FA+
Shop
Declaring Something "Evil"
15 years ago
This is sort of a follow up to my previous journal, "The UK & FA" and my thoughts on the subject matters of the site.
I ask you to read the entire journal before commenting.
I read a lot of journals, and I follow what a lot of people are saying. That's my job.
Wrapped up in the cub debate, too many people are voting on this topic on a purely ethical fashion. "Well, ethically, this is bad, it's immoral and gosh darn it, I'm just not for it." To be honest, I'm generally not for it either. Sometimes, I find it cute and whatnot, but still tend to get an "Eww, uhm..." reaction quite a bit. I'll leave it at that.
The problem comes down to this: if X is, then why not Y? So many people are wrapped up in the idea and notion that if you're into Fantasy X, then surely you're into Reality X.
There's a lot of different kinds of mature art on this site. Rape, gore, inflation, macro/micro, domination, slavery. I could go on. There's a large variety of imagery that I don't agree with, and some that even squicks me out.
But the notion that if you're into Fantasy X, then surely you're also into Reality X... well, it doesn't hold water with me. How many people on this site own slaves by show of hands. Err, nobody? How many people into rape art have ever raped anybody? Maybe a few of you, but I'm willing to bet those numbers are drastically low. Or stabbed somebody with a knife because you dig violent art? How many small critters have you crushed under foot to bring your domineering sense of god-like macroism into play? Murder? Explosions? Believe you're actually a dragon? Eh, some of you may be into that last one, but... the rest? The rest are such a inconceivable minority that numbers have yet to be invented to properly calculate just how tiny that really is.
And here's thing: most people? Fairly rational. Separating fantasy and reality is very easy for them, and most people understand rules, laws and concepts. They may not always agree, but they understand them. This is what allows a society to work. But within any cluster of society remain those who are, quite simply, fucked up. - the people who should not be allowed out of their house, let alone general society. They're a very small percentage, and do happen.
One thing that I've never understood is how so many people can petition under the banner of X, yet Y, which is right next door, is completely okay to them. People love to declare something evil. They do. Everybody needs something to champion against. They love to pick up the banner and protest in against, but so many times they'll pick one evil and sort of block out the rest. Even if the rest are right there, right in front of them, and equally as bad a concept.
I find that weird. It's either the entire package or it's none at all. There are many "evils" on this site, but which ones get protested?
Boiled down, it reminds me of people using the Bible's passages of Leviticus as some sort of guiding light. Ahh, yes, Leviticus, the reason why gays shouldn't marry. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states sex with another man is bad. It also says wearing clothes made of more than one kind of fabric are sinful. Shaving? Sinful. Nomming shellfish? Sinful. Eating the produce from a mixed garden? Sinful. Not stoning your women? CAN BE SINFUL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4867brL7K_k
Problem is, people only champion one topic at a time. They'll pick the one most "evil" to them, and ignore the rest.
When it comes to FA's content... everything here is fantasy. It doesn't exist. When things cross the boundaries of fantasy to reality, we take action. We've filed legal reports against people for their real life (very much illegal) flings. By law, we have to. We've worked with state police, DAs and others in the past. I can count all those instances on one hand. That's out of 365,000+ accounts.
Thing is? Those people all had pre-existing issues that went back before FA ever existed. We constantly review, discuss and debate the rules a lot, and formulate our opinions based on changing laws, moralities and more. And like my comments about society above, we all discuss the rules, and while not all the admins and staff may agree on the subject matter, we all understand them.
Fur Affinity exists and was founded on the idea of artistic, fantasy-based freedom, and we'll uphold that as long as we can. We separate the notion of reality and fantasy, and believe that most people can, too.
At the end of the day, we'll do what's right for the community as a whole and what we view are in the best interests of the site. Point is, there will always be something to offend you on FA. Or DA. YouTube, or anywhere else for that matter. The lines between fantasy and reality are a concept of imagination -vs- action.
This is not a site for everyone, but it's a site that allows everyone to be a part of it.
I ask you to read the entire journal before commenting.
I read a lot of journals, and I follow what a lot of people are saying. That's my job.
Wrapped up in the cub debate, too many people are voting on this topic on a purely ethical fashion. "Well, ethically, this is bad, it's immoral and gosh darn it, I'm just not for it." To be honest, I'm generally not for it either. Sometimes, I find it cute and whatnot, but still tend to get an "Eww, uhm..." reaction quite a bit. I'll leave it at that.
The problem comes down to this: if X is, then why not Y? So many people are wrapped up in the idea and notion that if you're into Fantasy X, then surely you're into Reality X.
There's a lot of different kinds of mature art on this site. Rape, gore, inflation, macro/micro, domination, slavery. I could go on. There's a large variety of imagery that I don't agree with, and some that even squicks me out.
But the notion that if you're into Fantasy X, then surely you're also into Reality X... well, it doesn't hold water with me. How many people on this site own slaves by show of hands. Err, nobody? How many people into rape art have ever raped anybody? Maybe a few of you, but I'm willing to bet those numbers are drastically low. Or stabbed somebody with a knife because you dig violent art? How many small critters have you crushed under foot to bring your domineering sense of god-like macroism into play? Murder? Explosions? Believe you're actually a dragon? Eh, some of you may be into that last one, but... the rest? The rest are such a inconceivable minority that numbers have yet to be invented to properly calculate just how tiny that really is.
And here's thing: most people? Fairly rational. Separating fantasy and reality is very easy for them, and most people understand rules, laws and concepts. They may not always agree, but they understand them. This is what allows a society to work. But within any cluster of society remain those who are, quite simply, fucked up. - the people who should not be allowed out of their house, let alone general society. They're a very small percentage, and do happen.
One thing that I've never understood is how so many people can petition under the banner of X, yet Y, which is right next door, is completely okay to them. People love to declare something evil. They do. Everybody needs something to champion against. They love to pick up the banner and protest in against, but so many times they'll pick one evil and sort of block out the rest. Even if the rest are right there, right in front of them, and equally as bad a concept.
I find that weird. It's either the entire package or it's none at all. There are many "evils" on this site, but which ones get protested?
Boiled down, it reminds me of people using the Bible's passages of Leviticus as some sort of guiding light. Ahh, yes, Leviticus, the reason why gays shouldn't marry. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states sex with another man is bad. It also says wearing clothes made of more than one kind of fabric are sinful. Shaving? Sinful. Nomming shellfish? Sinful. Eating the produce from a mixed garden? Sinful. Not stoning your women? CAN BE SINFUL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4867brL7K_k
Problem is, people only champion one topic at a time. They'll pick the one most "evil" to them, and ignore the rest.
When it comes to FA's content... everything here is fantasy. It doesn't exist. When things cross the boundaries of fantasy to reality, we take action. We've filed legal reports against people for their real life (very much illegal) flings. By law, we have to. We've worked with state police, DAs and others in the past. I can count all those instances on one hand. That's out of 365,000+ accounts.
Thing is? Those people all had pre-existing issues that went back before FA ever existed. We constantly review, discuss and debate the rules a lot, and formulate our opinions based on changing laws, moralities and more. And like my comments about society above, we all discuss the rules, and while not all the admins and staff may agree on the subject matter, we all understand them.
Fur Affinity exists and was founded on the idea of artistic, fantasy-based freedom, and we'll uphold that as long as we can. We separate the notion of reality and fantasy, and believe that most people can, too.
At the end of the day, we'll do what's right for the community as a whole and what we view are in the best interests of the site. Point is, there will always be something to offend you on FA. Or DA. YouTube, or anywhere else for that matter. The lines between fantasy and reality are a concept of imagination -vs- action.
This is not a site for everyone, but it's a site that allows everyone to be a part of it.
Thats just me.
But that's just me either :P
(Not really, of course, but... ♥ )
|
Damn that is one wordy sentence, my bad.
To elaborate, there is a large amount of people that like inflation/fat furs, and while I am not one of them, there's a wide enough population of people that do that those fans can feel welcome.
I agree thoroughly that it's all fantasy and that we should remain grounded on Earth after logging off, and I think that's what about 85% of people do.
Yes?
Good journal. Lengthy but not rantish.
Also from what I see it goes back to the classic "your fetish is more disgusting than mines"
EEEEEEEBILLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
its a simple as that its what me and i know plenty of other furs do.
or people like most do can make thumbnails.
w/e
either it comes out to dont click it if you dont like it
;__;
Noone should be complaining to the staff. If one doesn't like what you see, close it. Cannot unsee, but it shouldn't take a person an hour to see an image before declairing it "unlikeable". I normally can tell if I like the content of the piece within seconds, and normally have it faved or closed within about 30 seconds, and take more time if I want to savor the talent and flow of the piece.
TL;DR: Curiosity aint a crutch, it's an adventure. Not all adventures turn out good. >.O
~N~
~N~
I said I didn't care. Yea, call names. :/ What ever. I don't care.
They mainly do this to keep trouble-makers and trolls from getting on. A troll with a free throw-away email account is far more likely to cause trouble, than someone with a paid-for email account. It does make it harder for some people to get on, and I doubt if I'd be quite so restrictive if it were up to me, but the site has been nearly 100 percent troll-free as a result.
To be honest, the cub community here on FA is a lot more talkative and tends to produce a lot more art, than what I see on Cub Central. There are only a few new art submissions per week on CC, and that includes the private stuff. Compare that to the many hundreds of cub submission per week here on FA. Like FA, CC has both g-rated and porn art. The ratio seems to be about the same there as it is here, but the total amount of art there is noticeably less.
Just making sure since I've been debating putting up some of my life drawings on here.
I have no doubt it did. And if "Cub" got banned in the US you would have to remove it from FA as well or face federal charges and or have FA shut down. "Cmon.
Fact is fact man. Loli became illegal and like 2 days later it was banned on FA.
Its stands to reason that if Cub became illegal, the same would occur.
foo
Don't tell me I dunno why I do things, moron.
There are people here who believe that uploading arts of humans is against AUP. I don't see how it could get more furry oriented than that, especially since the vast majority of submissions here are furry based.
If this site is gonna allow cub porn it might as well allow human porn
Isn't it worth it, so that we can count at least one raised hand.
I definately think so.
Then he can wash my dishes and mow my lawn so I have more time to masturbate
Too many people just don't get that fantasy = fantasy.
It's all about cultural control so that your race will survive a nomadic lifestyle and come out of it stronger. That's the real world purpose of that book in The Bible. ^_^
Like mah mommah always said, 'Life is like a box of chocolates' NO I'M KIDDING. Actually my mom used to tell me that opinions are like buttholes; everyone has one but not everyone wants to hear about it. Unless it is a proven, hardcore, set-in-stone FACT it's unarguable. Because everyone is different.
Unemployment's at an all time high = to many people. Seems that Mr. Leviticus should have left that one buried somewhere. :/
~N~
However, you're right, it doesn't make sense at all to follow those rules today even though there are some people who still believe that we should.
~N~
You've got your timeline mixed up. ANY version of the Christian church was not created until way after the new testament was codified. The Church (capital C) was not existence yet. I have a background in theology and can safely tell you that. As to whole books missing from the bible, there are a set of "apocryphal" books that are included in the Catholic Bible that are not in the Protestant one. Then there is a set of books (which you may be referring to) that's called the "Apocrypha." They are books that were not even considered for the canon of any church bible. Those are the fanciful stories about Jesus creating live birds out of clay, his family being banished from a community because Jesus (as a child) told some kid to "drop dead," and he did; Jesus trying to walk on water (and sinking), the Gospel of Thomas, etc.
There is much scripture out there that was never included in the Bibles, called the Didiche. It's an early group of writings by the early Fathers of the Church. The Catholic Church acknowledges its existence and that it is a very good set of writing to follow, but it is not "scriptural."
While what you say is all well and true, and I've also got my background in theology, the canonized texts share pretty close company with apocrypha on the whack-o-meter. The way you summarized the apocrypha as being more fanciful almost dismisses that the gospels also have people coming back from the dead, water into wine, walking on water, not going splat while falling off a cliff (set in a town completely free of anything but flat topography) angels talking to women going to care for a body which has vanished, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the lame walking, the evil forgiven, talking doves, sweating blood, multiplying food, one foot thick curtains being ripped in two, and much much more.... All of these things are counter intuitive, they defy the laws of physics. Take a new born a few hour old, have them watch a screen saver where balls bounce off the walls of the screen or bump into each other. They have a given attention span based on eye movements of a certain value. Have one of the balls miraculously pass through another like a ghost and the eyes instantly go wide with wonder, even after having opened them just a few hours before. Take a group of test subjects, tell them two stories, both about a man going to work in the morning. One group hears a mundane story full of little details, and the other has a story of a man going to work with just as many little details but fantastical events, magic, aliens, and impossibilities. The little details like the color of his tie, the time his alarm was set for, what cereal he had for breakfast stays with the people who hear the fantastical story by a landslide. An impossibility like the blind seeing is no different than a Zen Buddhist Koan. It's there to make the story memorable, and it's the memorable stories that survive. Why did the gospels survive till today while a simple list of the teachings of Jesus like "Q" vanish from the written record? Cause you wanna persuade people, make them remember what you say, you gotta entertain them with something magical. Case in point, Harry Potter, Twilight, need I go on? Just thought I'd bounce a related idea off you since I already like how you think...
Read my comments above. The fact is very few people on here have the educational background to "discuss" rationally the ideas found in scripture. Most people just "parrot" things that they have heard in church or read from the Bible without challenging it.
...
Oh, snap.
