Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii
(I fixed your spelling errors.)
|
What do you want from me, it was 4 am when I wrote that, I had a night of insomnia. :D
Quote:
|
Mutt is right though, I think if a program or webmaster presented those dvds as website material they would probably not be approved. The promotional language might hinge the approval or denial. Of course VISA does approve some pretty fucked up content from time to time without proof of 2257.
|
A couple of things... Mutt may be right on that one point, but I wasn't addressing that point. This material may very well be unsuitable for a pay site, I can't speak to that. What I do know is that the mandate of the porn industry and pornographers (other than "to make money") is and has always been to bring people's fantasies to life, at least the legal ones.
This incest stuff, like it or not, is one of those fantasies some people out there have, or they at the very least find it fascinating when seeing it. Whether or not you personally find it 'creepy' or disgusting etc is irrelevant. The sales don't lie, people do seem to buy it. And last time I checked fantasy incest acted out by unrelated paid actors isn't illegal. Visa or some processors might have an issue with it but I know of no actual law against the making or sale of it. Do you?
The thing I find surprising in this thread aside from the fact that so-called pornographers are judging this guy for doing what pornographers are supposed to do is that no one seems at all perturbed that Dakota Skye looks like she's about 10 years old in that first box cover shot.
Compared to that this faux incest argument comes in a distant 2nd in my book.