FA+
Shop
FA's New Policy and How It Targets AB/DL Artists
a year ago
From the desk of Bally...
Fur Affinity updated the infamous Upload Policy 2.7 today, adding the following amendments. Instead of simply listing them, I would like to talk about each one in detail...
"Minors may not have detailed bulges or outlines of normal or hyper genitalia, clothed or otherwise."
This is 100% understandable. Visible bulges on minors might attract the wrong kind of attention.
Minors may not be depicted as pregnant.
This policy used to exclude adolescents, citing the film Juno as an example of teenage pregnancy in a serious, non-sexualized context. Apparently it's just a blanket ban now, so even if you're trying to offer serious commentary on a very real issue, you can't.
Minors may not be shown wearing messy (depicted as brown, yellow, leaky, lumpy with excrement, visible wetness/soiled indicator, etc.) diapers. This does not apply to big or puffy clean diapers.
I understand that diaper usage is definitely not for everyone (even I have my limits), but it does have a very large audience. While bodily functions can indeed be the focus of sexual gratification, not everyone views them as such. Not to mention that diapers are specifically made for the purpose of collecting bodily waste. What's next? Banning depictions of used tissues?
Minors may not be depicted relieving themselves or in content focused on them using the restroom.
I can understand where this is coming from, but it still feels very harsh. If you're trying to tell a slice of life story where someone is being potty trained or trying to find a bathroom at the mall (or even in the wilderness), good luck.
The focus (e.g. zoomed in, primary part of the content) of the content may not be on specific body parts of a minor, such as their feet, groin, butts, clothed or otherwise. This does not apply to content where the focus on these parts is coincidental.
I guess anything can be "coincidental". If a character is in gym class, then you better not show a close-up of their tennis shoes as they finally make that last hurdle jump!
Characters that have been regressed to being minors, physically or mentally, may not be depicted breastfeeding, being born/unbirthed, or having their diapers changed.
This one is just fucking stupid. First off, "real" regression is entirely fictional (hypnosis can put someone at ease, but it can't give them the mindset of a literal infant). Second, plenty of adults breastfeed as a form of role-play (or as a kink), and they fully consent to the practice. Third, being "unborn" (or born twice) is another thing that you can't do in real life. Finally, a regressed character having their diaper changed is part of the fantasy. It's been a popular cartoon gag since at least the 1930s (Hanna-Barbera's "Baby Puss" is a good example).
From what I can gather, FA is either misguided, misinformed, or has an active disdain for AB/DL artists. I would not be surprised if the site is sold after the current owners "clean it up".
If you need a new gallery site, I highly recommend SoFurry (sofurrybeta.com), as it is very feature rich and is currently in the process of being rebuilt.
"Minors may not have detailed bulges or outlines of normal or hyper genitalia, clothed or otherwise."
This is 100% understandable. Visible bulges on minors might attract the wrong kind of attention.
Minors may not be depicted as pregnant.
This policy used to exclude adolescents, citing the film Juno as an example of teenage pregnancy in a serious, non-sexualized context. Apparently it's just a blanket ban now, so even if you're trying to offer serious commentary on a very real issue, you can't.
Minors may not be shown wearing messy (depicted as brown, yellow, leaky, lumpy with excrement, visible wetness/soiled indicator, etc.) diapers. This does not apply to big or puffy clean diapers.
I understand that diaper usage is definitely not for everyone (even I have my limits), but it does have a very large audience. While bodily functions can indeed be the focus of sexual gratification, not everyone views them as such. Not to mention that diapers are specifically made for the purpose of collecting bodily waste. What's next? Banning depictions of used tissues?
Minors may not be depicted relieving themselves or in content focused on them using the restroom.
I can understand where this is coming from, but it still feels very harsh. If you're trying to tell a slice of life story where someone is being potty trained or trying to find a bathroom at the mall (or even in the wilderness), good luck.
The focus (e.g. zoomed in, primary part of the content) of the content may not be on specific body parts of a minor, such as their feet, groin, butts, clothed or otherwise. This does not apply to content where the focus on these parts is coincidental.
I guess anything can be "coincidental". If a character is in gym class, then you better not show a close-up of their tennis shoes as they finally make that last hurdle jump!
Characters that have been regressed to being minors, physically or mentally, may not be depicted breastfeeding, being born/unbirthed, or having their diapers changed.
This one is just fucking stupid. First off, "real" regression is entirely fictional (hypnosis can put someone at ease, but it can't give them the mindset of a literal infant). Second, plenty of adults breastfeed as a form of role-play (or as a kink), and they fully consent to the practice. Third, being "unborn" (or born twice) is another thing that you can't do in real life. Finally, a regressed character having their diaper changed is part of the fantasy. It's been a popular cartoon gag since at least the 1930s (Hanna-Barbera's "Baby Puss" is a good example).
From what I can gather, FA is either misguided, misinformed, or has an active disdain for AB/DL artists. I would not be surprised if the site is sold after the current owners "clean it up".
If you need a new gallery site, I highly recommend SoFurry (sofurrybeta.com), as it is very feature rich and is currently in the process of being rebuilt.
FA's admins pretty much shot themselves in the foot by doing this.
And I'm going to inkbunny deviantar and weasyl although I don't have them that active
I saw a comic involving an adult being regressed into a baby and being treated like one too. And when he shat himself it zoomed in to focus on nothing but the diaper being shat in. That's legit kinda fetishy, at least imo considering that's EXACTLY what ppl in this community do with wet or messy art, zoom into the mess being made or make it the main focus of the art by having it being pointed out.
Stuff like that is why they probably banned zoom ins and wet/messy on minors.