Hmm... wow, panties sure got into a bunch over this, as Legume and I were sure it would once the Supreme Court overturned that law... took almost 3 years, but Legume, you were right it happened. Now about the B.S. regarding TigerD's post, whether or not his intention was to group the R'otician's into a neat little stereotype of: "well if they are involved in porn then they must also support Child Porn". At least that was my take on it, sorry VirtualSite, but I've seen this sort of stereotyping ever since I first created R'otica (as a means to keep everyone's now precious R'osity free of the "Poser Porn" or "smut" that the "Oh DEAR GOD there's a NIPPLE in that IMAGE" people so loves to bitch about over here) and I have to say that I was offended. Here is a tiny little freaking tidbit that I am sure that very few of you are aware of about Renderotica and the man (Your's Truly) who created that haven of freedom of expression with the helpful and much needed aid of Doc Legume. Nine Years ago, when my daughter was the age of two, she was molested by an unknown person, both anally and vaginally... TWO YEARS OLD!! If anyone in this goddamn site should have a bitch about the Supreme Court Ruling it should be ME. A person who was a second party victim and a person that was initially accused of the transgretion. If anyone here should be mounting up an attack it should be me... but I am not. I am very much in FAVOR of the Supreme Court's 6-3 Ruling!! Here are some facts that many of you may not've known about the past law... If your REAL LIFE wife, girlfriend or model who is 35 years old wore a "School Girl Outfit" or "Cheerleader Outfit" and did a private home video or a public one, both you and here could be arrested under that law as supporting or contributing to advancement of child porn. Because under that law it was a matter of the perception of the Authority's as to YOUR intent when doing that video or Photoshoot. With that law they were able to assume what your intentions were when you did that video or took those pictures. If they felt those images could arouse Child Molestors or Pornographers, then you were in the wrong and subject for arrest... for contributing to a crime that has not yet occured, even though you never intended it that way. Because of this NEW RULING, Authorities NOW HAVE TO TRACK DOWN AND VERIFY THAT THERE WAS INDEED A VICTIM!! Did you know, with that old law they never had to checked on the victim or even checked to see if there was one? There was no need for them to verify the age of the model in the image, even if she was 35 years old, if she looked like and/or dressed like a 16 year old, you were in violation of that law and subject to arrest as a child pornographer or in possession of child porn, regardless of that model's age!! That if NINE YEARS AGO that sick f*cking a$$hole that molested my TWO YEAR OLD daughter took pictures of her and distributed them on the internet and the authorities found those images on another person's hard drive, they would arrest the fuck that had them, but they would NEVER LOOK FOR THE CHILD or NOTIFY THE PARENTS OF THAT CHILD!! This new ruling forces the Authorities to do their JOBS. To track down the VICTIMS and the FAMILIES of the VICTIM to VERIFY the CRIMINAL ACT and POTENTIALLY help to take the actual PERP'S OFF OF THE STREET!! Think of it another way... with the old law, the Government was just happy with busting a few people toking on a joint, rather than bothering themselves to track down the person that sold those people the joint or manufactured the pot to make that joint. In fact, with that law, they could arrest you for smoking a joint, even if it was only a hand rolled cigarette, because it "APPEARED" to look like a Joint... Wake up people!! This overturning of the law was not to open a door to Pornographer's to create virtual child porn, but to actually have authorities make sure that a crime was INDEED committed!! 'Nuff said Jack

Scott, You must've posted while I was writing my post. Sorry for my intense wording regarding child molestors, this subject cuts deeply and is a personal one to me. Jack

Jack, Your wording was fine. I don't mind Intense feelings being expressed here. It's understandable in this situation. It's just when people get too specific and start swearing or say things like "grow up", or call people "Mental Giants" and things like that that I get a little nervous. If we can stay away from things like that. Then we're golden. ScottA

Wow. big thread. In a way, thank god for that, but you lost me somewhere after the Doctor piped up about personal responsibility ( a top for legibility: hit enter now and then, pretty please ? ) So let me just add my two cents here: One: Breats morphs for the MilKids ? Dears, the attraction is the LACK of breasts, not the existence of them on a child. The more innocent the child looks, the better. Two: Do you honestly think that CG will ever replace the real thing for a person of such inclinations ? They all profile pretty much alike, and in the end, it all comes down to urges, and being able to control them. If you can't , you do so willfully, and fuck the twinkie-type defences that have sprung up over the years. Also... excuse me for asking, but doesnt 'rotica have a no kids and no animals in their ToS ? ~S

Excuse me people, but has anyone noticed the picture that is number one on Renderoticas top 10? As much as I sympathize with Mr. Kammerer and his daughter, their tragedy cannot and should not put a lid on the actual issue of this debate. Im sure that a lot of people will come up with some very fine arguments against said picture being classified as child porn, but its certainly suggestive of - shall we say an "alternative" sexuality. Not only on Renderotica, but also here in the Poser gallery some "artists" are balancing on a very thin line between art and lechery. Poser is the perfect tool for that. And Poser is no doubt being used for creating virtual child porn of a true hardcore nature. I agree with - was it VirtualSite? - who said that under no circumstances should children be percieved as sexual objects. It makes little difference if they are virtual children or real - the idea itself is equally sick. If this court ruling means that America gets a better law, then fine, but quite frankly Im pretty appalled to see people actually applaud this decision in the name of their "freedom of expression". Who could possible benefit from this freedom, except the creeps who create and use child porn?

The records of the most spectacular child abusers/murderers often show that they are heavily involved in activities directed towards children. The current flap in the Catholic Church is but an example. John Wayne Gacy, child murdered, was a clown that entertained children. Many of the others were involved in church groups and other civic activities that put them in close contact with children under a mantle that vested themselves with a degree of trustworthyness. I suggest that the parents in our Poser community take extra care in evaluating those parent figures we let out children get close to. It would also be a good idea to mount surveillance on places where children gather, like the school playground to spot frequent lookers. A lot of the energy and venom spent on pornography acts as a diversion from more clear and present dangers to our children

Legume: Virtualsite, this thread does not need your condescending tone, and neither do I. I'm no idiot, I can read, and I find your dumbing it down for us "mental giants" insulting Tough. You folks aren't even considering the possibility. I don't know TigerD well, but I know what his writing style is like. I gather you don't, nor do you seem to want to. So flame on all you wish. You're just compounding your own errors. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't respond, not after this circus. Momcat: Unless you are also TigerD, I will not be taking your word on what his intent was No sweat off my brow, ma'am. I am, to a much lesser extent, also offended that you would suggest that I and my fellow representatives of Renderotica should be the ones to apologize Be offended all you wish. Doesn't change it. Where they even come into on this discussion I really don't want to know but if you are part of the community or were, you would know this information. I'm not rolling out my leather credentials for your inspection, but let's just say I've been a part of it for probably longer than you, with involvement in the community on an international scale, thank you very much. So yes, I know the community's take on this. I also know that responsible people in the community will admit the possibility of their being wrong. Here, let me hold up this rather large hall mirror for you, shall I? DTHUREGRIF: The way that is most likely to be read is 'child nudity or sex' with both the words nudity and sex tying back to the word child Nope, that's your assumption. By the time he gets to the word "sex", he's off child porn and talking about Rotica. Repeating myself, I know how this guy writes. Apparently some of you don't. Stormrage: Most of them would even take offense at being brought up in this conversation I'm sure they would. But let's not kid ourselves when we talk about Renderotica and "Lifestylers" (and where did this term come from? Jeez, we're all "lifestylers".). While most of the images at R'otica are pretty tame, there are some that even I look at and wonder just what the heck the "artist" considers erotic. Tiger's right: some of them are frightening to people outside the "Lifestyle"... hell, I'd bet to some people inside the "Lifestyle", for that matter. So you're surprised at his reaction? You are doing the same thing you accuse us of by assuming that you know the intent to his words I've had enough communication in the past with him to know how he writes. That's good enough for me. Not for any of you? Sorry. Jack: This overturning of the law was not to open a door to Pornographer's to create virtual child porn, but to actually have authorities make sure that a crime was INDEED committed I'm not sure I agree, Jack. It sent the law back to Congress for re-writing, but until that is done, it has indeed opened the door to kiddie-porn made on the computer, because until Congress says otherwise, it's now perfectly legal to make and distribute kid-porn made through CG means. And while you guys are bashing Tiger's writing style, no one seems interested in that simple little fact. Tell me, Jack, what would you do if you found a CG film of your daughter's rape travelling around the internet? Write it off because there's no victim? 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. 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?

You'll have to excuse some of the reactions VS. I don't remember if you are living in America or not. But we Americans have been getting clobbered with laws and restrictions for everything from blowing our noses in public....to the kind of pets we're allowed to have. I don't think anyone is happy about the freedom to make virtual child porn. We're just happy that the government didn't slap another restriction on us, who already knew it was the wrong thing to do in the first place. Kinda of a victory for freedom, if you will. The ability to monitor ourselves for a change. Instead of Uncle Sam doing it for us. It could have been any topic. Our reaction would have been the same. It just happened to be virtual child porn in this case. ScottA

"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.

{because until Congress says otherwise, it's now perfectly legal to make and distribute kid-porn made through CG means. And while you guys are bashing Tiger's writing style, no one seems interested in that simple little fact.} I guess you aren't comprehending what we are saying, VS. Not one of the people involved in the discussion over TigerD's post has come out in favor of child porn. In fact, we don't allow it on Renderotica. Period! Sorry, but we are understandingly upset with TigerD's implications. All that need be done here is for him to come here and state what he really meant, because gee, it seems that of the people discussing this, more people agree he WAS implicating that Renderotica allows child porn than the one person (you) who says he knows his writing style and that he wasn't. Nobody is saying they support child pornography. Not one person in this thread. However there are some who are saying that they don't support unclear laws. I guess the Supreme Court agrees. And Dmon, I fail to see how the image you are speaking of can in ANY way be construed as child porn. Faerie does not equal child. And this faerie doesn't even remotely look like a child.

If it was my daughter VS, I would find the person who did it, cut their balls off and sow them into their mouth, the proudly set them on fire in the middle of a busy intersection, trust me, I've had 9 years to figure out what I would do if I caught the bastard... REGARDLESS of that feeling, a real child is completely different that one made up of polygons. The only person harmed in it is the person who is doing the stupid picture and the poor/stupid SOB that decides to view it. Who really gives a two bit shit if some sick and twisted demented pervert decides to create Michael throwing a hump into a Preteen? Sure, we could all sit here and sweat and worry that that sicko might go out and do it for real, or we all can actually buy a clue that no matter how many laws we bend and convolute to govern a person's state of mind. Am I celebrating that the law has been overturned? I didn't break out a bottle of bubbly and pass out cigars. Actually, I could give a rats ass if it passed or failed. I reconize that there need to be laws that can and WILL prevent the victimization of REAL (let me say it again for those who are unclear on the subject) REAL children. Busting people on the basis that their CG Art might arouse a Child Molestor, doesn't FIX the FUCKING PROBLEM. Like I said before, create a law that goes after the motherfuckers that are actually committing the REAL CRIME against REAL CHILDREN rather than sitting content with those who play with POSER KIDS. You may not like my opinion VS and face it, you aren't going to change it. You come back and offer me your opinion when you've been through the same shit as me... alright? Then maybe I will lend some serious thought to your "we need to protect the rights of 3D models that can be used to tease a pervert and turn them into a child molestor" opinion. Jack

Oh one other thing, VS you asked... "what would you do if you found a CG film of your daughter's rape" I would keep an eye on the individual that created that CG Film to make sure that the individual did not actually act upon that sick fantasy, but asside from that, I would do nothing and why would I. Yes, it would disturb me that some sicko is having sexual thoughts about my daughter, but it IS NOT a crime until that person ACTS upon those thoughts. I don't know, maybe I am a bit more mature than most in knowing the difference between REAL children and FAKE children and would rather focus my attentions on the REAL kids that are victimized... Jack

