Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

When you get a bunch of people you will get inconsistency. It's just the way we are built as humans. There's duality even in each one of us.

The problem is that a government, especially one like the US tries to be, has to come to a compromise between "Protecting the public" and "allowing freedoms". Sometimes these things contradict each other. That's where the inconsistency comes in.

Here's a bit of inconsistency for you. If two consenting adult people in an adults only environment can get banned from the SL because they role play a child-adult sex scene, why can a porno company can make a porno of an adult woman playing a character of "not Cindy Brady" having sex with an older man?

Let me go a little further. Why is the idea of an adult male role playing a child molester with an adult female role playing a twelve year old would most likely bring out a disturbing picture in one's mind, yet the idea of an adult female Dominatrix role playing a mother with an adult male role playing a baby most likely would bring out an amusing image in most people's minds. Both are age play.

Part of it is culture. Clearly, the Japanese have a lot of age play in their culture and cartoons, but do you think every Japanese person is a pedophile? Of course not.

Part of it is our reactions. For example, teenagers may be sending naked pictures of themselves to other people over cell phones, but really, how many of us played doctor, or flashed someone else, when we were young? And, it wasn't always for the sexual thrill, sometimes it was just to get a reaction. To be sure, I'm not advocating that teenagers should do that, because it's stupid and could be embarrassing, but you know, the real damage isn't the exposure of skin, the real damage is how people react to it. If no big deal is made of the picture or the flash or the game of doctor, usually, nothing happens. But once people make it a big deal, it snowballs.

Part of it is our own thoughts. If someone gets aroused by a picture, whatever it may be, if that person feels badly about getting aroused or is scared of their own reaction, there's another inconsistency.

Part of it circumstances. For example, if a husband and wife often age play with each other, and as a turn on for his wife, he writes a story about him raping her at age sixteen, with the intent of turning her on, is that romantic and loving or sick and depraved or even a mix or all of the above? Well, the answer is "it depends on X and Y and/or Z".

I think sex is the hardest thing to compromise on legally. There are so many different circumstances, thoughts, culture and reactions. The only real consistency, in my humble opinion, is when someone's sexual fantasies aren't enough to remain so. And choose the real thing without care to the harm of others, or even really desiring the real harm of others.

For example, as a Dom, myself, I love to blindfold, tie, spank my girl. But there are limits to it. I don't want her permanently damaged, I don't want her bruised, crying, distrustful, or worried about if I'm going to beat her so badly she'd have to go to the hospital. I love her beyond measure. That's why when I tie her up, I have scissors close by to cut her loose if there is an emergency, that's why she has a safe word and a safe move when it gets too much for her, that's why I only spank her ass, not her face, not her stomach, not her kidneys, and never ever with a closed fist.

There's the line. It's a duality, but it's a safe one. It's easier with one or two people. It gets much much harder with a nation of people.

...sorry for being verbose, but I hope I answered your question.

Hello, JFrankA. Yep, you reinforced the inconsistency in laws and further confused me j/k

It is much easier in terms of single relationships than a whole nation...and the problem with regards to pornography is that the laws might curtail freedoms with good intentions, but...they haven't really demonstrated effectiveness with regards to protecting those intended to be protected from criminals. I think there is a good argument to be made that if someone is pre-disposed (I'm not sure how we measure that, though) to crimes against children, they would latch on to just about anything that would, in their minds, justify that decision. I am sad to say that I have known some people who, in my opinion, were quite abusive to their children, and justified it with religion. Criminals don't pay attention to laws...or they wouldn't be criminals.

Double edged sword. On the one hand, I would like to see streamlined laws regarding child protection and encouragement of public involvement in reporting suspected abuse. But...even *that* has been used in pretty disgusting ways as retaliation/revenge or what have you. So...children are or can be exploited by the laws in two ways...by the law being broken, or the law being abused for nefarious reasons. People have a cruel streak in them. I think we all do, really. We are all capable of cruelty. And sadly, some people falsely report parents for abuse just because they get mad or fight over a property line or a parking space.

I just don't know the answer.

 

[JFrankA]

<snip> But JFrankA is making some good points, if one can let the emotions go. I don't entirely agree with him, but...he's having a reasonable discussion. And RandFan is certainly someone I would like to be involved in a discussion such as this. He is probably the most objective poster I've encountered, actually. Him and ponderingturtle. If you'll notice, he does see both sides to the argument.

