# Can we get a little lienient in the Adult Fursuit Section?



## Quiet269 (Nov 11, 2008)

I mean the whole point of the Adult Section is to be... adult... but with the way FA rules are right now if a Fur ever posted a pic of themselves in the Fursuit (being Adult oriented) then they would get the pic removed.

Seems kind of silly, doesn't it? Especially when you consider all the other stuff that is acceptable...

I'm not saying to allow it all over, just the Fursuit Section.


----------



## FurryWurry (Nov 11, 2008)

My understanding is that the law treats pornography involving real humans differently from how it treats pictures of completely imaginary characters. FA needs to protect itself against obscenity charges.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 11, 2008)

What would you propose?


----------



## FurryWurry (Nov 11, 2008)

Dragoneer,

Who were you asking?

I propose continuing a ban on pictures showing explicit sex involving people in fursuits, enjoyable though such images might be. I don't see how you could risk doing anything else. U.S. federal pornography laws are defined in terms of community definitions of obscenity. While many members of the furry community might not find such images obscene, members of many physical communities would, and physical communities are where any prosecutions would take place.

I'm not a lawyer, though, and I prefer to err on the side of caution. I think you should get a lawyer's opinion, if you haven't already.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 11, 2008)

FurryWurry said:


> Who were you asking?


Anybody who wanted to offer an opinion.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2008)

Maybe have them upload their images of that onto a image host or what ever, then post them in a journal. 

Or, if they truly want non-furry things here (because lets face it, 40% of the images on FA aren't even furry) then maybe have Artwork, Stories, poems, music, and Photography. Of course lets not change this to a myspace, make sure only say fursuiting things, cons etc were being placed in there and perhaps also allow Fursuiting porn.

When they select photography, the image icon/thumb is immediately defaulted and kept to just PHOTOGRAPHY in text, or something similar. That way people browsing the main site for art don't see things they simply don't wish to see, in a thumb.

Or even better, see where we got artwork at the top of FA's main page, then we have written stories, poems, then music, then below that place the photos. That means people have to scroll down to see it anyway, so they should be expecting it.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> What would you propose?



A simple variance applied to the rules for the use of nude/xxx adult images posted within the fursuiting (adult) category.

If you so choose you could require a verification process (like you have now for people that lie about their age and get caught) prior to being able to post such images, and note that ANY foul play in any way shape or form in regards to your age and sexually explicit posts in this category will  net you a permanent ban, end of discussion. 

You could also note that posting a nude image in any other category (obvious accidents excluded of course), posting a nude image prior to approval, or posting a nude image that in no way, shape or form was furry would net you a 3 day ban to think things through.

You would probably want to clarify that they must be in suit (full or partial up to the admins) so you do not just get random people posting shots of them and their adventures with "Thor"... and maybe set some rules as to the thumbnails not including anything naughty (Please do not make a default thumbnail though, that shit looks like shit) so that those that do not wish to view such things would be saved (though really I don't think it is necessary)

Might also want to note that this category is for FurSuiting ONLY as Beastiality is still rather illegal in a lot of states (it could happen).


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

This is an *ART* community. If you allow this, youll be admitting that the only real purpose for this sight is pornography.


----------



## Snickers (Nov 12, 2008)

People in suits, having sex, showing off their tiny cocks in them. That is disgusting to suggest, enforcing this, jeeze, no wonder people have issues against furries. If you enforce that rule then whats next? People covered in shit? People having sex with god knows what? You allow 1 thing people are going to suggest another and start to fight for it. The last thing id want is people whoring out their bodies to gather community fame in a fandom about anthropomorphic art. There is a clear difference in photography in capturing the beauty of art, but when its all about crude fucking sex its not art. Get your facts straight. Why dont people just fuckin draw a smiley face on their dick knobs while they are at it.

Really, the whole adult fursuit section should be removed as photography of any sexual nature is against the rules to my knowledge. Actually, it should be impossible to tag photography and mature/adult ratings together.

Excuse my language, but this just really angers me.


----------



## Rilvor (Nov 12, 2008)

No. There's already enough fetish shit on the site.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 12, 2008)

Snickers said:


> Really, the whole adult fursuit section should be removed as photography of any sexual nature is against the rules to my knowledge. Actually, it should be impossible to tag photography and mature/adult ratings together.


Enhance your calm, citizen.

I think this really comes down to more "sexual" suits, those suits that have sheaths and whatnot attached to them. That I could potentially understand, as no real "bits" are showing.

However, suits that have peeners sticking out of/into them will NOT be accepted, nor am I willing to budge on that aspect. At all. The other aspects I'm willing to consider.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

I am not against the idea of an expansion of the "adult" fursuit category, however, in my personal opinion, if more leniency is granted in this, then the AUP needs to be updated with a somewhat no tolerance approach to the rules of such, as well as enforcement. My ideas for such are as follows:

1) The rules for "adult" suits need to be expressed in the AUP clearly, concisely, and without room for interpretation or loopholes, and must be presented in such a way that there is no excuse for ignorance. 

2) Adult fursuits submissions should only be acceptable if they are "By you" (it had been crafted by them, they have a right to show it) or they are not being worn in the picture submitted by the owner. (it was made for them, they have a right to show it, *to a certain extent*) I do not believe the owner should be allowed to be wearing their suit in an uncensored fashion (preferably wearing pants or boxers, but even a black bar could be acceptable) in the submission, on the grounds that an "adult" fursuit is essentially a sex toy. And if the owner is allowed to submit themselves wearing it in an uncensored fashion, then I believe it violates the part of the AUP forbiding sexual photographs, as how else can an adult toy be used by the owner in a non censored fashion, other than its intended sexual purpose?

3) Administration needs to focus on this far more than any other submission type to prevent rules violation, because I believe that any violations of this that show anything that is actually dirty, will cause this site far more trouble than any other violation on this site, possibly even legal trouble that could shut the site down. You might even be better off expanding administration/moderation in such a way that there is a group whos job is *specifically* to patrol fursuit submissions.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 12, 2008)

Adult photos will not be allowed for the simple reason that we do not have the resources to do the verification and record keeping needed to run a porn site. (That and none of us actually want to run a porn site.)

There is nothing to say you can't post your pictures on a site like Xtube and link to them from a journal or a submission description, though.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

net-cat said:


> There is nothing to say you can't post your pictures on a site like Xtube and link to them from a journal or a submission description, though.



Is that really an allowable course though, since Journals are viewable by any and all people visiting the site, regardless of filters or if they are even a member of this site? Anyone could just come to the site and click on the links in journals, let alone a child who might not even know what a [nsfw] tag next to a link means.


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 12, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> I think this really comes down to more "sexual" suits, those suits that have sheaths and whatnot attached to them. That I could potentially understand, as no real "bits" are showing.
> 
> However, suits that have peeners sticking out of/into them will NOT be accepted, nor am I willing to budge on that aspect. At all. The other aspects I'm willing to consider.




Wouldn't that just fall under "mature"? I always thought mature entitled tasteful/artistic nudity with no explicit sexual content, whereas adult was just good old fashioned sex (or raunchy, kinky sex, whatever have you).


----------



## Roland (Nov 12, 2008)

Emil said:


> Is that really an allowable course though, since Journals are viewable by any and all people visiting the site, regardless of filters or if they are even a member of this site? Anyone could just come to the site and click on the links in journals, let alone a child who might not even know what a [nsfw] tag next to a link means.



They're furries and they're on the Internet.  If they don't know what the meaning of "NSFW" now, then they're going to figure it out soon.  Second, if you see a link that has "XTube" in the title and that doesn't sound sexual in any way, shape or form to you, then maybe you need to look again. 

This entire issue is a Pandora's Box of sorts.  Any change on the AUP on this would likely induce mass "requests" (See: Demands) to change other aspects of the photography section.  

Posting fursuits (that usually weren't created by themselves) falls under the amount of SL screenshots that I've seen flying around.  They serve no other reason than to grab attention and take up space.  I don't want to think about the flood of mature photos that would happen if "murrsuits" were allowed.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

Roland said:


> They're furries and they're on the Internet.  If they don't know what the meaning of "NSFW" now, then they're going to figure it out soon.  Second, if you see a link that has "XTube" in the title and that doesn't sound sexual in any way, shape or form to you, then maybe you need to look again.



These concerns would be true, if furries were the only ones with the capability of accessing this website. But since as you said, this is the internet, anyone can stumble across here, and that anyone is far more likely to cause trouble for us when they run across something they find offensive and that is relatively in the open  (I mean, cmon, marking something [nsfw] is about as effective at stopping underage people from clicking on links as snowballs are at stopping tanks) 

Lets not forget it basically makes the purpose of agelocks on the site meaningless for underage, but registered users.


----------



## Roland (Nov 12, 2008)

It's a bit of a morale issue, but it's hard to regulate a bunch of links that people throw in their journals, since they're pretty discrete to begin with.  Of course, anyone can register with the website and change their age to above 18 and turn on their mature filter.  

As for clicking on links marked "NSFW," it's essentially the same as going and searching up the subject in Google.  It's at the viewer's own discretion and it's about as easy to stop people from viewing these things as it is to (to compare to your own analogy ) blow up a hot air balloon with your own two lungs.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

Roland said:


> It's a bit of a morale issue, but it's hard to regulate a bunch of links that people throw in their journals, since they're pretty discrete to begin with.  Of course, anyone can register with the website and change their age to above 18 and turn on their mature filter.



At that point, they are bypassing restrictions that are standard and accepted, and it becomes there fault.



> As for clicking on links marked "NSFW," it's essentially the same as going and searching up the subject in Google.  It's at the viewer's own discretion and it's about as easy to stop people from viewing these things as it is to (to compare to your own analogy ) blow up a hot air balloon with your own two lungs.



Yes, but they anyone who comes across us is more likely to not have a problem if we actively do something to try and prevent it, unpreventable as it may be, instead of throwing our arms in the air ang giving up =P The action of doing something is more symbolic than practical, and thats the thing that carries the weight, is that you actually *try* to do something. You cant be held responsible if people out of their own immorality ignore you and do as they please


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

Emil said:


> This is an *ART* community. If you allow this, youll be admitting that the only real purpose for this sight is pornography.