I demand anything purple to be banned :c
i dont like it. at all. but i tolerate it. i go "EWW!" as well if i accedentaly click a link to cub porn most of the time but hey, others seem to like it and who am i to judge?
art and fantasy shouldnt be banned as long as it STAYS a fantasy. if its forbidden by the law then its a different story of course, you cant do much against that... but still, a person should be able to express him/herself. and art is one of the most important aspacts of that!
What is this common sense of which you speak?
The spooky part With folks with closed minds is just how tightly locked those minds are.
Honestly we all have a certain amount of that anal clenching, you, me, everyone.
One of the important things is to recognize that sorta thing in ourselves, and attempt to be better than a buttocks clencher.
As long you are not forcing your tastes down someone else's throat against their will and can behave civily, then I have no beef with someone whom have kinks out of the ordinary. Sometimes you can even learn something new to spruce up your own palate.
Vore and macrophilia? If people could swallow an entire cow or other tinier people, or knock down buildings with their pricks, then yes that also would be in debate.
But then porn is basically a taboo. It's exciting because it's socially verboten. You have to ask why it is. In the case of nudity and sex it's to stop minors form getting it and looking at it. In the case of rape and pedophilia and incest it's because those are things that powerful people do. And I don't mean powerful in the sense of social or economic power I mean in the sense of a man who is stronger than a woman raping her, or an adult screwing children and then making them keep silent. This is why those two should always be kept taboo. Why we need to re-inforce that they are Bad Things.
It's true that many things in history we now feel are fine. Lending money and charging interest, eating oysters and pork. Marrying a woman who's not a virgin, being gay or having children with someone who's not the same colour and religion. Over time these things have been tested and the basic reasoning for those taboos have become invalid - we can refrigerate shellfish so they're no longer toxic when you come to eat them if you live miles from the coast in a hot country. We can prevent the decay of pork after a pig is slaughtered and kill off the brain parasites that live in uncooked pork - These being the easiest two examples to explain.
But there is no situation where rape and/or sexually molesting a pre-adolescent child is acceptable.
Also:
In the UK the issue of images of Children is covered under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and was reinforced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which added clauses forbidding the production of 'pseudo-photographs' involving minors.
That's the wiggle room that's the problem. If they're clearly minors in a pornographic setting then it's illegal. The German law doesn't even include a "Reality test" - They just call it illegal and act accordingly.
And that may include taking legal action against Fur Affinity for knowingly being a provider.
It is not subject to German law, or UK law.
I have a real problem following other country's laws when I'm in my country. I don't think FA should react to the laws of the UK. That's a precedent that gets icky when you figure that many muslim countries would have stoned dragoneer five times over for running a site like this.
Have a ! That is well deserved man
What of it?
What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say something like, "Yeah, you would say that, because you like cub art"
(put less kindly, perhaps more realistically, "because you're an icky cub-fucker")?
This is Cargo's issue (actually, this issue belongs to ALL of us, but that's a point I make further down); he's not going to take this lying down. Nor should he. He's going to defend himself and he's damn good at it. And he has supporters like me.
So is that all you've got to say to him?
You need to start thinking deeper. Go read more comics. Underground comics. :)
Rape fantasies, non-con fantasies have been a part of human behavior since there were humans. What do you think bondage gear is? it's equipment that facilitates a non-consensiual fantasy. You know what, right? I can go downtown and procure myself gear that someone could not remove themselves from without assistance. Legal! If you want to indict rape art, then congratulations, you;ve just indicted all fetish gear, every leather shop that sells stuff for you to get tired down with.
A little website full of furries didn't invent this phenomenon. You talk a lot, but you're not saying anything.
How did cub art acquire this magic power? It's really quite amazing.
Err, wait. That's the freudian penis. Superego is filled with crunchy bits.
YOU HAVE OFFENDED THE CHAIR LEG OF TRUTH.
Your icon has Spider Jerusalem glasses, I had really hoped from someone who likes Transmetropolitan to get a more intelligent INTERPRETATION on taboo porn than this, yeah sorry to put it to you like this but that's how I feel.
Following your logic leads us to come to the conclusion that an artist who uses fecal matter in paintings is thusly condoning and encouraging the use of feces in everyday application. NO NO NO NO NO, think harder man!
You should know better than this; you should know that every single individual has a DIFFERENT interpretation of an artistic work based on his or her SOCIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND and upbringing. A piece of art is just a THING, how we interpret it is as varied as it gets. To immediately equate its production and distribution with the condoning of the Reality X, THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS JOURNAL, is a mutually exclusive issue. They work in tandem and operate on an overt level only in the cases of the SERIOUSLY DERANGED.
Not all porn is taboo. Not all taboo is porn. Not everyone, not even all fetishists, gets off on something simply because they know/think/feel that it's "wrong". OF the people who DO, a vast majority of them have a grip on reality enough to know that Fantasy Y does not equal Reality X! And they are more than vocal about this line of separation, their cognizance thereof.
There are a HOST of factors that come into play in someone's fetish. Do not pigeonhole! Do not generalize! You're just making yourself look bad by doing so!
(I recently finished Transmet, loved it. Will acquire my own personal copies as soon as I gots the ducats to do so.)
Whoever believes, as you said, that "if you're into Fantasy X, then surely you're into Reality X" is clearly mistaking fantasy for reality and is guilty for what he accuses others.
The sad fact is is that the UK juditional system is extremely screwed up. If you mug someone and assault them you can get 18 monthes, but if you protect yourself against a mugger and hurt them, you could face a 5 years sentance.
It's all mute anyhow. The Extreme Pornography act of 2008 made the whole of FA illegal for viewing in the UK anyhow. As well as every single online profile page designed around people looking for fetish sex is illegal. Gaydar and Recon are illegal in the UK. So, really, it doesn't really matter if FA has cub porn or not.
Personally, I believe that they made those illegal to be used as prosecutable evidence in other matters.
Just more proof of what a sick mess the UK is.
*Sighs.*
I need to find a new place of residence.
If we want to talk about this on a philosophical level, I'd say there is a difference. On the one hand, while some may say that loli/shota are representations of humans, it can be argued that loli/shota is -- as a hand-drawn cartoon medium -- is purely an ABSTRACTION, not representative of reality. They do not exist, and their features are exaggerated to the point where the fantasy is immediately evident. Cub porn takes this abstraction to another level; there is NO doubt whatsoever that the subjects do not exist because they are cartoon animal people. Not the same thing at all, really, if you ask me.
It's very simple, really.
I'll tell you something. I was raised by very permissive parents. My parents told me I could do pretty much whatever I wanted, as long as it didn't hurt anybody else, as long as I didn't hurt myself, and as long as I called to let them know I'd be in late after my curfew.
My family raised me by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd have done to yourself. This is what holds our society together. We have survived this long and evolved this far because human beings have it in their best interests to help one another, rather than hurt each other to survive -- most of the time. When we decide to hurt, for whatever reason, that's when we are ostracized from the rest of society.
We're talking about artwork, here. Pictures. Drawn pictures of concepts, abstract concepts, which exist in a purely mental fantasy realm, albeit one that we share, publicly, because we happen to have so many members with such an interest in common. Drawn pictures of concepts which are not meant to represent individuals who exist in real life, and if reference is used it's abstracted to the point where it no longer becomes relevant to the end result (ideally). A different case can be made for art of underage children which is based on real photographs, but this is a much more clear cut case. Loli, shota, and cub art are deliberately and consciously abstracted in their execution to the point where it is absolutely clear that they are merely works of craft from a human being. Even if the art is not abstracted in a cartoony fashion, for example if the artist is trying to achieve a hyperrealistic effect, any person who can rub two brain cells together ought to be able to ascertain that the image is not representative of a real person being exploited. In loli/shota/cub there is no exploitation going on. It's lines on paper or pixels on a screen.
Sure, there are people who like the subject matter who are deviant enough to want to commit the act of finding child pornography or harming a real child. There are some who have, and have met the consequences. Both of them exist in our communities. They are but a miniscule minority among the rest of us with no inclination thereof, and that includes a vast majority of folks who like cub porn.
When material like this starts to get banned, however, that's when the laws begin to harm US. And that's where WE have to draw the line. And the reason why that is, is because it's a slippery slope downward spiral. The laws start to encompass more and more material until we'll find we have no where else to go. If this trend continues, all anthropomorphic art, whether it's adult or not, will be banned everywhere. And then what's next after that?
This is a serious First Amendment issue. I don't meant to say this in a condescending manner at all, because I sincerely love my British friends despite the ugly government that's out of their control, but it's just too bad that the UK government does not have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, because I have heard it is very, very hard to overturn any UK law.
One concern is that some artists use actual pictures as reference poses. And what if some of the cub artists do the same...
Innocent until proven guilty, that's how our laws work.
Of course, governments and law institutions would never cite the most potent source of violence, incest, crime and genocide as a factor; the Bible.
"Paranoia is just another word for ignorance." (Hunter S. Thompson)
Actually more to the point, dissenters of extreme porn ban are of the opinion that these issues are being rushed through for various reasons. Just like in the US, it's also true in the UK that controversial issues are hurried along because people are distracted by bigger things -- like elections. That's what we have happening here.
And of course there has to be something to scare the people; if the people are scared they'll want anything not to be scared, even if it means giving up freedoms piecemeal. Terror is the best weapon any government can use against its people... so wouldn't that make them "terrorists"???
Its a real legal issue that is putting real people at risk.
When it showed up I was mostly concerned about it due to my NON furry porn interests.
Well; learn something every day I guess.
Basically, antyhing that isn't vanilla.
Actually, I've been arguing this same point for the past two forevers. Not like it'll change much for many but the fact we agree on this topic is at least a step forward in showing others that fantasy always = fantasy and nothing more.
but, with cub porn, there isn't a way that the characters involved can give totally informed consent. am i suggesting that minors don't have the knowledge to make decisions in an intelligent and rational manner? absolutely. hell, we have people that are over the age of consent that fail to make fully informed decisions because it is very rare for a person in that general age range to have the experience to weigh all the possible outcomes.
do i feel this way with excessive violence as well? yes. what about rape? yes. because they do not portray informed consent (and of course, you can easily apply this to images of beastiality as well.)
the whole thing with cub-porn is that it also inflames people's sensibilities. people can argue till they're blue in the face but no matter how you slice it, there isn't enough information available to anyone to help settle the matter in an intelligent manner.
still, what it all boils down to is not wether it's right or wrong, it's wether it's legal or not. and as it seems is the case with the UK, it is now illegal (which i thrill at seeing being done. yes, i'm biased.) so,. i guess the matter is now how does the site (since that seems to always be what the discussion revolves around) is going to do to address this. do you keep the status quo and potentially risk users in the UK from being branded sexual offenders? or do you change things up, incense a small minority of users for the sake of a greater slice of users not having to either leave or risk a criminal record?
i do not envy you in this position. it seems that no matter what's chosen, you're going to catch hell on this one. but hey, i guess that's where the whole "you made your bet, now you have to sleep in it" adage comes in.
marinaded in tears and terror!
and that's a good thing.
Fantasy~
As stated previously in this journal, so are rape, guro, and other violent-sexual images. Basically, FA's adult, extreme fetish-based community as a whole became illegal material to the UK in 2008 under the Extreme Pornography act of 2008. So if it's a question of the legality of artworks x and y, then any violent-sexual act on FA is subject to consideration under UK standards.
In the end, however, anon and the trolls will find one reason or another to make fun of the furry subculture / fan-base / community / etc. Why? We're a collective of (mostly) adult humans who find ourselves reflecting our imaginations (and / or erotic fantasies) in the realm of humanoid animal characters (or popular cartoon animals). Of course some people are going to laugh and try to find something wrong with 'furries'. It's a silly idea in the end, and not easily understood by outside observers.
Ignore the idiots who must ruin the fun for everybody else, and just enjoy what you enjoy.
Like Batman.
But the rest of superheroworld and superhero fandom..... silly.
So down with the propaganda and on with the porn!
Regards,
~Kryos Syrella
(On an aside, strictly speaking a fetish is a psychological term for something non-genital that one can not achieve orgasm without or an object that is said to contain a spirit. A kink is what most people are referring to when mentioning deviant sexual preferences or behavior.)
Fetishes are strange to start with, and as you said, are generally experienced through fantasy. That those who are making the larger decisions don't bother to differentiate between fantasy and reality, which is what the real issue is.
(on a side note, we really need to get a scat and/or farting tag in the browse menu)
And I totally agree with you on this matter! Let the people post what they want. If you don't like it, suck it up. That simple. There are things on here I dont agree with, but I dont petition against them because they are profane to me in some way. Guess what? A large chunk of the internet hates FA entirely! Now how would you feel if they decided they wanted to petition for its closing, hmm?
Because that bothers me. And it can be tied to me.
tell me, do you enjoy people laughing at you? cause any judge would do probably exactly that if it ever got to that point.
you have to remember, you do not have complete and total freedom in the western world.
And yes, I am well aware I'd better get tagging myself.
I'd hate to say that, as I read this, all I could think was that FA would only last as long as freedom does. But, to be perfectly honest and truthful, I can see FA, and most furry communities, organizations, etc. ending long before "freedom" does. (( Seeing as, as you've explained, evil is always seen as one topic at a time )) So, basically, what I'm trying to say is that the freedom of this site is no more freedom than what "The Man" will allow, and that freedom for one is not freedom for all.