We need to stop being rude to one another. We all seem to believe that children deserve protection, we all seem to abhor the abuse of children, so why can't we work from that common ground?

I don't want to be rude, either, to anyone. Not you, not SW, not anyone. And even though we don't see eye-to-eye completely, that's no reason for me to be upset or try to upset you, either.

Part of being challenged, (which is what SW claimed he was going for), is to discuss and debate without "getting into each others faces". I try hard not to do that, though I don't always succeed. For example, I know I upset Pondering Turtle with my statements about smoking. I feel badly about that, because he did show me a side of the argument I never thought of. That's why I'm here, to learn and be challenged. So, SugarB, feel free to disagree and discuss with me. I won't be offended.

But I do agree with you on this: I love reading PonderingTurtle's and RandFan's posts as well, along with Ron Tomkins, Quadraginta, FuelAir, Belz, Toke and a few others I may have missed. I think most people here, though opinionated (which is fine, 'cuz I am too, ), are fair. And what's more, try hard to be fair.

 

[RandFan]

Hello, RandFan. Is it not true, though, that laws regarding child protection are less broad, in terms of first amendment rights, than laws regarding what adults might do? There seem to be some major inconsistencies in these laws.

I with I could remember a movie title from a few years ago...someone here may...where a fourteen year old girl participated in a rape scene. Had that been in a pornographic film instead of a film made for the big screen, it would have been completely illegal. That is an inconsistency.

If I walked up to a police officer and said "I would like to kill myself", he is by law going to have to take me to the hospital. But if I were to tell that same police officer "I would like to view child porn", it is protected speech, and he can do nothing unless I act on it. That seems inconsistent.

Another thing I wonder about...this may be too edgy to bring up, but nonetheless, it strikes me as an inconsistency: if a sixteen year old girl in my county has sex, it is perfectly legal with a 24 year old man. She can even marry him. But if that 24 year old man *films* her having sex with him, then the law considers her "harmed", and that man a criminal.

Yes, I know I'm wildly speculating, but so many things come to mind that are completely inconsistent regarding child protection. And technology has made it an even more difficult situation. Teenagers can make and distribute child porn...willingly...and even if they admit it and profit from it and don't harm one another, they are, by law, harming THEMSELVES *and* each other. Children exploiting children, by law. Do we, as a knee jerk reaction, object to three or four fifteen year olds producing their own pornography *as quickly* as we object to an adult and two teens?

These things seem very inconsistent, to me. And perhaps that is why these discussions are nearly impossible. But what is the test now, for obscenity? Isn't it something about what the average person in a community finds objectionable, and community standards or some such thing? Even *that* is inconsistent, because that means that each and every area of the country could have differing laws, based on the prevailing ideaology in that area. Is that how laws are supposed to be applied? And this is what makes this discussion so interesting, to me. How did we even reach the point of our laws becoming so...inconsistent?

I think JFrankA provided a pretty good response but I will agree with you that there is some room for concern and corrections.

 

[sugarb]

I don't want to be rude, either, to anyone. Not you, not SW, not anyone. And even though we don't see eye-to-eye completely, that's no reason for me to be upset or try to upset you, either.

Part of being challenged, (which is what SW claimed he was going for), is to discuss and debate without "getting into each others faces". I try hard not to do that, though I don't always succeed. For example, I know I upset Pondering Turtle with my statements about smoking. I feel badly about that, because he did show me a side of the argument I never thought of. That's why I'm here, to learn and be challenged. So, SugarB, feel free to disagree and discuss with me. I won't be offended.

But I do agree with you on this: I love reading PonderingTurtle's and RandFan's posts as well, along with Ron Tomkins, Quadraginta, FuelAir, Belz, Toke and a few others I may have missed. I think most people here, though opinionated (which is fine, 'cuz I am too, ), are fair. And what's more, try hard to be fair.

JFrankA, I have never felt afraid to disagree with you. There is a lot of common ground, and I certainly don't expect full agreement on most issues. I agree with your list of posters, and could come up with a whole list, lol...but I'd leave someone off and then feel bad. But I like that we are an opinionated group. That is what makes this forum challenging, and I like that. I like my thoughts being challenged. I'm not out to "prove myself right", because really, with very few exceptions, there is no "one true way".

