Let's look at the issue from another angle. Child porn is supposedly illegal in order to protect children, yet they are prosecuting children who are producing it, meaning that the intent is not to protect the depicted children but rather children IN GENERAL. This goes hand in hand with the fact that drawings have been criminalized in several countries. There are no real children depicted, thus there are no direct victims. This means the victims must be indirect... But what if it's not even about the actual victims?
I have seen several comments about non-nude drawings of young girls that have been called "disgusting". The question is how can a drawing of a GIRL be disgusting? If the image is sexual yet there is no actual porn or scatology or whatever going on, there is nothing there but a girl, and people are calling her DISGUSTING? As a concrete example, I have heard that very word used about the show Strike Witches. Sure, the show sucks and might possibly be called disgusting for that, but people are complaining about the young girls flashing their panties everywhere and none of the girls are ugly... They're designed to be the very opposite of that. They're drawn to be cute.
There's obviously something else going on here. It's not the picture itself that is the problem, but the idea that someone finds the picture arousing. This explains PERFECTLY why drawings of minors engaged in sexual activities are being made illegal almost everywhere... Because the concept of people getting turned on by that material IS disgusting. Thus, the picture is not important but rather the possibility that someone somewhere might be turned on by it.
>>I can't play these three games under Windows, so I run Wii. I can't play these other six games under Windows, so I run PlayStation 2.
Because RTS and FPS games work just GREAT on consoles.
Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899