You know, I wonder. Can the argument be posed that, "No one can say whether or not these are children's features?"

When maximilianjenus raised the question of legal websites that depict this stuff, it immediately brought me back to REAL LEGAL pornstars who look like children. Remember the infamous Lil Lupe case; and she's extremely popular.

I wonder if that denotes a double standard if it is only based on "features"? Should this mean that it should be illegal to look at pornstars who look "young"? Can it be argued that this too creates a situation where fetishists can be driven to pursue their desires? Seems that way to me.

Unfortunately this sort of how Australian law works in terms of who and who isn’t of legal age in pornography. It doesn’t matter what their birth certificate says or the legal paperwork the production company has on file, if you look under 18 (and seriously, that’s incredibly subjective), it’s illegal. It’s poorly designed legislation by politicians who fear a backlash from voters if they outright ban porn, but want to put enough hurdles in the way so distributors find it difficult to release material.

The outcome is that people are criminalised and labelled as sex offenders (and paedophiles) for owning pornography that people in other western democracies can freely buy and own with out consequence.

There are some subtle differences though, and the UK is considerably stricter than Canada and the US (any sexually explicit depiction of a character implied or stated as being under 18 is illegal, compared to North America where the character actually has to LOOK underage), while Australia is considerably more relaxed (the depiction is illegal if a reasonable person can't distinguish between it and a photograph).

hey, [e] can you rename the thread? or i will do it for you if you want. i want to avoid more shitposts related to the joke. it hasnt worked well