FA+
Shop
I'm just gonna leave this here. Makes sense huh.
will scrap later
(plz no drama lama's just ment to be funny but of course your not gonna listen and your gonna post some drama building comment anyway)
will scrap later
(plz no drama lama's just ment to be funny but of course your not gonna listen and your gonna post some drama building comment anyway)
Category Artwork (Digital) / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 320 x 1280px
File Size 94.1 kB
yeah i 100% agree... i mean it's not like its ''real''. and i dont give a rat's fart if people want to ''polish their nob'' to cub art. its ART. a drawing where no one gets hurt. so what... its better then pedo's seeking out the real deal. cubs are like any other fetish, i honestly don't know why people cause so much drama over it. people will get their jollies one way or another. i would feel better if they do to fake non-existent characters.
and omg if someone says '''cub porn is like a gate way drug, it will make people want to twiddle children''.
such rubbish... if they are seeking out little kids in RL, cub porn has nothing to do with it. they already had issues to begin with.
i like cub porn, i draw cub porn and i ABSOLUTELY have no DESIRE to ever sexually touch a child... fuck' i don't even like children in RL lol.
and omg if someone says '''cub porn is like a gate way drug, it will make people want to twiddle children''.
such rubbish... if they are seeking out little kids in RL, cub porn has nothing to do with it. they already had issues to begin with.
i like cub porn, i draw cub porn and i ABSOLUTELY have no DESIRE to ever sexually touch a child... fuck' i don't even like children in RL lol.
You sound like you're not from the US. I don't know the laws of other countries, but here in the US cub is illegal and treated in court exactly the same as real CSAM. There was a law passed in 2003 that got rid of the "victimless crime" argument and specifically states that depicted minors don't have to exist. Just an FYI.
It is illegal according to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A. The PROTECT Act was created to close the "victimless crime" loophole of cartoons, drawings, sculptures, etc that depict fictional minors in an obscene manner. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(c ) states "It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
The law can be viewed at the link below. You can use your browser's search function against the above quote, or just scroll down to section C (it's not very far down), to verify that this is indeed real. According to the US federal government, cub porn can be treated the same as child porn if you're prosecuted. Since it's transmitted over a common carrier, which would in this case be the internet, it automatically becomes a federal offense.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
The law can be viewed at the link below. You can use your browser's search function against the above quote, or just scroll down to section C (it's not very far down), to verify that this is indeed real. According to the US federal government, cub porn can be treated the same as child porn if you're prosecuted. Since it's transmitted over a common carrier, which would in this case be the internet, it automatically becomes a federal offense.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
Okay, I want YOU to now present me cases in which people have been busted for drawing cub art - without comitting any other crimes . I am sure ALL these cases also refer to these people having pictures of REAL kids and not drawings of cubs.
And jsut to make it sure. I do NOT console RL child pornography of any kind. I know I have to make this clear nowadays
And jsut to make it sure. I do NOT console RL child pornography of any kind. I know I have to make this clear nowadays
https://web.archive.org/web/2013052.....104900009.html
https://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009.....to-exist/?pg=X
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/.....scotus.html?hp
https://casetext.com/case/united-st.....s-v-eychaner-1
https://www.joplinglobe.com/news/lo.....c46e7f8a8.html
https://gizmodo.com/manga-collectio.....-court-5272107
https://web.archive.org/web/2013032.....m/id/28319199/
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_.....88116209038689
This guy got 1,200 years in prison for it:
https://archive.ph/20051225195550/http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768481527
It's happened plenty of times. And even if it wasn't prosecuted that wouldn't be an excuse to break the law. But as you can clearly see it IS prosecuted and it's not just words.
https://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009.....to-exist/?pg=X
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/.....scotus.html?hp
https://casetext.com/case/united-st.....s-v-eychaner-1
https://www.joplinglobe.com/news/lo.....c46e7f8a8.html
https://gizmodo.com/manga-collectio.....-court-5272107
https://web.archive.org/web/2013032.....m/id/28319199/
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_.....88116209038689
This guy got 1,200 years in prison for it:
https://archive.ph/20051225195550/http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768481527
It's happened plenty of times. And even if it wasn't prosecuted that wouldn't be an excuse to break the law. But as you can clearly see it IS prosecuted and it's not just words.
Nowhere does the law specify the minor must be human and half the links aren't about the same case. Even if they were it wouldn't matter, because it's clear they even the art is illegal. If underage cartoon human porn is illegal, why wouldn't cub be? Doesn't the defense against zoophilia go something like "blah blah my anthro art is very human-like"? So then which is it? Is it meant to be depicted as human-like, and therefore definitely illegal, or meant to be depicted as animals, which is legal but weird because people confuse zoophilia and bestiality for some reason? It can't be both.
There is no right answer. It just backs you into a corner. And by you, I do mean you, because I am not into cub one bit. The moral and legal dilemma is not mine to solve.