       Fursuits are art. Or do you want to remove them completely from the site? What about Music, and Poetry, and Writing? This is an *ART* community after all, and Music, Poetry, and Writing have nothing to do with *ART.*


Snickers said:


> People in suits, having sex, showing off their tiny cocks in them. *I like the personal attack against everyone who wears adult suits. Nice. *That is disgusting to suggest, enforcing this, jeeze, no wonder people have issues against furries. *It couldn't be the fact that we are all chasing around naked animals and trying to have sex with them, could it? Or the  Bondage Cub Snuff porn...* If you enforce that rule then whats next? People covered in shit? People having sex with god knows what? You allow 1 thing people are going to suggest another and start to fight for it. *Spread the  hate. You are going from Regular Sex to 2g1c... really; so logical. *The last thing id want is people whoring out their bodies to gather community fame in a fandom about anthropomorphic art. *I'm sorry, I didn't realize the entirety of FurAffinity subscribed to your particular definition of what being "Furry" is. *There is a clear difference in photography in capturing the beauty of art, but when its all about crude fucking sex its not art. *Oops, I'm sorry, I did not realize that the pic of two BabyFurs shitting their diapers while fucking each other was "art", and not jsut two BabyFurs shitting their diapers while fucking each other. *Get your facts straight. Why dont people just fuckin draw a smiley face on their dick knobs while they are at it. *I've seen that on FA already, I believe.*
> 
> Really, the whole adult fursuit section should be removed as photography of any sexual nature is against the rules to my knowledge. Actually, it should be impossible to tag photography and mature/adult ratings together.* Yes, it is against the rules. I am saying that it makes no sense, therefore we should add a variance to the rules.*
> 
> Excuse my language, but this just really angers me.


 Why does this anger you, and not the other shit that is on this site?


Rilvor said:


> No. There's already enough fetish shit on the site.


 Nice reasoning. 


Dragoneer said:


> Enhance your calm, citizen.
> 
> I think this really comes down to more "sexual" suits, those suits that have sheaths and whatnot attached to them. That I could potentially understand, as no real "bits" are showing.
> 
> However, suits that have peeners sticking out of/into them will NOT be accepted, nor am I willing to budge on that aspect. At all. The other aspects I'm willing to consider.


    Hmm, good to know. Can they wear a strap on and eff each other?

    Also, might I ask why you do not want to see humans?



Emil said:


> I am not against the idea of an expansion of the "adult" fursuit category, however, in my personal opinion, if more leniency is granted in this, then the AUP needs to be updated with a somewhat no tolerance approach to the rules of such, as well as enforcement. *I agree with this. *My ideas for such are as follows:
> 
> 1) The rules for "adult" suits need to be expressed in the AUP clearly, concisely, and without room for interpretation or loopholes, and must be presented in such a way that there is no excuse for *I agree with this.*
> 
> ...


 That last bit  seems a bit like overkill, I think if you set the rules the community will alert the mods to any infractions.



net-cat said:


> Adult photos will not be allowed for the simple reason that we do not have the resources to do the verification and record keeping needed to run a porn site. (That and none of us actually want to run a porn site.)
> 
> There is nothing to say you can't post your pictures on a site like Xtube and link to them from a journal or a submission description, though.


 So... As long as a peen isn't shown (on any pics hosted by you) you're OK with it?


Emil said:


> Is that really an allowable course though, since Journals are viewable by any and all people visiting the site, regardless of filters or if they are even a member of this site? Anyone could just come to the site and click on the links in journals, let alone a child who might not even know what a [nsfw] tag next to a link means.


 You can only protect someone soo much. Though I do agree that it should be kept to submissions so you can mark it as adult or mature.


Xipoid said:


> Wouldn't that just fall under "mature"? I always thought mature entitled tasteful/artistic nudity with no explicit sexual content, whereas adult was just good old fashioned sex (or raunchy, kinky sex, whatever have you).


That is what the "Adult" section is used for now. It's "Mature" not "Adult" and it makes no sense.


In closing it seems I need to revise my request.

Can we allow Sexual photographs within the Fursuit Section (as long as human penzor isn't shown) and include links within submissions (that are tagged as adult) to other sites that show everything?


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

> Fursuits are art. Or do you want to remove them completely from the site? What about Music, and Poetry, and Writing? This is an ART community after all, and Music, Poetry, and Writing have nothing to do with ART.



Dont jam words down my throat to suit your own goal. Yes, fursuits *are* art. But so are music, poetry, and writing, something which by your own admission you seem to not believe. Any of which are more legitimate than the porn you were requesting be allowed to this site. I have no problem with fursuits. And I have no problem with "adult" suits being shown. As long as they are being shown as the suit themselves (as an inanimate object, despite its intended purpose, it is naturally devoid of sexuallity) and not the person in the suit acting in a sexual manner. 



> Can we allow Sexual photographs within the Fursuit Section (as long as human penzor isn't shown)



AUP

Photographs:

2)Sexuality â€“ Photographs of a sexual nature are expressly prohibited on Fur Affinity, and will be removed without warning or notification. This applies both to human and animals equally. *This includes images where the actual sexual characteristics may be covered, but the apparent intent of the image is to be of a provocative or sexual nature.*


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

Emil said:


> Dont jam words down my throat to suit your own goal. Yes, fursuits *are* art. But so are music, poetry, and writing, something which by your own admission you seem to not believe. Any of which are more legitimate than the porn you were requesting be allowed to this site. I have no problem with fursuits. And I have no problem with "adult" suits being shown. As long as they are being shown as the suit themselves (as an inanimate object, despite its intended purpose, it is naturally devoid of sexuallity) and not the person in the suit acting in a sexual manner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holy crap you are dumb. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it to you.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Holy crap you are dumb. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it to you.



Nice reasoning. 

I understand you are trying to revise the AUP. But this revision adds absolutely nothing to the art community that this site is supposed to be dedicated too. In reality, adding this in the way you want it, would be an affront to that community. Because as bad as alot of the porn on this site is, and as disgusting some of it may be, at least it was crafted in some artistic manner that other artists can observe and at the very least learn technique.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 12, 2008)

It seems redundant since the AUP says no adult or adult themed fursuit photos yet we have a "Fursuit - Adult" catagory. Contridict much?


----------



## Roland (Nov 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Fursuits are art. Or do you want to remove them completely from the site? What about Music, and Poetry, and Writing? This is an ART community after all, and Music, Poetry, and Writing have nothing to do with ART.   Why does this anger you, and not the other shit that is on this site?



Shouting BS and putting words into large, bold font does not make these things true.  People have taken the time to write poetry, compose music and write and edit prose submissions.  You probably shelled out several hundred dollars and are fighting for the right to proudly defile a suit that you, yourself have not made.  They have no more right to be there than Spore creations.  These submissions you're comparing your argument to take more effort than a naked MySpace photo.  Whether you like to admit it or not, your penis is not art.



> So... As long as a peen isn't shown (on any pics hosted by you) you're OK with it?



That's the gist of it.  -I- personally don't want to see your (or anyone's) penis on this site.



> You can only protect someone soo much.



There are plenty more places to host it than FA.  I don't want to think about the number of people that would be posting inappropriate photos of themselves if this was allowed.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 12, 2008)

Emil said:


> Is that really an allowable course though, since Journals are viewable by any and all people visiting the site, regardless of filters or if they are even a member of this site? Anyone could just come to the site and click on the links in journals, let alone a child who might not even know what a [nsfw] tag next to a link means.


For adults, [nsfw] or similar is enough. If they don't get it the first time, they'll learn. (And NSFW is fairly standard at this point.)

For minors, I don't actually care. We don't host the content so the responsibility doesn't fall on our shoulders. If their parents don't want their kids accessing that content, they are free to install any of a number of commercially available or free content filters.



Xipoid said:


> Wouldn't that just fall under "mature"? I always thought mature entitled tasteful/artistic nudity with no explicit sexual content, whereas adult was just good old fashioned sex (or raunchy, kinky sex, whatever have you).


Technically, yes. But the line between "art" and "porn" is ill-defined and it's much easier to just say no to all of it.



Quiet269 said:


> Hmm, good to know. Can they wear a strap on and eff each other?


I'm going with "no" on that one.



Quiet269 said:


> Also, might I ask why you do not want to see humans?


Because once it involves real people, it's governed by a whole new set of laws we don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.



Quiet269 said:


> So... As long as a peen isn't shown (on any pics hosted by you) you're OK with it?


I believe the rules say no nudity at all. This is largely an ass-covering move.



Quiet269 said:


> Can we allow Sexual photographs within the Fursuit Section (as long as human penzor isn't shown) and include links within submissions (that are tagged as adult) to other sites that show everything?


I'll defer to an actual admin on that one...


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

mrchris said:


> It seems redundant since the AUP says no adult or adult themed fursuit photos yet we have a "Fursuit - Adult" catagory. Contridict much?


My thoughts exactly 


Roland said:


> Shouting BS and putting words into large, bold font does not make these things true. People have taken the time to write poetry, compose music and write and edit prose submissions. You probably shelled out several hundred dollars and are fighting for the right to proudly defile a suit that you, yourself have not made. They have no more right to be there than Spore creations. These submissions you're comparing your argument to take more effort than a naked MySpace photo. Whether you like to admit it or not, your penis is not art.
> *I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny. As for you second comment, why not just remove ALL commissioned work unless the original artist posts it? Why not remove all fursuits unless you built it? *
> 
> That's the gist of it.  -I- personally don't want to see your (or anyone's) penis on this site.
> ...


 Not too many actually. I mean when you think about it maybe 10% of the furries are suiters, then what % of that are adult suiters, then what % of that would post pics of themselves?





net-cat said:


> Because once it involves real people, it's governed by a whole new set of laws we don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.
> *I did not know this. I can understand your reluctance then.*
> 
> I believe the rules say no nudity at all. This is largely an ass-covering move. *Right, I guess I should have been clearer.*
> ...


