but because of current laws this is very unwise to say. And it's so touchy a subject it instantly draws flak, so be careful. You may know you're not that kind of pervert, but they have no way to be certain of that and don't want to take the risk. "

That's not a correct statement of current laws actually.

A correct statement is that it is perfectly legal to do artwork that uses no real people and is nude and even erotic, regardless of age of the characters.

It is only illegal when it uses real people

Look at:
http://practice.findlaw.com/archives/cyberlaw_0303.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
and to a lesser degree:
http://practice.findlaw.com/cyberlaw-0804.html

Key quote from first article: Child pornography, the Supreme Court recently ruled, must involve actual children. The Court's recent 6-3 decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition made clear that virtual child pornography, which involves images of children that are computer-created, does not count as child pornography. Rather, it is protected by the First Amendment.

Which is a summation of the case, which you can read as the second link.

Legally it is protected... but of course that doesn't solve the potential moral and social issues.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery