Quote:
Originally posted by UnseenWorld
Yes, mere nudity of a child is not AND SHOULD NOT be regarded as "child porn." (For Christ's sake, there are pictures of nude children [cherubs] in churches.) If the argument goes that the pedophiles enjoy it for the wrong reason and it should therefor be banned, well they also enjoy fully-clothed pics of children, the way you or I might enjoy a fully-clothed pic of Anna Kournikova or Rebecca Romijn-Stamos.
If this is true CP (children engaging in sex or posing lewdly), go for it, but if not, you are not only wasting your time but you risk the old "baby goes out with the bathwater" problem by simply drawing undue scrutiny on the whole industry.
For example, we may not like the whole non-nude teen site thing, but most of them are NOT breaking the law, and by golly I'm not interested in having Congress write any more laws, since I have no control over how extensive and invasive their law would be. "Be careful what you wish for..."
|
you're a sick fuck....
have you seen the sites they are promoting?
why dont you go check out home-lolita.com's free preview and tell me if you think that is child porn?
and if you dont think that's child porn, come see me in vegas and i'll 'assist' in changing your outlook on life, k?