*sighs and shakes his head* I am not in favor of the cub stuff but ... to ban it? Why? Its art.. that's all.. There's no hidden meaning behind it. I don't understand it.. not at all.

I agree with most things you said. Not all, but most!

The two main things I can't fully agree with are just that unlike you, I am not revolted by anything on this site, and that at the time FA banned cub, I think their motive for doing so was pretty understandable.

FN has mentioned no such motive that I have heard. For FN it seems like a political gambit/publicity stunt. Seems to me they just think it might make them more popular. I'm very disappointed at this loss for artistic freedom and equality and acceptance to bigotry and segregation and discrimination and censorship. :c

Honestly, The reasons why they banned it in the first place was actually unreasonable. AlertPay didn't support any forms of pornography, and thus they cut funding for Furaffinity. Ironically enough, AlertPay ended up going down anyway.

Incorrect. AlertPay did permit their service to be used for adult content, albeit with higher fees than for sites not containing that sort of content, up until shortly before they rebranded (at which time their terms changed to approximately the same as other, more restrictive payment processors). Artistic pornography depicting adults was definitely within the scope of what they permitted at the time Fur Affinity was using them.

I will stress that I was not FA staff at the time, but I was using AlertPay for donations for a webcomic project containing adult content, and in order to be able to insert a donation button on the site, it had to be (and was) vetted by AlertPay.

Amen

What I especially hate about this whole thing is that people are arguing that banning cub pornography is good for "the fandom's image." I say who the fuck cares about the fandom's "image", we're literally jacking off to artwork of anthropomorphic animals, some are raping people, some are eating people, some are being maimed and gored, some covered in piss, shit, and vomit, and you think that our biggest concern is artwork depicting a fictional 14 year old character? Seriously?! Furries have been hated for years, for many reasons. If you think that cub pornography is at the top of that list of reasons, then you mustn't have been a furry for very long. If it's that much of a problem to you personally, then suggest a proper tagging and tag blacklist system, and use it. Otherwise, stop bitching about having to see certain subjects. I don't like drug-related artwork, but you'll never see me comment about how "Drugs are bad, m'kay?" or get my panties in a twist saying that I'll never respect that artist again, then go about getting drug related artwork banned from the fucking site. I'm an adult, I know how to properly handle myself when faced with stuff I don't like.

As far as legality in certain countries... if cub artwork is illegal, then I could bet that artwork with feral animals would be illegal too on the basis that it would be considered bestiality. If it's a moral issue, claiming that cub artwork enables pedophiles and causes them to want to molest children, then I guess people who look at rape pictures will start raping people, or guro fetishists will start slaughtering people every time they get a boner. Hell, might as well ban all pornography in general at that point.

I agree about the fandoms image. Creating an artificial image for PR reasons doesn't sit right with me either. I like honesty, I like integrity, I don't like hiding away and pretending something isn't what it really is as an attempt to control the impressions of outsiders.

yeah media everywhere as already painted a picture of what furries are like to anyone not a furry so why worried about one more thing? :P i agree

People have a right to run their websites however they want to. I most certainly do not support decisions to outright ban things, but I support their right to do so.

If the owner of a site came out and said "This is my site, I don't want X on it." then I'd respect that. They pay for its upkeep, they can do as they please with it. It's the people who don't own the site, but put pressure on those who do to ban things they don't like, I have a problem with them. They're fandom haemorrhoids.

That's fair enough. Consider also though that a site owner might have reasons for banning something against their will, so to speak. IIRC the FA can on cub stuff came after a payment processor cited it as a reason for dropping support for the site, even though there was no legal issue with it.

I am aware of this, but it isn't the case with FN. FA's problem was shortlived, but they kept the ban in place, so clearly there was another motive.

When discomfort from art lines up with laws in many countries, this is what you get... except I don't know why bestiality is still allowed.

I think it's a stupid thing to ban because of the ambiguity involved, requiring people to draw a line somewhere in something that is completely subjective. You can't look at drawn anthropomorphic characters and have an accurate guess on age. There was that argument with Sonic characters on here awhile back, assigning ages to the characters. But then technically, you can be, like, "Yeah, well, this happens a year after present day." :| SO HE OKAY.

We become that much closer to am Orwellian society of having to pandering to a bunch of PC cunts and pussies

Notwithstanding half-assed claims by an emotionally-disturbed former collaborator who's permanently enraged because I can out-art him, I don't engage the topic myself. However, in the absence of causing actual harm to real human beings (such as infant circumcision does), the only real effect is to drive away people who'd otherwise occupy our space.

One can't assert that cub/shota/etc. isn't profitable, since there's clearly a market for it (largely populated by teenage girls in Japan). But what I do notice is that like many forms of actual child exploitation (see: Toddlers & Tiaras, Dance Moms, et. al.), it rather depends on the sex of the person doing the work. I used to know a gal up in Canada who had an entire website devoted to gay men in various stages of undress and romantic entanglement with teen, preteen, and sometimes preschool boys--nobody complained. But I've also had people flip out on me for drawing kid characters at all, even G-rated.

There are those who argue that such media provokes those so inclined to increase their pursuit of real, young 'n tender flesh. There are equally those who argue that it sates a need and keeps said folk at bay. The issue is too complex to reduce to a bumper sticker, as is most of social & ethical argumentation in the Age of Obama.

Indeed, it is complex, which makes it all the more interesting as a topic of discussion. Shame there's little discussion, though, just banning cub stuff outright for the satisfaction of the weak-minded. Making something too taboo to even discuss, too outrageous to even represent in fiction or artwork, is a bloody stupid thing.

Hell, I've had discussions with cub/shota/etc. enthusiasts as they've tried to talk me into serving their genre. They have amazing vocabularies and casually toss out ₤10 words--as if intellectualizing something and/or dropping names like Walt Whitman and Simone du Beauvoir will make it not what it is.

Hahaha, you've had plenty of experiences that I haven't had, that's for sure. I respect your own reasons for not wishing to discuss it, so I didn't mean to imply that you ought to, if that's the impression I gave you XP. But yes, bollocks is destructive to any discussion and it pisses me off no matter what side of a fence someone is on.

Notta tall. People just don't realize that though a) I love to draw kids, and b) I don't mind erotica, never the two shall meet.

One of the reasons I commission you from time to time is that you get it.

Haha, yus XP.

This pretty much sums up basically my feelings on this save for a few small points.

Well put. I have nothing to add. :) If cub porn is banned because the majority voted against it, I think we can similarly ban all sorts of other themes that only some members are into. But hey, I've always just stayed on InkBunny and avoided other furry sites. I rarely even check here. I just came here randomly now. True, I don't like segregation, but that's why I encourage everybody to just join InkBunny. Nobody says IB has to be a place for cub art only. Just get the open-minded ones over there and let's be a big family. And the jerks can stay here, so we don't have to look at them.

See I feel uncomfortable with snuff, or the killing/dismantling of another character for sexual pleasure. I cant stand the stuff, and like the issue above, doing so would be unlawful. I don't whine and complain that it should be banned, but I can understand why people are somewhat uncomfortable with both situations. I live by a rule, its simple, and requires the cooperation of artists and viewers combined. Artists should label their work/icons with what may be involved. For example, for snuff, maybe put the word snuff in the icon, or the image title, this way there are no "Accidental clicks" to an image someone may not wish to see. For cub's, simply label it "Cub." Viewers not wishing to see a particular kink, image, thought, exc, simply read the warnings and don't click if you don't like it. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, 95% of furs I have come across are snobbish binge drinking assfucks who pounce on every opportunity to start chaos and drama for the 5% who simply wish to have a nice time.

I totally agree with this journal.

It's funny that furries scream for acceptance left and right, going around telling everyone how they accept others for who they are and the things they draw. Yet turn a 180 as soon as 'cub' is mentioned. It's like these people have never heard of phrases like: "acceptance begins with you" and "how would you like it if this were to happen to you?"

It also baffles me that almost every single artist seems to embrace the idea of censorship the moment that it bans something that they personally don't "approve of". So much for being an 'inclusive' and 'accepting' fandom.

Indeed, to think of the community as accepting is rather a bad joke at this point XP.

Yeah, it's true that you're going to offend someone no matter how mildly you put across your case. With me, I just say what I really think, how I think it (or to the best of my ability, communication always has its difficulties). I could have spent a lot of time and effort writing this journal in the mildest terms I could think of, but I'd still get people flying off the handle, so I wrote it how I felt it, which was pissed off, haha. I can't just not say things when it's on my mind, I don't like the idea of keeping quiet because I'm nervous about how people will respond. Sometimes I'm scared enough to shut up, but most of the time I just go with it and damn the consequences.

It seems that often the reason for these bans is a monetary thing. There's some outside investment in the continued operation of the servers that run these sites or something like that, and they call the shots on what is and isn't acceptable. I think it's really BS, but when your hands are tied there's not a lot you can do I guess.

Any claims of it being a moral thing, though, I find that hypocritical. Like, how far does someone have to go to cross the line? It's okay to draw a babyfur wearing a diaper and letting out a massive stinking load in it, rubbing that right in the camera just to make it obvious that it's someone's weird fap material, as long as there isn't another character cutting a hole in the diaper and buttfucking em through it? There's a lot of weird, gross, screwed up things that people fap to in this fandom (not that we're unique in that regard) and when we allow ourselves to pick and choose what is acceptable to be posted, I think that opens the floodgates to arguments for removing other kinds of material. In a moral argument, it's kind of all or nothing.

Not allowing human stuff I can understand to some degree, because the fandom isn't about human characters. And legal barriers are legal barriers... can't exactly argue your way around those without changing the laws. But playing the 'morality' card is a dangerous game.

Part of the problem is that some countries have made it illegal to display or distribute even depictions of cub porn, and have therefore blocked sites that show it in their country. A lot of sites have banned that type of artwork for that reason. Not saying good or bad, just giving the reason.

I do not know this to have ever actually happened and I would love some solid evidence to back up that claim. A lot of people complained about this in their arguments against FN allowing the content but I have never heard a single verifiable account that related to it (outside of one, which I cannot verify despite at least hearing it, which I also have another conflicting account for). Human content (shota/loli) is different--that's actually illegal in several places. Cub stuff though? Nah.

The UK for one: http://theconversation.com/when-a-d.....-in-jail-33418

Korea for another: http://cbldf.org/2013/08/south-kore.....ngs-animation/

None of these laws limit the drawing to HUMAN minors.

Indeed. The whole thing though could do with a bit more of an open discussion though, especially the whole fantasy/reality angle. It also makes you wonder why these actions haven't been taken with stuff like snuff art etc. We're just lucky that these sites can still offer mature/adult art to those who wish to see it. Who knows they'll probably be a time where images featuring cartoon characters having sex in general would be banned across the net, not because of copyrights, but because people might say that they are enforcing negative sexual stereotypes and even some have argued that stuff like this could lead to pedophilia, as it features characters from kids/family related media. I wouldn't be surprised if sites like this became banned or extremely tame at some point.

As a matter of fact, yes they do. I don't need examples of underage human art resulting in convictions-- I know that happens. The way that the law defines a "minor" under the law is what makes cub porn fail to meet the standard for the images those particular laws apply to. Do you have a distinct example of a court ruling an image of 'cub porn' to be a distinct representation of a human minor? I suspect not because it hasn't happened. Even Canada gave the thumbs up on Softpaw Magazine back in the day according to one of its creators and they're one of the countries that is very strict on loli/shota stuff. That's the difference. A moral perception of how the images might be similar is legally irrelevant unless the law is written to incorporate that the definition of a minor does not necessarily require the image to resemble a human. That's how it works.

The South Korea link is actually legit on your part, assuming that particular article has a valid interpretation of the law. The problem with that particular law seems to be that it's extremely far-reaching--even adult actors roleplaying as minors could be considered child pornography. Laws like that are extremely hard to deal with and I suspect the number of users who hail on these sites from that particular region is not so far-reaching. Unfortunate for them, but ultimately ineffectual as far as a majority of the world's laws on this particular content goes.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org.....ld-pornography

"The Free Speech Coalition and others challenged the law in federal court in
1997. They challenged only the two subsections containing the “appears to
be” and “conveys the impression” clauses. The plaintiffs questioned those
provisions because they allow people to be punished even if no actual children
were involved in the creation, production or distribution of the material."

Taken to extreme, 'appears to be' and 'conveys the impression' would clearly cover cub porn.

