FA+
Shop
Questions: Definition of "cub art"?
15 years ago
General
One year has passed since I joined FA.
I have learned a lot of things and enjoyed communication with many people here.
But I have not understood yet the word....it is "cub art".
I saw some people used the word many time but the meaning seemed to be vague for me.
So I would appreciate it if you could let me know your comment about my questions as follows. You don't need to answer all. Take it easy!
1) Could you let me know the exact definition of “cub art”?
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
Thank you for your cooperation!
FAを始めてから1年になりますが、未だに皆さんが使うcub artの意味が私の中で定まっていません。
自分の理解を深めるために、下記の質問に回答してもらえると助かります。
全部回答される必要はありませんので、お気軽にどうぞ。
１）Cub artの正確な定義は何だと思いますか？
２）Cub artという単語自体に性的な意味は含まれますか？
３）Cub artと"loli/shota furry art"の違いは？
４）ポケモンイラストはcub artですか？
５）Sanaeのギャラリーにcub artは含まれていると思いますか？
６）どんな見た目でも「オトナのキャラです」と注釈があればcub artではないと思いますか？
７）Cub artという単語を見たときにどんな気分になりますか？
ご協力ありがとうございます～m(_ _)m
I have learned a lot of things and enjoyed communication with many people here.
But I have not understood yet the word....it is "cub art".
I saw some people used the word many time but the meaning seemed to be vague for me.
So I would appreciate it if you could let me know your comment about my questions as follows. You don't need to answer all. Take it easy!
1) Could you let me know the exact definition of “cub art”?
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
Thank you for your cooperation!
FAを始めてから1年になりますが、未だに皆さんが使うcub artの意味が私の中で定まっていません。
自分の理解を深めるために、下記の質問に回答してもらえると助かります。
全部回答される必要はありませんので、お気軽にどうぞ。
１）Cub artの正確な定義は何だと思いますか？
２）Cub artという単語自体に性的な意味は含まれますか？
３）Cub artと"loli/shota furry art"の違いは？
４）ポケモンイラストはcub artですか？
５）Sanaeのギャラリーにcub artは含まれていると思いますか？
６）どんな見た目でも「オトナのキャラです」と注釈があればcub artではないと思いますか？
７）Cub artという単語を見たときにどんな気分になりますか？
ご協力ありがとうございます～m(_ _)m
I see cub art as a character under the age of 14.
There are also Baby Furs, which are Babies and toddlers. I do not group them with cubs.
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
It doesn't always.
Just like loli and shota can be clean, cub can too.
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
None.
Loli/shota is human, cub is furry. I see cub as the furry version of loli and shota.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
No.
Not unless they are drawn as cubs.
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
It does. (And it's very cute)
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
You can draw adults and over age characters as cubs. Same with loli and shota. Or maybe the character is just small.
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
Generally, I don't care. I like cub art, but sometimes if the character is too young (baby fur) or if it's just not tasteful I don;t like it.
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
-Cub art is any art containing prepubescent children, if it involves nudity or sexual innuendo.
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
-Yes.
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
-Loli/Shota is referring to human/human-like children. Cub art refers to furry children.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
-Depends on if the pokemon is drawn as an adult or child. If drawn as themselves/cartoon-like, then it gets fuzzy.
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
-Yes, some of it is.
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
-If it looks like a child, then it is most likely is a child.
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
-I don't like it, but I don't like any art involving underage children in the nude or doing sexually explicit things. It bothers me a lot.
>Yes.
>-If it looks like a child, then it is most likely is a child.
I find this really interesting, because your chibi characters in your gallery certainly look like cubs. Your avatar has cubbish proportions. That pic you recently favorited, "strawberry decadence", contains a character who looks underage. By your logic, because they look like cubs, they are. And you've also said all cub art contains sexual nuance. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I'm just saying your views seem to contradict. Could you explain further?
>-I don't like it, but I don't like any art involving underage children in the nude or doing sexually explicit things. It bothers me a lot.
Can you tell me why it does? Specifically, why it bothers you more than other fetishes here? If all fetish art bothers you, then at least that's consistent. But I've noticed people treat cub art as if it's different somehow, whereas to me I see it as all lines on paper. A drawing of a cub is not a cub, it's ink. And I've researched how fetishes work enough to know that someone who likes cub porn is no more a danger to real children than a horror movie fan is a potential murderer.
I promise you, this isn't a 'YOU'RE WRONG U SUX' kind of thing. I really, genuinely want to know why cub art is singled out among so many fetishes. I can certainly understand being disturbed by it on an emotional level, since there's kind of a global panic about pedophilia going on right now. But there's more here than just dislike. There are some fetishes a lot of users want to push off this site entirely, and cub art seems to be at the forefront. There are people on this site who want to treat others as subhuman because of what they draw or look at. I want to know why, specifically. You seem to be on the opposite side of this from me, but also considerate and honest, so I was wondering if I could learn from you why you feel the way you do.
2. My chibis have breasts, and as you defined them as chibis, you should know chibis are not the same as cubs. Chibis are tiny versions of adults, or else there's no reason to call them "chibis."
3. Femboys =/= cub/child. I know how old that character is, as I know the artist.
What I meant by "if it looks like a child, it is most likely a child" is in reference to artists who draw blatantly underage characters and tag it with "These guys are all over 18 LOL!!" because I've seen it done, here and in hentai art, and you can tell they're lying to cover their asses.
Cub art/porn bothers me, art exemplifying and encouraging being unhealthily overweight bothers me, art showing people being forced to engage in sexual activity bothers me, watersports, scat, bestiality, and gore/vore bother me. Not all fetishes bother me, but several do. I don't have to dislike more than one fetish to be "consistent." I can really hate sonic art and be fine with everything else, and there's nothing wrong with that. You like what you like, and you dislike what you dislike.
I see people make sexual comments about underage characters, and it bothers me. Yes, they are lines on paper... but in your mind, they aren't just lines on paper or you wouldn't feel a sexual urge towards them. That's why people defend their characters so strongly against art thieving... because to them, those characters are precious and alive, even if they're just lines on paper. There is a difference between real life children and the ones drawn on paper, yes, but the mindset is the same for predators of both. Do you look at a playboy magazine while jerking off and NOT imagine finding a real girl one day who looks like that to do things to? I think the same process goes into cub art/porn.
I did forget that there is a difference between cub art itself and cub porn, since most of the time they end up blending together in galleries, but cub art can be clean. And if it's clean, I'm all for it. Children being children, cubs being cubs, are cute and adorable. It's when you sexualize them that it turns into territory I don't like.
2. My chibis have breasts, and as you defined them as chibis, you should know chibis are not the same as cubs. Chibis are tiny versions of adults, or else there's no reason to call them "chibis."
3. Femboys =/= cub/child. I know how old that character is, as I know the artist.
You can tell me this and I'll say okay, but I've seen other people who won't take 'It's not cub' for an answer. (And I honestly did think that pic was an underage female. I didn't realize flat chest = boy. Derr.)
>What I meant by "if it looks like a child, it is most likely a child" is in reference to artists who draw blatantly underage characters and tag it with "These guys are all over 18 LOL!!" because I've seen it done, here and in hentai art, and you can tell they're lying to cover their asses.
Looking at it from their side though, it's usually done out of fear of rules that prohibit or seem to prohibt cub art. Or as satire. I've seen people draw obvious cubs and say, "It's a forty-year-old with a glandular condition!" to point out that the drawing can be whatever anyone imagines it to be.
>Cub art/porn bothers me, art exemplifying and encouraging being unhealthily overweight bothers me, art showing people being forced to engage in sexual activity bothers me, watersports, scat, bestiality, and gore/vore bother me. Not all fetishes bother me, but several do. I don't have to dislike more than one fetish to be "consistent." I can really hate sonic art and be fine with everything else, and there's nothing wrong with that. You like what you like, and you dislike what you dislike.
Okay. that's not what i have a problem with. What I mean by inconsistency is people who openly oppose cub porn, and then either have a gallery full of equally strange fetish art, or cub porn in their favorites. (Both of which I have personally seen.) In fact, quite a few anti-cub people turn out to really love heavily muscled gay male furries with huge dongs. It's almost to the point where I expect it. :/
>Yes, they are lines on paper... but in your mind, they aren't just lines on paper or you wouldn't feel a sexual urge towards them.
Still, you can have strong feelings for a fantasy, yet still accept that it is a fantasy. Have you ever invested time and effort into a roleplay character? Or empathized strongly with a movie? Or written a story where you feel what the characters feel? I treat my characters like real people while I write about them, but I always know that they aren't.
I'm just saying, if you have no trouble telling fantasy from reality, then realize that a vast majority of other people don't either.
>There is a difference between real life children and the ones drawn on paper, yes, but the mindset is the same for predators of both.
Okeydoke, source please. This is the one thing you've said I really strongly disagree with. If you're gonna make a claim like this, I want to see some proof of it. Because everything psychology-related I have read strongly suggests the opposite is true.
>Do you look at a playboy magazine while jerking off and NOT imagine finding a real girl one day who looks like that to do things to?
