FA+
Shop
Rant: People gloating about the new AUP
15 years ago
General
First, this is not about the change in the AUP.
Let me say that I while I am sad that it is happening, I completely understand that sites like this do not support themselves on wishes alone, and a lack of advertiser funds would soon offline the whole site, sexual cub art and all. In the face of that kind of reality and with no alternate source of funding evident, cutting out the part that is preventing advertisers from backing the site only makes sense. From skimming the thread, it truly looks as if the admins explored all reasonable possibilities they could think of, so unless someone has concrete evidence that they deliberately ignored a completely viable option, I have no reason to do anything but thank the admins for at least trying to preserve sexual cub art.
What annoys me are those people who, instead of limiting their comments to their own journals, posted in that thread saying how glad they were to be rid of cub porn. Seriously guys? Are you really such complete jerks that you feel you have to let people know how glad you are that they are losing a place to enjoy a type of art they like? Yes, it's obvious you don't like cub porn. No one asked you to like it. You don't approve of it? That's your right, and yes, you have the right to express your opinion, but that doesn't make you any less of a jerk for saying it in the very same thread where people were learning that something they enjoyed had to be dropped from the site. Go ahead, twist the knife a little, huh?
Oh, don't even think of climbing up on your moral high horse. Let me anticipate the dead horses that will be dragged out to be beaten again.
Cubs are underage characters, and sex with anyone underage is wrong!
Very few artists and fans of cub art would disagree with that statement. This isn't really relevant to the topic though.
Yes, it is! Those are pictures of cubs having sex!
Yes, pictures as in artistic renditions, not photographs. No cubs were harmed in the production of these images. If you know differently, please don't complain here. Report it to the authorities immediately.
Well no, but enjoying the idea of adults having sex with cubs, especially cubs being raped is just awful!
The action would certainly be awful, but again, no cubs were harmed in the production of these images.
But we're talking about cubs being raped!
Okay, ignoring the cub-on-cub and cub masturbation pics that will also be disappearing, yes, some are non-photographic images of cubs being raped or tortured. Again, this is still just pixels on a screen with no living beings having suffered to produce the art unless you count the artist.
It's still wrong to show that kind of thing!
Why is it wrong?
Because it's cubs!
It's images of cubs - we already covered that. What is wrong with images of cubs being raped when the production of the image does not in fact involve the harming of anyone, above or below the age of consent?
Because it's sick to like the idea of hurting kids!
More sick than the idea of hurting non-consenting adults?
Yes!
So hurting non-consenting adults is okay?
No! I didn't say that!
Okay, but I don't see you protesting any art that depicts adults being harmed.1
That's different!
Why is it different?
Because cubs are innocent and pure, and it's wrong to want to defile that!
Sure, but then it's wrong to want to treat any other living being like an object that exists only to provide you pleasure even if it hurts and defiles them. Why does age make a difference?
Because cubs are too young for sex! Cubs are supposed to be protected by adults, not harmed by them!
Those are perfectly good reasons not to rape or torture minors, but it still doesn't address the issue of depicting minors in such situations as long as you aren't using any real life references.
There are just some lines you don't cross!
That doesn't explain why the line is drawn between adults and cubs.
Well, it's illegal!
The real life act of having sex with a minor certainly is, as it should be. Laws regarding non-photographic depictions of such acts vary from country to country. Non-photographic depictions of non-human minors are currently still legal in America, and I believe most of Europe, or there wouldn't be any point discussing this. Poor, overly conservative Australia...
You're still portraying something that would be illegal if it was real!
Yes, as is every artist that portrays rape, murder, theft, vandalism, and any number of other crimes. So?
So you're just encouraging people to do this sort of thing!
Oooh...you don't want to tread that path. You realize that's the same argument used by the extremist who protested violent video games, violent movies, and even further back, violent comics? That's the mind set that gave us the Silver Age of comics where artists couldn't even portray people punching each other, much less shooting, stabbing, running over, or otherwise inflicting harm on each other.2 If you use that logic, you'd be agreeing that any depiction of criminal acts was wrong. You can't argue that it's a matter of urges - people have violent urges but still have to chose not to act on them or else pay the penalty just the same as acting on incorrect sexual urges. Even if religion were a valid basis to argue the matter, I can't think of a religion that accepts adult pornography but explicitly forbids child porn. Most either forbid all porn, accept porn in a general sense and don't address child porn, or take no strong stance on the issue of porn.