I don't intend to offend anyone. That can happen too easily in discussions such as this, though...so sometimes I fall back and force myself into a neutral approach, for myself as much as for the sake of tone. There is a lot of intelligence here...and it can be intimidating for those of us that don't feel so smart. (yeah, I do get intimidated easily by superior minds, lol) But it is also a learning experience, and that is what we are here for, right? I don't think this is a useless thread. This is what discussions should be, how conversation should go, how ideas and thoughts should be expressed and shared. It is expected that tempers might flare, but thus far we've moved past those moments rather quickly...and that is a good thing.

It seems to me that we are all for the most part in agreement. The only sticking point, with me, is the virtual child pornography. We all agree on banning child pornography (though we are all displeased with how even that law is abused). Our disagreement seems to center on virtual child pornography, and there being a "real" victim. I'm interested to see where that part of the discussion goes.

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA, I have never felt afraid to disagree with you. There is a lot of common ground, and I certainly don't expect full agreement on most issues. I agree with your list of posters, and could come up with a whole list, lol...but I'd leave someone off and then feel bad. But I like that we are an opinionated group. That is what makes this forum challenging, and I like that. I like my thoughts being challenged. I'm not out to "prove myself right", because really, with very few exceptions, there is no "one true way".

I don't intend to offend anyone. That can happen too easily in discussions such as this, though...so sometimes I fall back and force myself into a neutral approach, for myself as much as for the sake of tone. There is a lot of intelligence here...and it can be intimidating for those of us that don't feel so smart. (yeah, I do get intimidated easily by superior minds, lol) But it is also a learning experience, and that is what we are here for, right? I don't think this is a useless thread. This is what discussions should be, how conversation should go, how ideas and thoughts should be expressed and shared. It is expected that tempers might flare, but thus far we've moved past those moments rather quickly...and that is a good thing.

It seems to me that we are all for the most part in agreement. The only sticking point, with me, is the virtual child pornography. We all agree on banning child pornography (though we are all displeased with how even that law is abused). Our disagreement seems to center on virtual child pornography, and there being a "real" victim. I'm interested to see where that part of the discussion goes.

Me too.

If I may further the discussion a little, I found an article by Dr. Marty Klein, who is a sex therapist. I read his website often, and he had his take on the man who was arrested for having Manga. It makes for an interesting read.

http://www.sexualintelligence.org/newsletters/issue112.html#one

 

[quadraginta]

Me too.

If I may further the discussion a little, I found an article by Dr. Marty Klein, who is a sex therapist. I read his website often, and he had his take on the man who was arrested for having Manga. It makes for an interesting read.

http://www.sexualintelligence.org/newsletters/issue112.html#one

Thank you for that. It is indeed interesting.

I thought I'd share a portion of it with comments particularly germane to our discussion highlighted by me.

In 2002, the Supreme Court overturned the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The law had, among other things, criminalized virtual child pornography. So in 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act.
To get around the Supreme Court's support for the Constitution, Congress created a sub-category of speech that does not have First Amendment protection: drawings of childhood sexuality that a jury deemed obscene.

By excluding material that had "serious value," the law could stand. But we continue to see that this exclusion is shaky and undependable. Convene a jury of people who are angry, ignorant, frightened, or very religious, and the concept of "serious value" wilts away--Shakespeare, Picasso, and manga be damned. Handley's lawyer recommended the plea agreement because he feared the jury wouldn't acquit his client.

Child pornography laws--including the PROTECT Act--are meant to protect children. Real child porn is the documentation of a crime, the sexual exploitation of children. Who is being protected by eliminating drawings of children being sexual--whether the kids are drawn smiling or terrified?

Laws like these soothe adult consciences, comfort adult rage, and grant the illusion of adult power. By siphoning precious law enforcement resources, they make actual children less safe, not more.

Most telling to me, in light of recent comments, is the point made that Congress had to re-craft a law specifically for the purpose of evading a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality.

In a more perfect world this should have sent up some red flags that perhaps the direction and application of the law were not well conceived. Instead minor semantic changes were pursued in an attempt to circumvent judicial criticism without any real reflection on the fundamental faults of the law itself.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Thanks.
Reading first, middle and last page I see remarkable similarities, it confirms the impression that there are no point in continuing here.

ETA: wicked_ways, I am glad the tread was good for something.

yep, it was, and now i look for your posts. always quick and to the point.

Thanks widked_ways. It's hard to have a rational discussion when someone is impuning your motives for rhetorical advantage. It's nice to know that some people are capable of seeing though that.

no problem randfan, you have a gift for cutting through the rhetoric, and stating an excellent case.

