Jayezox wrote:Teenagers shouldn't be encouraged to be into this stuff. That's corrupting a minor. Also, minors are not allowed on this site and fetish material on other sites where they are allowed (DeviantArt for example) should have a mature rating. I'm not a psychologist, but from what I've researched porn in general can be addictive like alcohol or drugs and the more unusual stuff has been shown to take away interest in watching normal sexual behavior. For us adults, this stuff is okay in moderation, but minors who are undeveloped should not be viewing it. A lot of online dictionaries describe porn as causing sexual arousal so even vore with no nudes and an erotic pose or something like that is porn by definition.
I'm also not a psychologist, but I wonder if that's really the reason for the taboo. The danger that the taboos in questions are supposed to combat, it seems to me, is that children become the victims of sexual violence or/and exploitation. Child pornography is a huge crime because the subjects of the photographs are directly exploited. Also, pornography is gateway to physical exploitation and human trafficking in children (ie. the industry in one might be supportive of trafficking - since the subjects of the photographs may have already fallen into the hands of traffickers, and the photographs might serve as a form of advertisement).
I don't believe that the legal taboos extend to the fictitious - ie. drawn images and imagined stories. According to the US Department of Justice, it's about visual material that is or looks real.
US Department of Justice wrote:United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. (
source)
So, fantasy stories may be legal (in the United States, but laws may be similar in other jurisdictions) because they do not depict reality by image capture or mimicry, and they do not identify a real individual (though, some stories might), I think it's still dangerous ground. It may be close enough for many people - juries, legislators, prosecutors, and the voting public - which means that it's probably not a good idea to test the proposition.
The secondary threat, that I imagine the taboos exist to thwart, is that adults develop urges towards minors that may lead them to act upon those urges. While I think that the social taboos (ie. deep social disapproval and ostracism, as opposed to legal prosecution and criminal punishment) may have some effect in turning minds elsewhere, it might also be a source of excitement for some. Yet, the fantasy stories might direct the minds of people who could fall into a desire for actual child victimization.
Anyway, this whole discussion might be beyond the intent of the OP, but it's one that is probably triggered by any topic that relates to minors.
TL;DR: fantasy teen giantesses (or teen giants) are probably okay, so long as they do not too closely resemble real people who are, or might be, threatened in body, mind, or reputation. However, it is still something about which you might want to be careful, since there is less than zero tolerance for anything remotely resembling sex and children.