I find it odd that this type of journal only comes out AFTER official action has been taken...I mean, I agree with you, but if you really believe it, you shouldn't be afraid of saying it before it becomes the thing to do for the hour.

I've lost a lot of friends and made a lot of enemies doing just that on here, just saying in my profile that most fetishes on here are illegal/stupid/unhealthy has gotten me chased clear out of the fandom before...

honestly- I never thought about it much before this...there is just a lot of attention being brought to it now.

^..^James: Furst it was the TSA, now it's "cub porn"! I notice many FA members are writing about how "cub porn" is illegal, and "censorship", and "Furst Amendment", and so on; however, FA's ban on it is a matter of maintaining sponsorship than censorship. If FA doesn't have sponsorship, then it would either have to rely heavily on advertising or paid subscriptions. Likewise, I don't want FA to go the route of the TSA and screen every submission, whether it is an avatar or artwork, etc; then, members would complain about that! I think the only solution is, with the ban in place, to have members practice vigilance when making submissions.

Though I am not a porn artist myself, I must fully agree with you and the cub porn ban. It's just as bad as child exploitation. I mean, FA is the largest furry community in the world and it would be very appalling if they introduce paid memberships and submission screening. Also, I wouldn't like to see FA get shut down if they still allowed cub porn, so I am in full support of the ban!

Just some critical thinking here. I pretty much agree with you, but I am actually a little miffed they have a ban on art, regardless of content. It's scribbles on paper.

I am inclined to agree with you 100% on how I see cub art. I am not a fan, to say the least. The one thing I disagree on is censorship in general.

-Child pornography is against the law.
The reason children should not be put into sexual situations is because they have to grow up to be functioning members of the world one day. Among other things.

However.

The creations of an adult in an artist forum (no matter how wrong, twisted, or warped) only can exist in fantasy. (no real children where harmed in the making of this reply)

The truth is, there are many things against the law, or morally wrong depicted (or even celebrated) in even popular artistic forums. Murder, and drug consumption to name a few. Now, because these things are depicted in comic books, and on TV dose that mean that these actions depicted in fantasy are same thing as a real murder? Or worse yet, could it compel someone to do drugs, or kill people? ..... No, probably not.
Watching Bruce Willis ice a few Germans in "Die Hard" did not make me think that mowing down people with automatic weapons was okay. Even though these behaviors are glorified.
From what I can tell, this may only be at worse a mild enabler. If someone wants to do something, they are going to do it, Internet or not.

Another thing to think about is context. The thought of an adult taking advantage of a child in a sexual manner is enough to make me physically ill.
Now take two consenting adults, one of them role playing a child. No, wait... not a child, a cub. Yes, a half person, half animal cub. The context has changed.
Creepy? Well, yes.
Still though.... it's two adults role playing.

The way I see it, any character under the age of 18 would still be a "child" thus a "cub". If they are naked, then it's porn. Keep in mind this is all draw on a piece of paper. I don't really see a huge problem with people having their personal characters depicted as late teens or even mid teens with a "first time" experience. Once again, these are not real people, these are scribbles on paper.

The real thing is not so much about what got banned, there are many more equally as horrid subject matters depicted on this very site. Rape, incest, murder, dismemberment, vivisections, you name it. It's the fact that one thing got singled out. Even though I was not a fan of this first thing on the chopping block, who's to say when it stops? My point is simple, who decides what is morally, or objectionably wrong with an artistic medium? This was an extreme example, but will it be so cut in dry in the future? It dose color the issue to have money for the site to stay up is involved.

Bottom line. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I can totally understand your concern...I know it is a concern for many on this. It will be interesting to see how far the ban starts to extend into other forms. Which is concerning in it's own way.

You are right, no one is harmed in art (well, hopefully) - BUT it's illustrating the idea...so I guess that was my big stance- almost like saying it's ok. Which was my weirdness about it...but again, that is simply my opinion.

Thanks for your input. :) I like how you approached this.

I was about to write up my thoughts on this, but I share your exact position. There isn't much I can say without just repeating what you've written here.