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

[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!