I don't suppose this is coming up in a discussion because of a certain comic with some cuckolding and such? If so, I completely understand.

What, a comic with "hurr durr I'm going to draw a high school and call it a college, and breastless teenagers but TRUST ME THEY'RE 18"?

I CAN'T OFFICIALLY CONFIRM OR DENY *coughs*
But parties in question have been getting away with this crap for too long. The idea that someone people who do this are eyeing girls the age of my husband's nieces with that kind of lust, and then peddling the next closest thing to kiddy porn on here...well, it disturbs me, greatly.

What's really going to blow your mind is that there wouldn't be much drawing difference between these "trust me they're 18" breastless teens, and a dainty c-boy. And there's a lot of c-boy stuff out there.

Wooooow. You're coming really close to being really damn transphobic with a comment like that.

Way to cheapen transphobia and bigotry in general, champ. You know, because intolerance and cruelty towards an entire group of people is definitely equivalent to pointing out that two things look damn near identical when drawn on paper.

What you just did was a thousand times worse than you can imagine. Crying "wolf!" undermines the real pain, discrimination, and suffering real people go through, and undercuts your own credibility as someone opining on the subject. If this is your idea of white-knighting, then step out of the discussion because you're not doing your cause any good.

Oh cute, an ad hominem just because I pointed out you might have gone too far. But hey, you just went and assumed where I was coming from just like you did for this other party, so what do I know?

My point is that the way what you said came off disrespectful to any trans individuals who may partially transition or may not fully respond well to hormone therapy. I don't have any damn "credibility" on the subject because I'm a cisgendered male, I'm not saying I do. But you go and say something as stupid as what you did, dismissing anyone who have an unsuccessful transition, isn't any better. I'm not saying the person in question isn't a cock (because he definitely is), but you just called a BUNCH of people who draw these intersex characters pedophiles despite having no basis for it other than "femme c-boi body looks like little girls". Good GOD man, do any words resembling "benefit of the doubt" EXIST in your vocabulary, or do you just assume the worst out of EVERYONE?

Pointing out your egregious red herring does not, an ad hominem make.

And your point was wrong, as I pointed out, and as it still stands. That people can use the cover of "cboys" to skirt FA's rules has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with trans people, their character, or their struggles in a society that still has a majority that can only think about gender as a binary and fixed thing. It is foolish for you to have attempted to create this false equivalency not once, but twice now. Doubling down on a dumb comment doesn't make it any better. I said nothing wrong, but you've shoved your foot in your mouth twice now, making me wonder if you just enjoy the taste of leather?

Your second red herring is also false. I made no such claim, I inferred no such thing, I implied no such thing. All those claims, of intersex characters being conjured up by pedophiles, is entirely yours and yours alone. You stand alone in making those claims and I do not give you permission to attach any such claim to me. You just called a bunch of people pedophiles and attempted to blame me for it. I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you made an honest mistake and blew up over nothing, and I won't hold this against you. But for that respect to hold, you must cease with this immediately.

I disagree with you entirely, but at least you're being more calm and rational about it. Consider it dropped.

Oh gosh no. Not that. /world ends

...isn't there a lot of presumption there? And even if they do "eye" girls that age, isn't it better they take out those urges in a non-destructive manner like art instead of, oh, actually doing something to those said girls?

Community with values and integrity?

Did you mean FurAffinity or something else?

*giggles* :P

I meant the fandom, which once held such values as the glue that kept our community together. FA is a disease which has enabled fringe elements to overtake any common sense or vaues the fandom once held. It did to furry what the 24 hour news cycle did to media.

I've been in the fandom since 1995... It's always been rather scathing, back stabbing and rather quick to tear each other down for not being who they think you should be. Either you were in lock step with the "core" or you were the Fringe Fur/Burned Fur and the outcast.

That's always been the problem with the supposed Authoritarian Social model. Breeds this kind of hatred, vitriol and bandwagoning against ideas people think are "not of the core". So what do people do? The typical furry thing... stand on the soapbox in the middle of the town square "THIS IS NOT MY FANDOM. THIS IS NOT THE FANDOM I LOVE! RALLY YOUR PITCHFORKS! YOUR TORCHES AND BURN THE TRAITOR!!!"

When in fact... this the way it's always been. Yes... the artist in question is a VERY easy mark... So easy in fact because he's known to have lots of bad history in the community dramawise. So he's under a microscope for anything wrong he's done. He could have called one character a cunt and the SWJ of the community would have rallied on that to just try to drive him out once more. His history is freely searchable and there's no sense in getting myself in hot water posting anything regarding that.

Similarly, what you're doing is no different than being a SWJ and whiteknighting for the ideal furry fandom you have created for yourself. FA wasn't/isn't/will not be the fandom as a whole. It doesn't plan, coordinate, or even monitor all events for the fandom. It doesn't set community standards in this standardless community. It doesn't hold "leadership" in a leadershipless community. FA is a tool. One, I will mention, that was purchased by IMVU.

You have to take the bad with the good. Yes, SOME furs are the best people in the world. But they would be the best people in the world regardless of the group/fandom/title. They were good people to begin with and some of them have left DUE to the fact that the fandom chews up a lot of good people and spit them out. The fandom has some horrible people in it as well. But like any fandom-famous individuals... You can get away with just about anything if you have the supporters.

So what exactly are we mad at here?

If your honest issue, without clouding things in the slightest is because he broke the rule?

Then yeah. Black and white, clear as day... he should be held to the accountability of the staff here. If nothing happens... Since FA is considered YOUR idea of what the Fandom is... What then? You can't change the "leadership" as it's owned by a corporation. You can appeal to the "elders" of your "FA Fandom" but what if they don't agree with you? Your Authoritative Model Society says you should listen to them... No? It is "Us vs Them" and "We police our own" After all, you are trying to incite a mob mentality against the artist who didn't support your views of what the Fandom is to you.

If your issue is clouded because you don't like the artist and you're looking for any reason to throw him under the bus...

This would be where it bothers me. Personal vendettas suck. Whether you like him or not in your fandom... isn't really a fair point to make because he belongs just as much as you do. There are plenty of cases here in FA about previous non-action against individuals who were known convicted sexual offenders not getting banned, also searchable...And even with pressures from the "community" it took overwhelming growling to get that pushed through... and in the end, what happened? They were still allowed accounts.

Let's not forget the Lion King Porn issues... Quite literally "cub" porn that seems to skip the fervor of the masses. But... does that bother you too? Do you hold the same vitriol against that?

I have nothing personal against the artist. And please limit your post size, aka make points succinctly. Nobody wants to read a wall of text.

Yes, I am against all cub porn, Lion King included. You must be new here if you think Zaush is the only person I've called out for this shit.

And no, we don't have to accept the bad with the good. It's why we have laws and rules to begin with.

There is no governing body in the community. Only on the tools and sites that the individuals use.
There are no laws in the community. Only the laws of which the individuals reside in.

