Naked boy painting and the glance of sister & brother
Many great comments to the post of the painted boy ...
NOW
Brother and sister, both amusedly watching the boy painted naked.
He smiles, she watches curiously and amusedly.
Perhaps he would like to get naked while his sister and everyone watches him,
and perhaps she would also like to see her brother naked in the street...
What do you believe they are thinking?
(Andy Golub NY)
33 comments:
This situation with the painted child is one of the best scenes in CFNM, especially because we see a little girl being introduced to CFNM with all the fun and innocence evident in her smile. She's accompanied by her brother, who could also be in that painted child situation. We see how the little girl observes the naked boy in detail, especially his genitals, while enjoying the scene and learning about male anatomy. It's undoubtedly one of the best CFNM scenes that empowers the little girl as a woman.
Bodypainting for girls on males could be included in school's art classes and presented on public school festivities...
I'm not so sure the boy would like to be in the situation, but he smiles when others are. But I am quite sure his sister would NOT vote against it if he did...
You're right, looking more closely, it seems like a fake photo; the young man's image appears to have been inserted into another photo.
I did not say that and it's clearly not fake. There is a whole series of that. Again one of those people trying to troll the blog?
How old do you think the painted boy is, and the girl who is watching him with her brother and laughing?
Fantastic pic!!
I completely agree with Anon February 6, 2026 at 11:57 AM. This scene is one of the best CFNM scenes, especially because it's real, in the middle of a NYC street, and the brother and sister's smiles say a lot... but they also hide many different thoughts...
I think the painted boy is about 15 or 16 years old, and the siblings who are passing by looking are between 11 and 12 years old.
Great contribution, Marie! Upload more photos like these.
The commenter who writes that the model's boy is 15-16 years old, are you a fool? American laws will not allow painting a naked boy under the age of 18 in front of everyone. And I'll immediately answer another fool who thinks this photo is fake. This is a real photo, you can find a series of pictures with this guy on the Internet, they were taken in New York in 2013.
The girl got pleasure, and her brother got humiliated. I'm sure that when they returned home, she forced her brother to undress. Girls can look at naked boys, but boys shouldn't see naked girls. It's not fair, but those are the rules.
Is not one person going to mention that these clothed kids are underage?
It may be by chance that they walked by the spot where a nude boy (also obviously underage, if in the US) was being painted, but you all are celebrating the little girl seeing this. I suppose you are ok with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or even pedopheilia! Shame on all of you! It's no wonder every commenter is "anonymous", not wanting to be on record as being in favor of this scenario. (Yes, I get the irony of me also being anonymous, but I don't want to even be found on this thread, even though I think it's sick.)
What a shame. Most times, Marie shows good taste.
you are seriously delusional
The painted "boy" (young man) is certainly not underage. And as it's an art project, and moreover: absolutely harmless, it's possible that passersby in public are children. Only crazy American moral zealots can see harm in this. And the reason to stay anonymous is not shame of our view of things, but a security measure: You never know what crazy American zealots (or presidents) are about to do and prosecute these days...
"Boy": over 18. Siblings: 8-11.
Sometimes the comments on this blog get off track. AnonFebruary 6, 2026 at 10:05 PM, for sure, is the one who sees evil in everything. The scene is delightful in its balance between innocence and malice, even poetic, and only a sick mind, misled by a mania for political correctness, can make such inappropriate comments...
I totally agree, except that there is no malice whatsoever in any part of this.
You see innocence where there is none. A naked minor painted in the street is not innocent; it's the work of a twisted mind like yours. Clearly, the painted young man is a minor. Look at his body, his genitals, his face—everything indicates that he is no more than 15 or 16 years old.
You see innocence where there is none. A naked minor painted in the street is not innocent; it's the work of a twisted mind like yours. Clearly, the painted young man is a minor. Look at his body, his genitals, his face—everything indicates that he is no more than 15 or 16 years old.
Clearly, the painted young man is a minor. Look at his body, his genitals, his face—everything indicates that he is no more than 15 or 16 years old.
Were you born yesterday? Have you never seen a young-looking adult in your life? This event took place in July of 2013, and the male involved was 23 years old: https://nypost.com/2013/07/11/body-artist-paints-on-nude-models-in-broad-daylight-in-times-square/
Please keep your foolish rantings to yourself.
Thank you for clarifying. But it's a shame we need to answer to those ... who get hysterical about those things. It's not only bad judgement not to know how young humans can look, it's also a quite ... (unintellingent) assumption that some artist would go out on the NY streets in full daylight traffic and disrobe an underage boy in the streets, because this would be extremely stupid, cornering suicide, so in addition to the misinterpretation of the looks of the young man, the commenter is also completely incapable of logical thinking.
I agree, comments should focus on the beauty of the image and the attractiveness of the situation, not on useless formal or legal aspects that are almost always unfounded.
The indecent laws of New York that condone public nudity, even in the presence of minors...something that the degenerates and perverts of this blog like those who comment in favor of the image of the girl looking at the naked young man like a lot....perverts.
February 7, 2026 at 6:54 PM...And where were you born? Pervert... In a brothel? disgusting pervert
Yes, please Marie, thank you for the post and keep them coming. And keep the missionaries busy - they have to come here and revert us because they feel lonely and bored.
February 8, 2026 at 2:07 PM until you are reported for pedophilia
When laws are passed that allow same-sex marriages and the adoption of children by such families, for some reason this society considers it completely normal. But if a child sees a naked person, it is immediately considered a perversion. I'm sure if the photo showed two men kissing and the kids saw it, you'd say it was okay. Because hypocrites like you have their morals turned inside out. Usually, those who shout the loudest about morality are themselves perverts.
Firstly, you don't seem to know what that actually is (I don't see it here), secondly, I don't know in which country some internal inclination is punishable by law. In civilized, modern countries, it's the acts that count, not the thought. Thought police is in Orwell's 1984.
The question is: why are such inappropriate moralists on this blog?
I'm not here to speak on morality but you got the wrong news article. This is not Time Square. This is Thomas Schutte at Doris C. Freedman Plaza.
Not sure why people are confusing nudity with pedophilia, nudity is not always inappropriate. Plenty of people who grow up nudists, even when exposed as children, are more well adjusted than those who grow up with stricter dress codes.
Post a Comment