FA+
Shop
Assumptions...
2 years ago
From the most current news journal (https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/10560608) :
“Minors younger than 13 may not be depicted as pregnant.”
The reason we originally implemented this clause on April 16th, 2020 was to allow representation for those persons to illustrate or tell their stories, as this may be important backgrounds of themselves, loved ones, or even as contextual story elements (e.g. the movie Juno), but NEVER as something to be fetishized.
So staff assumed that the liberty this rule provides, which can only be correctly used via the 0.01% of people who actually have experience or contact or non-sexual interest in teenage-pregnancy (above 13), would actually only be used by those people. And not by people fetishizing it?
Okay, so FA staff has a lot of faith in our community. Let's give them that.
But at the same time now when it comes to remotely childish looking pokemon and digimon where easily 50-70% of all the artists of that here on FA, draw it because they just like the cuteness of those looks, staff suddenly assumes that those artists are in fact drawing cub porn?! (the consequence of breaking the rule is identical to posting straight up cub porn here).
What the frick, where's the logic?
P.s. I am assuming here too with the 50-70% of course. The base of my assumption are the many journals of people announcing to leave the site or build a second gallery. Roughly 50% consider or already use inkbunny and even some of them say they'd use the black list to actually hide straight up cub porn there.
“Minors younger than 13 may not be depicted as pregnant.”
The reason we originally implemented this clause on April 16th, 2020 was to allow representation for those persons to illustrate or tell their stories, as this may be important backgrounds of themselves, loved ones, or even as contextual story elements (e.g. the movie Juno), but NEVER as something to be fetishized.
So staff assumed that the liberty this rule provides, which can only be correctly used via the 0.01% of people who actually have experience or contact or non-sexual interest in teenage-pregnancy (above 13), would actually only be used by those people. And not by people fetishizing it?
Okay, so FA staff has a lot of faith in our community. Let's give them that.
But at the same time now when it comes to remotely childish looking pokemon and digimon where easily 50-70% of all the artists of that here on FA, draw it because they just like the cuteness of those looks, staff suddenly assumes that those artists are in fact drawing cub porn?! (the consequence of breaking the rule is identical to posting straight up cub porn here).
What the frick, where's the logic?
P.s. I am assuming here too with the 50-70% of course. The base of my assumption are the many journals of people announcing to leave the site or build a second gallery. Roughly 50% consider or already use inkbunny and even some of them say they'd use the black list to actually hide straight up cub porn there.
I can't wrap my head around their logic either...
Breast feeding is not inherently sexual. It is something normal that happens out there. Several countries allow it in public without problems.
Reeeal smart rule...
Many of the artists who draw me have different styles, some chibi, some with proportions that are now 'wrong', etc. It's not because they are trying to make me a minor. It's because it's their style.
Some artists haven't even mastered proportion, so their adult or child drawings have the same proportions. I still love their drawings and the effort they put into them. But now the policy says those images aren't allowed in sexual situations, despite the fact that they are drawing adult characters.
There is no logic behind it. It's all about how fictional cartoon drawings of mostly imaginary character look. They claim a Pichu or a aYoshi can be confused with a real child! How? If a real child were ever born looking like one of those, it would be all over the news. How often do people have bright yellow babies with tails, fur or scales, and pointy ears!? A seven-year-old wouldn't confuse a real kid with a cartoon drawing of a non-human species! Those who make FA policy don't appear to have developed the cognitive skills of a seven-year-old!
It's not to protect children, because pictures involving sexual situations are already required to be tagged as adult or mature, and never general. Minors are already age-locked from seeing those, regardless of how old the characters appear. It's definitely not to protect children, because they are still letting real adults and real minors talk with each other in private notes on this site. I've had minors note me, over the past 16+ years, asking if I'll be at an upcoming event, to see if I was open to fursuit sex with them. Of course I said, "no", upon realizing they were a minor.
I even filed a trouble ticket asking FA if they could put an indicator on people's names to let us know when someone is underage, so we could avoid talking with them. Or, just give us an option to block minors from contacting us. They said, "no", and said it was for privacy concerns! I told them, if someone is blocked from noting me, I'd never see their message, so how would that be a privacy concern? They responded by saying they were closing the trouble ticket, and to not to bring it up again. That was a dozen years ago. To this day, minors and adults can still note each other to plan sex meetings! So, if FA says they are doing something to protect children, it's meaningless. But, they'll ban fictitious art of imaginary characters, that they wrongly assume to be underage.
Inkbunny pretty much solved the issue. They simply don't allow minors to sign up, so minors and adults cannot interact with each other on that site - the ultimate protection. I bet there's fifty times as many actual pedophiles here on FA than there are on Inkbunny, because FA makes it so easy for them to interact with real minors. It's totally twisted logic.
But yeah, hard to get definite data.