There has never been "actual" leadership in the Furry Community. Only people who step up to organize events. Therefore, there is no charter, no rules, no mission statement, nothing you can say or do to indicate what is or isn't part of the community that was amorphous to being with.

Case in point... You weren't around when the "community" tried to "enforce" membership species standards. Did you know in the 1990's, there was a push to prevent any simian, reptile, avian and other non-furred creatures, INCLUDING Nekos in the fandom umbrella? There was a push to standardize just "How anthro" something had to be in order to be considered "furry". If it just had ears and a tail, nothing else was changed... It wasn't "furry".

No offense but...how is this on point? Short answer: It's not. The SITE has rules against posting cub porn. And the COMMUNITY should absolutely never condone practices which lead others to feel accepted when committing harm to an animal, non-consenting adult, or minor. There are definitely leaders within the community, or at least individuals whose voice sets the tone for the behavior of the majority. Those individuals have a responsibility to adhere to behavioral standards which do not encourage harm, or engaging in such acts themselves, without resorting to nepotism to break the rules of the largest furry website on the planet. Rules need to apply to EVERYONE, or they hold no meaning, and in this case, the rules are based on US law which prohibits the depiction of minors in sex acts.

Anyway, I've got lots to do tonight, so the matter is no longer up for debate. Thank you for your contribution to the thread, but at this point everyone is beating a dead horse, which is somewhat better than beating OFF a dead horse, but still needs to end.

I suppose.

When you're no better than being that "Street Preacher"at the furry conventions, rational discussion is lost and it becomes nothing more than a sermon on the damnation of the souls why don't share your viewpoints.

The point was made. You hold fast to an Idealic vision for a community that you believe should be governed by the AUP of a website due to numbers and the myopic notion that one Country's Laws trump all other nation laws.

I don't support the breaking of the AUP. Nor do I support the Lynch Mobbing that the fandom loves to excuse as "Policing its own" When I'm sure the ones you mentioned knowing engage in bestiality... haven't been reported to local authorities, let alone put before the same public shaming. Does that not make you equally complicit?

But dead horse is dead.

Actually, all of them were reported to the authorities. Two served jailtime. One was fined. And all but one of them were removed from FA. I personally helped in providing evidence for one of the cases in which the individual was arrested, and BC has NEVER failed to report a crime. We inform cops when we see someone shoplifting at Walmart ffs.

So nice try, but know your facts before you troll my partner, shitbag.

Just saw your comment over at Zaush's comic, before it was, er... censored, and I agree.

From FA's own AUP:

2.12

Content featuring minors is prohibited when nudity or sexual activity is present. Minors are real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18 years old, and any adolescent animals.

In the end what matters is what it looks like, and not what bullshit excuses an artist comes up with. I've never heard of a website or actual law enforcement judging content based on how the artist tries to justify it. If it looks unmistakably like pedo porn, then it's pedo porn.

I'm not even sure "cub" art bothers me more than some of the other fetishes here, but if they have rules against it, then they should enforce them. And if they make exceptions for popu-furs and staff members that makes it look even worse.

It would be interesting to see someone post that section of the policy on the submission in question. Although I of course can neither confirm nor deny that this journal has anything to do with Zaush.

Because, after all, a callout journal will result in a ban, so that's not what this is in any official capacity....while legitimate violations of site rules get ignored as long as you're popufur.

I considered doing so, but then decided not to bother, since the "perpetrator" has full control over the comment section anyway. This is actually a case where I wish hiding of comments would work differently. It's too easy to silence legitimate critique. Maybe if people had the ability to see hidden comments, if they chose to, like it works on some other sites.

And yeah, I actually wondered whether I should edit the name out of my comment, but then again -- let's be serious here, everyone knows exactly what we're all talking about. *shrugs*

As for the comic in question, it's not enough that the girls look like they're 12, the artist also has to turn it into borderline rape, male dominance bullshit. What sicko feels empowered by dominating little girls? Not creepy at all.

I've been in touch with FA staff about these things before, and the bottom line was to "report it, and it will be decided on a case-by-case basis by staff"

Which means they will simply discard any report because it's Zaush and popufurs are known to get away for shit your average person would be suspended or even outright banned for.

How the US Government now views it. It's not up to the artist. It's up to the "Miller Test" put forth by the jury.


CBLDF's United Defense Group team, led by Eric Chase, has successfully petitioned District Judge Gritzner to drop some of Handley's charges and rule parts of a controversial law unconstitutional. Handley was initially charged under the United States Code, which was amended by section 504 of the PROTECT Act to prohibit distribution or possession of "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;

Gritzner ruled that the last two clauses were unconstitutional as they restricted protected speech. Handley still faces charges under the obscenity clause, if the court determines that the material meets the Supreme Court's Miller Test. The Miller Test dictates that material is only obscene if a jury determines that it meets all of the following three criteria:

whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Source: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/new.....-obscene-manga

excellent contribution, thank you.

I think the thing that makes it even more obvious that the characters of a certain comic are underage is how all the males are depicted as being practically 2 times the height and size of the totally not underage characters in question. But remember you can't say anything wrong about the furry illuminati!

On the one hand, yes, FA has played favorites with artists who can seen to do no wrong, at least to the determent if its own integrity regarding the rules. I don't think that anybody disputes that the "popufurs" aren't held accountable for bending or breaking the rules and getting away with it.

However, I will also argue that no matter how twisted the vanity is or how much you disagree with someone else's own art I don't think that it's fair to call them a douche for it. Art is all about perception, you like some you don't like some, but that shouldn't be grounds to censer content. To you it would seem violating but to the artist that's just how they like to draw especially since it's nothing more than fantasy. Chibi is a great example or this, because cute childish looking characters can represent someone older, wiser, stronger..etc.

Gotta disagree. The case we are talking about is 100% cub porn. No amount of talking can hide that fact, he even designed the context to SPECIFICALLY DEPICT an underage environment. And it is a violation of site AUP, not a quibble over personal taste.

If you read the first half of my comment you would know I'm not disagreeing with you on that. Did Zaush bend the rules? Yes, of course he did. It's obvious what the setting was made out to be. Redrusker did the same thing when he make his first massively popular comic. But it's up to the admins to properly enforce the rules.

Which they fail to do, and for which they should be held accountable. Especially when they only fail to uphold the rules where their staff or a popufur is involved.

And while I still can neither confirm nor deny that this journal is about any artist in specific, ANY artist using their popularity or site admin status to circumvent rules and talk down to his professional colleagues when they point out said violation(s) is pretty much the textbook definition of a douche. Bonus douche points if such a person then drums up a legion of white knights to kiss their ass for how "brave and noble" they are for defending their right to LIE ABOUT DRAWING KIDDIE PORN.

Unfortunately the top 10/100 popufurs on the site (including the one you are likely talking about) generate most of the traffic and Dragoneer values traffic more than integrity and transparency. Admins playing favorites with people known to be exponentially more popular than the rest are evidence enough.