Thanks 
I mean if suggestive stuff is allowed (no bits showing) with links to the "Real" stuff, then that would satisfy my request.

But as the rules stand now, if it has a sheath it seems people are afraid their stuff is going to get deleted because the whole situation is quite confusing.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> But as the rules stand now, if it has a sheath it seems people are afraid their stuff is going to get deleted because the whole situation is quite confusing.



So basically, youre saying you want to waste the resources of this site, posting things this site isnt meant for, so you can post links to outsides sources of pornography?



> I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny.



Please point out how my comment was funny, given how this *is* an art site, and not a porn site. And if you say anything about fursuits (which are art) being art, you dont want to post fursuits, you want to post fursuit porn (which isnt art)


----------



## Roland (Nov 12, 2008)

> I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny.



Claiming sarcasm seems to be a bad excuse for a cop-out these days when one doesn't want to admit how daft they're really being.  This is the Internet.  If you don't make it glaringly obvious that you're not being serious, people are not going to realize you're joking.  

Why don't you just host pictures and videos of your fursuit on XTube or something and post the link in your journal/profile? Posting fursuit (porn) pictures is just like posting commisions.  It's really only done because the person wants attention.  The fact that you want to post sexual fursuits and then links to your fursuit partaking in sexual acts implies that the only reason you want this rule passed is because you just want attention.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

Emil said:


> So basically, youre saying you want to waste the resources of this site, posting things this site isnt meant for, so you can post links to outsides sources of pornography?
> *Nice jump in logic, buddy. If the site was not meant for such things, why is there a category created specifically for that purpose? Up until the change in the AUP in regards to Photography I can only assume that section was used for what I am requesting.*
> 
> Please point out how my comment was funny, given how this *is* an art site, and not a porn site. And if you say anything about fursuits (which are art) being art, you dont want to post fursuits, you want to post fursuit porn (which isnt art)


 The fact that you felt it necessary to use Bold over sized text was humorous. 

Maybe we just have different senses of humor.



Roland said:


> Claiming sarcasm seems to be a bad excuse for a cop-out these days when one doesn't want to admit how daft they're really being. This is the Internet. If you don't make it glaringly obvious that you're not being serious, people are not going to realize you're joking.
> 
> *Sorry, I figured the overuse of the "ART" made it obvious I was not being serious in my comment. *
> 
> Why don't you just host pictures and videos of your fursuit on XTube or something and post the link in your journal/profile? Posting fursuit (porn) pictures is just like posting commisions. It's really only done because the person wants attention. The fact that you want to post sexual fursuits and then links to your fursuit partaking in sexual acts implies that the only reason you want this rule passed is because you just want attention.


Until just recently it was unknown that someone could do such things. It would seem from my interpretation of the AUP that such links were not allowed. Also, I do not have a Fursuit. So no I am not doing this because I want to post pictures of myself getting effed in suit. If you read my recent post you would realize that I altered my request to see if links to outside sources would be OK, along with Suggestive Adult work in fursuits.


----------



## Roland (Nov 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> The fact that you felt it necessary to use Bold over sized text was humorous.
> 
> Maybe we just have different senses of humor.



Probably. 



> Until just recently it was unknown that someone could do such things. It would seem from my interpretation of the AUP that such links were not allowed. Also, I do not have a Fursuit. So no I am not doing this because I want to post pictures of myself getting effed in suit. If you read my recent post you would realize that I altered my request to see if links to outside sources would be OK, along with Suggestive Adult work in fursuits.



I'm in agreement with fursuits with the fake sheath things, because that pretty much falls under the category of fictional porn.  Though I'm curious as to what your motives are if you don't even have a fursuit as to which this argument applies?


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> The fact that you felt it necessary to use Bold over sized text was humorous.
> 
> Maybe we just have different senses of humor.



Why, because I felt I needed to reiterate the point to you in a completely clear way that this site is about art, and not porn? Im sorry that I feel the need to vocally defend the idea that this community should be about what it was founded for more than it should be about anything else.



> Nice jump in logic, buddy. If the site was not meant for such things, why is there a category created specifically for that purpose? Up until the change in the AUP in regards to Photography I can only assume that section was used for what I am requesting.



Because there are other ways to showcase "adult" fursuits without making porn of them, which is something you dont seem to understand. Also, Im unaware the AUP has ever been changed regarding photography. But Im sure an administrator could clear that up.



> Until just recently it was unknown that someone could do such things. It would seem from my interpretation of the AUP that such links were not allowed.



It has always been allowed. You saying you didnt know is no excuse. There is nothing in the rules governing the use of links in submissions or the journal. It is already standard practice to post links to things outside of what may be uploaded to FA in the form of a journal link. This is a course often suggested by moderation and the administrative staff themselves.



> Also, I do not have a Fursuit. So no I am not doing this because I want to post pictures of myself getting effed in suit. If you read my recent post you would realize that I altered my request to see if links to outside sources would be OK, along with Suggestive Adult work in fursuits.



No, but you do seem to have an interest in using this site to obtain free human fursuit porn. This site is for posting art. It is about free art for the masses, not free pornography for the masses. This idea is only reinforced by how I already gave suggestions that would allow for the showing of "adult" suits on this site as submissions and as art, and your refusal to accept them, instead wanting use of dildos and sexual situations.

Also, the use of FA resources you are proposing, for the express purpose of providing links to outside sources of pornography that would otherwise violate FA rules,  could very well be considered a violation of part 3 of Spamming section of the FA AUP

Also, using animal dildos violates "By you" "For you" in the FA AUP. Unless you either made the dildo yourself, or the dildo was hand crafted for you specifically, and not manufactured and sold to other people as well, it is a violation. Precedent supports this.


----------



## Rilvor (Nov 12, 2008)

Did this complete moron just say Music and writing aren't an art form?


WOW.

Just wow.


Please stand still so we can all get in a line and slap the shit out of you until the stupid that's clogging your brain canals is flushed out. You * deserve * the image in my signature.

On a side note, if you people start allowing costumes with penises attached to them, I really hope you get your legal just desserts for lack of foresight.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

Roland said:


> Though I'm curious as to what your motives are if you don't even have a fursuit as to which this argument applies?


 My motives are clarification, the site in regards to such things is quite confusing. There is an Adult Category and it doesn't allow it's own artwork.


Emil said:


> Why, because I felt I needed to reiterate the point to you in a completely clear way that this site is about art, and not porn? Im sorry that I feel the need to vocally defend the idea that this community should be about what it was founded for more than it should be about anything else. *Ok, whatever. I thought you were funny when you were being serious, drama drama drama.*
> 
> It has always been allowed. You saying you didnt know is no excuse. There is nothing in the rules governing the use of links in submissions or the journal. It is already standard practice to post links to things outside of what may be uploaded to FA in the form of a journal link. This is a course often suggested by moderation and the administrative staff themselves.
> *Are you attempting to chastise me because I did not know about a unwritten exception to the rule? I mean when it says "NO!" I do not think "NO! Except if it is a link".*
> ...


 *Wait, how much does this "By you" "For you" AUP cover? What if I post a picture of myself in a suit and there is a garbage can next to me, do I have to digitally remove it? What if I am sitting on a bull, or playing Mini-Golf? Do those things have to be removed as well?

*


Rilvor said:


> Did this complete moron just say Music and writing aren't an art form?


Sarcasm, my friend, Sarcasm.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

> Can we allow Sexual photographs within the Fursuit Section (as long as human penzor isn't shown) and include links within submissions (that are tagged as adult) to other sites that show everything?





> Umm, what? I only made that suggestion as I am trying to figure out what Dragoneers thinking/reasoning/logic is. If he had allowed Dildo's but not Human Peen, then I would know that he simply doesn't like human nudity. Because he doesn't want either I know that he doesn't want sex if it involves humans. There is a difference, and it affects how my next question will be asked. If you cannot see that it is not my fault. I DID accept the use of outside links, I am ASKING for clarification on this unwritten rule, and you keep BITCHING at me for no good reason.



Nice try at backpedaling. But the statement above this clearly shows you were asking for a change of the rules in light of Dragoneers statement he would not allow human wang, not clarification. Also, the title of this thread seems to suggest otherwise as well.



> Are you attempting to chastise me because I did not know about a unwritten exception to the rule? I mean when it says "NO!" I do not think "NO! Except if it is a link".



Yes I am. Pay attention to your surroundings. And the place that says "NO!" also only says no in regards to submissions. A link is not a submission. Nor should a submission be created to justify a link to an outside source



> Holy hypocracy batman, didn't you JUST TELL ME that doing THIS VERY THING was OK? Wait, let me check:
> It has always been allowed. You saying you didnt know is no excuse. Yup, whoa. That's kind of weird isn't it?



No, because I am speaking of the use of links in journals, not the use of a whole submission that takes up more space than a few lines of text in a journal, which is what you are advocating.




Quiet269 said:


> My motives are clarification, the site in regards to such things is quite confusing. There is an Adult Category and it doesn't allow it's own artwork.
> *Wait, how much does this "By you" "For you" AUP cover? What if I post a picture of myself in a suit and there is a garbage can next to me, do I have to digitally remove it? What if I am sitting on a bull, or playing Mini-Golf? Do those things have to be removed as well?*


*

It covers the subject of the submission, which the dildos are clearly part of, since you feel the need to use them to justify an adult sumbission.*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2008)

mrchris said:


> It seems redundant since the AUP says no adult or adult themed fursuit photos yet we have a "Fursuit - Adult" catagory. Contridict much?



Legacy Code before the photography laws went into effect.


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Legacy Code before the photography laws went into effect.



Ah, so the AUP was changed. I wasnt aware of that. When was the change made?