It's not an issue of "clearly," though. Raising US examples is useless because according to actual lawyers with an understanding of the text, the only drawn representation of a minor that would not be protected as free speech are cartoon depictions of minors that are based on real, living people. In other words, if you drew a character that was basically your little cousin that you wanted to diddle and the character unmistakably resembled that actual, living being, it would be actionable. This means that not only is cub porn completely protected free speech, but so it any shota/loli art that isn't based on living minors. I'm more interested in the legality of adult-oriented cub art in countries that don't allow adult art with human characters that resemble minors.

Well, unfortunately, I do not have the wording of the laws in the UK, Germany, Korea, or other places. But I can't see any legislature or parliament being specific enough to exclude non-humans.

The US is actually pretty specific about persons being homo sapiens.

Well, they have to appear to be a person (because a child is a person under 18). Only humans are persons (see: zoos not being convicted for false imprisonment).

Nekos, being humans with ears, may "appear to be persons" - that is part of the reason for the wording "some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child" in the UK law, and why Inkbunny considers them equivalent to persons. But furries tend to have more involved changes, and I'm not aware of the UK having attempted to prosecute any furry material. Indeed, as far as I know they have restricted this law's application to those previously convicted of other sex crimes, such as the possession of photographic child abuse material.

Yes, some sites have banned underage art porn, however, those same countries have banned other fetishes. Pornography is banned in Australia altogether, In the UK, Rape, Eating Disorder Glorifying, Facesitting, and anal sex is banned there. Hell, in Suadi Arabia, Homosexuality is illegal there, even in art form. So if a site is going to ban stuff like that, they have to understand that on the basis of laws, pornography must be banned in general.

But the reality, and the truth is, it is not the responsibility of the website to be responsible for the content its users decide to download. If you're in the UK and you download porn of two people buggering each other in the butt and you get caught, that's your responsibility and yours alone.

However, the other reality is that the only legal obligation a website has is to its country of origin. This is why Inkbunny, while it accepts cub porn, (and it can be blocked by rating) it won't take human porn on the basis that cub is a legal loophole in the country the site hails from.

Canada is one such country...according to Yiffy when they were still around.

Reading these reactions is actually quite funny x3 There's so much pent-up drama here.

You can't blame them for banning cub- they are a new site looking for users and need to please the masses and, let's be frank, the masses think cub work is WRONG. Weather it IS or ISN'T is irrelevant. On a whole it's looked at as distasteful and, honestly, for good reason. Even if it's fun you still have to understand how it is perceived and what it relates to on a real-world side, even if said real-wold side isn't actually there. Let's also not forget that, even though it's drawn, victimless and in no way actually relates to pedophilia, it IS still illegal in several countries.

Yes, it sucks. Do I understand? Yes, I do.

That's why you ignore the masses, they have always lacked wisdom. The masses wanting something banned has never been a good reason to actually do it. If not, freedom of expression is utterly meaningless. Fuck the crowd. One of the few Biblical verses I can really get behind is Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. Popularity should not replace reason, ever.

What I'm saying is there IS reason behind this, for once. It's not masses going "oh that's weird and not what I'm into, get rid of it". It's the masses responding to a REAL LIFE problem. Let's be clear- pedophilia is awful and does incredible mental damage to children. It's considered the WORST taboo here. Literally eating shit is more acceptable. The reaction to cub art is a normal reaction to something like that.

There is no evil in this and it's not a stupid reply. It makes complete logical sense- you guys are just too caught up in your own interests to realize. :P

There's something rather galling about the assurance with which you talk absolute bollocks. Cub porn is not child porn, it never will be either. But no, fuck logic, and reason, this is a tricky subject so you're going to spew a complete load of shite with impunity. Caught up in my own interests? Who the fuck are you to say? The revulsion one feels towards acts of real child abuse is, of course, absolutely justified, but art is not abuse, it's fantasy. You are incapable of seperating fantasy from reality, merely because the subject is taboo. Being unable to see nuance in a taboo subject is not a sensible practice, it's fucking ignorant. I completely resent the implication that drawing or appreciating cub art is in any way connected to raping children. Even pedophilia is simply in the mind and people who feel those inclinations have no more choice in the matter than anyone else has over their own sexuality. The evil is the abuse itself, not the thought or fantasy. As soon as you start condemning thoughts, feelings and fantasies, you're condemning things that don't actually exist, it's thought-crime and completely preposterous, not to mention immoral.

There's no fucking causal relationship between cub porn and child abuse, how the hell do you think that even works?

Cub Porn
Looking at it
??????????????
Destroyed childhoods

Murder, rape etc are also REAL LIFE problems, HALF LIFE problems, yet they don't elicit the same condemnation when represented in art. That isn't a result of logic, it's a result of hysterical thinking when people are too shit scared and weak to think for themselves, to derive at a conclusion that actually requires thought.

Love you to bits, Roars. I always felt that 'Blade was the best spokesperson we had when it came to rational counterarguments on this particular subject, but as he grew tired of the endless, seemingly pointless struggle and finally retreated (quite understandably) from the fight, you've admirably, and more than competently, filled his shoes. I can't thank you enough for all the effort and emotional currency you've invested on our behalf over the last few years, when few others seemed up to the task. You're a true treasure. *snugs*

First thing, attack my argument, not me. :P ad hominem is always disappointing to see in a debate. I -agree- with you that it should NOT be, however that's not the way things are and it's like that for a reason. If you need proof of that, look me up on IB. Secondly, calm down. It's hard to take you seriously when reading that makes it sound like you're screaming and yelling and wanting to punch a wall like an emo teenager. Yes, that means you -are- caught up in your own interests there, mate.

Cub porn is NOT child porn, but it is a direct depiction OF that situation. No matter how much fantasy you put into it there is still exploitation and abuse of a child being depicted. No matter how much you enjoy/get off on that it is -still- considered by and large to be extremely distasteful and brings up feelings similar to that of real life abuse. Art isn't just a doodle, is it? Art is bringing up feelings and, guess what? The feelings for 90% of the world is disgust.

Murder, rape, bestiality, those -are- all real life problems (lol half-life?) but don't have the level of taboo that child abuse has. You are wrong to say that people being offended over this isn't the result of logic- it really is just that. In fact it's not just logic, it's also natural instinct to want to protect children. It's not at all a matter of "shit scared and weak", it's a matter of both natural instinct and, yes, a natural incline to find that repulsive and wrong. No matter how much you argue that it's not connected to actually abusing children in the end your argument is, in fact, pointless.

There is nothing WRONG with CP. That doesn't mean the populace is WRONG for its extreme distaste of it, either. Like I said, there's nothing WRONG with literally eating shit either, is there? Yet post that on moooost active forums on the internet and get ready to be banned for the same reason.

AND that why these debates go from serious to hilarious all the time. The argument that murder is less taboo than Cub porn/loli/shota and even actual CP is what (no offense) makes me laugh too much.

Meanwhile, arguments of rape porn is never considered exploitation when it is in fact the same thing no matter what people think.
And then there is no argument that bestiality is animal abuse even in drawings.

Then again I don't think my words will get acknowledged.

Also the argument of "wanting to protect children." Lets try doing something about all the children illegally using these sites to have access to porn themselves. Unless it okay for a little girl to see pictures of penises, she just can't know its called a "penis" (an actual father got arrested and forced to register as a sex offender simply because his daughter knew that it was called a penis, not a pee pee, fun fact, they were never sexually abused/exploited)

See my answer to orangesquash bellow for the answer to most of this, except "wanting to protect children". I agree actually, there's a massive rise in minors going online and just looking at porn and it's actually lead to a lot of problems. Sadly short of literally filtering the internet connection (think V Chip) I don't know how you'd prevent that.

Your best bet would be to educate the child, I guess? Seeing as how it's not really preventable any more. As for the father, that's ridiculous >> There's gotta be more to that story than that or it was some backwards southern town or some crap.

The full story is that, the father gave his kids a very tamed version of "The talk" but also using actual terms, thus his kids knowing its called a "Penis" was the icing on the cake. This also happened at a catholic school. *which is ironic* If you want the entire story just let me know.

But yeah, the context behind why cub porn must be banned is more than often for reasons of "protecting children and not exposing them to that stuff." which isnt possible because kids will simply fake their ages. I knew a irl on this site who was (at the time) 14 but claimed she was 21.

Personally the only way to prevent it is to ban all content but yeah that never gonna happen , people care too much about their porn x3

It's really the parent's responsibility to protect their children from internet porn. Cub porn really has nothing to do with children going on these websites and viewing lewd images. Pornography in general hardwires that in their brains to think that sexualizing is the norm. In the end, this is why porn "Creates unrealistic standards for men and women" becasue the parents neglect discussions about sex based on a sexually repressive view society has in general.

Not to mention, majority of parents are irresponsible when it comes to website firewalls to the point when the UK outlawed underage porn art and rape art, they forced ISPs to have mandatory Parental filters that parents will have to voluntarily change those settings within their contract.

Agreed- CP doesn't have anything to do with this, it's the parents themselves responsible. The psyche behind porn/porn abuse is super interesting, too! It's an actual, measurable physical and pathological change in the brain. The one thing I always call BS on is the unrealistic standards comments. I don't think it actually does that- instead it teaches you that people and, sex in and of itself, is no different than a packaged good, like candy or fast food, to be consumed and then discarded. Unrealistic standards I feel are more a problem on TV, magazines and other (mostly clean) media... but yeah, thinking about it now, I can actually see why you would say unrealistic standards there because, just like cub porn, real porn is almost all fantasy and acting, too.

It's also natural to want to protect women,. So why isn't rape porn the same taboo as cub porn?

See bellow.

Actually, the masses could give two shits what happens. The loud minority with the skewed moral compass does.

This is wrong- most anyone you'd find on the street would be against this. See my above statement.

Yeah, the same people see rape as far less worse than two cubs going at it consensually. I mean, I get the legal and social stigma, but to be honest, People are fucking hypocrites, especially those with morals that think the only problem is cub porn.

Honestly, you go either all the way or not at all.

Your problem is you compare it to other things. Don't. :P No one is talking about those. We're talking about CP. There IS also a middle ground- black and white rarely works.

Bullshit. There is no middle ground. Crime is crime. Whether it's a kid getting beaten, raped, or killed, or if it's an adult getting stabbed, raped or killed, or if it's a person fucking an animal or if it's people eating other people. You simply CANNOT justify rape, murder, beastiality, and cannibalism while condemning cub porn. Morality-speaking, all of these kinks are repulsive and must be banned. There is no such thing as a middle ground for morality.

So either you agree that crime depictions in art is simply a fucking drawing or you think that all art depicting/glorifyng crime or encouraging sexual violence or physical violence is putrid and horrid. Don't try to say I'm comparing apples to oranges when they're all the fucking same in the law!

Just so you know, most progressive countries have BANNED Rape porn along with underage porn. So tell me again why aren't sites concerned about this?

It makes me livid when people say "oh, don't compare my precious rape art to cub porn, or my dog-fucking to baby rape, or my special gore-wank to two kiddies diddling each other" You're worse than a pedophile in my eyes when you say that.

Again, there are different levels of taboo. Simply waving a flag and saying "If you allow X you have to allow Y too because they are all crime!" is a fallacy called False Equivalence. Just because one thing is shunned more than another for various reasons doesn't mean you can go off the deep end and either ban everything or allow everything. Morality speaking, morality is based on the beholder and society in which the piece is being viewed. Honor killings are acceptable in certain places because it has always been a form of justice. I, myself, wish the old law "Eye for an Eye" still was a thing. Your morality is not equivalent to mine.

Your apples to oranges statement is also wrong when, indeed, the law is not equal. The level of guilt and length of sentence is based on the crime. Being caught stealing from a department store VS the premeditated killing of a stranger is a preeeetty obvious example.

Be as livid as you want, but this has nothing to do with any other kind of art. Comparing cub porn to rape porn only makes cub stuff look even -worse-, as it turns what is supposed to be (sometimes) a cute kind of fantasy fun into something much uglier. Don't make the basis of your defense "you allow X! Why not Y?" when comparing something you like to something awful. :P

At the end of the day, you commit rape, you commit sex acts with a minor, you go to jail and you're labeled a sex offender.

"Just because one thing is shunned more than another for various reasons doesn't mean you can go off the deep end and either ban everything or allow everything. Morality speaking, morality is based on the beholder and society in which the piece is being viewed. "

Actually, yes I can. As you said earlier, Morality is in the eye of the beholder. And in the law, and in normal society, People view rapists and child molesters and murderers as equally heinous. People have used the same argument that is used against cub porn against violent videogames and pornography in general. In the scope of the laws of most countries and their push for a pure society, if a website is to ban content based on legality issues, they must consider all that are considered obscene and illegal. just like underage art, majority of the countries int his planet outlaw rape art as much as they do underage porn art. It isn't a Fale Equivalence when the level of equivalence is socially pressured to match each other.

People ban cub porn becasue they want to protect children from being sexualized as much as these countries outlaw rape art to protect women from being sexualized.

So, a murderer, a rapist and a child molester all go to the same prison, the same ward... who ends up dead? 9/10 the child molester does. Even inmates who are murderers don't tolerate that and we've seen muuuuultiple cases of inmates finding out someone's a pedo and that pedo not making it very far in prison. So not really, child molesters and murderers aren't really viewed on the same level. In all honesty child molesters are viewed as muuuuch worse.

People use the same argument against violent video games all the time, it's true. They are wrong there, too. Violent video games =/= violent people, just as cub porn =/= pedophile. You're preaching to the quire here. x3 What I am saying is basing your argument on the fact that "You allow X but not Y!" gets you nowhere. What is needed is an argument of WHY this SPECIFICALLY should be allowed. Don't hinge your debate on that fallacy.

People don't ban cub porn because of protecting children. The odds of a child seeing that is actually much lower than anything else. They ban it because it -disgusts- them and invokes the same reply as when they see or hear about someone who's a pedophile. Simply being ACCUSED of being a pedo can wreck your life in several ways. It's also assumed anyone looking at the art is an adult because of the 18+ rule to begin with.

Let me boil this down to be as simple as possible. This isn't me defending and saying they are right. I don't think CP should be banned. I don't think anything should be banned unless it's blatant hate art meant to start fights. Art is art is art and, if you aren't into it, don't look. What I am saying is I UNDERSTAND WHY it is banned and, if you want to argue against that, you need a much stronger argument than a flimsy comparison to something else that is also mostly undesired. Like I said earlier, don't compare your interests to that of rape, brutalization or other undesirables. :P You're not supposed to be lowering your own argument's value like that.

sorry, I hadn't really visited this site in a good bit, but I'll address that correction. Actually, people in prisons also attack rapists as well. It's so bad, they actually create places for rapists in prison to protect them from being raped or assaulted/shanked. Same with domestic abuse offenders. You hear a man abuses a woman, and for some fucked up sense of justice, you have men in prison attack the abuser too.


And I think someone tried to justify rape art in sites like these on the basis that some people like rape-play. If that's the case, then cub porn is pretty much ageplay in that sense, and I don't see why people are kink-shaming ageplay when it's two consenting adults hiding behind a persona at the end of the day. It's bad enough to the point people have to make characters who are into ageplay. That's like creating a furry character who's fursuit-yiffing and I think it's utterly ridiculous.

And yes, but you DO realize that other countries view rape art, beastiality, cannibalism, and murder the same way, right? Why the hell aren't those banned from major porn sites on the basis that most progressive countries have outlawed that art?

I agree with the whole accepting others and not shaming one weird kink from another. But I do believe that the art is still technically illegal and the reason for the site banning it is fear of getting in trouble legally. Though the support of banning it definitely does come from discrimination against it.
Though, I'm not a legal expert so I could be wrong on if it's legal or not.

Its also really fucking shadey when people start accusing of others to be pedophiles over art

That shit actually made me mad, and at first i wanted to do nothing with the fn drama

A-FUCKING-MEN, PREACH IT, ROAREY!

So fuck me because Im not comfy with my stuff on a site okay with pedo shit after having some adult stick his dick in my mouth when I was four? Well fuck you too.

I'm not gonna comment on the cub thing, but I will say this: it's very rude to post a comment and then block someone. If what they say bothers you, either block them or open up discussion. If you think they were rude to you first, it doesn't do you any favors to stoop to this level in retaliation.

Yes, because lines on paper, pixels in space, and harmless fantasies TOTALLY equate to what happened to you.

As a fellow victim of child sexual abuse, I really don't care as long as no real child is being hurt or no actual children are being represented in the image. Don't like it? Block it! Or just don't go to the site at all.

Also, I'm sure people here have been victims of rape, or have lost someone due to murder, and those are heavily fetishized here. Why the hell aren't people pushing to ban that shit too since most countries out law that kind of degenerate art?

What you are, or are not comfy with should not be a reason for censorship. It should not be used to oppress free thinking. So yeah... fuck you dude.

Nobody has any right to dismiss your personal trauma or force you to use a site you are uncomfortable being on due to that trauma.

But nobody's personal trauma grants them any right to declare what other people can or can't do if what they're doing isn't hurting anyone.

You were really quite pleasant to me when I visited. Were you unaware that I draw this content? I didn't know of your past trauma, I had no reason or need to have it made known to me of course, it's your business. If I'd gone to share some of my art while I was there, and it included any cub stuff, I'd have had no issue with you asking me not to show that, and I'd apologize profusely for any upset or discomfort seeing it may have caused. If I did share any art, and that stuff was in there (I honestly don't remember), then I apologize sincerely, if belatedly. I don't draw it to hurt anyone, and I'd feel bad at inadvertently causing someone to feel bad in any way.

But you didn't strike me as the kind of person who would have told me I had no right to draw it at all. You didn't strike me as someone who would view me as a lesser human being because I draw shit I would never actually act on.

That's what the issue is, here; people being treated as if drawing something makes you just as bad as someone who actually wants to do it. You and everyone else have every right to express hate and disgust at anyone who would actually do what was done to you. But you don't have a right to judge those who just make fiction of it as if they're just as loathsome. You don't have a right to expect other people to be restricted from doing something harmless because it reminds you of your own past pain.

The site has tags and filters. There's no need to ban the content to grant the wish of many people to not have to see it. People who walk up to a party and tell the hosts that they won't feel safe at the party unless other guests are thrown out first SHOULD be politely asked to find another party more suited to their personal needs. You struck me as someone who can understand that.

It's not dismissing or belittling your experience or trauma to say that your trauma does not grant you a right to disregard other people as being human beings, too. What was done to you was horrible. I would think it would be offensive for someone to treat a drawing as if it was comparable to actually doing that to someone. But I guess I'd be wrong on that to you?

Is it okay for you to be opposed to fictional content that skirts too close to what happened to you, but not also be opposed to any fictional content that could be just as upsetting to other people who've experienced different trauma than yours? Where's the call for sites to ban ALL types of rape and non-consensual artwork for the sake of people who have suffered through those kinds of trauma? Do you have equal objection to all artistic depictions of things that would be just as reprehensible for people to actually commit irl? Are you comfy here on FA where there's no restriction on rape art, where they hired a guy accused of rape? You deal with it to be here, don't you?

Art isn't reality. Condoning art is not the same as condoning the reality. Allowing art of murder isn't condoning murder. People need to be respectful and considerate of the fact that some people have suffered things that make them more sensitive to certain subjects, but filters accomplish that.

How dare you! Vermy was raped as a kid, he is perfectly entitled to hate cub porn and the implications of it. Never mind the morals of whether cub art in itself is immoral or not, you really have gone too far this time.

Yeah, so was someone very close to me but they're not bothered by the fact people like cub shit because he's not a dipshit who can't distinguish fantasy from reality.
And even so; the world shouldn't be regulated about what may trigger PTSD, fuckin ANYTHING for anyone can trigger ptsd depending on their specific circumstances.
Should all violent video games be banned because war vets get triggered by them? Or that playing them makes you a psycho who obviously fantasizes about murder?

Oh shut the FUCK up you cocksucking drama whore. "Oooh! Ooooh! How daaaaaare you! You MONSTER! How COULD you! Ooohhhh I think I'll just faint dead away at the personal affront you've inflicted upon my delicate sensibilities!"

It didn't take the dipshit brigade long to heed the clarion call. Never does. You anti-cub busybodies must have each other on speed dial.

Whether someone was raped as a child has zero bearing on this entire subject. How about the thousands upon thousands of adults who've been raped? Where's the moral outrage about all the fucking rape porn on this shit-hole of a site involving adults? What about their feelings? They're adults so it doesn't count?

The point is: No, it fucking doesn't. It makes not one spit of difference whether you were raped as a child or raped as an adult. Neither of those cases has any bearing on whether or not drawings of the subject should be banned from a website.

90% of the porn on this site squicks me. Too fucking bad for me. If I don't like something, I skip past the goddamned thumbnail. It's not my fucking business whether somebody else wants to look at it, and it sure as FUCK isn't yours or your morally outraged ass-buddies. Crawl back in your hole and suck your thumb if someone making a depressingly rare rational argument sends you into an instant tizzy. If you can't think beyond your emotions, then you're a danger to society, and we need far fewer of you thin-skinned, needy cry-babies.

Christ I'm sick to death of Roarey and so many other good people having to suffer these constant attacks. Grow the fuck up.

I dare. I never said he wasn't entitled to hate cub porn, I know he's perfectly justified in loathing it (you don't need to be abused to hate it either, any personal feeling is justified in and of itself). What I DO object to is using ones own feelings to justify curbing what other people are permitted to express. I also resent the fact that he personally attacked me as if I'd directly said to him alone that he's an asshole, as if I even knew him. I don't know him and had no idea about his personal experiences. He's the one who made it out like I was shitting on a rape victim, which is a fucking disgusting thing to throw at me, by the way. No, he is not justified in saying that his (very understandable) hatred of cub art is a good reason for it being banned on websites. The world doesn't change to accomodate you for having suffered, everybody knows this shit, because there is scarcely anything that doesn't upset at least someone. My mother, for example, is triggered by newspapers, because of what happened when she was raped. She doesn't petition for newspapers to cease being printed, because that would be fucking stupid.

The difference is in terms of law is that cub porn borders on illegal where we live, and also carries a heavy social stigma. If cub porn glorifies child abuse, I certainly have no time for it.

The fuck has any of that to do with you telling me I've "gone too far this time"? Like I'm frequently on the edge of being a terrible person. Who the fuck have I tried to hurt or injure? I'm not having that shit from you.

Listen and understand. You went too far when you called somebody who was abused as a child as "fucking selfish", just because it doesn't suit your agenda. From my point of view you're being selfish because another furry site has done the decent thing and said no to something that the vast majority of people find disgusting and morally reprehensible. I'm not going to argue any more, life's too short.

He is fucking selfish, expecting other people to have their creative options restricted for the benefit of one persons' sensibilities is the definition of selfish you dopey Scotch cunt.

When you can't accept people have a problem with it because they've been abused... yes, you have definitely crossed the line. Seriously, why are you so angry and defensive about this? Banning art that depicts paedophilia in an erotic fashion is more than sensibilities, it is basic morality. You know what they say about people in glass houses.

I've said twice now that I understand people having a problem with it. I'm angry because having a problem with something does not justify having it banned altogether. Imagine a world where the only thing that mattered was what the majority found to be acceptable, that's an end to acceptance of homosexuality, transgender people, the safety of ethnic minorities and a completely stultified culture of populist dreck. Morality does not apply to fantasy, as has been said over and over again, because it does not impact actual living creatures. It's immoral to demand conformity of expression, it leads to unhealthy, fascistic societies. But this is a digression, if you want something that is beneficial to the victims of abuse then think on this. Having child abuse, the mere discussion of it, as such a taboo, an area of discourse so devoid of deeper thinking and discussion because it is so repulsive, actually harms victims of abuse. Taboos create a culture of silence, unmentionable silence around the given subject, so whenever people cant even talk about something without emotional garbage flying around, nobody can help victims either. It's this culture of shame and unmentionableness that leads to victims keeping quiet about their experiences, because nobody wants to discuss it. This isn't to say banning cub porn does this, but censorship in general is a detrimental thing to healthy societies. If you can place blanket bans on particular subjects, any subject can eventually fall under the label of JUST WRONG, like the way sex is treated in deeply religious countries. No sensible, thinking person can be in favour of artistic censorship, of deciding collectively that there is a line drawn in the sand, over which none may deviate or they are scum. Nobody is qualified to decide what that line is for /other people/, so we can only set our own boundaries for what we consider to be acceptable or wrong regarding our own thoughts and feelings. Policing the fantasies of others is a dangerous path and it always, always leads to more fucking human misery, of which we already have quite enough.

