Moonbiter: do you avoid the art of the classics such as Michelangelo due to the nudity of his cherubs? I'm really curious about that since they are small toddler children with wings thrown on, how about botticelli? Like michelangelo - and many others he had small naked "children with wings" in paintings with full grown naked adults..... or is it just nude fairies, what about child centaurs? How about naked baby pictures that parents show to friends? where do you draw that line? at the lack of pubic hair?? at girls with no breasts? Many women (even tiny childlike ones) shave their pubic hair. Many would never be mistaken as a child, but it could be said that men who prefer it shaved prefer children - it's a matter of extreme thinking... Many women have little or no breasts as well. What about boys? Do you find images of naked boys swimming in a "watering hole" wrong as well? I'm not picking on you, I really want to know where the line is drawn. I don't do images of nude children or childlike fairies, as well I own/operate MAMBA - Mothers Against Man Boy Abuse (http://mambaonline.org), an anti pedophile site (currently in need of some updates - in a good way!) so it is safe to say that neither do I condone pedophilia or images that are used to convince children sexual behaviour at their age is normal. I am however also not an extremist - that is a dangerous road to take imho as eventually it becomes a witch hunt. Chuck, in regards to sales and purchasing, no comapny may ship goods that are illegal to the place where it is banned, that occurs in the USA as well where some things are banned in some states and not in others. That is the price of business. In regards to online viewing of an image however the company falls under the regulation of the state/country where the busines resides. In this case if naked fairies were illegal in britain (just an example EG) and a brit could view naked fairies on sites that were american or german based nothing could be done. However if the same company were to ship that same naked fairy image to Britain as a poster - that would be illegal. In this case I mentioned that 'rosity would fall under american law as a comment that the US is so much more uptight about sexuality and therefore american sites must meet those stricter guidelines. Although all countries outlaw child pornography. Kbades comment of "The purpose of the law is to prevent pedophiles from using realistic CGI as a tool to convince their prospective victims that the conduct shown in the "photographs" are acceptable." is also correct, but I did not address that, because if a child molestor used an image found here of a little naked fairy and printed it up to convince a child to get naked - the pedophile and not the artist would be cited. However if the artist IS the pedophile that would be different as the law would make an "assumption" of intent and the material would be considered child pornography. It is the assumption of intent on which pornography laws are based.

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo