xxxander, not to put it too bluntly, but you aren't an impartial judge of what is right or wrong - this much is clear from the way you misconstrued what I said.

I agree 100% - two children exploring their sexuality is different from a "sick pervert" raping a child - I never said that the latter was a good idea, did I? I also said it's not a good idea for him to jack off to a photo of a nude child (one taken expressly as a sexual image, not the sort of artistic photos you can buy in a David Hamilton book), because he's part of the chain of abuse. But if he does so to a picture done completely in Poser, no one is being abused, and furthermore, there's absolutely no proof that anyone ever will be abused as a result. That's where you are off the track - while some people do act on their impulses, that's not the same thing as having certain erotic interests - no rational psychologist can prove that a person will act out any and every fantasy that occurs to him or her, and many psychologists will further say that people who find some sort of private release (and not just sexual, but aggression and others - child abuse is not just about sex, folks, it's about control, the same as rape) are less likely to degenerate into physical acts. My saying that, however, is not a statement that we should create digital child pornography to keep our streets safe - I'm just saying that people fail, either unintentionally or intentionally - to distinguish between thought and action, and between erotica and child pornography; if it's got real children in it, it's wrong, but there's no valid proof that visual stimulation of any sort leads to abusive actions in the real world.

If you're so concerned about sexual misconduct, xxxander, you might also want to consider changing your username - many people immediately associate "xxx" with hardcore pornography.