I've thought about this shit very carefully and attentively for at least a decade, far more than you have. I've been to all the extremes of revulsion over cub art in my own past and experience as an artist, and I've arrived at my own tentative conclusions since. You have not put in anything like that kind of effort, so I won't be lectured by you, simple as.

You won't be lectured by anybody it seems... so be it.

I don't really like to inject here... seeing as Roarey is actually saying all the right things. But, Kneeny, you seem to have such tunnel vision on this topic. Mainly over things which have happened in the real world.
Cub artwork, rape, gore, anything of this, artwork. Is pixels on a screen. It's not real life. Bad things happen. But making all the pictures of things that people think are bad. Doesn't stop any bad things from happening. It's just a thing that people do to other people to make themselves feel better about how shitty life can be.
It's a classic thing. The child that is bullied at home by his parents goes to school and bullies his class mates. Because it makes him feel better about himself. The whole situation is just wrong.

Not to mention... when you start throwing the 'it's basic morality' line. That's literally in the handbook of almost every instance where basic human rights were violated, since forever. Protecting someone or something is one thing. But the restriction of someone's freedoms when they are not harming anything, or anyone. Is not protection. It's oppression. (I understand this is a Godwin's Law thing, mentioning the Nazis, but literally hitler here man... c'mon.)

Which is 100% what has occurred with FN. FN wished for their site to be a realm of open expression with all types of art. But the morality crusaders couldn't just deal with that. It eats them up inside that someone else is enjoying something they do not like. While being anywhere near them. They are a bunch of whiny cunts.

You cannot justify this, I'm sorry, but you can't. Yes, I know cub art is not real, but it's the implications of it that is what is bad about it. At best it is unpleasant, at worst it is glorification of child abuse. And what's to say Roarey is not the one with the tunnel vision? I know him and he can't be right all of the time. Free expression is not an excuse, if we didn't have rules we would have anarchy. Not a good idea. The fact remains that society is not at fault here when people are naturally disgusted by paedophilia, even before laws were introduced. It is highly illegal for a good reason.

I can. I will. And there's nothing really more to say about it. You're an oppressor of free thinking because you do not agree with the thoughts. You are literally the thought police. You are harming others for the sake of nothing other than your own peace of mind. Just to make yourself feel better. That's despicable.

No. Do you even realise how ridiculous you're being? You are ranting about censorship. Freedom of speech does not give you the freedom of being a prat. Most people, most furries even, are disgusted with cub porn because of its implications and the obvious fact that even despicable acts have standards. You think its OK because its fictitious - that may be so but a lot of it still essentially glorifies child abuse. THAT is despicable, and you should know better than to get sanctimonious with the majority who are against it.

Freedom of expression allows you to think and express ANYTHING that does not harm, or call for the harming, of others. You really should actually look into this. You're the ridiculous one. You're being the whiny cunt because other people think in ways which you do not approve. And what disgusts someone else is in no way important or relevant. Being disgusted at someone else's fantasy is simply your lack of self control and a loss of touch with reality. You are literally blaming and attacking other people for your own emotions over a fictitious situation. Which makes you a bully and an oppressor. Among other things. You disgust me. What do you think I should do about that? Huh? Tell me...

And as far as this glorification thing you seem so caught on... That is simply how you feel, all over again. You are acting like a dick to people simply because of how you feel. There are no actions on the part of the people whom you are oppressing to back up your concerns. You're just targeting everyone because you're upset. You really need to go fuck yourself or something useful. Go out and volunteer, donate, or offer some actual help to someone who actually was molested as a child. Because your keyboard crusading against sexual fantasy on the internet isn't actually doing anything other than making you hollow feeling feel less hurt.

As far as the majority... the majority don't give two shits about the entire situation. You people are just so loud about your personal problems that it sounds like a big deal... when all you are is angry minority yourself. This literally is one minority attacking another. And that is beside the fact that the freedom of expression isn't subject to mob rule. If it where. All the homosexuals would have been murdered or subject to reeducation, slavery would abound, women would be property, and the world would still be fucking flat. Because here's the thing about your precious majority. The majority does not look out for the interest of anyone other than themselves, and don't bother to give thought to things they don't care about. Not even to readdress the fact that the actual majority of people are completely silent on the issue because they either don't give a shit, or don't want others to know that they are against the ban because of the backlash given by hate mongering shits like yourself. Because that's what happens to people who don't agree with other people that have an irrational passion about something. They get death threats. And it's not worth dealing with death threats for something they don't care about... I've gotten some myself. Bring it on. Because I do actually care when people try to thought police others and trample upon them for this so called 'greater good'. It's bullshit, and I know that if I don't defend others in their time of need. No one is going to come defend me when I actually need it as well.

It says it all when you have to get all angry and defensive about something as universally despised as paedophilia. Aren't you charming.

BTW I have been supportive towards charities such as Barnardos, the NSPCC and Save The Children in the past, and made the occasional donation. I actually do go out and get shit done. Again, stop it with the sanctimony.

It says all when you have to oppress other people to make yourself feel better about the world. Aren't you quite the Fascist.

Listen... You're a dick. So I'm being a dick too you. It doesn't matter how much you despise something. It's all thoughts and not real. The fact that you can not separate the two means you need counseling because you are out of touch with reality... If you would just let other people have their fantasies and thoughts. And share them with like minded people. We wouldn't be here. But no. You have to force your morals on other people's minds because simply letting people be isn't a thing you can do. Wars have been waged against such insane ideologies.

In fact... Allow me to give you some real world examples of your ludicrousness. In Communist China. They ban things left and right all in the name of preventing dissenting thoughts to preserve the mindset of the masses. Something as simple as sarcasm and word puns are banned in printed media because it "it breaches the law on standard spoken and written Chinese, makes promoting cultural heritage harder and may mislead the public – especially children." So... no puns, because the children. They ban all depictions of homosexuals in all forms of media, and even censor those whom are openly gay. Also because think of the children. The people in China are not allowed to think freely of themselves. Because the 'majority', believes it is for the greater good. Puns don't hurt anyone. Seeing gay people doesn't hurt anyone. People having sexual fantasies that you do not approve of, doesn't hurt anyone. You're a dick just like they are. Prepare to be treated as such.

Oh stop it will you. You're calling me things like fascist, dick and a whiny cunt. I've not resorted to childish name calling. I'm not going to debate this further with you. You, like Roarey, are simply not worth it. Roarey has a big following, but that does not excuse him from insulting Vermy the way be did. I've got no patience for that. I started here sticking up for a child abuse victim on this thread - and child abuse, like rape, is not something to be glorified. You might not see it that way and regard it as just peoples distorted opinions, but remember that it is youwho is in the loud and angry minority here. Paedophilia causes natural disgust in the vast majority of people. Cub porn is paedophilia. Most people are not comfortable with it, or sites that promote it. And the majority here do not want it. And your foul mouthed ranting does your cause no favours. Fact, not insult.

This is why I don't go on Inkbunny. That, and cub porn is illegal in my country (UK), and in others. The law is the law. I didn't write it and I can't change it. Communist China is a very extreme example. They're known for having atrocious human rights there. The UK and other first world countries in general do not.

I'm saying no more because I've covered pretty much everything here. If you won't listen, then be it so.

Oh stop it will you. Stop trying to push your ideals of morality onto other people's thoughts and fantasies. You're a whiny cunt. As is everyone else who tries to police things that both don't belong to them, and are not real.

If you want people to be more receptive to your beliefs you might want to stop insulting them.

If I stop calling you names. Will you be more accepting of the fact that other people like things of which you do not approve? Because I'm alright with that. That's 100% reasonable.

Yes, provided they don't be rude and aggressive about it.

Generally speaking... I've not particularly noticed anyone ever getting overly hostile over their kinks and fantasies until you start trying to ban them from expressing them with like minded people. Or try to shame them for simply having them.
Which at that point I'd say anyone would have the right to get defensive over the issue.

Oh, and... http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/7615236/

The journal and some of the comments might interest you. Those seeking the ban, and those whom are partakers of cub artwork are both minorities. The actual majority of people don't actually care one way or the other. Until it affects them. As above.

Yes, cub porn, Anal sex and Facesitting is banned there. I hope to god you at least filter the facesitting , though, your country's probably going to end up banning pornography altogether.

I don't think they'll be able to enforce it though :P

Oh they will, Australia and South Korea are doing a pretty damn good job at it.

Not good enough obviously, since there are plenty of Australian furries around XD

You can be a furry and not be into the porn. but still, look at South Korea.

I was too, And I do believe that if there are pedophiles out there, they should be able to have cub/loli/shota art for them so they don't go out and abuse real life children.

Not to mention, like others have mentioned it before, VermyFox has a reason to not like the kink himself, but it doesn't mean a site should ban it becasue it triggers him. If you don't like it, avoiding and blacklisting would be the best choice for him instead. It won't hurt you if you don't see it.

and cub porn was all planned to be already blacklisted from default, also like how people's excuses "i don't want pedos on the site that i'm posting my art bleh bleh bleh," but there will still be pedo's and rapists on a site even if you ban their favorite thing, there's no way of magically stopping them from gong to any site that you like.

Anything that could be seen as glorifying something as loathsome as child abuse is to be avoided, at least as far as I'm concerned.

But that's the thing, Why am I not seeing people demand rape and other sexual violence art to be removed from sites like FA? Why stop at just cub porn?

To be honest, I really think from a moral standpoint, pornography in general would have to be banned becasue it actually encourages sexual violence. One of the biggest excuses I've heard from a lot of anti-cub arguers is that they say cub porn glorfies or fetishizes children or puts unrealistic standards on them. The same actually would go with pornography in general, consenting or not. Not to mention violence in art and video-games too. That would have to be banned.

Then there's the argument about laws in other sites, it's heavily weighed against cub porn, but nothing else other countries see as immoral. If you look at The UK for example, they made Facesitting illegal and just this year, they've outlawed anal sex on the basis that "women don't enjoy it" and that "it causes unrealistic standards/causes violence against women"

Not to mention there's a large chunk of countries that ban pornography in general or at least gay porn. But you never hear anyone talk about the laws concerning those things.

In the end, it ultimately means if you're going to follow a moral standpoint, you have to go all the way or not at all. There is no compromise, and if you try to do so, you're a hypocrite. I hate hypocrites more. Yes, I may have been abused by a horrible person, But I recognize there are people out there who suffer the condition, and like homosexuals, they can't control who they are attracted to. But I do know that every day, they try their hardest to never hurt children either.

I glorify child abuse, do I? Or are you serious about your caveat of "could be seen as"? Pre-emptive bans and cultures of silence are detrimental, not progressive, or even useful. Anything "could be seen as" anything else, it's a bullshit argument.

Same with rape honestly. Ban that too.

I would on my own conscience, but like this site did with cub porn, I would take it to a vote because that would be the fairest way to do it.

This site held a vote to reallow cub porn, it succeeded, and the losers got pissy and contacted alert pay though. FA has been off and on of cub porn for a while now.

Proof please? Incidentally art depicting child porn is still illegal in many countries including the UK, where myself and Roarey are both from. It's important to remain consistent in where the site stands on moral grounds.

That would be a crap ton of history to go through.

I will say there is a chunk of stuff of dragoneer as a cub (it's porn) though that he commissioned. It's honestly easier to find than going through that much archive.

Already posted a link to the FA history thing.

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/History_of_Fur_Affinity

Is your entire argument "IT'S DISGUSTING?"
Sex with children is not morally repulsive because it's "gross," it's terrible because it's taking advantage of someone who cannot know any better and can't comprehend and not developed for sex. Therefore not only can it mentally scar, but physically harm a child.

Art of it is different because there is no victim; so there's no actual harm being done.
Same reason violent video games or television is not harmful.
Besides, cub can be liked for several reasons. A primary one I see is age dysphoria; where people yearn for being young again but, as adults, they still have the sexual desires of an adult. So they feel most comfortable combining the two. Hence why most people self-insert as the cub.
Then there's folks who just dig the size difference. Or people who like characters being as "cutesy" as possible. And even people who don't even understand why they like it at all!
They're fictional beings. Nothing bad is happening.

Dunno why I'm replying to you though, you'll probably block me and not address any substance.

Curious to know if you think snuff or rape porn should be banned as well. (whether the sexualization is on the victim or perpetrator, or if perhaps suicide context changes things) Is nonconsentual vore okay? Ferals?

Not defending anything here, just asking for clarification on your position.

Arent you a furry? Thats bestiality in it's core lol

How do you distinguish rape in artwork?

Just look at wolfy-nail's gallery?

