Pornography - are you for or against it and why?

[tackattack]

---

Censorship yes, based on my morality no. Child pornography is illegal. Therefore, society has deemed that images being perceived of children having sex is unjust (for whatever reasons they don't really matter).

Society has deemed children should not be taken advantage of sexually. So therefore having sex (and obviously also filming it) with a child is illegal. The fact that it is legal to film a scene with consenting adults doing whatever consenting adults wish to do throws a spanner in the works for your argument that society has deemed "legal child porn" something that needs banning. Society has deemed murder illegal, is showing a simulated or acted version of that illegal? Nope.

Do you think I should let 5 year olds with a credit card but a rocket launcher or a sword? no of course not, but that 's what you're advocating

I defend the right for consenting adults to partake in or view a type of pornography that has NO victims and I'm advocating children buying high explosives? Yeah. Good one.

You're basically saying that everyone should do what they want without regard for the safety or sustainable of society in general.

That is not what I have said at all. I've clearly opposed any porn where there is a victim. All I've done is defend the right to film porn where there are no victims.

What you propose isn't even Ochlocracy, but pure anarchy. Absolute individual freedom just like true free speech, is at best a pipe dream. I thought I was an idealist, till I came here.

Proposing anarchy just means disagreeing with you now does it? Jesus Christ!

I am proposing consenting adults should be able to film or watch whatever porn they wish if nobody is actually getting hurt...porn that is already LEGAL...as deemed so by society

Banning this type of faked or simulated child porn would do nothing to protect children who are actually in danger or who are actually being abused. It could conceivably even increase demand for it if the legal alternative is not there. Even banning this faked child porn would unlikely stop it and just push the otherwise legal, taxable, regulated and safe porn industry that produces it underground. Prohibition of things people want does nothing to stop the demand for those things and I maintain that if there is a demand that can be fulfilled with no victim then I see no reason why fulfilling that demand should be illegal, whether we're talking about alcohol, drugs or porn.

Also, I'm the idealist here? I'm not the one suggesting banning things I don't agree with.

---

That wasn’t referenced to you, I’ve corrected it. My point is that I agree with “Prohibition of things people want does nothing to stop the demand for those things” and I also believe that “if there is a demand that can be fulfilled with no victim then I see no reason why fulfilling that demand should be illegal, whether we're talking about alcohol, drugs or porn.”
Let’s talk about victims then. Child molestation laws punish victimizers of children. This is a physical victimization. Child pornography laws punish who? You say it’s not meant to punish but protect, from what I gather. Protect who, the victims of child molestation of course. So In your argument from what I see, Child pornography laws either have no target or they’re for protecting the victim from possible future emotional abuse. First, it’s unlikely that a person who watched a child porn would even recognize that child 10-20 years later. Second, even on the remote chance they did I don’t think they’re going to be hounding the victim for an autograph.
I’m asking you to think about victims in another way rather than individualistic, because Child pornography laws don’t punish victimizers or protect victims. Child pornography laws punish individuals society doesn’t want to be associated with. The law has determined that victimizing children is bad, society agrees with that law. Having those images circulating is detrimental to society, therefore that law is meant to protect the society that doesn’t want it. If there is a demand for something (someone wants it) but the majority of society (majority of people) don’t want it, I see no problems regulating /prohibiting it. It’s for the betterment of society or the “greater good” in this society. I’ll change your words to show you what I mean: Child pornography is a demand that cannot be fulfilled without a victim and it should be illegal. Legally dressing up consenting adults may not produce victims, which is why It’s legal. However, I feel that having those images circulating is just the same as child pornography images and is still detrimental to society.

---

@RevJ- Yes. Which are you more inclined towards?
A)Child pornography is illegal because it victimises children. Legally faked child pornography produces no victims therefore should be victims.
B)Child pornography is illegal society doesn't feel it morally acceptable. Legally faked child pornography is intended to mimic child pornograpy, therefore should be illegal, because it's socially unacceptable.

For instance.. here in VA it's illegal to smoke marijuanna (I know my personal ethics and choices of topic are attracting me a lot of friends here ). Spice has the same effect as marijuanna, so it was banned. There for the intent of the marijuanna ban wasn't to ban marijuanna , but to prevent the effects of marijuanna use as reflected by a society standard.Marijuanna and spice have the same effect, therefore the same societal standard applies.

