Well, this certainly is interesting, isn't it. You know, at one time I was part of the SM/BD community on Folsom Street. I still call those people my friends. And generally you'll find them to be the most understanding and tolerant on the sexual pathline because they... hell, we have enough self-awareness to know how we're perceived by society at large. Some of them, like my friend Jay in Toronto, relishes his outlaw status and practically lives it 24/7. But if any of them came off as obstinate as you folks, they would have been laughed off the street. Yeah, it has all the appearances of looking like Tiger's saying there's kiddie porn at R'otica. But if you mental giants try looking at it again, you just might figure out that the Internet is a lousy way of communicating sometimes because it leaves a false impression. This isn't the first time we've seen a post that looked a little strange because the person writing it was thinking faster than he/she could type, and it damn sure won't be the last. So, for your benefit, we're gonna walk through that post, one line at a time. Everyone ready? Good. Okay, so child nudity or sex in CG art is harmless because noone is actually hurt and anything that limits us is bad. Did I get that right? Frankly this is frightening! Check out Renderotica and tell me what is going on with the people creating those images and viewing them Now, look at his first statement. See that phrase "sex in CG art"? That, my learned friends, is what he's refering to when he cites Renderotica. But now he returns to the general message of this thread when he writes: Even if the people creating these child images are thinking artistically, what about the guys looking at the images? They're two separate thoughts. So put out your damn torches and start making a few apologies of your own.