I laughed

The irony to this whole stupid thing is these idiots fail to define what cub art is anyways.

Femboi artists inspired by the Shota artist Poju draw underaged characters and plaster over 18 on them.

How can you tell if a character is impish or short or a child? You can't cause this whole thing is dumb as fuck.

Like FA, FN banned a tag. That's all they did. This way, furries can lie to themselves as they draw obviously underaged looking characters and call them adults.

Hypocrisy in full swing on these idiots.

So wait, why aren't you pushing for non-con stuff to also be banned from FurryNetwork if you hate it just as much as cub stuff and for the same reasons?

and you are correct, it is 'just your stance'. You have every right to hold an opinion, but your opinion isn't law just because you block everyone who has the nerve to disagree with you. Jesus.

Your close-minded attitude of putting your fingers in your ears in the face of rational debate is incredibly worrying. Do you honestly think that your opinions are so undoubtedly correct that you could never possibly be wrong? Have you never questioned a previously held belief after learning new information?

I remain neutral in this cub topic - both sides have valid points and overall I agree with Varka's decision, but your attitude is atrocious. Just because someone doesn't share your opinion, does not make them wrong, and BLOCKING them in response to well intentioned debate is childish.

I strive to educate before condemning, so I hope you take this on board. If not, It'd probably be in both of our best interests for you to block me along with everyone else who doesn't agree with you.

"I don't like that people like looking at pictures of a thing."

That's your stance... Which, actually... is Ok. There's nothing wrong with having a stance. It's wrong when you actually try to prevent others from looking at pictures of a thing. You don't have the right to be the moral compass of someone else. The only thing that you have a right to do. Is to attempt to prevent the actual harm, of actual people. Which, just so I am completely clear, does not permit policing the thoughts and expressions of other people through the medium of pixels on a screen which in no way were influenced by actual people. The whole 'does not involve actual people' thing itself means you really need to get in touch with reality. Because you're too invested in the fantasy.

Why the fuck does it matter if it's fictional? it's FICTIONAL. As in NOT REAL.

What about gore artists? Vore/cannibalism? Rape? Drug use?

I was going to stay out of this drama bullshit but I have to leave this here "You have a different view from me? YOU'RE BLOCKED!". I smell a great dose of intolerance on this comment and a logic simillar, not to say equal, to furry haters. However, I'm not surprised to see the same logic applied inside the fandom, furries aren't special snowflakes, they also have thick skull biggots. Also, I find this argument delightful, you attack someone, then block them before they reply, you know, that can be seen in many aways. One of those ways is, demostration of cowardice, as in you don't have the guts to accept there are people with different opinions nor do you accept to hear them out. Another funny thing about shutting the other before a reply, usually means you have shit to back up your arguments or deeply you know you're wrong.
To make things clear, I won't block you, for 1. unlike you I do not fear being told I'm wrong, 2. I do recognise my arguments are indeed attacks, therefore I'd be going down at your level with that action, 3. I'm bored and I want to laugh a bit more at you.

By the way, welcome to logic analysis, I hope you enjoy your stay.

Dude, nobody cares about being on your block list.

Cub art is PART of the Fucking fandom.... g o d you are ignorant...

I agree with Yuchi on this one, but I won't really be as aggressive.

Cub art: Meh, nothing really morally wrong. I'm fine with it.

Cub porn: UH-UH. NAW THAT MUFFUKA DIDN. NAAAAW THAT MUFFUKA DIDN.

But seriously banning cub PORN is pretty justified imo

And I do understand the argument that people use to justify internet underage pornography, that "It's not real, it's just a picture so no one is getting hurt and it's better than actually having sex with a kid." That argument isn't that invalidby any means, but pedophilia (furry or otherwise) is still a kink where I say "Yeah, nothing personal dude, but you might want to see someone about that. Drawing naked pictures of kids is kinda fucked up."

I don't think they should have banned cub ART, but I'm GLAD they banned cub PORN.

I get that, there are aspects of it that disturb me also, but my personal feelings towards any porn subject are not grounds for having it banned, that is the point. The important thing here is to defend artistic expression, to defend freedom of expression in general. Pretty much all furry porn is something non-furries are going to find utterly repulsive, I'm sure many would question the mental health of furries (many do and have done for a long time, lol). Does that mean furry art is suddenly out of bounds, because most people on the planet aren't into it? Hate it, loathe it, be disgusted and repulsed by it, but supporting it being banned is a shitty thing to do.

I'm an asexual guy, I'm generally not interested in porn at all, beyond admiring the quality of the artwork and a few very narrow kinks. Most of the time, I find porn either ridiculous or outright revolting, but that has nothing to do with anyone else, it's just a personal feeling. There's no way in hell I would support banning any subject matter in furry artwork, no matter how grossed out it makes me.

Another point is that cubs aren't kids. They're young furries, not actual human children. There are many reasons people like cub stuff, or like anything sexually, so assuming everybody who likes cub porn has the desire to abuse actual children is naive at best. Nobody is in control of their own sexuality, so what matters is what people do, not what they think and feel.

How exactly can you "kink-shame" a mental disorder, I wonder.

Even were you a mental health professional (I'm going to assume you aren't), I would have plenty of objections to your flippant diagnosis. Ignorance is not impressive.

"Ignorance is not impressive." says the dude who's literally trying to act like cub porn isn't harmful lmao get a clue buddy

Yeah, try actually making an argument, that demonstrates my ignorance. Something more than a sentence. Give it a go, you might make a worthwhile point.

Trust me you're already doing a good job of that already. You're literally ignoring a victim saying "yo this shit is nasty and wrong" for the sake of "well it's fiction so I don't care"

You're fetishizing shit that is actually traumatic for the children involved and pretending like actual victims' feelings about it don't fucking matter cause you can't handle the idea of a fetish actually being fucking harmful.

Real, live people's feelings should matter more than what you get people get their rocks off to, especially in cases of fetishes like this. Cub porn is deplorable and shouldn't be allowed on any art site as far as I'm concerned. It being fiction doesn't erase the effect it can have on victims and it sure as hell is doing nothing to stop real life instances of this shit happening.

Some of the people who have commissioned me for cub porn ARE victims. The porn is therapeutic to them, in a way I will never understand. Curbing freedom of expression to cater to people who might have a bad reaction to what is said, written or drawn is completely impractical. Extend the implications of it beyond material that you personally object to and you can find damn near anything you like will fuck with at least someone else. I've been through traumatic shit myself, but I don't go around expecting the world to accommodate me by pre-emptively eliminating anything that might upset me. That's the reasoning of a 5 year-old.

Just because some victims are okay with it doesn't mean the rest should just bite the bullet and fucking deal with it. It's selfish to think that way.

Not everyone's able to cope with traumatic shit as well as you are asshole. It's not unreasonable to ask "hey maybe don't let porn of literal children be posted on your public site where anyone can see it." What if actual minors find it. Pedos have used child porn to condition children into thinking this shit's okay.

Even the people that use the porn for coping reasons know that publicly posting this stuff can trigger others or have other horrible consequences. It's common fucking sense.

Cub porn is not porn of 'literal minors', it's non-human fictional content. If a website has a decent tagging system, like inkbunny does, you can block out upsetting content. Yes it does mean you need to bite the bullet and deal with it, that's life. I do care about victims, there are family members and friends of mine who have been through rape and I've had a lot of shit myself, though it wasn't sexual. But this is a big world, you can't expect everybody else to refrain from creating something that hasn't actually hurt another person. Like violent games and movies can be a trigger for people who have experienced real violence, it doesn't make people sick for enjoying movies that depict horrific things. The realm of fantasy is just that, it isn't real and it shouldn't be objected to as if it were. Fantasy depictions of horrible crimes are a huge part of our entertainment, not everything is for everybody, so you do your best to avoid what you don't want to see. Expecting everybody else to get in line and conform because someone is upset is utterly unreasonable. Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing, but it has consequences. If you want to be able to be free to enjoy and create that which you love, you have to be able to accept those whose interests and passions are not only different to yours but greatly offend you. That is the cornerstone of a civilised, adult society.

Fictional minors are still minors. But anyway thanks for completely ignoring what I said I guess. I see this argument's going nowhere and is just a waste of time at this point.

Have fun with your child porn, hope you lose all of your followers dicksmasher

I'm not ignoring you. You believe there is some link with cub porn and actual child abuse, that it could lead to real kids being raped. I see no evidence for that, but more importantly "someone might act horribly" is no reason to stop doing anything. Just like "some people are terrible drivers" is no reason to ban automobiles. Your argument just isn't good enough, it's not that I've ignored it, it's that you're wrong.

It isn't child porn, it's cub porn. There are no children in it. It doesn't actually exist, it's a fucking drawing. I also don't enjoy it. I like cubs because they're cute, I don't have an interest in cub porn, I just don't mind drawing it for other people, who pay me to do it. I know it's hard to be wrong, but suck it up, it's good for you.

So Kenny from South Park should be treated like any other real minor right? Guess Comedy Central, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker have 100+ counts of child murder on national television to answer for right?

Fictional minors are still minors?
Oh shit.
Does that mean fictional murders are still murders?
Fictional rape is still rape?!?!
By god; Activision are arms dealers to mass serial killers then, as they provide people with Call of Duty!
Arrest all the rape porn artists for rape!

NO THEY'RE FUCKING NOT "STILL MINORS."
THEY'RE LINES ON A SCREEN OR POLYGONS, DIPSHIT.

Fuck me, imagine if Warner Brothers cartoons were true to life. Animaniacs just got a whole lot darker XD.

Threading childish insults into your tissue thin arguments in response to well intentioned and level-headed, well researched debate makes you look twelve.

Roarey didn't ignore what you said, rather he deconstructed what you said. Big difference.

The only reason why you weren't satisfied with his comment, was only because he didn't turn around and outright agree with you.

Just because some victims aren't okay with it doesn't mean the rest should just bite the bullet and fucking deal without their coping mechanisms either. It's selfish to think that way too.

It is pretty reasonable to not allow porn of literal children be posted on a public site. It's not reasonable to ban porn of fictional characters from a public site. I'd be willing to bet pedos have used porn of the kids favorite cartoons to condition children into thinking it's okay too, so by that logic R34 is banned too. Adult porn has been used by pedos for conditioning too, so ya know what lets ban all porn to be safe.

The trigger argument is horrible too. By that logic we should ban religion and politics, because nothing triggers people more in this wide world than either of those two topics. People die for both of them every day, and some are raped for it too (see religions allowing child brides), which are pretty horrible consequences. Banning politics and religion are only common fucking sense.

As a fellow CSA victim, I'm going to call you out on your bullshit.

If' you're REALLY fucking concerned about the plight of PTSD victims, then why the fuck hypocrites like you aren't banning fucking RAPE, BEASTIALITY, CANNIBALISM (vore), or MURDER/SUICIDE art on sites like these? Seriously, you hypocrites make me want to punch you in the face becasue most of you probably jack off to this kind of shit, but when it comes to cub porn, (not even the sex, it could be just some naked cub getting a diaper change), all of you retards lose your collective shit!

Honestly, IF you're going to fucking eliminate cub porn for the sake of victims, or to "protect the minors" you really need to be this adamant about the other immoral shit going on here!

Sorry for the misunderstanding, i do care about banning art of those sorts too trust me, but my comment is directed at the current topic which is specifically cub porn

You do understand that the topic is broader than that, and this must be discussed. Again, why aren't you actively pushing to ban the aforementioned fetishes I stated before?

Of course I do. Why are you making the assumption that I'm not? Just because I didn't list off every other harmful kink while talking about why this one is harmful doesn't mean I just automatically support or just don't care about their existence as well.

absolutely disgusting, I do not like how hypocritical you are

They could not follow the artists. Filter their work. Mute the artist. Block them.

...HOW is it harmful? it'sa fucking drawing.

Is vore art harmful? What about gore stuff?

They somehow think it will make a pedo boil up a head of steam like Mr. Machine and go >TOOT-TOOT WHOOOO-WHOOOOO<.
Then the Mr. Machine pedo will go out and rape a kid.
Like everyone has no free moral will to be held accountable for the things they do.

The irony is, if a person has no free will, it's probably not morally justified to punish them, as there is no mens rea - in which case, you can only really judge them to be insane and commit them to hospital.

(Not that that's necessarily an improvement from the individual's perspective.)

Sure thing, pal.

There was a lot of noise being made at that moment about cub porn specifically; people not wanting to have a presence on FN and be associated with it because now everyone knows the site allows it. So, from a business perspective, I guess they made the right choice.

Though it seems that a lot of people don't realize (or have forgotten) that as with a lot of things in fiction, liking the fictional variant and liking the real thing are not mutually inclusive.

It's not like it will stay banned. Eventually one of FA's monthly hacks will take it down. At which point if someone doesn't like cub they can go to the place where kinks are banned, weasyl. It's not like any of bad dragon's other sites have it banned.

LOLZ

Your opinion on whether or not I am a kink-shaming, whiny cunt is an opinion. And like an asshole, everyone has one, and more often than not, they stink. You won't like my opinion of the whole matter, so I'll spare you the cannon fodder as you try to self-justify something that most likely won't pass the Miller Test.

Arizona law, where the servers are hosted, is rather strict. I'm sure they asked their legal department a couple of questions and got the skinny.

Yes, it is an opinion, generally what journals are for XP.

I don't think FN is on Bad Dragon's servers. It's on AWS, probably one of their West Coast locations. e621 might be, though.

It's nice to see such a thoughtful and accurate opinion from someone I respect so much. You said everything I wish I had said.

I wish I could favorite a journal post.

God there's a bunch of closed-minded imbeciles in this thread. I gotta say that I agree with you 100% Roarey. The ban was completely asinine, and only happened because a couple high profile artists gathered up a mob to bully the admins into complying with their selfish ways.
Didn't help that the final vote was decided with a quietly announced poll that was closed in a single day. No sir it did not.

Roarey you and every other artist has their own right to express their artistic capabilities any way they chose, whether they want to draw SFW or NSFW, cubs or adults, or gore scat and rape whatever. People shouldn't try to get something removed just because they do not like it, that just means it's not for them but others might like it so be it! It's all just fantasy! People are getting bent outta shape and fighting over what I see is literally nothing.
I'm sure you aren't bothered in the least by some of the negative comments but I'll say it anyway don't let them get you down, you aren't in the wrong here stand your ground firmly!
You can draw whatever you want whatever makes you happy and so should everyone else. XD

This whole debate made me lose respect for so many artists. People I used to admire and who's art shaped my style. It's sad to see what terrible people they are in reality.
Personally I don't care too much about cub art, but it doesn't deserve to get banned. If you ban one thing, you need ban others too, otherwise you're a hypocrite. It's clear those people don't even want a discussion, just censorship and silencing. The Furry Social Justice Warriors. There is lots of stuff I find disgusting, but for me the worst thing is banning it. I'm glad so many people speak out for liberty, tolerance and artistic license.

I played a video game once.

~Sent from death row~

I agree with you here. I have a roommate who is in with the whole "any drawn image of any underage character is bad and you should go to Hell for it" thing. I had a big fight with her them over it, and she kept telling me that it was wrong, that this kind of art effects those that look at it and encourages pedophilia

Really, its quite upsetting that people are so close minded about it. I get the argument, that cub art can be seen as morally wrong because they're underage characters, but the thing is that it is a representation of fictional characters. The creatures in the art aren't real, and if somebody views them then I can guarantee you there's a LOT worse out there that they could see

Its nice that there's a site like InkBunny where viewers can be open about pretty much anything, cub art included, but its a shame because it gets labeled as "the cub site" for it. Really, with all of the kinks and fetishes and whatnot circulating through the community, there's a lot worse out there than that which is banned here

As for FurryNetwork in general, I thought of giving it a try but if they're going to immediately start bowing to the whims of anybody that makes a complaint, I'll probably stay away

How SoFurry has avoided being known as something similar I have NO idea.

SoFurry is more for writers, I think?

Their site usually has technical troubles. If it had not been for that, I'd be on SF more often.

It was suggested at the time; however, the cubs primarily chose IB, which was the newer site at the time (I think SF had had issues back then as well).

A factor in IB gaining the label of the pedosite while SF did not is also assuredly the fact that during the initial cub exodus from FA's ban, IB specifically chose to not address those cubs who were intentionally not tagging their work, even those who explicitly stated they were doing so for the intent and purpose of thwarting filters to make the site inhospitable to people who HAD been satisfied with filters, but still did not want to see it. Some admin responses to those users who complained being along the lines of 'if it bothers you that much, you may be better served elsewhere,' contributed as well, I am sure.

There were several issues where IB was faced with decisions that amounted to proving their initial detractors wrong, or validated what their detractors claimed about their priorities being first and foremost the protection of cub/pedo interests. They failed to invalidate their detractors almost every time, and in doing so, earned the label that some of us had put a lot of energy into convincing initial adopters they did not deserve.

Given how InkBunny's launch was met with significant criticism and resistance from the haters, yet still was successful due to most people against cub being satisfied with filters, only to later have the site allow that function to be rendered useless by antagonistic users who met no consequence or correction right away; it stands to reason that could be at least a contributing factor in the seeming decreased merit people give to the promise of a filter system this time.

Seems like that strategy worked. Inkbunny is now the second-most popular furry art community by active members - and with FA, Weasyl, and FN squabbling over how best to censor themselves, the future is bright!

So if it was intentional strategy to validate their detractors, was it also intentional strategy to lie when they initially told everyone advertising for them that they had no intention of just being the pedosite?

I'm not the only person who put a good bit of time into arguing against the early detractors and convincing people to give IB a chance despite the cub stigma BECAUSE I was assured by Starling that they were not working with the goal of just being the pedosite.

What they told us at the start, and what we took on good faith that they honestly meant, and what we then spread to advertise the site and argue down the detractors, their decisions consistently proved invalid. They did, over and over, what the initial nay-sayers had said they would do, and just put the cubs first always.

So if you want to spin that as intentional strategy, that would mean that they knowingly lied to those of us who were arguing against the naysayers who accurately predicted their eventual "strategy."

Is that really what happened, or did they genuinely mean it when they said they wanted to make a site for everyone, but simply failed to stick to that, and just chose to play favorites with their preferred sub-group? Even when users in that group were acting maliciously to intentionally make the site uncomfortable to other users? Not just the haters, but people who were only there in the first place BECAUSE filters WERE good enough for them, and on the assurances of me and everyone else who fucking advertised for those guys to help their launch that the filters actually meant something. The people told 'don't like it, leave' or the ones just run off by the antagonistic cubs TRYING to make the site inhospitable to them weren't these thought-police censorship fuckers pressuring FN, they were people who simply preferred not to see it, and complained when the system designed for that purpose was being intentionally thwarted by malicious users, and the site chose to allow that rather than stick to what they'd promised people.

If that was intentional strategy, then so was telling everyone they'd act differently before actually being put to the test, which makes them all liars.

As angry as I am about how shit went, I don't believe they were liars. Don't spin that shit as an intentional decision that paid off as a good judgment call. It was their call to make, and they chose to play favorites to the pedo parade, they allowed the filters to be meaningless, and in doing so, made liars of me and everyone who'd told people they wouldn't fucking do that.

Ben told me I went from being one of their biggest friends and supporters to being one of their biggest detractors. I imagine they'll never actually understand that I didn't fucking change my stance. The reality of what their priorities were proved counter to what they'd stated they would be. I spoke about InkBunny based on what they all told me they intended to be, because I had no reason to believe they didn't mean what they said. I didn't just turn evil and join the detractors' side, they proved the detractors right, so just speaking the truth of the decisions they were making meant I was more and more saying the same thing as the haters - because THEY chose to make the haters right.

I didn't become a hater, they proved the haters to be right, and in so doing, made a liar out of me to everyone who joined because of my endorsement and the endorsement of everyone else who assured people that being the pedohaven WASN'T their "strategy."

So yes, the fact that the promise of filters isn't winning people over this time is very probably InkBunny's fault because they made the choice to show the community that the promise of filters can be broken at any time if the site decides to not enforce its own damn rules to play favorites for its chosen audience. Well now FN has decided to choose an audience it would rather play favorites to, and while people perfectly happy with IB can just shrug and think 'who cares, my needs are met,' there's no shortage of those of us who don't want to have to choose "the pedosite" or "the everything ELSE site" and just wants to see the WHOLE community welcome in one place again.

Because the WHOLE community is NOT welcome on InkBunny when they explicitly told people that simply wanting to not see it - when they'd been drawn in by being told they'd HAVE that option - was enough to be told to fuck off elsewhere.

It was shit, and it was wrong, and it mistreated a good number of people who HAD been willing to peacefully coexist with cubs so long as it wasn't shoved down their throats and now, gee, what a coincidence, it seems much fewer people remain neutral or willing to occupy the same space.

TL;DR:

Meany haters said X, I told people no, X is false, InkBunny chose to make X true, I'm not happy about being made into a liar, so when I started saying X too, they deemed me a hater.

Don't tell me it was strategy.

I have a mixed understanding of this. Cub porn is extremely grey is the USA. The relevant law says that if it has "artistic merit" then it is not illegal. It does not define what artistic merit is. The conclusion most people have is that the purpose of two cubs in a sexual situation is obvious regardless of whether they are human. A jury would likely come to that "obvious" conclusion regardless of the situation. The difficult part is what is considered sexual. FA, being a US based site, is probably making the "safe bet." This part is understandable. I am not aware of any other content FA hosts that is as legally questionable. US law is pretty loose with art and porn as long as it is consensual and involves no harm (like real life crush).

I think the psychology is much more difficult. There are many furs who like cub porn but no interest in anything "real" or even drawn human. There are probably furs who are closet pedophiles. The problem is that we have no data on this or what to do. Any discussion on this is outside the bounds of a comment thread. Personally, I think that the site/community shouldn't care unless evidence appears that something serious is happening or could happen. A somewhat weak/tenuous analogy, relevant only to the community's terms and concern, is that a rental car company should not care what you do with a vehicle (ToS notwithstanding) unless they have evidence you're going to break the law with it. I can't cleanly connect this analogy to law but think of it as banning rental to someone who does war reenactments because they might also commit real crimes.

I don't think any US based site is going to feel safe hosting such art. Even if law enforcement ignores the site initially one "bad apple" who gets into the real thing and is linked to the community can bring a lot of trouble on it.

In short: I don't have a problem with or care about cub art. I do understand and have read the US law related to it. I understand why sites like FA and Furry Network (US based?) are shy to allow it. Given the the US already has some of the loosest regulation in the world with that kind of art there is probably no viable solution. One could potentially start an art site and community elsewhere but almost everywhere else has tighter restriction and limits on other kind of content.

One key issue is that the law in question does not define what a person is. The only definition I'm aware of in U.S. federal law is over here, which is fairly clear about restricting it to homo sapiens.

FA's decision was based on issues with its payment processor, rather than any legal issues that I'm aware of. Of course, I'm sure the processor had them in mind, but it's a risk/reward concern there (as it may have been for FN). Furry just wasn't making them enough money to take on that risk.

As you say, there are obvious concerns about what a jury might find. But whether a depiction of a particular fictional character meets the legal definition of a 'person' is likely to be a question of law, decided by a judge, who you might think would look to the wording above.

Hosts also tend to be protected, as long as they act expeditiously to remove access to work having been informed by a court that it is illegal. (There is UK law on this based on an EU directive.)

Cub art is beautiful. They ban clean art too?

Only sexual or mature art as far as I'm aware. (so even nude cubs not in a sexual theme is still banned)
Meaning if its safe/tame then I believe its still safe to post. I may have to double check myself.. or somebody will correct me.

None of my characters wear clothing to begin with.
And I do have cub characters, which are occasionally, but not always, depicted in sexual themes.

I am an advocate of cub porn, and honestly I approve of FurryNetwork's decision to ban it, though I am unhappy that is has to be this way.

Varka is trying to build a community here. Think of it like an election - FA is falling, people are dissillusioned by its incompetance, Weasyl hasn't taken off. Varka has the opportunity to be the CEO of a company that handles the largest furry community on the internet, and unfortunately, he needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Varka is a massive fucking kinkster. I'd wager he is very unhappy with the decision, if only because he'd be a massive hypocrite if he openly advocated the ban. If any of you are familiar with Dragonfruit venture's acquisition of F-list, Varka decided to abandon all site monetization after being told by Visa/mastercard to remove offensive kinks, instead of bowing to demand and sterilizing the site. Varka doesn't like censorship, but here? Thanks to rampant ignorance and paranoia, he knows that if there is going to be a mass move to FN, he needs to play the squeaky clean card.

Once he is 'elected' perse, and FN becomes big enough to be self-sustaining, he may very well flip-flop on this decision. People will threaten to leave, but really, FN will be established at that point, noone will really leave the site due to some personal preference once they're settled in.