Actually, i can honestly answer yes to that question. Maybe not Playboy specifically, but I have fantasized MANY scenarios which I would never want to come true in real life.
Even if I draw, write and look at cub porn, I would never, EVER want that in real life. 1. I'd risk jail. 2. I do believe children should not have to keep a relationship like that secret. 3. Penetration would definitely hurt the child. 4. I think there's simply too big of a power imbalance for a child/adult relationship to work. And 5, the big one, I'd never be able to take care of a child! Much as I do wish I could sometimes, I know I can barely take care of my own needs. I'm unstable and irresponsible. Plus, I had an abusive childhood myself, so I'd never be able to trust that I wouldn't become that myself. There's probably even more reasons. I'm being totally honest here: A huge reason I like cubs specifically is BECAUSE anthropomorphic animal children can't really exist.
>I did forget that there is a difference between cub art itself and cub porn, since most of the time they end up blending together in galleries, but cub art can be clean. And if it's clean, I'm all for it. Children being children, cubs being cubs, are cute and adorable. It's when you sexualize them that it turns into territory I don't like.
Okay, that's cool. And I promise, I'm not trying to make you like anything. I firmly believe that anyone has the right to intensely dislike anything they choose, including my own work. I just think it crosses a line when I'm accused of being an immoral person becaise of something I've drawn. I've had people actually tell me that they 'know' I hide intense desires to rape children, and I can't express how insulting that is to me. I've been through abuse, and would sooner die than ever hurt a child.
It may help to change the way you look at it. All fetishes have two sides. In some cub porn, the artist/writer is imagining themselves doing something to the child. And I'll agree, I've found most of the genuinely disturbing stuff in this category. But on the other hand, in the majority of cub art I've seen, that artist/writer wants to BE THE CUB. It's a desire to recapture feelings from childhood. 'I want to be little again. I want to feel what it's like again to be small and to have someone pick me up and hold me and love me.' It's escapism, usually. It's less about sexualizing children than sexualizing youth; bringing pleasant feelings from the past into the present.
Again, it's okay to dislike anything you choose to. But try to see that not all art in a given category will be all the same. Some art is genuinely mean-spirited, gross or creepy. But I've researched fetishes a LOT, and usually at their deepest core is a desire to feel good and find someone/something else who understands you. When I come across a fetish I don't understand, my first reaction is nearly always, 'I want to understand why this gives someone pleasure'.
That happens a lot with her art... she draws very girly, adorable boys... xD
> Looking at it from their side though, it's usually done out of fear of rules that prohibit or seem to prohibit cub art. Or as satire. I've seen people draw obvious cubs and say, "It's a forty-year-old with a glandular condition!" to point out that the drawing can be whatever anyone imagines it to be.
I get that, but if it's a picture of a duck, and they call it a lion... you gotta know there's something wrong there.
> Okay. that's not what i have a problem with. What I mean by inconsistency is people who openly oppose cub porn, and then either have a gallery full of equally strange fetish art, or cub porn in their favorites. (Both of which I have personally seen.) In fact, quite a few anti-cub people turn out to really love heavily muscled gay male furries with huge dongs. It's almost to the point where I expect it. :/
I'm not into any fetishes, really. I do like a little bondage here and there sometimes, but I've never been gung-ho about any fetish. They're all a little creepy in some ways.
> Still, you can have strong feelings for a fantasy, yet still accept that it is a fantasy. Have you ever invested time and effort into a roleplay character? Or empathized strongly with a movie? Or written a story where you feel what the characters feel? I treat my characters like real people while I write about them, but I always know that they aren't.
The thing is, if you desire your fantasy enough, and it's possible to make it reality? There'll always be the possibility that you'll try.
> Okeydoke, source please. This is the one thing you've said I really strongly disagree with. If you're gonna make a claim like this, I want to see some proof of it. Because everything psychology-related I have read strongly suggests the opposite is true.
Well, obviously your psychology stuff didn't explain how things escalate and develop. Pedophiles are not born pedophiles, just as serial killers are not born serial killers. It all begins small and innocent, with a desire. Then you begin fantasizing about that desire. Eventually, if the desire is strong enough, it escalates to the point when fantasizing isn't enough and you commit the act. Some people never commit the act, but there's always a possibility, which is why you shouldn't just say "oh, it's just a fantasy... I didn't hurt anyone..." because the key word you forgot to say is "yet."
> Even if I draw, write and look at cub porn, I would never, EVER want that in real life. 1. I'd risk jail. 2. I do believe children should not have to keep a relationship like that secret. 3. Penetration would definitely hurt the child. 4. I think there's simply too big of a power imbalance for a child/adult relationship to work. And 5, the big one, I'd never be able to take care of a child! Much as I do wish I could sometimes, I know I can barely take care of my own needs. I'm unstable and irresponsible. Plus, I had an abusive childhood myself, so I'd never be able to trust that I wouldn't become that myself. There's probably even more reasons. I'm being totally honest here: A huge reason I like cubs specifically is BECAUSE anthropomorphic animal children can't really exist.
Was it sexual abuse, or physical/mental? It might explain why you have this fetish in the first place. Abused children often seek an abnormally close relationship with the abuser, hoping it will stop the abuse. It bothers me, though, that none of your reasons involved the biggest reason... that it's WRONG. A child is incapable of being in a sexual relationship, as they are unable to understand it. Even if it wasn't illegal, or a secret, or what have you, it would still be a completely parasitic relationship. The only one getting anything pleasurable out of it would be the adult, even if they "think" the child is happy.
> It may help to change the way you look at it. All fetishes have two sides. In some cub porn, the artist/writer is imagining themselves doing something to the child. And I'll agree, I've found most of the genuinely disturbing stuff in this category. But on the other hand, in the majority of cub art I've seen, that artist/writer wants to BE THE CUB. It's a desire to recapture feelings from childhood. 'I want to be little again. I want to feel what it's like again to be small and to have someone pick me up and hold me and love me.' It's escapism, usually. It's less about sexualizing children than sexualizing youth; bringing pleasant feelings from the past into the present.
I think wanting to BE the child is just as much a sign of a problem as wanting to do the things to a child. You call it a "recapturing feelings from your childhood." Did you want to have sex with an adult as a child? No. Or I hope not. A true recapturing of feelings from your childhood would involve being hugged, making cookies with mom and licking the spoon, wrestling with your dad, or playing dollies with your big sister. That's what you did as a child, and that's how you recapture your childhood. Instead, you're trying to sexualize your childhood, and I don't think it's healthy.
Yeah it's nothing but ass-covering; I'm just saying there's a reason for it.
>I'm not into any fetishes, really. I do like a little bondage here and there sometimes, but I've never been gung-ho about any fetish. They're all a little creepy in some ways.
Understandable, since many fetishes develop from things we have mixed feelings about. If a child experiences something that's both scary and fascinating at around the same time their sexuality is developing, that thing can become a fetish. The mind sexualizes it as a way to not fear it anymore. There are three main ways the brain can deal with the unexpected: fear, laughter or arousal. Arousal's just the rarest spot on the roulette wheel of your mind.
>The thing is, if you desire your fantasy enough, and it's possible to make it reality? There'll always be the possibility that you'll try.
Just because something's possible doesn't make it plausible. I've fantasized about beating up people who annoy the hell out of me, and while it's possible I might do that someday, the likelihood of it ever happening is astronomically small. Partly because I'm a flabby, timid weakling in real life. ;)
>Well, obviously your psychology stuff didn't explain how things escalate and develop. Pedophiles are not born pedophiles, just as serial killers are not born serial killers. It all begins small and innocent, with a desire. Then you begin fantasizing about that desire. Eventually, if the desire is strong enough, it escalates to the point when fantasizing isn't enough and you commit the act. Some people never commit the act, but there's always a possibility, which is why you shouldn't just say "oh, it's just a fantasy... I didn't hurt anyone..." because the key word you forgot to say is "yet."
You said it yourself: "If the desire is strong enough." That's a pretty big if to consider. Some people do obsess over a desire until it overrides their normal human morality. But most people don't. A guy who wanks to cub art is no more likely to go rape children than a heterosexual male is likely to look at pornography and go rape women. The choice of pornography doesn't matter: what matters is if that person has the cruelty within them in the first place to commit an act like that. It's why the argument that 'violent video games make kids violent' doesn't hold up. Media may give us ideas, but it is wholly our own responsibility if we act on them. No drawing has ever made anyone do anything.
I should also point out that a bunch of studies have found over and over that there is no link between pornography and rape. And some studies are beginning to suggest that porn may even keep sexual assaults down. It does seem to make sense. Imagine you're incredibly horny; you can either go out and rape someone, which is risky and dangerous, or you can stay at home in your nice comfy chair and get all the free porn you could ever want on your computer. Personally, I think human fear and laziness are definitely reasons why this could potentially be true.
According to one newspaper report I read, the FBI's crime statistics show that all sexual abuse in America is down fifty-one percent since 1995. I've thought for a while now that, just because we're focusing on it more now doesn't mean there's actually more of it.
>Was it sexual abuse, or physical/mental? It might explain why you have this fetish in the first place.
