→ 5 answers so far ↓

• 1 amy simmer // Jul 12, 2007 at 8:16 am

  erm. i mean, i guess i would equate cgi pictures with having as much validity as cartoons… so, i guess i would have to say no. but if a person is the type to have fake photos of kiddie porn, it can’t be too much of a stretch that they would be inclined to seek out the real thing. anyway, infinitely creepy and fucked up… but i say no grounds for arrest unless the images are of actual people.

  current votes: 0 vote if this makes you say “I take my hat off to the person who made this comment”

• 2 La Vitellona // Jul 13, 2007 at 8:27 am

  I agree with Simmer on all points there.

  current votes: 0 vote if this makes you say “hooray!”

• 3 tariann // Jul 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm

  no, the creeps gotta get off somehow…better no one is being hurt

  current votes: 0 vote if this makes you say “[applause]“

• 4 Holly // Jul 17, 2007 at 11:56 am

  tariann’s comment is true. although there may be a fuzzy line where it’s hard to prove whether or not the photos are real or CGI-ish. isn’t that the point of CGI? to fool you?

  i guess it isn’t really that good yet.

  current votes: 0 vote if this makes you say “I take my hat off to the person who made this comment”

• 5 Holly // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:33 am

  i thought about this even more (dammit, phil).

  what are the current rules for pedophiles regarding things like cartoon porn or buying a fake sex baby from a porn store (like a blow-up doll, only a kid. i mean, this thing must exist someplace. why? cuz people are sick bastards.)

  current votes: 0 vote if this makes you say “hooray!”

You must log in to comment. I tried it the other way and had to erase 1,000 ads for viagra and mortgages one by one. Register here, it takes less than ten seconds.