Varka has had some really bad press as of late. He has been accused of advocating bestiality (herpygate), he has been accused of stealing artwork and designs, he has been accused of being overly litigious, this cub shit was the last nail in his coffin. Regardless of what was appropriate or what is right, this is a move he had to make. FN is still a good site, and IB still exists for cub stuff. One day, people will be educated enough to tell the difference between child porn and cub stuff, but for now, no argument can change what is happening. We should be fighting for an inch at a time.

On topic - good on you cub art community for staying adult about this situation in the face of the few unfortunate people who have made complete idiots of themselves.

Quick! Someone said something we don't like! Shit on him till he learns not to mess with us!

Oh grow the fuck up. This ban is censoring, plain and fucking simple. Whether I, or anyone, like or hate cub porn is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that people should be allowed to draw whatever they want. It's ART people. Art is (or at least it should be) one of the most free things in the world. Anyone can make anything and have others CRITIQUE it. Go, "hmmm.... quite. I like this." Or "nahhhh... not my thing...." Or maybe even "Well, I like it, but how about blah blah blah?"
Last I checked calling someone immoral and wanting everyone to stop drawing a certain subject is NOT criticism. So then what is it? Oh yeah, CENSORSHIP. You don't like it? Too bad.
Censoring one thing opens up the possibility to censor everything because we basically threw freedom out the door. Cub porn is banned, because it makes some people uncomfortable. Well, you know what? I find football uncomfortable, and wrong. But I'll be DAMNED if I tried going in front of people screaming for it to stop. That taco you like? Oh, I had a rat in mine once. Sorry, no taco for you.

And with this bullshit of "it happened to me, so everyone's out of luck"? Well guess what, I've been living with an abusive father for my entire life, so should I go ban every art depicting abuse? Every book that dares depict a young child getting abused by an adult? FUCK NO! Cause I can distinguish that it's FICTION. These characters are not real/never will be.

And to everyone talking about how this shit causes crimes to happen, welp, my CoD kick likes to say otherwise. Either provide evidence to the claim that this stuff hurts people, or is a mental disorder (also, wtf? You're calling these people mentally insane, yet YOU'RE the one who clearly can't distinguish between fact and fiction?) or stop complaining.

Put up or shut up. I'd rather you do both.

This whole fiasco is bullshit. Be an adult and block certain tags that you don't want to see. Not everybody likes snuff, bestiality, vore, gore, etc., but you don't see those people with their panties up their ass trying to get FA or Inkbunny to ban those types of art general or pornographic. Get your heads out of your asses and grow the fuck up and deal with the fact that there are artists that will depict cub art and cub porn. It is also in anime and manga, but guess what some people like it and those that don't like it avoid it. Either you are a part of this fandom accepting its faults and weird fucking kinks or you aren't and should fucking be ashamed making the rest of us change who we are and what we like to fit your interests. Fuck you pussy ass cunts.

This feels pretty relevant =w=

https://vine.co/v/ixHen75b9wZ

Heh, but in all seriousness, I say to each their own. We all come into the fandom for different reasons, but typically for an escape from the real world. I've been working in retail for years and have found that people just want to find something to be angry. They wanna jump to a conclusion with no bases behind it. It's almost hilarious to me how people try to say it's going to offend others. I am one of many vore fans who can't even look at hard vore, but we don't try to ban the stuff altogether. Others deserve to have their escape from the real world just as much as we do. In whatever way, we're all sinful bastards who enjoy something that "deeply offends" someone else. So let's all be adults about it and NOT LOOK if it offends you. =w=

Cubs are fucking hot. End of story.

The majority vote won. A site wanting to become successful will obviously go with what the majority of users want.
You have options, you can post your cub porn to inkbunny. A site where "those pesky kinkshamers" will leave you alone.
Pedophilia (which cub porn IS by definition) illicits a deep down natural revulsion in most people. Most people aren't comfortable being associated with it or a site which allows it.
So, rather than being "a whiny cunt" (your words), why not go to a site that caters to your desires rather than "attack" the majority who /don't fucking want it?/

unfortunatly the majority vote was inflated by phantom votes

That's what was said when the cub vote /won/ on FA aaaaalls those years ago too.
The losing side is never happy.
But
Options
Like I said

also, I'm pretty sure the majot\rity has been attacking people who have been trying to make proper arguements to this debaccle with accusations of pedophilia

thats funny, since apperantly the same people claim to distinguish whats fictional and what's reality

I never wanted to get into this whole contrevorsy over FN and cub artists, but holy fuck does it actually make me mad when friends and close artists of mine get attacked by extremists

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children.
Cubs are furry children.
It's perfectly understandable why people would come to that conclusion IMO.
People seem to be confusing /molesters/ with pedophiles.
You have to be a pedophile to molest children. You don't have to be a molester to be a pedophile.

If they're fictional, does it still hold true? I honestly don't think so as long as there is no RL basis for it. I.E. shota

Yes, by dictionary definition it still holds true.

I wonder, is the vote really fair though? If we had the same kind of polling options for more obscure fetishes (guro, scat, snuff, rape) would users vote to disallow those on here as well simply due to a personal distaste for them?

As you say, options are nice, and FA remains one of the few art websites online without an option to block keywords/tags and filter undesired content out. I can well imagine that would help to sway public opinion on what is allowed here against content that people personally dislike. After all, if they allowed cub art here, thumbnail warnings are the only thing preventing everyone from seeing it as they go about their usual browsing. Frankly if community opinion is the only thing that made them go with the cub art ban, they need to better serve the community rather than tearing it apart over something like this.

Community opinion was also the only thing that made them go with officially allowing it back in the day.
Tastes and opinions change over time.
I thought it was unfair at the time that it was allowed, now through journals like this I see how childish I was complaining XD.
Going with community opinion makes sites successful.
Like I said above, it's all they care about, but there are options for those who want them.

No, that's what I mean though, there aren't options. At least not here, and I think that's swaying people's opinions. If you don't want to see something on FA then the only way to get that is to outlaw it from being posted here. It's a wonder scat, guro, rape, nazifurs and snuff can thrive here, because if they made the same poll for those I'm willing to bet even more people would be put off by those. The question is, how many people would take a poll like that as a "what's your personal preference" question rather than the serious, important question of "is it acceptable for the fandom's home to limit what can be a part of the fandom?" How many people, simply not wanting to see any cub porn, chose to vote against it? How many would have decided it's okay if this site had a blacklist and thereby enabled them to accomplish the same thing (seeing no cub porn on this site) without having to cut the fandom into pieces and force certain people to move elsewhere?

I can't explain it any clearer though.
There's a -deep seated natural revulsion- in most people -towards- pedophilic art due to the corruption of innocence.
"Yeah but XYZ" isn't what's on the cards here.
If you want something banned, petition it. It's how strongly those against cub porn felt and so they did.
There is a site specifically out there which is safe for those who wish to post, and where those of us who DONT want to be associated with it can avoid.

The complaint of "it should be allowed everywhere!" Doesn't fly.
Different rules.
Different sites.
The option is, you can use the site that's safe to your kink or you inflict it on everyone else.

Yeah, but if you do that you wind up with most kinks banned like weasyl.

There are several kinks banned on FurryAI, including cub porn, watersports, vomit and scat.
BTW, they don't post things electronically drawn. The art posted there is done the old fashion way.
FurryAI stopped posting my stuff when I started enhancing my drawings with a tablet.

I'm sure the majority don't want to see scat or guro either, but that's tolerated isn't it? Double standards, that's the issue. I don't give a fuck what the majority wants or doesn't want, that has no bearing whatsoever on free expression. The entire concept of such freedom cannot exist unless it protects UNPOPULAR things. I don't give a shit about the sites themselves, owners can ban whatever they want and it's none of my business, the issue here is the judgement of so many furs out there who pretend to be accepting and forward thinking, only to be absolute bastards when they're sure most people will back them up on it. That's cowardice and intellectual dishonesty and I'll never be okay with that shit.

I explained above.

"If you think cub art should be banned from furry sites, you're a whiny cunt. A kink-shaming, censorship-loving, full-of-shit whiny cunt." An excellent summary, only made better with some of the things I've read on here.

Everyone draws a line between what they think is acceptable and what they think is unacceptable, and everyone draws that line in a different place. The problem with trying to enforce your line on someone else is that means others can enforce their line on you. I doubt the general public would place the furry fandom on the acceptable side of their line.

So this whole thing about drawing of minors involved in sexual oriented material not being illegal may actually not be true at all, at least in the US.

Granted, the US Government might have a hard time proving that a furry character is an "actual minor" but there is nothing in the US code that directly says the minor depicted has to be real...

Food for thought.

Actually that's incorrect. It DOES have to be based on a minor that actually exists to be illegal.
Hence why some shota is illegal, but not cub.

Actually, you're wrong. I've done some case law research into this...

18 USCS § 1466A

§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) In general. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1) [18 USCS § 2252A(b)(1)], including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

...

© Nonrequired element of offense. It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

Just FYI, I am an actual lawyer. I am also still looking into this a bit deeper, but this is how the case law is coming out more recently...

But that pretty much throws out nearly all furry porn that involves intercourse. Long story short, just banning cub porn isn't enough if you're gonna go that route

Well I'll say this...all of the case law I've seen have talked about HUMAN minors. So...furry creatures still haven't been tested :D

And in all honesty, the cases I saw were brought because they were so extremely obvious and the sheer amount was insane. Considering the government doesn't tend to like to go into unsure things, I doubt there's much actual worry out there...but don't take that as anything other than wishful thinking ;)

On top of that, there have been 0 cases that contained only loli/shota. So far it was just supplemental, where literal child porn/abuse was the primary issue.

The term "minor" is clearly defined in US law as an underaged member of the human species. Look it up to confirm if you want.

So no, no furry shit counts in US law, even in the retarded laws that try to criminalize cartoon porn.

Trust me, nothing is "clearly defined" until Courts start interpreting laws ;) Some Attorney General out there may try it some day...that would be a silly day for sure, and I'm fairly certain it'd be dismissed...

But then, some dude got in trouble for downloading a bunch of Japanese anime child porn onto his University owned work computer...so...ya never know what someone will try :P

No, actually, laws do absolutely require clearly defined terms to function. Language has no meaning without holding definitions to words. The law has clear definitions for terms to avoid ambiguity and inconsistent application as much as possible. If someone can point to a puppy and call it a 'minor' then someone who accidentally ran over a dog is now guilty of killing a child. Shit doesn't work that way.

Yes, it can go to court anyway, and yes, you can get fucked by the system if the people involved ignore the actual law and do what they want. That's what appeals are for. Yes, it's hard, but to claim they're concerned for the legal risk, they would need to point to anything indicating actual risk.

Again, if there was any real chance of someone causing legal trouble for a site hosting it, InkBunny would have already been targeted. They're still there, so until someone actually gets convicted for furry porn, it's not a legitimate concern.

"No, actually, laws do absolutely require clearly defined terms to function"

Heh...as someone who has argued before his State Supreme Court before over what in the world a statute is suppose to mean, and what the legislative intent behind making such a terribly written statute is, I would love to share this ideal :) In a perfect world, yes; absolutely words have definite meanings.

But when your State Court starts reinventing words and meanings of words every flippin' year for reasons only of "well, this makes sense now" or depending who's on the Court, you don't get so sure of yourself ;)

Anyway, we're getting entirely off of my original point here: people believe that drawings of Child Pron are 100% legal, period. That, however, from my research is not true. Drawings CAN be illegal. However, I said also said "the US Government might have a hard time proving that a furry character is an 'actual minor.'" To date, I have found no case law that limits this specifically to human characters, but as someone who's actually represented people who have been charged with possessing real child porn; I'm pretty sure the government has better things to do than try to fit furries into the definition of "actual minor."

You sound more versed in this than I, for sure, then.

Last I looked into it, the only instance I could find of anyone being actually convicted in the US for Drawn cartoon underaged porn without also having real actual CP as well, was a single man who had a few underaged hentai in his manga collection and was only convicted because his lawyer had told him to plead guilty. Has that changed? As in, have people actually been convicted under the drawn-porn laws when drawn porn was all they had? Additionally, just to make sure I didn't misunderstand you, if you've found no case law that limits it specifically to human characters, wouldn't that mean that you have found no case of someone trying to apply the cartoon porn law to furry characters?

