"People want to do CG films of rape and worse? Fine with me. Go for it and waste the pixels, not to mention the time involved. But the minute you involve kids, no matter who you are, no matter if those kids are "real" or not, you have crossed the line." I wholeheartedly agree. "And I'm personally appalled at the celebratory mood over this law being shot down. Yeah, maybe it went too far. Maybe it was vague. But it was a helluva lot better than nothing at all, which is exactly what we have right now, gang. Someone can take the Poser baby and Vicky with a strapon and put together a rape film that would curl your hair and do so with complete impunity. And that doesn't bother any of you because they're not real?" Did anyone say it didn't bother them? I certainly didn't. It does bother me, very much so. What bothers me just as much, though, is the fact that as the law stood, it was too open to interpretation. Too open to abuse. Too open for innocent people to be branded as something they are not, simply because someone in power has more conservative views on what constitutes pornography than they, or what constitutes an underaged model/depiction, when that model is not flesh and blood, nor even represents a previously existing flesh and blood human being. The law needs to be rewritten. BTW, you are confusing quotations in your above post. I never have asked for your "leather credentials" nor do I give a rats ass one way or another about them. Dmon: For the record, I really hate that picture. I almost lost my lunch when I saw it. However, it really has nothing to do with what we are discussing here today.