Have I suddenly lost my command of English?

[trixtah]

Look, I'm having a really wanky set of interchanges over on vintage_sex regarding a post someone made which linked to a bunch of erotic drawings - one of which featuring a representation of a man having sex with a child.

I objected quite strenuously to the link being posted without warning, and now I'm being told that the image concerned was not "child porn", and - patronisingly - my own experiences are essentially colouring my perception of what the situation is. I'm not denying the latter fact, but I also don't think my PoV is irrelevant here.

So, is a picture (a drawn one) that features an adult man having sex with a child "child-porn" or not? If not, why not, because I really am not understanding the point these people are making.

Here's the discussion thread, if you'd like to look. I'm not trying to rope anyone into the argument on my behalf - I'm wanting to know if there is something really obvious about what they're saying that I'm failing to grok. I also think I would be a lot less irked about this if the OP acknowledged that perhaps a warning would have been in order.

Thank you.

Comments

[stormkpr.livejournal.com]

When I clicked the link, I couldn't get in. But I trust that your take on it is sound. At the very least, they needed a warning.

[ironed_orchid]

It's a moderated community for over 18s, so only memebers can see the posts.

[ironed_orchid]

I hadn't checked vintage__sex this week, but I weighed in purely on the fact that their argument about it not being porn is specious.

They seem to be thinking that photo = porn, drawing = not-porn. That's just total crap.

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

We are confusing concepts here.

We come down hard on child pron that is based on live models because children are clearly being exploited to produce it.

That is not clear in the case of a drawing. It is not clear in the case of 3-d animation stuff.

Those that come down on child pron because a user might later become a child abuser are, IMHO, perverting the law. The law is based on the concept that people in general can tell the difference between a wrong act and a wrong idea, and the law punishes a wrong act. Punish all wrong ideas, and most of us would hang. Which would be a lot better for the environment.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Ok, I think that is the premise they're coming from - that if there is no "exploitation" of a real child, then it doesn't count as "child porn".

I actually don't care about what the legal definition of the term is, in the US or any other country - I was using it personally to describe a piece of pornography that featured sex with a child. I even clarified that that was my meaning/intention in my comment when it seemed we were on a goalpost-moving mission.

Whether or not we call representations of sex with children "child porn" or "rumplestiltskin", I would still appreciate a warning of such content. If it seemed that a real child was being abused, I would have had no hesitation in baying for the balls (and legal penalties) of the person concerned. But to have my - I think entirely justified - request for a warning over squickable content ignored and moved to a debate over semantics is annoying in the extreme.

[ironed_orchid]

Look, that's not my argument at all. My argument in the community is that porn is not restricted to photo media, and that such images should be under a cut and given a warning, just as if I posted in a feminist community about, say, rape, I would post a warning.

While I agree that the reason child porn is wrong is because it depicts a child being abused, and that in the case of photo media, a child was in fact abused in the production of the image. My argument against other media, in which the content produced is an act of imagination, is not that it may inspire others to harm. I think such arguments are dangerous precisely because they refuse to admit rational agency.

However, as I stated, I do think that such images can be triggers for people who have been abused.

For myself, I find any depiction of children as sexual objects, especially when an adult is involved to press my squick buttons in the strongest way possible. And thus I prefer not to see them. But I don't equate my squick with moral superiority.

I love the vintage__sex community. However, I think it's important to be responsible when dealing with any erotic/pornographic content.

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

Yes.

There is a difference between content and what was done for production. It is good, I agree, to have a content warning, for positive and negative users. I was perhaps too sensitive to the legal issues because of a recent local case that I have trouble with. (person was run in for not registering as a sex-offender. Only violation mentioned was having child pron on his computer. Now, if that was model-based, I don't at all mind having that a crime. Having that be a crime that requires notification of the community forever, I think is not merited by any valid argument. And I don't even know if it was model-based, although I suppose it was. But a lot of places aren't distinguishing.)

I don't care to see bluenoses riding on the backs of those trying to stop exploitation. Apologies that it made me misdirect my comment above.

