FA+
Shop
Furry double standards.
14 years ago
General
So I had the moderators on here remove pictures I'd posted of a photoshoot I'd done of me in my latex cat costume.
It would appear that these were against the AUP. And that's fair enough. Every community must have it's code, it's boundaries, it's rules.
But when the moderator concerned has favourited a drawing of a cartoon dog sucking its own cock, I don't know whether to laugh or despair.
A photograph of someone NOT having sex is not allowed, but a drawing of a dog having sex with itself IS ?
I don't have a problem with what other people are into. I might not like it and I'll keep my thoughts on 'furry porn' to myself. But there's surely something wrong with a community that says 'their' porn is ok, but what they *think* is someone else's isn't. Forgive me, but I'm not going to take instruction or moral guidance from someone who labels latex fetish and bans it but is quite happy to allow artwork of cartoon animals fucking. Just because it's a drawing doesn't make it not pornography, dumbass.
It's typical of humanity that groups establish rules to protect themselves and alienate, reject, discredit anyone or anything that challenges it - and that's no less true for furry. It's also the reason why anyone looking in from outside that community sees the hypocrisy and thinks what a bunch of simpletons they are.
Furries cry out for acceptance, for understanding. But it's because you can't show that within your own community that you're not getting it from outside.
It would appear that these were against the AUP. And that's fair enough. Every community must have it's code, it's boundaries, it's rules.
But when the moderator concerned has favourited a drawing of a cartoon dog sucking its own cock, I don't know whether to laugh or despair.
A photograph of someone NOT having sex is not allowed, but a drawing of a dog having sex with itself IS ?
I don't have a problem with what other people are into. I might not like it and I'll keep my thoughts on 'furry porn' to myself. But there's surely something wrong with a community that says 'their' porn is ok, but what they *think* is someone else's isn't. Forgive me, but I'm not going to take instruction or moral guidance from someone who labels latex fetish and bans it but is quite happy to allow artwork of cartoon animals fucking. Just because it's a drawing doesn't make it not pornography, dumbass.
It's typical of humanity that groups establish rules to protect themselves and alienate, reject, discredit anyone or anything that challenges it - and that's no less true for furry. It's also the reason why anyone looking in from outside that community sees the hypocrisy and thinks what a bunch of simpletons they are.
Furries cry out for acceptance, for understanding. But it's because you can't show that within your own community that you're not getting it from outside.
Theres lots of 'art' on here that really isn't my cup of tea, but I wouldn't ask a mod to remove it, I just don't look at it. Simple.
I'm sure it's not a democratically assembled piece either. It's written by a group of people who have decided how they want furry to be expressed, portrayed - ie in *their* image. They have an idea of what furry is and will defend that to the hilt, build battlements around them - because they want to defend themselves and their own 'thing'. Which is fine, it's the way humanity has always been.
The problem with this is that it excludes and alienates many. Also, within the boundaries are things they *want* to defend, and I think one of the biggest examples of that is the furry porn .. the drawings of anthropomorphic porn. They say this is ok, but photographs of anything vaguely sexual are not. Their justification is that drawings are not real ... but its still porn ?! And someone jerking off over that is happening in the real world too. I think they shit themselves when they see something like a latex cat because it sends up what they think is a sexual image which might ultimately point a finger at *their* sexual images and that scares them to death. How many times do we hear furs protest about it not being a sexual thing, that CSI and MTV got it all wrong ... compare that with the amount of furry porn on sale at cons, on FA and so on. They don't like it because it threatens them and the kingdoms they've built up for themselves. They sometimes doth protesteth too much ...
They can remove images, suspend people, do what they want. But they can't kill an idea.
Under photography.
(
"Exceptions are made for items which are staged in an artistic, dynamic setting. Such images MUST showcase the photographer's artistic skill, not merely showcase collected items."
So my photos were taken :
by a professional photographer
in a professional studio
with professional models
with couture costumes
with a story, a narrative.
So what's that if not artistic and dynamic ?
