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

[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.