But, in fair warning, I'm not even sure if what I said will make sense to anyone.
as much as one can rail against what's right and wrong, they're still expected to obey the laws of the country in which they reside. failure to do so results in the consequences.
as fallacious as this entire topic and it's arguments presented are, there is one realization that people keep forgetting. the law is the law and you're expected to abide by it.
but hey, i'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before legislation like this hits american shores. what then?
i dunno, this whole issue is and always was a huge clusterfuck. on one side you have the radical left arguing like an ACLU nutjob about freedoms (conveniently ignoring that the law is the law) and on the other hand you have the ones that dispise the shit like nothing else (For whatever reason)
it's almost like the middle ground is having this grand game of tug-of-war where the loser is guaranteed to act all butthurt.
still, the way i see it, cub-porn brings nothing to the table and there ARE many other sites that cater specifically to it... so, why not just hedge one's bets and let those sites deal with it. at least there there would likely not be such a debate as to it being freedom or whatever. and the whole "it's freedom" argument is completely flawed because nobody (well, maybe Somalians) has total and complete freedom.
nobody is banned from drawing it, anyone is free do create the art... but, the law is wether you're allowed to distribute it (and in this case, distribute it online.)
if there's someone that wants to draw the most repugnant and illegal thing they can think of, unless they try to distribute it, they're going to be fine because this isn't a case of thoughtcrime or whatever (since, once you act on a thought, it no longer IS a thought, it's action.)
i'm sure there are pedophiles out there that are drawing little doodles of what they want to do to children... and really, there is nothing anyone can do to stop that. but, they CAN be stopped from distributing it or displaying it. that's a huge point that seems to be overlooked in this entire debate/argument/bitchfest.
now, granted, art like Ediskrad used to post would probably pass since i will (Grudgingly) agree that he is a talented artist (though his subject matter is revolting.) but there are enough cases of cub porn that would easily fail to pass the miller test. so, if you were to look at it as a whole, it would be difficult to get it outlawed... but if you took it on a case by case basis, chances are there would be enough to warrant action against those whom created it.
and really, if ever there was a case that came up, i would presume that it would be considered on a case by case basis and it would paint a rather ugly picture of whomever it is that's trying to defend their actions. but hey, i'm only armchair lawyering here and i am by no means a legal scholer of any stripe... so my personal views on the law are only what i've been able to piece together and is not indicative of anything true or correct. it's only opinion.)
But, I'm not saying that these laws should be uplifted. I'm simply stating a... prediction, I suppose could describe it. Maybe not soon, maybe not in this lifetime, or the next. But it'll surely happen, right?
And I realize how far-fetched this actually sounds, but it's a possibility.
it's only a matter of time before we CAN monitor everyone's everything. now, wether we actually decide to use it is another argument entirely.
Well said bro o/
Well "dont throw bricks when you live in a glass house."...
yeah, i agree with lintu, i wish i could favorite this journal... neer, make that function aviable sometime, lol!~
but yes, fantasy=fantasy.. it shouldnt go to real stuff.
you love cubs and how sexy they are? okay, but dont make it with a REAL human.
even I with vore think it wouldn't be a good idea to tell God to make us able to devour others. much less unbirthing.
as long as no one else is afected in RL then it should be okay
all i gotta say is
i like seeing zoophilia but i wouldn't dare to touch my dog.
i love vore but i wouldn't dare to eat a barbie doll.. or an alive lizard... just to show how great it is.
in conclusion... fantasy=fantasy and SOOOO shouldn't be a RL fetish.
shikka cannot die by a bazooka misile... in fact it just pushes her back. she can eat things larger than her, and can shapeshift.
however pedro leonel Crespo Rivera can easly explode into a millon of burned pieces of meat if it's hit by the same... in fact.. and arrow can kill him..
pedro cant either eat things larger than him... he would instead get eaten by that larger thing if its a living creature instead. and cannot shapeshift, the most he can do is putting his leckbehind his neck [lol]
shikka=fantasy
Pedro Leonel Crespo Rivera= Real guy who can die by anything.
I can say this though, I would LOVE... LOVE if there was a place in our individual control panels, that we could drop a list of keywords that we do not want to have show up for us, so if we put "cub" "vore" "inflation" whatever into that list, it didn't show up on the homepage for us, or in our search results, etc. I know you folks have lots on your plate plan-wise for this site, but I'd love it if that was taken into consideration in the future, and I think it'd drop a lot of the drama about the subjects if people just didn't have to trip over art of the subjects they don't agree with all the time.
Thanks a lot Dragoneer! c:
Nice icon btw.
Yeah- there is a link to the maker on my profile. Maybe she is still taking these commissions?
You're entirely correct as well. I've put up my own journal regarding this. Admittedly my stance may be slightly different from yours but I decided at the very beginning I would avoid the whole morality debate and concentrate on the "why" and the legal one.
I just hope we're not setting ourselves up for something serious... then again the way laws are getting written these days the way we eat lunch could land us in jail next year for all we know.
I don't enjoy the cub thing a whole lot, but I don't jump down someone's throat because they do.
'Cause that I probably WOULD like, if you get what I'm sayin'.
I have always been of the opinion that the furry fandom is welcoming and accepting to a fault. No matter what your kink, no matter what your fetish, no matter what your fantasy, you are accepted here. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. There are certain behaviors and fantasies that are shunned by society because they are unpopular, misunderstood, or unusual, such as homosexuality, BSDM, and a variety of other things which society has at large struggled to accept. There are other behaviors and fantasies that are shunned by society because they are destructive and harmful, like pedophilia. Some people might make the argument that society regarded things like homosexuality as destructive and harmful as well, but I think that is quite a weak argument and I will not waste my breath arguing the lack of moral equivalency between homosexuality and pedophilia.
For the purpose of this discussion I'll categorize the fantasies depicted in art on FA into two categories. Firstly, there are the fantasies which cannot be real, such as macro/micro, vore (and lets avoid the cannibalism arguments here, it just doesn't happen often enough to be worth discussing), and others. Might some people find these strange or unusual? Sure. Do any of them exist in real life? No.
Secondly, there are the fantasies which can be real, such as BDSM, rape, cub, etc. The important distinction is consent. Flogging, chains, and even "rape" fantasies can be arranged to occur in a consensual way between adults who share those fantasies. And for the record, I don't know a single person into "rape" in fantasy, who actually is turned on by the idea of a complete stranger forcing him or her to have sex. Furthermore, all of these fantasies, except one, can be done in a safe and healthy way for all parties involved.
Children and adults having sex can never be consensual. I'm not talking about borderline age of consent 16 or 17 year olds having sex with adults here. I'm talking about early teen and preteen children. Not only can such sexual encounters not legally, or ethically be consensual, they are very well documented by mental health professionals as being EXTREMELY harmful to the child involved.
Now the leap here is connecting pedophilia as a behavior with cub art. I don't think this is exactly a tremendous leap. Anyone who is even remotely connected to the news knows that pedophiles thrive in and flock to welcoming environments on the internet where they can pursue their fantasies anonymously. Does anyone here honestly, truly think that the vast majority of the people who get off on cub art have absolutely no pedophilic desires or fantasies? Does anyone here really think that there isn't a large population of pedophiles who take refuge in places like this? I will not sit here any say that EVERYONE who likes cub art is a pedophile, I don't believe that to be true in the slightest. What I do believe is that cub art attracts those types of people and gives them an avenue to pursue those fantasies. This is not something that should be encouraged, welcomed, or accepted.
I have no sympathy, tolerance, or remorse for pedophiles or their fantasies. Pedophiles who act out their fantasies belong in jail. Pedophiles who don't act out their fantasies need professional mental health treatment. What pedophiles do NOT need is to have their fantasies encouraged, welcomed, or accepted by anyone.
Not in my fandom. Many of us have fantasies that are not popular, and we group together and enjoy our assorted fantasies together under the common umbrella of being furry. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Not all fantasies should be accepted or welcomed by the furry fandom.
This is not your fandom, it is something that you choose to participate in. You're just justifying your own morality. The point of the journal was that furry, the whole of furry in terms of anathropomorphic artwork, is fantasy. You are not being forced to like any particular fantasy here, you are not being asked to do so, but you still feel inclined to justify your morality and would otherwise demonize or denigrate other people on the site.
You waved a hand at things you could, never mind this or that, because I can justify it in my mind. This is what people who would deny homosexuality based on the bible do. They find where they sit comfortably in their own morality and then find something to argue against and vilify it because they just have no way to accept it. Which is logical, that's what people do, however, don't consider yourself any better than those people because you're not acting any better in the process. Try fighting the fight against the real thing and leave fantasy alone. Those who can distinguish between reality and fiction are managing well enough, and you ought to as well.
Once again, this isn't your fandom.
If we shore it from the platitude's religious foundation, it implies that no judgment (throwing of stones) is appropriate in any situation due to everyone's equally flawed nature. The end result of such a slippery slope is that of absolute relativism. A common theme in such a belief can be summed up as that I can never judge you by my own standards, or for that matter, by any standard, because all standards are essentially equally true or false.
Consider the implications of this: If you dislike gay people, I have no right to judge you based on that, the same as if you thought the KKK was a group of pretty cool guys, or any other situation which naturally we seem to find distasteful. The fact that we find anything distasteful at all shows that we do not operate in a relativistic manner. We are judging creatures, and history seems to be a tapestry of humanity trying to discovery the best social agreement between people. Though sometimes this discovery has come from dubious means (such as the point of a gun), judging from where we have come from, we seem to be progressing.
However, the root of this phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is by its nature religious. It's meaning implies that people should not form laws of their own but instead only answer to a source of conduct that is generated from someone without sin, which in this case, was meant the God of Abraham. In this case, all of those things that Dragoneer mentioned in his post, such as the condemnation of homosexuality, the keeping of slaves, etc, should be the way things go, because only he who is without sin is allowed to judge.
Is this a good thing??
At first glance over your reply I thought you were being satirical and playing off my cues...
My friend, I think you're reading into it a bittttt much. But that's the, indeed, dangerous thing about the Bible, innit? It seems to happen that way all the time. But I chose to use these words because 1) they're well-known 2) they clearly-enough illustrate what I'm trying to say about hypocrisy. You get the gist of what I'm saying, you don't have to take it so literally. It wasn't meant to be. Nor should the law treat such words so literally. I take "do unto others as you'd have done unto yourself" much more deeply to heart.
With regards to your relativism, you're absolutely right in its application, and whether we take the saying in its original context with the implication of real sin and virtue, that everyone's nature is equally flawed still holds true regardless. Thanks for your input.
If you want the freedom to fantasize as you will, and for others to respect you (though not necessarily accept it, but respect) then you better be prepared to give the same in return.
If you refuse to give pedophiles who do NOT act on their fantasies the freedom to JUST fantasize and if you refuse to respect those people regardless of what they may be into, then it doesn't matter WHAT you accept, you've just given any and everyone every reason not to allow you your fantasizes, and not to respect you.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong at some pedophiles looking cub or loli/shota porn. Child porn isn't prohibited because it would engourage pedophiles to commit illegal sexual acts with underaged, but because, in case of photography and videos, it mentally and physically hurts the children photographed or videoed. The big difference between this and art is, that artist drawing cub or whatever erotica hurts no one. If someone has pedophilic fantasies, cutting off the porn (or trying, as it practically can't be done) definetly doesn't help.
If somebody just likes cub and illustreted child porn but never assaults children, I can see no problem. If somebody goes and rapes a child, it's not because he watched too much pornography. PEDOPHILIA IS NOT A FETISH, like bdsm or the like. Pedophilia is a paraphilia, like vore is; no matter what happens, a vorarephile will always like vore to some extent. You can directly compare it to someone liking boobis. Or dicks.
tl;dr:
Porn or it's watchers isn't the problem with pedophilia, it's the makers of porn and committers of sexual crimes, because that's what hurts children.
Just because you have difficulty separating a fantasy roleplayed on a muck from an actual crime, doesn't mean the rest of us have that trouble. The problem's on your end, mister fandom auxillary policeman.
"You're engaging in this atavistic othering to prop up your ego"
...you're...you're kidding me right? this whole journal is just a giant hug box
The keyword system is a joke and it entirely useless and it relies on people actually thinking up the words themselves and spelling them correctly.
Give us a tickbox tag system like YG! has and let us filter out the stuff we hate.
I approve this journal. :3
<3
Lol, I dunno why some people complain that having an admin that actually talks their mind is a bad thing :x
the slavery bit... you'd be surprised with the amount of people on here who are probably also into the bdsm community, where there are people who give themselves as willing "slaves" to masters. there are MANY rules about this, and strict regimes to be carried out for the safety of the submissives, so it's not like slavery back in the 1800's, and is somehow pleasurable for the parties involved. usually the master has to know what (s)he's doing though, or things could go very wrong.
for the rest... there are actually a surprising amount of people who believe they are their character/animal... >.>
and yes, most cub stuff is not stuff i look at, but if i see a cute picture of a cub being a cub, it's like seeing a picture of my nephew doing something toddlerish :) just adorable, cause baby animals are adorable, and baby humans are adorable, so why not baby anthros? all the people who involve their cub chars in adult images are just silly though. cubs have no place in that kind of imagery >:C and that's something that i feel makes a negative image for the fandom, when nonfurs see things like that. they just make negative conclusions from it. :(
ima stop rambling now.
>.>
Good question. Makes me wonder how fuzzy the line would be to see loli/cub of a young neko girl who just has ears and a tail but is otherwise human. Slippery stuff.
What I'm asking is, if we say that humans and demi-humans are banned subjects, but furries are not, this implies that furries exist in a category like 'non-human'. What I'm asking than is, what exactly counts as a non-human vs human or demi-human?
I think in that case they fall under the "mythical beasts" category. Like dragons and unicorns, or even closer to home, werewolves. We acknowledge that they have some human features and call them "anthropomorphic", but they're not actually related to humans. Or at least, that's what's implied. I can think of exceptions, but most of the time we leave the details out and leave it at the abstract fantasy realm. Magic.
