>>95
You didn't answer the question. If you had you might understand that this is a non-sequitur argument that attempts to link "people under the legal age of consent earning money" (itself a selective and odd way to categorise humanity) with "exploitation".

The implication that people are pretending that this isn't fap-fodder is also odd and in direct opposition to the words typed. Once again it comes down to this notion that "out there somewhere" is a person we imbue with such moral and intellectual weakness that they simply have to glance at the contorversial thing we are discussing (be it violent computer games, child models, horror films, drugs, pornography, etc) and they suddenly become on the brink of the very worst incarnation of evil wreaking havoc and misery, yet be in denial and undetectable to others, and if only we could stop this person from having this thing, then a disaster could be averted. But this person is no-one we know, have met, or can actually think of, yet they somehow must exist for the counter-argument to work, so QED "they exist".