wdf?

copy right?

Likely the old, tired argument of "His character is underage in the show, you can't lewd him even if you age him up!"

That was 100% the reason. Explicit activity going on plus famous character came to trouble...

I really don't get that argument, honestly. I'm not endorsing or even condoning cub or shota/loli porn by saying this: it makes no sense to cry "child porn" for a pic of a character that's normally underage, but is aged-up to adult standards, especially if any of the following are true - a) The character has a side-story or "what if" story to them in the series itself that DOES age them up to adulthood to explore adult and mature themes with them, and/or b) you are okay with adult-aged characters with porn of them as adults having a series where they're aged DOWN to childhood standards to explore what they're like, at that young age. For instance, take Sonic: most people use the Archie series for their fan stuff, and canonically they're teenagers or tweens (in the case of characters like Cream and Tails)... yet in Archie Sonic, there's the Mobius: X Years Later arc, where we see them 25-30 years in the future, with children of their own (some of whom are integral to the story), as well as Sonic Kids, where we see them as they were much younger, in the early days of the Great War. Complaining about them having porn of themselves when point A is involved is stupid, because it implies that any characters in a given series must live in a time-locked bubble where they can't age, they can't mature, and they can't grow as people (and it invokes traumas that child actors have of being forced to stay in character, despite how old they get), while doing so when point B is involved is stupid, because it sets a hypocritical double standard - if a character has both a childhood and an adulthood, why does it matter if the canon focuses on one or the other, when it comes to making porn of the latter? It's just damn confusing and moronic, and I really don't get it.

Not to mention how disconcerting it is from a creative intent standpoint. A lot of the time grown-up interpretations of characters are made explicitly to explore the possibilities of the character in an adult context but rules and punishments like these seem to run on the blanket assumption that any attempt to make a character older is meant as a workaround to use a child character in a sexual context as if it's a concession where the original intent was to directly use the underage character. That's a blatantly delusional assumption to make and even then it shouldn't matter because these are fictional characters and nobody should be obliged to give THIS MUCH of a shit. It's just a bunch of people taking the law into their own hands and then bending the law to their will so that they can use their own subjectivity to objectively lord over others.

Yeah. I mean, granted, a lot of fan art out there will invariably end up being porn, and if it involves the underage characters AS their intended age, then I can see a problem with that being argued, but like... take an artist I watch on Twitter. They do a lot of porn of characters, some of them aged up to adult status to make it legal. Most of it is ignored, but one particular set - involving Red and Blue from Pokemon - constantly keeps on being attacked as child porn, despite it clearly being aged-up to adult status. What's worse, is that the designs used for those characters clearly look like they were taken from their depictions in Generation 5, at least, which - by Nintendo's own admission - makes the characters adults canonically. So, not only are they bitching about art of characters that are clearly aged up to be much older than their original depictions, but are drawn to be closer to their depictions in latter installments where they ARE canonically that age. It's honestly flat-out stupid.

Really, I don't see the point in scrutinizing shota, loli and cub as hard as people do. It's illustrations, art, writing. Fiction. It's alright to be made uncomfortable by it and to not want to see it but to waste time and effort treating it as if it's the same as actual child pornography and physical abuse of minors just feels dumb to me. There's actual suffering going on in the world, actual children being abused who's situations are severe and deserve to be treated with respect but you're gonna go after the artist who did a doodle of Steven Universe tugging his hog? Or who did yaoi shipping art of Red and Blue? Or even characters who literally don't have an age but "They look like a child." like Rookie stage Digimon or early/mid evolution Pokemon. It's all a big virtue signaling mess that's quickly spiraling out of control because people are willingly blurring the lines between fiction and reality.

Agreed. And, what's worse, this kind of virtue signalling can do great psychological harm to a kid trying to figure out their sexuality; I, myself, have been a victim of what I call "anti-porn abuse", where certain authority figures in my life tried zealously to stop me from looking at perfectly normal, average furry porn, because they kept on associating looking at it with becoming a sexual predator - to the point of putting me in situations that you WOULD only put a sexual predator in, like in a sex offender class, or a plethysmograph (basically a lie detector for determining sexual arousal and its causes, something even my current and more recently previous therapists consider inhumane) - and now I'm so paranoid about being judged for what I'm into and expressing myself, sexually, I don't even trust my boyfriend or my closest friends with it. As you said, if you're uncomfortable with it, personally, and don't want to see it, that's your prerogative, but if it's not based on an actual living human being, and it's not being used to entice or "groom" people into doing it with minors, and it's entirely fictional, based on cartoon characters or the like, then I don't get it, and I especially don't get the adverseness to aging them up to put them in adult situations, when they're shown to be growing and maturing as characters, anyway.

Nope, Xabin nailed it. I think if FA started taking things down due to copyright an ENORMOUS portion of the galleries would vanish and you'd have mass suspensions and bans.

Well damn.
Are you going to post them elsewhere?

I think they're still on my blogspot blog, and I could get them on Y!gallery if it becomes an issue. I also think someone posted most of them on Rule34 previously. So those are some places at least.

What freaking bullcrap! >:/

I was worried about you..........there must be somebody new on the staff trying to feel important or something......

Someone else mentioned that too, like someone wanting to earn brownie points of good marks. Honestly, there was more than one Danny Phantom pic in my gallery and they could have just banned me outright without any warning if they wanted to, it was all so far back in my gallery. It's silly to me, cause they could have just sent me a note and asked me to fix the issue myself without suspension or the threat of banning.

Same happened with me, no warning, no time given to correct the issue, just suspension.

Really?! Was this recently or in the past?

Very recent actually, about a month ago I'd say