Did Trans500 Cross Line By Having An Adult Act As An Under Aged Character?

[Lester316]

What concerns me in this thread are the arguments which basically say things such as (I'm paraphrasing by the way):

'Worse stuff is allowed/I've seen worse/worse things are legal'

'X person was charged with other things but not this so it's OK'

'These sort of depictions occur in mainstream entertainment'

The problem for me with these sort of arguments is they completely remove the specific topic from any context and seem to forget what is morally right as opposed to what the law is able to enforce. Yes actors have been portrayed in drama over the years as the underage person in a sexual relationship but the context of that (in any example I can remember) hasn't been to glorify said relationship or suggest that it is morally acceptable. Yes worse things do happen and are legal but that doesn't mean those things or this are really OK.

I'd hope that all of who come here would want TS porn, performers and watchers to be more socially accepted. Mainstream porn-stars have become genuine stars in recent years, less stigmatized for choosing a career that involves sex; Transgender porn and Transgender issues in general should be more socially accepted also but the world is still full of too many people who can't/won't accept there is nothing wrong with enjoying the beauty of a Transgender person. Anything that has even the slightest whiff of pedophilia about it is just adding fuel to the fire which the those people are building.

The Trans500 trailer/video in question (I can't speak to their other similar content) crosses the line. You might think it doesn't, you might think other things are worse, you might say she's an adult pretending to be a child; that's your opinion. But ask yourself one question - am I turned on by seeing someone who looks like a child (not an of age teenager), who plays on a climbing frame, having sex?

If your answer is yes well... that just plain creeps me out. Perhaps you don't think the Trans500 video crosses the line because you are so far over the line with it you can't see the line anymore.

[Odelay]

What concerns me in this thread are the arguments which basically say things such as (I'm paraphrasing by the way):

'Worse stuff is allowed/I've seen worse/worse things are legal'

'X person was charged with other things but not this so it's OK'

'These sort of depictions occur in mainstream entertainment'

The problem for me with these sort of arguments is they completely remove the specific topic from any context and seem to forget what is morally right as opposed to what the law is able to enforce. Yes actors have been portrayed in drama over the years as the underage person in a sexual relationship but the context of that (in any example I can remember) hasn't been to glorify said relationship or suggest that it is morally acceptable. Yes worse things do happen and are legal but that doesn't mean those things or this are really OK.

I'd hope that all of who come here would want TS porn, performers and watchers to be more socially accepted. Mainstream porn-stars have become genuine stars in recent years, less stigmatized for choosing a career that involves sex; Transgender porn and Transgender issues in general should be more socially accepted also but the world is still full of too many people who can't/won't accept there is nothing wrong with enjoying the beauty of a Transgender person. Anything that has even the slightest whiff of pedophilia about it is just adding fuel to the fire which the those people are building.

The Trans500 trailer/video in question (I can't speak to their other similar content) crosses the line. You might think it doesn't, you might think other things are worse, you might say she's an adult pretending to be a child; that's your opinion. But ask yourself one question - am I turned on by seeing someone who looks like a child (not an of age teenager), who plays on a climbing frame, having sex?

If your answer is yes well... that just plain creeps me out. Perhaps you don't think the Trans500 video crosses the line because you are so far over the line with it you can't see the line anymore.

Very well said.

Trans500 as the relatively new kid on the block seems to be pushing the envelope and crossing some pretty tasteless boundaries in the process. Kink has shown you can be pretty edgy without crossing those lines. But since TS Seduction is well established, Trans500 seems to be trying to out kink-Kink.

[Post Op Preferred]

Trans 500 could be vulnerable under 18 U. S. C. §2252A, which provides:

"(a) Any person who--

"(3) knowingly--

.     .     .     .     .

"(B) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains--

"(i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

"(ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,

.     .     .     .     .

"shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)." §2252A(a)(3)(B) (2000 ed., Supp. V).

Section 2256(2)(A) defines "sexually explicit conduct" as

"actual or simulated--

"(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

"(ii) bestiality;

"(iii) masturbation;

"(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

"(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

Violation of §2252A(a)(3)(B) incurs a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a maximum of 20 years. 18 U. S. C. §2252A(b)(1).
The Supreme Court upheld this statute in 2008 in United States v. Williams,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&friend=public.
So Trans 500 may be charged with something more serious than bad taste.

[TSPornFan]

What concerns me in this thread are the arguments which basically say things such as (I'm paraphrasing by the way):

'Worse stuff is allowed/I've seen worse/worse things are legal'

'X person was charged with other things but not this so it's OK'

'These sort of depictions occur in mainstream entertainment'

The problem for me with these sort of arguments is they completely remove the specific topic from any context and seem to forget what is morally right as opposed to what the law is able to enforce. Yes actors have been portrayed in drama over the years as the underage person in a sexual relationship but the context of that (in any example I can remember) hasn't been to glorify said relationship or suggest that it is morally acceptable. Yes worse things do happen and are legal but that doesn't mean those things or this are really OK.

I'd hope that all of who come here would want TS porn, performers and watchers to be more socially accepted. Mainstream porn-stars have become genuine stars in recent years, less stigmatized for choosing a career that involves sex; Transgender porn and Transgender issues in general should be more socially accepted also but the world is still full of too many people who can't/won't accept there is nothing wrong with enjoying the beauty of a Transgender person. Anything that has even the slightest whiff of pedophilia about it is just adding fuel to the fire which the those people are building.