But...I just know it's wrong!
For you, it is, and that's fine. Your convictions however do not get to determine right and wrong for the rest of the world without weight of evidence. So far, there has been no conclusive evidence linking non-photographic child porn, much less cub porn, as a cause of actual harm to any real world children. There has even been some evidence indicating that such artwork may actually reduce incidences of crimes against children, though of course that's not conclusive either or there wouldn't be much of a debate. Check out Wikipedia's discussion of the controversy concerning lolicon for more details.
Anyway, it's getting late for me, and I think I've covered all the arguments I can recall hearing, so it's time to put this rant to bed and me along with it. Some of you may feel I wasn't presenting a very believable picture of the usual sort of person that protests cub porn. Granted. There is no way I could use a single 'voice' and possibly encompass all variations on the arguments all such people have posed, all of their speech patterns, vernacular, etc. and to pick just one to emulate would amount to a personal attack. This then is a generic voice of opposition which cannot perfectly reflect any one individual. I did my best to use actual arguments and objections I have seen while avoiding the name calling and various logical fallacies that I have also sometimes witnessed. I also chose to assume this fictitious individual actually had a deeper reasoning than 'Because it's cubs!' - those people don't actually have an actual argument, just an opinion, and their opinion holds no more weight than anyone other opinion. Lastly, I left out the idiotic arguments suggesting people should just get some normal interests, as if people simply chose to have kinks that were controversial. The exclamation points were left in because this isn't directed at people who calmly and rationally discuss topics - it's about the jerks who posted that they were happy to see cub porn going away and did it where people who were disappointed by the fact would be most likely to see it. This is not 4chan, and it is not cool to post here for the lulz.
Ultra short version - The wrongness of cub porn is not a fact; it is a subject of philosophical debate. Your opinion may be valid, but sharing it at the wrong time and place still makes you a jerk.
1 Obviously I am not talking about artists like Caroo who does oppose any artwork depicting females of any age in distress. I may think it's odd he doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of masochists, but I can't fault his desire for a world where no one wants to hurt or be hurt. I will say however that as someone who once suffered from asthma, I would rather have a needle shoved through my nipple than be tickled near breathless against my will. On the other hand, he always portrays his victims smiling, so at least he means well.
2 For anyone that didn't grow up in a country that actually went through these sort of debates, the argument was that kids are impressionable and might confuse fantasy for reality. That has pretty thoroughly been debunked despite moral guardians dragging it out with each new offense to their sensibilities. While ability does vary with age and mental development, it turns out kids are pretty good at telling reality from fiction. I believe most if not all child psychologists agree that if the parents spend time with their kids, pay attention to them, interact with them, provide good role models for them, and explain why something is right or wrong, that all of these supposed negative influences will have little to no negative affect on their moral judgment. Other people, especially authority figures like teachers, can still complicate matters if they do not agree with the teachings of the parent, of course.
Let me say that I while I am sad that it is happening, I completely understand that sites like this do not support themselves on wishes alone, and a lack of advertiser funds would soon offline the whole site, sexual cub art and all. In the face of that kind of reality and with no alternate source of funding evident, cutting out the part that is preventing advertisers from backing the site only makes sense. From skimming the thread, it truly looks as if the admins explored all reasonable possibilities they could think of, so unless someone has concrete evidence that they deliberately ignored a completely viable option, I have no reason to do anything but thank the admins for at least trying to preserve sexual cub art.
What annoys me are those people who, instead of limiting their comments to their own journals, posted in that thread saying how glad they were to be rid of cub porn. Seriously guys? Are you really such complete jerks that you feel you have to let people know how glad you are that they are losing a place to enjoy a type of art they like? Yes, it's obvious you don't like cub porn. No one asked you to like it. You don't approve of it? That's your right, and yes, you have the right to express your opinion, but that doesn't make you any less of a jerk for saying it in the very same thread where people were learning that something they enjoyed had to be dropped from the site. Go ahead, twist the knife a little, huh?