Integrity hasn't been a staple of this fandom for years.

Which is sad, because it used to be. We used to get each other's backs and police our own. But for WAY too many furries nowadays, FA IS the fandom. And that has turned a thriving community into little more than a feeding frenzy of mindless white knighting and cronyism.

Oh yes, it used to be....back in maybe 2006? 2007? Anyway, FA (and the fandom in general) hasn't been an equal playground for many years now and I'm sure it will get even worse.

People who think 2007 is a very long time ago must be very young lol. I'm an old yote, so it's not that long ago for me.

If you read the last paragraph of this journal, you would know that he used the word douche because it's douchey to create something that you know is against the rules and then purposefully break the rules that everyone else has to follow because you know that you can get away with it due to how popular you are.

You have just rewritten what was already said. So for a third time now I will say I don't disagree. Artists who bring in the views should be held to the same standards as everybody well. I threw in my own 2 cents because because integrity and values were mentioned. So now not only do we have politics at play here but we have a whole other set of issues that have been being cooked up that go along the lines of ethics. Rules are rules, and FA has been guilty of betraying them many times before. So for the last time, yes, he did break the rules. But I was addressing another part of his journal as well. "We have a community with values and integrity", " in pursuit of their own twisted vanity", is what I was addressing in my initial comment.

The question then becomes, why do you think that the artist in question's deceptive, egotistical, arrogant, and nepotistic behavior does not warrant the insult of "douche"?

I keep seeing "Nepotistic" and think "NeoPets" and it throws me each time.

Values and integrity?

Wait...

Are you still talking about furry?

Because I just saw 6 murder and gore pictures, 2 castration pictures, tons of bestiality pictures, and shitting in diaper pictures all in the recent art uploads window here today.

And did the artists who posted them pretend they were not all about it?

Ohhh bro, couldn't agree more with you. Stay classy

And also, I tried pointing that out directly, commenting on the last page of his comic. I was amazed in realizing that a lot of people is actually barking around popufurs in admiration, trying to excuse and protect them from any harm that could eventually come to them. The blindness these people has about is truly fascinating... Anyways, let's report it with support tickets.

I already did. It won't go anywhere, of course, but sometimes doing the right thing is the best we can strive for.

I did, too. Many of us did. Let's keep it up and cross our fingers, hoping for a quick and effective resolution from the Admins!
And in case they wouldn't do a thing, well... We will see. :)

I remember seeing bits of that elsewhere and thinking "Well, there's no way that'll end up on FA" because even with the BS excuse it looks a hell of a lot like cub porn to me.
But I'm an idiot and forgot popufurs can do what they want.

When you see some of the stuff that does get deleted despite being nowhere near the line it's amazing how things like that comic are okay.
No-one else can say "They are totally over 18 though!" and get away with it and yet that's exactly the excuse they gave and Neer was more than happy to accept it.

What conclusion can people come to other than the rules only apply until you bring in enough views (ie ad money)?

I agree. I don't care who you are, if you're trying to act like something's not something that it obviously is, you're not getting my support, and I'll call you out on it no matter what happens to me. Don't give me that "lol furry with standards yeah sure" crap either. I won't support crap like that no matter how well it's drawn. I just won't.

SIGHHHSSS

Agree with you so much. Said artist posting his comic depicting those "college" kids and their good for nothing whore mother, really lost my interest in the artist. But I never was for cuckolding as I would have probably beaten the shit out of everyone in said comic. I agree with you 100% and sadly nothing can be done, because we will get called dramafurs, and be told off by a wave of fans who might just be pedophiles. This is why I refuse to migrate to Inkbunny. >.>

A fandom that is fine with snuff/necro/bestiality art has no room for such standards.

Either we protest fictional shit for representing real criminality or we don't. And we don't, we just have token 'don't explicitly post cub porn' in the ToS, so as long as it's a fictional construct with consenting not-humans they can do as they please.

'Childlike body' is meaninglessly vague and isn't going to apply to anything that looks teens or over. Plenty of real people look in a way to require ID well into their 20s while not being childlike. 'Aint gonna hold water.

Site rules are site rules. Either they apply to everyone or no one. And no, "childlike body" is not vague, especially in the context that we are discussing. In this particular case, it's glaringly obvious.

Also, what "we" are you referring to? I absolutely 100% protest bestiality and necro porn as well, though I don't see any of the latter on the pages I watch. About 6 out of the 8 people I've known who are into or draw bestiality porn (as opposed to anthro porn, which is of consenting adult humanoids) have physically engaged in the act themselves, and I worry deeply about the spread of pedophillic porn in the fandom for similar reasons.

We as a commumity. Which we absolutely do not do. Bestiality in particular. Its common, allowed and certainly generates no backlash.

And yes, childlike is vague. 16 is not childlike, can well be flat chested and is also a perfectly legal age of consent here in the UK, for example.

Child is the life stage up until puberty in this here english language we use.

And for the record, correlation is not causation, and 8 people is not a meaningful statistic regardless.

The age of consent in the UK doesn't matter. FA is hosted in the US, and Zaush lives in the US. And he OPENLY STATED THE CHARACTERS ARE 11 in his original post. So nice try, no prize for you, and 8 people fucking animals or children because of the fandom's encouragement is 8 people too many. It's pretty sick that you are trying to argue in favor of pedophilia, and honestly tells me all that I need to know about you.

(Take this as you will.)

I'm OK with bestiality, usually. I haven't done anything to that effect with an animal, however.

Just letting you know. You are right about said artist though. Cub is cub. Popufur is untouchable.

Pokepony isn't on this site anymore so I guess I can use him as an example....guy spent YEARS championing bestiality porn and claiming it was never associated with animal sex. SURPRISE SURPRISE, he got caught fucking a horse on some dude's ranch and was summarily charged. His response was to say that the animal tooootally wanted it all along, and that if this was really such a bad act then why was everyone on FA supporting him?

People on my page wanna act like they're hardasses telling us to cite fucking statistics in an informal thread. They can take that shit elsewhere (or get their debate asses whooped by Lobo, who knows more about statistics than most people will ever know they didn't know). For me, ONE animal or child harmed because of encouragement by furries to indulge in sexual depravity (which I define as sex acts or artwork depicting sex acts targeted at harming or taking advantage of a vulnerable population that cannot psychologically or legally give valid consent) is ONE TOO MANY.

The sickfucks on my page saying "oh, 6 out of 8 isn't that many" are forgetting that those are six ACTUAL ANIMALS OR PEOPLE HARMED. When you start arguing that that's ok because the numbers are low...you've already lost what little integrity or high ground your argument had.

>.>

That's not where the apostrophe in "ain't" goes. >.> Just saying because I know you're British and are probably unfamiliar with the word.

I am very british. I have no idea how aint is formed, so mostly just guessing on that front, yes-

I am no less confused, but at least I know! :D

X3 I was just playfully ribbing there; I didn't expect I was right. That's rather adorable.

