"...to depict or portray any person as a minor."

Author	Post
007 Senior Member 1246 Posts 4/03	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 5:43AM First off, this isn't meant as a complaint per se, but rather an observation. Having just seen the [ invalid url ] for Erik Everhard's Jailbait #6, one realises how absurd those little warnings and notices at the beginning of movies are. At the beginning of each trailer the following message is displayed (after the usual bit about everyone being at least 18 at the time of filming): All the performers in this video are playing the roles of adults, and should not be viewed otherwise. Nothing in this video is intended by the producer, director, or any performer to depict or portray any person or character as a minor. Click to expand Yeah...sure. Cue clips of a girl (Zeina Heart, in this case) with toy blocks, another having a tea party, another throwing a fake tantrum because she wants a big shiny beach ball...plus an animation of a big yellow school bus with the sound of children playing and laughing in the background. The message is clear. And then there is Erik playing the creepy guy in the park trying to lure girls with a fishing rod and a lollipop. It's soo over the top! See for yourself. "Nothing in this video is intended to depict or portray any person or character as a minor." MY ASS. It's a bit creepy. Edited by - 007 on Apr 30 2009 [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 6:45AM Age play. As long as it is truly two consenting adults, anything goes. I seriously doubt those disclaimers at the beginning of a vid offer any protection whatsoever. It's just a matter of time before some high-profile pedophile case goes to trial and they introduce Hustler's "Barely Legal" vids as liability for the perps actions. It happens to firearm and liquor brands already. Likely the only thing protecting porn is that with the exception of a couple of rare brands, nobody is worth the time to sue for such liability....not enough money in it. [Link]
ma meeshka Iconoclastic Member 3939 Posts 4/06	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 6:51AM they're not meant to be an ACTUAL minor, they're just imitating prepubescent behaviour. big difference. that's why max got in trouble, because his girls were saying they were 11 years old or whatever in his films. [Link]
Unferth Member 277 Posts 1/09	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 7:07AM No one will ever mistake those girls as precocious 11 year olds. Ever. [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 11:26AM Have a look at Kitty Jung and then tell me that there aren't companies consciously making product for pedophiles: http://www.pornme.me/videos/kitty-jung-hellcats-3061857.html This woman has the same right to make her living as anybody, but she could be a lot less blatantly focused on imitating kiddie porn. Even her screen name announces that she is playing the role of a child. [Link]

john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 11:44AM The whole thing is stupid! If a person is ACTING in a role, why should it matter the age of the character they're playing? [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18635 Posts 4/08	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 11:54AM ^ Well, it shouldn't matter, except that they say at the beginning that they're not depicting or portraying minors. I mean I don't care what the fuck you do in your movie (so long as it's legal, blah blah blah) but don't tell me you're not going to do XXXXX and then basically spend a whole movie doing XXXXX. They should just lift that final sentence from the warning. It still wouldn't legally be child porn, because the actors still wouldn't be children. [Link]
nibelungo Member "The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be" P. Valery 145 Posts 6/07	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 3:24PM Do I risk going to the hell if I buy this movie? I worry because by the trailer it seemed to be great! [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 4:06PM I should think that, if the folks who take Hell seriously are right about it, the very last thing most of us need waste any worry on is whether we are going there or not. I suspect by this time the issue is already decided and we might as well enjoy ourselves in the time left to do so. As for the movie, enjoyable or not (personally I thought it a bit creepy with the coloring books and all), ain't it great that that is our decision to make and no one else's? Otherwise, my point still stands that this is a flick that panders to peophiles. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 4:36PM I haven't seen the movie in question, but if the women look like adults then toys, kids clothing and playgrounds aren't going to do it for a real pedophile. You might as well suggest that a guy dressing up as a girl and putting on makeup is going to get me hot for him. That's not gonna happen. Edited to add that we enter puberty long before we enter legal adulthood. That means a lot of 'boys' are thinking sexually about 'girls', and these movies play to our memory of those times. Edited by - hardware on 4/30/2009 4:41:11 PM [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 6:11PM Hardware: You are right about responding to memories. But paste the link into your browser and look at the film. This is much more than "toys, kids clothing and playgrounds." Again, I am not trying to enforce a particular opinion, but just take a look and see what you think. [Link]
