FA+
Shop
Should certain art be banned?
15 years ago
If a society deems something to be too troubling to allow, then it should be disallowed. If we play our stereo too loud in the wee hours of the morning, we get into trouble. If we whip our children with rods until it raises welts, we get into trouble. If we sell beer before noon on Sunday (in Texas) we get into trouble. These are rules passed by our society. Yes, the intellectual comfort of the (vast) majority outweighs the rights of the (vast) minority to get their rocks off.
Are these rules ludicrous and closed-minded? Perhaps. In many cases yes. But they are in place because enough of the community felt so strongly about these situations as to exert pressure on our government representatives to pass laws.
Do we have the option of "not looking"? Sure. Is pornography "harmless"? I don't know. I *do* know, however, that people become desensitized, sometimes. I *do* know that orgasm triggers the release of some brain chemicals that are also released by highly addictive drugs. I also know that pornographers often use excuses that make their "art" seem more acceptable. "It's not a child, it's a chibi elf." "It's not child molestation.. the little girl is seducing her dad, so it's consensual, so it's not bad." "This is just thematically representative of Greek History." All of this spells a growing need for ever-increasing realism in a small fraction of individuals. I know that the vast, vast majority of "cub art" fans out there would never and will never ever consider touching a real child inappropriately. However, there are cases in which a visual stimulation has become an obsession, which resulted in physical action. If a law will frustrate 10,000 cub-art furry fans, but protect one little girl from her neighbor's obsessive curiosity.. then there is no reason not to pass the law.
But, what about social identity? I've seen it mentioned a few times that not all furries want to be associated with the outer-most fringes of this community. What if an artist or author loves the furry fandom, and loves furries, but does not want the non-fur world to associate him (or her) with images of child molestation, brutal rape and murder, bestiality, and whatever else is out there? They do have the option of not looking or not participating, really, but why should they be excluded from sharing their artwork with furries and the world, just because a minuscule fraction of the furry population engages in fantasies that the majority of the world deems freakish, disturbing, disgusting and threatening?
Are cub-furs "evil?" No, not on the whole. Do they have very, very, very unpopular fantasies? Yes. Do their fantasies make others uncomfortable? Clearly. So uncomfortable that entire counties, states and/or countries have passed laws against art depicting these fantasies? Obviously. Is it right to pass such laws? I say yes. If 6,999,500 out of 7,000,000 people in an area are disturbed and bothered, threatened and worried by a form of pornography, then maybe that last 500 should consider finding a less "oppressive" place to live, or like in the case of online art communities, maybe they should make their own, private gallery, and share amongst each other, where they are SURE not to be judged or hated for wanting to see adults penetrate children, and vice-versa.
There are many artists, writers and musicians on FA who create professional-quality works. They are (rightfully) proud of their creations, and in many cases could use FA as a professional gallery to show to prospective clients and employers. They have spent hours, days, weeks, months, even years creating these masterpieces, but are, in many cases, too afraid to share their links outside the furry community, for fear of losing professional opportunities because of the presence of cub, and other extremely unpopular forms of furry art. There have been plenty of furries who have lost their jobs already because of the unfortunate sexual reputation of the fandom, and there are many more who are fearful of losing employment and more because of the over-exuberance and egocentric need for attention expressed by a very small group within this community. Banning cub art doesn't say that cub furs are evil; it merely protects a worried majority against the unpredictable reactions of the main-stream world to the troubling behavior of the outspoken few.
Are these rules ludicrous and closed-minded? Perhaps. In many cases yes. But they are in place because enough of the community felt so strongly about these situations as to exert pressure on our government representatives to pass laws.
Do we have the option of "not looking"? Sure. Is pornography "harmless"? I don't know. I *do* know, however, that people become desensitized, sometimes. I *do* know that orgasm triggers the release of some brain chemicals that are also released by highly addictive drugs. I also know that pornographers often use excuses that make their "art" seem more acceptable. "It's not a child, it's a chibi elf." "It's not child molestation.. the little girl is seducing her dad, so it's consensual, so it's not bad." "This is just thematically representative of Greek History." All of this spells a growing need for ever-increasing realism in a small fraction of individuals. I know that the vast, vast majority of "cub art" fans out there would never and will never ever consider touching a real child inappropriately. However, there are cases in which a visual stimulation has become an obsession, which resulted in physical action. If a law will frustrate 10,000 cub-art furry fans, but protect one little girl from her neighbor's obsessive curiosity.. then there is no reason not to pass the law.
