Quote:
Originally Posted by the indigo
I completely agree with you regarding this... both are wrong to me, but most of the "schoolgirls" out there are not looking like her. At some point, the audience understands the theatral aspect of the scene. The babysitter series has 1-2 "borderline" models but you can clearly see they are legal in outfits. Still, I know a few TGP/MPG that refuse to list the babysitter series. This is what I'm talking about about to NOT SUPPORT this. If the intention is to sell to CP audience, legal or not, it should not be supported from inside the community, starting with private CC processors, MPG/TGP, etc.
A don't remember the name of a sponsor... but they had 15-16 years old looking girls. 2257 legal. I don't support this, but I believe the 15-16 is not what the pedo people are looking into. It is the 5-12 of age... which is easily done via 3D models.
|
so is 1-2 "borderline" models
OK? how much of the site this thread was started about features the underage 3d model you're talking about? 1 in 20? you say we shouldnt support this at all but many who posted outrage IN THIS THREAD push sponsors who have sites like that. should we just stop pushing everyone because at some point they use a model that someone might consider to look underage? is that the line now? is it right what they're going for? no. should it be against the law to DRAW A FUCKING PICTURE? NO. laws are created TO PROTECT PEOPLE, not limit their freedom because someone might get offending. obscene = offensive. MANY people are offended when they see any girl, 18 or not, getting gangbanged by 10 black dudes with horse cocks. should we ban that? using your standard, this could be possible. you wouldnt like it, but it would eventually happen. and why do you keep saying 15+ is ok to fantasize about? Id be willing to BET 80% of this country would disagree with you meaning when you're in court for pushing a girl who LOOKS 15 but was actually 21, the jury of your "peers" can look to the LAW and determine that 18 is the age that you're allowed to lust over. 15 is too young and you're going to JAIL. stop seeking laws (limits on freedom) when victims are non-existant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the indigo
Maybe because I see the big picture and especially the psychological aspect on our culture the population.
I have read 2 weeks ago in the newspapers that they started creating toon films for children (4-6 years old) with girls of the same age holding cell phones in Britney Spears outfits. Where the fuck are we going?
Then we wonder why they all need psychological assistance by age of 10 and fucked the first time at 8 years old in a child-gangbang.
|
so you want to put people in jail because of what it MIGHT do to the community? dont some already argue that porn ruins marriages giving men an impossible expectation from their partner? lets ban porn too. or is an argument against banning porn that men have to SEEK THIS MATERIAL OUT making it their decision rather then something pushed on them. stop thinking that your limits = the right limits. once we relinquish this freedom of speech/expression the hammer will fall and the limits will be set by those IN CHARGE WHO ALREADY HATE PORN. if plain vanilla porn, IF ANY, is your thing, keep on with your message that something created without a victim must be censored.
ps, what does the big picture YOU see have to do with the topic at hand? is the site you're complaining about marketing to children? how will these 3d models influence the lives of children?