| Sign On Create Account |
| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |
| Type | Created | Category | Creator | Sort | Votes | Hides | Rating | |
| single | 11-May-2008 | hypothetical question | southernyankee | unsorted | 31 | 2 | 59.7% |
Inspired by: |
|
| User | Comment |
|---|---|
| bill | posted 12-May-2008 4:58am lol |
| Frostbrand | posted 12-May-2008 6:17am Temporal mechanics give me a headache. |
| Irene007 | posted 12-May-2008 9:18am No. She was 20 when the film was made. |
| Melf | posted 12-May-2008 10:41am No, because he or she in the image has the potential to make the decision and will make the decision, and 'one' knows this. |
| romkey | posted 12-May-2008 11:49am Don't be ridiculous. The subject in the photo is not underage. |
| Enigma | posted 12-May-2008 4:43pm No. Who could even prove both the 15 year old and the woman on the video is one in the same person. Besides the VIDEO is of a twenty year old. |
| Biggles | posted 12-May-2008 5:17pm No - the age at which they gave consent would be the most important factor. |
| icurok | posted 13-May-2008 11:24am It would no more constitute child porn than going back in time would make you a paedophile due to your wife retrospectively losing consent to having had sex with you in the future. |
| Maarten | posted 16-May-2008 7:53pm |
| Crayons | posted 24-May-2008 11:21pm If people go back in time, can't they affect what happens? I mean maybe if you told the 15 year old not to make porn when they got older, would it still be on the file? |
| RGirl | posted 25-May-2008 8:02pm No because the image was not of someone underage when they consented. |
If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On.
| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |