Analogies are fine. False analogies are not.
I didn't post a false analogy. Do you know what a false analogy is? I just posted some historical information regarding the origins of the opposition to open, free, normal sexuality.
When you said - ''So in the USA you might be technically breaking the child porn laws if you have photos of your wife in the nude'' - rather than an analogy, you were equivocating.
Do you know what equivocating is? Look it up if you don't, and you'll see that I never equivocated. And like it or not, the laws against kiddie porn are ridiculously inconsistent because they arbitrarily allow photographing nude kids in some situations and criminalizing doing so in other circumstances that have nothing to do with any actual harm.
Images/portraits of nude men, women or children that are not graphically or explicitly sexual in nature may be seen as erotica or simply portrayals of nude bodies, there being no sexual acts involved, it is not porn. Graphic, explicit sexual acts turn it into porn.
OK, that's how you define porn. May others disagree, or must we take your word for it?
Pictures of children running around naked in the back yard or beach, or portraits, cherubs, etc, in a gallery is not porn, where a child being used sexually, that is pornography.
In addition to the difficulties I mentioned in your other posts, what you're saying here is way too vague. What do you mean by "a child being used sexually"?
So let me summarize where your arguments need to be honed:
- You need to argue clearly what porn is and why we should accept your definition of porn.
- You need to explain why porn, so defined, is harmful.
- You should argue for how censoring porn will do more good than harm.