FA+
Shop
Feedback on UP 2.7
2 years ago
So, it's nice that they're allowing people to voice feedback on the change (something they should have done ages ago... but I digress.) Gonna post this to the proper channels, but thought I'd mention it here to air my thoughts on how this rule should be implemented.
----
1: The anti-cub rule needs a lighter touch. The responses to tickets painted a picture that this was more about rooting out hidden pedophiles than protecting anyone, and that the admins were willing to throw out anyone who they had just the faintest suspicions of. That's not a good look, it feels like witch hunts almost, and creates an environment where people are terrified of coming under suspicion. That's really where a lot of the pushback came from, this feeling that it would be incredibly easy to fall under suspicion even if you weren't doing anything wrong, that even if everything you currently had was deemed ok, t his was not a safe place to say because something you add down the road might sway just a *bit* too close, or another mod may make a different ruling on things you were told were ok.
I think it's worth considering WHY having cub porn here is banned. A pedophile finding something attractive is not inherently harmful to children, what is harmful is using it to groom minors. It's the danger of normalizing sexual content with children, and I feel that danger is only really present when the character is *presented* as a child. When I say that, I don't mean "their proportions may be close to a child's" like how the rule was enforced, I mean that it's obvious that the author intended for the character to be a child, or at least represent one. Without that obviousness, it's not really normalizing the behavior IMO.
I would look more to things like how the character is represented as compared to other depictions of the species and especially compared to other characters by the artist. Even for a lot of pokemon and digimon with childlike proportions, I don't imagine most people will look at them and think "that's meant to be a child" because they're not represented as such in the media where they come from, not unless the artist goes out of their way to make them even *more* childlike in either appearance or context.
TL;DR I feel action should be taken if the character is obviously meant to represent a child, but only when it is obvious. This would minimize harm done to minors without branding innocent artists as pedophiles.
2: FFS remove that bit about minors being ok in "SFW" kinks like vore and transformation. Yeah, stuff like that may appear in cartoons and games, but they're not the *focus* of the piece. At the end of the day regardless of whether any sexual acts are performed in them, kink pieces are there for people to jack off to, and minors should not be in them.
----
1: The anti-cub rule needs a lighter touch. The responses to tickets painted a picture that this was more about rooting out hidden pedophiles than protecting anyone, and that the admins were willing to throw out anyone who they had just the faintest suspicions of. That's not a good look, it feels like witch hunts almost, and creates an environment where people are terrified of coming under suspicion. That's really where a lot of the pushback came from, this feeling that it would be incredibly easy to fall under suspicion even if you weren't doing anything wrong, that even if everything you currently had was deemed ok, t his was not a safe place to say because something you add down the road might sway just a *bit* too close, or another mod may make a different ruling on things you were told were ok.
I think it's worth considering WHY having cub porn here is banned. A pedophile finding something attractive is not inherently harmful to children, what is harmful is using it to groom minors. It's the danger of normalizing sexual content with children, and I feel that danger is only really present when the character is *presented* as a child. When I say that, I don't mean "their proportions may be close to a child's" like how the rule was enforced, I mean that it's obvious that the author intended for the character to be a child, or at least represent one. Without that obviousness, it's not really normalizing the behavior IMO.
I would look more to things like how the character is represented as compared to other depictions of the species and especially compared to other characters by the artist. Even for a lot of pokemon and digimon with childlike proportions, I don't imagine most people will look at them and think "that's meant to be a child" because they're not represented as such in the media where they come from, not unless the artist goes out of their way to make them even *more* childlike in either appearance or context.
TL;DR I feel action should be taken if the character is obviously meant to represent a child, but only when it is obvious. This would minimize harm done to minors without branding innocent artists as pedophiles.
2: FFS remove that bit about minors being ok in "SFW" kinks like vore and transformation. Yeah, stuff like that may appear in cartoons and games, but they're not the *focus* of the piece. At the end of the day regardless of whether any sexual acts are performed in them, kink pieces are there for people to jack off to, and minors should not be in them.