Mental and emotional, with occasional physical abuse here and there. In fact, every time I encountered something sexual in my childhood, it was a positive memory. (For instance, seeing a bunch of dicks in a YMCA shower room once and being rather amazed.) I'm fully aware this may contribute to my fetish.
>Abused children often seek an abnormally close relationship with the abuser, hoping it will stop the abuse.
Actually, often my stories are about cubs escaping an abusive parent to find a loving home.
>It bothers me, though, that none of your reasons involved the biggest reason... that it's WRONG.
Sorry; "It's just wrong" isn't an argument. ;)
>A child is incapable of being in a sexual relationship, as they are unable to understand it. Even if it wasn't illegal, or a secret, or what have you, it would still be a completely parasitic relationship. The only one getting anything pleasurable out of it would be the adult, even if they "think" the child is happy.
I think I addressed this when I said there's too great a power imbalance between a parent and child for a relationship like that. And what I've researched backs that up. But I've seen absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that children are unable to understand it or feel the same things an adult does. That seems to be something people believe purely because other people believe it. In reality, uncomfortable as the fact may be, children's genitals respond to touch in exactly the same way an adult's will. Rape counselors will often have to assure sexually abused children that if they felt any pleasure from the act, it wasn't their fault. And from my own experience, I remember thinking as a child after I was told about 'bad touches'; 'My stuff doesn't feel like that when I touch it. Should it feel bad? Is there something wrong with me?' It really confused me.
Also, I've read stories about underage kids who can FLY FREAKIN' AIRPLANES. When some kids are able to do things like that, it makes me doubt the idea that ALL children are psychologically unable to drive, vote, sign contracts, screw, etc.. All children are different, just as all adults are different. Is a 14 yr old who's studied sex, STDs and pregnancy less ready for sex than a 22yr old adult who knows nothing about the subject? 12yr olds in Mexico are of legal age, but 16yr olds in Texas aren't; does this reflect reality? Is it acceptable that if a 16yr old and a 17yr old have consensual sex, the 17yr old can be thrown in jail as a sex offender? I think age of consent laws are a flawed idea because there's no magic number where everyone becomes ready for everything. (Ideally, I'd like to see competency tests underage people could take that, if passed, would let them opt out of consent laws.)
I'm not arguing in favor of adult/child relationships. Some people do, and i think they're as blind to reality as people who think all pedophiles are child molesters. There are reasons for thinking a child/adult sexual relationship is a bad idea. I'm just basing my reasons on what I have researched and what I have experienced, instead of on what other people feel is true.
>I think wanting to BE the child is just as much a sign of a problem as wanting to do the things to a child. You call it a "recapturing feelings from your childhood." Did you want to have sex with an adult as a child? No. Or I hope not.
I can't say I ever thought about it. But I also can't imagine it would have been traumatizing to me in and of itself. Obviously, I don't mean sweaty penetrative humping. But I remember as a child I loved human contact. I liked to be hugged, to get backrubs, to be kissed, to be cuddled, to be tickled. Honestly, I can not imagine why I'd suddenly dislike it if i was touched in the same way on certain body parts which the Church has told us are naughty places. :/
>A true recapturing of feelings from your childhood would involve being hugged, making cookies with mom and licking the spoon, wrestling with your dad, or playing dollies with your big sister. That's what you did as a child, and that's how you recapture your childhood. Instead, you're trying to sexualize your childhood, and I don't think it's healthy.
Again, I repeat that it's okay for you to dislike it as strongly as you want. But if you're going to say it's unhealthy, you need to have science backing up that kind of claim. You're not in a position to decide something like that by yourself, unless you're willing to go do a peer-reviewed psychological study. If it's not harmful for people to sexualize shoes, rubber, bondage, anthropomorphic animals, balloons, or people of the same gender, then why does it become harmful for me to sexualize my childhood? Or tooth brushing? Or vacuum cleaners? Or anything else for that matter? (Plus, it's MY childhood. Why can't I do what I want with it?) We don't harm things by imagining fantasies about them. Not unless we go the extra step and act on those fantasy. Condemn actions all you want, but I'm uncomfortable when people want to condemn thoughts.
Really think about this: Why do we believe that the idea of childhood is damaged by any connection whatsoever to sex? It really feels like, to me, that our society views the idea of childhood in the same way it views an actual child. It honestly worries me, because from watching the news so much, I get the feeling that people are more concerned about pornography than the actual suffering of real children. Our priorities seem to be in reverse order. We sure as hell care more about whether an adult takes nude photos of a child, than if that same child is homeless and dying of starvation. In complete honesty, after giving it a lot of thought, I can say that I'd much rather have been sexually molested as a child than be living in extreme poverty.
Sorry. I get worked up over this. I know I've gotten away from what you've actually said, but I'm deeply concerned about this whole issue. I want people to stop pretending that images online are the real concern. They're a concern, sure, but they're not the most important one.
I am genuinely grateful to you though, for being polite and giving me good, thoughtful arguments. I enjoy having debates with people like you. :)
> Just because something's possible doesn't make it plausible. I've fantasized about beating up people who annoy the hell out of me, and while it's possible I might do that someday, the likelihood of it ever happening is astronomically small. Partly because I'm a flabby, timid weakling in real life. ;)
[b]But you have to know that you'll never commit an act you haven't "thought" of first. And although it might be unthinkable for you to act on your fantasies, other people will act on them, because human morality is based solely on what you're taught and what you witness as a child, not by some inborn moral compass.[/b]
> But I've seen absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that children are unable to understand it or feel the same things an adult does.
Have you researched how children's brains develop? And what mental capacities they are capable of based on age? Until a certain age, children don't understand divorce, death, relationships, love, or hate in any way like an adult does. Yes, you can teach children to do a lot of things, children are wonderful at learning... but just because they can fly a plane doesn't mean they understand the physics of what they're doing, or what to do when something bad happens. You try expecting a child to act like a responsible adult, and let me know how it goes. They have no idea about the world, right and wrong, or other non-concrete thoughts, and you expect them to understand and accept adult love?
> I can't say I ever thought about it. But I also can't imagine it would have been traumatizing to me in and of itself. Obviously, I don't mean sweaty penetrative humping. But I remember as a child I loved human contact. I liked to be hugged, to get backrubs, to be kissed, to be cuddled, to be tickled. Honestly, I can not imagine why I'd suddenly dislike it if i was touched in the same way on certain body parts which the Church has told us are naughty places. :/
Then you don't remember how it felt to be a child, because even if you aren't told about no-no places, you still feel the "wrong-ness" when someone touches you where they aren't supposed to. This I know about personally.
> If it's not harmful for people to sexualize shoes, rubber, bondage, anthropomorphic animals, balloons, or people of the same gender, then why does it become harmful for me to sexualize my childhood? Or tooth brushing? Or vacuum cleaners? Or anything else for that matter?
Actually, it is kinda harmful to sexualize those things... maybe not to society, or to yourself, but it can be harmful to any relationships you may hope to have. Especially if you're too focused on your fetish to have a normal relationship with another adult. This I ALSO know about personally.
> Condemn actions all you want, but I'm uncomfortable when people want to condemn thoughts.
As I said, actions don't happen without thoughts. I'm not saying thoughts are completely to blame, but they aren't completely innocent either.
> We sure as hell care more about whether an adult takes nude photos of a child, than if that same child is homeless and dying of starvation. In complete honesty, after giving it a lot of thought, I can say that I'd much rather have been sexually molested as a child than be living in extreme poverty.
I would rather die than be molested. And probably would kill myself if I ever was.
Ugggggghhh. I have been in those. I feel as bad afterwards as after I've vomited. :P
>because human morality is based solely on what you're taught and what you witness as a child, not by some inborn moral compass.
I gotta know where you came up with that, because I've heard the opposite. I read about a study in which a group of people of religious faith, and another group of nonreligious people, were all given (individually) a list of ethical dilemmas and asked how they'd react in each scenario. Regardless of religiousness, everyone answered 90-94% the same. These were not difficult ethical dilemmas. But still, they were the kind that either side might accuse the other of not following. Simply put, there absolutely is a shared morality that a huge majority of people share. We don't really need laws to tell us that murder and rape are wrong. There's a reason why most people don't do these things in the first place. We don't need to be taught to be altruistic, to show compassion for those in pain, or to be kind to others. It's literally in our genes. Most people, upon seeing an injured puppy, will not kick it into the gutter, but try to do something about it.
(Unless they're hindered by the Bystander Effect. Look that up if you haven't heard of it. Google "Kitty Genovese" Fascinating and frightening.)
>Have you researched how children's brains develop? And what mental capacities they are capable of based on age? Until a certain age, children don't understand divorce, death, relationships, love, or hate in any way like an adult does. Yes, you can teach children to do a lot of things, children are wonderful at learning... but just because they can fly a plane doesn't mean they understand the physics of what they're doing, or what to do when something bad happens. You try expecting a child to act like a responsible adult, and let me know how it goes. They have no idea about the world, right and wrong, or other non-concrete thoughts, and you expect them to understand and accept adult love?