Those are the AUP's own words, the AUP that the moderator is supposed to adhere to - and even when this example fitted the rules they use to explain their decision, they then renage on that and say - oh, no, that's not what we meant ! This is why the whole thing is so silly, so laughable, so ridiculous. Watch them try and wriggle out of it again and say that they were meaning something else when they said this ..
Do we know what it means to hoist with ones own petard ?
"Exceptions are made for items <...>"
All models featured in photography must be appropriately dressed - CHECK
Wearing both top and bottom garments - CHECK.
Underwear, bras or diapers are not considered acceptable articles of clothing - NONE WORN.
Clothing designed for explicit or implicit sexual themes are prohibited CHECK - it's a cat costume, there is no 'sexual theme' intended - implicitly or explicitly.
This is now an open dialogue, opening out to others to contribute, agree, disagree. As you said yourself, when the rules are made up its up to the moderators to make decisions. As such you'd need to be informed by the thoughts of the sites members and you can see these represented here.
"This site is a furry community, not a latex one."
So furry is only furry if it's 'furry' ?
Their problem was that latex is a fetish and automatically 'adult'. Well, it is if 'you' think it's fetish - but that only says that about you and your own perceptions (ignorances?) and nothing about the intent. Catwoman is sexy - the costume is sexy - yes there's a lot about it that people would 'fetishise' over, but that doesn't make it primarily a fetish costume. The same might be said in whole or in part about fursuits. People will have just as much a 'thing' for fur as they do about latex ... you can't say that one material is ok and another isn't. That's just ridiculous.
Batman Returns had a 12 certificate. In it was a woman in a rubber cat costume. The censors saw this as ok for children over 12, as not 'porn' - and my images were no different from that.
This all says more about those people reacting than it does about me. Sadly those people reacting are moderators (not authorities I hasten to add) and they're the ones who filter the way the community can express itself and therefore be viewed. They complain the wider world doesn't get it - but they don't get it themselves.
What I find laughable is that all the time they don't allow a latex costume AT ALL on the site, it's ok to have drawings of cartoon dogs fucking each other, sucking their own cocks ?! So their porn is ok, but other people's non porn isn't ?! Furs are so scared of people seeing their thing as about sex or porn or kink or fetish or whatever. When they see something they think the wider world views as fetish or sexual - ie my catsuit pictures - they ban them. But all the time they're happy to allow pornographic artwork of anthropomorphic animal orgies ?! I know which the general public would have more trouble accepting.
I really didn't care about the pictures being up here. It was more about the principal and exposing the power systems in play and the hypocrisy inherent in them. I've probably not moved the ball along at all but there needs to b dialogue, the systems set up need to be questioned and tackled and tested. We need to ask if we want a democracy or a dictatorship. When a 20 year old mod thinks they can tell someone who has been furry for longer than they've been alive what furry is, I think we have problems.
Doesn't make any sense.
Besides, if you don't want see "drawings of cartoon dogs fucking each other", you shouldn't have enabled to viewing of mature/adult art.
This has nothing to do with "what is furry". This case is about the site rules, and how I am told to enforce them. If you are of the opinion that your suit is a "fursuit"/character costume, fine by me, but that doesn't change the fact that it ain't allowed on FA.
I'm not worried...
Im on your side siserval
Again, you misquote and misunderstand. I have never said I 'don't want to see ...' - it's ok, I know how my filters and settings work thanks - the point I'm making is a code that says cartoon dogs fucking themselves is ok and a real person not doing anything sexual is a joke.
Some of us make rules, some enforce and follow them, some question and challenge them. Just because you make or enforce the rules doesn't mean the rules are right ...
Twas ever thus.
What the hell is wrong with moderators? Grow up, for pete's sake. Also, generally, learn some respect!
I bet your costume was wonderful and I am sorry that I could not have the chance to see it ^^;
I don't know if my contribution to the dialogue had any bearing here but certainly a coagulation of thoughts, pressure, desire has an impact. The alternative is to keep quiet and endorse the status quo.
Practice it here, develop it on a larger scale.