Yeah, that's true. I would agree that calling to ban it was what made it such an incendiary issue.

I see what you mean on the second part, but to anyone who feels that way, I'll clarify that in my opinion, by nature of being drawn from imagination means there's an added implication of a voyeuristic relationship to the viewer, that they've been created for the viewer? I don't know, that wording sounds too harsh for what I mean. I think if the image was of real people it wouldn't have the same implications. It would just be humans posing for a fun picture. They'd look and feel human rather than as a stylised and accentuated version of a human created for consumption.

Consumption by backwater internet forums too, I'd imagine. That has its own set of implications, which relate more to your last point about how it's not really the artists fault. Again, I mostly agree, but the artists general output of content does cater to a certain audience.