"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." I whole heartedly disagree. Bad laws are never better than no laws. With the vague nature of the wording of this law, movies like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" could be classified as child porn because it suggests that the underage (regardless of actual age) characters had sex. It didn't matter that it wasn't graphically depicted or porn by an sensible person's definition of the word. Are we better off if Amy Heckerling is put in jail as a pornographer? Child porn laws should be written so they protect children and punish those who harm them. Any law that allows punishment for mere "suggestion" that two 16 year olds may be having sex is pathetic and stupid. Many mainstream movies suggest this because they are reflecting on what happens in real life. We should not start down the road to censoring that kind of movie, and this bad law opened the gate. I do understand the fear that we are getting so good at this that soon you won't be able to tell if its a real person or a computer generated one. Now while I fully support child porn laws that protect kids, I'm not sure whether CG kids count. They aren't actually kids now are they? They are just numbers in a computer...does preventing certain kinds of numbers in a computer protect children?

Lifestylers the term comes from the term alternate lifestyle shortened to lifestylers by those in the BD/SM community. Who live the lifestyle whether it is 24/7/356 or just indulge in it once in a while. Lifestyle comes from the knowledge that the lifestyle is NOT ACCEPTED by most vanillas and acknowledges that the lifestyle is different. Actually yes I am surprised Of the bdsm images on rotica currently There is none there that Any of my friends in the lifestyle have taken offense to or consider wrong in any matter. Remember your statement The Lifestylers are very open about other fetishes. Especially since some of it is their fetish. Now images of cannablisim. Sure that shocks everyone but they see it for the shock value. Course I have very open minded friends. Who have seen and been the worst in the lifestyle. I've had enough communication in the past with him to know how he writes. That's good enough for me. Not for any of you? Sorry. Hmm so since you have talked to him and think you know how he writes it should be good enough for all of us? Okay I am going to go out and buy a red and green volvo station wagon with black flames racing up the sides and am sure that you want the same thing since I have seen your writing style and assume because of your posts you want the same thing. Pretty much thats what you are saying. No it is not good enough. None of us are saying we agree with child porn. Hell I have worked against it most of my time on the internet from when I ran adult sites to working on rotica. I am a mother and I sure as hell don't want my child involved in it. I even don't have the Poser children on my poser installed UNLESS I plan on using them in a "innocent" image. Just because of my work with adult sites and rotica and because YEP I am paranoid about that issue right now (with good cause mind you) I do not see at anytime Rotica allowing child porn Diane and Legume just aren't the kind of people to allow it. I don't think I am wrong in it. But to assume that just because there are disturbing images on rotica that Diane is going to allow ChildPorn is just plain silly. Sure there are disturbing shocking images on rotica. But there always have been. Legume started it here with his shocking images back when rotica was just an extra gallery on Rosity. and if i remember right even before that. My opinions on those images are simply that they don't float my boat. I may not like them but that's life. There is a lot in life that I don't like but I ignore it and move on. And for images of faeries.. Why does this issue always come up when talking about Childporn when many many BIG NAME artists have done images of these without it being considered childporn but Poser artists who use faeries are considered to be indulging in childporn. That just never ceases to amaze me.

If this discussion can be carried on in another thread without fighting with each other, fine. This one has run it's course.

THis is the OT forum. This topic is perfectly appropriate in this forum, and noone has violated the TOS here, not even within our argument...unless of course the tOS has been changed yet again to require that we blow sunshine up eachothers arses at all times. THis is a controversial topic, and everyone involved in this discussion, and even the ensuing argument, has behaved well within the TOS. Show me a really good example otherwise.

actually the thread is no longer in OT it's now in the forum news and team contact. Surprised me actually S

LOL..fer cryin' out loud. Did they move it here so they could have an excuse to bury it?

Still showing as the OT forum for me

don't know now it's back in OT.. BOING BOING BOING

"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." Keep the finger pointing out of it, please.

That would be what started the argument. Those of us from R'otica are still waiting for an apology or clarification of intent. While I appreciate your intent to protect us from insult, the damage has already been done, and was subsequently furthered by interference of an unrelated party. The moderators of this sight saw fit to allow us to defend ourselves for the past 38 posts. A little late to be jumping in now don't you think? How about you give us a chance to work this out as adults. All it would take would be for a TigerD to speak for himself, and take responsibility for his words.

Work out all you want, just keep the personal remarks out of it.

I have been dear, I have been. My poor tongue is positively cramped from being held for so long.

Whatever, folks. Trash Tiger all you want, if it makes you feel better. Play "I'm a bigger victim than you" if that makes you feel better. Bite your tongue till it bleeds and announce it to the world if you want. But never ever entertain the possibility that, gosh, you just might be wrong. Wow, what a concept. Oh, Momcat? That "interference"? It's called defending a friend. But nevertheless you still ain't got any law on the books right now that controls the manufacture and distribution of CG-made kiddie porn, and as the line between real and "real" gets fuzzier and fuzzier, it's gonna be harder and harder for you to prove that anything in those films was real to begin with, even if the "filmmaker" went to the outrageous expense of mocap and disguised it that way. Rotoscoping? Entirely within the realm of possibility, and you wouldn't need any kids, just an existing film of real kids. But it's still legal, right? Oh, one other thing: that whole "Romeo and Juliet" argument? If we're using the social order of another time and place as a barometer of the appropriateness of a certain law, then we might as well toss gender-bias ones out the window as well and return to the time when women knew their place. No? Well, gee, tell me the difference. This should be really entertaining.

Virtual Site: My argument is not with you. I will no longer respond to anything you have to say on the matter between Renderotica and TigerD. If he feels his words need defending, or if he is ready to apoligise for his inference, then I'm quite sure he is capable of doing so himself. If he has not the courage to either apologise or clarify his statement, then I will have to live with that as well.

shaking head following Legume agreeing completely.

It must be wonderful to be right all the time. And not have answers when the questions get really tough.

Hmmm... Flamage aside, I think I see what the deal is here. VS: Currently, there is no enforceable federal law on the books banning CG-generated kiddie porn. OTOH, I sincerely doubt that the pedos are busily trying their damndest to crank any out at this moment, either... mainly because there are lots and lots of state (and even local) laws out there that ban much the same thing, though each state has worded its laws differently, differently enough perhaps to pass muster at the SC. Given this, I seriously doubt that the pervs are going to look at this week's events and say "whelp, that was the green light I've been waiting for! Time to go buy Poser at the store and make us some smut!" You are right in that technology is getting to the point where realism and pure CG art can be hard to differentiate at times... with the right lighting and post-work, you can make a computer generate a CG person's image right now that the casual observer would swear was real. However, I believe that technology also raises a darker spectre... that of thoughtcrime. Law by its nature is too slow in creation to keep pace with technology, so to compensate, it tries to look ahead... sometimes, it steps over the line. In this case, it did. As disgusting and unpalatable as CG kiddie porn may be, there was a very real possibility of innocent people getting snared in a net originally designed to catch such pedos. Legislators are just as human as we are, and they screw up with the same regularity. Yes, the SC struck this one down... time for the Capitol to get off it's ass and do the job right this time. BTW, a query... what laws are/was in place to prevent and control pedos from drawing or painting kiddie porn and passing that around? More importantly, when they were enacted, when were they enacted, and what effect did it have on the number of incidents involving that particular type of kiddie porn sicne their enactment? I guess what I'm saying is, this whole thing is blown out of proportion... a badly written law bit the dust, and has to be re-written. That's all there is to it. In the meanwhile, any pedo with more than two operating brain cells isn't going to suddenly say to himself "holy shit, I'm free! woo-hoo!" Instead, they're going to worry about state laws, about new laws, and about the same things they always worry about: Will they get caught or not, and what will happen to them if they do? After all, pedos don't have a very long life expectancy in a prison's general population, nor do they much enjoy the wrath and ostracization from their neighbors after being outed. So, in that regard, I think we can safely put the tempest back in it's teapot and instead work on making sure the new law does what it is supposed to do, and no more than what it's supposed to do. Now, in regards to TigerD... he picked a rather poor choice of words. I can't say that I blame Legume, Momcat, or any of the R'otica staff... if someone said that I somehow condoned kiddie porn, I'd jump down their throats and demand an immediate apology myself. You see, erotica is a business and art form that walks a very tight line at times... it's either extreme BDSM, or it's a snuff film; it's either a pair of 'barely legal' 18-yr old girls having a go at sappho, or it's blatant kiddie porn... like I said, fantasy and sex mixed tends to draw a very fine line at times. The fact that people come in all shapes, sizes, and appearances at all ages doesn't help things all that much. Since R'otica, like Thralldom or any other erotic site has more to lose (and faster) from any mis-application of law, or in this case, misuse of implementation over the intent of the law, they are going to be a little more on-edge towards preventing any appearance of violating it. Also, as a consequence they are going to be much faster at defending their reputations... especially when someone impugns it, even without thinking. Anyrate, let's put the damned flamethrowers away already. /P

