Quote - Argon, I think you might be missing the point I was trying to make.

There is NO WAY to put an age on something that is virtual. You HAVE to go by appearance. And for this reason anything that has the APPEARANCE of being under age is not allowed to be shown in the nude.

There are two issues here that seem to be melded into one. There IS a difference between child nudity and child porn. However, there are also some people that cannot separate the difference ... and some who are stimulated by ANY child nudity. I am not arguing that fact.

What I am arguing is that you can't take a figure and put a virtual driver's license on it claiming its age. The only way you can judge is on a case by case basis.

But the problem as you adimt is that even the people that stimulated by child nudity are subjectively percieving it as child porn. So how is a subjective judgement on the part of the people enforcing the guidelines helping to solve it? The judgements are most likely wildly different and it's the artist that have nothing to do with those that are stimulated being made to suffer for it.

If the subjective judgement is going to follow that course, how long until every phallic symbol is eliminated because of the perception it might effect?

In the mix of conflicting perceptions, how do you tell which IS valid? That's why if you're going to follow guidelines on child nudity, you have to have some VALID way of defining what a child is. All the laws they have require a proof of age in the form of an ID.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats