They should just drop all pretense and ban porn

Wont be long until they ban all depictions of eggs (basically children), pregnancy (there's children in there), and anyone under 6ft tall (short people are clearly child-coded).

It's just so frustrating.

Quote: "anyone under 6ft tall (short people are clearly child-coded)."

Guess I'm child-coded since I'm only 5 foot 2 despite being nearly 40 years old.

But honestly that line sounds like something Linden Labs would think is a good idea (Linden Labs for those that don't know are the people responsible for Second Life.)

It'd be really funny for them to ban drawings of 99%+ of women for being under 6 feet

remember yerf?

No

There's hardly gonna be anything left at this rate...

> "exceptions may be made for non-sexual depictions of birth and breastfeeding."

So no, they did not. Only for age regressed content:

> "Characters that have been regressed to being minors, physically or mentally, may not be depicted breastfeeding, being born/unbirthed"

So adults being unbirthed and reborn, still as adults should be fine. Also, the birth of a baby is fine, from what I understand.

Did you miss the "non-sexual" part of the text you literally copied? Who the fuck on here is drawing birthing besides birthing fetish artists? Thats my point.

People who tell/draw stories of relationships, leading to pregnancy and eventually birth. Birth isn't JUST something that can be fetishized after all. And yes, those stories and comics exist, even on FA.

Also, it's an exception to "Content featuring minors is not allowed when the minor is in [...] the presence of sexual activity, sexual objects, sexual language, adult themes, nudity, fetish or kink content, or other prohibited content".

If there's no minor in the sexual content, it's fine. If the minor is in non-sexualized birth related content, it's fine (unless this minor was previously an adult, regressed to a minor).

Sure, you *can* make non-sexualized birthing content. But lets be real, thats in the minority here.

Flittermilk made images of his character giving birth to puppies, for example. That's banned now.

The emotional through-line of my Third Day, Fourth Trial story is Kendra gets TF'd and rapid-pregged against her will, but when she finally gets to hold one of her children, she decides she's okay with it. I cant make that anymore, because guess what, a fox girl with six giant breasts is most definitely sexual, so I cant draw her holding her newborn child, even if I handle the 'birthing' part off screen.

You're dancing around the problem just like FA's explanation of their own ban dances around it. Many artists, especially rapid preg artists, would draw the character giving birth after the preg is finished. They can't post that anymore. I have a comic live right now, where a mother tucks her baby into a blanket and then, in a separate panel at the bottom of the page, her mother is shown naked (and with four breasts). I *think* thats okay, because there seems to be an exception for comics if the baby and the sexual content is on different panels, but its really unclear, because it also sounds like if the page is rated Mature/Adult at all, it isnt allowed to have a child anywhere. Thats how ass their wording is.

Well, at least you wouldn't get a 1 week ban anymore if that's not allowed.

But yeah, I see your point and I can see both sides here with these gray areas.

You can always ask them on the forums if you're not sure. I dunno how quickly they'll respond though.

In the end, if they don't want that kind of content anymore, it's within their rights to disallow it. If they one day decide to disallow anything except pictures of the Mona Lisa, they're allowed to do that.

It sucks, but that's the reality of these kinds of platforms. The only place you can decide for yourself what you like and what's allowed, is on your own website. BlueSky, GrayJay and to an extent LinkTree and Postybirb are actually attempts at decentralizing accounts and content to exactly fix this issue.

I'm not saying I fully agree with the rules. For instance, it technically disallows content related to birth after reincarnation, since the character technically had been an adult in their previous life and are now back to being born as a baby (a minor) in their new life.

Also, I have mixed feelings about them differentiating between normal minors and age regressed minors. I've seen enough non-sexual non-kink age regression content, so applying stricter scrutiny there seems a bit off.

No, it doesn't make sense. Any show of birthing will include a vaginal orifice. Showing one of those automatically elevates the content rating of your piece to at least mature by other guidelines. They now say minors cannot be in any artwork labeled mature or adult. Same with breastfeeding - unclothed breasts automatically bumps a piece's rating up to at least mature.

So both are thus against their rules.

Ah, if that's the case, that is indeed quite inconsistent. I guess they forgot to send it to a legal expert to catch those kinds of inconsistencies, because that wouldn't be in the spirit of these latest changes.

They really are going down that slippery slope of "anything with any degree of separation to something immoral is immoral itself." Eventually there won't be anything left. One day they're going to straight up disallow furry porn for being zoophilia.
At least the new "disable access to minors" setting is actually useful.

I feel like the next ban has to be, like, ferals in general at this point, right?

Or hell, maybe they will ban oviposition, apparently their stance on their discord is that fertilized embryos count as minors, lmao

no more depictions of sperms fertilizing eggs, either, i suppose!

You jumping ship to move to weasyl or somewhere that does allow birth?

Can't really. Firstly, I don't actually like drawing birthing much, it's more that I'm not sure how to do the ending for 3rd/4th note without being able to show them with their newborns.

Second, 4/5ths of my traffic is from FA, I'm kinda trapped here.

Oh, alright then.

I think something like that could get through under "non-sexual depictions of birth and breastfeeding," as long as the act itself is not being depicted as actively sexual (i.e. no corny hentai dialogue) and there isn't any actual sex going on in the same panel.

Banning an image of basic motherhood just because the mom herself is hot is just absurd.

Also, farther down is this:
• UP 2.7 enforcement is being revised to be more lenient for users in good standing, while remaining strict on severe violations.
I think the "non-sexual depictions of birth and breastfeeding," exception is actually at least partially intended as a deliberate loophole that lets them allow art like yours where the infant is essentially a prop with no erotic focus. This policy update is basically them tightening the loophole, but you should probably still fit through it.

Elsewhere in the article it actually says that this change was due to people using age regression to slip characters that were effectively minors into sexual situations where they would normally not be allowed (and apparently dirty diapers, which to be frank is something which I will not argue against the removal of from my feed)

I get that, but they specifically and explicitly say that you cant have minors in works rated Mature or Adult. There's not much wiggle room there.

Um, the loophole is actually attached to that part as well. Like, literally in the same sentence as it.

"Content featuring minors is not allowed when the minor is in Mature or Adult content outlined by our Content Guidelines (Section 1.1) nor the presence of sexual activity, sexual objects, sexual language, adult themes, nudity, fetish or kink content, or other prohibited content (examples detailed below); however, exceptions may be made for non-sexual depictions of birth and breastfeeding."

I understand that, but the "non-sexual" there implies artistic nudity, and not, like, porn, which what the comics are. The entire thing hinges on what "non-sexual" means. Cuz i dunno about you, but two hyper preg, multibreast furries giving birth to 50 babies certainly seems sexual.

I would argue that the miracle of childbirth is not an inherently sexual act, regardless of scale or source.

And that's really the point of a loophole: to use semantics to argue why your particular case qualifies for or is exempt from another portion of a larger overarching ruleset. If they give you an out, use it.

And honestly, they're probably not going to care unless someone else raises a stink about it first (which is basically what you're doing here about your own works). You're not the kind of person they're trying to target with this, as long as you make sure not to "fetishize" the infants themselves. Like I said earlier, they're basically props, set dressing which is given no direct erotic focus. As long as that is the case and there's no actual sex or instruments thereof in the same picture (they actually specify that comics are judged panel-by-panel, instead of as a singular image), they'll probably give you a pass regardless of how sexual you think the piece itself is.

In fact, is there some way to ask them beforehand? Like a pre-emptive appeal? "Hey, I want to post this piece, but I'm worried about whether it violates [policy X] or if it qualifies for [exception Y] by way of [argument Z]. Can you give me a clear ruling on whether or not I am allowed to post it?" Be polite and clear, and have your case out front. If they say no, thank them for the clear warning and don't post it until the violation has been removed. But if they say yes, then you have official precedent you can point to if anyone else tries to make trouble over it.
Heck, you'd probably have a better chance at a favorable ruling than if someone filed a report against the exact same picture. Better to ask permission than forgiveness, in this case.


...

You know, it really says something about human culture when the attention of any sort of authority triggers an automatic panic response from everyone in the general area, like we can't trust anyone with power to not be a complete dick about it at every opportunity. Yet another thing we can "thank" the politicians for, I suppose.

"And that's really the point of a loophole: to use semantics to argue why your particular case qualifies for or is exempt from another portion of a larger overarching ruleset. If they give you an out, use it." lol, thats not how the mods here work. They ban you and refuse elaborate. This isnt me being hysterical, its been proven, time and time and time and time and time [...] and time again. Dozens and dozens of examples. They do not care to let you plead your case. They just don't care.

"they'll probably give you a pass regardless of how sexual you think the piece itself is." They made me delete a comic page of an adult turning into a Zorua because it had one (1) visible nipple, displayed in what I would argue is a non-sexual context.

"In fact, is there some way to ask them beforehand?" Yes, actually. I did that last year with the previous change to this very policy, where again, they made me delete that zorua comic, along with some other pieces I had. And I got roasted in the comments for drawing attention to myself for submitting trouble tickets. Not doing that again. Feel free to go into my journal history and read about my previous trouble tickets.

This isnt about rule enforcement in general. This about FA's proven track record of terrible overreach and nonsensical and vague rules changes. This is a pattern we've seen from them for years, even if *you* havent.

Uh that's exactly why it's not allowed - nudity will be present.

They have absolutely no idea what they're doing.

Soon pregnancy will be banned because of "presence of minors"

Im glad someone asked about that in the discord cuz that was very nearly true. Same with oviposition, a lot of people are interpreting Luffy's statements there to mean that oviposition is banned if it has fertilized eggs, which would take out like half the tag on this website. It seems like theyre walking that back? But enough people have come away with that impression that they really should make an official statement about it.

Their rules are self contradictory. Any birthing or breastfeeding will involve nudity, which they also say cannot exist in a piece with minors. Their logic is fundamentally flawed and they look like idiots for pushing this.

Thats why they say that non-sexual depictions of it are fine. You know, the artsy farty "artistic nudity" kind. Greco-Roman statues and whatnot. Its still effectively a ban, but a few people who arent making it for porn reasons can still post it, I guess.

I would honestly say there is no such thing as artistic nudity on a porn site....which this is. Obviously anyone can interpret your "artistic nudity" as normal nudity and ban you. The people enforcing the rules have proven to be capricious and arbitrary, if not intentionally pushing an agenda.

Oh, no, didn't you hear? This isn't a porn site, FurAffinity is a child-friendly platform that anyone should safe and comfortable allowing their children to browse unsupervised.
*eyes-roll so hard they go back into my brain*

an egg alone is INANIMATE, wtf are they doing???

Like, I dont think theyre actually banning ovi, I think it was just Luffy talking without thinking. I heard that theyve been trying to walk that particular statement back? Idk. They could really stand to make an official statement about it.

well now the babies don't birth just spawn

They actually tried to say egg-laying was banned because 'there's a minor inside the egg' on the discord, and people pummeled them so hard about how stupid that was that they back tracked.

this is fucking, ridiculous. Sciggles even said 'she didn't wanna change anything to honour neer's wishes' and then she and the rest of the mods immediately did all this dumb shit.

I get the feeling of not being able to leave though, if I didn't use FA i'd have to way to pay bills. it really fucking sucks. I'm wishing you the best, if you end up making an account on a new platform to try it out I'll definitely follow you there :(

https://tenor.com/view/popcorn-guy-.....n-gif-26404903

What's next is kissing going to be banned because kissing -> sex -> pregnancy -> children?