I'm outta here, too. Going back to where people do take responsibility for what they say and expect others to as well.

" Excuse me people, but has anyone noticed the picture that is number one on Renderoticas top 10?" ************************************************************** Good god that's a disgusting image... I don't know what I think of that or where I'd put it, I think that ones going to huant me for a while though... that needs a serious warning on it before you click in... hmmm... ... Anyway; the points made by Jack about now requiring you find a victim are very good ones. In the thread above this one I also pointed out that before a few days ago legally any image of a minor in the buff was child porn, as was things like Romeo and Juliet. Anybody seen, read, or been in a Romeo and Juliet play, book, or movie? Before yesterday by the letter of the law you were a sex offender. That point was even made by the justices on the court. The law just had WAY TOO BROAD of a definition... It's not likely any sane judge or jury would convict you for going to see Romeo and Juliet; but legally they could have... Thankfully that loophole is closed now. I'm still wondering how this affects the TOS of various 3D sites. Ok so you don't plan to change your TOS; at least clarify it. Does a 'coppertone' pic or a fairy count as child porn? Before yesterday they both did...

Yes sorry Arcady. That is a really vile picture and it has haunted me too. I should have added a warning. And will someone please explain to me why my previous message was removed? I think I at least deserve an explanation.

ok, just a small item here, IF YOU STOPPED POINTING OUT THE NUMBER ONE OF TOP TEN AT RENDEROTICA, IT WOULD QUICKLY FALL OFF THE LIST!!!!!!! next point, xhorror gallery on Renderotica is full of similiarly shocking images, if you don't like them, don't enter that gallery. your own actions are keeping xxfantasy ( the first of three images) number one. Jaqui.

What someone does in the privacy of his own home with his constitutional rights and his copy of Poser is none of my business. What they do on PoserPros is. Therefore, I would like to point out that despite the Supreme Court's ruling, PoserPros will not be hosting virtual child pornography. Our previously decided rules still stand there. However, we at PoserPros are relieved that one may now render pictures of Vicki changing the Millenium baby's diaper without winding up under arrest, and that the faeries and cherubs are free at last to be faeries and cherubs, even up to occasionally shining their cherub and faerie hinys as they are occasionally won't to do.

If I may briefly state my intentions for bringing up the infamous picture in the first place... Child porn is not about shiny hinys on chubby little cherubs. Its about extreme acts of violence against the small and defenseless, and so is that picture. Now since the people on Renderotica do not wish to discuss the appropriateness of hosting such material, neither will I. Im simply clarifying my reason for mentioning it. I hope this message gets to stay.

