Jump to content

Nirvana is being sued for child p****graphy after 30 years


Recommended Posts

  • Super Mods

Let me get this straight: he has recreated this image multiple times AS AN ADULT, has personally wanted to shoot the photo NUDE and had to be told they preferred board shorts, and is now uncomfortable and crying because Nirvana didn’t want to attend his art show for publicity? He wasn’t comfortable going nude as an adult, but he’s now uncomfortable because of a 30 year old picture? :roxxy: 

  • Love 3
  • Haha 2
  • Like 3

                🍻Intoxicate me, I’m a lush🍻

Link to comment
  • Super Mods
8 minutes ago, kfitz421 said:

He’s right - we usually don’t understand childhood trauma til years later. Him recreating the photos was just a coping mechanism :fu_britney_flipping_off_finger_mad:

In r*** or other ***ual indecency cases, sure, but this seems like he’s not coping, but retaliating because Nirvana didn’t want to attend his show

  • Love 2
  • Like 1

                🍻Intoxicate me, I’m a lush🍻

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CrazyButItFeelsAllright said:

In r*** or other ***ual indecency cases, sure, but this seems like he’s not coping, but retaliating because Nirvana didn’t want to attend his show

I mean that could be a part of it sure :cheese_Britney_awkward_cringe_eek:

but either way them using that photo was/is not ok :walkin_fire_meltdown_burning_flames_panic_mess_exhell:

they continue to make a profit off an album that’s cover is a nude photo of him as a child, which is not ok no matter how bitter he may be right now :nyschool_new_york_miss_tiffany_pollard_preaching_telling_talking_hand:

Lastly, let’s stop being mad when rich AF people are being sued. #EatTheRich :clicktina_xtina_christina_aguilera_mouse_computer:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, sweeetyme said:

Pedophiles see it as ***ual. It doesn't matter if you don't. They will **** off to STH like that. Would you be okay to some sick ******* jerking off to a pic of your baby? Or you as a baby? Yes sure they should seek therapy but most probably they won't because they're fine with their sick mind.

They’re gonna do it regardless, people can’t live their lives tip toeing around the perversions of others. People jack off to feet so should we all stop wearing flip flops?  
The most prolific artists of all time depicted babies, children, women and men nude and we take it as it was intended, as art. The intention of this album cover was in the same vein.

I get where you’re coming from, but at the end of the day there will always be bad actors around. Letting them dictate how we live isn’t something anyone should be willing to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, IForgotYouExisted said:

I kinda agree in this.

As a parent you must be ****ed up to let your child be naked on an album's cover by such a big band you know milions of people would buy.

Your naked son is literally on the shelve of milions of people. Probably including s.x offenders...

WHAT parent would like money for their child to be naked on a cover? Sorry but this album's cover has always been problematic imo.

I'm sorry, what?

No one knew who that child was until he decided to do that photo shoot, and do it again.

There is literally nothing ***ual about that image.

This case is going no where -- as it should.

  • Love 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment

Same could be said for Renaissance art. There are tons of nude human beings, babies and adults. Flaccid *****es and ***** everywhere. I'm sorry, but this outrage is totally misguided.

No, I am not going to ban Michelangelo and his art is not perverted because it has nude children. 

 

  • Love 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment

This photo is a baby photo at best. He’s reaching. His parents got 200 bucks and he’s done recreations and interviews on this - which I’d assume brings in money. So now, he’s salty. Considering artist today will break a neck for free to gain recognition - umbrella director - he’s exploited this cover for what it was and now wants to change the narrative for money. IMO, they’ll settle just to shut him up. He does deserve royalties of sorts but my goodness, the reach. GIF by Lifetime

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Okay, but why would he sue the band?

If anyone he should be upset with his PARENTS for making money off of him when he was a baby. Babies can't give consent but PARENTS can.

He's only viewing himself as a victim now because that's the way to cash in these days. There was probably a smarter angle to do at it than the child **** victim route.

this seems like a fake story from The Onion. What strange times we are living in.

:awks_britney_side_eye_awkward_2011_ff_femme_Fatale:

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CrazyButItFeelsAllright said:

In r*** or other ***ual indecency cases, sure, but this seems like he’s not coping, but retaliating because Nirvana didn’t want to attend his show

The irony of him going after a bill as a baby and as a grown *** adult by ****ing around isnt lost :clownery_makeup_meme:

Link to comment
2 hours ago, kfitz421 said:

I mean that could be a part of it sure :cheese_Britney_awkward_cringe_eek:

but either way them using that photo was/is not ok :walkin_fire_meltdown_burning_flames_panic_mess_exhell:

they continue to make a profit off an album that’s cover is a nude photo of him as a child, which is not ok no matter how bitter he may be right now :nyschool_new_york_miss_tiffany_pollard_preaching_telling_talking_hand:

Lastly, let’s stop being made when rich AF people are being sued. #EatTheRich :clicktina_xtina_christina_aguilera_mouse_computer:

Kurt's dead. He aint rich sis

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, FreeBritBrit said:

Nirvana's visuals are meant to be provocative and edgy - from MVS to album covers. The whole grunge style is like that. Plus those were early 90s = diff times

I was a kid in the 90s and remember seeing this picture on albums in the store and on T-shirts and thought it was weird. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jordeezy said:

I was a kid in the 90s and remember seeing this picture on albums in the store and on T-shirts and thought it was weird. 

tbh In Utero is way weirder if u wanna wierd

 

Nirvana – In Utero (Censored, CD) - Discogs

 

But then again, this kind of artwork was their style. And its what it makes them recognizable and its part of their brand

Link to comment

I have to agree with him. Even if he recreated the picture before, it could have been to look "cool" and seem "fine" with the situation just to deal with it. If that was my situation i would be traumatized, it would not matter if people didn't know, just me knowing would make me anxious.

He mentioned the parents were promised it would be covered in the album but they didn't cover it in the final version. mhh i think the band can allow themselves to pay some compensation for usage rights for him, they have millions...i think it is fair. Just pay and move on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block