((As an aside, what I think is interesting about furry art is that a vast majority of the time, the characters are sentient. They're cognizant of their surroundings, their counterparts, and the consequences of their actions. This is more often than not the case no matter how feral or anthropomorphic the animal might be. This is one of the most fascinating and endearing bits I found in 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox'. He was an ambitious character with a lot of ego. .... and he was also a wild animal. And Mr. Fox openly acknowledged that. It was such a brilliant dichotomy.))
I suppose what's bothering me is that there doesn't seem to be a clear division between furry and near human; If we ban elves, then we should ban Nekos by extension, but anthromorphism is a sliding scale, so one person might have a neko fursona, another might have a neko, but with full body fur, another might have... etc, all the way to mere talking animals.
Sorry, but reading that just reminded me about a northics picture going over the subject. It was actually meant as a take on Neer's banning of shota/loli human stuff but applies to your question too I think.
WARNING: Does contain nude cub, but done for humorous purposes and no sexuality.
http://d.facdn.net/art/norithics/12.....cs_gwenaup.jpg
Again not 100% sure but this is what I've gathered over the years.
and I hope FA will never change this policy because it is comforting to know, no matter how fucked up our Governments get in their crusade for "wholesomeness", as long as the US doesn't play along with Europe, Australia, Canada or other countries when it comes to such laws, they will ultimately fail! They will never be able to plug up all the holes in their little filter and cencorship schemes and as long as the stuff they are cencoring still exists somewhere on the web their efforts are naught and that gives anyone who is in fear of such developments the one thing they need most, hope!
I've tried to state this same idea several times, but my brain will either A: outhtink my mouth/hands or B: view the concept in a way that I have difficulty finding the right vocabulary to express said concept. You have pulled it off beautifully.
I love the furry fandom. I am drawing anthro airplanes again. I love werewolves and depending on how it is portrayed, I enjoy bondage and homosexual art to a certain extent. In reality, the closest I come to being a 'furry' is my husband...he's REALLY HAIRY. Like...almost Robin Williams hairy. I think airplanes are awesome, but I don't get aroused by them. I could also be considered 'boring' in the sack and though I would find it entertaining to fondle some other woman's boobs, I don't swing that way.
Fantasy is fantasy. It doesn't exist and really most people in the fandom know that. But unfortunately its the handful of true freaks that actually fuck dogs, get off on child pornography and face conundrums of engine noise and hot sucking power vs. the consequences to their genitals on their vacuums that usually make the headlines and spoil it for the normal people.
I will be posting links to this here and there to spread the knowledge that just becasue you draw X fetish does not mean you are into that fetish in Reality Y.
You are a god among men. :D
If only users would tag properly tho.. Dont really mind the missuse of tags, at least they got something somewhat revelant, its the blank tags that buggs me.
Well said! And cheers for being honest with your opinion - too many admins/site owners would just say they're staying neutral and be idiots, I'm glad you've gone to the trouble of making an awsum speach for us hordes of idiots!
Have a man! - Well deserved
Remember a few years back when they tried to Ban certain video games because some groups thought that kids would go out and Steal cars, go on shooting sprees, Beat up hookers and steal their money? Or that playing D&D would make Tom Hanks go crazy?
There will always be a section of society who look at something and say "NO! Don't!! It's EEEVIL!!", contrarily there will also be the section that shouts "YES! It's Totally Alright, be free to do anything you want to.", But it's the people who stand in the middle and shout "YOU'RE BOTH IDIOTS. Use your own Bloody judgment." that will come out on top. It's like Jim Carreys old standup sketch about Crazy Versus sane...
About 4:45
I am in full love of the furry fandom, I draw anthro dragons and wolves, foxen and roos, but I do not condone and am against people actually laying with an animal, as said in the Holy Bible, its is severely wrong to do have sexual relations with an animal, not only is it immoral, it is sickening, but the Holy Bible does not state anything about us in the furry fandom, it is in my belief, going by all the kind, loving furries I know and am friends with, the lord would be proud of the majority of us for all the people we've helped around the world.
You are a very intelligent man, Dragoneer. I feel in my heart that you know what is right, I shall pray for you, for everyone that this will end okay and that their shall not be another schism between two or more parties.
I feel this way because the simple psychological fact is, the more you think, dream and seek out information about something, the more likely you are to act on it when presented with the situation/opprotunity. It's the same as steeling yourself to talk back to your boss when they yell at you again, or piping up to that one guy/gal you've had a crush on for a long time but finally have the right words in your head at the right moment when you can get them alone, and so on. At first it's a big leap to act on it and too scary/difficult to act on, but as you prepare yourself more and more emotionally for the act (even if you don't mean to) it becomes something more easy for you to act on later down the road.
All of the sudden the situation isn't nearly so scary to you any more because you know what words you want to use, if you're going to go back to school or have a different job to go to if your boss fires you for talking back to them, or where you kept the duct tape and box cutter in the car when you're driving along and see a child all alone at that bus stop just waiting to be kidnapped. Even if you would never do it normally, the fact that it's so much easier to think of and act on now is what allows it to slip past your inhibitions before you can think too much and realize it's a bad idea.
This isn't something the police can deal with, though. The police can't read minds or empathize with random strangers as they pass by them in their patrol car. It's up to us to pay attention to those around us and see those signs and warning signals, and not just for things like child buggering. As a community we need to make sure it's know that fantasy is okay, but fantasy conveyed to reality (even in their own head) is wrong.
This is something we need to establish again and again on occasion through anything from PSA's to journals to art, and people who wander too far from what's acceptable should be excluded. Only those who are closest to these people can see these signals and help them, and with the furry community so close-knit online it comes down to all of us to help those around us healthily draw the line between fantasy and reality (good tip: leave fantasy at the computer - all of it).
In all honesty, I find that the internet restrictions should lean more towards piracy websites, such as the Pirate Bay, which was under restriction by many ISPs during their case. There is laws that cover piracy already, but the websites promote the unlawful actions.
Just my opinion, which also shows that I view one evil or quality, while someone may see another entirely. It's our nature to do it. I'm an Atheist, but my Bible class, which is a required course, recently had a similar discussion about God. People pick and choose the qualities of God, and that's what they worship. They may not want to think about a wrathful nature or other qualities they don't like.
Well, I don't know - if I were given the option to turn into an eastern dragon and jack off my many cocks for a day I'd probably jump at the chance! Though I see where you're getting at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzb.....eature=related
Link related.
I like cutesy stuff too and I had someone tell me once "Well, you watch these artists, you must be a baby fur or be into it" and I was like "UH NO... I just like cute stuff" and they acted like they didn't believe me and it aggravated me. And, this aggravates me too, people think just because you draw baby fur art and diapers, it means your into it. Same thing applies there... just because they draw it, doesn't mean they are into it, because money is money, no matter what you draw for it. I've had people unwatch artist friends and send them nasty message when they have CLEARLY posted they are ok with drawing things but they aren't into them.
Would tails be considerd cub cause in some games he's 8-12, this whole cub thing is stupid, people saying cub should be banned should look at what site they're on.
"It's either the entire package or it's none at all." - Thats a liberal extremist sort of characteristic. That either everyone should have it one way.....or if not everyone can have it,no one should.
I agree with you completely on regarding the site. Its not for everyone....and if it doesnt suit that person, go elsewhere. But unfortunately cocky self centered politicians whom are pushing for a one world government believe that opressing its people so that they have no freedom of expression, speech, religion, etc...so that everyone will be happy living in Koombiyah town.
I'd rather that fantasy remains as it is, just a fantasy, and not a reality.
If someone doesn't like a certain thing, then whatever, that's their own deal. Doesn't mean they can do much about it.
Let people do as they want, as long as it's reasonable and stuff.
It all just comes down to a matter of self control...
Luckily, I have tons of that.
Makes me wonder why they haven't just gone and banned all the porn in the world already.
That would be an interesting sight, actually...
And if we are gonna gang up on something as evil can't we please make fun of the Navi otherkin? Now THERE is some true evil. (JK of course)
also is "cub" and "Cub porn" terms that mean the same thing or is there a distinction
and is all art with underage characters considered " cub " Like a father holding a baby or someone walking a child along the beach or even just a pick of a child playing where is the line drawn cause i have heard the words Cub art used to describe many things.
Well said.
You know, I was listening to lecture just the other day about how normal, stable, mentally healthy people deal with urges and fantasies that may harm the general public or themselves. A normal, stable person will usually try to channel this into some other form. How do you think we get awesome slasher movies with blood and gore? Some one had to think of that idea, to plan it out, to write it down. Are they 'sick' for having this idea of slaughtering people? Generally we don't think so, because they've turned their ideas into something tangible without hurting someone in real life. Steven King, the Lord of Horror himself, says that he gets inspiration from the worst possible situation he can think of, then writing it down. He takes his disturbing thoughts, pens them down, and makes millions for it! You may not like Saw or Steven King books, but generally you don't think of their creators as a danger to society.
It's when unstable, unhealthy people decide to act on their disturbing thoughts that there is a problem. We call those people Psychopaths (or Sociopaths, though they are virtually the same thing as I understand it). They have urges that are destructive and violent and act them out on other people. These people already frankly do not regard or respect the laws of man or appropriate action. People like Jeffery Dhamer, who murdered and ate people. Eating people is NOT a healthy way to express yourself. If you are a healthy individual, chances are good you're not going to go out, stab someone, then drag them back to your lair to feast on their delicious flesh. It's the psychopaths that do this, and they make up less than 1% of people walking around on the street today.
Basically, people who are going to murder, to rape, to molest children, and eat other people, are people that already have problems with them already. They're also the people who are most likely to disregard the law anyway. Your average, normal, healthy, everyday guy isn't the one you need to worry about. If a healthy individual has a fantasy, they'll carry it out in a controlled environment that doesn't harm others. If their fetish happens to be children, this fantasy is expressed by having a good wank to pictures of lion cubs jerking each other off, and that's the end of it. Someone who has all their marbles isn't then going to get up, go out, and rape a child. By banning something altogether you're not stopping those who would act on it, you're only depriving the otherwise healthy people from their 'safe' outlet.
That was wonderful.
I can't check my journals without seeing loads and piles of drama over this fucking topic. And you PROMISED that this fucking debate wouldn't happen again. You even administered bans in the forums for it.
Please keep this promise to KEEP THE PEACE. Clarify the rule changes and discourage further argument and discussion. Seek legal advice for your decisions, not moral outcry, and LET PEOPLE ENJOY FA IN PEACE, WITHOUT BEING FORCEFULLY TIED UP IN DRAMA POLITICS!
First rule of Internet, don't like, don't look. :D
Nobody has to contribute! But everyone has a voice, and an opinion, and by god even if we can have total "where freedom of expression reigns" anymore, at the very least our opinions will be heard. Relax! Don't do it! When you wanna go through it!
But it won't go the fuck away.
Not hearing the Cub Lovers vs. Lynch Mob bullshit rear it's fucking head every five goddamned seconds.
At this stage, i'd gladly let them ban all cub, vore, gore, and violence art just to SHUT EVERYONE UP!
Eventually people will start attacking this site as a horrible place and should be taken down and will point to the porn etc. and i hope your ready to defend that. It's the same thing here in Aus with our efforts to bring in an 18+ classification to our video games, but old people think blood in left 4 dead, and raplay, a video game releasing nowhere else in japan, is a bigger case than underage drinking and will cause us all to be violent in real life.
When the baby boomer generation is gone, and we are left with the more technological people of society in place, hopefully everything will change and the internet wont seem like a massive hate and weird porn machine to the wider society.
But untill then, It's gonna be one hell of a ride... Frankly i wouldn't be surprised that within the next ten years we are just left with email systems for internet. Purely for email. Cause that's what 40+ use the internet for. And that's ok.
thank you
Also, you need to get your coders to provide a way to favorite journals. I CAN'T FAVORITE THE HEAD ADMIN'S RIGHTEOUS JOURNAL, THIS IS A TRAVESTY
ALSO I WILL MAKE THE FAEFOO COOKIES IF I CAN MAKE IT TO AC AND SHE REMINDS ME. BECAUSE. LOUD INTERNET NOISES.
People need to learn that Fantasy is not the same as reality. I am not into beastiality, but I like seing anthro furries making love to humans or each other, I am not a rapist but I enjoy a fictional piece about being controlled. I am not violent but I have been known to either look at or draw a violent image. It's fantasy. I would never hurt anyone, that isn't me. It's a shame that the government while thinking they are doing good are just hurting the cause more. I will cry when the Freedom of Expression is completely dead. When someone gets caught with a drawing of a fictional child... say... Lisa Simpson, who is the "pedophile" hurting? The victim is a piece of paper. Ban child pornography all they want... that's a good thing but banning art or fiction is... not what I feel is kosher. One site I go to, there was the whole shota issue and with use of filters it got settled. The only form of shota that was banned was the kind made with 3d models... like poser.
I know it's more work, but give filters a thought, I know I am not the only one to suggest it. It would save on a lot of people whining about cub art or scat or gore... Thank you for writing this journal.
You don't have any idea of what you're trying to say even.
Otherwise, you a bitchass nigga who doesn't know what he's trying to say. Put up or shut up as the saying goes. Enlighten us plebes to your staggering wisdom or get lost.
You never had an argument to begin with. So when someone calls you on your bs, you act like it's beneath you to answer. That lets you keep up the smug self-righteous act.
Guess what kid? It don't work that way.
