nobody's being accused of anything in a court of law. the accusation is on an internet forum. no proof is needed.

I guess there's some validity to that comment, but an inherent issue with it too. No court of law is involved though the act you describe, posting Child Porn, is an illegal act, at least here in the states. So by claiming the chic is underage you then would be claiming a crime has been committed. This means to substantiate your claim you must then supply proof, which my guess says you straight up can't do.

I could "claim" to be Howard Hughs long lost heir and deserving of a large share of the Hughs fortune on this same internet forum but without offering something to prove out that claim it holds no water and like your own claim, it pretty much means nothing.

it's a clearly sexual image of someone who is either underage or a very young-looking adult. whether she is or not underage is immaterial in moral terms.

Ah yes, that whole I'm moral but you're not "'cause I say so" thing. Now we seem to be getting to the meat of the matter!

So it seems your morality issue with this pic seems to revolve around the idea that because she looks young the image is then immoral. Let me clue you in on something that's been going on in the art world for centuries. Young models are now and always have been more highly sought after than older ones. The simple why has no relation to morality at all, it's just that younger models are more attractive and hence make more appealing subjects.

If that's too much for you to handle I would have to suggest you get yourself some oversized blinders and wear 'em daily so you don't wind up having to berate yourself on a daily basis for what you might see without them to protect you.

You moralists sure are a funny bunch. I don't guess I'll ever understand others thinkin they know best for anyone but themselves, much less expecting they have some real right to make such judgements in relation to others