Then I would say that you have pointed out a rather obvious flaw in such thinking. If they want to ban the effects of marijuanna, then they failed when they claimed that spice was the same effect. I tried spice. It ISNT like marijuana. This is just more people, like yourself, who want to make everything illegal as possible. I know you say you know it is legal, and you say you would not make it otherwise, but you argue SO MUCH to make as much illegal as possible. It is lines of thought such as this that give support to a dictator. in the name of the "greater good" you make as many things illegal as possible. Eventually natural things (like sex) become heavily regulated and profitable to create criminals for cheap slave labor. "How dare they like sex outside of marriage! People like Tack will support me in taking these people and imprisoning them to create a slave work force."

As I have said before Tack, and this time I will make it aimed directly at you:

How can you tell me that you are not supporting thought crimes?

I can go in depth with intent, as Absurdism points out the great errors that intent can create.

What is your intent Tack? Make even thinking about child porn illegal? Do you ever fantasize about your young love? When you were 13 and your girlfriend was 12, or maybe 14? Do you think of her? Or have you let it completely go as forgotten, because thinking of such, now that you are an adult, would be breaking the intent of the law..that is, sex with a minor. Your very memories break the intent of the law...except in this situation there isnt anything being recorded, except in your memory. Think I am going to far? You went to far when you claimed intent was enough to jail someone. Nothing can go back and correct the idea that you were sexually aware at those young ages, and you still think back about love lost. Do not claim that you dont do such a thing. You were there. Your feelings cannot be denied. There is no erasing it.

By the way, what I stated above in no way means you look at little girls and get aroused or that I do. I am merely mentioning past experiences of young love, and nothing more. I am merely pointing out that your mind plays "what if" fantasies, or replays what you actually did. Here you are, a grown adult, going back to your past experiences, as if you were 12 again, reliving those young love experiences. Me? I was playing "doctor" at 7 years old. I have lots of great memories with the girls of my youth.

Tack, if you want to go indepth with intent, I can guarentee that you will not like what I pull out. I will show that human condition and being in the state you are (a believer), you will more than likely become extremely uncomfortable with it.

P.S. - I couldnt understand option A. Could you word it better?

---

Sorry I’ll reword my bad on that.
A)Child pornography is illegal because it victimizes children. Legally faked child pornography produces no victims therefore should not be regulated, or prohibited.
B)Child pornography is illegal and society doesn't feel it morally acceptable. Legally faked child pornography is intended to mimic child pornography, therefore it should be illegal, because it's socially unacceptable.
I’m not trying to make as much illegal as possible. I’m arguing because I have an opinion and I was asked to share it and I don’t mind doing so publicly. I don’t think prohibiting drugs is a good thing, I think they should all be legal, let idiots kill themselves, and regulate/track/tax it as well. It will also shrink the power of the black market.
“How can you tell me that you are not supporting thought crimes?”
Law is reactionary in nature. I’m not saying punish people for thinking about child pornography. However, child pornography is illegal. Those laws don’t punish intent, they are from the top down a reflection of societal values. They are society’s way of pruning the wilted leaves. Some people feel that a top down approach is negative, but frankly until people can show they care more about others than themselves regularly, I don’t see this as more of a detriment than a benefit. If Child pornography laws punished intent, then lots more people would be punishable I feel, however we have no way to read thoughts, and I hope we never do. I’m not supporting thought crimes, I’m supporting a societies right and ability to govern/shape itself above the individualistic need. It punishes actual images, not thoughts. I’m just holding faked images to the same standard. I didn’t set the standard.
The rest of the earlier part of your post was irrelevant to me because I didn’t have sex till I was 18, but I get your overall point and I think I addressed it above.
What is your intent Tack? To uphold the intent of child pornography laws. To punish faked images of child pornography to the same standard as real child pornography.
Make even thinking about child porn illegal? No a person’s thoughts are at their very nature private intellectual property.

“Tack, if you want to go indepth with intent, I can guarentee that you will not like what I pull out. I will show that human condition and being in the state you are (a believer), you will more than likely become extremely uncomfortable with it.”
I have no problem going as deep in the rabbit hole as you like as it relates to the topic. If you just want to take me through a tour of absurdism and rethink my stances on other topics, perhaps another topic or PM would be more appropriate. Uncomfortableness was never a hindrance for me, and I always welcome a chance to think of something in a different way. Whether I like what you have to say is completely irrelevant, as we’re all entitled to our opinions.