I'll forgive you though if you do come through and "enlighten" us "plebes" to your new fresh interpretation of this whole retarded debate though.
And just for the record, it took entirely to long for my ED article to happen. Plus they had to get outside help for it to happen in the first place. From some SL trolls who've only succeeded in getting me on a mailing list for Gerber and sending a few proselytizers to pester my parents. That's all that's come of it, well, other than the occasional "OLOLOLOLOLOL I TROL U" kid.
Godspeed brave little firefly.
People tend to be to narrow minded with the concept of freedom, as I have seen it its usually interpreted as "I have the freedom to do and say what ever I want to anyone, but if they do it to me, that's crazy nazi bullshit!" They way way waaay to often forget that the concept of "Freedom" also includes the freedom to live without being harassed, bullied or otherwise attacked. In other words, ones freedom ends where the next persons begins, a long forgotten concept in this day and age.
http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/.....e/apology.html
In the 50s society was absolutely patriarchal, and men were often able to sexually abuse minors with impunity--this depended on the sexual ignorance of minors, the inability of mothers or the young to circumvent male authority when seeking justice, and the fact that discussing sexual matters was so taboo that one didn't even possess the knowledge that what had happened was even a crime. As women gained ground socially and politically in the 70s and 80s, men began to find themselves unable to ensure the silence of their victims, and began to face exposure and prosecution. Sexual education in the schools became a way to make young people savvy enough to finally detect the motives of predators, to understand what was being sought and why. With the arrival of the internet, kids definitely became their own best educators on sex, and now many young people grasp the nature of pedophiles and has a willingness to go to the authorities when they face danger. A level of knowledge about sex that was once only accessible to men became a weapon that could be wielded back at them.
By turning back the clock, by using laws to deny access to the information and the images, the patriarchal system has found a way to make kids ignorant, easy victims once more. Look at any attempt to keep a group of people uneducated and tell me it isn't to make them easier to exploit.
The rest of your post... I'm not too sure what to say about it. I can see that you're trying to say knowledge and power, and burying the existence of child pornography can cause ignorance... Or if I missed the point, enlighten me...
but to set the record straight. the old testament of the bible is more of a history section. the new testament laws are what you are supposed to obey. i dont think most people know that. im not here to argue but thats why there are 2 different testaments in the bible.
That said, I agree with you; the thought of some of the fetishes on here make me feel quite ill, but it's not my place to tell anyone what they should or should not fantasize about; however, if they act on some of these impulses, then they deserve what's coming. I think that's fair enough; if you don't like it, don't look at it, but if you do like it, don't force it down on someone who doesn't like it and certainly don't break the law to act on it. It's as easy as that.
We call it...the Ludivico treatment. Someday you may become an upright AMURRICAN OORAH.
dragoneer you are all over this site wow also I agree I'm glad to see your stance on the matter *thumb up*
1) being associated with pedophiles
2) furry fandom being associated with pedophilia -> even worse reputation
3) FA being blocked by goverment officials (of countries that use internet cencorship) for being a possible child porn site
4) FA users being added to police watch list, and their computers being confiscated for further investigations
5) etc, other problems with authorities
Child porn is THE hot topic of the day. Modern witch hunters are on the move, looking for potential child abusers and the sociaty has nearly lost it's sense of proportian about the matter. An individual who wants to avoid trouble needs to be careful when speaking out, otherwise the crowd may quickly associate him with pedophiles, or at least think he's a pedophile synpatizer.
*sigh* I just hate moral panics....
I think banning cub porn would be a purely political move. It would mean, that the FA staff is willing to bend over backwards to avoid trouble with the authorities. It would be an unfortunate and a somewhat shameful manoeuvre, but it might just be a necessary one.
And I agree, witch hunts are going on right now and courage is needed, even more so in such a climate. Courage to tell and stand for the truth even though it is unpopular right now.
I'd wager a good sum of cash that Furaffinity will end up on government filters even if there is not one cub pic in sight because these filters are NOT designed to block "child porn" per se. They are designed to block anything that is "legally questionable" and furry porn will land there because of anti-beastiality laws.
In my opinion it won't be a question of "how can we try to prevent things by being complacent" it will be a question of " how can we try to bypass government and law enforcement monitoring without the risk of becoming a blink on the radar and ensure the safety of our members." That will unfortunately be the furture for us, alas, the people on the web are clever and programs are in development right now that will make sure that no government will ever be able to restrict the web again in the future. People on the web will find a way to show the governments around the world that the web will NOT be controlled by them. It means a lot of changes for us users. In the future we will have to take meassurements to secure or data more firmly, to make sure every little byte on our computers are inaccessible without our consent and we will have to make sure that we leave no traces on the web. It won't be easy but it can be done!
The concept, rather, is that I don't believe certain concepts should be encouraged or supported IF said concepts are possible in RL. Some of the fantasies that exist here are just that; fantasies. They're not possible to be performed, and so no, I have no problem with them. For example, I like soft vore. At no point in time have I ever heard of someone swallowing another person whole, nor do I think it could be done.
On the flip side is my personal peeve, which is pedophilia. This is both completely possible in RL and has happened a lot. Though I'm not saying everyone who is into the concept is foolish enough to try it, I believe it is possible to... I suppose the word is encourage it. To build up someone to the point of trying it, or to keep that idea alive in their mind until it becomes an option or possibility. With the number of underaged types here as well (we all know they're lurking around) I can't help but think certain concepts plant some bad ideas in some very fertile minds that already have few boundaries in place.
If something considered a fetish here has a chance to bring unwanted harm to someone else, yeah, I'm gonna be against it. Keep in mind that someone who is the pet in an abusive master/pet relationship doesn't qualify for me, as most of those people went in knowing what they were in for. Other similar situations fall under this as well. As long as it's two consenting adults, though I might wince at what they are letting themselves be put through or what they are doing to the other person, it's their knowing choice.
Usually for me, it's when something is going on that can be done in RL, where someone is showing a huge interest in it happening, and where someone who isn't going to be given a choice in the matter (or a choice that isn't really one) is being pushed into the act.
I don't *think* there's anything I consider ok that's something "evil"... maybe quirky or weird to someone else, but not harmful or dangerous.
Mostly, I'm honked because any litmus test will always go too far in the interest of effectiveness and safety. You literally CANNOT come up with a means by which to grade art accurately in all cases. That's no ones fault, it's the nature of the beast. There will be carnage and hurt feelings no matter what you do, but I see no other recourse because the alternative is risking the site itself...which is unacceptable in ANY case.
Do what you must...most of us know and grasp that you are making the best calls you can in a situation with very few clear parameters. Good on ya (just beware of 'mission creep', because letting the fervor for cleaning house fall into pandering to various peoples personal pet peeves will only lead to mass defections. Be as concise and surgical as you can.)
It isn't that people can't separate fantasy from reality. The issue is with people's motivations for posting and seeking out this kind of pornography. It legitimizes lusting after children-- even if they're fantasy/anthro/whatever. If the point is to stimulate the viewer sexually, and the images are of children, then it's a form of child pornography.
It really annoys me when people are talking about "expressing themselves" and calling it "art." Just because you drew something on a tablet doesn't make it "art." If the purpose of a photograph or work of creative art is to stimulate sexually, then it's no longer art, but pornography. If the aim of the drawing is to express some emotion, or to convey a message (other than "fap to this") then it may well be art. But it's hard to talk about "expressing yourself" when your entire gallery is of children engaging in sex. Just what are you expressing?
And it is moot, because this argument keeps coming up. And it's always the same points from both sides. And... nothing has come of it. FA still allows cub art and various other things that would be illegal in the real world (snuff, gore, explicit heavy drug use, zoophilia, etc.) And yet, no one's been dragged off to jail. There have been people that have fucked up RL, and they've faced those consequences. But the site itself stays as it has for the most part since the beginning.
You say no one has been dragged off to jail... I've been told there were at least three instances where furries WERE dragged off to jail for child porn. Dragoneer himself says in this very journal that FA has assisted police investigations in such cases.
As for the argument being a moot point, it's only being discussed now because of the new UK laws. Since things are changing for some parts of the world, it was time to revisit the discussion. If laws like that are passed in the US, FA will have to change many of its policies. So it isn't as if this is all academic.
On your second point, I know that and said that (they've faced the consequences of their actions.) I meant that no one responsible for FA has faced any legal repercussions for what's on the site.
And...true, you have a point. I'm just saying that the whole debate never changes, that's why I consider it moot.
My original points were: to me it's not about fantasy versus reality, it's more about legitimizing and even appearing to condone sexual fantasies involving children; and second was the issue of art versus pornography, and if freedom of expression is what's on the line, then what exactly is expressed in a gallery full of "cub" porn?
If someone were considering actual child abuse, wouldn't it be better if they made use of cub porn than images of a real child, or doing worse? This would be a worst case scenario. It's still the vast majority of people who like cub or babyfur art that would never consider harming a child. There are furrs out there who might consider something terrible, and fewer still of that number that actually would go through with it.
I doubt we'll change each others minds on the matter, but hey. That's the way it goes. You have your views, I have mine.
I also doubt we'll change each other's minds. While I have seen it happen- even online- it's extremely rare.
We should be busting people for exploiting actual humans, not pencils and tablets.
I jut wanna say thank you. you've been at the center of one FA related shit storm or another for....as long as I ve seen FA.
but i just gotta say, in my point of view, your doin a great job. I really appreciate your candid and forthcoming attitude about what you think and why. so I bow to you sir, and your powers of mediation!
That statement was revised in the New Testament, where god basically said "You can eat these animals now because I said so"
I can't remember what part it was exactly in, it's been so long since I left the christian school
Ohgosh.
I happen to like cub art as long as its cute and non sexual... nudity in it dont even bother me if it is drawn in a non sexual way... but the sexual stuff can get to me and upset me... but I know that the majority of the stuff here is all fantasy and in your head, and while it disturbs me that people can do that even in though... who am I to say that its worse than the other "evils" as you put it that are here...
basically... there is an easy solution to this that I follow... if it will disturb you, or upset you, or offend you... DONT CLICK ON IT... -.- no one makes you look at the images but yourself... while yes, I would like to see it removed... I am not gonna bash on those who dont want it gone...
because i don't want my violent exploding action movies to go away because illegal fantasies were blocked in progressively larger increments!
Iron man? Spiderman? any other super hero? Vigilante! evil! Lock them up and throw away the key!
"The problem comes down to this: if X is, then why not Y? So many people are wrapped up in the idea and notion that if you're into Fantasy X, then surely you're into Reality X." I've noticed a lot of people don't seem to get that separation. Just sorta something I figured one would expect to understand, but then some people *do* have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. :/
If you don't like it, don't look. If you don't like us, go elsewhere. No one's stopping you. There are plenty of pieces on FA that I'm really just not into, but instead of posting bawwww all over the comments, I look at something else. Really, it's that easy.
As far as the rules go, I'm cool with what the admin team have come up with. If ever I decide the rules won't work for me, there's a whole Internet out there. I understand a web site is more awesome with the more good people you have, but as stated, it is not for everyone.
Personally, I'm quite glad to be here. It's awesome to enjoy some fantasy once in a while, and forget reality.
Are these rules ludicrous and closed-minded? Perhaps. In many cases yes. But they are in place because enough of the community felt so strongly about these situations as to exert pressure on our government representatives to pass laws.
Do we have the option of "not looking"? Sure. Is pornography "harmless"? I don't know. I *do* know, however, that people become desensitized, sometimes. I *do* know that orgasm triggers the release of some brain chemicals that are also released by highly addictive drugs. I also know that pornographers often use excuses that make their "art" seem more acceptable. "It's not a child, it's a chibi elf." "It's not child molestation.. the little girl is seducing her dad, so it's consensual, so it's not bad." "This is just thematically representative of Greek History." All of this spells a growing need for ever-increasing realism in a small fraction of individuals. I know that the vast, vast majority of "cub art" fans out there would never and will never ever consider touching a real child inappropriately. However, there are cases in which a visual stimulation has become an obsession, which resulted in physical action. If a law will frustrate 10,000 cub-art furry fans, but protect one little girl from her neighbor's obsessive curiosity.. then there is no reason not to pass the law.
But, what about social identity? I've seen it mentioned a few times that not all furries want to be associated with the outer-most fringes of this community. What if an artist or author loves the furry fandom, and loves furries, but does not want the non-fur world to associate him (or her) with images of child molestation, brutal rape and murder, bestiality, and whatever else is out there? They do have the option of not looking or not participating, really, but why should they be excluded from sharing their artwork with furries and the world, just because a minuscule fraction of the furry population engages in fantasies that the majority of the world deems freakish, disturbing, disgusting and threatening?
Are cub-furs "evil?" No, not on the whole. Do they have very, very, very unpopular fantasies? Yes. Do their fantasies make others uncomfortable? Clearly. So uncomfortable that entire counties, states and/or countries have passed laws against art depicting these fantasies? Obviously. Is it right to pass such laws? I say yes. If 6,999,500 out of 7,000,000 people in an area are disturbed and bothered, threatened and worried by a form of pornography, then maybe that last 500 should consider finding a less "oppressive" place to live, or like in the case of online art communities, maybe they should make their own, private gallery, and share amongst each other, where they are SURE not to be judged or hated for wanting to see adults penetrate children, and vice-versa.