I'm not saying that. I've already said there's reasons why an adult/child sexual relationship is a bad idea. Partly though, it's because of the baseless stigmatization of our genitals. Just imagine that you were brought up in a culture that believed it was sinful to touch someone else's elbows. People had been taught this by religion for thousands of years, to the point where all people wore garments over their elbows at all times, and those who didn't were sent to jail, and no one thought this was strange at all. Now, imagine how a child in this society would feel if someone touched their elbow, even with no malicious intent. We know that there's no possible medical reason how that could harm them. Yet they have been brought up to believe it will. So it's the same thing as if you force-fed pork to a Jew or Muslim. There is no physical harm; but there is absolutely real mental trauma because of how strongly the person believes there will be.
I have no reason to believe that there is any medically-supported possibility of anyone touching anyone else's genitals and it causing physical harm. (Unless they've got an STD or dirty fingernails or whatever.) There's no reason to believe that those areas would be wired differently than the rest of the body, where gentle touch produces pleasure and harsh touch produces pain. Unless it's a forced touch, obviously. (Even in this society, a total stranger caressing your elbows would be pretty traumatic.) This is not me saying, 'It's okay to touch kids because it's all in their heads!' No no no no no no. I'm just saying that if there's a negative response to being touched in certain areas, my research shows that it's caused by society, not biology.
But getting onto the other half of this, you're absolutely right that young children can't be expected to process certain ideas the way adults can. HOWEVER, right now the law makes no distinction between children and teens, and I call bullshit on that. Teens still aren't fully developed either, but a sixteen year old's brain is not the same as a six year old's. Yet on the news, the anchors will react with the exact same horror if they report on a teacher having sex with a 6yr old student or a 16yr old one. If it's the latter, I'm more inclined to say it's a case of really, really bad judgment, but so long as there was no force, no one will be helped by sending the teacher to jail over it. (Similarly, I really think the police should just drop the Roman Polanski case. The 'victim' has been defending him all along, and it pisses me off that her wishes are being ignored.)
I guess what I'm saying is, I just don't see a reason why certain sexual acts should automatically be considered illegal. Just because something is a bad decision doesn't mean someone should have to go through the trauma of being arrested and jailed for it. There needs to be more distinction between children and teens in sex cases. It's obscene that the law treats a 40yr old fucking a 4yr old the same as a 17yr old fucking a 15yr old. It might be pretty stupid for teens to be having sex, but it's evil to put them in jail for something consensual. I also think there's no excuse for laws against polygamy and prostitution, even though I also think those are both bad ideas! Sometimes people need to be allowed the freedom to make bad judgments and learn from them, rather than having the government punish them for it. (Doug Stanhope has a brilliant bit about how unnecessary it is to prosecute acts which inherently carry their own punishment, like prostitution and drug use.) I want there to be more compassion in sex cases, and for each case to be looked at individually.
Needless to say, I also think it's wrong to treat someone who masturbates to certain images as if they're as bad as someone who abducts and molests kids.
>Then you don't remember how it felt to be a child, because even if you aren't told about no-no places, you still feel the "wrong-ness" when someone touches you where they aren't supposed to. This I know about personally.
If that's what you felt, then that's what you felt. But I didn't. I never did, and I clearly remember.
I'm sure that both of us know more about our own bodies than anyone else. However, I would point out that it seems really implausible that any child in America would not know about 'the no-no places'. Even if they're not directly told, it's easy enough to gather when you realize as a young child that everyone around you is clothed all the time and the grown-ups make sure you are too. Constantly being made to cover certain areas of your body will automatically lead to the idea that, if they need to be kept hidden, they must be bad.
On a tangent, I've often wondered why people never seem to consider the psychological impact of forcing children to wear clothes. We're the only species on the planet that does this. Clothes make sense as protection from the weather, but there's no natural reason why we have to keep them on at all times. I've read that children in nudist colonies have healthier self-esteem and self-images than 'normal' kids. And here's a challenging question: If we in America think it's degrading to women in Muslim countries when they're forced to wear burqas or veils, then why do we tolerate our own government forcing women to always keep their breasts and vulvas covered up, or else they'll be sent to prison? There is no difference in the justifications that our society and theirs use.
>Actually, it is kinda harmful to sexualize those things... maybe not to society, or to yourself, but it can be harmful to any relationships you may hope to have. Especially if you're too focused on your fetish to have a normal relationship with another adult. This I ALSO know about personally.
This is true. But it's also true for plenty of other things. In my own personal experience, I'm greatly saddened by the fact that I may be losing two close friends because it seems like they're becoming increasingly more addicted to World Of Warcraft. People can focus on a lot of things to the detriment of their relationships. Porn, video games, eating, politics, the internet, religion. Yet most people who partake in those things can use it in moderation easily.
I should also point out that people these days make no distinction between a fetish and a kink. 'Fetish' used to mean something that you absolutely could not climax without. I absolutely do not have a 'fetish' for cubs. (If i have a fetish for any one thing, it's variety.) But a kink is something you enjoy sexually that's not exactly mainstream. People who do have real fetishes probably could benefit from some psychological help.
But then again, if someone wants to only fap to pictures of leather boots and never get married, who am I to tell them they can't? Again, it comes back to me believing that something may be a bad idea in the long run, but acknowledging that it's not my place to save everyone else from themselves.
>As I said, actions don't happen without thoughts. I'm not saying thoughts are completely to blame, but they aren't completely innocent either.
Fair enough. Just so long as you can accept that we shouldn't judge others based only on their thoughts. Steven King may write about murder and death a whole heck of a lot, but I've never seen a single thing to make me think he's anything other than a nice, pleasant person in RL.
If anything, my experience has led me to believe that people who can acknowledge their darker thoughts are the healthy ones. People who indulge in their fantasies safely though jerking off or roleplaying or whatever, tend to snap a lot less often than the people who repress their desires. Repression is like trying NOT to think about a polar bear. If I tell you not to, you'll start thinking of them way more than you usually would. It reminds me of the Mormon teen who was taught to be so ashamed of masturbating that he eventually killed himself because he couldn't stop.
>I would rather die than be molested. And probably would kill myself if I ever was.
If that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I'm not going to argue with that. It's just that, I honestly do not understand. If someone were to molest me, I wouldn't feel ashamed or depressed. I'd start looking around immediately for a blunt object to bash their head in with. But that's just me.
This isn't to say you're wrong, in any way, but I'd really appreciate you telling me why you feel this way. I honestly don't understand, and I want to. I do understand that my own childhood has probably led me to this. My mother is literally a sociopath, and my childhood was one of constant mental stress trying to keep myself sane. I'm aware that I do not think and feel the way a lot of other people do as a result of surviving that. My capacity to feel certain kinds or depths of emotion may be permanently broken. So, if you can put it into words, it'd be really helpful to me if you could explain why you feel so strongly about molestation.
I'll work on a response to your post later in the week. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving! =)
I did, actually. Everything I cooked came out just right.
And thank you very much for remembering our conversation.
I came up with it because I know personally that there are many things I would do if it wasn't against the law... such as kill the people I felt deserved it. And if there was a moral reason why people don't kill or rape, why does it still happen as often as it does? People aren't inherently good or evil, it's all social engineering and personal decisions. What may seem normal and good in one country/culture can be heinous and horrible in another. Take female castration for an example. No one in that culture believes it to be wrong, but everyone outside the culture understands it to be wrong.
I'm not saying that. I've already said there's reasons why an adult/child sexual relationship is a bad idea. Partly though, it's because of the baseless stigmatization of our genitals. Just imagine that you were brought up in a culture that believed it was sinful to touch someone else's elbows. People had been taught this by religion for thousands of years, to the point where all people wore garments over their elbows at all times, and those who didn't were sent to jail, and no one thought this was strange at all. Now, imagine how a child in this society would feel if someone touched their elbow, even with no malicious intent. We know that there's no possible medical reason how that could harm them. Yet they have been brought up to believe it will. So it's the same thing as if you force-fed pork to a Jew or Muslim. There is no physical harm; but there is absolutely real mental trauma because of how strongly the person believes there will be.
I have no reason to believe that there is any medically-supported possibility of anyone touching anyone else's genitals and it causing physical harm. (Unless they've got an STD or dirty fingernails or whatever.) There's no reason to believe that those areas would be wired differently than the rest of the body, where gentle touch produces pleasure and harsh touch produces pain. Unless it's a forced touch, obviously. (Even in this society, a total stranger caressing your elbows would be pretty traumatic.) This is not me saying, 'It's okay to touch kids because it's all in their heads!' No no no no no no. I'm just saying that if there's a negative response to being touched in certain areas, my research shows that it's caused by society, not biology.
But getting onto the other half of this, you're absolutely right that young children can't be expected to process certain ideas the way adults can. HOWEVER, right now the law makes no distinction between children and teens, and I call bullshit on that. Teens still aren't fully developed either, but a sixteen year old's brain is not the same as a six year old's. Yet on the news, the anchors will react with the exact same horror if they report on a teacher having sex with a 6yr old student or a 16yr old one. If it's the latter, I'm more inclined to say it's a case of really, really bad judgment, but so long as there was no force, no one will be helped by sending the teacher to jail over it. (Similarly, I really think the police should just drop the Roman Polanski case. The 'victim' has been defending him all along, and it pisses me off that her wishes are being ignored.)