The Trans500 trailer/video in question (I can't speak to their other similar content) crosses the line. You might think it doesn't, you might think other things are worse, you might say she's an adult pretending to be a child; that's your opinion. But ask yourself one question - am I turned on by seeing someone who looks like a child (not an of age teenager), who plays on a climbing frame, having sex?

If your answer is yes well... that just plain creeps me out. Perhaps you don't think the Trans500 video crosses the line because you are so far over the line with it you can't see the line anymore.

Well said Lester! The problem I have with Trans500 is the message in the video. The message says it is okay to have sex with a kid. That's very wrong on so many levels. This type of message needs to stay far away from porn. It looks bad on the entire industry.

Sure under aged relationships have been displayed in mainstream media. However, they are not celebrated. They are looked down upon and the adult character always get punished by the law.

Very well said.

Trans500 as the relatively new kid on the block seems to be pushing the envelope and crossing some pretty tasteless boundaries in the process. Kink has shown you can be pretty edgy without crossing those lines. But since TS Seduction is well established, Trans500 seems to be trying to out kink-Kink.

I've only watch Trans500's scenes with American girls except for this trailer that appeared to be off when I say the picture. What else have they done to push the envelope?

[MrBest]

tspornfan what are you going to do about it besides creating threads of your further dislike of trans500?

[James Scott]

I'm guessing no one actually watched the scene? They clearly say she's 18 during it, so there is no case here. Just an 18 year old playing on a jungle gym. Say what you want about that, but that's really all you have.

[christianxxx]

If your answer is yes well... that just plain creeps me out. Perhaps you don't think the Trans500 video crosses the line because you are so far over the line with it you can't see the line anymore.

I understand your argument, but you don't understand porn if you make this statement. Porn has ALWAYS been about a fantasy and let's face it, older men fantasize about fucking teenage girls.

Why do you think Jenna Haze was so popular? Dakota Sky? Lupe Fuentes? Kitty? Kat? There are endless examples of 18-19 year old girls that look like they are 12 who become wildly popular bc old men jerk off to watching super young girls get fucked by big dicks, black dicks, any dicks.

Do I think the scene in question is in poor taste? Definitely, its stupid and doesn't make much sense to me. Does it cross some imaginary line? Not in my opinion. Just because someone plays on a playground doesn't mean she is some sort of baby. I play video games in an arcade designed for 12 year olds too. Would everyone be up in arms if she was playing super Mario Kart as an intro?

And now as porn has undergone a paradigm shift and because even MORE geared toward all natural young teens (x-art, babes, passion-HD, nubiles, etc etc) you are seeing even MORE of young girls designed to look as young as possible getting fucked.

[lifeisfiction]

I understand your argument, but you don't understand porn if you make this statement. Porn has ALWAYS been about a fantasy and let's face it, older men fantasize about fucking teenage girls.

Why do you think Jenna Haze was so popular? Dakota Sky? Lupe Fuentes? Kitty? Kat? There are endless examples of 18-19 year old girls that look like they are 12 who become wildly popular bc old men jerk off to watching super young girls get fucked by big dicks, black dicks, any dicks.

Do I think the scene in question is in poor taste? Definitely, its stupid and doesn't make much sense to me. Does it cross some imaginary line? Not in my opinion. Just because someone plays on a playground doesn't mean she is some sort of baby. I play video games in an arcade designed for 12 year olds too. Would everyone be up in arms if she was playing super Mario Kart as an intro?

And now as porn has undergone a paradigm shift and because even MORE geared toward all natural young teens (x-art, babes, passion-HD, nubiles, etc etc) you are seeing even MORE of young girls designed to look as young as possible getting fucked.

Exactly. Porn is fantasy, it has always been fantasy. Maybe you will agree with me that some people are wanting porn to be political correct for some reason.

[Post Op Preferred]

I am all for the first amendment, but just so you know, there is no statute of limitations on violations of 18 U. S. C. §2252A, meaning that a scene can be subject to prosecution forever. We may temporarily take comfort in the preoccupation of Obama nominated AG with financial and terrorism crimes, but would you feel that way about the AG under President Ted Cruz, Scott Walker or Jeb Bush? Register, and vote carefully, and don't discount a change of colors in the White House to mirror both chambers of our Congre$$.

[dreamon]

Trans 500 could be vulnerable under 18 U. S. C. §2252A, which provides:

"(a) Any person who--

"(3) knowingly--

.     .     .     .     .

"(B) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains--

"(i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

"(ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,

.     .     .     .     .

"shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)." §2252A(a)(3)(B) (2000 ed., Supp. V).

Section 2256(2)(A) defines "sexually explicit conduct" as

"actual or simulated--

"(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

"(ii) bestiality;

"(iii) masturbation;

"(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

"(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

Violation of §2252A(a)(3)(B) incurs a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a maximum of 20 years. 18 U. S. C. §2252A(b)(1).
The Supreme Court upheld this statute in 2008 in United States v. Williams,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&friend=public.
So Trans 500 may be charged with something more serious than bad taste.

Erm... did you read the US v. Williams decision?

From your own link: The Court held the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision and stated that USC 2252 A(a)(3)(B)only applies to pornography depicting actual minors.

The exception to the general rule rests not on the content of the picture but on the need to foil the exploitation of child subjects, Ferber, 458 U. S., at 759-760, and the justification limits the exception: only pornographic photographs of actual children may be prohibited, see id., at 763, 764; Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234, 249-251 (2002).