First of all, I want to reassure you, SeD, that I thought the pictures were well and artistically produced, and if you post them again with an 18+ year old using the same composition you will get a like from me.
Nevertheless, the child Eulalia is expressly referred to as being 9 years of age. I hate quoting rules chapter and verse but here goes:
'Child pornography' includes any photos, videos, digital manips, drawings etc. etc. that appear to portray abuse of under-18s, or any sort of sexual activity involving or witnessed by under-18s (whether or not under-18s have actually taken part in the production).
We have a nude crucifixion, in the context of a site specialising in the erotic aspects of crucifixion that is clearly sexual, and it is being witnessed by a child, which breaks the rules. Simple as. Really sorry.
Pretty well everything we see is numbers and pixels. You have arranged those numbers and pixels in a way that depicts a child.
I hear the argument that children were abused, tortured and killed back in times like 308AD. Is this a historical essay on those events? If so, why is it being presented on Cruxforums?
I hadn't seen your 'Child's Play' image before, and to be honest I find that troubling as well, although the age of the observer is less explicit. I was not a moderator at that time, and I am unaware whether it triggered any discussion or reports.
Finally, the intention is not to act in an arbitrary or censoring way. The rules on child pornography are there to protect you, and me, and all our members from accusations of activity which is highly illegal in most of our countries, which is viewed with revulsion by most citizens, and upon which police forces do take action. You could argue that viewing images of crucified adults falls into the same category, but BDSM tends to be regarded more leniently as long as no-one is actually harmed. But bringing children into the equation can bring the sky down on all our heads. Best to keep them apart from the action, that's my advice.