Thanks for saying it out loud man, i think just the same.

I'm glad someone else thinks like me, but i wont make a journal about it... Its always more exposure for him, so... Yeah...

Personally, I don't care about cub porn. Some people harbour sexual attractions to individuals with prepubescent features, just like as I'm gay
I am attracted to primarily male characteristics.

Fundamentally sexual attraction is not wrong and the moral side of me thinks there has to be an avenue for people to express their sexualities.

That being said, as other people have posted on this journal, from FA's own AUP:

2.12

Content featuring minors is prohibited when nudity or sexual activity is present. Minors are real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18 years old, and any adolescent animals.

To me, it's as clear as day. FA need to take appropriate action by removing the material and imposing the appropriate consequences to the offending artist(s).

Any other response from FA would be unprofessional, unfair, immoral and hypocritical.

I gotta disagree. Homosexuality is attraction to the same sex, and typically occurs between two consenting ADULTS who are legally and mentally fit to engage in sexual intercourse.

Pedophilia is sexual attraction to minors, and in almost all cases entails physical abuse of the recipients, who are not of an age where they can mentally or legally give informed consent to engage in sex. That is a BIG difference. The two are not comparable.

And while having that urge may not be an individual's "fault", acting on it is nevertheless considered a monstrous act for good reason, as it violates the physical and mental well-being of the most vulnerable and innocent of our population. Creating porn which either directly or indirectly encourages pro-pedophilia sentiment can and does increase the likelihood of people acting on it or accepting said acts as normal, and thus should never under any circumstance be condoned.

" Creating porn which either directly or indirectly encourages pro-pedophilia sentiment can and does increase the likelihood of people acting on it or accepting said acts as normal, and thus should never under any circumstance be condoned."

Citation needed, please.

There is none. That's the issue.

Even if you are "Diagnosed" with the DSM Criteria for Pedophilia... It's not "actionable" or even "an issue" until actual episodes happen. A "mental disorder" isn't cause for being hauled out and strung up by an angry lynch mob here until such acts are actually committed. There have been a number of support groups already formed for people who are non-practicing, non-threatening and no prior history history individuals that feel that chemical castration isn't really the way to go.

Just like violent video games don't create more mass murderers or pornos create a mass influx in the population... An outlet is an outlet and is far more preferable than the actual thing in the eyes of everyone.

Are there going to be isolated cases? Yes... cause goodness knows the world loves to vilify XD

"Just like violent video games don't create more mass murderers or pornos create a mass influx in the population... An outlet is an outlet and is far more preferable than the actual thing in the eyes of everyone."

Exactly. Not ONLY did these not increase violence or rape when they became mass available, data shows these crimes actually DECREASED in occurrence. Which isn't to say LITERAL child porn (i.e. photos and videos) should be getting around; children got hurt in the making of those, making that topic IMMEDIATELY more touchy. But art and shit, where the only people being hurt are fictional? I think that's a good option to have available to help KEEP people with this issue non-offenders.

To say NOTHING of the fact that the majority of convicted offenders, according to what I've read, were themselves the victims of molestation, after all.

Data is easy to skew. My partner is a cognitive science researcher, and his lab has found OVERWHELMING evidence that the desensitization invoked by video games actually increases a child's risk of developing sociopathic tendencies or impaired empathic processing.

It's literally impossible to do a study that proves video games or porn lead to harm. But You CAN prove what both due to the brains of those individuals who might have a predisposition to commit dangerous acts but had previously not done so for lack of a trigger.

And again, please note my anecdote--while far from a scientific survey, 6 outta 8 is a pretty damn big number to just be idle coincidence. Without naming names, a few of the animal rapists I'm referring to in that post are VERY big names on here, or were before they either got arrested, kicked out, or learned to hide their illegal activities.

Far from scientific? It's COMPLETELY unscientific. To say nothing of the fact that there's no way of knowing how much self-selection contributed to those numbers; you're talking about a 2.7*10^-6 percent of the American population in that statistic.

Also, how does one skew aggregate statistics that show overall violence and rape percentages among the population have fallen? That's pretty straight-forward.

To say nothing of the fact I can literally turn this back around on you; your partner's lab finding an overwhelming evidence is only one study. That's not enough information to declare that these things CAUSE or even bring out these behaviors. I have no doubt that, in individuals that are already troubled, it could definitely be a contributor, but they are a definitive minority of the population.

I will be blunt: the aggregate statistics on long term violence show that it has, by PERCENTAGE, dropped significantly over the past thirty years. I don't see how porn and video games could be argued to have any positive-correlation link when there is clearly a negative correlation between perpetration of violence compared with the consumption of these medias.

Just wait for the "study" to be published and peer reviewed. I look forward to seeing how the test was conducted to get those results too.

Along with the bevy of other "studies" done that suggest violence in video games creates violent people.

Agreed.

You're ignoring the fact that many people on this site use the outlet to justify later sex acts in the real world. I can't name names without getting banned, but feel free to note me if you're interested in learning which of your favorite artists have a history of child molestation, using rufies, and fucking animals.

You'd be horrified by what comes out at artist meetups when liquor starts loosening tongues and photo albums.

I'm not ignoring anything. What you've just said, only proves the point I've made. This "Furry Community" has always been like this. And it's the whole "Policing our Own" bullshit that got it in the way you describe.

"We can't let the media know we have these people in the fandom... it would tear us apart!" Yet... "Policing our own" is what causes things like this to be swept under the rug and allows them to "operate" without much worry because it DOES expose the group for what it really is. We are a group that enjoys Anthro Arts... be it porn or not... and it does border on the land of bestiality. We only merely justify it as not being bestiality but inflicting our ideas of a human consciousness on animals. And that makes it "justifiably" better than if the animal didn't have a human mind.

Which begs a question... if a mentally "deficient" furry character in a story... one who couldn't give that human "consent" or deemed incapable in a legal term... Would it be considered rape... or bestiality in our own context?

Where is our actual division line?

Similarly... Why are we only assuming that we're taking the human respect of biology for "puberty" for age? At what age does a particular animal reach sexual maturity? Do we go on that and does somehow make it "Morally" acceptable? We've taken cases before where kids are mentally mature and tried them under the court of law for adults, for things like murder and cases where we've taken adults that were mentally stunted with child-like minds and not given them the same sentences because they couldn't be tried as someone with full mental faculties.

Where is the division line there?

This isn't a formal debate. I have ample experience with how certain members of this community will use the porn posted here to exonerate themselves from feeling bad about their predatory urges, and eventually act them out on the belief that the community will accept and condone their behavior. I've known 6 people who did precisely that, in fact, out of 8 total who I knew drew or commissioned feral porn.

Am I saying this applies to everyone? Of course not. But it ABSOLUTELY applies to a dangerous minority, and that is a risk that neither the law nor the rules of this site find acceptable.