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

Emil said:


> Nice try at backpedaling. But the statement above this clearly shows you were asking for a change of the rules in light of Dragoneers statement he would not allow human wang, not clarification. Also, the title of this thread seems to suggest otherwise as well.
> *Look, I don't care what you think I said. You obviously are not following my train of thought and as such have come to a conclusion by forcing your own thoughts onto another. I am telling you what I said, if you disagree with that then hold your tongue.*
> 
> Yes I am. Pay attention to your surroundings. And the place that says "NO!" also only says no in regards to submissions. A link is not a submission. Nor should a submission be created to justify a link to an outside source
> ...


 



Arshes Nei said:


> Legacy Code before the photography laws went into effect.


Maybe something like that should be fixed when a change is made...


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

> Look, I don't care what you think I said. You obviously are not following my train of thought and as such have come to a conclusion by forcing your own thoughts onto another. I am telling you what I said, if you disagree with that then hold your tongue.



If that was your train of thought, which I think the statements you have posted seem to suggest otherwise, I wasnt the only one here that came to the conclusion that I did about what you were saying. So maybe you need to practice being more clear.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 12, 2008)

Emil said:


> Ah, so the AUP was changed. I wasnt aware of that. When was the change made?


The AUP hasn't officially changed since it went up. November will see a new AUP posted, possibly as soon as next week.

Now, as a note... and this is not directed at you, Emil, but if people would calmly state their reasons I will be willing to listen and consider them, but I'd like to see pros/cons. Bickering will not sway my opinion, not will endlessly bolding issues, getting huffy.

Peepees will not be allowed images. If you'd like to sway our opinion of having "anatomically correct suits" be a viable topic, let us know why. Wangs, starfish and milkbags (professional terminology at its best) can not, will not be permitted due to legal reasons that I am not going to go into for the Nth time. However, as far as "sheathed suits" I'd be willing to consider reversing our stance if you can provide a solid reason as to why.

If people can not discuss it in a civil manner without turning things personal the thread will be locked and we'll all move on our merry way, status quo.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Peepees will not be allowed images. If you'd like to sway our opinion of having "anatomically correct suits" be a viable topic, let us know why. Wangs, starfish and milkbags (professional terminology at its best) can not, will not be permitted due to legal reasons that I am not going to go into for the Nth time. However, as far as "sheathed suits" I'd be willing to consider reversing our stance if you can provide a solid reason as to why.



Dragoneer, I'm a little in the dark here, as I thought "Sheathed Suits" were allowed unless they were sexually suggestive. If that is not the case then I will need to revise my reasoning.

Can you please clarify as to what actually is currently allowed within that section, as it could simply be that I am thinking something is / isn't allowed when it really isn't / is allowed.

Thank-you


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Dragoneer, I'm a little in the dark here, as I thought "Sheathed Suits" were allowed unless they were sexually suggestive. If that is not the case then I will need to revise my reasoning.
> 
> Can you please clarify as to what actually is currently allowed within that section, as it could simply be that I am thinking something is / isn't allowed when it really isn't / is allowed.
> 
> Thank-you


Fursuit Adult is more of a legacy category. The category systems in FA could do with a major revision. "Sheathed" suits were originally permitted, but we kept running into issues with people posting... images... that were far, far more risque than were intended. 

Right now Fursuit Adult is something of a misnomer. The categories need to be revised, but it would take a lot more work in the current system to revamp all of them than time/resources permit.


----------



## Ratte (Nov 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Fursuits are art. Or do you want to remove them completely from the site? What about Music, and Poetry, and Writing? This is an *ART* community after all, and Music, Poetry, and Writing have nothing to do with *ART.*



Music, poetry, and writing are considered forms of art, so yes, it does have something to do with it and it would have reason to be here.

Ever notice that on WMP it says "artist" when you play a tune?


----------



## x_panther (Nov 12, 2008)

i know im getting into the game way late but i have been trying to read up as much as possible and i feel i have sort of come to a consinsis about what the overall argument. i had asked a simple question to dragoneer earlier through furnet and it led me to reading as much on this threat as posible... i have a feeling i know the true intent of the AUP revision is. it has led me to write an 'intent' REALIZE THAT THIS IS JUST THE ARGUMENT IM HEARING this is not and am i in no way setting policy before reading this. http://pantherpouch.com/reference/prop_aup_fa.html 

if you have a problem with what i have wrote, respond with dignaty. i dont want to be part of a shout fest just part of a community where we can communicat without having to resort to verbal or textual insults


----------



## Emil (Nov 12, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> The AUP hasn't officially changed since it went up. November will see a new AUP posted, possibly as soon as next week.
> 
> Now, as a note... and this is not directed at you, Emil, but if people would calmly state their reasons I will be willing to listen and consider them, but I'd like to see pros/cons. Bickering will not sway my opinion, not will endlessly bolding issues, getting huffy.
> 
> ...



Ive never considered things in this thread personal. In fact, I actually support that sheathed suits should be permitted same as any other fursuit. In my previous post (post 12 in this thread) however, I feel that I spelled out what is (at least imo) the proper, and most dignified way that they can be represented on Furaffinity. And that is in a way that does not allow to be used in a sexual way in the submission itself. An adult fursuit is perfectly capable of being displayed without a wearer. It is my opinion that the nature of an "adult" fursuit makes it essentially a sex toy. While the owner is wearing it uncensored, it is performing its intended function. It then cannot be anything but sexual in meaning.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 12, 2008)

x_panther said:


> i know im getting into the game way late but i have been trying to read up as much as possible and i feel i have sort of come to a consinsis about what the overall argument. i had asked a simple question to dragoneer earlier through furnet and it led me to reading as much on this threat as posible... i have a feeling i know the true intent of the AUP revision is. it has led me to write an 'intent' REALIZE THAT THIS IS JUST THE ARGUMENT IM HEARING this is not and am i in no way setting policy before reading this. http://pantherpouch.com/reference/prop_aup_fa.html
> 
> if you have a problem with what i have wrote, respond with dignaty. i dont want to be part of a shout fest just part of a community where we can communicat without having to resort to verbal or textual insults


might need a spell check  but I can agree with what is stated in that link, assuming that off-site links are OK to post


----------



## Eevee (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Fursuits are art.


this is just me but you know

creating a fursuit: art
putting on a fursuit someone else made and waving your tiny dick around in front of a $7 webcam: not art



Quiet269 said:


> I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny. As for you second comment, why not just remove ALL commissioned work unless the original artist posts it? Why not remove all fursuits unless you built it?


HRARGH DON'T REPLY INSIDE QUOTES, VB DELETES EVERYTHING YOU WROTE WHEN I TRY TO REPLY

but uh yeah I have been arguing for this for a while



x_panther said:


> http://pantherpouch.com/reference/prop_aup_fa.html


why does everyone think the solution to every problem is to add another six paragraphs of pseudo-legalese to the AUP and make it twice as hard to read?


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 13, 2008)

Eevee said:


> why does everyone think the solution to every problem is to add another six paragraphs of pseudo-legalese to the AUP and make it twice as hard to read?



I would suggest hiring an actual lawyer, but then it would probably be entirely unreadable, which wouldn't really help come to think of it.



Since there will be a new AUP uploaded in the near future and its creation seemingly remains independent, it would make sense to just hold off on this until the AUP updated at which point one could submit a nice little, clear-cut petition.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Eevee said:


> this is just me but you know
> creating a fursuit: art
> putting on a fursuit someone else made and waving your tiny dick around in front of a $7 webcam: not art
> *Art is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Are all of those photographs of people in various poses Art? To a lot of people it is. I do like how the admins just slap insults on the entire fursuiting populous so nonchalantly.  *
> ...


 You could easily condense it, but a little more clarification would be nice.


----------



## Roland (Nov 13, 2008)

I'm not going to quote your posts because it would appear you don't know how to properly reply to a post, but here goes.  

Fursuits fall under the same category as SL screenshots.  They take no talent and their use is abused.  Thank God people are only allowed three per prim, but a lot of the times that is still too much.  The only time I will gladly accept an SL screenshot is when someone has made the product themselves.  

Your typical MySpace photo (taken in the mirror/at arm's length) is not art.  It's a horrible cry for attention most times.  FA userpages really need a space that a person can upload -one- personal photo and be done with it.  Now, in one case, a friend of mine was using an account to upload pictures of herself as references for other people to use so that they could look them up and use them at their will.  Although the purpose was to further the evolution of art for some people, perhaps the pictures were not classified enough as art and the submissions were quickly removed for being the same person. 

Building a fursuit, constructing something in SL takes *time and skill*.  A lot more time and skill than it does to hold your camera as far away from your face as you can and take a picture of yourself in a fursuit because you're too ashamed to show your actual face. It is not your right to post someone else's work for your own personal gain. 



> I do like how the admins just slap insults on the entire fursuiting populous so nonchalantly.


Oh yeah, this.  Eevee is not an admin.

Perhaps he should colour the bold text in bright purple and make them about six times bigger?


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

> Art is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.


And yet, the vast majority of people dont find what you are proposing to be art.



> Are all of those photographs of people in various poses Art? To a lot of people it is.



Nobody is arguing pose photography (ie modeling) is art. Theyre just arguing that cheap porn isnt art. 



> HRARGH use a better board system and I wont.



Id like to point out that you are the first person I have ever seen on these boards to put your reply in the quote, and it is highly annoying to read, and frustrating to reply to.



> I do like how the admins just slap insults on the entire fursuiting populous so nonchalantly.



I do like how you assume how the entire fursuiting population (which you have claimed to not be a part of) likes to have sex in their suits, and have a desire to show the entire community that they do it. My understanding is that fursuit sex is still rather looked down on in the fursuiting community, and most fursuits are not adult in nature.


