this journal is for feedback
1. **The advocacy/policy argument**
2. **The concrete, visual guidance**
The advocacy/policy argument
This journal is my feedback and constructive criticism and the response to the trouble ticket.
You can read the exact text of that ticket, along with my personal account of the experience here.
https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/11218702/

## 🗂 Comfort‑Wear, Diapers, Wetness & Onesies — Safe Presentation Feedback

Think of it like a **scale** you can control, so you can keep it subtle and rule‑safe:

| Wetness Level | Description | Safe Example |
|

---

|

---

|

---

|
| **Level 0 – None** | No visual dampness at all. | A completely dry diaper, onesie, or outfit. |
| **Level 1 – Implied** | No visible patch — only environmental storytelling. | Sitting on damp grass, holding a tipped cup, standing in light rain. |
| **Level 2 – Very Subtle** | Slight colour shift or texture change, not the focus of the image. | A faint darker area on clothing, small enough to be ambiguous. |
| **Level 3 – Moderate** | More noticeable patch, but still without detail or emphasis. | A darker area that could be from water play, rain, or a spill. |
| **Level 4 – heavy** 🚫 | Clear, detailed depiction of bodily fluids.| Not safe for FA under current rules — avoid for non‑sexual comfort art.
For **FA‑safe, non‑sexual comfort‑wear art**, you’d want to stay in **Level 0–2**, maybe Level 3 if the environmental cause is crystal‑clear and non‑sexual.


| Aspect | Positive Notes | Potential Improvements | Safety & Rule Alignment |
|

---

|

---

|

---

|

---

|
| **Clothing Fit & Style** | Outfit feels cohesive with character’s personality; colours and textures add warmth. | Consider looser or layered options for a more “comfort‑wear” vibe; avoid overly form‑fitting if aiming for all‑ages safe. | Ensure no sexual framing; focus on “cosy,” “soft,” or “playful” descriptors. |
| **Onesies / Rompers** | Great for reinforcing a nurturing, regression‑safe aesthetic; can be patterned or themed to match character traits. | Add accessories like plushies, blankets, or themed socks to strengthen the comfort‑wear tone. | Frame as practical or cute clothing; avoid emphasis on body shape or suggestive posing. |
| **Diaper as Comfort‑Wear** | Presented as part of a gentle, nurturing aesthetic; matches character’s colour palette. | Could add context props (plushies, blankets) to reinforce non‑sexual, regression‑safe tone. | Avoid fetish framing; treat as clothing/accessory, not a sexual object. |
| **Wetness Depiction** | If included, subtle cues (colour shift, pattern change) keep it understated. | Consider symbolic or environmental cues (e.g., rain, spilled drink, damp grass) to imply without explicit focus. | FA rules currently restrict explicit bodily function depictions — keep abstract or symbolic. |
| **Overall Scene Tone** | Warm, safe, and emotionally resonant; communicates care and comfort. | Add narrative captions that clarify intent (“after a long nap,” “cosy rainy day indoors”). | Clear intent statements in description help moderators see non‑sexual framing. |


# 🛡 Comfort‑Wear, Wetness, and Artistic Safety — Why FA’s Rules Must Change

Recently, I submitted a ticket to clarify how comfort‑wear, diaper depictions, and wetness cues can be presented safely and non‑sexually.
The reply labelled my content “inappropriate.”
I’m taking this moment to show exactly why that label is outdated — and why the rules **must** be updated

## 2️⃣ Why the Current Rules Fail

FA’s existing policy was written to block explicit sexualisation — and that’s still important.
But in practice, it now **blocks safe, non‑sexual expression** that reflects real‑world comfort practices, disability realities, and neurodivergent coping tools.
This is not a hypothetical. It’s happening now, and it’s harming inclusion.

---

## 3️⃣ Society Has Moved On — FA Needs to Catch Up

- Comfort‑wear and regression‑safe art and RL photo are now widely recognised as therapeutic, nostalgic, and identity‑affirming.
- Disability and neurodivergent communities have fought for visibility and respect in how their clothing and care needs are portrayed.
- **Diapers are not inherently a kink** — treating them as such is a harmful stereotype that misrepresents the ABDL community and erases the many non‑sexual contexts in which they appear. This bias directly fuels unfair moderation decisions and needs to be addressed in policy.
- Blanket bans ignore context, intent, and presentation — and in doing so, they erase safe representation.

---

## 4️⃣ The Update FA Must Make

1. **Separate sexualised from non‑sexual comfort‑wear** in the rules.
2. **Allow symbolic/narrative wetness cues** when clearly non‑sexual.
3. **Encourage intent statements and safe‑topic tags** to help moderators.

This is not optional — it’s necessary to keep FA relevant, inclusive, and fair

## 5️⃣ Closing

Labelling safe, non‑sexual comfort‑wear art as “inappropriate” is not protecting the community — it’s excluding it.
Safety isn’t censorship, and censorship isn’t safety.
It’s time for FA’s rules to reflect the reality of its diverse, creative user base.


### 🌟 A Call to Speak Up

If you’ve ever felt your art, your identity, or your comfort practices misunderstood, you are not alone.
Your voice matters — not just for yourself, but for everyone who shares your experiences quietly in the background.

Change doesn’t come from silence. It grows when we speak with honesty, kindness, and conviction.
Every respectful story, every thoughtful comment, every shared perspective adds weight to the truth: **safe, non‑sexual representation belongs here**.

You don’t have to write an essay or start a debate — even a few words of support can help shift the conversation.
When we stand together, we show that our community is stronger, more diverse, and more compassionate than outdated rules give us credit for.

Let’s make sure our voices are heard — not in anger, but in clarity, care, and unity. This isn’t just my experience — many in the community have spoken up, yet have been let down. I’m not alone in feeling this way — others have described the moderation process as inconsistent, biased, and dismissive, with vague terms like “lacking artistic merit” used to remove work without clear explanation. People have shared how it feels like certain mediums or creators are scrutinised more than others, and how the silence from staff only deepens that sense of unfairness.
FA has long claimed to care about the community and to value transparency, yet repeated concerns about bias, inconsistent enforcement, and dismissive language have gone unanswered. No mascot or staff member has addressed these issues publicly, despite many users raising them over time. Until that happens, those promises feel hollow — and it’s hard to believe the platform truly values the community it says it serves.
My aim here isn’t to attack, but to ensure the rules reflect the diversity and safety needs of the community they serve. I welcome a public explanation from staff so the community can better understand the standards being applied.
Every day this silence continues, trust erodes a little more. We deserve a platform where rules are applied fairly, where intent and context matter, and where creators can feel safe expressing themselves without fear of arbitrary removal. If you’ve had similar experiences, I encourage you to share them — not to stir conflict, but to show that these concerns are real, widespread, and worth addressing. Change doesn’t happen in the dark; it happens when we speak together, clearly and respectfully, until we’re heard.
>
This matters to me because comfort‑wear and safe, non‑sexual representation aren’t just a hobby or a visual they’re part of how I express who I am, connect with others, and create spaces where people can feel seen without fear of judgement. For others, it can be a lifeline: a way to feel understood, to reclaim something that brings peace, or to see their own needs reflected without shame. When these expressions are unfairly restricted, it doesn’t just limit what we can share it limits belonging, and it tells people their comfort and identity don’t matter here.