I agree Dmon. Child Porn is NOT about little faeries and cherubs hinys. It is not about Botticelli's angels, nor the coppertone girl with her bikini bottom getting yanked down by her doggy to show her white bottom. It is not about Romeo and Juliet. It is about crimes of violence against children. Thank goodness the Surpreme Court has struck down a law that tried to brand things such as faeries and cherubs and even mothers giving their babies a bath or diaper change, as child porn. We may all breath a bit easier now, those of us who are "innocent", and merely being artists who might get an urge to decorate a valentines day card with cherubs. Most sane people will know child porn, or any porn, when they see it. Whomever wrote that old law evidently was not sane enough to know it when they saw it ;)

Again, the people from Renderotica (me and several of my moderators) stated that we do not condone child pornography and we do not and will not allow it on our site. The image Dmon has pointed out may be shocking and violent, but it is NOT child pornography. A faerie is not a child. It's not even a human being. It is a fantasy creature. Please, let's get that straight.

"Most sane people will know child porn, or any porn, when they see it. Whomever wrote that old law evidently was not sane enough to know it when they saw it ;) " What? Sometimes I think people read a bit much into things. The law was poorly worded, and used language that was considered too general. It was broadly worded in an effort to make it easier for prosecutors to convict criminals. The lawmakers involved were not INTENDING to outlaw naked baby butts and Romeo and Juliet. They were not trying to piss on anyone's parade. What they were trying to do, was to legislate something that is very difficult to legislate. Good lord, think about it... do you believe that our government is so out to get YOU that they decided to outlaw Romeo and Juliet? Have you ever read a 340 - page legislative docket? Or seen the sheer volume and language required to get a law passed? There was nothing Machhiavellian in the passage of the law. It was made with good intentions, but poor wording... that's it. The reason our system is set up the way it is, is because no matter what the lawmakers intend someone, somewhere will always take it to the extreme. Whether it's the granting of a right ( rights are government granted, btw ) or the restriction of a liberty, someone, somewhere, will try to abuse the language of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law. That's why we have the courts. Do not presume that lawmakers intended this law to restrict your rights... The only error was in overlooking that others might try to use it to do so. Regards, Paul We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments about whether or not a naked faery is child pornography. Only at rosity will people attempt to determine the legal status of fantasy creatures... sigh

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions -

Instead of worrying about the CG laws maybe we should be worried about the real life laws. Child molesters get slaps on the hand most of the time while other crimes get life sentences.If you sell some grass to a narc, you get 10 years. If you molest a child 6 months? WTF? What we need to do is concentrate our law enforcement on the abuse of real children and do it now! I would rather let a drug user or supplier lose than a molseter. But thats not the sentencing pattern of our courts, It should be if you molest a child you get life, period. As for this law, if it was as broad as most people say it was, then it would have created a terrible backlash. Im not condoning CG child porn, What I am saying is that while REAl clild molesters are running around on our streets doing whatever the hell they want and getting away with it, I think the law should focus on that. I hate the abuse of children, they are the future, so lets all hope that the next law will be focused on the real problem. And I truely hope that we all find a way to keep real child molesters in prison for life.(Personaly I wouldnt mind a harsher punishment than just life).

I agree with you Spiritbro, but everything starts somewhere. People who get off by watching pictures of children being molested have some kind of problem and could be potential offenders. Likewise, if they like to look at pictures of virtual children, theres a pretty good chance they will enjoy the real thing even more. I enjoy the occasional pictures of nude Poser men in the gallery. If you think that means I dont like real men, I can probably get you a good deal on a bridge :)

I hate to say it, Dmon, but no one has been able to put a study before the courts that establishes any correlation between watching porn and acting it out ... including Kiddie Porn. That's one of the reasons why the courts won't uphold such bans ... All the huffing and puffing about pervs getting turned on by images and then jumping some kid, just isn't based on fact. Reasonable though it may sound.

