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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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!