Besides, if you know anything at all about Zaush's sexual history, you'd know he's well past the point where he only DRAWS these kind of "dominate the weak girl" kind of fantasies. But hey, popularity let's you get away with murder, not to mention rap, so really I don't know why the prevailing attitudes on here are any surprise.

As much shit as I'm gonna get for this, I'm not sure I'm ready to accept that he's a criminal based on one anecdotal story and no facts. The girl was highly conflicted from what I remember, but I'm also well aware that society will demonize a man just for an accusation of rape, true or not.

Mind, I think he's a total cock, but he's still a human being too. I'm not gonna chuck him under the bus without tangible data. I'm sorry if that makes me a terrible person, but I need more than anecdotes to make me lean one way or another. The country I live in presumes innocence until proven guilty; I tend to go by that same policy.

I've seen Zaush interact with women at cons (he's an ass who likes to neg women) and drunkenly confess to me that "all chicks are sluts deep down". Does that make him a rapist? No. But does it make me more inclined to believe his accuser? Yes.

*shrugs* Fair enough. It could also just mean he's a sleezy asshole. I've never met him, so I really don't know and I'm not going to presume without more information. It's not my place to try to change your mind, nor do I care to. I can respect your opinions on the guy without agreeing on the whole, and agree from even what I've seen that he's a shitty person.

I just know I've seen enough people's lives ruined by the presumption of guilt that I will not do so without a better perspective.

That's the thing.

The artist is an easy mark because of his history. Which is why it's hard to tell "Is it because people really hate who he is as a person" or is it because "He broke the rules". Of which... unless there is a constant wave of pointing out EVERYONE who broke the rules... Even the slightest indiscretions... It feels like it's targeted.

I know he has history. I don't know the guy well enough to like him or dislike him. I'm more than likely on the "avoid" side of things, personally. But at the same time... If you're going to target one... target all. I still hate this Lynch Mob Mentality XD

He broke the rules... but SCREAM IT TO THE HEAVENS. "NOT IN MY FANDOM"

I agree with you that the act of paedophilia is completely immoral because the minor is unable to consent to the sexual act.

Unless there is direct evidence of it otherwise, I'm not sure if fictional paedophilic media would increase the likelihood of people committing
paedophilic acts with minors? I mean, has a study been done on it?

As far as I'm aware I thought the consensus was that the expression of sexuality is 'healthy' in the sense
that, the paeophile has their attraction, ideally does not want to act on it, has the need to explore it in some way, and their ability to explore their sexualities
by consuming fictional media will ideally decrease the likelihood of them committing it in 'real life'.

Just like how, in the most conservative states in the US and countries on Earth which restrict homosexuality, the consumption of homosexual media
is considerably greater.

That being said of course actual REAL child pornography is 100% immoral because minors had to be abused for it to be produced.

Don't quote me, but I believe a study WAS done and showed no correlation.

That being said, you should be able to come to that conclusion without a study. Bad coyote himself draws rape porn, unless we want to speculate that he or his consumers are actually rapists..

Views on reducing criminal sexual intent

Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, presented evidence that "[l]egalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse". Results from the Czech Republic indicated, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes "decreased or essentially remained stable" following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. His research also indicated that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.[2]

Diamond suggests to provide artificially created child pornography that does not involve any real children. His article relayed, "If availability of pornography can reduce sex crimes, it is because the use of certain forms of pornography to certain potential offenders is functionally equivalent to the commission of certain types of sex offences: both satisfy the need for psychosexual stimulants leading to sexual enjoyment and orgasm through masturbation. If these potential offenders have the option, they prefer to use pornography because it is more convenient, unharmful and undangerous. (Kutchinsky, 1994, pp. 21)."[2]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relat.....d_sexual_abuse

Well, as they say, QED. From a humanitarian perspective, it's our duty to provide the to the needs of these people. It must be fucking dreadful
to be attracted to individuals with whom you cannot morally or legally have sex with.....the least we can do is ease this suffering via artificial-produced material.

At the same time, it'll decrease the likelihood of those particular individuals who are "less-moral" or prone to "spontaenous action", what have you,
from taking advantage of a particular situation and placing minors in extreme danger.

From the same Wikipedia article you're quoting:


Dennis Howitt (1995) disagrees with such research, explaining the weakness of correlational studies. He argues that "one cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."

A Swiss study reviewing the criminal record of 231 men who were charged with viewing child pornography found that those without a prior sexual conviction are unlikely to sexually assault a child. The study found that in the 6 years before the 2002 police operation only 1% were known to have committed a hands-on sexual offense and only 1% committed a hands-on sex offense in the 6 years afterwards. The study reinforces previous research that consumers are well-educated and view other types of illegal pornography like acts involving animals and violence as well. Author Frank Urbaniok said it should not automatically be assumed that they were a risk for sexually assaulting a child and said: "Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offences were quite low."[14] A 2005 paper by Canadian researchers Michael Seto and Angela Eke found that of 201 men charged with child pornography offenses, 24% had committed prior offenses of sexual contact and 4% went on to commit subsequent sexual offenses after being charged or prosecuted.

Yep.

However, as the information stated, when read objectively and not cherry picking for effect. The studies done by Howitt, Swiss and Canada... The data pool was tainted to being with.

There's is a difference between Pedophilia and Child-molesters. The ones you repeated their offense were the ones that actually ones who committed the offense to begin with. Sample size was tainted and therefore the study was rendered moot.

The information I posted was in opposition because of the simple fact, if you give someone an outlet BEFORE an act happens. They are less likely to cause the actual act itself. For example... Violent Video Games help vent violent frustrations and therefore, do not increase the murder rate as prior studies have shown. The study previously posted, with a better control group... showed that those who were "Pedophiles", had a lower rate of "hand's on" crime... vs those who were "child molesters" when an alternative means of "venting desires" were allowed.

However... That being said, you don't expect someone who is a repeat offender... like an actual mainline drug addict and put all the drugs on the table to see if they can handle their urges. That's a test of will. But some people can be fine with satisfying a need to try something manageable and not life destroying. Your Pot heads vs your Heroine addicts if you will. But you'll have the puritans shouting the same bullshit line "Pot is a gateway drug". Which is just patently false. If it can satisfy your urges and keep you there instead of going into something hardcore... then you found your method of treatment.

Sounds like something that should be handled privately with therapy. Not sure how any of this justifies the general cub porn you see around.

"Do what thou wilt, shall it harm none"

What is done privately, in the comforts of your own home, as long as it involves harming no one (or no beast)... What business is it of anyone else?

When it comes to rules here... A violation of the rules is a violation. I will not argue that point because rules that were meant to be black and white SHOULD BE ENFORCED as black and white without making exceptions to be FAIR.

When it comes to society as a whole... What does it honestly matter? If no one is being harmed. No animal being harmed. It shouldn't be anyone's business.

So you like pictures of children having sex, noted.

That speaks more to your character than mine.
"Doesn't agree with me. Make wild baseless claim against character and marginalise."

