Have you asked those who run Southern Style? They've probably consulted with lawyers, and thought about the moral/ethical questions you raise.

Also... are you sure Southern Style was formerly TLS? I really don't know... I'm not even sure I've been to Southern Style before. But, I did go to TLS when Twink was running it.

I know Sassy of TLS started her own website... I don't think(!) her website is associated with Southern Style...?

Personally, I went to TLS because of Twink... I liked Twink. Yes... at least speaking for myself, seeing the young girls smoke was a little weird. Although... does Southern Style have girls as young as TLS did?

Although most people probably wouldn't feel showing children smoking is... pornography... for those who have strong sexual feelings for cigarettes, as do I, for instance, seeing the children do all the things... holding, and smoking cigarettes... as all the pretty girls (women) in the cigarette ads I've always loved... will likely attach the feelings I've transferred from the women in the cigarette ads,... these feelings themselves largely transferred from my own smoking mother... to the young girls holding, and smoking the cigarettes.

So, essentially, if the cigarette is a sexualized object for you, then it seems likely that seeing young girls smoking will tend to transfer some of those sexual feelings for the cigarettes to the young girls. At least, IMHO, I would think that likely.

Of course, those of us having nominal impulse control, and aware (one would think every adult would be...) that having sex with minors is a very serious more violation... codifed mores are laws, and since this is against the law we can infer that actions of these kinds are considered serious more violations... should be able to control one's impulses...

However, having said that... I might recommend limiting exposure to the material. Presumably, a strong possibility exists that greater exposure could lead to the development of a stronger transference from the cigarettes to the young girls... and consequently, perhaps the development of stronger sexual feelings for young girls. Presumably, stronger forbidden impulses will make for a more involved task in managing those impulses.

Of course, you might satiate those feelings by... smoking cigarettes. One might suggest... I don't want to because I'll undoubtably get attacked here... that that's the whole point. That is... to strengthen impulses that most will not allow themselves to satiate... perhaps not even through masturbation. And, even if they do, given sufficient time... even masturbation will probably reinforce all the feelings surrounding the objects of attachment...

But most people will not act on those feelings... that is, they won't molest a child. However, we can smoke cigarettes. So, to satiate the growing forbidden urges, one might smoke cigarettes... or, smoke more cigarettes.

What's more, many people might likely feel great anxiety, guilt, and shame for (consciously) experiencing sexual feelings for children. These feelings might also be expected to lead to more smoking.

For those established in smoking, it's common that smoking becomes attached to relief of anxiety... higher levels of anxiety might be expected to result in higher levels of smoking.

Shame and guilt could play to the extent to smoking is viewed as a self-destructive act. Basically, it seems quite possible that the more one might come to despise themselves... perhaps for experiencing forbidden sexual feelings for young girls... the more one might be expected to engage in activities connected with self-destruction.

Similar response cycles occur between me and my cigarette ads. However, I don't experience the increased levels of anxiety, guilt, and shame that might be experienced if the cigarette ads had young girls in them.

However, the more time I spend with my cigarette ads reinforces all the linkages I have between my sexuality and cigarettes... and girls (women) smoking. As the strength of impulses towards the pack of cigarettes, and cigarettes themselves, increases... that is, essentially the purchase motivation increases... the more likely it is that I'll buy a pack of cigarettes... and smoke.

I would think the young girls would be similar to the pack of cigarettes... that is, the young girls, like the pack of cigarettes, for me with my cigarette ads, will be (classically?) conditioned to be associated with my sexuality... my sexual arousal.

I would think much of this is classical conditioning, like with Pavlov's Dogs. We all are Pavlov's Dogs... we're all conditioned by our environment.

The greater the awareness we have of the conditioning agents we're exposed to in our environment... at least potentially... the more we can manage the effects of that conditioning on our psyches... that is, how we respond to that conditioning.

Some would say all them I'm talking about here is similar to seeing violence on TV, and in movies. Some say violent, or forbidden sexual media (implicit, or otherwise) gives people an outlet for feelings that societally taboo. However, it inevitably reinforces those feelings too.

IMHO,... I'm certainly no expert in any of this... it's kinda like anger. Venting, or just allowing oneself to release one's anger, or rage, can dissipate the rage... at least for a time. However, if the same conditions continue to exist that led to the development of the rage to begin with, one might expect the rage will start growing... again.

One can also imagine continual reinforcement such that as much as fast as the rage is vented, it just builds up once again. And... if the rage is vented in such a manner which presents dangers to oneself, or others... obviously this can potentially be a problem for the individual, and society.

Anyway... to more specifically address this queston:

"The thing is: I feel awful after watching the preview clip of one of these vids. I would like to know if it's normal to be upset, or if I'm overreacting."

You can probably gather I'd suggest that responses of this kind wouldn't seem particularly surprising.

I'd suggest you're probably experiencing guilt and shame for experiencing (at least consciously) societally taboo sexual feelings for children, accompanied by some anxiety.

I'd guess the "censor", which serves as a barrier protecting us from some or our more disturbing unconscious contents, as I believe Freud put in, is being overwhelmed because the media is performing something of a "short circuit" between your feelings revolving around cigarettes, and girls (women) smoking cigarettes,... and the young girls, which are forbidden sexual objects.

You (consciously) experience guilt and shame because, like many people, you probably have been taught that you're not supposed to have such inappropriate feelings... but, yet you do. The media didn't create those feelings either... this makes it further difficult, and potentially more problematic in dealing with the shame, and guilt.

I believe it's similar when we're young... well, many of us... when we experience homosexual feelings (consciously) for the first time. Like, with me, I feel in love with my best friend... who was a guy.

Shame, guilt, and anxiety are very likely going to be present given that homosexuality is still largely taboo in our society... in many circles, anyway. However, the feelings are there... in our unconscious. It's just that the censor usually protects us from consciously experiencing these feelings... with many people, the censor is so effective, the feelings are blocked for their whole lifes.

It's not as if I'd think that having a more rigid censor is better, or having a less vigilant censor is better... it's probably all in the particular manifestation. But yes, I am obviously of the belief that we have an unconscious, and that forbidden sexual feelings, like for children, and (perhaps) for people of the same sex, lurk... usually beyond our conscious awareness.

Not everyone... including perhaps the eminent 20th century existentialist philosopher Sartre believed in an unconscious, or at least not an unconscious such as Freud conceived. Although I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm stretching my knowledge here...) that Sartre's problems with Freud's conception of the unconsciousness revolved more around it's ontological implications. Nevertheless, I believe it's fair to say Sartre did not believe in the Freudian unconscious.

These are perhaps difficult issues in their ultimate ethical analysis. That is, having sex with children, or homosexuality.

However, if you have sex with children in "real" life, you risk going to prison for potentially a very long time... and even much of the prison population has high disdain for child sex offenders.

If you practice homosexuality, you'll likely experience higher rates of rejection compared with those who practice heterosexuality.

Not much, if any, moral/ethical cast intended here,... just seemingly probable outcomes. That is, I'm not saying either probable outcome is "right" or "wrong"... I'm simply saying they seem probable.

Similar, perhaps, to the probable outcome of health difficulties if you smoke a significant amount of cigarettes regularly for a long period of time. But, for this, you won't go to jail... although you might experience some social stigma, similar, although probably not in extent, as many homosexuals do.