There is no right answer. It just backs you into a corner. And by you, I do mean you, because I am not into cub one bit. The moral and legal dilemma is not mine to solve.
Actually, cub art is considered child pornography according to US federal law. If you are caught with it by authorities in the US you CAN be charged accordingly, and it's happened several times before. Someone from Iowa received a 1,200 year prison sentence for possessing 74 images of Lolicon. They were caught because they accessed it using a machine at their workplace, which lead to the seizing of their personal computer. I believe they were also charged with intent to distribute.
How? The PROTECT Act of 2003.
https://www.govinfo.gov/features/PROTECT-act
The PROTECT Act was passed in the aftermath of a Supreme Court case that had held that completely virtual child pornography was protected free speech under the First Amendment, so long as it was not obscene. A key component of this ruling was that, because the pornography was not a visual depiction of an actual child, it was a victimless crime.
After this case, Congress passed the PROTECT Act to prohibit virtual child pornography. The PROTECT Act was created to close the "victimless crime" loophole of cartoons, drawings, sculptures, etc that depict minors in an obscene manner. The obscenity law further states in section C "It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
It can be viewed here. You can use your browser's search function against the above quote, or just scroll down to section C (it's not very far down), to verify that this is indeed real.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
How? The PROTECT Act of 2003.
https://www.govinfo.gov/features/PROTECT-act
The PROTECT Act was passed in the aftermath of a Supreme Court case that had held that completely virtual child pornography was protected free speech under the First Amendment, so long as it was not obscene. A key component of this ruling was that, because the pornography was not a visual depiction of an actual child, it was a victimless crime.
After this case, Congress passed the PROTECT Act to prohibit virtual child pornography. The PROTECT Act was created to close the "victimless crime" loophole of cartoons, drawings, sculptures, etc that depict minors in an obscene manner. The obscenity law further states in section C "It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
It can be viewed here. You can use your browser's search function against the above quote, or just scroll down to section C (it's not very far down), to verify that this is indeed real.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
By definition, this is untrue.
Paedophilia is a paraphilia, defined as sexual attraction to children.
It's possible to be a paedophile and not sexually abuse children, just like it's possible to be a zoophile (sexually attracted to animals) and not have sex with them.
Whether cub porn counts as paedophilia is ambiguous. Either way, there's nothing wrong with it as long as people restrict it to fictional characters.
Paedophilia is a paraphilia, defined as sexual attraction to children.
It's possible to be a paedophile and not sexually abuse children, just like it's possible to be a zoophile (sexually attracted to animals) and not have sex with them.
Whether cub porn counts as paedophilia is ambiguous. Either way, there's nothing wrong with it as long as people restrict it to fictional characters.
I don't think it would be paedophilia, but it's difficult to apply the concept of "paedophilia" to a fictional character. I don't know exactly what you would call it. It might be therianthropopaedophilia or something, but I don't think that really describes it properly. The concept of "chronophilias" (which include paedophilia) doesn't really apply to fictional characters, because it's entirely possible for a fictional character to look young and be canonically thousands of years old, or the complete opposite.
Ancient greek, and the language of paraphilias we've based on it are really horribly limited. It's easier to just call it "anthropomorphic cub fetish" or something like that.
Ancient greek, and the language of paraphilias we've based on it are really horribly limited. It's easier to just call it "anthropomorphic cub fetish" or something like that.
If you're talking specifically about a cub sexually using an adult, I suppose that would probably be called something like "therianthropoteleiosexual activity". (A fictional depiction of it, anyway). Your attraction to a depiction of a cub sexually using an adult would be something that I don't really have any idea about a possible name for.
I'm not an expert on Greek, so I don't know what order the different concepts are supposed to come in and how they interact with each other to change the meaning of the word.
It's important (as with paedophilia, zoophilia and any other paraphilia or sexuality) to distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual activity in line with that attraction. Paedophilia is sexual attraction to children, and causes no harm in itself, but can lead to paedophilic activity in people with mental illnesses or weak morals, which can easily cause serious psychological and physical harm to any children involved.
I'm not an expert on Greek, so I don't know what order the different concepts are supposed to come in and how they interact with each other to change the meaning of the word.
It's important (as with paedophilia, zoophilia and any other paraphilia or sexuality) to distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual activity in line with that attraction. Paedophilia is sexual attraction to children, and causes no harm in itself, but can lead to paedophilic activity in people with mental illnesses or weak morals, which can easily cause serious psychological and physical harm to any children involved.
The last I do not disagree but I guess with or without cub art this would happen. I mean. look aroudn how often you see children in commercials wearing only underpants. Well kids in generval. Ever commercial about diapers can be as much a trigger as cub art. And personally I fear much more diaper commercials may lead into pedophile activity than cub art like I draw. (yes I draw cub art ) If you say that anything can trigger something. Murder art can cause murder. emotional art could cause Suicide. If it is like that we have to ban nearly everything. I am aware cub art can trigger pedophile activity but I do not see any difference to how suicidal art can cause suicide.
Comments