I guess what I'm saying is, I just don't see a reason why certain sexual acts should automatically be considered illegal. Just because something is a bad decision doesn't mean someone should have to go through the trauma of being arrested and jailed for it. There needs to be more distinction between children and teens in sex cases. It's obscene that the law treats a 40yr old fucking a 4yr old the same as a 17yr old fucking a 15yr old. It might be pretty stupid for teens to be having sex, but it's evil to put them in jail for something consensual. I also think there's no excuse for laws against polygamy and prostitution, even though I also think those are both bad ideas! Sometimes people need to be allowed the freedom to make bad judgments and learn from them, rather than having the government punish them for it. (Doug Stanhope has a brilliant bit about how unnecessary it is to prosecute acts which inherently carry their own punishment, like prostitution and drug use.) I want there to be more compassion in sex cases, and for each case to be looked at individually.
Needless to say, I also think it's wrong to treat someone who masturbates to certain images as if they're as bad as someone who abducts and molests kids.
I agree children and teens need to be separated in the eyes of the law, and about prostitution being legal, but I disagree on polygamy being legal. Wherever polygamy has been used, it has been used to the detriment of the rights of women. It is often supported in cultures that give women no rights (or diminished rights). I've heard of very few "good stories" about polygamy, even in America. Just think of those crazy Mormon polygamists in Texas who were marrying young teen girls to men old enough to be their father/grandfather. But then again, that isn't polygamy's fault. It's peoples' fault for being sick in the head.
As for the no-no touching and how it's societal, I disagree just because my problem isn't with the pleasure or displeasure of the touches. The fact of the matter is, from a child's perspective, an adult can do whatever they want to you and you can't stop them. That's the only thing that matters, because in those situations you can be manipulated in a multitude of ways. It's like Stockholm syndrome for hostages.
If that's what you felt, then that's what you felt. But I didn't. I never did, and I clearly remember.
I'm sure that both of us know more about our own bodies than anyone else. However, I would point out that it seems really implausible that any child in America would not know about 'the no-no places'. Even if they're not directly told, it's easy enough to gather when you realize as a young child that everyone around you is clothed all the time and the grown-ups make sure you are too. Constantly being made to cover certain areas of your body will automatically lead to the idea that, if they need to be kept hidden, they must be bad.
On a tangent, I've often wondered why people never seem to consider the psychological impact of forcing children to wear clothes. We're the only species on the planet that does this. Clothes make sense as protection from the weather, but there's no natural reason why we have to keep them on at all times. I've read that children in nudist colonies have healthier self-esteem and self-images than 'normal' kids. And here's a challenging question: If we in America think it's degrading to women in Muslim countries when they're forced to wear burqas or veils, then why do we tolerate our own government forcing women to always keep their breasts and vulvas covered up, or else they'll be sent to prison? There is no difference in the justifications that our society and theirs use.
On some particularly hot summers, I often wish there wasn't a law against going topless for women... but I don't think there's a psychological problem with wearing clothing versus not wearing clothing. You can have good self esteem or bad self esteem in either case. I'm sure fat nudists are just as self-conscious about their weight as fat people wearing clothing.
This is true. But it's also true for plenty of other things. In my own personal experience, I'm greatly saddened by the fact that I may be losing two close friends because it seems like they're becoming increasingly more addicted to World Of Warcraft. People can focus on a lot of things to the detriment of their relationships. Porn, video games, eating, politics, the internet, religion. Yet most people who partake in those things can use it in moderation easily.
I should also point out that people these days make no distinction between a fetish and a kink. 'Fetish' used to mean something that you absolutely could not climax without. I absolutely do not have a 'fetish' for cubs. (If i have a fetish for any one thing, it's variety.) But a kink is something you enjoy sexually that's not exactly mainstream. People who do have real fetishes probably could benefit from some psychological help.
But then again, if someone wants to only fap to pictures of leather boots and never get married, who am I to tell them they can't? Again, it comes back to me believing that something may be a bad idea in the long run, but acknowledging that it's not my place to save everyone else from themselves.
Yeah, people forget the differences between kinks and fetishes a lot, mostly because they're often interchangeable. The actual definition of both words is synonymous.
Fair enough. Just so long as you can accept that we shouldn't judge others based only on their thoughts. Steven King may write about murder and death a whole heck of a lot, but I've never seen a single thing to make me think he's anything other than a nice, pleasant person in RL.
If anything, my experience has led me to believe that people who can acknowledge their darker thoughts are the healthy ones. People who indulge in their fantasies safely though jerking off or roleplaying or whatever, tend to snap a lot less often than the people who repress their desires. Repression is like trying NOT to think about a polar bear. If I tell you not to, you'll start thinking of them way more than you usually would. It reminds me of the Mormon teen who was taught to be so ashamed of masturbating that he eventually killed himself because he couldn't stop.
I'll agree to that. And yes, healthy indulgence of fantasies is good for the psyche, but when your fantasy is an unhealthy one (children, snuff, rape, murder) I think the healthiest thing you can do is get some therapy to see "why" these things are fetishes/kinks for you. It might help you dissolve your need for that particular thing completely.
It may be insulting since so many people embrace their fetishes/kinks, and I'm not saying that as "fetishes need to be abolished," I'm just saying not all fetishes are the same and some are downright unhealthy. If you have a fetish for necrophilia or snuff, for example, you really should get help. I don't see why people protect their fetishes so ferociously, like badges of honor no matter how depraved the fantasy might be. I think it might be the whole "this is me!" phenomenon people have been going on about in recent years. They want to latch onto anything that defines them and makes them different, even if it's a bad thing they really shouldn't be proud of. Like being unemployed and living in your parents' basement. =\
If that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I'm not going to argue with that. It's just that, I honestly do not understand. If someone were to molest me, I wouldn't feel ashamed or depressed. I'd start looking around immediately for a blunt object to bash their head in with. But that's just me.
This isn't to say you're wrong, in any way, but I'd really appreciate you telling me why you feel this way. I honestly don't understand, and I want to. I do understand that my own childhood has probably led me to this. My mother is literally a sociopath, and my childhood was one of constant mental stress trying to keep myself sane. I'm aware that I do not think and feel the way a lot of other people do as a result of surviving that. My capacity to feel certain kinds or depths of emotion may be permanently broken. So, if you can put it into words, it'd be really helpful to me if you could explain why you feel so strongly about molestation.
How to put it into words... personally for me, I lived 23 years of chastity, waiting patiently for someone who was "worthy" of my giving myself to them. I considered my body to be a temple, even if that sounds a bit sappy, and I wanted to keep it safe and pure for that one person who would love me for the rest of my life. It wasn't even about the religious aspect (I was brought up Christian). I'd decided on my own not to give it up, because I was never interested in meaningless sex to begin with. It was the one thing I could only give once, and I wanted it to be worth it when I did give it up.
If I got molested/raped today, I wouldn't kill myself. I'd kill the rapist. However, if I was molested/raped while I was still "intact" as a virgin (I'm married now), I would've likely killed myself because of the emotional trauma that would've ensued from the ordeal. I would have lost that one special thing I treasured, and it would've been taken from me by force, never to return. I would've been broken inside, and all of my self worth and plans for the future would've been destroyed. I wouldn't feel safe anywhere anymore, and on some level I'd believe it was my fault that it happened at all. It would've been so devastating I don't think I would've recovered from it.
I can't be positive, of course, since it never happened. But I can make educated guesses. My personal upbringing was more stable than your own, so I'm not surprised we have differing opinions in the matter. My parents were both normal and loving, so the trauma of being violated would harm my psyche more than yours. You've been tempered to withstand more than I could.
>I came up with it because I know personally that there are many things I would do if it wasn't against the law... such as kill the people I felt deserved it.
Ah, but there's a big difference between 'illegal' and 'immoral'. There's stuff I believe is against the law for no good reason, and there's probably thing I do in my daily life that happen to be illegal and I don't even know about it!
Also, that bit on the end, "I felt deserved it" makes a lot of difference. You're not saying you'd kill just because it was legal, but that you'd be doing it out of a sense of morality. I don't know whether I'd actually do the deed myself, but I do absolutely believe that some people deserve death, because the longer they live the more hurt they cause.
>And if there was a moral reason why people don't kill or rape, why does it still happen as often as it does?
We have to look at general human morality as instincts that developed in us during early evolution: 'What are behaviors that will get me kicked out of the tribe?' Why do these behaviors still happen? For one, because, by the law of probability, there will always be maniacs. There's too many humans for a few of them to not be insane. But the other reason is when society tells someone it is moral to do something they'd normally consider immoral. A soldier has been told it's moral to kill the enemy, but he still knows it's immoral to kill his countrymen.
Virtually all people do what they do because they feel it's justified. So when people do things the majority consider immoral, it's because they've either told themselves, or been told, that it's acceptable.
>People aren't inherently good or evil, it's all social engineering and personal decisions. What may seem normal and good in one country/culture can be heinous and horrible in another. Take female castration for an example. No one in that culture believes it to be wrong, but everyone outside the culture understands it to be wrong.
