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

I respectfully disagree. Ashcroft spoke to an earlier statute, which this stature replaced. Its a question of the distributors's intent to cause the viewer to believe an underaged actor is engaged in sexual conduct. See the following, from $calia'$ majority opinion

Third, the phrase "in a manner that reflects the belief" includes both subjective and objective components. "[A] manner that reflects the belief" is quite different from "a manner that would give one cause to believe." The first formulation suggests that the defendant must actually have held the subjective "belief" that the material or purported material was child pornography. Thus, a misdescription that leads the listener to believe the defendant is offering child pornography, when the defendant in fact does not believe the material is child pornography, does not violate this prong of the statute. (It may, however, violate the "manner ... that is intended to cause another to believe" prong if the misdescription is intentional.) There is also an objective component to the phrase "manner that reflects the belief." The statement or action must objectively manifest a belief that the material is child pornography; a mere belief, without an accompanying statement or action that would lead a reasonable person
to understand that the defendant holds that belief, is insufficient.

Fourth, the other key phrase, "in a manner . . . that is intended to cause another to believe," contains only a subjective element: The defendant must "intend" that the listener believe the material to be child pornography, and must select a manner of "advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting" the material that he thinks will engender that belief--whether or not a reasonable person would think the same. (Of course in the ordinary case the proof of the defendant's intent will be the fact that, as an objective matter, the manner of "advertis-
ing, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting" plainly sought to convey that the material was child
pornography.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrBest

did you enjoy this scene?

http://sarinavalentinablog.com/wp-co...na-doll-01.jpg

---

I've never seen that scene or that image until now so no I haven't enjoyed it; but at least the performer in the picture (having not watched the scene I cannot comment beyond that) actually looks adult despite their outfit. As it thoroughly lacks any context - being just a picture - I suspect you might be attempting to troll by seeing what people say about it.

You seem to be missing the point however; we have been debating the specific Trans500 scene (those of us that object to believe) in which the performer is portraying a child. As Kelly stated the issue is the representation of statutory rape of said 'child'.

Oh and seeing as you asked if I enjoyed a scene how about you let us know whether you enjoyed the Trans500 scene we have been discussing? You'll be able to find the link in the thread of course and you have the context of the debate here to refer to; I'll be interested to see if you actually answer or not..

where were you when this scene come out then ?
http://www.tsplayground.com/en/Izabe...-1/scene/38613

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raziel

where were you when this scene come out then ?
http://www.tsplayground.com/en/Izabe...-1/scene/38613

---

Try this one
http://www.tsplayground.com/en/Izabe...-2/scene/39291

Still don't get people.

I know Franklin is mad at Trans500, because they didn't film enough of Eva Lin and now those type of scenes will not be made and she has retired from doing porn in general, So if he can't get nay pre-op, he won't even get to see any post-op scenes. It has left him bitter with the site. Of course in a year from now he will move on to next performer who satisfies his fancy, lol.

And ssssh, even Grooby has it on Shemale Japan. http://www.shemale-japan.com/tour/fe...s-and-cosplay/ Just saying folks. I don't care if the performer looks young or is older women dress like a teen we all know what fantasy they are portraying. Almost every company has it and it is one of the biggest sellers for the industry. Its the most desirable fantasy. Its not my cup of tea, but I would put money that almost everyone at some point has watched a scene portraying that fantasy.

I'm sure if people take time to look for links to other trailers/videos they will no doubt find quite a few that have similar themes but finding out there is a proliferation of something still in no way makes it OK.

The subject matter might be popular, even profitable for some but implying that makes it acceptable just doesn't sit well with me. By that logic pornography which has actual children in it would be allowed seeing as we are all aware there are plenty of people across the world who like watching it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lester316

I'm sure if people take time to look for links to other trailers/videos they will no doubt find quite a few that have similar themes but finding out there is a proliferation of something still in no way makes it OK.

The subject matter might be popular, even profitable for some but implying that makes it acceptable just doesn't sit well with me. By that logic pornography which has actual children in it would be allowed seeing as we are all aware there are plenty of people across the world who like watching it.

---

There in lies the question does fantasy = reality. Video games are violent gory and depict acts of mass violence. Does that mean if you play video games you are likely to kill someone in real life? This argument that has been going on for ages. Porn is escapism, do I enjoy all the acts depicted in porn. No, but what would think is too much another may think is just fine. Some things people will find morally reprehensible.

If you think is the only theme porn that is weird, then you haven't been watching much porn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christianxxx

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?

---

You can't compare video games to playing on monkey bars. Video games are for people of all ages. There are many M rated games for adults only because they have extreme violence and sexual themes. Playgrounds are not socially acceptable for adults to play around.

You're also ignoring the part when he tells her to "go play", when she sits in daddy's lap like a kid, and looks very confused about sex. Who tells an 18 year old to go play on the playground? No one tells an 18 year old male or female to do that.

it could have been worse, trans500 could have portrayed a politician and a lawyer as honest people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lifeisfiction

There in lies the question does fantasy = reality. Video games are violent gory and depict acts of mass violence. Does that mean if you play video games you are likely to kill someone in real life? This argument that has been going on for ages. Porn is escapism, do I enjoy all the acts depicted in porn. No, but what would think is too much another may think is just fine. Some things people will find morally reprehensible.

If you think is the only theme porn that is weird, then you haven't been watching much porn.

---

Your logic with the video games comparison is flawed. Video games have computer generated characters and events which can't be mistaken for reality whilst actors and actresses on screen/film are actually real people playing a part which can be mistaken for the real thing; the very point to the argument here is that the performer is clearly trying to look and act like a child.

Also the link to video game players acting out 'killing' fantasies in real life is one born from sensationalism at best, when a murderer goes on a killing spree the media runs to shout video games are the cause but I can't recall one case where psychiatrists have proven a causal link between the two. In contrast as mentioned earlier in this thread it is a known fact that pedophiles have escalated their fantasies in the past by imagining adults playing the child role (for example with pornography in which an adult portrays a child) all the way up to actually participating in the filming of real and horrific child involved sex acts.

Billions of normal people watch films and TV shows, read books and play video games which include graphic scenes of murder and violence. Statistically as so many people do that some of those people end up committing acts of violence, some of those people aren't normal.

No normal people enjoy child pornography or pornography where someone is pretending to be a child suffering from a statutory rape. That's what pedophiles enjoy - that is the clear distinction.

Plenty of porn is weird; that's fine. Porn for pedophiles isn't.