[Skipper]

I’ll change your words to show you what I mean: Child pornography is a demand that cannot be fulfilled without a victim and it should be illegal. Legally dressing up consenting adults may not produce victims, which is why It’s legal. However, I feel that having those images circulating is just the same as child pornography images and is still detrimental to society.

It's not the same though is it? It's completely different in that there is no victim. There is no child. It's just consenting adults. It may be the way YOU feel, but if you want to use the argument of laws being a way of measuring what society wants (which to me isn't right) then the fact this type of porn that you would ban is still legal says to me that society has deemed having this legal alternative in the open and regulated is better than driving it, its demand and those involved underground.

Can you offer any evidence or convincing argument that banning this faked version would lead to less of a demand or decrease in production of the real stuff and actually protect anyone? Because so far you haven't. All I've seen is you saying these images are best banned as they are detrimental to society. Which without evidence is obviously a subjective and dangerous stance to use as a way of banning things.

And you keep using this argument of "Child pornography is illegal and society doesn't feel it morally acceptable. Legally faked child pornography is intended to mimic child pornography, therefore it should be illegal, because it's socially unacceptable." But on this basis would you would have to ban any act that mimics any already illegal act. So no murder, violence, drug taking, J walking on our tv sceens, in our cinemas or in our games then?

[tackattack]

---

I’ll change your words to show you what I mean: Child pornography is a demand that cannot be fulfilled without a victim and it should be illegal. Legally dressing up consenting adults may not produce victims, which is why It’s legal. However, I feel that having those images circulating is just the same as child pornography images and is still detrimental to society.

It's not the same though is it? It's completely different in that there is no victim. There is no child. It's just consenting adults. It may be the way YOU feel, but if you want to use the argument of laws being a way of measuring what society wants (which to me isn't right) then the fact this type of porn that you would ban is still legal says to me that society has deemed having this legal alternative in the open and regulated is better than driving it, its demand and those involved underground.

Can you offer any evidence or convincing argument that banning this faked version would lead to less of a demand or decrease in production of the real stuff and actually protect anyone? Because so far you haven't. All I've seen is you saying these images are best banned as they are detrimental to society. Which without evidence is obviously a subjective and dangerous stance to use as a way of banning things.

And you keep using this argument of "Child pornography is illegal and society doesn't feel it morally acceptable. Legally faked child pornography is intended to mimic child pornography, therefore it should be illegal, because it's socially unacceptable." But on this basis would you would have to ban any act that mimics any already illegal act. So no murder, violence, drug taking, J walking on our tv sceens, in our cinemas or in our games then?

---

You're missing the entire point and switching the goal posts. Child molestation/pedophilia is illegal and there are laws against that. They produce a individual victim in the physical sense.
We're not talking about those laws.. we can agree on that much

Child pornography laws apply to graphic images of children. Who are the victims? Not the children, because they've already been victimized and the pedophilia laws take care of the victimizer.
They're just images so there is no physical victim from watching a porno is there?

Your logic says all images are acceptable, which is clearly counter to the laws of child pornography.
Certain images are illegal, why do you think they are illegal? please be specific.

I already showed you that I don't believe ceasing to produce the porn will decrease the demand. The question is, is condoning and allowing the images to roam free in society increasing demand?

I clearly showed an arguement where increased visual stimuli increases urge in the id, but doesn't necessarily always result in the id overrunning the ego. Urge drives demand.

I believe I also quoted specific US law that is worded to prevent those images from being shown in public and why they're not being accused of breaking the law as of yet.

[Skipper]

Surely the laws against making (and viewing (as without the demand there would be none created)) child ponography are primarily there as the only way to make child ponography is to abuse a child. That's why the medium is illegal. It's not the actual images, or anything resembling the images, the law is trying to stop , it's the abuse of the child to make the images. In most countries, animated child porn (and the type of faked child porn we are discussing) is legal. So to say it's the images themselves that the law is trying to stop, I feel is wrong. If that were the case, then the type of pon you are suggesting to be banned, would already be.

---

I already showed you that I don't believe ceasing to produce the porn will decrease the demand. The question is, is condoning and allowing the images to roam free in society increasing demand?