Absolutely true. That's another thing; humans have what I call 'tradition-based morality'. In other words, if you grow up in a place where a certain practice is considered normal, you will consider it to be normal. And normal equals morally acceptable. Humans can accept literally anything as moral if they grow up being told it is. (I'm deeply opposed to male circumcision as well, and have never been able to understand how people can think any unnecessary, irreversible surgery performed on someone who can't consent is morally okay.)
>I agree children and teens need to be separated in the eyes of the law, and about prostitution being legal, but I disagree on polygamy being legal. Wherever polygamy has been used, it has been used to the detriment of the rights of women. It is often supported in cultures that give women no rights (or diminished rights). I've heard of very few "good stories" about polygamy, even in America. Just think of those crazy Mormon polygamists in Texas who were marrying young teen girls to men old enough to be their father/grandfather. But then again, that isn't polygamy's fault. It's peoples' fault for being sick in the head.
I'm glad you put that last part in. And I'm not talking about crazy cult mass weddings; I'm talking about a threesome of people who are deeply in love with each other and want the same right to marry that straights have and gays want. I do think that polygamy presents an inherent power imbalance situation, but even if most polygamous relationships end badly, I don't think that should be held against the few who can pull it off. Just like, even though 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, that's no reason to scrap the whole idea.
Hey, here's an idea! We make polygamy legal, but for the first five years or so, it's only for marriages where the men outnumber the women. ;)
>As for the no-no touching and how it's societal, I disagree just because my problem isn't with the pleasure or displeasure of the touches. The fact of the matter is, from a child's perspective, an adult can do whatever they want to you and you can't stop them. That's the only thing that matters, because in those situations you can be manipulated in a multitude of ways. It's like Stockholm syndrome for hostages.
True. There's some really difficult ideas here, because adults always have that dominion over kids in everything. A parent can traumatize a child just by pushing them into a sport or career they don't want. So even if pedophilia were legalized, child abuse would still exist. I think a lot of people have the idea that, 'If we just ban this, and criminalize that, and round up ALL the pedophiles, then we'll stop child sexual abuse for good!' That can't happen. So long as anyone can become a parent, some of those parents will inevitably hurt their kids. I'd like to see society move away from 'STAMP OUT [blank]!' and move towards, 'Let's prevent what we can and avenge what we can't.'
I don't understand why the law has to treat consensual incidents like nonconsensual ones. Criminalizing rape, regardless of age, makes perfect sense to me. But if two people with an age difference have a positive sexual relationship, I just want there to be a way for them to avoid having their lives ruined by the police.
Maybe it's just me being cynical, but i wonder if the reason why police crack down so hard on internet pedophiles is because it's so much EASIER than investigating and prosecuting real child abuse cases. Seriously; which do you hear about more often? Cops busting someone for actually sexually abusing kids? Or cops busting people for looking at porn or trying to make dates with teens online? It's a lot easier to do that and make themselves look like they're really working hard and catching a lot of evildoers.
Also, I fucking HATE the word 'consensual' because my brain keeps insisting I spell it 'consentual'. :/
>On some particularly hot summers, I often wish there wasn't a law against going topless for women... but I don't think there's a psychological problem with wearing clothing versus not wearing clothing. You can have good self esteem or bad self esteem in either case. I'm sure fat nudists are just as self-conscious about their weight as fat people wearing clothing.
That last sentence of yours makes an absolutely fascinating question. I would guess that fat nudists are somewhat less likely to be self-conscious about it. Because clothed fat people (and I'm certainly one) have to deal with the fatness stigma AND the nudity stigma. I think getting used to, 'Yes, this is what naked human beings look like' would make people more accepting of body defects, since they'd see that we all have them. But I really have no idea! I've never seen any research on this, and I wanna go look to see if there's been any.
Also, you have my complete sympathy on the toplessness thing. I cannot imagine how uncomfortable wearing a bra in boiling weather must be. But it can't imagine it's pleasant.
>Yeah, people forget the differences between kinks and fetishes a lot, mostly because they're often interchangeable. The actual definition of both words is synonymous.
Rrrrr. I've come to realize, after arguing about this subject for so long, that a huge part of why people can't agree is that there's no universal definitions for so many of these emotionally-charged words. Just saying 'pedophile' can launch everyone in a debate into completely different emotional states.
>I'll agree to that. And yes, healthy indulgence of fantasies is good for the psyche, but when your fantasy is an unhealthy one (children, snuff, rape, murder) I think the healthiest thing you can do is get some therapy to see "why" these things are fetishes/kinks for you. It might help you dissolve your need for that particular thing completely.
Maybe not therapy (I think just talking about it with friends can be effective too), but I absolutely agree that people should understand the roots of their fetishes. If for no other reason than that it's fun! It's my favorite field of psychology; I think people are truer to themselves in their fetishes than in any other way they express themselves. And it's amazing how often fetishes aren't about what they're literally about, but what is symbolized by the fetish object/idea. (If you have any interest in this subject, the book Deviant Desires by Katherine Gates is the absolute BEST I have ever read on the subject!)
I understand all my fetishes, not from therapy, but just from working to understand them on my own. I'm into cub because so much of my childhood was stress and suffering, and now that I'm away from that, I'm finally free to be childlike. I see myself as a child inside (usually in the 11-14 range). Normally i write from the perspective of a cub, or I imagine the kind of parent I'd want to be or to have.
I acknowledge that a lot of snuff stuff is icky to me, because my single biggest turn-off is cruelty. And yeah, if someone is turned-on by the thought of being cruel to someone else, I think they should get some help. But I'm into snuff for the opposite reasons, so I created the term snuffie. Snuffie is the opposite. It's basically an invulnerability fetish. It's about taking the fear and pain away from everything that's frightening and painful. It's about imagining that nothing can hurt you, that you are always safe, that nothing is permanent unless you want it to be, and that you can snuff, smash, cut, mutilate, squish, dice and behead yourself to your heart's content and it'll be FUN! (You can probably guess that I watched a lot of cartoons as a kid!)
>It may be insulting since so many people embrace their fetishes/kinks, and I'm not saying that as "fetishes need to be abolished," I'm just saying not all fetishes are the same and some are downright unhealthy.
I disagree. I believe very strongly that there are no 'bad' fetishes. A theme that pops up in a lot of my stories is trying to show that, even if a fetish is usually represented one way, that doesn't mean it has to always be that way.. I have seen loving, consensual stories about any 'dark' fetish you could imagine. And I've seen straight porn stories that centered so much on subjugation and humiliation they were terrifying.
At the core of every fetish is power transference. There are dom and sub sides to every kink. You can want to rape, or you can want to be raped. You can want to yiff cubs, or you can want to be yiffed as a cub. Every fetish has two sides, even if only one side is usually seen (like I mentioned with all the bloody, nasty, cruel snuff pics). I've never come across a fetish that is strictly one-way. Never.
>If you have a fetish for necrophilia or snuff, for example, you really should get help. I don't see why people protect their fetishes so ferociously, like badges of honor no matter how depraved the fantasy might be. I think it might be the whole "this is me!" phenomenon people have been going on about in recent years. They want to latch onto anything that defines them and makes them different, even if it's a bad thing they really shouldn't be proud of. Like being unemployed and living in your parents' basement. =\
Makes sense. I've had friends tell me, when I've criticized something about them, 'This is just how I am', and that's kinda infuriating. It doesn't help that the internet gives anyone the chance to feel like they're a celebrity.
>How to put it into words...
I want to thank you just for being willing to. I worried a bit when I asked this that you might reply with, 'There's no way to put it into words!' I think most people would. I'm glad to feel not so alone in trying to understand my feelings and define them.
>personally for me, I lived 23 years of chastity, waiting patiently for someone who was "worthy" of my giving myself to them. I considered my body to be a temple, even if that sounds a bit sappy, and I wanted to keep it safe and pure for that one person who would love me for the rest of my life. It wasn't even about the religious aspect (I was brought up Christian). I'd decided on my own not to give it up, because I was never interested in meaningless sex to begin with. It was the one thing I could only give once, and I wanted it to be worth it when I did give it up.
>I would have lost that one special thing I treasured, and it would've been taken from me by force, never to return.
THANK YOU. That last sentence right there absolutely snapped it all into focus for me. I totally understand now, and I love that feeling of finally getting something. For me, virginity isn't something I've ever valued. Like, at all. (Maybe because I don't even know if I am one or not: I've had some sexual encounters before, but not "sex" sex.) So yes, I can understand how someone who valued that would be hurt terribly by having someone steal it from them.
>I would've been broken inside, and all of my self worth and plans for the future would've been destroyed. I wouldn't feel safe anywhere anymore, and on some level I'd believe it was my fault that it happened at all. It would've been so devastating I don't think I would've recovered from it.
I can feel from just your words how deeply you feel about this.