There are many artists, writers and musicians on FA who create professional-quality works. They are (rightfully) proud of their creations, and in many cases could use FA as a professional gallery to show to prospective clients and employers. They have spent hours, days, weeks, months, even years creating these masterpieces, but are, in many cases, too afraid to share their links outside the furry community, for fear of losing professional opportunities because of the presence of cub, and other extremely unpopular forms of furry art. There have been plenty of furries who have lost their jobs already because of the unfortunate sexual reputation of the fandom, and there are many more who are fearful of losing employment and more because of the over-exuberance and egocentric need for attention expressed by a very small group within this community. Banning cub art doesn't say that cub furs are evil; it merely protects a worried majority against the unpredictable reactions of the main-stream world to the troubling behavior of the outspoken few.
Advertising works.
It is the belief of the "worried majority" that the steady stream of pornographic images has the same convincing-to-action effect as commercial advertising. No not on everyone who sees it obviously, but have we reached the stage of being so indifferent as to accept those who are affected by it as “acceptable collateral damage”?
Freedom is important; so is social responsibility.
Actualy THAT particular law came about as I direct result of the religious community and the church, the church being allowed to dictate when we can and can't by beer, This is another case of the church sticking it's holier then thou noses where they don't belong and dictating it's own morals on the masses, most the people who supported and pushed that state law, were Christians and Christian supporters, In Texas and most southern states, the religious are the majority. and the minority (Us) are forced to live by THIER morals.
Sorry for an off topic post, but stuff like this really rubs me the wrong way.
Currently it’s very trendy in Furry to be against Cub Porn, scat, water sports, gore, violence and a few others while at the same time being smilingly acceptable of sodomy, fellatio, “raep” and group sex as we are of our daily vegetables. We all do it and we don’t think of it as hypocrisy.
However accepting one thing while condemning another is how we define ourselves and others. It’s a cheap and easy way of showing the world how moral we are in the midst of a sexual carnival. “I’m a furry artist who takes commissions to draw any kind of porn, but I will NEVER draw scat, water sports, gore, violence or Republicans.” The rest of us approve and condemn along the same lines to achieve the same self-image.
If your reasons are religiously founded, then stop trying to play God and let HIM make the call.
If your reasons are political, then play neutral and dont get people pissed off at you for having an opinion.
If everyone would just not interfere with other people's lives, noone would have to deal with these kind of things. Though, I do know that is a pipe-dream. The world is like an overpopulated bus of kids: they just cant shut up and keep their hands to themselves ._.v
~N~
~N~
As for your criminal/rich person analogy, it only works, as you pointed out, if criminals voluntarily limit their stealing to what they decided they needed and once that need was statisfied then they would stop stealing. What if the criminal stole just because he simply wanted what you had but didn't really need it? What would stop him from continuting to steal until he became the rich person?
Not sure I am for spending my life working to gain something that someone else takes away from me because they decide they have more of a a "NEED" for it then I do.
There's no victims here. The premise of what I was saying was "everyone quit trying to be moral police ONLINE and quit trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do."
And yeah, I'd stop him, but only cause he's doing something in the real world where there's real victims. I have yet to see a pedo's hand reach through the monitor and diddle some toddler. So long as it stays online, keep it online. When it reaches the real world, take real action.
Ohh trust me, I'm not either, which is why my house is strapped with more blades for self-defense then a samuria's armory. I defend what I believe in, just like freedoms. Till someone elses' freedoms get crossed, I have no need to attack them. Till I see ChildLover69 go out his door and start chasing lil' Timmy across the park, what's the harm in keeping him indoors, locked up in his own prision of a sexual fetish. Soon as he/she walks outside and actually commits the crime, you cant really get them in trouble for something that's digital.
Last I checked, it was innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
~N~
However it is what those images maybe encouraging people into doing or giving them the capacity for doing that harms people.
The age-old issue is how free can people be allowed to be in a society without at some point giving them the capacity to harm one another? The majority of people, you might say, are not going to harm anyone just because they look at couple of suggestive digital images on a computer monitor. Fair enough. But what about those who will?
Obviously no one is harmed and there are no victims until after the trigger has been pulled, or ChildLover69 does go out and catches lil’ Timmy in the bushes in that park -- but then of course it is too late. What do we do then?
Do we just shrug our shoulders as the bleeding victims are wheeled in and tell them ‘since most of us aren’t being harmed it’s not a real problem for us to be concerned about, tough luck’?
BTW, the United Kingdom, France, Mexico, North Korea, Iran and formerly Iraq, just to name a few countries, hold the presumption that the accused is guilty until proven innocent and not the reverse.
If 1 simple picture is all it takes for a normal person to go out and start fondling a kid, then they already had that temptation in them and it would only be a matter of time and lack of release (release that was previously released to them through the images) before something as simple as seeing someone's high-school year book or a photo from a grade-school play to kick them into doing it. It would have happened regardless, but all the pedos that were locked up in their rooms, getting release through the artwork now have to find it some other way: Real life. A hidden danger just became quite real, all cause people wanted to take away what kept them calm: their sedative, if you will.
Those who will act upon urges will be dealt with to the full extend of the law, of course, like with any criminal. Would you take away all cars to prevent car-related crashes? If not, then why is this any different? Take away from all so the few out-of-control people have something that might actually end up backfiring and making more, or should we just go after those that act upon their urges, like we do with ALL other crimes?
True, we do tend to be the out-side thinkers of the world, but if I'm not mistaken, most of their punishment systems are much harsher then ours, so I bet their level of pedophiles that act on their urges aren't NEARLY as bad as ours where it's a slap on the wrist instead of a blade to the throat. Look at the countries with the least amount of crime, and it's cause noone wants to risk the results. The US is to weak on it's criminals of physical and malicious intent.
Also, I do believe that those countries are a bit more "constrictive" on what it's populace thinks, almost like thought-police. "You thought _____, then to the gallows with you!" Sounds like a step into dictatorship and complete lack-of freedom. But where do we draw the line between security and freedom?
~N~
Kudos :)
~N~
YOu wanna know what the most Ironic thing is? there are furs out there drawing Pics of adult furs molesting cubs and no is speaking out against that shit except for the occasional /b/ tard. Yet I see a LOT is consenting adult age players taking a LOT of flack for their interests. as far as cub porn is concerned, I stay away from it, not my thing, but that can hardly be considered Pedo. or equal to rape/murder.
But like any thing furry or kinky, it is highly controversial.
I agree there are some things in our fandom that needs to be banned and stopped, but I am not sure cub art should be one of those. Cub porn I would agree should at least be kept strictly in privet galleries or age restricted galleries, and any fur porn should be.
You mention cub "art" and "two cubs snuggling." Obviously that's not harmful- when it's not pornographic. People draw baby animals harmlessly all the time. I've been very clear I'm not against that.
Now if what you're referring to IS pornographic, then yeah I'm against it. It's what I have said several times in these responses. If it's designed to arouse sexually, then it's porn. And if the porn involves children, to me that's wrong- even if it's "two cubs sucking each other off" as you say.
...and of course I'm against pedophilia pictures. I don't know where you're coming up with this "no one is complaining about adult furs molesting cubs." I sure am complaining.
|
|
This post is made of win.
~N~
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/...../#cid:11171604 THAT one = win
~N~
If they do it irl, then take action. But till that happens, people need to stop judging others solely on a picture at face value and rreellaaaxxxeee.
Dont forget, for the people that DO have pedophillic interests, this might be their only way to release that pressure. You take away their fap material, and where is their release now? Local kindergarden or the park down the street? With the type of mentality that anti-cub people are releasing, all their going to do it send all the in-door pedos to become outdoor pedos, where REAL kids get REALLY molested and REALLY violated and REALLY raped and sometimes REALLY die.
Perhaps we can keep the fantasies in the fantasy world, and keep it out of the real world. Give them their art and keep them off the streets?
~N~
Seeing porn doesn't make me want to push it onto others.
Seeing "cub porn" doesn't make me want to molest kids.
Seeing vore doesn't make me hungry OR horny.
Seeing vaginal creampies doesn't make me want to have kids.
While I cant say for certain that this is the norm for everyone, I -CAN- say with confidence that if anyone were to say "pictures made me do it", they'd get the same 5-fingers-across-face response that someone with "I saw it on GTA, so I thought I would try that" would get. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
~N~
Absolutely people need to take responsibility for their actions. Absolutely it is not an excuse to say "the pictures made me do it." That doesn't mean it won't happen.
Then in addition to these arguments, there is of course the worry of: what are we saying about ourselves as individuals, and as a community, by allowing this kind of porn?
Believe me, I dont like cub porn or anything cub. Pedo/Loli/Shota are some of the furthest things from my sexual interests as possible, but as a person who believes NOONES rights should be infringed in a harmless art-based world, I have to stand up for what I believe in. There should NOT be a government or internet ePolice to tell you what you can and cant enjoy. At the end of the road, you have a small group of CEO's or Politicians that will ban EVERYTHING except what they agree they like.. and then they'll do the rest of the illegal things in secrecy, where the public cant get to them cause they have power and money to protect their own assets.
~N~
Vore, inflation, hypnotism, etc etc etc.... these things don't work in real life. Sure an outsider may look at them and say "What the- oh that's frickin WEIRD!" But it's not suggestive of abusive, illegal behavior OUTSIDE the internet. Obviously it's impossible for anyone to ever simulate a 100-story dragon swallowing a human-sized fox character in real life. The public might look askance at it as something bizarre, but not as something dangerous. "Cub porn" is a unique case.
As for being a 100 story dragon, yeah, that is a bit more impossible. However, to imitate it with a strong imagination and to step on trapped squirrels instead of stepping on people to help imitate the macro/micro fantacy is possible as well, wouldn't you say? That's a good stepping stone to becoming a series killer, as that tends to be a stepping stone. If I can think of these connections right as I wake up, still groggy, then someone who has the conviction to ban these from their "perfect world" will find more concrete reasons to get rid of it: just like the cub issue. Hense, one thing leads to another.
~N~
As for someone wanting to imitate "macro" by stepping on real-life squirrels and that turning them into a serial killer... well... if you believe that's a real possibility, then okay. But I think that's where rational decision-making comes into creating new laws. That's why the UK banned child porn drawings, not macro.
Ever heard of kids using magnifying glasses to fry ants? How's that for a macro/micro relationship? Burning something to death with ease out of sheer boredom, and their only crime was being smaller then them. Yeah, people relive that situation, yet I dont see Macro/Micro on the ban-wagon. Yet.
Ahh, was that a point that made Macro/Micro look like a potentially dangerous situation that should be eradiacated from FA? Just like cub porn? If a lil stoner like me can make these realizations, there's no reason other's cant see how one thing can snow-ball into another, which has been my primary reason for fighting this ban in the first place. I dont like cub porn. There's nothing attractive about someone who isnt even sexually mature to enjoy it or partake in the situation with their partner to me. Nothing at all. I skip it when I see it, but without get all butt-hurt over it and make a big deal about it.
Go ahead and catch people trying to pick up kids for sexual situations, PLEASE. I dont like pedophiles at all. But banning cub art WILL NOT STOP the problem, it just releases it back into the real world instead of being contained on the net or in 1 alone person's hand in the basement.
But I think that's where rational decision-making comes in.
If we were dealing with rational decision-making individuals, do you think we'd be having a conversation about how scribbles on the monitor can turn people into child-raping pedophiles? If they were rational at making decisions, we wouldn't need to have this conversation in the first place, cause they wouldn't be using art as a scapegoat for their own desires.
~N~
Your comments on macro/micro are just not at all convincing to me. I seriously doubt that kind of stuff would ever be banned out of fear that someone would hurt small animals.
It just sounds like you're sensationalizing your argument. "If we ban cub porn, we would end up banning ALL these other things!" My response remains: no, we wouldn't, because these other subjects do not have the same direct, real-life parallel cub porn has.
....and... your final argument.... is that the Houses of Parliament are full of nothing but irrational, closet pedophiles?
We are not *becoming* judgmental. We have *always* had principles. It's only been rather recently (in the past 5 or so years) that cub-porn furs have made such a hard push to be seen doing what they enjoy. This has resulted in law enforcement looking into taking prohibitive action- yes law enforcement.. that's what the DA is (not Dumbledore's Army.. no.. the District Attorney)
So, now, Cub-porn furs (who, when the *average-age* furry was five years old, used to keep their unpopular kink to themselves and live quiet, unobtrusive lives) have forced their way into the spotlight and are now under legal scrutiny. Wanting to ban Cub Porn is no longer a moral desire, but one of self preservation. Non Cub Pornographers do not want to be legally or socially associated with a tiny fraction of their community that has seen *more than one* arrests for possession and distribution of real-life child pornography? Congratulations, Cub-Porn, you're out in the open, and you've made a real mess of things.
~N~
~N~
Yes I know people do commissions / requests. But if you are paid to do a drawing that you don't like the subject matter, chances are you'll either decline the commission or at least not put it in your public gallery when it's done. That's why I said a lot can be learned about a person from what's in their gallery.
Honestly, that is true to a certain point of view. For instance, many people tend to think I have an ego, I'd flaunt whatever "talent" of doodles I do around, and some actually get surprised when I answer their Notes, like I'm some sort of pompous celebrity trying to shoo away their followers: but I'm not. I bet your different then what I think of you right now as well. So that means we're both probably wrong about what we think, so what's stopping us from being wrong about the rest, like this? While this doesn't make for a good arguement on my behalf, and could potentially raise more questions, I think it also should raise the same questions on the other side of the mirror on this topic for your defense. Why are you right about your believes, and why am I? Should protection and security win, or should freedom and risk? Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
~N~
But we're talking about what your gallery or faves-list says about you as a person or as an artist. In that case, you look at the good and the bad together. What you're willing to post says something about what you like to draw, what you like to look at, what styles you employ etc. If you are willing to post something that most people find objectionable, then it says one of two things about you: either you really like these objectionable subjects, or while they're not your main interest, you don't see them as bad enough to hide.