Well, the images you want to ban are already "condoned" in the sense they are not illegal, yet we don't seem to have a paedophile pandemic. People who are paedophiles would be, and are, regardless and have been historically waaaaay before said images could be distributed via the internet or photographs. Even if real child pornography became available legally I doubt very much people who otherwise were never attracted to children before would start watching child porn. In the same sense that most people wouldn't go out and start smoking crack if that suddenly became legal. People don't watch child porn, or smoke crack because they don't want to...not because it's illegal.

People wouldn't and couldn't be able to force themselves to find children sexually attractive, in the same sense I can't force myself to find men sexually attractive and a gay man can't force himself to find women sexualy attractive. Those who already do find children sexual Know they do and don't need faked or real child porn images to tell them that, they already know and that's why they are looking at the images. So to suggest it could increase demand is wrong.

[tackattack]

I think I can see your point now. If the intent of the law (both molestation and pornography) is truly only to protect the individual victim, then I agree that without a victim there's nothing wrong with looking at what you want.

Why then are there 2 seperate crimes though? Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act? Wouldn't the first law cover punishment for the actual act in the later. My question is why is it illegal to watch or record it? It's not to protect the individual from being molested, that's covered by the actual laws against the physical crime. Your example about animation is irrelevant because we're talking about pornography intended to be realistic, animation doesn't come close. The two types are not equatable. I already discussed why they're not persued legally.

There was a social uproar when dakota fanning played the part of a rape victim, and the movie lolita, but they weren't made illegal. Those are the best options for your case. Both are movies and the purpose is to tell a story. Porn's purpose is to create a fantasy you can feel a part of. If it were just for watching and appreciating the beauty or telling someone's story, it would be art and you wouldn't masterbate to it/ fantasize about it.

What's the process of making something illegal? First it has to be introduced to society publicly, then condemned by a sizable portion of society, then it's social impact is measured and found legal or illegal. The same process was with slavery, and drugs, right of women to vote, etc. I suppose that porn is such a private thing in america it's having an issue coming out publicly. I guarentee you though if Wicked Video were to find an 18 year old that looked 12 and made her into a pornstar, put her on every shelf and poster her up everywhere and said "hey come watch this get banged", people would have issue with it. And honestly most people would probably drop it after her age was verified, or it would be eclipsed by the next social injustice, and it would go back to being porn. But to deny that it was catering to child porn viewers was something they couldn't hide from at that point, and some group somewhere would call them on it. As of right now, they're 18 yr olds dressed like 16-17 year olds, which is still legal age of consent in some countries, which is why for most it's not a big deal. But my point was how far it could go if you don't realize that some laws are to meant to protect individuals and some laws are meant to protect society.

[reverendjeremiah]

I would agree with A only if it isnt worded with loaded content.
Example:

A)Child pornography is illegal because it victimizes children. Legally faked child pornography produces no victims therefore should not be regulated, or prohibited.

Calling it child porn is incorrect. These are adults, no children in it.

If It is worded like this, then I would accept it:

A)Child pornography is illegal because it victimizes children. Legally faked pornography produces no victims therefore should not be regulated, or prohibited.

That I will agree with.

The rest of the earlier part of your post was irrelevant to me because I didn’t have sex till I was 18, but I get your overall point and I think I addressed it above.

Thats cool. Me? I was a player at an early age.. but I am glad you understood what I was trying to say and not take it out of context.

To punish faked images of child pornography to the same standard as real child pornography.

It isnt child porn if it is legal. Look, I dont care too much for this kind of stuff either, but it IS legal. It IS adults, not children.

I have no problem going as deep in the rabbit hole as you like as it relates to the topic. If you just want to take me through a tour of absurdism and rethink my stances on other topics, perhaps another topic or PM would be more appropriate. Uncomfortableness was never a hindrance for me, and I always welcome a chance to think of something in a different way. Whether I like what you have to say is completely irrelevant, as we’re all entitled to our opinions.

thats cool man. Im not trying to convert. I am merely saying that if we keep going this route, we are eventually go into sexual psychology.. personally I would rather avoid that route.

What is your intent Tack? To uphold the intent of child pornography laws. To punish faked images of child pornography to the same standard as real child pornography.

So if my wife dresses up like a teenager and acts like a teenager, then she is basically breaking the intent of child porn laws? You would want me and her arrested for breaking the intent of underage sex? Honestly, is that what you are saying?

Why then are there 2 seperate crimes though?