This makes me all the more angry at some of the stories I've heard about rape counseling. I keep hearing women talking about how they were told to believe they would always be victims, that their sex life would never be normal, that they'd never feel safe, that they should blame everything in their lives on the rape and the rapist. It appalled me. It's one thing to feel all this internally, but to have someone reinforce it!? To make them believe it'll be this way for the rest of their life!? I can't describe the anger. I've gotten over a lot of the pain of my abuse by fighting it; by insisting, 'It will NOT be this way forever and I will NOT let her keep hurting me even after she's gone!'. I wrote an essay about victimization a while ago and ended it with, "if you allow the label of 'victim' to be placed upon you, let it be a garment you wear until you eventually outgrow it, not a tattoo you carve permanently into your skin."
(http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1101000/, BTW)
>I can't be positive, of course, since it never happened. But I can make educated guesses. My personal upbringing was more stable than your own, so I'm not surprised we have differing opinions in the matter. My parents were both normal and loving, so the trauma of being violated would harm my psyche more than yours. You've been tempered to withstand more than I could.
Thank you for saying that. I rarely say it myself, because I've gotten in 'I suffered more than you!' arguments before and they're never constructive. But it is true. Nowadays, I'm usually eerily calm inside when something really awful happens to me. It's like, 'Ah. I've been here before. I know how to deal with this.' I think often about being in some kind of huge disaster, like an earthquake or airplane crash, and wonder if I'd panic at all in those situations. I've been in a car crash once and did little more than acknowledge it. My lack of reaction scared me more than the crash had...
Anyway, thanks again for getting back to this discussion. I always like good, reasonable disagreement with someone who can explain their positions clearly and calmly. :)
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
These will probably get removed by the admins:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4280972
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3678030
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3413318
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3297653
If they're clothed, they're fine. If they're cartoon nude (cannot see genitals) they're fine. If they're doing kid stuff and being cute, they're fine.
If they're doing something sexually suggestive, it's not fine.
Cub character with something sexual act may be removed...I understood your opinion.
Regarding http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3297653
, they are "cub"? Thier body is not human-like...
That one might be fine, I'm not positive. I just listed the ones I thought might get removed. =)
Anyway I will wait for determination from FA Admin for removal.
2) Cub art in and of itself is not inherently sexual. Sexual art would be considered cub porn, which is what a lot of people speak out very loudly against.
3) The only real difference between loli/shota furry art and "cub" art is style--that is, a more western style compared to strictly kemono art. They are otherwise the same.
5) It could be construed as such, but I don't really see a problem with it. Your style of art is cute and appealing and no abuse of children takes place to make it. There isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
6) To me, an art style is more important than the ages of the characters. I don't pay attention to the age as much as I either like or don't like the art itself.
7) I think it's a label, just like any other type of art. I also expect people to overreact to the content within. Whether or not I'll enjoy the art is up to how it looks.
Hope this helps.
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
b) Any art you make that does not strictly focus on age--say, cartoony animals and the like--is probably not regarded as cub art. For example, Camomile is very feral and looks like a real squirrel in terms of body composition, so she probably wouldn't be interpreted as "cub" since the proportions are representative of a squirrel.
c) From a quick look through your gallery, none of it seems to contain any nudity whatsoever, explicit or otherwise. With that in mind, I don't think any of your art will actually be removed. You wouldn't be able to upload any adult works to FurAffinity, though.
I am relieved to read your comments.
Basically do you like "cub art"?
I may post naughty works to InkBunny account in future.
Please enjoy them if you are interested in.
I may put something special in future...maybe.
drawing of a kid or baby character
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
not always.but like lolui,shota and todlercon many see it as pedophilia.a friend of mines thinks the ones that draw that and desire to wear diapers is because they are pedos but he is a foll lol
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
Depending,i think furry and shota has more porn
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
No i dont, some people draw the last evolution of a Pokemon as babies but they are not
5) Do you think Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
Yes i think it does and its very cute. the clean one that is.The adult one is too but not as much "if any"
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art
whatever it looks like? if its a child.underage etc. i consider something being cub when its wearing diapers only
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
I feel nothing when its related to art.but when is related the artist a grown up in diapers, i feel like wtf? "unless doctor's orders" sorry if you classify here"i just say please keep it as your own private stuff.
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
2) It doesn't have to. Sexual stuff's referred to as cub porn. That falls into the 'cub art' category still.
3) None, really. Loli/shota are just different terms.
4) No, though pokémorphs can be.
5) It does. Fantastic cub art, too. |3
6) People can look 15 but be 19. Same goes with characters. Some people feel the need to defend their young looks I guess.
7) When I see the word 'cub art', I'm interested and/or curious. I'm also expecting at least one person to overreact to it if it's even remotely sexual.
Hope I've been of assistance~
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
Not all of it. The difference between 'cub art' and 'cub porn' is the exact same difference between regular art and regular porn.
>4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
Pokemon are more like pets than they are like cubs, I think.
>5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
Definitely. but it's some of the most well-drawn and adorable I've ever seen. ^__^
>6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
It kind of doesn't matter. Some people will insist it's cub even if the artist didn't intend for it to be and says it isn't. People will think what they choose to think regardless of what the artist wants.
>7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
"Hooray!" ;)
Keep on drawing your wonderful art!
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
It really is sad, because your work is skilled, colorful and joyful. :)
I am little bit disappointed to FA admin's decision and attitude.
Anyway I will survive at either/both InkBunny and FA.
Do you have InkBunny account?
1) Could you let me know the exact definition of “cub art”?
Cub art is any image or drawing depicting an underage anthropomorphic (furry) charicter. it is LITERALY the furry version of loli/shota and is similure to Kemono. Japanese furry basicly
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
not it CAN but it doesent HAVE to, art is art regardless of it's contents. I personally enjoy erotic art.
>4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
only if there drawn as underage characters, generally speaking there pocket monsters, just like the name.
>5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
it does and it's some of my ABSOLUTE favorite stuff on FA! Please continue to draw your fantastic art and if you take commission I will happily commission you.
>6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
this is the wonderful thing about drawings, they can be anything you want. they can APPEAR underage but not actually be. I see nothing wrong regardless it's just a drawing.
>7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
Thrilled! it's my very favorite, the cuter the better, sweet, cute hot all these things meld into one in allot of your work. I just wish we could see more of it. lots, lots more of it, with less censorship ;3 dont be afraid of producing explicit art if you want to, it's your paper, your characters your drawings, and at the end of the day thats all they are, drawings.
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
d) you could get your art to not be considered cup by being clear they are just small and cute but thats up to the admins.
c) only your adult work is likely to be removed by an admin. allot of your stuff is a bit racey but none pornagraphic pictures even sugestive ones might be pasable again it's up to the admins. just post on inkbunny.
I will keep my gallery as is and wait for FA admin's determination. I am very curious about judge criteria of removal.
And I will post something special in InkBunny in future. Please do not miss it :3
it can be sexual
it can be clean
it can be pokemon
it can be furry loli-shota
Thanks.
1) There is a borderline between "Cub Art" and "Babyfur". (see 3)
2) It could have a sexual nuance but it's labeled as "always" because of its use. (Majority of Cub Arts are erotic.)
3) It could be on the same line as "Kemoshota/loli" but it cover the toddler level which is uncommon for Kemoshota/loli.
4) It's quite subjective. It could be categorized as "Funny Animal" but since most Pokemon's appearance are child-like it's likely to be categorized as "Cub Art". It might be justified for baby Pokemon.
5) Yes (but only some).
6) There was an attempt to make a specific furry race. Good example is Momiji Yuga's works. It's something like "Chibi" Race. But it's not really the SD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_deformed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibi_(Japanese_term)
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81.....83%A3%E3%83%A9
SD and Chibi are often mix-up but they can mean the same thing or; (They are from many sources.)
- "Chibi" refers specifically to the childlike representation of an anime character - whereas "Super Deformed" is a generic term relating to artistic misproportions in anime art.
- SD and Chibi may or may not be the same thing, but the term Super Deformed is absolutely necessary for Chibis, since they're using the SD-style all the time. However Chibi is a more modern, less technical term for these style of characters.
- Chibi is the Japanese word for small or little and is usually associated with cuteness. For general usage of the word small, you want to use the Japanese work chisai, meaning small or little. Chibi is a cute and playful word, and you can use it to call your Japanese friends names. For example, I always call my friend's little sister "Chibi!" meaning in context "shorty." and she replies with a beaming "yada!" followed by a short laugh. You can also use chibi in phrases like chibi ashi (short legs) used for un-athletic people, or chibi atama (small mind.) It all depends on the tone of voice you use with these, of course, a serious sounding tone and a playful one, can mean something very different.
- Somewhere on the way of the years of anime society, people got tired using the term SD and messed up the system by using the word 'chibi' instead, thus most people refers SD's as chibis (I really don't remember seeing somebody calling something a SD drawing since, well, long time ago). but hey, how can you not resist the word 'chibi'?
- (My own definition) Super Deformed is used on existing charaters (thus, the process is called Super Deformize). Chibi characters are stay the same from the beginning.
The main attraction could be concerned with "Neotenic" quality of cuteness. For a single picture, it's hard to distinguish but it might be possible with a good background.
7) It's a bit too specific. When I see this word, it makes me think that the characters are really young.
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
b) "Game of Doctors and Nurses". Camomile is more animal-like.
c) "Secret Shooting Session" is the most risky work. I'm not sure about how the admin will deals with nude art. It's in the gray area which no nipples and sexual bit.
