[AppyPappy]

But what is your limit for the definition of sexual exploitation of children? So far, you have told me you do not limit it to pictures of fully-clothed children. Thusly, by your own definition, you are a child pornographer.

You are being purposefully inane. There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children. It should not be done. There is a difference between posting a picture of your kid in a bathing suit and creating a website that has hundreds of pictures of kids in bathing suits that you charge people $39 to see. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

[Lazamataz]

There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children.

Ergo, there is no limit to the actions you would arrest people for, in the Quest to Eliminate Child Exploitation.

You should be working for Child Protective Services. They already think like this.

[Demidog]

There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children. It should not be done.

So then you would advocate laws against child acting, using children in underwear ads in catalogues or any public display?