But, what about social identity? I've seen it mentioned a few times that not all furries want to be associated with the outer-most fringes of this community. What if an artist or author loves the furry fandom, and loves furries, but does not want the non-fur world to associate him (or her) with images of child molestation, brutal rape and murder, bestiality, and whatever else is out there? They do have the option of not looking or not participating, really, but why should they be excluded from sharing their artwork with furries and the world, just because a minuscule fraction of the furry population engages in fantasies that the majority of the world deems freakish, disturbing, disgusting and threatening?
Are cub-furs "evil?" No, not on the whole. Do they have very, very, very unpopular fantasies? Yes. Do their fantasies make others uncomfortable? Clearly. So uncomfortable that entire counties, states and/or countries have passed laws against art depicting these fantasies? Obviously. Is it right to pass such laws? I say yes. If 6,999,500 out of 7,000,000 people in an area are disturbed and bothered, threatened and worried by a form of pornography, then maybe that last 500 should consider finding a less "oppressive" place to live, or like in the case of online art communities, maybe they should make their own, private gallery, and share amongst each other, where they are SURE not to be judged or hated for wanting to see adults penetrate children, and vice-versa.
There are many artists, writers and musicians on FA who create professional-quality works. They are (rightfully) proud of their creations, and in many cases could use FA as a professional gallery to show to prospective clients and employers. They have spent hours, days, weeks, months, even years creating these masterpieces, but are, in many cases, too afraid to share their links outside the furry community, for fear of losing professional opportunities because of the presence of cub, and other extremely unpopular forms of furry art. There have been plenty of furries who have lost their jobs already because of the unfortunate sexual reputation of the fandom, and there are many more who are fearful of losing employment and more because of the over-exuberance and egocentric need for attention expressed by a very small group within this community. Banning cub art doesn't say that cub furs are evil; it merely protects a worried majority against the unpredictable reactions of the main-stream world to the troubling behavior of the outspoken few.
It's art!
I agree that cub-furs as a whole aren't evil. It's the extremists that take it too far that are disturbing to the majority, and also as stated, there need to be private groups related to their fetish rather than making it a bloated public issue.
IMNSHO Cub + Wood = Seek Professional Help
but obviously some forms of art production should be banned period - the performance ones, mostly
We will *not* get to a point where cops kick down random furries' doors and search our hard drives for child pornography. Those searches occur, as Greggest has said, when there is a warrant and reasonable suspicion. But even then, haven't most of the pedophile pornography furs who *have* gotten caught been nabbed at conventions?
The danger that any of us face does not come from random search and seizure, but from unfortunate association. How many furries now have been fired from their jobs because of MTV? And that was just because some adolescent twerp said that "furry is sexual, period!" What now? When cub furs are drawing and displaying graphic pornography on general adult art boards, and others are being arrested for real, human child pornography?
These brand-new furries whine and plex about having to "come out of the furry closet." There never needed to be a furry closet until now, and it's because of *them*.
Had we all kept our fool mouths shut, had we kept our porn private and out fringe groups quiet, we would still be flying under the social radar. But we spread out and allowed children into our midst, and now we are being included in prohibitive laws.
All it takes is the next step to happen or someone to cross a line.
Well... if we're talking about individuals and businesses raiding hard drives, isn't that already a risk? Really there's already no way to keep files and information private without storing them completely offline and only accessing them when disconnected.
But the original point, about "cub" porn being banned, isn't really impacted by the dangers of invasion-of-privacy. Whether it's legal/permitted or illegal/banned, its presence on someone's hard drive would be damning, regardless of how it was discovered. So the issue of people searching one another's hard drives, while a legitimate concern in and of itself, shouldn't impact the decision whether or not to ban "cub" porn.