|
*puts helmet and flak jacket on*
Right then, we all know the purpose of sites like that. It is legal CP.
As much as I find it distasteful, the owner of the website is adhereing to your laws.
Would it be ok if the boys were wearing swimming trunks?
How about wet, white swimming trunks?
At what stage do you decide what is improper for boys to be depicted wearing? If we decide that boys in swimming trunks are offensive, what do we do with clothes catalogs?
Maybe a change in the age of photographing?
No-one under 16 maybe photographed and it be displayed as porn, ahem, i mean art. But ok for clothes catalogs - online clothes catalogs would be next - devoted to young peoples clothes.
I see little difference in this xboysx site and most of the bikini pages showing 14 and 15 yo girls - both are for the titilation of the perverted.
Unfortunately that is why the internet became so popular in the first place, middle-aged computer nerds could swap pictures that were previously nigh on impossible to get a hold of.
Do we go back to Victorian extremes of prudishness, when the sight of a lady's ankle was pornographic?
Someone in the USA has decided at some stage where the line was to be drawn - that xboysx webmaster is on that line, not over it.
|