FA+
Shop
Mif_Maf's Opinion...
19 years ago
General
...because you really can't make a decision without it :P
There's a lot of drama about this whole "mature cub art" fiasco. The real issue it seems is the fact that both sides have polarized themselves so completely that neither is capable of a functional debate.
One side says all of it is pedophila and the other insists its harmless. Well the compromise most people will naturally think is that both parties are right, however in a situation like this it's more likely that both are wrong.
Let's look at the facts:
-Cub art is not real.
-Cub porn is drawn for sexual reasons.
-Art does not hurt people.
-What an artist chooses to draw is dependant on their preferences and/or morals.
-Pedophilia does hurt people.
-Everyone wants to protect children by instinct.
-Not all mature themes are sexual.
Ok now that we've got these established facts, which i'm sure we can all agree on we can look at the issue itself.
It's already been established by psychiatric studies that pedophiles and other people similar tendencies will tend to start with simple fantasy. However they are more likely to require an escalation in both fantasy and reality in order to get off on it. What does this have to do with cub art? Cub art is seen by the majority as a symptom of people with those tendencies. This does not necessarily make a person a pedophile but it does imply the potential no matter how small.
The poll itself was in regards to allowing or banning "mature" cub art, and as stated earlier there are mature themes that are not sexual. You merely have to look at most japanese anime series and rpg video games. The heroes are usually under age but deal with mature situations. In this sense banning of mature cub art would limit any meaningful storytelling to exclude all depictions of minors. This would prevent artistic expression and I'm sure nobody wants that.
I believe these statements are reasonable to both sides of the debate. Now we can consider the feelings of the arguing parties. One side is trying to defend what they see as the innocence of children while the other is attempting to either defend artistic expression and free speech. There is of course the 3rd party which will hide behind the second, those are the people that just want to see underage porn. This situation easily turns into a Fascists v. Child Molestors battle given that both sides view the other at those extremes.
If the debate had attempted to search for a real compromise it wouldnt have gotten nearly as bad as it has. A third option in the poll would have allowed for that, for which i feel the admins are unwittingly responsible.
There is a middle-ground stance on this subject that would appease all parties. It's not filters. Instead FA should uphold its ban on ADULT cub artwork and expand to mature art with sexual themes ONLY. This would allow even nudity to be shown so as not to drive all the cub artists away and unless the other side is going to take the stance that the human body is wicked and sinful they would have little to object to. If this stance was paired with a filter it would be even more effective as it would placate even those that do find nudity offensive.
I don't believe I'm being overly controversial in my opinion and I believe everyone can agree that this would be a fair compromise.
My personal stance is this:
Cubs = Cute
Cub Porn = Bad
Cub Love = Adorable
Non age specific characters however are an even grayer area, but to me as long as their sexual organs are fully developed they aren't considered cubs.
There's a lot of drama about this whole "mature cub art" fiasco. The real issue it seems is the fact that both sides have polarized themselves so completely that neither is capable of a functional debate.
One side says all of it is pedophila and the other insists its harmless. Well the compromise most people will naturally think is that both parties are right, however in a situation like this it's more likely that both are wrong.
Let's look at the facts:
-Cub art is not real.
-Cub porn is drawn for sexual reasons.
-Art does not hurt people.
-What an artist chooses to draw is dependant on their preferences and/or morals.
-Pedophilia does hurt people.
-Everyone wants to protect children by instinct.
-Not all mature themes are sexual.
Ok now that we've got these established facts, which i'm sure we can all agree on we can look at the issue itself.
It's already been established by psychiatric studies that pedophiles and other people similar tendencies will tend to start with simple fantasy. However they are more likely to require an escalation in both fantasy and reality in order to get off on it. What does this have to do with cub art? Cub art is seen by the majority as a symptom of people with those tendencies. This does not necessarily make a person a pedophile but it does imply the potential no matter how small.
The poll itself was in regards to allowing or banning "mature" cub art, and as stated earlier there are mature themes that are not sexual. You merely have to look at most japanese anime series and rpg video games. The heroes are usually under age but deal with mature situations. In this sense banning of mature cub art would limit any meaningful storytelling to exclude all depictions of minors. This would prevent artistic expression and I'm sure nobody wants that.
I believe these statements are reasonable to both sides of the debate. Now we can consider the feelings of the arguing parties. One side is trying to defend what they see as the innocence of children while the other is attempting to either defend artistic expression and free speech. There is of course the 3rd party which will hide behind the second, those are the people that just want to see underage porn. This situation easily turns into a Fascists v. Child Molestors battle given that both sides view the other at those extremes.
If the debate had attempted to search for a real compromise it wouldnt have gotten nearly as bad as it has. A third option in the poll would have allowed for that, for which i feel the admins are unwittingly responsible.
