One of the problems with child porn laws is that the word "children" in the law can have a specialised, rather odd, definition fot that purpose. I am led to understand that, for this purpose, both the USA and UK define "children" to mean "under-18". The UK makes possession of indecent images illegal if they look like photographs of children. In the UK, you can lawfully marry at 16, so a photograph or a married couple having sex can be child porn. The world is getting crazy. The UK definition used to set the age at 16, so child porn was, apart from anything else, pictures of criminal acts. Which made some sort of sense. The change in the age limit was slipped through in the last couple of years. The result is that some material which is legal in the US is illegal in the UK. It used to be that some material legal in the UK was illegal in the USA. It is routinely claimed here that the child porn which is the target of police action in the UK involves the abuse of pre-puberty individuals, what we'd all call children. Medically, this is paedophilia. Having sex with an adolescent is medically different. But the law, and the press, don't make the same distinctions. I don't like trusting a system which depends on law enforcement choosing not to prosecute certain acts. So I can understand why Renerosity would want to set up a list, but the execution seems flawed. There are under-age characters with Poser, which aren't mentioned. And the inclusion of Miki and EJ are, on the face of it, ridiculous.