The Japanese make everything entertaining

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's a reason g-strings are worn by strippers and not as school uniforms...

Yeah, all the boys would be fapping instead of paying attention in class. (If they ever did anyway.)

I knew a girl in the 7th grade who said she always went commando. Her mother used to check her before she left in the morning, so she took the knickers off on the bus.

[AshtonBlack]

Will I get kudos for arguing the other side of this issue? Prolly not.

Actually yes. You are doing a good job of it. Have an IKU.

The question of how to legislate this is of course the tricky one. Censorship will only serve to drive those wishing to buy this kind of magazine to use underground sources, where they are likely to come across far more explicit material.

My stance on censorship is that it is normally unnecessary. Anyone caught in possession of pornography containing images of child abuse in the UK could be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact to the abuse, in much the same way as a receiver of stolen goods, or the getaway driver for armed robbers is seen as complicit in the crime under law. I understand that this is also the case in most other countries.

Where this breaks down is on the fringes. What if a pornstar was physically a woman but below the legal age of consent when she made a film? (Traci Lords anyone?) What about animated Hentai porn involving children? What about adult porn that has been digitally retouched to make it realistically appear as if children are involved? What about hidden-camera shots of naked children? And what about these 'idol' magazines? How far can they stretch the boundaries of acceptability before they become kiddie soft-porn? If pictures of a scantily clad 10 year old girl draped across a bed and faking an expression of lascivious ecstasy is acceptable, what else is?

At the moment, the availability of those magazines and their potential effect on adults with paedophiliac tendencies disturbs me, but there was nothing in that clip that could be called abuse of the children involved - no more than that suffered by other child models / actors in any case. By my definition then, there is no case to answer in the selling or buying of them and no need of legislation. It is however a situation that should be monitored closely for the reasons that I outlined in earlier posts.

On the subject of the potential legislation that could be introduced (if we ignore the question of whether it is desirable or necessary,) there is already a point at which parental consent ends; a parent cannot consent to their child being sexually abused, working longer hours than those prescribed by law, bare-knuckle boxing, etc. Any legislation would need to clearly clarify what poses / attire / etc. was deemed suitable for a child model and hold both the producers of magazines that exceed these limits and the parents of the child jointly responsible. Setting such limits would be a legal minefield however.

I agree with the last paragraph. Now, I suspect, most of us here could tell the difference between a family photo taken at the beach, kids running about etc and a deliberate sexual pose. The problems are as I see them are: a) Who decides? and b) How could that be codified, since it's a subjective matter (albeit something the majority have no problem with judging.)