Because one is victimizing a minor, the other is consenting adults play acting. Why cant you see the difference?

Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act?

Because one IS pedophilia, and the other isnt. It really is THAT simple. In fact a lawyer would have that statement rightly tossed out for being loaded. Calling an act that has no pedophilia in it "pedophilia" would rightly be tossed out, even by the most conservative judge. Surely you can understand this. Would you agree with me if I called your christian prayers "Islamic"? This is the same thing you are trying to do between the real crime and adults play acting. You are saying A=B. It is illogical. Pedophilia, and ONLY pedophilia, can be called pedophilia.

Example of a loaded statement: I ask you: "So Tack, how long have you been raping babies?" When no evidence that you have raped babies exist.

So you would say "...faked pedophilia". I would say "Objection your honor. No evidence has been put forth that this is pedophilia". The judge would say "sustained", And your entire 4 pages of rants you have made would all be kicked off the record.

It really is that simple. It is logical.

You would then be forced to rethink your court strategy to try and prove that "pedophilia" was the intent of the movie or pictures, which would be extremely difficult to do. It is difficult to prove intent, but it is possible if you can show a pattern with evidence where someone actually gets victimized. Someone has to be victimized for a case to be heard in court. Cna you prove this adult play acting intends to victimize children? If not I say your entire discussion is nothing more than a discussion, and not something to base any real social or legal action on.

[Sarcasm]

Okay...i didn't get a chance to read all of the arguments or whats going on right now, but from what i can draw someone thinks that filming a video that is 'acting' as pedophilia is the same as actual pedophilia. Using this logic i can also say anyone filming the 'act' of a murder is also committing murder. Therefore anyone who has filmed the act of a muder should go to jail for committing murder.

[tackattack]

@RevJ-
You're confusing my points so I'll try and be concise.

1)There are laws against pedophilia
2)There are laws against filming pedophilia (or there are laws against filming minors having sex... whichever wording you prefer, they're the same)
3)there are no laws against consenting adults pretending to have sex with a minor.


Point A)
You're confusing 2 and 3 above.
I said

Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act?

I was talking about 1 and 2.. there are laws for both.
What is the purpose of child pornography laws?
So far the only answer the other side has given is to protect the victim.

If the victim has already been victimized... what protection is there? I then proposed several alternative reasons why there are child pornography laws. The key of which is that society doesn't want these images publicly available. There are several reasons for that which I clearly stated.

Point B)
If there is no victim for child pornography laws, other than society (as shown in A). Then society deems these images AND the acts of these images wrong. Faking those images with the intent to make them seem real would then defeat the purpose of child pornography laws. It would however alleviate any culpability in the victim area, but not the image area.


@Sarcasm, not correct at all

You said

someone thinks that filming a video that is 'acting' as pedophilia is the same as actual pedophilia. Using this logic i can also say anyone filming the 'act' of a murder is also committing murder. Therefore anyone who has filmed the act of a muder should go to jail for committing murder.

I believe filming a video that is acting as pedophilia is not the same as pedophilia. It is however the same as filming child pornography,IMO and in the arguments I've shown.
there is a distinct line between filming a crime and doing a crime that the other side keeps mixing up. Using the logic that
A=pedophilia=victim
B=child pornography
C=legal porn
A is illegal, B is illegal , C does not imitate A and has no victim, C imitates B, C should be illegal

side note = Anyone who has filmed the act of a murder should go to jail for being an accomplice to murder(or accessory if they're not present at the murder). We also have Aiding and abetting laws in the US. Presence alone is not enough to abet, but I think filming something the murder wants filmed would be considered encouraging the murder and qualify them for equal punishment.

[Ashendant]

We already stated that child pornography further victimizes the victim.

I not sure but i think films of torturing people is also illegal

[reverendjeremiah]

You're confusing my points so I'll try and be concise.

All right Tack. I'm going to do this one more time, and I am going to try to be as sensitive to your wording as possible.

1)There are laws against pedophilia

Yes, generally speaking in modern society, yes.

2)There are laws against filming pedophilia (or there are laws against filming minors having sex... whichever wording you prefer, they're the same).

Yes

3)there are no laws against consenting adults pretending to have sex with a minor..

Look, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this question. Yes. An adult can "pretend" or "act" like they are younger and have sex with other consenting adults.