I think that it might be up to the degree of sexual effect which the image can cause which are...
1) Character posture and action.
2) Character expression.
3) Level of nudity.
For example, "Manner of Eating Bananas" has a suggestive content despite it's the clean image. "Exhausted Camomile" has a very low level of ecchiness. "Rabbits and Ice pop", "Someone will come!", "naked furry + cloths = more naughty", and "Got some milk?" are higher (they are on the same level). "Cup of Ice Cream" is questionable.
Anyway I will keep my gallery as is and wait for FA admin's determination. I am very curious about judge criteria of removal.
Your comment was very useful for wathing my works objectively.
The portrayal of furry underage characters, underage is a vague definition because some follow the animal aging process and most the humanoid one. Cub art itself isn't necessarily sexual art, it includes clean art too.
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
As stated above, cub art includes all sorts of art depicting underage furry characters.
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
Usually people place "cub art" on underage furry characters (which isn't illegal in most countries) whilst "loli/shota" is used for purely humanoid underage characters (which is illegal in most countries). However some people don't care and use the term "loli/shota" for furry characters as well, but never "cub art" for purely humanoid characters.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
Pokémon art in itself has no relation to cub art, underage Pokémon art however can be considered cub art since it depicts underage animalistic feral-like creatures.
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
The pictures could be considered "shibi" but overall, yes, Sanae's gallery contains cub art. This is very clear due to the context and theme of most pictures.
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
This is debatable, some people use the age regression fetish to "legally" portray underage characters by stating that they're not really cubs but rather adults trapped in cub bodies. Overall I would say that a picture with no further explanation than the picture itself (an image that floats around on the internet without artist notes for example) depicting a furry character with clear underage traits, is cub art.[/color]
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"
It doesn't bother me at all. Drawings, music and text are made without the involvement of real children and therefor there is no harm in it being made. I've heard of clinics in Japan where real life pedophiles are shown loli/shota pictures and movies to treat their urges and that country has one of the lowest child abuse ratings in the world. (I read this in a medical/psychological magazine a couple of years ago, can't give you any reference, sorry.) So in short: Cub art doesn't disturb me one bit, real life child pornography is a whole other story.
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
Ｃｕｂ ａｒｔは人間のように動物子、常に性的な方法ではありません.
ケモショタやＣｕｂ ａｒｔは同じですが、先生のイラストはＣｕｂ ａｒｔです。
ケモショタを描画されましたから、それがいない場合でも、ケモショタのように見えますが、それはまだケモショタですけど。
例えば私のギャラリーの中でどの作品がCub artになりますか？
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance? It can but it doesnt have to
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”? O.O" I always thought it was a blanket term to mean any character that is not mature sexually.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art? hmmm not really
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not? yesh!1! but its so cute!
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like? nahhh, they are mostly doing that to make them feel better
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"? I feel like it has to be cute!
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3413318/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3607702/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3678030/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4076397/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4280972/
All the others should be perfectly fine! But these are a little too sexual. :3
Yes, that's true, I think.
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance? Not always.
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”? Hmm Loli and Shota is usually used towards human-ish characters. Cub is to a degree its furry counterpart. Both have their clean stuff and also their not so...clean stuff.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art? No unless someone is anthropomorphizing the early, younger looking evolutions to be more along the line of typical furry qualities (ex. Poke-morphs).
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not? Yeah you have some art that sits on the borderline of being what most people call "Cub". It's just mainly from there being suggestive vibes. At least it's not blatant stuff like a lot of other "cub" artists' works I've stumbled across.
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like? Yeah. Everyone can have a story behind why their character looks like they are ___ years old but looks like they are ___.
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"? I usually have conflicting views. It's either cute, "Ack my eyes! X.x" or "Oh great there's going to be drama."
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
(B) Though there are some exceptions. Like SonicTweaker said in another post, I don't see Camomile as being truly "cub" just merely a really cute semi feral critter. Kind of on the line with the Bokko pics though I think they would pass as not "cub" as well.
(C) I don't think any of your work will be removed because it's not within the mentioned ruling for what needs to be removed. it's not explicit porn nor has any truly inappropriate acts. Just a mixture of clean and some suggestive pieces (main examples being Secret Shooting Session and Manner of eating bananas).
As you pointed out "secret shooting session" and "Manner of eating bananas" are indirect but suggestive. Sense of "suggestive" is totally different among every person. I am interested in how FA admin handle these works.
Anyway I will keep my gallery as is.
When spoken, "Cub" is furry terminology for "person under adulthood", but has more uses and meanings than the english word "child" does, especially when written. "Cub art" is art work that features a character that is depicted as young or in childlike situations. Some furs depict their characters as younger than they are and this image can be defined as a "cub version" of themselves.
An extreme version of cub art is babyfur art where characters are depicted as adults, toddlers, or younger usually with diapers and situations that display an inexperience to life or a rejection of society's norms.
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
Yes and no. Cub art does not have to be sexual, but most artists that do tag their art as "cub" have young characters acting in ways that are different than an actual child would, which is not limited to sexuality. Tagging for this reasons is done to avoid offending those who do not want to see young characters acting in ways outside the norm of society, which is why most artist who display cubs in normal situations do not tag their art as cub.
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
Cub art is usually drawn by a furry who is directing that art to the furry fandom or to the spirit of cub art. Loli/shota furry art is usually drawn by artists that are not directly members of the furry fandom, but sometimes the terms are used to describe teenage appearing characters usually engaged in sexual situations.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
Cub art is designed to be cute. Pokemon are designed to be cute, but pokemon fall under the category of feral unless they are acting with higher intelligence, then they are called pokefurs, but either way pokemon are not cubs by default.
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
Sanae's gallery contains cub art, and is in the spirit of cub art because the characters are depicted in situations where society would demand a negative, often embarrassed response, but the characters, whom are not programmed to give such a response, act naturally which is with a positive, unembarrassed, and nonjudgmental attitude.
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
A character can be cub and not underage because "cub art" can refer to how a character appears.
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
I am happy to see the word cub art because in almost every piece of art tagged with cub, whether sexual or not, has a message of enlightenment that shows an indomitable strength to overcome the flaws of the "adult world". Cubs depicted in embarrassing situations where they are not embarrassed show us that embarrassment is not an emotion that we are born with: it is a flaw that society imposes onto us. Cubs depicted having sex without care for the meaning that society places on sex shows us that sex is not some robotic dogmatic system of unspoken complicated games and promises, but can be a simple enjoyable part of nature.
8) Why Cub art?
I added this question, because I think your other questions were leading to it anyway, and the answer may help; People whom have had their eyes opened on one level or another, look around themselves and see how backward and overly complicated life has become and simply wish to start over and wash away all the arbitrary and pointless ugliness of this world by showing us that the world doesn't change with age, but we only believe that because we are told to, and by choosing to not act robotically, we can live with childlike enjoyment of life and adultlike patience.
I agree with your comment "we can live with childlike enjoyment of life and adultlike patience".
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
B- Didn't see anything that wasn't
C- All of them. Your art is not exactly porn, but in america, where the site is hosted, it would seem that everything is porn until proven innocent. Even your clean art is probably going to be seen as erotic because it was drawn to provoke feelings of "naughtiness".
It doesn't make me happy, but now that FA is trying to seek the approval of the money machine, they'll most likely delete more than they must to ensure they meet the machine's demands.
1) Could you let me know the exact definition of “cub art”?
in my opinion.: cub art is any art containing or retaining art of a fur under the age of somewhere around 14. (this dose not just pertain to mature art)
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
it CAN, but cub means like it says. Cub like child. dose child mean anything sexual?
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
Nothing. in some ways. loli=female child shota= Male child. though these terms are usealy representing sexual themes but not always.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
no.
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
i would THINK it was by the look of there Age. but thats all.
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
Art is Art for a reason. its a realization of the creators imagination, Regardless of what other people say about your ART if you say there not underage there not underage, even if it looks it. Though most people will disagree under certain circumstances they have no right to tell you otherwise anyway.
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
a bit demeaning. i feel cub can mean many different things, i don't like people assuming cub relates to sexual preferences or themes some people like the "cute" aspect of a picture like i do the "innocence" though i would prefer a different way of saying it cub art is fine.
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
Artwork in which there are underage characters (generally 13-)
2) Does “cub art” contain sexual nuance?
"Cub art" is the most wide definition for artwork involving these characters.
3) What is difference between “cub art” and “loli/shota furry art”?
Again, the terms are used in many ways, generally referring to the sexual theme.
4) Do you regard Pokemon art as cub art?
idk
5) Do you think if Sanae’s gallery contains “cub art” or not?
I could think (actually I'm not sure x3)
6) There is an art has description “this character is NOT underage”. Do you think it is not cub art whatever it looks like?
idk
7) How do you feel when you see the word "Cub art"?
Another art theme x3
If you have time, please answer the following questions.
a) Which my work is regarded as “cub art”?
b) Which my work is regarded as “not cub art”?
c) Do you think which my work(s) will be removed by admin?
I was relieved to read your comment.