Or, you know, we could just relax child porn laws and not prosecute teens who are obviously consenting to this (by virtue of TAKING THE FUCKING PICTURES). Then we could prosecute the ACTUAL perverts and sexual predators. But that would be make too much sense and upset the fundies.

Thinking people can argue over such issues. What is pornography? What is "meant to titillate"? Thinking people can argue over such issues. Stupid people call other people “fundies” and think that is all they need to say.

What's wrong with tiltilation?

The reason tiltilation is in the statute is the fear that in tiltilating an adult male, the images will encourage that male to abuse children.

I'm not denying or pretending that sexual abuse of children doesn't happen. Rather that it doesn't happen quite the way we think it does.

The second aspect of the law is that it is intended to limit the motivation for commercially exploiting these children.

Both of those are noble goals. But the reality is that tiltilation by underage persons is nothing new. Most models start their careers as minors. And you can't convince me that Alice Sinclair learned to be comfortable in this magically on her eighteenth birtday - or that as a minor on the catwalk she wasn't being tiltilating.

Children are sexual beings. that's the reality. And they engage in tiltilation and self gratification at ages we are much less willing to admit (I remember my youngest sister had to be taught that grinding against the arm of the couch was not appropriate behaviour).

The problem with today's child pornography laws is that they are trying to legislate two very divergent items in one law:

1. An attempt to supress and deny the sexuality of our children
2. An attempt to protect our children from being abused and manipulated in a disparate power relationship.

#1 invariably undermines any effort to do this effectively because in denying reality, it closes off reasonable paths by which to accomplish #2