----------



## Shadow-da-wolf (Nov 13, 2008)

I honestly think fursuiters should be able to post just about what every they want, one stipulation for sure is that it should not look like another suiter is is yiffin' another or that real private parts. I'd like to make sure that I know I can post fursuit photos of mine here on FA. I mean on DeviantArt they have a nude art section which if way far out of our standards that which would get off FA in a heart beat! What I've seen from a majority of us fursuiters posting, even that was in the adult section is considered super light compared to DA's nude section. So I honestly think that there needs to be some sort of change in standards on what is not acceptable.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Shadow-da-wolf said:


> I mean on DeviantArt they have a nude art section which if way far out of our standards that which would get off FA in a heart beat! What I've seen from a majority of us fursuiters posting, even that was in the adult section is considered super light compared to DA's nude section. So I honestly think that there needs to be some sort of change in standards on what is not acceptable.



Nudes are not adult in nature, and I believe that DA doesnt allow any adult art at all on its site. One is incapable of being nude while wearing a fursuit, and an "adult" fursuit has no other purpose when being worn than to be adult in nature. I do think that adult suits should be allowed to be shown, I basically just think that people shouldnt be allowed to *wear* them in an uncensored fashion while showing them off in a photograph. =P If they were taking a picture of the suit, uncensored, while it is not being worn, and post that, then Im perfectly ok with that.


----------



## Roland (Nov 13, 2008)

Shadow-da-wolf said:


> I honestly think fursuiters should be able to post just about what every they want, one stipulation for sure is that it should not look like another suiter is is yiffin' another or that real private parts. I'd like to make sure that I know I can post fursuit photos of mine here on FA. I mean on DeviantArt they have a nude art section which if way far out of our standards that which would get off FA in a heart beat! What I've seen from a majority of us fursuiters posting, even that was in the adult section is considered super light compared to DA's nude section. So I honestly think that there needs to be some sort of change in standards on what is not acceptable.



Please take grade school English and try again.  I cannot fully comprehend what point you are trying to get across here.  

Also, I don't use DA so I have no idea what you're talking about.  I assume by nude art section you're referring to actual, nude people? If you've checked the posts in this thread, you should know by now there are legalities to such a thing and will not likely every be allowed.


----------



## Imperial Lion (Nov 13, 2008)

As a fursuiter I do not think pictures of sexual situations where things are shown whould be allowed. I do feel slighty insulted by some of the commentsthat Fursuiting is not an art. Unless you've done it you wouldn't know, it takes allot of time and energy to build and bring your charater to life. I think it would be nice to be able to show my suit in its entirety but I am fine with not as well I've had allot of fun doing with out thus far. If it is allowed it's just an extra peice of ART I can throw into my gallery from time to time, I do think its bull crap though that suit makers Like Noble have had pics taken down becuase it shows a sheath and are not able to show there work off after spending so much time building the suit.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Imperial Lion said:


> I do feel slighty insulted by some of the commentsthat Fursuiting is not an art.



I dont recall anyone saying that at all in this thread.


----------



## Roland (Nov 13, 2008)

Imperial Lion said:


> it takes allot of time and energy to build and bring your charater to life.



I assume you're talking about actually going out and showing off your fursuit (that you yourself have not made) and spending time and effort by acting out your character that way?  

In a sense I agree, but I would classify something like that under 'acting' and is still different from the topic at hand.  Anyone can dress up as Captain Jack Sparrow, but it takes real talent to do the getup justice.  The same applies to fursuiting.  

Also, I've seen many pictures of fursuiters, one in particular that takes a million half-arsed pictures and adds captions to them and the experience has left a bad aftertaste in my mouth.  Just like a personal profile picture, you only need one to showcase the suit.  After that, it's up to you to go to cons and do the rest yourself.


----------



## Imperial Lion (Nov 13, 2008)

Roland said:


> I assume you're talking about actually going out and showing off your fursuit (that you yourself have not made) and spending time and effort by acting out your character that way?
> 
> *Not only that but there is the time and costuming the fursuit as well and it's not easy being in suit lest it's 50 or below *
> 
> ...


 
and Emil you never said that but others have and I agree with you that sex stuff should not be allowed, but I do think that suits should be allowed to be shown in their entirety if you get what I'm saying


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Imperial Lion said:


> and Emil you never said that but others have and I agree with you that sex stuff should not be allowed, but I do think that suits should be allowed to be shown in their entirety if you get what I'm saying



I get what you are saying, and I believe that they should be allowed to be shown in their entirety too. But Im not sure you are understanding what I am saying.

What Im saying is that an adult fursuit is a sex toy. If the purpose of the suit was just to fursuit, then it would have no need for adult bits. I believe that while the adult suit is being worn (again, uncensored) it is fulfilling its intened purpose as a sex toy, and therefore cannot be anything but sexual in context. 

However, I believe that as an object, it is naturaly devoid of sexuality when not being used for its intended purpose by people. Therefore, I believe that adult suits should be allowed to be shown, in their entirety, as long as they are not being worn.


----------



## Imperial Lion (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I get what you are saying, and I believe that they should be allowed to be shown in their entirety too. But Im not sure you are understanding what I am saying.
> 
> What Im saying is that an adult fursuit is a sex toy. If the purpose of the suit was just to fursuit, then it would have no need for adult bits. I believe that while the adult suit is being worn (again, uncensored) it is fulfilling its intened purpose as a sex toy, and therefore cannot be anything but sexual in context.
> 
> However, I believe that as an object, it is natural devoid of sexuality when not being used for its intended purpose by people. Therefore, I believe that adult suits should be allowed to be shown, in their entirety, as long as they are not being worn.


 

I can see where your coming from, but I will say to not let people ware them to "show off" the suit is kinda dumb becuase and this may surprise you but actually most of us who have the adult suits very seldom use them for that purpose, its just there if we want it, that's how most of us veiw it and having them makes it SO much easier to use the restroom. lmao, don't have to completely desuit to take a leak XD


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Roland said:


> I'm not going to quote your posts because it would appear you don't know how to properly reply to a post, but here goes.


 fine, I'll deal with this backassward board system and make it easier for you to read.





Roland said:


> Fursuits fall under the same category as SL screenshots.  They take no talent and their use is abused.  Thank God people are only allowed three per prim, but a lot of the times that is still too much.  The only time I will gladly accept an SL screenshot is when someone has made the product themselves.


 So it seems that your real qualm here is that Fursuiters post too many pictures of themselves? 





Roland said:


> Your typical MySpace photo (taken in the mirror/at arm's length) is not art.  It's a horrible cry for attention most times.  FA userpages really need a space that a person can upload -one- personal photo and be done with it.  Now, in one case, a friend of mine was using an account to upload pictures of herself as references for other people to use so that they could look them up and use them at their will.  Although the purpose was to further the evolution of art for some people, perhaps the pictures were not classified enough as art and the submissions were quickly removed for being the same person.


  It seems like you are generalizing quite a bit. Maybe it's just me, but most of the photographs of Fursuits that I see are out at a con, or posing with props or something of that nature. Yes there are the "MySpace" photos, but I do not think that is the majority.





Roland said:


> Building a fursuit, constructing something in SL takes *time and skill*.  A lot more time and skill than it does to hold your camera as far away from your face as you can and take a picture of yourself in a fursuit because you're too ashamed to show your actual face. It is not your right to post someone else's work for your own personal gain.


 Nice insult. You really need to stop doing that, it doesn't help your cause any, and just makes you look like a school yard bully who wants attention. Maybe if you could manage to post without insulting someone at ever turn people would be a little less defensive/abrasive when talking to you?





Roland said:


> Oh yeah, this.  Eevee is not an admin.


 My bad, you're right; he is just the Ferox Programmer. I guess I should have been more specific with my statement. I find it rather unprofessional for anyone who is working on staff for an organization to nonchalantly toss out insults against an entire group of people.





Roland said:


> Perhaps he should colour the bold text in bright purple and make them about six times bigger?


 Funny.


Emil said:


> And yet, the vast majority of people dont find what you are proposing to be art.
> 
> Nobody is arguing pose photography (ie modeling) is art. Theyre just arguing that cheap porn isnt art.


You do realize I have changed my request and my stance within this thread; don't you?





Emil said:


> Id like to point out that you are the first person I have ever seen on these boards to put your reply in the quote, and it is highly annoying to read, and frustrating to reply to.


This better? 





Emil said:


> I do like how you assume how the entire fursuiting population (which you have claimed to not be a part of) likes to have sex in their suits, and have a desire to show the entire community that they do it. My understanding is that fursuit sex is still rather looked down on in the fursuiting community, and most fursuits are not adult in nature.


 Jesus Christ, do I have to be Extremely specific with everything I say?



Emil said:


> Imperial Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I do feel slighty insulted by some of the commentsthat Fursuiting is not an art.
> ...





Roland said:


> Fursuits fall under the same category as SL screenshots. They take no talent and their use is abused. Thank God people are only allowed three per prim, but a lot of the times that is still too much. The only time I will gladly accept an SL screenshot is when someone has made the product themselves.
> 
> Your typical MySpace photo (taken in the mirror/at arm's length) is not art. It's a horrible cry for attention most times. FA userpages really need a space that a person can upload -one- personal photo and be done with it.



Let me rephrase it (Note this is to multiple people, not specifically to you):
I am rather disappointed in the fact that someone who both volunteers for, and is an active member within, the FurAffinity Forums, and FurAffinity Art site would nonchalantly insult a group of people that they apparently know very little about. It is true that the Adult Fursuiting Community (that would show off) is quite small, to put a number to it it would be a Fraction of the Population that are adult Fursuiters, which in itself is a fraction of the population that are Fursuiters, which in itself is just a small (maybe 10% based upon Anthrocon numbers) of the entirety of the Furry Fandom, which in itself is just a fraction of the world population. Even though it is a small number of people I do not believe it is right, or fair to insult the entirety of them without cause or provocation. The fact that I am defending them against a rather rabid group of individuals who are, for some unfathomable reason, attacking said group en mass is a rather uninspiring look upon the Furry Fandom, and those within it. Don't we have enough hate directed at us from those who are not part of the fandom? Those who do not understand it? Those who misunderstand it? Why must we have such bickering within our own ranks? Why do you guys feel the need to insult an admittedly small section within the Fandom for no apparent reason? Are you really disgusted or insulted that much by people who like to post images of themselves in Fursuits? Does the thought that they spent thousands of dollars on a costume, countless hours perfecting their Persona, training how to do simple tasks in suit, and learning what one can and cannot do within suit enough to say what they are doing is art? Please note that I am not talking about the sex in this, the reason being is that the argument has shifted, we are no longer talking about some sex in fursuit, you guys have insulted the entire fursuiting populous by saying what they are doing is not art, that their time and effort spent perfecting their talents, and learning their character is something anyone can do, you are saying the thousands of dollars they spent to commission a suit, or the countless hours they spent to build a suit are all for naught as once the suit is completed it is no longer an art form, that it is no longer self expression, that it is no longer something that can be admired or looked upon.

You disgust me, and unless you can come up with a reasonable argument I will discontinue the bickering as I do not have to prove anything to you, the only person I really have to respond to in this thread is Dragoneer, as he is the man holding the reins to this site, and he is the one who can make the decision in regards to where it goes.

I hope you are happy with yourself.

To those of you who have provided helpful, and insightful answers to my questions, and my requests I thank-you. I have learned quite a bit from this thread, and it has taught me why things are the way they are right now. I now know what I can and cannot request of Dragoneer, and when I have a little more time to write it all out I will do so. I believe we can come to a happy meeting point on this issue, and I look forward to his answers.


----------



## Imperial Lion (Nov 13, 2008)

thank you


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> You disgust me, and unless you can come up with a reasonable argument I will discontinue the bickering as I do not have to prove anything to you, the only person I really have to respond to in this thread is Dragoneer, as he is the man holding the reins to this site, and he is the one who can make the decision in regards to where it goes.



That's actually incorrect since he also has to talk with staff on making decisions. While he may be the primary financier and owner of the site, the reason to have staff is to make sure he doesn't make poor decisions.

So staff would appreciate you not treat Dragoneer as your daddy and the only "parent" you have to answer to.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Imperial Lion said:


> I can see where your coming from, but I will say to not let people ware them to "show off" the suit is kinda dumb becuase and this may surprise you but actually most of us who have the adult suits very seldom use them for that purpose, its just there if we want it, that's how most of us veiw it and having them makes it SO much easier to use the restroom. lmao, don't have to completely desuit to take a leak XD



But I bet you dont walk down the street, or walk around at a convention with that part exposed? Im willing to bet the only time that part goes exposed is when it is being used, or when you are alone. That being said, the adult part of the suit is useless, and its just a normal suit. But when it is not covered in some way, then it is serving its purpose and is only sexual.



> and having them makes it SO much easier to use the restroom. lmao, don't have to completely desuit to take a leak XD



I dont really see this as a valid argument at all. Put a zipper in the suit. Its easy enough to hide, and serves the same purpose, most likely better.



			
				quiet said:
			
		

> You do realize I have changed my request and my stance within this thread; don't you?



Your request has changed very little. Its gone from showing people in compromising situations with real wang, to showing people in compromising situations with strap ons, doing the same thing they otherwise would be doing with their real genitialia, while at the same time using the resources of this site to provide links to an outside source that does show the real genetalia. Its hardly a big change. 



> I am rather disappointed in the fact that someone who both volunteers for, and is an active member within, the FurAffinity Forums, and FurAffinity Art site would nonchalantly insult a group of people that they apparently know very little about. It is true that the Adult Fursuiting Community (that would show off) is quite small, to put a number to it it would be a Fraction of the Population that are adult Fursuiters, which in itself is a fraction of the population that are Fursuiters, which in itself is just a small (maybe 10% based upon Anthrocon numbers) of the entirety of the Furry Fandom, which in itself is just a fraction of the world population. Even though it is a small number of people I do not believe it is right, or fair to insult the entirety of them without cause or provocation. The fact that I am defending them against a rather rabid group of individuals who are, for some unfathomable reason, attacking said group en mass is a rather uninspiring look upon the Furry Fandom, and those within it. Don't we have enough hate directed at us from those who are not part of the fandom? Those who do not understand it? Those who misunderstand it? Why must we have such bickering within our own ranks? Why do you guys feel the need to insult an admittedly small section within the Fandom for no apparent reason? Are you really disgusted or insulted that much by people who like to post images of themselves in Fursuits? Does the thought that they spent thousands of dollars on a costume, countless hours perfecting their Persona, training how to do simple tasks in suit, and learning what one can and cannot do within suit enough to say what they are doing is art? Please note that I am not talking about the sex in this, the reason being is that the argument has shifted, we are no longer talking about some sex in fursuit, you guys have insulted the entire fursuiting populous by saying what they are doing is not art, that their time and effort spent perfecting their talents, and learning their character is something anyone can do, you are saying the thousands of dollars they spent to commission a suit, or the countless hours they spent to build a suit are all for naught as once the suit is completed it is no longer an art form, that it is no longer self expression, that it is no longer something that can be admired or looked upon.



Both Roland and Eevee were not referring to fursuiters as lacking talent. They were refering to pictures of fursuiters in adult situations and posting them as lacking talent. You completely misunderstood what they were saying. 



> we are no longer talking about some sex in fursuit, you guys have insulted the entire fursuiting populous by saying what they are doing is not art



Sex in fursuit is not art, nor is it even acting, regardless of whether you are using a strap on or not. And once again, you completely misunderstood what Eevee and Roland were saying. And I myself have never said anything against fursuiting. You are imagining this insult.

If you want a real insult, arguing that images of fursuiters in compromising situations should be allowed next to submissions that actually took work to create is an insult. Its an insult to the whole artistic community and therefore Furaffinity itself.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> That's actually incorrect since he also has to talk with staff on making decisions. While he may be the primary financier and owner of the site, the reason to have staff is to make sure he doesn't make poor decisions.
> 
> So staff would appreciate you not treat Dragoneer as your daddy and the only "parent" you have to answer to.








 My apologies, I forgot that anyone from staff had replied to this thread.


Emil said:


> But I bet you dont walk down the street, or walk around at a convention with that part exposed? Im willing to bet the only time that part goes exposed is when it is being used, or when you are alone. That being said, the adult part of the suit is useless, and its just a normal suit. But when it is not covered in some way, then it is serving its purpose and is only sexual.
> I dont really see this as a valid argument at all. Put a zipper in the suit. Its easy enough to hide, and serves the same purpose, most likely better.


 There are also people out there who like correct anatomy. Or do you think that all art on this site should be like the Lion King; with fur tuffs and missing bits?





Emil said:


> Your request has changed very little. Its gone from showing people in compromising situations with real wang, to showing people in compromising situations with strap ons, doing the same thing they otherwise would be doing with their real genitialia, while at the same time using the resources of this site to provide links to an outside source that does show the real genetalia. Its hardly a big change.


 Actually my current request is to have images with sheaths allowed, and the ability to link to off-site sources that may include nudity or adult situations. 





Emil said:


> Both Roland and Eevee were not referring to fursuiters as lacking talent. They were refering to pictures of fursuiters in adult situations and posting them as lacking talent. You completely misunderstood what they were saying.


  I disagree with your assumption of their meaning. Though I do admit that I may also be incorrect. 





Emil said:


> Sex in fursuit is not art, nor is it even acting, regardless of whether you are using a strap on or not. And once again, you completely misunderstood what Eevee and Roland were saying. And I myself have never said anything against fursuiting. You are imagining this insult.


 Yeah, you did. 





Emil said:


> If you want a real insult, arguing that images of fursuiters in compromising situations should be allowed next to submissions that actually took work to create is an insult. Its an insult to the whole artistic community and therefore Furaffinity itself.


----------



## Imperial Lion (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil I'm done arguing with you becuase you will never see it from our veiw point and I'm just plainely not in the mood, I have a long day ahead of me dealing with other people and solving there problems. FA Staff yes, I do think it should be allowed WITHIN REASON. I know that allot of other fursuiters would prolly feal the same way if they knew about this thread.


----------



## stego_s_aurus (Nov 13, 2008)

Lets take a logical approach to this:

1) Fursuits Are a Valid Artform. Just like sculpting, Constructing a fursuit involves Many many hours of blood, sweat, imagination, money and tears, not to mention talent: The Exact same things that go into making any peice of art.

2) Fursuits qualify as Unique art peices, provided that each and every one of them are significantly different from each other either in Color pattern, Construction Style, or technique. If you start having repeated pictures of the exact same suit with the same construction and color pattern, at That point the fursuits are then "Manufactured", and are thus no longer "Art". Think of a Car: Sure, you may have the exact same model car in three of the pictures, but if the Artwork on the car is completely different between the models, and the artwork is unique, then it is still Art (Think of the car as the Medium in that case: in traditional artwork, the common medium is Paper). The exception will be if you have three of the exact same model car with the exact same art style on it with nothing that significantly changes between the art, Then it falls into being "Manufactured" and loses its "Art" status.

3) When a Still Photograph of a fursuit is taken, AS LONG AS NO HUMAN FLESH OR BODILY FLUIDS IS SHOWN WHATSOEVER TO PROVE OTHERWISE, the viewer of the picture has absolutely NO IDEA who or What is contained within the fursuit. At this point, it still falls under the same category a Sculpture would fall under. The ONLY person who would know weather the fursuit truely has a human in it is the photographer of the scene. Beyond that, its anybodys guess.

To prove my point here just recently there was a news article where an artpeice done by Mark Jenkins caused some controversy due to the location where the art was set up, near a Train Station. This is one of the Polar Bears of his creation: http://prorev.com/uploaded_images/809POLARBEAR2-775476.JPG Here on Fur Affinity, this would fall under our Fursuit category. At first glance, Does the viewer have any Idea weather there is A HUMAN wearing the suit? No. Until it had been revealed that it was Stuffed, No one would have known if someone was inside it.

Sculptures are allowed to be in lewd positions and suggestive poses with no qualms from the community. Why Not Fursuits? As long as no HUMAN BITS WHATSOEVER are showing, they should be treated as life-sized sculptures and fall under those rules. It should be that As Soon as a photograph of a Fursuit shows ANY human bits in a suggestive or sexually explicit position, Then thats where it crosses the line. Putting two fursuits together that looks like theyre humping each other is perfectly legit AS LONG AS NO HUMAN BITS OR FLUIDS are shown. This eliminates the possibility of one showing a fursuit with cumshots all over it.

Anyway, thats my take on it.
-Stego


----------



## FirestormSix (Nov 13, 2008)

As both an Anthropomorphic Artist, AND a Fursuit builder, Fursuits themselves are indeed an Art.  The suits are creations of the creators as 2D art works are. 
I believe there should be another button added to the submission section to catagorize them as fursuits in a search possibly. 
But i Agree 1000 % that no suit photos should ever be displayed with and sexual actes being performed in them, sheaths with apendages in them,  rear openings, front openings,  sexual parts showing, ever should be allowed to be displayed on FA. ( simply because it become PORN then. ( its a real person in a costume showing their sexual parts or performing sexual acts.) 
As we all know 95 % of us, even non-fusuiters or fursuit builders enjoy seeing photos of fursuits, as we know they are somones creation in the same manner as 2D artworks. Thats what help make FurAfinnity such a great place, lets not spoil it with real life porn images or acts.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> My apologies, I forgot that anyone from staff had replied to this thread.



Eevee is staff, how could you have forgotten he replied while you were saying he insulted fursuiting.




> There are also people out there who like correct anatomy. Or do you think that all art on this site should be like the Lion King; with fur tuffs and missing bits?



Which is irrelevant when the bits are covered in any normal situation where they would have to interact in public. At that point it is no different than acting in a non adult suit.



> Actually my current request is to have images with sheaths allowed, and the ability to link to off-site sources that may include nudity or adult situations.



So you removed the dildos. Its still a thinly veiled attempt to use a submission to piggyback links to adult images. Its still a misuse of this sites resources. If it were just the image (with no one in the suit) then fine. But otherwise, thats all it is. Just an excuse to post links.



> Yeah, you did.





> If you want a real insult, arguing that images of fursuiters *in compromising situations* should be allowed next to submissions that actually took work to create is an insult. Its an insult to the whole artistic community and therefore Furaffinity itself.



No, I didnt. Once again, I am arguing that fursuit *porn* is not art. I am *not* arguing that fursuits are not art, nor am I arguing that acting in a fursuit is not art. And no matter how much you wish I were, I never have, and I never will.



> Emil I'm done arguing with you because you will never see it from our veiw point and I'm just plainely not in the mood, I have a long day ahead of me dealing with other people and solving there problems. FA Staff yes, I do think it should be allowed WITHIN REASON. I know that allot of other fursuiters would prolly feal the same way if they knew about this thread.



In other words, you have no valid argument against what I am proposing, which does allow adult suits to be shown in their entirety. 

It is not necessary for someone to be in a suit showing it off. 

If an actor is in suit, they are just as capable being their character with their genitalia showing as they are without it showing. If an actor feels that they have to act with the (fake)genetalia showing, they are more than likely acting a suggestive, or sexual scene. Which simply isnt allowed, regardless of whether that actor would be in fursuit or not, nor should it be.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2008)

stego_s_aurus said:


> Sculptures are allowed to be in lewd positions and suggestive poses with no qualms from the community.
> -Stego



Sculptures are 100% no human being inside... and if the sculpture did it would become a costume. Fursuits don't have that luxury as they fall under costuming.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Eevee is staff, how could you have forgotten he replied while you were saying he insulted fursuiting.


  Eevee is just a programmer; he does not have "FurAffinity Staff" under his name, and he to my knowledge does not do anything the normal staff does do.  Therefore I do not classify him as being on staff. 





Emil said:


> Which is irrelevant when the bits are covered in any normal situation where they would have to interact in public. At that point it is no different than acting in a non adult suit.


 Not all situations are public, and not all non-public situations are adult, and not all situations require pants.





Emil said:


> So you removed the dildos. Its still a thinly veiled attempt to use a submission to piggyback links to adult images. Its still a misuse of this sites resources. If it were just the image (with no one in the suit) then fine. But otherwise, thats all it is. Just an excuse to post links.


 which I believe no one, besides yourself, has said is not an OK use for the site. Or do you want to start deleting all those submissions people make that link to a commission opening, or auction, or what have you?





Emil said:


> No, I didnt. Once again, I am arguing that fursuit porn are not art. I am *not* arguing that fursuits are not art, nor am I arguing that acting in a fursuit is not art. And no matter how much you wish I were, I never have, and I never will.


  I'm not saying you are. I am saying that you, and some of those supporting your stance are insulting fursuiters.





Emil said:


> In other words, you have no valid argument against what I am proposing, which does allow adult suits to be shown in their entirety.


 Just as you have no valid argument why they shouldn't be allowed; though you should know that your option does not allow them to be shown in their entirety. 





Emil said:


> It is not necessary for someone to be in a suit showing it off.


  You obviously do not understand it, but there is a difference between seeing a dress in a store, and seeing a dress being worn.





Emil said:


> If an actor is in suit, they are just as capable being their character with their genitalia showing as they are without it showing. If an actor feels that they have to act with the (fake)genetalia showing, they are more than likely acting a suggestive, or sexual scene. Which simply isnt allowed, regardless of whether that actor would be in fursuit or not, nor should it be.


The point is that a suit should be shown in full, and shouldn't have to be censored unless it is showing a human in some way. Otherwise, like someone else said they are just like sculptures, or 2d art.





Arshes Nei said:


> Sculptures are 100% no human being inside... and if the sculpture did it would become a costume. Fursuits don't have that luxury as they fall under costuming.


They can be stuffed.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> .They can be stuffed.



Still a costume. Still falls under photography rules.


----------



## Roland (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Nice insult. You really need to stop doing that, it doesn't help your cause any, and just makes you look like a school yard bully who wants attention.



If I'm concerned about what someone thinks about me, I'll address it.  The reason I address you the way I do is because you're approaching the situation like a whiny little brat.  We state our reasons for -not- wanting this subject matter.  When we ask you why, you just tell us "because."


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Still a costume. Still falls under photography rules.



Understood.

Can you answer my question, please?

Is it ok to post Fursuits, in their entirety, as long as there are no Human bits showing, and the picture is not of a  provocative or sexual nature?

and

Is it ok to post links to off-site galleries that showcase nudity or images of a  provocative or sexual nature?


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

> Not all situations are public, and not all non-public situations are adult, and not all situations require pants.



No, not all public situations are adult. But what can adding a sheath to that situation possibly benefit it more than a pair of pants? The point of that then is just to show the sheath, which is inherently adult in nature while being worn.



> which I believe no one, besides yourself, has said is not an OK use for the site.



The AUP says it isnt. 

If you want to post links, post them in your journal, not as part of a submission. A journal entry requires far less resources than an entire submission.



> Or do you want to start deleting all those submissions people make that link to a commission opening, or auction, or what have you?



Those links pertain to art, and matters that may still be considered on site.



> I'm not saying you are. I am saying that you, and some of those supporting your stance are insulting fursuiters.



I seem to recall when I said I hadnt said anything against fursuiters, you said I had.



> Just as you have no valid argument why they shouldn't be allowed.



I have made a valid argument many times. It isnt my fault you dont want to take it to heart. 



> You obviously do not understand it, but there is a difference between seeing a dress in a store, and seeing a dress being worn.



Dresses arnt adult in nature.



> The point is that a suit should be shown in full, and shouldn't have to be censored unless it is showing a human in some way. Otherwise, like someone else said they are just like sculptures, or 2d art.They can be stuffed.



It is showing a human in some way, since a human is the one wearing it.

And if you want to see the suit as it would appear being worn, then stuffing it still agrees with what I said that the suit doesnt have to be worn by a person to show it off, now doesnt it? Which is something I have never been against.

Also, Id like to point out that having reread much of what has been said, that no one in this thread has ever really attacked adult fursuiters either. The only thing that has been attacked to my knowledge, is the idea that fursuit sex is art.


----------



## vawlkee (Nov 13, 2008)

Yeah, tell me about it! Nothin' like bein' on th' receiving end!:sad:


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Understood.
> 
> Can you answer my question, please?
> 
> ...



Why, I'm not repeating Albert Einstein's definition of insanity here. Go back and read the posts from before.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Youre the one that called him an administrator.


 and I was mistaken in my assumption based upon his  colored name tag. I was corrected and altered my assessment of his role here on the forums, and within the site in general.





Emil said:


> No, not all public situations are adult. But what can adding a sheath to that situation possibly benefit it more than a pair of pants? The point of that then is just to show the sheath, which is inherently adult in nature while being worn.


 Why not have all drawings without sheaths or breaks, and have all furries Unisex? I'm not going to bother explaining it, but to me there is a difference. 





Emil said:


> The AUP says it isnt.


  Where? Also, Dragoneer said it is acceptable, if I remember correctly; so again, this whole thing is rather confusing





Emil said:


> If you want to post links, post them in your journal, not as part of a submission. A journal entry requires far less resources than an entire submission.


 Right, because it's not like there will ever be a need to Fav such a submission, and it's not like there isn't a well known trend where people do not read Journals; not to mention the fact that no one besides those who are already watching that person would see the Journal...





Emil said:


> Those links pertain to art, and matters that may still be considered on site.


 I don't think a link to a furbuy auction selling off a commission slot is art.





Emil said:


> I seem to recall when I said I hadnt said anything against fursuiters, you said I had.


 You seem to be confused. You have insulted fursuiters, though you may not think so as you do not consider adult fursuiters real fursuiters.





Emil said:


> I have made a valid argument many times. It isnt my fault you dont want to take it to heart.


  *shug* 





Emil said:


> Dresses arnt adult in nature.


 depends on the dress.





Emil said:


> It is showing a human in some way, since a human is the one wearing it.


 You do not understand so I will not attempt to persuade you on this matter 





Emil said:


> And if you want to see the suit as it would appear being worn, then stuffing it still agrees with what I said that the suit doesnt have to be worn by a person to show it off, now doesnt it? Which is something I have never been against.


