No flaming here. I appreciate your response.
For starters – as you point out – yours is not so much a legal definition of kiddie porn as it is a description of what you find personally offensive. I think most of us have such standards, however different they may or may not be from yours. The problem arises when we have to create some kind of societal norm in order to enforce laws. And in that world, what you find offensive probably does not rise to the level of legally-defined [censored] pornography. Christina’s photos are certainly intended to arouse, but as long as the photography does not inordinately focus between her thighs there is little chance of running afoul of the law. She does not disrobe. She does not take the spread position in overt fashion. So even if she is under 18 – and I believe I read she has now crossed that threshold – what I’ve seen is legally protected.
As for your concerns (which I gather are separate and apart from the kiddie porn issue) about objectifying women for “self-gratification,” I daresay that most of the visitors to this site would plead guilty from time to time. Doesn’t mean we’ve lost respect for women or view them one-dimensionally. It simply means that because we’re wired a certain way we’re going to pick our spots. Sometimes I’m an animal. Sometimes I’m an asshole. Usually I’m not. Most of the women I know understand this.