I agree with you Dmon, I wasnt saying that I didnt want a law against CG Child porn, I think any child porn is gross(and criminal) and should be banned. The problem is this law seemingly would have banned a lot of other things as well. If they rewrite the law Im all for it. My real concern is our prioritys, we spend billions each and every year on the war on drugs, we have a war on prostitution, but we have no war on child abuse. In the last year in my area I have read about at least 50 cases of children being shaken and beaten by either a babysitter or their own parents. Thats just the ones I happened upon in the paper. I know there were lots more I didnt see or weren't reported. Many Many more are sexually abused each day. Our PRIORITYS have to change. Is it more important to bust a Pot dealer or a Pedophile? A prositiute or a person who abuses a kid? I think its time America(where I live) wakes up to the fact we cant do it all and we desperately need to alter our prioritys.We fill our jails with Drug criminals, instead fill them with child abusers and molesters. Id rather see a junkie on the street than a pedophile.

Our jails are filled with abused children ... after they got a little older and carried out the inner rage that child abuse normally causes. Various studies of prison population that I have read estimate 70-90% of all prisoners had been abused as children. Estimates of the percentage of female sex workers that were sexually abused as children are about the same. What is learned as children gets passed on ... to the next generation. And the percentage of everyone that has suffered some form of abuse is about one third ... ranging from verbal abuse to battery to sex. No amount of exposure to porn can account for this and the substitution of symbol bashing for substantive preventative public health and education is, at least, ineffective, and at worst, counter productive.

I live in Denmark, the first country to ever legalise porn. This year, one of our major hospitals has started a help centre for sexually abused children. They can come directly to the centre without going to the police, which many of them fear. In its first four months of existence, the help centre has already had twice as many patients as they expected in a year. Roughly one third have suffered abuse from a parent or other close relative, one third from an unrelated adult (teacher, sports coach etc.) and surprisingly the last third are teen or pre-teen girls who have been sexually assaulted by boys their own age - often very brutally, like anal or oral rape. The experts at the help centre estimate that these boys could only have known about such sexual practices from pornography. This indicates that ideas might spread, so to speak, even to people who have not yet formed any particular sexual preferences. So what is to stop other young (or less young) people from thinking that sex with children is acceptable if images with such content are easily accessible on the internet?

As you accurately point out, two thirds of the abuse you state came from family, friends, or neighbors. . The "idea" of sex with children pre-exists the printing press. Or likely before the first cave paintings. It is, unfortunately, all too common. The more fuss we make over images of it, the more attractive it becomes ... the forbidden fruit syndrome. Until seeing some actual photos of children in a sexual content, I had no idea such things were even possible. Now I do and am now aware of how extensive the problem is. Hiding the problem (from me) didn't help my understanding of myself or of the world. You can't solve a problem by hiding it.

{The "idea" of sex with children pre-exists the printing press.} Heck, in some areas of Ancient Greece, there were something like seven "levels" of "love." One of the "lowest" was that between a man and his wife. The highest, 'ideal' of Grecian love was an adult man with a boy on the cusp of puberty. So, no, it is something that has been around for a long, LONG time... As have it's unfortunate side effects, I suspect.

{The experts at the help centre estimate that these boys could only have known about such sexual practices from pornography.} This doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. First of all, there are enough implications around about such acts that are not pornographic (jokes, television, movies, etc) that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to get the gist of the idea. As I recall, I had heard of both oral and anal sex as a child long before I EVER saw any erotic or pornographic images or movies. And if people could only get these ideas from pornography, how did the practices start in the first place?

The reason is, that people are born with only a vague programmed-in idea of what the correct sex object is, and given the wrong exposures, the mind at puberty can get imprinted on a wrong object. Similarly, newly-hatched goslings think that the first large moving object that they see is their mother.

Then that would be the result of inadequate parenting. Kids at that age have been searching out forbidden things since time began. It is our job as parents to give them a sound base of what is right and wrong, the behavior expected of them, and good old fashioned common sense (that which is severely lacking in todays society). Then when they do come across things like pornography, and violence in film, or even plain stupidity in entertainment media, they know the difference between what is appropriate behavior and what is not. You also forget, or were unaware, that rape is an act of violence, with the sole purpose of hurting as deeply as possible. Other than the mechanics, it has nothing to do with sex.