I missed this post.

Thanks from me too.

JFrankA, your contributions to this thread have been completely honest and open and quite an education for me. even if this thread goes zombie, i now know some posters who can eloquently and easily teach me something.

 

[sugarb]

Me too.

If I may further the discussion a little, I found an article by Dr. Marty Klein, who is a sex therapist. I read his website often, and he had his take on the man who was arrested for having Manga. It makes for an interesting read.

http://www.sexualintelligence.org/newsletters/issue112.html#one

Hi JFrankA. Well, I read even the plea agreement. One, he is clearly, by his own admission, guilty of violating the law. I don't feel sorry for him in that regard, but...I think he should not have signed that plea agreement. Clearly, he is guilty, as the law stands, but by making the decision he made, he validated the law, rather than challenged it. That will make it easier to prosecute.

Another issue, and really, I'm not being snarky, but...will you please explain to me the "artistic" value of a drawing of a child engaging in oral and vaginal sex with a male dog? Do you honestly think that is artistic, and not intending to arouse? I'm just not seeing it.

(I think he needed either a better lawyer, or something though...because that plea agreement leaves him wide open. He cannot appeal. He's closed the door for the law to even be challenged. I don't understand why he did that...)

 

[sugarb]

Here, though, JFrankA, is a case that went the *other* way.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19584

Part of the consideration involved no intentional distribution...as well as no "real" children being harmed (even though they were real faces of real people). So it seems that distribution, at least in some jurisdictions, is a significant factor. I think it should be. I don't see any violation of privacy or first amendment rights in prohibiting the distribution of fake renderings of child abuse, no matter how distasteful I find them. Distribution, though, seems to make it lean toward intent to arouse, which is partially how pornography is defined, right?

 

[sugarb]

Thank you for that. It is indeed interesting.

I thought I'd share a portion of it with comments particularly germane to our discussion highlighted by me.

Most telling to me, in light of recent comments, is the point made that Congress had to re-craft a law specifically for the purpose of evading a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality.

In a more perfect world this should have sent up some red flags that perhaps the direction and application of the law were not well conceived. Instead minor semantic changes were pursued in an attempt to circumvent judicial criticism without any real reflection on the fundamental faults of the law itself.

Yes, that evasion is worrisome. If only this case had decided to challenge the law, we might have gotten some clarification.

To argue the other side, though, one could say that "virtual" child porn is created specifically for the purpose of evading child pornography laws, and so perhaps we have the possibility that the intent is no different.

Again, though, the indiscrepancies are glaring. Maybe the key words here are "children" and "harm". The government is not consistent in this. In "real" life, young people below the age of 18 can engage in sexual activity. But in "imaginary" life, that is illegal.

In a sense, isn't it kind of like the laws that say cashiers MUST check identification of anyone who "appears to be" under the age of 25 if they are buying alcohol? These kinds of laws are pretty subjective.

 

[JFrankA]

Hi JFrankA. Well, I read even the plea agreement. One, he is clearly, by his own admission, guilty of violating the law. I don't feel sorry for him in that regard, but...I think he should not have signed that plea agreement. Clearly, he is guilty, as the law stands, but by making the decision he made, he validated the law, rather than challenged it. That will make it easier to prosecute.

Another issue, and really, I'm not being snarky, but...will you please explain to me the "artistic" value of a drawing of a child engaging in oral and vaginal sex with a male dog? Do you honestly think that is artistic, and not intending to arouse? I'm just not seeing it.

Not snarky, a legitimate question.

Personally, by taking what you descibed on face value, I wouldn't see it as "artistic", but also, I wouldn't see it as "intending to arouse", either.

For that, I need more information: what was the context of the scene? Was she enjoying it? Was she being forced? What were the consequences? How did she get into that situation?

But in the end, it's not a real person with a real dog. Quite honestly, if it arouses someone, it really doesn't matter, as long as the person who was aroused didn't go out and abuse or molest a child. In fact, why do we automatically assume that it's a male person getting aroused by it? It could be a female person who is getting aroused by it because it's her fetish to perform sex with a dog. At any rate, if the person who is aroused by it is not psychotic, then the very worst that they would do is role play it with their adult partner safely, or masturbate to it. Again, it's not the art's fault that a person decides to harm someone without regard, child or not.

I can't see this being any different than a very bloody, gory horror movie where the killer kills over and over and continues to live. Why aren't people saying "Hey, that mass murder saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre and decided it was okay to kill"? To me it's the same argument.