Point A)
You're confusing 2 and 3 above.
I said
Quote: Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act?
I was talking about 1 and 2.. there are laws for both.
What is the purpose of child pornography laws?
So far the only answer the other side has given is to protect the victim.

If the victim has already been victimized... what protection is there? I then proposed several alternative reasons why there are child pornography laws. The key of which is that society doesn't want these images publicly available. There are several reasons for that which I clearly stated. .

Okay. The laws DO protect minors from being victimized as far as laws are concerned these days. They give HARSH penalties for people who do such things, regardless of pornography (filming or pictures) or just the sex act in general. They protect the victim as much as any other law can. There are laws that say murder is illegal, and that HARSH consequences will follow those who are proven to do such a thing. Does the law protect everyone? No. Its going to happen, but some people get caught and their punishment is given. Thus our current system of law.

Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act?

That is a good question. These laws are drawn from many people over several years. I cannot know why, nor you, except for their wording of the law. Perhaps it would help if you actually posted a law, instead of a generalized question. But, in spirit of the discussion, I will try to answer your question - It is illegal to commit pedophilia in this American society for many reasons IN MY OPINION: Society considers an older person who is emotionally secure taking advantage of a younger person who is emotionally immature to be wrong. A grown woman of 30 years becoming pregnant with a 13 year old boys baby is stressful to society and the "vicitm" (who knows..maybe he likes having a son..I dont know) in our current technological level. In earlier societies, a female reaching the age of puberty was married off as soon as possible because of the level of that societies advancement and life expectancy of the time. Now our society is much more advanced to where, even though they are capable of physically reproducing, it would cause an undue strain on society for them personally, and socially as a whole. Also, the reasons why we cannot WATCH the act (the REAL act, not AN "act") is to protect the victim. Can you imagine if you were molested as a young boy by a gay man (and please, I do not think all gays are this way..it is merely an example for discussion, and I support gay rights) and it was completely legal to see it? You would NEVER be able to go anywhere, or work anywhere without someone finding that video and using it against you. You were victimized at a young age, and wether you liked it or not being a young boy at the time, or wether you even wanted it or not (which is a WHOLE other can of worms that, as I said before, I DONT want to get into and why I made this poll generalized instead of specific) because your "victimization" (as I said, ether you liked it or wanted it or not at the time) is based on a media trail that can follow you into your adult life and very likely adversely effect your social and private life later in life. Our society, currently, tries to protect the youth and their decisions (wether they liked doing them or not) from adversely effecting their ADULT life. Therefore we "seal" a minors criminal records. This is MY OPINION of the laws. I may be dead wrong, but it is my opinion.

Point B)
If there is no victim for child pornography laws, other than society (as shown in A). Then society deems these images AND the acts of these images wrong. Faking those images with the intent to make them seem real would then defeat the purpose of child pornography laws. It would however alleviate any culpability in the victim area, but not the image area.

Okay. Look, I am going to try to go indepth with you as I possibly can. Besides, you cram so many questions into one question it is difficult to understand what you are asking. As far as your first two sentences of point b, I feel that I answered them already. In my own opinion, I broke down WHAT I THINK, basically, what laws such as this mean. I cannot go any further on those.

Now we are on "faking" images with "intent" to seem real would then defeat the purpose of child pornography laws.

I am going to flat out say NO. All parties are legal adults who consent to such acting, and therefore (as long as those conditions are met) is LEGAL and NOTHING to do with the pedophilia laws. In fact they are MILLIONS OF MILES away from pedophilia laws. If your wife says "I've been a bad girl daddy, and I need to be spanked" do you consider that breaking the pedo laws, as well as incest laws intent? Honestly man. There is no "alleviate any culpability in the victim area" because there is no underaged people to be vicitimized in adult play acting. Its not even a factor. Just ZERO!

No..just..ZERO...man..ZERO!

"but not the image area".- Look man. I cant help but think you are trying to convince me to throw grown, consenting adults in jail for play acting and ban any play acting in consenting adults sex lives. If this is NOT what you are trying to ask me, then I honestly cannot understand what you want me to answer.

If this is NOT what you are trying to say. Then I suggest you sit down, and REALLY try hard to get your wording correct. Write down WHAT YOU THINK. Please do not put it in the form of a question. Just flat out say what you are thinking and expect to be judged afterwards. I refuse to throw consenting adults into jail for play acting...wether on or off the camera.