Baby Baby from Nirvana's Nevermind is suing the band over child pornography

Mr. Argumentor

Mr. Argumentor

I fab shitboxes and shitbox accessories.
Sep 27, 2012
53,736
24,764
823
Tampa-ish
Marklar
₥73,690
Steam
asastang
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327844

Many thoughts on this. Mainly that this is a money grab very thinly disguised behind child pornography. Primary reason I think that is he has recreated the photo multiple times.
Also, late 80s-early 90s waterproof professional cameras were not subtle things, and Kirk Webble was/is a well known pro photographer. These people honestly had him photographing their baby underwater with no questions? I don't buy it.


Also, this excerpt from a GQ article.

1629949617_rdt_20210825_2343454378919369000114184_mmthumb.jpg




Personally, I feel that given how much he's exploited his "fame," and how often he's recreated the photo that the only reason he can think that this is child porn is if his dick still looks like that.
 
  • Gravy
  • Haha
Reactions: Immigrant, wetwillie and HipHugHer
It was a photo that baby mommy daddy were cool with for money. They didn't know at the time it would blow up into huge shit.
My question, as always, is why this, why now?
Somebody's looking to get rich and all the shit about naked babies is ancillary. "Emotional leverage" if you will.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: wetwillie
Fucking slacker needs to move on and get a job. Nobody remembers the baby's name and connects it to him unless told. I agree with the The Argumentor - dude is suffering baby penis syndrome. still :oops:
 
There is nothing wrong with having a baby dick as long as it’s yours. It’s one thing to refer to it occasionally in conversation, but a lawsuit is just asking for a lifetime of mockery.

Total money grab.
 
  • Love
Reactions: wetwillie
I want to open with, I think in this case it's absolutely a money-grab based on contemporaneous statements he has made and a larger pattern of his behavior.

that said, I just want to caution against broadly thinking that someone changing what they say about a situation indicates that the new statement is a lie if it contradicts the old. I used to tell people I had a good relationship with my now-ex, I made flattering statements about him, and I denied bad stuff and downplayed it and rationalized it, and that absolutely bit me in the ass when I finally left and was honest with myself and to others about it. sometimes your perspective changes, and both things feel true at their respective times. other times, one of the things truly is untrue, but it isn't always the newer contradictory thing that is the untrue thing.

I'm mad at this dude, not bc I give a shit about how any of this might damage the legacy of Nirvana or whatever, but about how this is going to reinforce that idea that this scenario is always like this (because in this case I think it is). it's in the same vein as like, the Jussie Smollett thing, or the Duke Lacrosse thing. it's bullshit and I hope it comes out as bullshit, but it's going to be the example people point to to justify their doubt in all other scenarios.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Immigrant, wetwillie, fly and 1 other person
august said:
I'm mad at this dude, not bc I give a shit about how any of this might damage the legacy of Nirvana or whatever, but about how this is going to reinforce that idea that this scenario is always like this (because in this case I think it is). it's in the same vein as like, the Jussie Smollett thing, or the Duke Lacrosse thing. it's bullshit and I hope it comes out as bullshit, but it's going to be the example people point to to justify their doubt in all other scenarios.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back