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

[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.