There is a middle-ground stance on this subject that would appease all parties. It's not filters. Instead FA should uphold its ban on ADULT cub artwork and expand to mature art with sexual themes ONLY. This would allow even nudity to be shown so as not to drive all the cub artists away and unless the other side is going to take the stance that the human body is wicked and sinful they would have little to object to. If this stance was paired with a filter it would be even more effective as it would placate even those that do find nudity offensive.
I don't believe I'm being overly controversial in my opinion and I believe everyone can agree that this would be a fair compromise.
My personal stance is this:
Cubs = Cute
Cub Porn = Bad
Cub Love = Adorable
Non age specific characters however are an even grayer area, but to me as long as their sexual organs are fully developed they aren't considered cubs.
on a side note, I would still love to do an art trade with you someday. ;)
*gives you flowers and cookies*
Am I the only one that notices that this is a great opportunity to attract fans for expressing a moderate and well thought viewpoint? Heck this is just increasing my furry street cred like nothing else :P
But for some reason there has been only one "OMGGGGGGG! i'll laeve forevah if this ******* don't get BANNED!!11one"(exaggerated ofc but that's the only way to put all that into one line) journal from the 139 people I'm watching. The other ones have either been semi-sensible, reasonable or 'what's the problem?' journals. *shrug*
How do you enforce that?
No wonder I've never met a furry lawyer.
That doesn't even start to deter you, does it.
Good work and props for the new level of fur-cred.
...but i like to eat chopped cubs after they've been bukkaked, with MSG :o now i'm gonna go smudge some graphite on paper so that it resembles such an image.
In fact, this makes me feel kinda silly for the journal post I made. o_o
Porn is by definition sexual. Claiming that the creator's own sex drive has nothing to do with its production seems like quite a leap. Unless you're referring to comissioned work, in which case it's drawn for the sake of someone else's sexual motivations.
Admittedly I did not define porn in my journal, but I consider porn to be anything in which the characters are engaged in a sexual act or in which the genitals are the primary focus.
Thus I do not consider nudity to be porn, unless the character is engaged in a sexual act or if their genitals are somehow engaged.
For example. I just saw a show about the emperor Nero which made my stomach retch. It was one of the most depraved shows I've ever seen on educational TV. And yet it was one of the most awesome. Applying this to art I see it all the time in certain artists and I totally find it awesome when good artists can go with a theme that inflames people's irrational objections. Things like fictional cute characters getting maimed, in bondage gear, getting raped, whatever, you see all the freaking time in risque japanese pop art, and though some may write it off as porn and strictly for fetish arousal (Such as Henmaru Machino's works), you MUST REALIZE that if your blanket statement was always true, Machino's "porn" wouldn't have been on display in an art gallery.
Merit is a completely seperate argument that I opened the door for here with the Machino argument, but I should point out that merit aside, I'm annoyed that considering banning certain kinds of art YOU or others deem have no potential merit as a "moderate" view. Actually, I laugh disparagingly at that notion. There is no official to determine, with authority, the merit of any legitimate artwork. To think that there is, or even a general consensus of one, is to suppose one's own ideals above the natural course of humanity when it comes to artwork.
(for reference, see Constantine's decree against graven imagery and the destruction of many fine arts from antiquity in the name of modest sensibilities)
I think it can divided into four categories. Non-erotic non-porn ; Erotic non-porn ; non-erotic porn; erotic porn. This is entirely to do with sexual imagery and not other kinds of course. Of course distinguishing which is which is almost impossibly given that it's such a large gray area.
I believe merit can be removed from the argument given that merit disappears once context is removed. The reason something is drawn becomes irrelevant if it is not known and thus only the image can stand for itself.
Since nobody can say for certain why someone drew something the only thing that remains is the message of the image itself. The image implies the reason even if that's not the reason it was drawn. That implication is what people will find offensive if they deem it such.
I supported the idea of the ban simply for practical reasons relating to how people interpret the images. I know full well that it's very difficult to genuinely say what falls into that category or not. Given that the ban has been lifted I can only say that I hope the idealism of the admins doesn't come back to bite them.
Regardless of the answer, an interpretation is simply that. A ban removes the question of interpretation off the table entirely in favor of enforcing an arbitrary belief. This is, of course, the situation as I see it, all context removed. It's also why people strongly in favor of a ban get very frustrated and angry when people insist they view it with no context, because many believe there's an "always" and only give lip service to the notion of exceptions.
I doubt any bad will come to this site over the decision unless someone wants to bully or punish them for standing up for free expression. If that were to occur, the site would still not be wrong in making the decision... just punished for it anyway, and of course we know that's not fair but we shouldn't let that "what if" fear trump rationality -- the alternative is that artists would be forcibly censored.