Oh, don't even think of climbing up on your moral high horse. Let me anticipate the dead horses that will be dragged out to be beaten again.
Cubs are underage characters, and sex with anyone underage is wrong!
Very few artists and fans of cub art would disagree with that statement. This isn't really relevant to the topic though.
Yes, it is! Those are pictures of cubs having sex!
Yes, pictures as in artistic renditions, not photographs. No cubs were harmed in the production of these images. If you know differently, please don't complain here. Report it to the authorities immediately.
Well no, but enjoying the idea of adults having sex with cubs, especially cubs being raped is just awful!
The action would certainly be awful, but again, no cubs were harmed in the production of these images.
But we're talking about cubs being raped!
Okay, ignoring the cub-on-cub and cub masturbation pics that will also be disappearing, yes, some are non-photographic images of cubs being raped or tortured. Again, this is still just pixels on a screen with no living beings having suffered to produce the art unless you count the artist.
It's still wrong to show that kind of thing!
Why is it wrong?
Because it's cubs!
It's images of cubs - we already covered that. What is wrong with images of cubs being raped when the production of the image does not in fact involve the harming of anyone, above or below the age of consent?
Because it's sick to like the idea of hurting kids!
More sick than the idea of hurting non-consenting adults?
Yes!
So hurting non-consenting adults is okay?
No! I didn't say that!
Okay, but I don't see you protesting any art that depicts adults being harmed.1
That's different!
Why is it different?
Because cubs are innocent and pure, and it's wrong to want to defile that!
Sure, but then it's wrong to want to treat any other living being like an object that exists only to provide you pleasure even if it hurts and defiles them. Why does age make a difference?
Because cubs are too young for sex! Cubs are supposed to be protected by adults, not harmed by them!
Those are perfectly good reasons not to rape or torture minors, but it still doesn't address the issue of depicting minors in such situations as long as you aren't using any real life references.
There are just some lines you don't cross!
That doesn't explain why the line is drawn between adults and cubs.
Well, it's illegal!
The real life act of having sex with a minor certainly is, as it should be. Laws regarding non-photographic depictions of such acts vary from country to country. Non-photographic depictions of non-human minors are currently still legal in America, and I believe most of Europe, or there wouldn't be any point discussing this. Poor, overly conservative Australia...
You're still portraying something that would be illegal if it was real!
Yes, as is every artist that portrays rape, murder, theft, vandalism, and any number of other crimes. So?
So you're just encouraging people to do this sort of thing!
Oooh...you don't want to tread that path. You realize that's the same argument used by the extremist who protested violent video games, violent movies, and even further back, violent comics? That's the mind set that gave us the Silver Age of comics where artists couldn't even portray people punching each other, much less shooting, stabbing, running over, or otherwise inflicting harm on each other.2 If you use that logic, you'd be agreeing that any depiction of criminal acts was wrong. You can't argue that it's a matter of urges - people have violent urges but still have to chose not to act on them or else pay the penalty just the same as acting on incorrect sexual urges. Even if religion were a valid basis to argue the matter, I can't think of a religion that accepts adult pornography but explicitly forbids child porn. Most either forbid all porn, accept porn in a general sense and don't address child porn, or take no strong stance on the issue of porn.
But...I just know it's wrong!
For you, it is, and that's fine. Your convictions however do not get to determine right and wrong for the rest of the world without weight of evidence. So far, there has been no conclusive evidence linking non-photographic child porn, much less cub porn, as a cause of actual harm to any real world children. There has even been some evidence indicating that such artwork may actually reduce incidences of crimes against children, though of course that's not conclusive either or there wouldn't be much of a debate. Check out Wikipedia's discussion of the controversy concerning lolicon for more details.
Anyway, it's getting late for me, and I think I've covered all the arguments I can recall hearing, so it's time to put this rant to bed and me along with it. Some of you may feel I wasn't presenting a very believable picture of the usual sort of person that protests cub porn. Granted. There is no way I could use a single 'voice' and possibly encompass all variations on the arguments all such people have posed, all of their speech patterns, vernacular, etc. and to pick just one to emulate would amount to a personal attack. This then is a generic voice of opposition which cannot perfectly reflect any one individual. I did my best to use actual arguments and objections I have seen while avoiding the name calling and various logical fallacies that I have also sometimes witnessed. I also chose to assume this fictitious individual actually had a deeper reasoning than 'Because it's cubs!' - those people don't actually have an actual argument, just an opinion, and their opinion holds no more weight than anyone other opinion. Lastly, I left out the idiotic arguments suggesting people should just get some normal interests, as if people simply chose to have kinks that were controversial. The exclamation points were left in because this isn't directed at people who calmly and rationally discuss topics - it's about the jerks who posted that they were happy to see cub porn going away and did it where people who were disappointed by the fact would be most likely to see it. This is not 4chan, and it is not cool to post here for the lulz.
Ultra short version - The wrongness of cub porn is not a fact; it is a subject of philosophical debate. Your opinion may be valid, but sharing it at the wrong time and place still makes you a jerk.
1 Obviously I am not talking about artists like Caroo who does oppose any artwork depicting females of any age in distress. I may think it's odd he doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of masochists, but I can't fault his desire for a world where no one wants to hurt or be hurt. I will say however that as someone who once suffered from asthma, I would rather have a needle shoved through my nipple than be tickled near breathless against my will. On the other hand, he always portrays his victims smiling, so at least he means well.
2 For anyone that didn't grow up in a country that actually went through these sort of debates, the argument was that kids are impressionable and might confuse fantasy for reality. That has pretty thoroughly been debunked despite moral guardians dragging it out with each new offense to their sensibilities. While ability does vary with age and mental development, it turns out kids are pretty good at telling reality from fiction. I believe most if not all child psychologists agree that if the parents spend time with their kids, pay attention to them, interact with them, provide good role models for them, and explain why something is right or wrong, that all of these supposed negative influences will have little to no negative affect on their moral judgment. Other people, especially authority figures like teachers, can still complicate matters if they do not agree with the teachings of the parent, of course.
I'm totally recommending inkbunny, it has wonderful design.
As for fa, most of my art already fits the AUP, I have only about 10 pictures left to modify (I already modified most of those pictures with cub porn to fit the new rules, added clothes etc ; p), rest is within the gray area of not being porn or not being cub and should be fine on fa.
You agree my pics are questionable, but on top of that is the fact that I haven't drawn that much, meaning that once I do, some of the new drawings might reach extremes where the TOS might become an issue.
Though I realize that I am thinking too far ahead and also overreacting. I considered doing something instead of immediately jumping to HF and inkbunny. (namely HF, because it so recently occurred to me that limiting humans is not really that different from all this, and something I should be tired of by now) And that something would be to continue using FA normally as if there was no ban and simply wait to see how long a staff intervenes. (which could be surprisingly long time, and conceivably never) Only then would I really have a reason to evaluate a course of action.
As I said in my original post, I understand the limits and they aren't exactly arbitrary. It was purely an economic choice where the alternative appears to be folding up FA all together. This place may not be perfect, but it still has a lot of good art and artists I'd hate to see scattered across the net.
I did join Inkbunny since some artists I enjoy joined to post pics that might pose problems. (Please pardon my proliferation of alliteration - I've been toying with a project using a lot of it and it's kind of gotten to me.) Of course, Inkbunny uses the same ad source as FA. If someone complains about their content, potentially Inkbunny could end up in the same situation, so I wouldn't be too eager to jump that direction.
'HF'? I don't recognize that one. Still, why limit yourself in any way? There are always places to post what you like even if it takes some searching. I think you're fine here for now, but it doesn't hurt to research alternatives. If you find one you like, let us know on your journal or something so that if you ever disappear for some reason, we have an idea where to look for your work. Who would offer you opinions anthro anatomy if your fans weren't around?
(^.^)
But I enjoy the new AUP for that one extra inch of protection it adds depending on municipality. I am so given over to rigid practicality and the connection between what is thought, what is meant and what is wanted that I prefer to err on the side of caution rather than give someone an excuse to ruin it from the larger percentage. Because children are a hot-button issue all over, anything even tangentally associated, no matter how ridiculous, does not get a rational consideration, with charts and facts and figures, but emotionalism. See: Many laws named after children.
So, this affects people I know (Way more than I thought, for some weird reason) but is morally neutral in my estimation, because of effects of practicality.