The problem is that no matter how much of a minority the shitty "Cub art" is, the fact stands that these images have been on FurAffinity for a Long time.
Never noticed them? A lot of people haven't. What this site really comes down to, is a place to display your style and talent to others.
So when people complain that Cub art has "caused them to leave", it's just hiding a different reason. We knew there would be some foul stuff on this site (thanks to THOSE fuckers), but probably not something like this issue that would make a huge disagreement that divides the site in half.
All you can really do, is avoid these artists.
It's not that hard.
If they thrust any of their foul fetishes on you, ignore them, report them, remove them from your list, and move on. Easy.

Oh, and if you wait a couple of months, there'll soon be a clean section of Fur Affinity that actually sounds good.

This is one of the only inteligent journals about this subject that I have seen so far. You have to be one of the only other people I've heard from that even THINKS about legal actions against this kind of thing. But saddly, I know no one that does think it's okay will agree that this site's very existance could be threatened by it. I wasn't going to read this at first but I'm glad I did, it shows me that there are others who are thinking with there brain, and not there genetals.

You raise a good point its just there is only one reason i cant support it.

Mostly its the exact same argument that Jack Thompson or whatever his name is, uses in hopes of banning all violent games in the US. In the end the argument becomes nothing more than a madlib of "What evil drove them to do this."

"1" "2" encourages people to "3" and thus should be illegal.

"1" = Verb, how you would interact with the movie, game, art, statement.
"2" = Subject, The subject in question such as violent games, cub art, and burning the US flag.
"3" = What happens in said art, movie, statement.

Playing violent video games encourages people to be violent and thus should be illegal.

So on and so fourth. Deep down what this argument does is blame the acts of an individual on the entire community. Which honestly isnt a valid argument because we honestly dont know what will set someone off. Whether it is one picture or the other, or maybe actually seeing it in person, or being presented with the right situation.

And despite that you think that the argument using the amendment is a poor excuse of an argument, it is a rather correct one. More than just that its in the constitution, its all about freedoms and that it is unfair for us to draw the line and decide what things should be alllowed to be said and what things cant. Afterall, i could easilly blame several religions for most of our wars and yet i cant ban religion just because i think it will make people more peacefull. And we cant stop people from burning american flags even though we think it will cause anti american sentiments. And we certainly cant blame violent video games for people acting violent.

In the end it all comes down to the individual, it is not up the the community to decide.

(Sorry bout the extra long reply, just trying to get in all my thoughts. Oh and none of this was meant to be said in an angry tone, even though that seems to be how most people read it, i just wanted to present my side of the argument.)

Wait who are you arguing against me or him? "Pwn'd by pedos"?

But on that note, actually this site allows all kinds of art. I dont remember them saying that human art was banned. (Save for the human child ones thus far.) Also, the owners of the site themselves want artists to have the freedoms. The admins have basicaly stated they dont want this site to be a niche site and they want it to be opened to all. Its just mostly based around furry stuff.

But sersiously, i cant tell if your arguing for me or against me or if you have completely missed the point of my argument or what.

You do raise a good point regarding the theory. I should have mentioned that there is a difference between sex and violence. Sex is a drive, while violence isn't, excepting violence addicts. Sex can lead to violence, but the fact remains that violence is not a drive. A drive is something that requires constant fulfillment for our brains to release its happy chemicals and make us feel good-- it's how we're programmed. Still, when you are exposed to something that satisfies a particular drive in a certain manner, it becomes habit. If you ate caviar on toast with your friends, you'd probably prefer to eat that rather than snail hors d'eourves.

The problem with using violent video games as an example is the fact that, with the exception of the very young, there is an unconscious, but major distinction made between the movement of the figures on the screen and the more tactile field you sit on. Yes, people may act out the actions, but they almost never work in reality, and anyone who tries to translate it from screen to slap will learn that very quickly.

Also, there is the fact that video games are played in good humor. That is specifically why I used terrorists as an example, because they are very real people with very real intentions consisting of particular effects on other, very real people.

To a real six year old child, a real terrorist and a real pedophile have an equal opportunity to ruin their life. Pixelated pistols and rendered rifles absolutely do not have that effect. It might spark a fascination with firearms or other such weapons, but not violence.

Additionally, I never said the first amendment argument was a bad one. I only said it was what they used to validate themselves and their cause. I never said it was "incorrect", as you put it. It, technically, is not a -bad- argument, it is the fact that their entire argument tends to consist of shouting "1st amendmentz! Yarr!" and let that be the end of it, while the other side shouts "EW, U IS EVOL! I HAET U!" and the entire thing goes 'round and 'round just like that.

History, not I, has already proven over and over that the community will invariably influence the individual. In the 1850's, New York City was a cesspool. Literally. The Lower East Side, specifically. With 30 people to a room in unlit tenements with barely any air to breathe, murder and robbery were a way of life. Why? Because that was what lay all around them.

Fast-forward to the late 1940's. Cookie-cutter homes, marriage at 16, Dad coming home from the service, and American Flags on every doorstep were the norm. If your family wasn't like that, you were considered very weird.

12th Century Europe. IF YOU DIDN'T LICK THE POPE'S BALLS FOR GOD, THEN YOU DESERVED TO FUCKING DIE! Pardon the terminology, but that's basically how it was. That's how everyone grew up, so that's how it all went.

It's all about paradigms and their shifts. So in part, you are right, but in part, you are also wrong. It takes a real pioneer to push for that shift, but if it works, you get to be a name in history. I just don't think this particular paradigm will shift back towards 13 year old girls and 40 year old men. I believe I am well justified in saying those days are over, what with human rights and equal opportunity advocates screaming like banshees.

The trend is moving towards bigger numbers, not smaller ones-- with the exception of pedophiles and excessively rich white men.

The thing is i dont really see a difference. I figure that if some nut case has the urge to go shoot some people, then a video game may just convince him to do it. Maybe he will think it will be as fun as the video game. Which is basicaly the same argument thats being used for the the child porn.

While i admit there is a difference between the sex drive and peoples violence, i dont think there is any difference between whether one artform or the other will "set him off."

And yah your right you never did say it was a bad one, guess i jumped the gun on that one. But its one that i firmly beleive in. I never needed much of an excuse other than "freedoms" personally. I mean i keep my common sense about me, but i alwasy beleived that something that doesnt hurt others shouldnt be banned just because people think its wrong. (And of course the only argument against this is yours, in which the art does do harm by influencing real people, but i personally beleive that all art, statements, and such has an influence on people; including ones depicting rape, violence, and drugs. I just dont think its right to seperate one peice of art. Whether it be because you think it has more of an impact on peoples minds, or you just think the subject matter is worse than the others.)

(On that note, whats your opinions of pictures depicting violent rape?)

Rape is something that can be played out as a scene between two consenting adults with mutual interests on a predetermined plan. Someone who actually goes out and randomly does horrible things to another person without their consent really does need to die. Regardless, another adult has the opportunity to defend themselves from an attacker. Either way, that is another subject entirely.

There is a pretty fat line between game guns and real guns. Real guns cost a lot of frickin' money to buy, and are not nearly as easy to use as the controller. People learn this very quickly. I explained to you the "learning curve" already. Additionally, there is the fact that there are legal and personal repercussions to shooting someone that serves as a deterrent, AKA landing in jail or getting shot, yourself. People behave very differently when they don't worry about damage or death. In a video game, you're more than happy to blitz another player with a handgun and grenades while they're in a fortified position. In reality, most people just kinda huddle there and hope for the best. Who wants to ACTUALLY get hurt?

The people most likely to go off and kill another person are those who were trained to do so in the first place, namely military or ex-military personnel. Law enforcement is not trained to kill; their purpose is to save lives, if it means taking one to do so. It just usually doesn't end up that way.