007 Senior Member 1246 Posts 4/03	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 7:02PM So who has actually watched the trailer? [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 7:19PM I have now, and, of course, you are right about the legal language being nonsense. Of course the lawyers see to it that most legal language is nonsense so that we have to hire them to find out what it really means. They also see to it that Congress (mostly lawyers) passes laws requiring such nonsense, requiring lawyers. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Cade: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? That parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings; but I say 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. Henry V, Part 2 (iii, 2) [Link]
Dubious_Leftovers Senior Member And on that fateful day, the hatred consumed me... 1423 Posts 3/09	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 7:31PM ^^Yes, just now. The disclosure at the beginning, is standard for all the releases and not specifically worded and tailored for this one, hence the disparity in what is said than later depicted. It just covers them legally, as the most important thing to get across is that they're NOT actual minors. The depictions of youth are OTT, and that's apparent. It's a bit edgy, but it's still role play. What gets me a little about these releases though, are the names; "Jailbait" specifically means someone under the age of consent. New Sensations/Digital Sin has a line called "Sex with Young Girls", and if these were in your possession, and someone was to stumble upon your porn collection, those names alone would need a lot of explaining. Edited by - Dubious_Leftovers on 4/30/2009 7:32:44 PM Edited by - Dubious_Leftovers on 4/30/2009 8:44:56 PM [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 10:10PM duefuss wrote: ... just take a look and see what you think. Click to expand I didn't see any woman who looked like a little girl. I saw fantasy play with women who had breasts and adult hips. Like I said, it may make me think about that girl in the 10th grade I really wanted to fuck but it doesn't make me want to go find a 10th grader. [Link]

RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Apr 30 2009 : 10:35PM Basically, what that disclaimer means is this - "This is just a movie and what you're about to see is just roleplay that's intended for people who know the difference. If you're a sick fuck who rapes kids, don't blame my movie when you get caught." Of course, they could just say that but if they actually admitted it was age play, I have serious doubts as to whether 90% of the American public would be able to deal with it in any way resembling maturity. Frankly, I think they're playing with fire but people will do what they'll do. [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - May 1 2009 : 12:37AM Hardware wrote: I didn't see any woman who looked like a little girl. I saw fantasy play with women who had breasts and adult hips. Like I said, it may make me think about that girl in the 10th grade I really wanted to fuck but it doesn't make me want to go find a 10th grader. Of course it doesn't. And porn, even kiddie porn doesn't make anyone into a pedophile. But the clip I mentioned does pander to pedophiles. It seems specifically designed to arouse someone with an interest in children. The obvious fact that it is a woman and not a child can also arouse someone who is not a pedophile. But the clip does eveything to encourage the fantasy that it is, and that is what aims it at the kiddie porn market. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - May 1 2009 : 12:48AM Well, obviously that's your opinion, but your opinion does not make it a fact. So, unless you can cite some proof (and self-serving statements by that scumbag Bundy don't count), we'll have to agree to disagree. [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - May 1 2009 : 12:55AM ^^ Agreed. [Link]
HeyNow Oblivious Gold Star Hey! 5965 Posts 1/03	Posted - May 1 2009 : 1:10AM This looks like it could be one of the best movies of the year! Only time will tell. But they play naked twister and that HAS to count for something! [Link]