Double standards are rampant in the fandom, sadly. Furries will jump on one person for drawing an act that is illegal in reality, but then go and draw a different act that isn't really any better, and it's a-okay. Draw rape? It's okay, people have a fetish for it. Draw bestiality? That's just fine, some people fantasize about that that! Draw gruesome murder? Hey, nothing wrong with that, it's fiction, it's not hurting anyone! Draw something that resembles underage children? HOLY SHIT FUCKING BURN THEM AT THE STAKE, THEY ARE A PEDOPHILE. Don't make me laugh. Now, I'm fully against underage art of the sexual variety, but if that quote was fact, we'd have murders and rapists running rampant on FA, and I'd like to think that's not the case, but who really knows? That said, you can't single one out and ignore the rest like has been done here.

As for your first point, yes, there are studies that say there are NO correlation between the two, and also (mostly) younger pedophiles have come out and explained that they have never touched a child, and it's these virtual reality underage... encounters(?) that keep their disorder at bay entirely, keeping them from ever wanting to act on said desires. On the other hand there's studies saying that it just preps them as a "gateway" drug of sorts to go out and do real acts of horror. so I guess it's more or less inconclusive, though I tend to believe the people who are actually suffering from said disorder over people that think they know how a pedophile thinks and functions.

This journal started out using morals and judgment as a standard for weeding out people that draw underage stuff, and when laws, studies, and legitimate points popped up, and as such became part of the equation, suddenly it devolved into how it's a rule on FA and it should be respected (not directed at BadCoyote specifically, just the posts in general). Where's the integrity, here? Are we (well, the people are are against this, I guess) fighting this because it's right, or because it's some inane rule on a site full of animal dicks and all the screwed up sexual situations that can possibly be created? Not defending "said artist and said work", but seriously, I'm not seeing it.

There are plenty of arguments against said artist and said work, but no one has, thus far, made a good one backed up by anything other than "I say so." or "it's wrong". Which is, you know... not an argument at all, and in fact JUST as bad as tying someone up and burning them at the stake, they're basically calling for a lynch based on... what exactly? Their own personal beliefs? Because that works out sooooo well.

I honestly just think the whole thing is blown out of proportion, and is drama for the sake of drama, and white knights to defend their idol, and for the keyboard warriors to raise their swords and charge against the "common enemy". Nothing new for the community or humanity in general, really, and nothing of any real substance from either said, sadly. And as such, I'm not investing myself into this.

That said, If people REALLY want to make something happen, action is necessary, not journals like this ranting about said things. If people were to report in MASS about the rule and how they're breaking such rule when it's considered underage on another site, they wouldn't have much of a choice than to remove it. However, I highly doubt that large of an influx of people have done so, thus, nothing will be done about it. Typing stuff like this all over FA is easier than actually trying to report, after all. (sarcasm intended)

All of that said, I do think "said artist" is in fact a little bit above the rules here and needs to be brought down a peg (if not for my personal enjoyment), and that "said work" is indeed cutting it a bit too close for comfort (I think the piece of work is just awful in general, honestly) and needs to be treated the way it would be anywhere else. Without prejudice, and following any standards that something like that typically would at other similar sites, WITHOUT their own silly double-standard morals.

Uh, rape porn, what? Sorry but no, I have never drawn rape porn. I have occasionally drawn dominance porn between consenting adults based on the commissioner's description, or porn with some light bloodletting (and given that Lobo and I are known to scratch each other up quite a bit when we get feisty, it's definitely not something I'd ever associate with rape, but rather with passionate lovemaking).

Dominance and bondage play, like the sort of thing I drew for the LoL series, is a far cry from rape, and was never intended to be construed as such. While the matter might edge into a subjective grey area, pedophilia does not, and I have always and will continue to turn down any commissions that depict outright rape or sex with minors, as I find the idea terrible and distasteful on both counts.

To use your own argument against you, "IT'S NOT RAPE PORN IT'S JUST DOMINANCE FOR REALSIES"
Not trying to be an ass, but your argument stems from it's quite clearly cub stuff being 'passed off' as if they're adult, and that's what some of your work shouts to me.
For example: https://e621.net/post/show/458979/2.....ion-anthro-arm
Rengar is quite clearly in pain and trying to get away, and in the previous image he's literally jumped by Warwick.

You really don't think that it looks like rape?

The typical kneejerk response should be one of the following:

1) Can't be rape. He's hard.
2) Can't be rape. He enjoyed it afterwards.
3) He lost the fight, he had to accept it.

I should also mention that the last three panels of that comic are of a massive orgy with the characters high fiving. The whole thing is meant to be consensual and competitive. While I have a personal fetish for dominance sex and bondage, I have never and will never condone rape, and turn away every commission requesting it.

Regardless, if several reasonable people felt the comic in its final context depicted rape, I would gladly remove it rather than use popufur status to dodge the consequences

I really don't, that's how me and my partner fuck lol. At worst, that pic is subjective. Zaush saying his characters are in grade school isn't.

No of course not. I rolled my eyes when he changed that, cause I immediately knew that meant he was gunna post stuff on FA and use his status to be immune to the rules. It's just as bad as them letting popufurs avoid being banned for terrible commission practices for ages at a time. No names will be mentioned as to who I'm referring to.. Heh.

At the very least I suppose that it wasn't your intention for that to be construed as rape.. Even if I don't agree with that image being 'subjective'. I don't know of anyone whose first reaction to that image would be 'Oh it's just passionate sex', but to each their own.

I'm really not kidding when I say Lobo and I have scarred each other during sex matches to see who gets to top. It's totally consensual and I never would have construed the pic as rapey as a result.

Yeah it's consensual between you two. You're lovers and you've obviously set boundaries and things your into. Both of you are into domination so I'd assume it's consensual, but I'm speaking as someone who had assumed this was rape until you quite literally said it wasn't, because I didn't know anything about your fetish until now. Even with that knowledge though, unless you have some kind of headcanon concerning the characters all being into your fetish.. I'd still say it looks like a rape comic.

There is head cannon. The final pages clarify that it was consensual. I keep forgetting that people who don't join my streams haven't seen the final pages! My bad for the assumption and thanks for bringing the issue to my attention

You're welcome.

Well considering photographs and artwork are frequently used by pedoes in the "grooming" process of getting children to accept what they're doing is normal, it might cause more harm then good. There's a lot of studies about this, but here's one I found:

https://web.archive.org/web/2008011.....er_3_2004.html

Definition of Pedophilia or paedophilia is the psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

US Law reflects that as well and that's why there's a difference between child molestation and statutory rape.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

Child Molestation = Pedophilia and the child hasn't hit puberty
Statutory = Minor that is of sexual maturity but under the age of consent... which varies based on sexual preference and gender per state as well as with or without parental consent.

Yup, all sounds reasonable.....are you highlighting anything I mentioned which you have contention with?