"Just look at what you like" really doesn't apply when you're talking about the IMPRESSION people get when they look at your gallery. That's what I'm talking about when I say "What are you expressing about yourself with cub porn?"
Trolls post things for knee-jerk reactions, which throws that entire thought-process right out the window though. People that post things they dont really like but do it for the favs/watches also dilute that theory. If there's 1 exception, then there's others, so I dont think one can classify a person by their gallery to much less they say "THIS IS WHAT I LIKE MOST" or it's the only thing in the gallery, which still doesn't prove what they like at the core.
Most of my stuff is my character dominantly force-fucking guys or herms in unconfortable places, yet I'm a submissive person that's rarely ever with males. So judging my gallery as who I am at the core, is flawed. If that's true with me, then why not with others? The addition of so many variables tosses the entire "what you see in a gallery is what the person is like irl" statement out, least in my opinion.
As for posting things that you dont agree with, that takes a true open-minded person, or a person of a true mercenary mind-set. Whatever is paid for, is posted. That's how some of us artists roll. I've done a few nude youths, and while not my thing, I refuse to keep my work from whatever people want to look at it. Consider it the artists' version of "Journalistic Obligation to share info with the world".
For impressions.. well that's all subjective to each own. Each person will have a different impression of you, and their all different then the impression you want to have. Some view you as a heroic soldier wanting to ban cub porn, others might look at you as a rightous person standing for what you believe under any scrutiny, others would see you as a monster trying to rid the net of their fap material, while others (like myself) view you as an intelligent person with a good point, but a point that's infringing on other's rights that could lead to a more negative situation then it already is. Maybe if people stopped judging the books by the covers', they wouldn't get the wrong idea about the book's meaning >.O
For what people are "expressing" through cub porn, I cant know. To each their own. Either they were paid for it, or they just wanted to see if they liked it, or their fans demanded it to the point that they caved in against their will, or they really didnt care so it was a "no biggie", there's dozens of categories for it.
~N~
The point of this discussion isn't just about your gallery though, but about the impression anyone's gallery gives, and the impression this website gives, by including "cub porn." Maybe there are lots of galleries that aren't a good representation of who the artist is. But here on FA, there really isn't anything else to go by, and frankly most people aren't going to dig deeper to investigate who you are if your gallery turns them off or offends them. If, as you say, you're an artist who enjoys doing a lot of commissions, it's even more important to make sure your gallery represents who you are and what you like to do.
To reach a happy medium here.. dont ban anything, but the ones that display suspecious behavoir are looked after. IF they get out of hand, then they get disiplinary action. Just seems fair instead of just blanket-targeting a mass of people cause of their kinks or believes or race or religion.
As for that last part.. that would make sense. Display what you like and what you are. However, to display all except some, would show that one has limits of the mind instead of limits of talent. I can understand limits of talent holding back art, but not mental blocks of not wanting to do something just cause it might seem to be a 'challenge'. To repeat oneself is to keep themself in a stale state of mediocrary. To try a little bit of everything is to help challenge oneself, and maybe show them that to automatically dismiss something at face value isn't exactly a positive trait. Least that's my opinion. :/
~N~
It's fine to suggest the "happy medium" of just allowing people to post anything and everything they please. But plenty of people see real danger in allowing anything and everything. That's why the governing bodies of the UK, which are collectively more intelligent than either you or I, decided kiddie porn should be banned.
You say "blanket-targeting a mass of people cause of their kinks or believes or race or religion" as if wanting to masturbate to kiddie porn is the same thing as being born a certain race, or espousing certain religious beliefs. That really just seems like an attempt to make sexual deviation into something legitimate, or even honorable. Race and religion aren't the issue, and they certainly shouldn't be lumped in with things like lusting after "cub porn."
You say "display all except some, would show that one has limits of the mind instead of limits of talent." Since most people are turned off by kiddie porn, it wouldn't seem like limits... more like standards.
Actually, a lot about a person's psyche can, in fact, be gleaned by looking at what they choose to draw and share online. The fact (as you say) that you choose to draw your character in dominant roles, "dominantly force-fucking guys or herms in unconfortable places" speaks volumes about you as a person, and I would expect to find nothing other than a ... we'll stick with "submissive" person sitting behind your computer.
Those of us who have studied a bit of psychology during our college careers understand the fact that the core of a person's psyche is almost never literally represented by their personal methods of self-expression. While we can not with absolute certainty divine an individual's interests and personality merely by observing their art here on Fur Affinity, we can make several accurate guesses about their motivations.
You expended a good deal of energy writing about the dangers you perceive in "...judging the books by the covers'...." Surely, it is intimidating to think that with some basic education in the field of psychology, a complete stranger can become acquainted with your true personality after a relatively short time looking only at your art and how you choose to represent it. Couple this with a background in visual design or some other visual communication field, and you'll have someone who could get a very good idea of who you are without ever having to interact with you face-to-face. Of course, there will be the odd, aberrant detail that does not conform to the other archetypal patterns into which you fit, but those will be few and very far between.
Also, you seem to be making the point that (correct me if I'm wrong) a person who draws a commission can not be judged by what he or she has created. I disagree. While it changes the patterns a bit of what one can expect from the artist's personality, it still speaks volumes. You see, when looking at a person and trying to get a feel for who they are inside, one must look not only at the outward expression, but also at what I like to call their "social negative space". What are they not saying? What are they not rejecting? While representing less active aspects of a person's psyche, these points speak loudly about what that person finds so normal and comfortable as to feel no compulsion to speak out for or against it. In essence, there's no such thing as "having no opinion." You can be undecided, but that's not the same thing. You can simply not care, but again - not the same.
Also on the note of selling cub porn: if you take money to depict something in art, then you endorse it. An athlete may be paid to endorse a brand of shoe he or she never wears. An actor may swear by a deodorant that they've never used. They do it for pay and are thus associated with it.
All of this relates to "...impressions.. [being] all subjective to each own." in that with a basic understanding of how people think and communicate, we really can guide their general impressions of us. We can not control their preferences, likes or dislikes, but with care and insight, we can usually put forth the image of ourselves that we wish to portray.
"You can't judge me; you don't know me!" Seems to be a very popular rallying cry for the younger patrons of the internet (or any social arena over the generations). Children and post-adolescents for millennia have railed against their communities' norms and guidelines, claiming to be strange, different, fresh, open-minded, unique, individual, and whatever other word you can think of to describe yourself as a young person unlike any other person ever to have walked upon the face of Planet Earth. Such egocentric notions usually fade with the onset of adulthood, which my texts - back in the day - placed at around 18 years of age (however, it seems that the advent of faster entertainment media, reduced threat of illness and physical harm, hunger and social strife, have slowed this maturation over time).
Finally, when it comes to banning this type of art or another, that really comes down to the will of the community. I've said it before: the comfort of the many should outweigh the desire of the very, very few. Professionally speaking, cub porn artists are a liability to other furry artists who wish to make a career in the world outside our relatively small subculture community. Furries have lost their jobs because other Furries decided to talk about their sexual deviations on MTV. This is not a statement of paranoia; this is a fact. Fur Affinity hosts a rapidly-growing number of professional-grade artists who have true potential to find art careers in the real world (some of whom already have). To these artists, FA could be a great resource -- an online gallery of their work with built in ratings that show prospective clients and employers just how well-received their work is. However, throw in the risk that said employer might decide to poke around and browse the front page to possibly find a full-page spread of a sultry-looking toddler sucking on a very suggestively-shaped pacifier while its half-nude daddy loosens his tie in the background, and well, FA loses a good deal of its professional appeal.
Should such paranoia dictate that the occasional deviant keep their unpopular, and yet just-tame-enough-to-warrant-a-black-border art off of this network? I say, if enough of this community wishes for it to be banned, then yes. However, back when the Fur Affinity staff decided to throw in their vote to support cub porn and allow it to remain, the community outrage did not shut the site down as many of the more conservative members would have wished. They bitched and moaned, shook their fists, and then resumed posting.
So, whether you "fap" incessantly to images of furry child pornography, or just believe that everyone should have the right to openly and publicly display whatever they want- regardless of how many people it may offend- take heart, you're not losing your kitty-kiddie porn just yet. If and when you come to a point in your life when you realize that there are opportunities presented by the "outside" world, and responsibilities that transcend trying to convince other people on the internet that you really are a big, scary, awesome, unique badass, then perhaps your "open-minded" attitude will evolve as well.
How does that make sense though? "See a character doing all of one thing and the artist doing the opposite thing" =/= the content of their gallery showing the artists' mind. Their totally seperate, so it doesn't show you into the mind as thorough as one would think.
As for guessing people's inner desires by just a small amount of information, I'm not all that shabby at it either. I do know that it shows a potential glimpse into their mind, but it doesn't prove or garuntee anything beyond speculations. Some people like to put on a show for attention, and maybe that's why they do some of the things they do, but to judge them on said actions without doing further investigating into them deeper is indeed jumping the gun. You admited it yourself with ". Of course, there will be the odd, aberrant detail that does not conform to the other archetypal patterns into which you fit, but those will be few and very far between.". While they might be more rare then common, it's still not 100% accurate.
Nah, your not to far off on that next point, but still a bit of a miss. I'm not saying that it DOES-NOT show, just that it's not FOOL PROOF that that's what they desire. An artist cant be held completely responsibility free from something, cause in the end, they did draw it. However, does a Vegetarian waiter at a steak-restaurant deserve to also be blamed for slaughtering animals cause he took a job? I dont think that one should either.
The original arguement was cub porn makes people turn into real life pedos. So with that in mind, seeing a girl fool around with another girl makes all women lesbians. Is this true? No. So why are we pretending that the other statement is 100% true as well. It's all just speculations based on light observations with no investigations and lots of prejudice accusations.
While I dont disagree with your statement on maturity, I do find it slightly insulting that your comparing me with some youth mobile who wants to be different just to be different because I think different then you do. I'm not saying I'm unique or new, different or thinking out side the box on this. There's others that have the same thoughts, and they voice it just the same.
cub porn artists are a liability to other furry artists who wish to make a career in the world outside our relatively small subculture community. That is true. Also, I'm not a cub-porn artist. I draw mature characters with a few exceptions (for references only), and I dont draw cub porn cause I haven't been paid to do it and it doesn't really tickle my fancy enough TO draw it, though I've drawn younger characters (nude, but not sexually. We should all be adults enough to know that difference) in reference sheets so I know I could. I'm not defending cub-porn-artists like their my bretheren or anything, I just think letting 1 person or a comity of people have power over what is right and wrong in media censorship is a bad idea in the long run cause it all will trickle down to what that person or group wants, and eventually the majority becomes the minority, but they end up ruling cause they did it legitly.
Much like tax hikes. Noone votes for them, but they always pass anyways. Who benifits from that? The minority. Who didnt want it? The majority. How did the minority get in power? By getting the majority to place them in power in the first place. It's the rise of the Galactic Empire all over again :O
A simple fix for the potential job-seeker that has ambitions to use FA as a catalogue browser (which is a DUMB idea in the first place. I'm really sorry, but seriously.. who the hell would use a place full of people that society would deem as "socially awkward for being furries" as a gallery for a professional situation. Put it on a special site, or make a completely seperate account for your non-adult stuff, like many artists do. Noone thinks FA is a "professionally appealed" site. It's mascot is an animal with a tie like Snaggle Puss. Our main guy is a Digimon I think. Using FA as a gallery for a job isn't the smartest career move possible, least not in my eyes c_c
I do have to ask you though.. when I say that I dont draw cub porn at all, and have no real wish to at any time in my life, does your opinion of the random icon + username that your conversing with alter? You seemed so sure of me to be someone who "faps" to kiddy porn or cub porn or whatever, and you couldn't have been further from the truth. If you mis-understood my intentions, then what makes you think you wont judge someone else wrong as well?
Just something to think about.
~N~
As for whether or not I think I can wrongly judge someone: Of course I can. That's why I do not judge; I form opinions -- hypotheses. These can grow and change over time as new information comes to light and as people grow and change. To be plain, though, my opinion of you personally has no baring on this discussion. I'm not talking about *you*, I'm talking about the community's reaction to Cub Porn.
I whole-heartedly agree that at this point, using Fur Affinity in any professional context would be extremely foolhardy. However, if a large enough proportion of the community here wished that it *could* be tamed down so that it's usefulness would transcend the tissue box, then perhaps the administration here should consider it. However, as I have already conceded: the administration here has made it's intentions clear. *this* Internet is for porn. (bad-quote, and a joke)
For info: Tax Hikes in and of themselves rarely pass, however, end-consumer tax increases and citizens' financial burden in the form of new fees and elevated collections do occur because special interest groups, major corporations and lobbies press for such increases. In the end, no citizen votes for any tax hike; it's all congress, and many of them are paid off with bonuses and perks for their votes to pass or suppress bills that have a costly effect on the "little man." We do not vote for the taxes, but we did vote those politicians into office.
I strongly agree that allowing a moral minority to gain power over media freedom of expression if a truly frightening thought. However, as I've said before, I'm not talking about a handful of conservative furries or Christian mothers. I am saying that if the majority of this community here on FA requested that cub porn be banned, then administration here should consider the wishes of the majority. Once again, though, I've already pointed out that the Admins here have already spoken on this matter. They have dealt with DAs in the past, they stand lo lose all English patrons, but they seem to be standing firm on their decision to continue supporting Cub Porn.