HeyNow Oblivious Gold Star Hey! 5965 Posts 1/03	Posted - May 1 2009 : 1:20AM I Choo Choo Choose You! [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - May 1 2009 : 3:34AM I'm surprised anybody actually reads these warnings. Am I the only one who skips over them just to get to the movie? I'm just happy that *Jailbait* hasn't become another defunct series. Since I think it's been a while since the last one, I was starting to get concerned. This is one of my favorite porn series'. I'm going to try not to respond to the stupid "pedophilia" accusations other than to say what I've already said, which is that they're stupid. My only complaint is the lack of anal scenes. From the trailer, only one girl (Missy Stone) will be doing anal in the movie. As I recall, the earlier movies in the series, if not all anal, had more than just one girl doing it, especially considering that anal also seemed to be Erik's forte. What happened, Erik? Why less anal? I'm assuming this is because there are fewer young new girls in the biz doing anal now than there were before. But why? This is something that needs to be changed. Despite my complaint of a lack of anal, I'll still be checking out the movie when it's released on May 11th. Looks like great work, Erik. No need to change a thing (except more anal, of course). Edited by - realtip on 5/1/2009 3:38:00 AM [Link]
007 Senior Member 1246 Posts 4/03	Posted - May 1 2009 : 3:47AM Few do read them. But what caught my eye was the fact that the imagery was so at odds with the disclaimer. Whatever. All the old dudes who fantasise about highschoolers will be happy and feel okay because hey, it's all legal like and 18 year olds in the USA can fuck on film but can't legally drink..and the rest of us can only laugh at the absurdity of it all. saw fantasy play with women who had breasts and adult hips. Click to expand Yeah man, Tanner Mayes is totally STACKED. And that Mia...she's one buxom babe. Er..... [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - May 1 2009 : 5:12AM ^ Huh? Aside from the fact that not all the women on the cover have A cups, by definition, pedophiles are interested in prepubescent girls (or boys). Find me some prepubescent females with breasts and your comment might have merit. [Link]
Ramsey Senior Member Trina Michaels fan 10332 Posts 10/02	Posted - May 1 2009 : 6:02AM And they wonder why porn got a bad name! I hate the whole pigtails theme but that's me. [Link]

LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - May 1 2009 : 10:34AM I used to have all of the Young and Anal series, up until about volume 22 or so. When I was ripping/converting all of these over to my digital jukebox I realized how 'creepy' some of them looked to someone who didn't KNOW these girls were older. The whole "these girls obviously are adults...look at their hips and breasts blah blah blah" simply doesn't apply to some of the performer. Y&A 15 with Anne Howe/Melissa Ashley for example (the infamous 'But mister, I poop from there!' anal scene). To someone who doesn't know of Anne/Melissa's porn career, you may find yourself rather disturbed that this is indeed a scene of child porn. At any rate, I've since avoided MOST of these types of scenes. They make me feel uncomfortable even having them in my collection. By contrast, I've got tons of rough sex scenes. YMMV and I respect that. Just sayin' [Link]
ma meeshka Iconoclastic Member 3939 Posts 4/06	Posted - May 1 2009 : 11:06AM if it weren't for this thread i wouldn't have known about this flick. now i want to check it out. [Link]
Ramsey Senior Member Trina Michaels fan 10332 Posts 10/02	Posted - May 1 2009 : 1:11PM ma meeshka wrote: if it weren't for this thread i wouldn't have known about this flick. now i want to check it out. Click to expand Save your money......and your soul. [Link]
Dr. Nasty Senior Member Asa Akira.....Damn! 3797 Posts 9/05	Posted - May 1 2009 : 2:05PM ^ ***The Dr. of Nasty*** [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - May 1 2009 : 10:58PM Did you ever consider the man just might be trying to offend you? [Link]
cobalt60 Knuckle Dragger 2046 Posts 2/03	Posted - May 1 2009 : 11:02PM What a shill. This movie sucks no matter how many fake outrage threads you start about it. On the other (empty) hand, the first one of this series was pretty damn good. But that's beside the point. 007 is Erik Everhard's bitch. [Link]
Johnothan Pedak Senior Member Catastrophe 1594 Posts 6/07	Posted - May 2 2009 : 1:13AM I find the most amazing thing about this video isn't that they're clearly depicting girls in their twenty's as minors, but that Erik Everhard can actually shoot a big load! Brynn Tyler looks decimated. [Link]
Steve Holmes Senior Member 1235 Posts 12/02	Posted - May 2 2009 : 2:26AM duefuss wrote: Have a look at Kitty Jung and then tell me that there aren't companies consciously making product for pedophiles: http://www.pornme.me/videos/kitty-jung-hellcats-3061857.html This woman has the same right to make her living as anybody, but she could be a lot less blatantly focused on imitating kiddie porn. Even her screen name announces that she is playing the role of a child. Click to expand I worked with her a few times. She is a lovely person and loves sex. She looks like a child. That's her niche. She has no tits and no ass and a very young looking face. What else could she go for than the role of the little girl. "Real" movies depict stories about child abuse, rape, torture, murder, war crimes, etc. We know the actors don't really get killed or can fly. Why is it so difficult to understand that these girls are consenting adults and just play a fantasy role. You can think this fantasy is sick. Ok! I had fantasies of killing my teachers when I was in school. There is a big difference of fantasies and criminal acts. Steve Holmes [Link]
007 Senior Member 1246 Posts 4/03	Posted - May 2 2009 : 3:06AM cobalt60 wrote: What a shill. This movie sucks no matter how many fake outrage threads you start about it. On the other (empty) hand, the first one of this series was pretty damn good. But that's beside the point. 007 is Erik Everhard's bitch. Click to expand Yawn Keep going, you're almost up to 10,000 posts, slick. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - May 2 2009 : 3:18AM Ramsey wrote: And they wonder why porn got a bad name! Click to expand Just out of curiosity, when did porn have a good name? In response to the claim that these adult women are being made to look childlike, I'm wondering why the same outrage doesn't apply to male performers. As we know, it is common for male performers to shave all their pubic and body hair to make their bodies completely depilated. In my opinion, this makes the guys in porn look more like prepubescent boys than grown men. So does this mean that the porn industry is subliminally endorsing gay male pedophilia by having all the men shave their body hair to make them look like boys? What about all the MILF/cougar videos I've seen that have guys pretending to be high schoolers who are fucking their teachers, or their friend's mom? Is that also an endorsement of pedophilia? Also, if a porn scene uses a 40 year-old pornstar to play a high school girl, and the woman obviously looks her true age, then is that still an endorsement of pedophilia, or is it only pedophilia if the girl looks young? So, is it OK to have a 40 year-old woman in the role of a high school girl, but not OK to have an 18 year-old in that same role? If not OK, then why not? Is it because seeing the 18 year-old in that role looks too "realistic?" I think that's the point. It's amazing how many irrational double standards some porn viewers still hold onto. [Link]

BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - May 2 2009 : 4:25AM Aren't you overreaching to make your point realtip? Male performers are very rarely portrayed to be underage in the same way women are: in little girls clothing, pig-tails, sucking on lolipops, asking for candy, playing with toys, etc. The few exceptions would be the diaper/baby fetish with is a super, super small fetish niche and one scene I can remember from a Shaun Costello film in the 70s. I don't care about age-play porn but let's not play dumb either. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - May 2 2009 : 7:31AM BlackSix wrote: Male performers are very rarely portrayed to be underage in the same way women are: in little girls clothing, pig-tails, sucking on lolipops, asking for candy, playing with toys, etc. Click to expand And if they were, do you really think that anybody would be on here griping about it and calling it "pedophilia," or would it just be recognized as the fictitious adult role play that it is? Although there definitely are plenty of scenes centered on the younger boy/older woman fetish, perhaps you're right that it isn't a completely even-handed portrayal. But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Now that I think about it, maybe that can be a whole new porn niche. I can see it now. Picture it. Setting: The inside of the typical porno mansion. Set-up: There's a knock at the front door. A sexy woman- not necessarily a MILF/cougar, but a sexy young adult woman (lest's say, for example, Whitney Stevens)- opens the front door. Outside the door stands a young man (a male pornstar) dressed in short pants, high socks, tennis shoes, a helicopter hat, and a backpack of a popular cartoon character. He is holding a box of candy bars. Boy: Hello, Ma'am. I'm selling candy bars for my school. Would you like to buy one? Woman: (looks alluringly at