As an artist, my belief is that art is supposed to communicate an idea or make a statement. In that sense, you are correct in that all art does have an influence on people. While it does take talent to pull out a good piece of porn, that is not the full scope of what art is supposed to be. Its blatancy kills any kind of artistic charm the piece might have had otherwise.

Regardless, the images depicting themes you mentioned (rape, violence, drugs) do not necessarily bear a reinforcing effect. I'm sorry, but that is a rather base philosophy you have. I think you are looking at that one particular aspect of it rather than taking in the full context of the image and absorbing it the way it was intended. The message could be quite negative in a subtle manner, but all you seem to focus on is the simple fact that the theme is there more than its context. That word becomes key in this argument. Context.

The context of pornography us purely sexual. Pornography is an art form that is intended to push the 'hot and steamy' buttons in a given individual, provided their tastes run parallel. The parameters are clearly defined in the case of 'cub art', and that is the depiction of underaged anthropomorphic individuals actively engaged in provoking the sex drive of the viewer. It promotes a positive view of sexual activity involving an underaged individual, human or not.

The impact of this on an individual already bearing a positive response to this is their arousal within this particular context, which leads to an elevated potential of translating into reality.

Which leads me to the next point. The first amendment permits total freedom of speech and whatnot, under the stipulation that neither creates a "clear and present danger" nor outwardly promote hatred and harm unto others.

If you can point me to a child that has had a sexual experience at a very young age that has impressed a positive influence upon them, then please, point them out.

I tell you now, every last experience I know involving sex prior to their maturity has led to some very damaged and/or unhappy individuals with a serious uphill battle to survive in this world. I absolutely cannot and will not support such behavoirs or the promotion thereof with this knowledge. If you think you can point out enough to me to alter my opinion, then go ahead. Unlike most sentient beings, I am willing to change my opinions, given sufficient proof-- I just doubt you can.

So because people can roleplay rape, seeing and pawing off to rape pictures isnt going to make some guy go and rape someone? But at the same time, since people cant roleplay cub situations, they are more likely to go out and rape a kid?

Also, cub pictures are not the only pictures that cause a positive impact on peoples minds. Video games, pictures that have jokes in them, or other kinds of porns offer similar if not the same influence. (And before you go off on a tangent again about how violent video games do not lead to violence; games, pictures, and stories do not 'teach' people how to do things. It can, as you say, influence them to do it. Also, it doesnt have to be about guns, violence is violence no matter what form it is in. (Even though i used the example of someone shooting someone.))

Your argument is that if the artform influences the person through positive reinforcement, then that art will have more of an impact on them. Yet there are plenty of pornographic images, joke pictures, and video games that depict otherwise illegal acts that incourage through positive reinforcement.

For example, i see plenty of pictures that depict vore, and i know for a fact that many people will paw off to them. (Friends with many of them as half the dragon population seems to like it.) Some of these pictures are quite hardcore, showing people being torn apart. Yet people get off to them. Which means it has the exact same influence on them that a cub picture would. Should these also be banned because it may lead some to cannablism of some kind? (And no, i dont want to hear you argueing that there is a difference between cub and vore pictures. Your arguing that a positive influence through masturbating to a picture leads to people acting out the picture IRL. In which case i do not see a difference between cub and vore.)

Video games may not offer the sexual release that a pornographic image would, but it does offer a positive stimulate in the fact that the games are fun to play. No game will teach you how to kill someone, but it does incourage the idea. (However, the argument that fear keeps them from doing these things is a pretty good one. The only thing i have to say in argument to this is that there is also the fear of going to jail, and acting violently, or killing someone doesnt necessarly mean that they will be killed either. There are plenty of unsolved murder cases out there.)

But im sure you will come back to the argument cub being different at this point. Which basically your telling me that despite the fact that other pictures of illegal acts can have the exact same influence on someones mind, the very fact that its 'child porn' makes it worse. The fact that people raped as kids are traumatized for the rest of their life makes drawing cub porn different from drawing pictures depicting other illegal acts, even though people raped as adults tend to be traumatized as well?

And i honestly do not see the differance between your argument on rape and cub pictures. Both situations are very possible and even though rape is easier to roleplay, it doesnt keep people from doing it. (And no, i dont think there is a difference between the idea that kids cant fight back but adults can, simply because with the right situation an adult cant fight back either, such as a gun pointed at their head.) Also, your argument about the impact on children from being raped at a young age is a pretty correct one. Most people abused as a kid never truely grow out of it. (My main example would probly be the lead singer from Korn.) However, i have personaly met people who were raped as adults, and i can tell you that it has a pretty freaking huge impact on them to, that most of them never grow out of. (Even though i dont know them all that well, i have seen people who were abused as a kid support cub pictures on forums and such. Or at least they used that as part of their argument.)



"I tell you now, every last experience I know involving sex prior to their maturity has led to some very damaged and/or unhappy individuals with a serious uphill battle to survive in this world. I absolutely cannot and will not support such behavoirs or the promotion thereof with this knowledge. If you think you can point out enough to me to alter my opinion, then go ahead. Unlike most sentient beings, I am willing to change my opinions, given sufficient proof-- I just doubt you can."

So basically you want me to prove raping a child doesnt harm them in order for you to beleive that pictures drawn of cubs hurts no one?



.... Ok this is the last reply ill make to this discussion cuz i dont think ill be able to convince you and repeating myself would just be redundant.

But as a recap.... Pictures drawn of cubs hurts no one. The only way they could hurt people is through influencing others to do the illegal acts depicted in the pictures. However, we allow people to draw pictures of rape and vore which equally have a positive influence on peoples minds, and incourages them to do the illegal acts. (Which is not the artists fault that some individual acts upon their picture.) Thus why would you ban pictures of cubs before pictures of vore and rape. (Unless your personally dont like cub pictures more than vore and rape pictures, or think that child rape is even more of a haneous crime than anything else.)

You're putting words in my mouth and assuming again. I never said that the premature sexual behavior was nonconsentual. I only ever said that every experience therein had a massive negative impact. You specifically used "rape" consistently, a term suggesting a nonconsentual nature where I did not. While the term statutory rape comes to mind, I hardly think that is what you were saying. Nonconsentual situations only worsen the scenario, and there a few of those I know of, as well.

I've already explained the particular position of possible predetermination. I can at least consider that in a rape-themed image containing two adults intended for wanking. If that is not the case, then, as my experience and that of close friends have told me, the image is usually a manifestation of a narrative. Even if it isn't either of the above, I couldn't really argue it either way, even if I do disapprove. Knowing people who have been raped as adults, too, that particular theme in its "hardcore" form is significantly to my distaste.

Vore is such a terrible example that I am actually amused. First of all, it is entirely infeasible and requires one partner to die, which automatically includes snuff. While it may be an interest, it is highly unlikely that this will manifest itself as cannibalism through viewing art, simply for the fact that the victim would actually have to be terminated, and once again, the surviving partner faces legal action.

Even so, cannibalism has been in existence long before its visual depiction, and it was not a sexual fetish. It was a means of survival and a source of food. Any given person is far more likely to draw cannibalistic tendencies from history than a supposedly erotic "dog-eat-dog" picture.

There was one incident that involved vore, but that was between two consenting adults. The victim left a letter stating his intentions, as well as restating his intentions on film with the... eater is the only term I can find. If I remember correctly, the process was filmed and consequently landed the eater in prison, though I believe he was later released.

My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is the simple fact that rape is about -opportunity-. You missed that word. I never said anything about absolutes. You did. Rapists are opportunists, and succeed because of time, place, and target.

Children are far easier to "handle" than an adult. Most are highly susceptible to suggestion. They are generally naive and thus can be easily taken advantage of. Their physical strength and control is not a fraction the caliber of an adult's, so their chances of fighting off an adult assailant is virtually nil. This also means that restraint is also far easier. All these factors combined means that children can very easily go missing.

Adults have a much higher capacity for self-defense. They are stronger, more intelligent, have had the opportunity to learn self-defense techniques and tactics, and have a very real possibility of carrying a weapon. It's not a guarantee the victim will fend off the assailant, but the chances are that much higher.