(I think he needed either a better lawyer, or something though...because that plea agreement leaves him wide open. He cannot appeal. He's closed the door for the law to even be challenged. I don't understand why he did that...)

I agree there. I don't know what happened there. Assuming he had nothing to hide, (innocent until proven guilty, I follow that always), he must have had a terrible lawyer, been given a really bum rap, been very scared or a combination of all three.

 

[sugarb]

JFrankA, ya know? We do seem to presume that it is males getting aroused by porn. Maybe it has to do with that "men are more visually oriented" idea, I don't know...but on a personal level, I can say that of the friends that openly talk about such things, probably more of my female friends that males seem fond of pornography. So that is a very good question.

We also tend to hear more about how women are "harmed" by porn than we do about men being "harmed" by porn.

( I don't know the context of the pictures with the female child and dog, it was just mentioned in the plea agreement)

 

[fuelair]

I think FuelAir was refering to this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101873

That's the one!! Thanks!!

 

[sugarb]

I agree there. I don't know what happened there. Assuming he had nothing to hide, (innocent until proven guilty, I follow that always), he must have had a terrible lawyer, been given a really bum rap, been very scared or a combination of all three.

Maybe a lack of ability to finance a good lawyer. Money does present a huge problem for the average person when it comes to legal defense. I don't blame him for being scared, though. And maybe he wanted to avoid public humiliation...because that's what would have come of it, regardless of him being declared guilty or innocent. People accused of sex crimes are stigmatized in terrible ways, even if they are innocent.

 

[quadraginta]

Maybe a lack of ability to finance a good lawyer. Money does present a huge problem for the average person when it comes to legal defense. I don't blame him for being scared, though. And maybe he wanted to avoid public humiliation...because that's what would have come of it, regardless of him being declared guilty or innocent. People accused of sex crimes are stigmatized in terrible ways, even if they are innocent.

All guessing of course, but if a guilty verdict was probable or even possible, no matter how undeserved, the thought (suggestion?) of a guided tour of gen. pop. as a convicted pedophile while waiting years for a possible appeal success might have influenced his decision.

That is not a good rap to take into prison, and the rest of the 'guests' aren't generally inclined to assume innocence.

 

[MontagK505]

MontagK505, good almost evening. I am going to agree with you that prosecuting this man won't have any effect whatsoever on pedophiles. But as to your second paragraph, there are many laws that were made laws for very good reasons, and are abused by the ambitious/ridiculous and crusaders of many stripes. Particularly, it seems, with sex crimes, but also in other areas. One example I would give would be police check points. It could be argued that it is unreasonable search, no crime has been commited, but we are burdened with proving, for no real reason, that we are operating our vehicles within the laws. Just because a law can be abused doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law.

I would, though, like to see a bit more action taken against those charged with enforcing and upholding the laws when they abuse that power. Really, I don't think we're all disagreeing all that much, in truth. The problem arises when zealots try to push their own agenda, accepting no compromise. For example, as you know, I personally would like to see this stuff banned, not nudes or family photos--that is where government has crossed a major line (so I understand how the laws can be abused, and that is wrong), but cartoons portraying children having sex? I think those should be banned, knee jerk reaction. I'm open to having it explained to me how that is serious art and valuable as a collection. However, there is also the right to privacy, which includes what one possesses in one's home for one's own use. So...what we need is a less "loose" standard in the law. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there could ever be an agreement acceptable to enough people to make a law with real teeth.

Hello SugarB:

believe me I read what you are saying. One question is: Should we accept laws that are so poorly written that they can be used to send a comic book collector, such as I described, to prison?

My knees likely jerk in a similar way as yours. But to paraphrase my own earlier post, are knees good organs to use for cognitive activity?

Just to give you a idea:

A possible Poser project:

A pixie figure. (little faerie wings etc.)

She's cute.
She's green.
She's nude.
She has an apparent age of 14-408 (It's hard to tell with with a pixie don't ya know?)
And just to add a sick twist, she's packing an SMG.

A possible change to the poser project:

Now suppose the little pixie is shown giving some guy a BJ. Or you could have her going down on another pixie. (SMG is optional)

If you read Title 18 Chap 71 1466A:
<snip>

(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

<snip>

A minor under US law is anyone under 18yrs.

If the jurors think apparent age is <18 and they happen to be channeling the ghost of Anthony Comstock, the image would have no artistic merit.

Almost instant kiddie porn!
Do you think a person who would produce this image deserves 10yrs in prison?

 

[RandFan]

JFrankA, ya know? We do seem to presume that it is males getting aroused by porn. Maybe it has to do with that "men are more visually oriented" idea, I don't know...but on a personal level, I can say that of the friends that openly talk about such things, probably more of my female friends that males seem fond of pornography. So that is a very good question.

I've recently changed my mind a bit on this due to a study out of McGill University.

See this CNN article for info. Are more women OK with watching porn?

 

[fuelair]

JFrankA, ya know? We do seem to presume that it is males getting aroused by porn. Maybe it has to do with that "men are more visually oriented" idea, I don't know...but on a personal level, I can say that of the friends that openly talk about such things, probably more of my female friends that males seem fond of pornography. So that is a very good question.

We also tend to hear more about how women are "harmed" by porn than we do about men being "harmed" by porn.

( I don't know the context of the pictures with the female child and dog, it was just mentioned in the plea agreement)

As a purely anecdotal thingie: around 2002 or 3, I was in Houston for an SF Con (first in a series of three I was hitting on consec. weekends). Claudia Christian was there. She rode up in an elevator with me. She had on a nearly transparent top..nothing under it (well, that should possibly be rephrased as there certainly was, but). I watched her face. I taught speedreading and have very good peripheral vision.
But that isn't the anecdote. As the con was ending another dealer and a young lady he had met (previously known) wanted to kill time before her flight so they dropped by my room. We all (I did not initiate) wound up talking about porn and I mentioned an interesting part of my stock that was made by lesbians for lesbians and that one included a Safe Sex show incorporated into it. She said she had never even heard of something like that and asked if I would mind letting her see a bit of it. Always the educator, I put it on. By the middle of the safe sex show it was clear that she found the material very educational - especially when she sort of yelled out "Damn I wish I could put off that flight!!!!!". We were perfect gentlemen.

 

[JFrankA]

As a purely anecdotal thingie: around 2002 or 3, I was in Houston for an SF Con (first in a series of three I was hitting on consec. weekends). Claudia Christian was there. She rode up in an elevator with me. She had on a nearly transparent top..nothing under it (well, that should possibly be rephrased as there certainly was, but). I watched her face. I taught speedreading and have very good peripheral vision.
But that isn't the anecdote. As the con was ending another dealer and a young lady he had met (previously known) wanted to kill time before her flight so they dropped by my room. We all (I did not initiate) wound up talking about porn and I mentioned an interesting part of my stock that was made by lesbians for lesbians and that one included a Safe Sex show incorporated into it. She said she had never even heard of something like that and asked if I would mind letting her see a bit of it. Always the educator, I put it on. By the middle of the safe sex show it was clear that she found the material very educational - especially when she sort of yelled out "Damn I wish I could put off that flight!!!!!". We were perfect gentlemen.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.....Claudia Christian

 

[JFrankA]

Hello SugarB:

believe me I read what you are saying. One question is: Should we accept laws that are so poorly written that they can be used to send a comic book collector, such as I described, to prison?

My knees likely jerk in a similar way as yours. But to paraphrase my own earlier post, are knees good organs to use for cognitive activity?

Just to give you a idea:

A possible Poser project:

A pixie figure. (little faerie wings etc.)

She's cute.
She's green.
She's nude.
She has an apparent age of 14-408 (It's hard to tell with with a pixie don't ya know?)
And just to add a sick twist, she's packing an SMG.

A possible change to the poser project:

Now suppose the little pixie is shown giving some guy a BJ. Or you could have her going down on another pixie. (SMG is optional)

If you read Title 18 Chap 71 1466A:
<snip>

(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

<snip>

A minor under US law is anyone under 18yrs.

If the jurors think apparent age is <18 and they happen to be channeling the ghost of Anthony Comstock, the image would have no artistic merit.

Almost instant kiddie porn!
Do you think a person who would produce this image deserves 10yrs in prison?

Another anecdote:

A co-worker of mine, female, has a Tinkerbell (Disney's version) calendar. The month of July caught my eye. I had to really look at it several times before I realized what was bothering me.

I finally realized that the position the artist put Tinkerbell in was exactly the same position that Marilyn Monroe was in when she posed for her Playboy centerfold!

And I'm sorry, it was fweakin' sexy!

Is that child porn? Was it "intended to arouse"?