• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

Marcus said:
They have a system they use to estimate the age of models, they probably use the same one for animations. They assign point values to things like secondary sexual characteristics, and the resulting analysis is legal in cases where the age of the model is not known. It's full of holes, I know, we've all seen 13 yr olds who would register as adult on such a scale.
Click to expand...
Fine. But that's all within the context of laws that explicitly pertain to human beings.
 
Southwind17 said:
Fine. But that's all within the context of laws that explicitly pertain to human beings.
Click to expand...
They have some way of deciding which animation is illegal, I don't actually know if this is it.

The reasoning behind the law is absurd, in my opinion. It goes something like " If we allow people to see material like this, it will make them want to go out and have sex with children".

I don't know if this law is in effect, or nation wide, they keep going back and forth on it.
 
JFrankA said:
Thanks. I'm still hoping for free porn for a prize!!!! :D



Something I'd like to mention about that. There was a news story here in the States that the Supreme Court (I believe, I have to check), first found that porn that is animated, (this is defined by porn that has absolutely no live human people involved in the scene), that involved under aged people was legal.

There was a big bru-ha-ha, and that decision was overturned. Now it's considered illegal if someone possesses a drawn picture of a under aged people having sex, even if there were no living human models involved at all.

So if I decide to take a software program, such as Poser, and use it to create a scene of an older person having sex with an under aged person, I can be arrested for possession of child pornography even though there is no actual child ever even touched.
To go further, in the virtual game of Second Life, there was a big deal because a twenty three year old woman and a forty year old man, age played in Second Life. There was a person who "heard" the conversation, (basically was evesdropping), and reported them. They were banned from Second Life and now child avatars are not allowed.

Mind you, the server they were on was adults only.

Why is that?

Now don't get me wrong, I do not condone actual child pornography, where an actual under aged person is involved in the shoot, but when it's obviously not a real child, all adults involved and not a shred of real photographs, why is this banned?


....oops. Gotta catch a plane. :)
Click to expand...

I play around with Poser. It can be like playing with virtual dolls.

Most of the figures you can purchase, like Victoria 4, have a large number of morphing controls for both body and face. You can make Vicky look really young. Plus, there's a large number of after-market plug-in morphs and texture files you can purchase. In some cases the style of posing or expression could get you into trouble if she looks too young.

Remember, kiddie porn doesn't always require explicit sex. This of course, is all highly subjective. What combination of morphing adjustments would make the artist a law breaker?
 
Last edited:
MontagK505 said:
I play around with Poser. It can be like playing with virtual dolls.

Most of the figures you can purchase, like Victoria 4, have a large number of morphing controls for both body and face. You can make Vicky look really young. Plus, there's a large number of after-market plug-in morphs and texture files you can purchase. In some cases the style of posing or expression could get you into trouble if she looks too young.

Remember, kiddie porn doesn't always require explicit sex. This of course, is all highly subjective. What combination of morphing adjustments would make the artist a law breaker?
Click to expand...


You're supposed to know it when you see it. Isn't that what the Supreme Court said?

I guess if someone else sees it and "knows" it before you do ... well, too bad for you.
 
quadraginta said:
You're supposed to know it when you see it. Isn't that what the Supreme Court said?
I guess if someone else sees it and "knows" it before you do ... well, too bad for you.
Click to expand...

I know. I worry if adjust one of those little morph dials just a little too far...
It's off to the slammer for me.

I don't know about the Supreme Court, but there are some prosecutors who think like that.
 
MontagK505 said:
One thing that bothered me, was that the image attached to the linked article was not porn and didn't have any children. It looked like virtual adults at a virtual dance club. The image had nothing to do with the article.
Click to expand...

True. But it's easy to find sex somewhere on SL. I'm guessing they just had some random pics because they couldn't show virtual porn.
 
MontagK505 said:
I play around with Poser. It can be like playing with virtual dolls.

Most of the figures you can purchase, like Victoria 4, have a large number of morphing controls for both body and face. You can make Vicky look really young. Plus, there's a large number of after-market plug-in morphs and texture files you can purchase. In some cases the style of posing or expression could get you into trouble if she looks too young.

Remember, kiddie porn doesn't always require explicit sex. This of course, is all highly subjective. What combination of morphing adjustments would make the artist a law breaker?
Click to expand...

I've used Poser myself. In fact, SL based their avatars with the Poser program. And you bring up a good point: if you turn Victoria 4 into a teenager, and don't place clothing on her because you're still adjusting the model, yet you render and save your work in progress, and bang. You've got kiddie porn on your computer.
 
MontagK505 said:
I play around with Poser. It can be like playing with virtual dolls.
Most of the figures you can purchase, like Victoria 4, have a large number of morphing controls for both body and face. You can make Vicky look really young. Plus, there's a large number of after-market plug-in morphs and texture files you can purchase. In some cases the style of posing or expression could get you into trouble if she looks too young.
Remember, kiddie porn doesn't always require explicit sex. This of course, is all highly subjective. What combination of morphing adjustments would make the artist a law breaker?
Click to expand...
quadraginta said:
You're supposed to know it when you see it. Isn't that what the Supreme Court said?
I guess if someone else sees it and "knows" it before you do ... well, too bad for you.
Click to expand...
MontagK505 said:
I know. I worry if adjust one of those little morph dials just a little too far...
It's off to the slammer for me.
I don't know about the Supreme Court, but there are some prosecutors who think like that.
Click to expand...
I think the legislative term referred to in the article that JFrankA linked to above (excellent informative link BTW, JFrankA) is something like "virtually indistinguishable from a minor". To my mind, that's pretty clear cut, and if there is any room for interpretation then I suggest that one should simply err on the safe side.
 
Southwind17 said:
I think the legislative term referred to in the article that JFrankA linked to above (excellent informative link BTW, JFrankA) is something like "virtually indistinguishable from a minor". To my mind, that's pretty clear cut, and if there is any room for interpretation then I suggest that one should simply err on the safe side.
Click to expand...


Why do I have this feeling that the interpretation of a D.A. who's running for reelection might be different than that of a cautious viewer. Perhaps it is not so simple.

"Interpretation" is dangerous ground to base criminal statutes on at the best of times. For some reason the consensus is even less universal when topics like this one are involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom