FA+
Shop
Age Restricted Diapers?
6 months ago
General
Note: This is not meant to be an attack on certain artists. All artists have the write to choose what they will and will not draw and I will respect their choices and you should too.
I’ve noticed an increasing trend among babyfur and diaperfur artists, where they have introduced regulations against drawing characters who are under 18.
This is understandable, as babyfur and diaperfur stuff is a kink and sexualization of minors is a VERY BIG NO NO.
What bothers me is the fact that people believe that simply putting a diaper on a character itself is considered an unforgivable devious act. This definitely should NOT be done in real life, but on fictional cute characters from cartoons and such, is it the same? If the context itself is sexual, then yeah, it’s bad, but it doesn’t have to be that way for all the time.
Remember the numerous cartoons we watched where young characters, through one way or another, ended up in diapers? I can name many off the top of my head, and these were never complained about, because they were never sexual (well except Family Guy because, well, Family Guy, ick). As such, I wouldn’t consider it to be inappropriate to draw a cute fictional child character in a diaper (especially if they were a cartoon). There are also characters out there who canonically wear diapers already, so it’s just part of their character.
I assume the main reason many artists don’t draw kid characters in diapers is because of poor judgment from others. Some of the more “unfriendly” types could easily take a scene of something like a kid character getting put in a diaper change machine as sexualization of the kid since the theme can be linked to diaper kink. We already saw what happened to a lot of babyfurs recently as a result of poor judgment, and so many artists likely take this stance as a way to minimize that risk.
I personally don’t mind drawing kid characters in diapers since a lot of my OCs are babies and there are also a lot of fictional kid characters that are fun to draw in diaps. I, of course, do my best to steer away from sexual content, and I also don’t even draw humans in diaps, so that’s why I find it acceptable in my case at least. There may be others who disagree and I’m sorry if it disturbs you. Either way, it’s fine if you don’t feel the same, this was just something I wanted to talk about.
I’ve noticed an increasing trend among babyfur and diaperfur artists, where they have introduced regulations against drawing characters who are under 18.
This is understandable, as babyfur and diaperfur stuff is a kink and sexualization of minors is a VERY BIG NO NO.
What bothers me is the fact that people believe that simply putting a diaper on a character itself is considered an unforgivable devious act. This definitely should NOT be done in real life, but on fictional cute characters from cartoons and such, is it the same? If the context itself is sexual, then yeah, it’s bad, but it doesn’t have to be that way for all the time.
Remember the numerous cartoons we watched where young characters, through one way or another, ended up in diapers? I can name many off the top of my head, and these were never complained about, because they were never sexual (well except Family Guy because, well, Family Guy, ick). As such, I wouldn’t consider it to be inappropriate to draw a cute fictional child character in a diaper (especially if they were a cartoon). There are also characters out there who canonically wear diapers already, so it’s just part of their character.
I assume the main reason many artists don’t draw kid characters in diapers is because of poor judgment from others. Some of the more “unfriendly” types could easily take a scene of something like a kid character getting put in a diaper change machine as sexualization of the kid since the theme can be linked to diaper kink. We already saw what happened to a lot of babyfurs recently as a result of poor judgment, and so many artists likely take this stance as a way to minimize that risk.
I personally don’t mind drawing kid characters in diapers since a lot of my OCs are babies and there are also a lot of fictional kid characters that are fun to draw in diaps. I, of course, do my best to steer away from sexual content, and I also don’t even draw humans in diaps, so that’s why I find it acceptable in my case at least. There may be others who disagree and I’m sorry if it disturbs you. Either way, it’s fine if you don’t feel the same, this was just something I wanted to talk about.
Believe me when I say, It's ok to have an open mind. But always remember, not everyone thinks the same as a rare few with actual common sense. And if someone disagree with your choice of art, whether it's Diaperfur, kid characters in Diapers etc, Then be the bigger person and say you're not worth it and walk away.
Don't let doubt and fear destroy everything you believe in and work so hard for. Leon, I have really enjoyed the content and art you put together with Parker and Leon(aka probably you LOL) for the past several years. Even if the majority of art nowadays focus on Adult BS, there are still few good artists like you that continue to work on Babyfur content with funny stories and silly characters in diapers (including old school cartoons characters like Tuffy, Whooper, Care Bares etc) without using any adult content at all, and that to me is how I want describe the Babyfur community.
Though, I wouldn't so much put 'babyfur' and 'diaperfur' stuff---or, rather, things in relation to, quite simply, 'art featuring diapers'--- directly as a kink; as it kind of insinuates that those things have some kind of sexual preference even if the material doesn't aim to or has nothing to do with that. That would be like saying any character with a diaper is somehow grounds for being labeled as such. Do some people do it as a 'kink'? Sure, probably, but not everybody does, and thinking that's just ironclad is pretty limiting (and, hence, why the problem above happens.)
Sure you didn't mean to give that implication, but just something to keep in mind for those who aren't into that sort of scene or being labeled as such. But, of course, like always, it's a tentative subject---it's just a matter of understanding that there are layers to such things and not just a 'this or that' sort of mindset.
But yeah, I agree, there are some later layers that are not something to be explored, but others are so mild or so benign that to go to Def-Con-1 on them and consider them the same way is, yeah, something that needs to be handled with actual care. It's that difficulty, to understand the difference, and, unfortunately, humans haven't developed well enough to see it all that often.