I agree that even if the child, in their eyes 'agreed' to sexual activity, their age prohibits them from rationally making that decision, whilst the person who is over-age having sex with the minor is fully aware of that, indicating coercion (or however you want to elaborate the 'power imbalance') may be involved.

It was supposed to have gone one step below to respond to BadCoyote's response:

"I gotta disagree. Homosexuality is attraction to the same sex, and typically occurs between two consenting ADULTS who are legally and mentally fit to engage in sexual intercourse.

Pedophilia is sexual attraction to minors, and in almost all cases entails physical abuse of the recipients, who are not of an age where they can mentally or legally give informed consent to engage in sex. That is a BIG difference. The two are not comparable.

And while having that urge may not be an individual's "fault", acting on it is nevertheless considered a monstrous act for good reason, as it violates the physical and mental well-being of the most vulnerable and innocent of our population. Creating porn which either directly or indirectly encourages pro-pedophilia sentiment can and does increase the likelihood of people acting on it or accepting said acts as normal, and thus should never under any circumstance be condoned."

Was working on too many threads. Sorry!

No worries! As I mentioned earlier, your responses have been excellent. Reasoned responses with sources.

I can't give you enough support, keep it up! :)

The characters in question were originally marked as ELEVEN YEARS OLD, and their bodies have clearly not undergone the developmental changes associated with puberty. It is, by your EXACT DEFINITION, pedophillia.

Link?

Always good to see some people trying to remind that to others. But of course I don't have any idea what this could be referring to 8D

*bro-hug*

Thank you. I really have nothing constructive to add here, just glad to see this finally getting aired out!

While I agree that the rules are the rules and they should be enforced no matter the situation...

'We have a community with values and integrity'
That is some funny shit right dere

As someone who has been invested in the fandom for 15 years...it's not that funny. We were a community that had each other's backs, once, and we took care to weed out the sickos. Now it's anything goes, and I blame FA and the popufur idiots with no sense of integrity for that.

You forgot to mention the bullshit "It's my style" argument.
But if you are popular enough you could get away with
Literal murder or dog fucking in this community.

I agree with everything said here, except as plenty have pointed out that we're a community of integrity and value. I stopped believing that long ago.

But what you've not yet pointed out is that the artist in question released a preemptive doodle of one character in particular, and it openly states that they're in 5th grade (a later edit to this states that they're 'retconning' this fact from the canon of the comic. But the artist asserts in comments that they're 11 years of age; even if everything else was true, that it is college and that the characters are 18, that one individual is not, or was designed not to be 18. But the artist can get away with that, because naturally the artist's reputation for drama has escalated either to a point where the administration just accepts any outcry as wrong and jealous or where they simply no longer care. Part of me feels that the artist's close relationship to other users on the FA staff and his history within the fandom earns him bias when it comes to content like this.

Why do I care though? As many point out, if it's not hurting anyone, who cares? Right, I fully agree, but what I can't stand for is the ridiculous hypocrisy and double standards the administration is showing.

A long time back, a few years perhaps, I wrote a story without explicitly stating a character's age. However my 'assertion' as you phrase it was that they were of age and consenting. The 'depiction' though was interpreted to be that of a male much younger. This accompanied an art piece, so I assumed age would not be questioned if people could see that this character was not underage. Regardless my content was removed, I was warned, placed against a blacklist for further content where if it broke AUP it would be removed without warning and I could face consequences, whilst the artist responsible for the artwork faced no such repercussions. He didn't even realise what was going on until I told him. My point behind this is that someone like myself was slammed hard even when the circumstances were questionable at best (they weren't, I had done nothing wrong) and the parallels are undeniable between that then and this now.

Some people are right: if the artist had stated the character was a cunt boy, or something to that effect, nobody would care. But in reality, my biggest contention doesn't lie with what they're defined as, it's with the actual admission that one character in particular was designed to be underage. Snuff, rape, necro and the like can all be performed to a level of consent. Underage characters cannot. But ultimately this isn't supposed to lie with what's morally acceptable and what isn't. As much as some would prefer/argue it to be that way, it lies in FA's AUP guidelines, which states that characters such as the one the artist is designed, is not acceptable.

But at this stage, I've come to expect nothing less from a staff that can't be bothered to handle complaints properly, civilly, or with any sense. This site is absolutely rank, and like any site that holds a monopoly on furry artwork sharing, it's a necessary evil for any fur. I've basically just come to accept that the artist in question is just trolling people now, because he can blatantly and flagrantly get away with it. He's beyond the rest of us mere mortals, clearly.

Thanks for your input, really interesting. All we can do is keep pointing out the violations and highlight that it's hypocritical of management not to take action.

I take issue with your assertion that it doesn't hurt anyone. The overwhelming majority of feral artists I knew on here have since been caught in sex acts with animals. And the ONLY person I knew beforehand who drew cub porn got caught trying to molest his nephew and was summarily beaten and jailed.

Regardless of what aggregate statistics outside the fandom say (and anyone with half a clue knows how easy stats are to skew), my personal experience has served as a strong foundation for my assertion that art like the kind we are discussing can and does serve as a gateway drug for those sick predators among our community looking to validate and eventually act on their urges.

I agree with your opinion, but I feel it's very easy for artists to hide behind it as an excuse (as many do, to which the administration can do little about unless it enacts different policies to what is acceptable and what isn't). Ultimately though that's not why I see this case as even more outrageous and mocking than the last - if you remember Charlotte as I'm sure you do.

The biggest hurdle to fight against is not the question of whether or not it's acceptable or appropriate to be allowing such content, because honestly both sides see themselves as right and I doubt neither are prepared to concede to the other. The biggest hurdle is tackling the administration's inability - or rather it's willful decision to not act - in controlling and monitoring this kind of artwork. Had this been any small time user and the content would have been removed in a heartbeat, but because this is someone well known, personally close, and with a big following and name to their work, it gives them some kind of immunity from reprimand on their work. Inevitably then the staff will defend the artist, refuse to act, and simply hide behind the excuse that the artist states they're of age, therefore there's nothing wrong.

But not for the case of one character in particular, whom the artist openly admits is 11 years old. There's been no design change between her initial introduction and her appearance in the comic, so for the staff to defend that would be rank and unacceptable. Because then they are literally allowing cub porn under the guise that it does no harm, nobody's explicitly saying it, meanwhile the creator and fans of the work can all relish in the idea that they aren't of age.

The comic in question is marked as cub on FN as well so the one in question should be punished for trying to bend the rules.

Please screenshot that IMMEDIATELY and send it to me and to the admins. Might be our best shot at getting them to actually choke on their own nepotism and enforce the goddamned rules.

The tags are all sarcastic. #Cub immediately followed by #NotCub

He's being a fucking smartass about it.

Which means he know's exactly wtf he's doing and is laughing in everyone's face about it. What a classy bastard.

