    It’s just like the British royal family.

  155. Jaredvcxz says:

    Will they adopt me?

  156. TAllen says:

    Aaaa…my eyes….!

  157. Casidhe says:

    I laughed when I saw this and went and checked out the video
    http://www.videosift.com/video/Hand-Knit-Naked-Suits-Make-Great-Family-Photos
    and I smiled at the sweet innocence and the quirky humour of this entire concept. This isn’t sexual .We come from a culture that is clothed and so this seems really shocking to some of you .Obviously in reality you can’t have a child touching an adults penis in a significant way BUT I think this was just a moment of curiosity and rather insignificant . A knitted penis at eye level invites investigation and It isn’t the same as the real thing.

  158. ME! !!!! says:

    Why won’t they just be naked?
    BTW… I’m really disturbed by this o.o

  159. You says:

    Whatever! just keep that to yourself in you own house…

  160. LOLWHUT says:

    This is indeed very WTF. but seriously, chill out, people!

    The worst part is that someone in the world is probably fapping to this.

  161. Indy says:

    Bizzaro Sasquatch family?

  162. lunamaye says:

    What? Why. why.

  163. spare201 says:

    All of the oh too serious replies ruined the funny. I guess as an artist I understand the context. A couple of people got it as well. The little girl proboably wondered what the fake peins was because none of any other pair of pants she has seen had that sewn to the front. Curiousity nothing more. If she would’ve been close to the mommy she proboably would’ve touched the bush. Kids are curious, and when something looks odd or out of place they investigate it.

Leave a Reply

wordpress stats plugin