This place was established as a place for free expression. Come what may, they are sticking to that. If some of us (even the majority) are so offended by one type of pornography, they we have the option of leaving here and going somewhere else. This would be an unfortunate day, but that's where things stand. To quote a friend of mine from a while back, "An open mind quickly becomes an open cesspool." FA is already a bit embarrassing; if it becomes more of a liability, we can always leave.
Next, I'm not comparing you to a "...youth mobile who wants to be different just to be different..." (I'm not even sure what you mean by a "youth mobile", but I think I get the gist.) I don't think I've met anyone wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and thinks "How can I be *different*?" I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about egocentricism in general. This is not the quest to *be* different, but the common misconception that one *is* different, and outstanding and unique. And, while I never accused *you* directly of being so, I would base this opinion not on the fact that you do not think the same way as I, but because you have made several rather telling and grandiose statements about yourself, which were typical of an egocentric mindset.
I think you greatly oversimplify the original argument to the point of telling a falsehood there.. However, I was not responding to the original stated argument. I was responding to a point brought up during its debate.
As for the vegetarian waiter at a steak restaurant being blamed for slaughtering cattle. Well, yes. He supports an institution that kills cattle. Because of his work, the company can make that much more money. Worse than that. Waiters tipshare with cooks, so his efforts directly benefit those who are preparing the food. Also, he makes diners feel at ease, serves them well, thereby maintaining or increasing the demand for beef. So sure, in his own way, he is guilty of slaughtering Besse the cow.
Finally, to your first point: I never said that there is any direct correlation between what images hang in someone's gallery and their personal actions in the physical world. I said that it you look at someone's persona, their gallery, and what they have to say about their own work, then you can get a pretty good idea of what motivates them. I did make the point that artists and writers tend to reverse their real-life roles in their creative endeavors. But I'm not saying that some who draws their character brutally raping another person while coating them in chocolate syrup had, themselves just been raped and then coated in chocolate. I did say that we must take into consideration what they say about their own work.
I have been telecommunicating for nearly 20 years, and role-playing (D&D, etc) for over 25 years. 9 times out of 10, given a chance, we supplement what we feel to be weak points in our own lives. It's not a direct correlations, and some representations are pretty literal, but for the most part, one can get a really good idea about a person's motivations by watching them role-play. If you can be anything in the world, what would you be? The answer is often more telling than looking at how you act in reality.
We both agree that I said this method is not 100% accurate. However, 80%, 75%.. it's still better than zero. Once you get an idea of how the psyche works, you can make some projections and determine if the potential for friendship outweighs the potential for discomfort. This may sound horribly cold and risky. What if I decide that this artist, who draws horrible, cruel things, is simply too disturbing to be friends with? What if they really are a sweet person who could be a great friend if only given the chance? Well, there are millions of sweet people out there, most of whom don't come with a library and gallery of terrible things.
I do understand what you're saying, and as long as you can keep your real life actions separate from these fantasies, then fine. But you and I both know there are people out there who can't keep control of their real life actions where kids are concerned. You've said yourself:
"My art may appeal to the wrong people: but while us cub enthusiasts appeal to pedophiles... pedos do not appeal to us."
I hope I've not sounded like I'm accusing all "cub enthusiasts" of being pedophiles- that wasn't a generalization I wanted to make. But just acknowledging the fact that cub pornography appeals to pedophiles... that's the whole reason behind my argument. There is already something psychologically unbalanced about a person who lusts after children (and by that I mean pedophiles). We can't trust that such people won't be spurred into action by "cub porn." It's not that I believe cub porn makes pedophiles out of people who look at it (at least not in the vast majority of cases), but it's what it can or could do to someone who already is inclined toward pedophilia. That's why it's dangerous in my opinion.
Thank you again for making a reasoned argument.
However, fiction exists so that we can all "experience" what is either impossible or socially taboo but therein lies the problem. Some people have no problem in translating their dreams into reality and that is the fear of the anti-cub porn people.
You don't like it? DON"T F**KING LOOK AT IT!.
If you don't like it and you go searching for it and LOOK at it, then b**ch about it, chances are, your a TROLL.
"I would would like to propose a very simple solution to this problem, It is this: You don't like it? DON"T F**KING LOOK AT IT!. If you don't like it and you go searching for it and LOOK at it, then b**ch about it, chances are, your a TROLL."
I responded:
"Obviously you're upset. But you're assuming the people complaining spend their time looking at it. For my part, I DON'T look at it. I don't search for it, I don't watch people who produce it, I have no interest in it other than a worry about what it could do in the wrong set of hands. I think that's how the lawmakers in the UK feel, and that's what started the whole discussion."
...
In what way did I not read your post? In what way was my response uninformed by what you had to say? Accusing me of not reading your posts... is this just what you fall back on when there's nothing more to say? Oh wait... you made several more posts. Moving on then...
IF I assumed the people who search out, look at and b**ch about porn it's because mostlikly they ARE trolls. not saying YOU did that. My solution was aimed at EVERY ONE , not you personally.
The battle to ban cub pornography is being waged quietly via e-mails to systems operators, network administrators, service providers, politicians, and law enforcement.
Opponents of Cub Porn have indeed decided not to look; I promise you this.
I am neither a loli nor cub fan. I cannot really do anything with scat, guro, rape, etc either..but I get really upset if I hear any close-minded nonsense that cannot keep fiction apart from reality.
Loli/cub porn is FICTIONAL, which includes FICITIONAL characters which means that no REAL children got harmed. That means NO victims. Easy, istn't it?
Saying that people that like loli also rape children in real life is offensive and stupid. It the same discussion with video games. Violent games with violent content OF COURSE make children violent and are the only reason for all these school massacres, right?
The fear that pedophiles might get off from loli/cub porn as argument against it is stupid. Mass murderers might all like horror movies, so lets ban all horror movies then?
Sure its a complex matter but I think fiction should be free, always, because its freaking FICTION!
I'd only agree to banning such stuff if it was actually clearly and intentionally provoking people to do crimes or if a dozen experts show me the evidence that loli/cub porn turns people into pedophiles.
DERP DERP, correlation does not imply causation! Any reputable scientist or statistician can tell you that. Just because many pedophiles like to view loli/shotacon material does not mean that looking at loli/shotacon material means you're a pedophile! I poop into the toilet but that doesn't mean everything that goes into the toilet is poop >.<
But, of course, propaganda and the laziness of politicians (in their attempts to avoid dealing with stuff that actually matters) can twist any study or data into whatever conclusion they want. They should be shot, plain and simple. Just like those assholes that go to the military funerals of grief-stricken families and protest homosexuality >.<
<applause>
I know a while back I caused some ruckus about the whole banning thing. I've redirected that ire towards the law itself instead of the way you run your site and now I see that you have indeed a moral compass that guides you straight. Even if some of the content you post shows you in various states of debauchery, you understand the difference and now I see that too.
So here's my saying I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. Now I do. And I stand with you on this stuff.
even pedophiles
tl;dr
i long for the day when you're no longer an admin on this site
maybe then things will start to improve
If some FA user posts his personal info and turns out he's a registered sex offender (pedophile) who already served his sentence, then he wouldn't be violating the TOS, therefore he's "welcome" here.
I don't know much about American laws, but i think that a he could even post cub art.
Cub porn creeps me out, but that's a very low level of debate. Also, i wouldn't want the admins to ban things just because people dislike them.
i...never said it did?
>and that kind of Shockword Bingo is how people try to Insta-Win arguments on this subject before anybody can actually apply some reasoning to it.
reasoning to what? i wasn't arguing with anyone. lol i deem anyone who's into cub shit a pedophile. that's just me.
>No reason to let them pull a fast one.
oh yeah, calling what i said a strawman and throwing a meme in my face, you sure showed me!
Do you mean registered sex offenders aren't allowed here, even if they served their sentence?
Or they're just not allowed to post cub porn and related stuff?
That doesn't always apply. See: Vore
Being eaten by a giant dog is pretty much.... yeah okay not gonna' happen.
Cub porn... involves a child. Children. [HURR CUVVRD N FUR aside] It is a child's body used in a sexual situation. In order to jack off to that stuff, you have to at least find the child body attractive or... fuck, you could go for ADULTS. I find that "I LIKE THE INNOCENCE" part bullshit because you can have an innocent adult or.. drawn to look "innocent". Why must it be children that are "innocent"?
How many people on this site own slaves by show of hands. Err, nobody?
The BDSM community is into that stuff.
How many people into rape art have ever raped anybody?
BDSM and others are into rape-play.
Or stabbed somebody with a knife because you dig violent art?
BDSM community.
How many small critters have you crushed under foot to bring your domineering sense of god-like macroism into play?
Foot fetishists and crush fetishists. I do not agree with this fetish at all. See: "Crush Kitten"
Murder?
I don't really get this fetish but w.e. Sadists like it. I don't like it.
Explosions?
I don't think there's any.... explosion fantasy porn.
Believe you're actually a dragon?
That doesn't hurt anybody, even though it's fucked up IMO so that's not really a good example to use.
We separate the notion of reality and fantasy, and believe that most people can, too.
Oh yes, we can but most people decide to look past what people are REALLY attracted to in a piece of art and call it "JUST FANTASY"
Don't say you didn't see me coming lolol.
BDSM "slaves", rape-play, and knife-play/blood [consensual] don't hurt anybody when done safe and [as much as you can] sane.
The idea that most extreme fetishes have harmless outlets in real-life while lolicon will automatically lead to child-abuse (or child abuse being the only "solution") is a bit too one-dimensional for my taste. People as sick as real child-rapists can take rape-fantasies as inspiration for true rapes or murders, too.
I find that "I LIKE THE INNOCENCE" part bullshit because you can have an innocent adult or.. drawn to look "innocent"
I dunno. A child would be more like the embodiment of innocence in a more symbolic way. I mean...thinking in such ways you could also say one should better draw humans in fursuits instead of anthros.
Also, to like a child because of "innocence"... isn't that... kinda' like... taking advantage of this in a kid? I never said that it FOR SURE LEADS TO IRL ACTIVITY OHMAGAWD, I just said that there is that real attraction to the bodies of children.
Yeah but you could get an adult to [like you said] dress in a schoolgirl uniform. :]
I think the whole lolicon phenomenon is very complex and not completely identical to real pedophilia.
I guess there are some who just dig for the whole innocence/virgin aspect (which I guess functions better with teenagers/kids than with inexperienced/innocent adults) while others might be more focused on the immature body (maybe not even caring if the girl was...lets say a 300 years old sexdemon and anything but innocent) and some might like lolicon for both.
Maybe I am wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if the "innocence" theme wasn't just a lame excuse for many loli-fans.
Idk. I hear the "innocence" excuse used a whooole lot. Along with the "IT HAS FURRR" [cub]
If the cubfuckers can come in and give their opinion... mine matters too.
Any studies showing that it makes pedophiles for dangerous or turns harmless people into pedos?
Discussions about banning something shouldn't be based on assumptions, prejudices and "just morales".
The discussions about internet-blockades here in Germany and now in all of Europe (thanks to Mrs. Malmström) show where such thinking leads to.
I still remember Germany's "government spyware" drama from a while back. Nasty stuff.
Its about blocking sites with child-porn with DNS blockades.
That may sound good and right but thanks for a lack of effort, incompetence and lack of technical knowledge (as well as logical thinking) the actual law is utterly useless for several reasons and would most likely lead to internet-wide censorship of other "unwanted" content, too.
However, I think many people are looking at this from the wrong angle.
Person A gets arrested because he murdered and raped a child. An investigation is done into Person A and it is found that he has reams and reams of the art in question on his computer's HDD, crucially, there was no illegal photography. With the new law, prosecutors will be able to take into account the art in question when forming the case against him, as previously it would have been thrown out by technicality of it being fantasy. Some people do blur the boundaries between real and fantasy, but it takes the committing of a crime to prove that, not just the presence of the art.
If it were the simple presence of the art that could get you prosecuted, then the world renowned Saatchi Gallery in London would have to close. I remember going there once and there was a giant canvas of a line of naked children on the wall. There was a sculpture of a decapitated and castrated man hanging upside down. There was a canvas soaked in cow's blood.
I hope this makes sense. And I hope that i can go someway to calm people down a bit.
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/.....lolicon-manga/
Dragoneer talks about how people ignore most "evils" to talk about just "one". I'll apply that here:
The article is on a comic book site, so the site is logically going to defend comic books and QUITE RIGHTLY! xD But to the article's detriment, the article has no impetus to determine how much he was importing and whether his behaviour was impacting anyone he was living with, if indeed he was living with anyone else, such as young children. This is not disclosed. He could be leaving his collection lying around for all we know. The article also does not look into the man's past and lifestyle, for the article's purpose, as it is on a comic book site, is to defend comic books and manga.
Every single case is different. To paraphrase Dragoneer, the most extreme cases are rare, but these are the ones that article writers and news outlets catch wind about. And suddenly these stories represent everything :)
Take illegal downloading for example, one story of a man being prosecuted for downloading music and movies would send shivers down the spine of anyone! Considering 60% of all internet traffic is illegal downloading. Then a big debate erupts... Is it right? Is it wrong? we have rights! No we don't! Blah, blah. Then suddenly someone will realise that the man in question was downloading a thousand albums and a hundred of movies a week! Quite excessive, even by most downloader's standards. No wonder he was caught then...
I suppose what I am saying in conclusion is that every single case is different. Every single article edits the truth. But that doesn't mean nothing is real. Just have to look deeper :)
Nothing can be loaded onto one pile of litigation and branded "the same". There are always mitigating circumstances for everything.
Sorry for the big block of text! :O