boy) Yes, Sweetie. Come in and have a seat while I get my purse. Boy: (comes into the house) Gee, Miss. You sure have a pretty house. The woman then returns, and sits next to boy on sofa. Woman: You're a really handsome boy. Do you have a girlfriend? Boy: (blushes from shyness) No Ma'am. None of the girls at school like me. More dialogue... blah blah blah. Long story short, the woman seduces the boy and they fuck. Would anyone have an issue with such a scenario as the one just given? If not, then there shouldn't be a problem with it at all. Edited by - realtip on 5/2/2009 7:34:49 AM [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - May 2 2009 : 8:19AM Imagine the same scenario in a gay porno. In the 70s the young teen fantasy was common in the gay films of Toby Ross, today those films are barely legal, even though it was just similar fantasy scenarios to the ones you see all the time in straight porn. [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - May 2 2009 : 10:34AM Hardware wrote: we'll have to agree to disagree. After thinking more about it, I realize that we were each referring to a diffeent film: you to Jailbait 6 and I to the Kitty Jung clip. Regarding Jailbait 6, I absolutely agree and apologize for the misunderstaning. As to the KJ clip, I also agree that the porn business deals in sexual fantasy, that many of us if not all of us at times fantasize about doing things we would never actually do and there isn't a thing that is abnormal immoral or wrong with any of it as long as nobody gets hurt. BTW, I also find Ms. Jung very attractive. But my original point remains that the clip is filled with imagery meant to suggest that Ms. Jung is a child and that therefore the clip is designed to appeal to pedophiles (as well as pedophillic fantasies). The makers of this clip of course have a perfect right to do this. They may even be performing a service by getting pedophiles' rocks off before they can do any real harm. I don't know. I was merely taking notice of its appeal to pedophiles, and not suggesting, I hope, any sort of moral disaproval. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - May 2 2009 : 5:09PM Thanks for the clarification, duefuss. While I agree that a depilated Kitty Yung may be attractive to a pedophile, if, as psychology suggests, pedophilia is a fixation on immature boys and girls then I'm not sure that either clothing or situation have anything to do with it. Were Vanessa Blue in the same scene, clothing and all, do you think it would still be of interest to a pedophile? Obviously, not. Hence, I would like to see something from peer-reviewed literature to support the suggestion that the clothing and acting have any bearing. [Link]
duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09	Posted - May 2 2009 : 9:50PM Re: the Jung clip To me it is the whole package: hairless prepubescent appearance, clothing, childlike voice: coloring book (for god's sake!). Again I am not saying the thing is wrong, immoral, or revolting and I am certainly not saying that any one attracted to it must be a pedophile. But to me it clearly is intended to suggest having sex with a minor, and, as such, would certainly be of interest to those who are pedophiles. [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18635 Posts 4/08	Posted - May 3 2009 : 2:07AM I'm sure this whole discussion would be made much more easy if we distinguished "persons who desire to have sex with post-pubescent girls under the age of 18" from "persons who desire to have sex with pre-pubescent girls" (commonly referred to as pedophiles). Both are illegal (in the United States). But that doesn't mean that they aren't two different things. In my mind, the Jailbait movies (and other such fare) are aimed at the first type, and not the second. The target market is the group who are turned on by the idea that the girl would be sexy, still looking young while possessing some of the qualities of a woman; but at the same time, still acting very much like a young girl. I don't think these movies are aimed at those who wish to sleep with small children. Colouring books or not, it seems too much of a leap to pretend that Tanner Mayes, Lexi Belle or Haley Sweet are actually four or five years old. But it's not so difficult to convince oneself while jerking off that they could be 14, 15, 16 years old. Hell I could point you to several girls in their mid-teens who look older than Tanner, Lexi and Haley. So it's not all that far-fetched to picture the girls in this movie (and others like it) as being a few years younger than they really are. Add in the knee socks, the Lego and lots of primary colours and the fantasy is pretty easily achieved. [Link]
007 Senior Member 1246 Posts 4/03	Posted - May 3 2009 : 3:24AM The trailer is a classic example of the unoriginality that plagues so much porn out there today. "Look, young girls! Pigtails, giggling, lollipops... Now let's hit you over the head with it repeatedly to make our point! Young girls!" etc etc Edited by - 007 on 5/3/2009 3:25:48 AM [Link]
UnkwnUsr2 Member 443 Posts 2/05	Posted - May 4 2009 : 9:20AM I think the legal and moral aspects of drawn and otherwise virtual child pornography are of higher merit than banning colored blocks and pigtails in porn movies. [Link]
Mr Springer Member You don't do more with less, you do less with less. 61 Posts 1/09	Posted - May 4 2009 : 10:34AM Hardware wrote: Thanks for the clarification, duefuss. While I agree that a depilated Kitty Yung may be attractive to a pedophile, if, as psychology suggests, pedophilia is a fixation on immature boys and girls then I'm not sure that either clothing or situation have anything to do with it. Were Vanessa Blue in the same scene, clothing and all, do you think it would still be of interest to a pedophile? Obviously, not. Hence, I would like to see something from peer-reviewed literature to support the suggestion that the clothing and acting have any bearing. Click to expand I just knocked out a grad school paper on child pornography. I didn't come across anything concerning "age play" being a factor for pedophiles. However, it's common for pornography (both legal and child porn) to be used before or during the commission of sex offenses against children (there were no specifics on the type of legal porn these folks preferred). That said, I wouldn't put age play in the same category as something that would be sexually attractive to somebody that likes children. Pedophiles like children precisely because they are children, and not so much that they're adults who aren't well endowed. I haven't done a lot of research on child porn, but that was what I took away from what I found. The body type of a toddler or pre adolescent is going to be much different from a teenager or an adult in most cases. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - May 5 2009 : 1:41AM All I can say is that I really like Erik Everhard's *Jailbait* series. Yet, for some strange reason, I just don't find children sexually attractive. It's weird, I know. But I just don't. The girls at the playground just don't do anything for me. Thus, I find the attempts to tie age-play fantasy to pedophilia to be utter nonsense, and nothing more than another veiled agenda to further promote the censorship of pornography. This might also be the reason that I tend to find people who make these types of generalizations about pornography and sexuality to be rather closed-minded and not very intelligent. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - May 5 2009 : 3:18AM realtip wrote: Thus, I find the attempts to tie age-play fantasy to pedophilia to be utter nonsense, and nothing more than another veiled agenda to further promote the censorship of pornography. Click to expand Unfortunately, this type of thing in the porn industry plays right into their hands. One would think they would avoid it at all costs. I know porn is supposed to be all about free speech and all and technically what they're doing is as harmless as any other kind of adult porn but it's pretty obvious there are people who will take any opening they can get and if the industry hands it to them on a silver platter, so much the better. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - May 5 2009 : 5:46AM ^ Is there anything in pornography that doesn't 'play into their hands?' [Link]
Mr Springer Member You don't do more with less, you do less with less. 61 Posts 1/09	Posted - May 5 2009 : 4:29PM Hardware wrote: ^ Is there anything in pornography that doesn't 'play into their hands?' Click to expand Nope. People who don't like porn aren't going to pick and choose what segments of the industry they want to go away. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - May 6 2009 : 2:18AM A popular view but while it's true of the hardcore anti-porners the mainstream right-wingers are more nuanced. I read an interview with a former prosecutor under Reagan and Bush Sr. (on the Frontline website) where he says that the idea is to go after the most extreme pornographers and by doing so keep the rest 'in line.' [Link]
lilmissmackenzeepierce Senior Member 1148 Posts 10/07	Posted - May 7 2009 : 1:05AM i hated shooting this stuff.... i refuse to shoot anything like this anymore, simply because this promotes pedifiles and i have little sisters, 3 under the age of 16, i find it disgusting and inappropriate, whats worse is so many people eat this shit up.... hmmm maybe its because little sandy next door looks similar to the girl in the video and because she is a 7th grader its wrong to ask her to go out for drinks.... "im the girl your mother warned you about" [Link]

Jailbait 6 (Jules Jordan Video)