To be fair, those aren't tags he himself put on it, but ones other people applied.
Like in this image for example https://beta.furrynetwork.com/artwo.....1400/hot-fuzz/
Blue are ones the artist used, green are ones the community applied.

I've not looked at all of them but the page I did look at of that comic only had green tags.

Unfortunately there are two kinds of tags on FN. One set that the uploader themselves applies and ones the community can apply.
They haven't tagged it themselves, but the community has and a look at one random page shows it has several tags including "cub", "cub porn" "popufur not cub" "petite" "this is cub porn" and "this is not cub"

Apparently he also cited the characters as being in grade school on his original Patreon submission. Soooo there's that.

Either way, anyone with half a clue can tell these characters are cub. The people acting like it's anything else are either disingenuous or willfully ignorant.

Well yeah, let's face it they are in his head and to everyone reading that comic, regardless of what they say when they post it here.

Even if I can suspend my disbelief about underage characters being 18+, the fact that they look so young is a major turnoff to me and will eventually cause an unfollow. I know I'm having trouble following some well known furry artists because they draw creepily young humans that lack even pubes.

More grown up dudes who know what they're doing is more fun to watch in porn, in any event.

The only reason I followed him was his gay art. It's gone so radically in the other direction...

I know, I'm old.

Yeah, I don't mind a little vag here and there (not my thing, but don't mind it), but I'm definitely much happier following an artist who frequently appreciates two dudes going at it.

I don't mind a female "presence" either; but, that's not the point of this thread, so...

While I understand what you're saying...but

"values and integrity"

Lolwhut

FA allowed underage porn a few years ago and held onto it for dear life until they were basically shut down by the internet censorship laws sweeping through at the time.

They implemented that rule out of basic necessity, not values and integrity lol

Why does everyone assume I'm talking about FA here? I'm talking about the fandom community as a whole, which DID have values and integrity waaay back when I was first starting out. Some still do, but out of cowardice or apathy they remain silent and allow the sickfucks to control our fandom's destiny.

Then don't be silent, and fight back against the sick fucks :D

Does it look like I'm being silent here? 0_0

No? O.o I was encouraging what you're already doing >w> Some people do that

Lol, not many. But thanks..

Tbh I'm puzzled at people being butthurt about depiction of underage characters. Because sure, semen soaked orgies with animals and anthros in extreme fetish gear is a-ok, but god forbid one of these imaginary characters isn't of age according to U.S. Standards it's suddenly 'morally reprehensible'? Yeah right. Is the high horse anthro or feral? Does he take commissions? :V

You might wanna try reading my earlier comment in this thread that addresses this exacr point before you attempt to troll. Otherwise you come off as a lazy, uninvested ass, and we wouldn't want that!

I don't have time to sift through a wall of text. And pointing out that you're whining about something inconsequential and petty as this isn't trolling. It's telling you to get over it.

That's the problem with "Moral" laws.
They are christian faith based in the US

This should get you chuckling too.

12 year old girls can still get married in the US

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w.....-a6921246.html

Notice how drawing cubs on an online furry gallery is not the same thing as the disgusting crime of pedophilia.

And as the wall of text up at the top... even making that conclusion, gets you labeled as a pedophile by the 'Right Wing Furry Conservatives" XD
Give people the benefit of the doubt... BOOM "He's one of them!!!!! GET HIM"

YES DRAG HIM.

end this unholy endless night of double standards. they're literally children. we get it, he has a thing for child-bodied smaller chicks. doenst mean you can put it on FA.

It is nigh time for this to be resolved - the sooner the better for everyone involved.

yeah thats right...stir up a little more drama.....site used to be a god damn ART site, then idiots started whining that they didnt like certain things and it all went down hill from there.

fucking drama llamas

Hey dipshit? I'm an artist, one who's been around the fandom for the better part of 15 years. These issues don't just affect the site, they affect my ability to interact with members of the community and do business in a way that won't permanently harm my reputation or my sense of integrity by dint of failing to put a stop to these toxic practices. They affect the direction that the fandom is heading, they have in EVRY instance I've witnessed caused genuine harm to vulnerable people or animals, and this all-inclusive "anything goes" bullshit is a big part of why furries are considered a disgusting embarrassment to society when we used to just be "those weird guys in suits."

If you're too stupid or immature to care about anything other than getting off, so be it. If you're too horny and intellectually uninterested in the shape this community takes, and all you care about is whacking it three times a day to prepubescent characters getting raped by a "feral" while wearing diapers and having their arms chopped off, hey, go nuts.

But while you're doing that...stay the fuck off my page, and don't dare come here trying to start shit while crying about how OTHERS are starting drama.

There's the door. Show yourself out.

I've been barking up this tree for YEARS. Yay nepotism. :/

Glad that I'm not the only person thinking "wait, this... doesn't look right..." when seeing this aformentioned comic. Honestly I'm also creeped out by the incest fantasies that have become depressingly (and yes, I really do find that depressing) common. But that is just icing on the cake compared to the characters consistently looking alarmingly young. Really, wtf people.

Just gonna throw this out there to all the tryhards who would be better off trying the formal debate thing on a chan than on my page.

There IS no way to prove a causal link between viewing porn and engaging in an act. There IS no way to prove that a community which encouraged someone to feel good about viewing predatory acts is a gateway to committing said acts. Statistics don't work that way--at best, they can establish correlation, and it is much, much too easy to manipulate correlational studies based on how they are conducted and the metrics used.

And guess what? Pedophiles and animal fuckers KNOW THAT. They know they can hide behind hand waving and faulty studies. They know they can use the fandom's "anything goes" attitude to mask their activities. And for some who have not yet committed an illegal sex act, the encouragement provided by the fandom can and does constitute the final push they needed, the shot of "courage" necessary for them to rape, molest, etc.

If you encourage that because "hurr durr, teh numbers", even in the face of a well-respected artist with no reason to lie telling you in absolute terms that he knows, for a fact, several people who have harmed children or animals because of this site....then you might want to take a good, long look at yourself in the mirror before you continue on with your day. Or better yet, take a look at a child in your family, and ask yourself if their safety is worth a few people getting to jack off to them, or things that are meant to resemble them.

What a coincidence, I just stopped watching an artist because they were posting a comic just like what you're talking about. What are the odds, right?

For the record, anyone coming on to my page to try and make an argument that acting out pedophilia is an ok thing, or that fantasizing about child molestation is in any way healthy, is subject to me hiding their comment. While I am happy to allow constructive discussion, if your sole reason for coming here is to say "it's totally ok to molest kids or fantasize about molesting kids", then you have absolutely no business being on my page and I sincerely hope you are gelded by dire pugs before having the opportunity to fuck a child (or animal).

Locking down comments for the page, the pro pedo crowd is getting out of hand.

We have rules against it, and I've caught too many people using the fandoms understanding to justify sick actions. When popularity lets those rules be broken, I speak out before harm results.

All comments furthering the thread are being deleted. People got out of hand so I shut it down. Just a heads up.