Posted: Mar 14, 2010 12:27 am
Is this art? You might not like it, I don't particularly, but it is generally considered to be art. Is it paedophilic? Well, the image is of two fantasy creatures - cherubs - not humans. What if they were trying to make baby cherubs, doggy style? It would be pornographic more than art, but as they are fantasy creatures, would it be paedophilia?
Well ... let's call it art but bloody bad art
As to whether cherub sex would be considered paedophile porn, not by me it wouldn't, but in the eyes of the law it just might be. There was a case not many weeks back - I'll try and dig up the link, unless somebody beats me to it - where a man was arrested, prosecuted, tried and convicted of possessing so-called "child pornography" which, IIRC, consisted of cartoons or computer-generated images. They weren't photographs: they weren't images of any real children at all. Yet he was convicted of child porn offences all the same. That's how insane the law has become.