I found two instances in my rather limited research, though I don't have the cases directly in front of me. One was a guy from a university that downloaded a bunch of Japanese anime child porn onto his work computer at the University. The other was a guy in Federal Prison who drew a bunch of pictures of Child Porn in his cell.

And to answer your second question a bit broadly, you never said something is limited until it's actually limited ;) All it means is no one's tried yet (or at the very least, no one's tried enough to get an Appellate Court decision from a Federal Circuit).

Perhaps 1 USC §8 would be suitable? It doesn't technically say furries are not people, but it shows an intent by legislators to restrict at least one definition of "person" to homo sapiens. Clause ( c ) restricts the applicability of that statute, but itself is restricted to the rights and status applicable to homo sapiens.

Yeah, see, ya run into the issue of the phrase "shall include," which doesn't EXCLUDE anything else :P

Oh, I'm sure it could be argued that way - but it's easy to respond "if they wanted to include non-humans, they could just not have said that bit".

Recent cases involving primates seem to have gone that way, too - there is no will to include them within habeas corpus. Furries are chattel!

I completely agree, it's moronic to ban it.
I don't like snuff porn, but I don't say it's real life necrophilia and murder and demand it's banned...people are ridiculous.
(Also, I can't believe people who are against it are even watching you..!)

I 100% agree with you Roarz. You couldn't have said it any better.
You have my thumbs up.

Ban scat art. That stuff hurts me.

I sometimes see framed paintings and prints in the Goodwill stores (primarily the store in downtown Sanford, Florida) of naked baby Angels and Cherubs (with male genitalia drawn), and I wonder if some cop who was out to prove something (Florida's full of them) would eventually arrest the people who run the Goodwill store for trying to sell those paintings.
This is the kind of artwork you would see in those old Catholic paintings depicting Angels and such.

I can just see it now:

Nagy old woman with her busy-body husband walks into the local Goodwill store to do some shopping...the kind who are neighborhood snitches who are always calling the zoning department on their neighbors.

Nagy old woman notices a 2' x 3' framed artwork painting for sale that has little nakie male Cherubs, with genitalia drawn, depicted in the company of lady Angels in a Heaven like setting.

Nagy old woman, "WHAAAT!...Edgar! Gimmie the phone!"

Her husband, "What's wrong, Mable?".

Nagy old woman points out the picture to Edgar, "THAT! THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG!...YOU SEEEEE THAAAAAT?!".

Edgar, "WHAT IN TAR-HOOTIES?! Here's the phone, Mable".

By now, they got the attention of everyone in the store.

As the couple are shuffling on their way to step out of the store, they walk past the cashier's counter, and Mable on the phone, "Yes! Get me the police! This is an emergency!".
Walking past the cashiers, who are a young downtown Sanford black lady Latisha, and a young Pinrcrest neighborhood white lady Donna, Mable tells the cashiers, "Yoouuurrr goin' to jail where you belooooonnnng".

Edgar adds, "YEA!".

Latisha and Donna have no idea what the nagy old couple are even talking about, or what caused the commotion they created in the store.

Ten minutes later, sheriff's patrol cars pull up outside on 3rd street. Then Mable and Edgar return back into the store with three sheriff's deputies and leads them to where the picture is.

Mable sez, "That's child pornographyyyyyyyy if I ever saw iiiiiiit!".

Edgar sez, "That's right, Officers. That stuff's Naaaaasty".

Deputy # 1 takes the picture on his way up to the cashier's counter. On the way there, he warns the customers in the store to be 'good citizens' and not look at the 'forbidden painting'.
The other two deputies keep themselves positioned in a way to block everyone's view of the painting being carried to the counter...You'd think they were treating it like it was radio active material or something.

By now, a sheriff's helicopter can be heard hovering overhead.

At the cashier's counter, deputy # 1 asks the cashiers, "Who is the manager here?"

One of the cashiers pages the manager to the cashier's counter.

The manager comes to the counter, "I'm Jonathan Wentson. What seems to be the trouble here?"

Deputy # 1 holds up the picture, "This".

Deputy # 2, "Mr. Wentson, you're under arrest for possession and attempted distribution of child pornography under the 2003 federal protect act. You have a right to remain silent. What ever you say can........"

Deputy # 3, "I bet he's lookin' at 30 years...Reeeal arch criminal type".

Mr. Wentson gets a ride to jail in chrome bracelets.
The local Goodwill store is immediately shut down by order of the courthouse.
Latisha, Donna and the other store workers now have to find other jobs.
Disabled people seeking help from Goodwill to find them a job have to go somewhere else for help.
And Mable and Edgar are giving themselves a 'big pat on the back'...
...So is Bush at his big Texas ranch, as he goes, "Nyeeee-he-he- - -he he- - -he-he-he-he-he".


Later on the 6:00 News: "In tonight's news! This breaking story! Seminole County sheriff's deputies in a heroic act, took a dangerous would be child predator into custody this afternoon. In jail this evening without bail is John K. Wentson, who was the manager of the Goodwill thrift store on 3rd Street in downtown Sanford. And Channel 9 News has now learned that Florida state attorneys are seeking a...get this...thirty million dollar fine to be levied against Goodwill Industries over this charade".

The news anchor lady still at the scene, "Yes, Todd, as you can see, the Goodwill store on 3rd Street behind me is now- -SHUT- -DOWN. And it is not expected to be reopened anytime soon......"

Earlier news interviews with Mable, Edger and the sheriff's spokesman being televised:
News anchor lady, "And thanks to you two, our community's families are safer this afternoon".
Mable, "I hope that whacko rots in jaaaaiilll".
Edgar, "We was doin' our part as good citizens...They, they, they shouldn't allow scallywags like him to walk the streets, ya know".
Sheriff department spokesman: "Our department...and uh, our prosecutor can assure our citizens that Mr. Wentson will be off the streets for a very very long time. And we also have the...uh... U.S. Marshal's office in Orlando aiding in our investigation. The...uh...dangerous object today was properly removed before...uh...it would have fallen into the wrong hands. This is a serious matter, and...uh...the department doesn't take this kind of thing lightly".

Back at the news room: "Goodwill Industry representatives were not available for comment........In other news this evening......".

On FA and FN, these four drawings would be banned.
And the far-out in left field zealot crowd would call drawings like these among the most horrible and twisted pedo pics on Planet Earth.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I can't post the links to them on this site
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

However, the bestiality pics linked below are on FA.
FA has 63 pages of them with 48 pics per page...some posted this year.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10969859/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/20140562/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/20141709/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/18234714/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8175730/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6066270/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9090956/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/14991188/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3308874/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8830275/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10785906/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10785850/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10785867/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10785736/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8192019/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/14176303/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8016236/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8478305/
There are some places in my home state of Arkansas where someone would call the police on you for having drawings like these in your possession.

Here are a few from FN...there are many more than just these three.
https://beta.furrynetwork.com/artwo.....s-best-friend/
https://beta.furrynetwork.com/artwo.....ster-stream-5/
https://beta.furrynetwork.com/artwo.....aughty-luanne/

Beastforum has nothing on many of these, except for the fact you will find actual photos on that site.
I'm not necessarily knocking bestiality art, but there seems to be some hypocracy on the part of FA and FN.

Theres a lot of shit on the internet that I don't want to see. Theres plenty of it right here... But I just don't look. Theres a lot of shit I don't approve of... but these aren't photographs. So, there's nothing to be done about it. Unless you're a disrespectful cunt that seeks to oppress others... Then you go do that. Because that's a thing, as much as I don't like it.

Whos the motherfucker who temp banned roarey

#NotAllFAStaff

He got suspended over this? My money is on 3 certain people posting on this journal.

He said on inkbunny that FA banned him for replying to someone that blocked him. He replied underneath them which is apparently against the rules now? ontop of being rude to them so the staff person mainly suspended him because they didn't like how he replied to someone that blocked him

Guess he wasnt popular enough cos I seen craploads of people doing that but never getting banned nor suspended. Admins love picking their favorites. Of course I could get suspended for that as well LOL

I've seen worse shit, FA is just on damage control

Also the ban was for using the word "retarded" as an insult?
That's retarded.

In reality it's just the FA admins looking for ways to spite people they disagree with like always!

I was wondering why he stopped replying xD I was waiting for a good debate. I was worried I scared him off lol

Lol yeah, I'm not one to be scared off by arguments on the internet. Since a number of people have put forward the same or similar arguments, I figured I'd just make another journal to properly clarify my position once my suspension was lifted.

lol that's what I mean- my thoughts were "Wait no way". I'm glad to see you are unbanned.

Wow. This is probably the first time ever I've been THIS happy to have read a journal.

And I hate journals so much.

Dude just read the replies. It's been a roller coaster lol

TRIGGERED!!!!!
Just kidding. This is the result of the special snowflake generation crying for censorship because they don't want their poor wittle feewings hurt, because the whole world revolves around what they want... It pisses me off every time something like this happens. And it's always for the same reasons. It either offends some minority, religion, children, women, or animals (mostly 'think of the children'). When 90% of the time it doesn't really effect the lives of any of those people. As far as I'm concerned, X rated cub stuff is just lines on a screen. Video games are just pixels on a screen. Comics, movies, rock music, the color black, they're all just things...

Pretty much this. Fiction is a vehicle for exploring ideas, tasteful and otherwise. Putting arbitrary limits on that is basically thoughtcrime.

If we're going on the basis of "people being uncomfortable by ideas" then I can definitely say that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that some people on here are willing to demonise others (or even want to have them arrested) all because they: "picked up a pencil and pushed it against a tablet or a piece of paper until 'something offensive' came out". It worries me greatly that there are people out there who don't stop to think about this.

I am in a stance where I don't have the energy to support either side of the argument. I am not into cub porn so I simply avoid it and not think about it.

You are part of the vast overwhelming silent majority. You fall where most people fall. And that position is satisfied by filters and tags and just keeping the shit from falling in your lap.

This issue is always made an issue by a vocal minority who aren't happy unless other people are being controlled.

okay i'm like way more pc than probably 90% of the people on this site but banning cub shit is ridiculous

basically every furry is some form of sexual deviant. that's like the reason i'm a furry. i like animal people. i also just happen to find cuteness a sexual thing, whereas most people find hotness sexy. i literally cannot control what i find sexy! no one can! why am i being shamed for this if i'm not even doing anything wrong? am i just assumed a pedophile because of it? i hate kids! i'm 90% sure the reason i'm gay is because i fuckin hate kids tbh! i have an of-age boyfriend that is also into cub stuff! 99% of people who are into cub stuff aren't pedophiles! even if they are, how is it not like way fucking safer to give them an outlet to get their rocks off then actually doing this stuff in real life?
not to mention there are many characters like yordles who are very small and cute and somehow get a break from the rule just because they're assumed old enough. there are people in real life including myself who are 18+ and look way younger. i know plently of people over 18 who are constantly mistaken for being underage. they just get a pass because they're old enough? where is the transparency? do i have to write "this non-existent animal person is 18 i promise" and then it's suddenly okay? this doesn't make any sense. they're animal people. it's fake digital art. why is this even an issue

I personally see cub pornagraphy as the highest form of debauchery a human being can make, let alone illegal (technically). (Dragoneer didnt issue the ban for that reason though. Go figure.)

The problem come from people who in their hysteria cannot see the lines between ordinary cub art and the porn.

The problem is people being hysterical over the porn. I draw cub porn regularly for some of my customers, whom are no different from all my other customers.

I also applaud you for keeping this up.

Let it be a relic through the ages (or until this site implodes)

"The problem come from people who in their hysteria cannot see the lines between ordinary cub art and the porn."

No.

"Wait, why are you throwing me out? I'm not one of those people!"

The problem is not just that some people not part of the intended target group will be targeted by mistake or presumption of association.

Nobody who is okay with watching other people be thrown out has any right to objection or claim to being wronged if they get thrown out, too.

Wait what

I think I can see what your getting at, but I what you to day what you mean this time. For clarification.

Haha, I'll be honest, there are only two things that come to mind when I see comments like yours. Either the person making it is a minor or they're relatively stupid. Either way, it's impossible to be insulted, much less take you seriously XP.

I don't require anyone else to care XP. As for you, you have no presense here, no identity, so you have nothing at stake. What is anyone to make of a person who sends childish messages to others while hiding behind anonymity? You're weak as fuck, lol, simple as. I have no concern for cowards such as you XP.

I love cub stuff as well. As roarey pointed out, its just fantasy, but as soon as people see you have stuff like that posted, its like your hated for it...