Quote -

I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

xxxander, I truly sympathize with you and hope you find the equilibrium you seek and deserve. But there is a difference between the depiction of sexuality and the act itself. Child abuse is not, for the child, sexuality - it is brutal and manipulative, it is exploitation by a "responsible" adult of a person who is unable to assert his or her own human rights. I certainly wouldn't flame you for your personal beliefs, borne as they are from traumatic experience, and I'll say something that will be far more likely to get me flamed: I have no doubt that not all sexuality involving children is abuse. I'm sure that's not going to be a popular theory, but we are speaking about human beings here - we are, many of us, sexual creatures. Often, the ones who protest most loudly are the most sexual of all, but they have their own agendas to promote and either others' sexual agendas don't mesh with those, or they simply don't want other people to enjoy something that they themselves either can't or don't want to.

I don't think a 5-year-old has any business in a sexual situation. That doesn't mean that there aren't 11-year-olds that do enjoy and desire it, and even engage in it, with each other and with partners of vastly different ages. Are they mature enough to make that decision? Some are, and some aren't - again, it's the human nature that we don't all follow the same development schedule, either physically, intellectually or emotionally. The best thing that adults can do is to try to guide children in making smart decisions, and in most cases, that means deciding not to engage in sexuality at a young age. And it's hard for children, especially from that prototypical 11-year-old on up, to deny their sexuality, because while 'adults' are screaming about how our children need to be protected (because it's always better to seal someone away from something than it is to engage in intelligent and informative discussion, right?), they are also using that imagery to sell clothes, music, cell phones, make-up and even toys to those same children!!. We say how wrong it is to even think about children sexually while we sell schoolgirl and Girl Scout costumes to women - we say it's okay, it's only an "accessory," but what is really happening is the most gross form of hypocrisy; we don't bat an eye when we buy the DVDs and look through Playboy - a magazine where the minimum age of the models is 18, but the average age of the viewer is probably 50. So if we are going to claim that youthful sexuality is unforgivable, we are going to have to take a serious look at ourselves first.

If people find sexual satisfaction in digital simulation (and I suppose they probably engage in digital stimulation at the same time ;)), no one is being abused (okay, except for the self-abuse, and that's a stupid term, too, when you think about it). Child pornography laws need to exist to protect children from people who can't determine the difference between right and wrong - they do not need to exist to prevent people from thinking about children in a sexual way if that is all they do or will ever do. There's no proof that the average person will enact any fantasy that comes to his or her mind, sexual or otherwise - most people do know the distinction, and those who don't clearly aren't being restrained by the laws, are they? How often do we see on the news that some "sicko" has kidnapped a child, has abused that child and sometimes worse? The laws exist, but the only thing that they can do is prosecute someone who has already offended - they don't stop the people for whom this is an actual problem.

If people "get off" on pixel pixies, whether they be fairies or realistic CGI depictions of young teens doing more than making a sand castle, I'm okay with that - better that they do that than acquire photographs, because there is a likelihood that a child was abused in the creation of a photograph, while the only abuse going on in CGI is to the CPU. I say, the more realistic, the better, because whether one considers it perverted (I personally find bondage, latex and water sports perverted and sick, but they aren't illegal) and anti-social, the act of enjoying visual sexuality is not abusive of another human being, and if the audience finds the satisfaction of a realistic fantasy without the involvement and exploitation of a child, that's better than the law coming in after the fact, when a child has already been hurt, perhaps for life.