Underage and selling their sexuality

[dyonisus]

Originally posted by Aly-Python
Mapplethorpe was indeed controversial in his actions, and purposefully so, I imagine. He was, however, pushing the envelope on nudity and art, not sexuality. Kids, clothed or unclothed, presented in a non-sexual way can be art or advertising or whatever. Pics of kids, clothed or unclothed, or even in their bloody snowsuits, that are used in a sexual context cross the line. It's a matter of context.

I think this is a solid description of the lines and where boundaries get crossed. Unfortunately there are scumbags out there who will exploit and utilize any means to the end, whatever the end may be...

As people who have active careers in a sexuality based industry it is almost our duty to protect our industry from the kind of people who would be involved in any way with this type of shit!