[saluqi.livejournal.com]

I think there might be some jurisdictional issues at play here. I don't know about New Zealand, but in Australia a lot of material that is available for sale in the US is banned.

For example, via our Office of Film and Literature Classification laws, import regs ban the importation of anything (including drawings, 'toons etc) that appears to depict a person under the age of 18 in a sexual act.

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

Yes. I am in US. I think whether drawings (or 3-d animation) count might vary with locality over here. Frankly, I haven't any reason to pay close attention. But I am troubled by use of a program which is sold, locally, as a means to stop child exploitation, being used to punish those who possess graphics that do not involve that. If it is done to stop exploitation, fine. If it is being done because the bureaucrats involved don't care for the subject matter, that's not so good. In fact, I probably agree with them about the subject matter. It is still not so good.

[saluqi.livejournal.com]

Also denied, I'm not a member.

Based on the info you've supplied, yes it's kiddie porn. I'm guessing that as no kids were (apparently) involved in making it, they consider it less evil than photos/films? My reaction would be that you can never be sure what was used as a model, but that the net effect is the same. How would they explain it to a cop? "It's is OK Officer, it's just a drawing?" Good luck with that.

I do think it's disingenuous not to acknowledge that kids and animals and non-con fail the reasonable person test when it comes to what is likely to be considered offensive. You can expect those things will upset people and I think it's courteous to provide a warning.

The other thing is, as I think we've discussed before, LJ users can be really clueless about what is actually illegal, especially illegal with serious consequences. Like that horse fucker over on polyamory at the moment.

Putting stuff that can get you arrested or fired (and it sounds like that drawing definitely fits that criteria) out into a space without a warning strikes me as not just offensive and rude, but stupid as well.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yes, to all this, and thanks for laying it out in such concise points, especially with regard to the disingenuous of their position.

I didn't remember to mention the legal argument, bugger it, since it now seems that a (quasi?)legal definition of "child porn" in the US requires that a real child be exploited - we're not all in the US!

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

I can't see it, so won't make any specific remarks.

There is a grey area: 'art', with this stuff. I've no idea if the drawing could be called that, or prurient kiddie porn. If it's in a sex community I rather think the intent was pr0n, though, and where no child was involved it's the intent that counts, I imagine.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

It featured a man with erect genitals and a female child positioned over them, as if ready for insertion. You didn't see the child's genitals (obscured by a skirt).

And yes, vintage_sex is about porn pics, but I think content like that goes beyond what is generally accepted to be mainstream porn. I didn't mind the fact the link was posted, just that there was no warning of squickableness. People use terms like "hardcore", "NSFW" and "male sex" when doing other posts to that comm, and that gave me the impression that the comm was fairly mainstream in its notions of acceptability. I'm not one to do a major flounce over something like this, but I am going to be somewhat more wary from now on in.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

It certainly goes beyond the mainstream, I'd say.

I wouldn't want such an image on my hard drive.

It sounds very dodgy to me.

[shangchi.livejournal.com]

Can't see it.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

I think a warning is in order. I don't think it's technically kiddie porn, because no actual children were involved (any more than I think that writing a porn story about rape means the writer is a rapist).

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

I think we've established this is a semantic difference between the US usage of the term, and how us antipodeans (and I think probably the English, IIRC). People on this side of the world generally seem to think that if porn features representations of children, it's "kiddie porn". If it involves actual children being abused, that's "child abuse".

I don't think a story written about rape implies that the writer is a rapist, but I'd call that "non-con porn" in exactly the same way.

But yeah, no matter the differences in terminology, the issue about not being warned is the real one, AFIAC.

[pretentiousgit.livejournal.com]

Nope, sounds like child porn to me. I don't even care if someone tells me that's not very open-minded of me. They can rot.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, my thought too. Child abuse - with a real child being featured in the porn - is something else and much worse again.

[filkferengi]

It doesn't matter if they're calling it art or aardvark flargle, such posts should receive the Cut Direct [LJ & possibly otherwise].

Yay you for speaking up!