Given that, the cultivation of noncensentual sex with an adult, though threatening, also bears a real-life injury possibility, as well as legal repercussions. I'm not saying this deters them all, nor do they all get caught, but like I said, it's about opportunity.

Also given this information, it is probably safe to say that there is no more opportunistic a sexual predator than a pedophile.

Actually, all presented scenarios have been about opportunity. If a person could do anything they wanted without risk of injury, prosecution, or any other negative consequences, I'm sure they would do whatever the hell they wanted. But that just isn't the way things are.

There is a difference because the translation to real life has a relatively high opportunity for realization. Opportunity is what it is all about, and you don't seem to understand that. I can see what you are trying to say, but the bottom line is, every scenario but pedophilia typically presents an encounter with another adult. Thus, the opportunity for the realization of those "fantasies" is actually rather dismal.

On another note, I did not say that video games provided -sexual- relief, either. I have no idea where you got that from. Nor did I EVER suggest that "cub porn" ever had any kind of positive influence in any way, shape or form.

Further, you really CANNOT use joke images as an argument, because let's face it, it's a friggin' joke.

Video games providing sexual relief? Yah im kinda lost on that one. Dunno if i said it. Probably has something to do with my inability to form coeherent sentences as of late. (Also, by saying cub porn having a positive influence, i used the wrong words. What i meant was the same argument you were using in which pawing to the pictures has creates positives in their mind. Actually, i completely forget how to word that properly. Either way, i was building up to how porn of vore and rape offer the same psycological influences.)

Anyways, deep down the butt of the argument comes to a difference of point of views, i think.

It has always been my personal opinion that people have the common sense not to do what they fantasize about or see in pictures. And that we shouldnt have to baby the world, and censor types of art out of fear that someone will actually act upon it.

(Also, using vore as an example isnt meant as a literal transaltion. In fact none of my argument is meant to be used as a literal translation. The point of my argument has always been to try and show flaws in your argument to show the hypocracy i see in it. In fact, ive yet to provide any real evidence to my argument, ive just been trying to show the hypocracy i see in yours and others like yours.)

(Now before you go off about me saying i dont provide any evidence, well thats mostly because you argument is totally true. Art influences people, thats sorta a fundamental fact. The point that im trying to make is the simple fact that i do not understand why you single out cub porn more than others such as rape. The only thing that comes to mind is that you find someone having sex with a child either far more hanous of a crime, or you find it far more common than the others, or perhaps you find it easier than the others. None the less, my entire argument is nothing more than an attempt to show how you single it out.)

At any rate, you know my opinion now. Its possible it may be a biased one but from my point of view its correct. It all boils down to that i dont think any art should be censored, and that censoring one art that offers a bad influence is unjust without censoring them all. (Which honestly ill never support censoring any form of art.)

Maybe thats what it comes down to for me. Censoring cub porn comes across as censoring everything. I dont want to personally censore it because i feel i will have to censore everything else.

(BTW, any other micomunications, or word putting in mouthing is unintentional, and mostly comes from me trying to argue an art form while presented arguments about the real thing. I honestly dont care why you think pedophiles are worse than rapist, and attempting to argue that is down right.... annoying, when thats not what im trying to argue against. As i said, bringing up rape and vore were nothing more than attempts to show hypocracy in your argument, not attempts to show that they are equally hanouse crimes. That i think its unjust to censore one bad influence without censoring them all.)

Anyways, i hope that clarifies the miscommunications from my arguments..... In all honesty, you can explain to me till armegeddon, how much worse and easier it is for pedophiles compared to any other illegal subject matter. But, i will never find a picture drawn of cubs more hanous than other subjects. Art is art to me, no matter how the real life thing is.

(Oh yah and to add, your argument really does make me think that child molestation is a lot worse than rape.... well sorta, i think im still on the fence about that. I guess it depends on the situation.)

(Oh well southpark is on, thats the end of my reply.)