The point is you cannot tell if it is stuffed or not.





Arshes Nei said:


> Why, I'm not repeating Albert Einstein's definition of insanity here. Go back and read the posts from before.


I see you are being baised in your opinion, so I will remember not to request answers from you in the future.

Thank-you for your (dis)service. I share do as I originally intended and submit my inquiry to Dragoneer.


----------



## Roland (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Right, because it's not like there will ever be a need to Fav such a submission, and it's not like there isn't a well known trend where people do not read Journals; not to mention the fact that no one besides those who are already watching that person would see the Journal... I don't think a link to a furbuy auction selling off a commission slot is art.


 This statement just further proves that you want the attention that comes from posting a fursuit.



> You have insulted fursuiters, though you may not think so as you do not consider adult fursuiters real fursuiters.


 We are saying pictures of fursuiters sporking *is not art.*



> *shug*


 This is why I treat you so.  You are given a valid argument and your only retort is "no ur rong"


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Thank-you for your (dis)service. I share do as I originally intended and submit my inquiry to Dragoneer.



Your questions were answered by another staff member *on this thread*. You're just repeating yourself and expecting different results.

You're also engaging in arguing with another member in long quote wars who will not have an impact overall with the decisions being made on the site (as in why are you even wasting your time arguing with THAT person). The thread is only a couple pages long but both parties act like they haven't read any of the reasonable replies presented by various members of the staff ie net-cat.

Thank you for your dishonesty in your approach.

You can go defer to Dragoneer and he'll again defer to staff, so you're stuck in the same circle.

You can continue repeating yourself or you can wait till a decision has been made and quietly exit the thread or continue engaging and (likely making things worse for your side of the issue when other staff members refer to your arguments and Emil's since both of you are continually at it) be patient and stop arguing like every minute matters, because overall it doesn't.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Art is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.


oh, you can stop right there.  I am getting tired of "art is different to everyone, therefore everything is art!!" as an excuse for people to upload whatever they want, as if the lack of a clear line means there shouldn't be one at all.  and yes, there is a difference between "bad art" and "not art".

art is about skill and expression.  it is *not* about covering your ass in carpet and waving it at a cheap camera.

I don't care if you want to show off a suit that happens to have yiffle holes.  I care if you want to take a dozen snapshots of you wearing a suit someone else built in lewd poses so three other people can get hot and bothered over it.



Quiet269 said:


> I do like how the admins just slap insults on the entire fursuiting populous so nonchalantly.


I just said a fursuit itself is art

it is a creation and expression of its maker

if you are getting your knickers in a twist over "merely fucking in fursuits in front of a camera is not art" then I don't know what I can tell you



Quiet269 said:


> use a better board system and I wont.


alright I will get right on blowing away this $200 forum system I have no control over in order to earn some form of common courtesy from you



Quiet269 said:


> You... you took me seriously with that comment? Holy cow.


I know it wasn't serious, but that doesn't prevent me from agreeing with it




Quiet269 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but most of the photographs of Fursuits that I see are out at a con, or posing with props or something of that nature.


and what do those have to do with this thread?



Quiet269 said:


> My bad, you're right; he is just the Ferox Programmer. I guess I should have been more specific with my statement. I find it rather unprofessional for anyone who is working on staff for an organization to nonchalantly toss out insults against an entire group of people.


just 8)

still scouring my original post for when I insulted an entire group of people; perhaps you could point it out to me before any further complaining about it



Quiet269 said:


> Don't we have enough hate directed at us from those who are not part of the fandom?


are you really pulling the fursecution card on something a single person with no power didn't even say



Quiet269 said:


> you guys have insulted the entire fursuiting populous by saying what they are doing is not art


augh



Eevee said:


> creating a fursuit: art





Eevee said:


> *creating a fursuit: art*





Eevee said:


> *creating a fursuit: art*





Eevee said:


> *creating a fursuit: art*


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

net-cat said:


> There is nothing to say you can't post your pictures on a site like Xtube and link to them from a journal or a submission description, though.


 I know net-cat works on the site, but I do not know his full role, can I take what is said here as "Gospel" and run with it? Or do I need it verified through someone else before we can start posting links to Xtubewithin a submission? 



Dragoneer said:


> Enhance your calm, citizen.
> 
> I think this really comes down to more "sexual" suits, those suits that have sheaths and whatnot attached to them. That I could potentially understand, as no real "bits" are showing.
> 
> However, suits that have peeners sticking out of/into them will NOT be accepted, nor am I willing to budge on that aspect. At all. The other aspects I'm willing to consider.


This here is where the real confusion starts, I have seen suits with sheaths showing submitted, and they did not have any bits showing, they are still up. However Dragoneer says that we can potentially understand this as being acceptable, which leads me to believe that ATM it is not.

As it seems this is now under review I will take my leave because as was said above we keep running around in circles.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Why not have all drawings without sheaths or breaks, and have all furries Unisex? I'm not going to bother explaining it, but to me there is a difference.



Because other artists can actually learn something from observing other pictures, clean or otherwise.



> Where?



Spamming

3)The user is flooding the website and is considered to be abusing the siteâ€™s resources and bandwidth. 



> Also, Dragoneer said it is acceptable, if I remember correctly; so again, this whole thing is rather confusing



That was in reference to journals.



> Right, because it's not like there will ever be a need to Fav such a submission



If they are faving it, and they care about the submission and not the links, they would have faved it without the links being there, wouldnt they have? 



> and it's not like there isn't a well known trend where people do not read Journals



If people didnt read journals, then no one would post them. Just because no one reads your journal doesnt mean that they arnt read.[/quote]



> not to mention the fact that no one besides those who are already watching that person would see the Journal...


 Well, if you make a submission without the links, and the links are  in your journal, they will probably see them by exploring your page.

Also, this just tells me again the only purpose of the submission with the links is to carry the links.



> I don't think a link to a furbuy auction selling off a commission slot is art.



No, but that art that is commisioned will most likely end up on this site, and the site is being used to promote the art of the artist, which is fully within the sites intended function.


> You seem to be confused. You have insulted fursuiters, though you may not think so as you do not consider adult fursuiters real fursuiters.



Please dont put words in my mouth. I have never said adult fursuiters werent fursuiters. I have only said Fursuit porn is not art.



> *shug*  depends on the dress.



Dresses designed for an adult purpose are adult toys and are just as different in nature as a non adult fursuit is from and adult one. Which is to say, the purpose of their existence.



> The point is you cannot tell if it is stuffed or not.



Then why not just stuff it? Since it does the exact same thing, and doesnt break any rules or upset the meaning of this site?



> I see you are being baised in your opinion, so I will remember not to request answers from you in the future.



I dont think Arshes is being biased at all. All she is doing is quoting rules. Although her comment toward you was perhaps rude.



Arshes Nei said:


> You're also engaging in arguing with another member in long quote wars who will not have an impact overall with the decisions being made on the site (as in why are you even wasting your time arguing with THAT person).



Awww... you make me cry ;~; Heh, I actually like to think I make a difference in that I say my opinions, some of which may be new, and a staff member reads it while going over this thread and possibly agrees with me ^^ Is why I do what I do. Im just trying to make a difference.

As far as ignoring net-cat... Im not sure if Im guilty of that or not ^^; Probably am.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> I know net-cat works on the site, but I do not know his full role, can I take what is said here as "Gospel" and run with it? Or do I need it verified through someone else before we can start posting links to Xtubewithin a submission?


he is correct; there is nothing saying you can't



Quiet269 said:


> This here is where the real confusion starts, I have seen suits with sheaths showing submitted, and they did not have any bits showing, they are still up. However Dragoneer says that we can potentially understand this as being acceptable, which leads me to believe that ATM it is not.


afaik it's not allowed right now.  pictures only come down if someone bothers to report them, remember.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Eevee said:


> he is correct; there is nothing saying you can't



Imo it is still forbidden under the flooding part and abusing bandwidth. *shrugs* However, that requires alot of interpretation a) what flooding constitutes. Right now, I believe it just means submitting very frequently. b) what constitutes abusing bandwidth. Imo, posting dirty links onto a submission that is not dirty, just means that the purpose of the submission isnt to show the content submitted, but just to carry the links. But, this is only my opinion and interpretation. Staff may not agree. 

I still believe the links should be allowable in journals.

Also, my ideas for posting the "adult" suits would allow the suits to be submitted into the general category. It would eliminate the need for the adult category.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Awww... you make me cry ;~; Heh, I actually like to think I make a difference in that I say my opinions, some of which may be new, and a staff member reads it while going over this thread and possibly agrees with me ^^ Is why I do what I do. Im just trying to make a difference.
> 
> As far as ignoring net-cat... Im not sure if Im guilty of that or not ^^; Probably am.



My point is that you two are engaging in quote wars and repeating your arguments. There's a certain point that you just have to let things go and step away. It causes both parties to lose perspective if you keep at it, hence my "rude" reply about the definition of insanity. 

People also need to read the threads and reflect a bit before hitting the reply button and not repeat what was already said too.  



Eevee said:


> he is correct; there is nothing saying you can't
> 
> afaik it's not allowed right now.  pictures only come down if someone bothers to report them, remember.



Which is why people *should* read the rules, not assume an admin needs to interpret them for you. Why write them in the first place if you're not going to bother? Now if they seem to conflict with previous rulings that's understandable. We don't mind stepping in and clarifying but unless the staff is severely mistaken how the rules were written another staff member will come in and correct him/her.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Imo it is still forbidden under the flooding part and abusing bandwidth. *shrugs*


how does posting links either flood or suck bandwidth?


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Eevee said:


> he is correct; there is nothing saying you can't


 Sounds good, Thank-you for your clarification 



Eevee said:


> afaik it's not allowed right now. pictures only come down if someone bothers to report them, remember.


 I see, thank-you. I will await the staffs decision on this matter.



Emil said:


> I still believe the links should be allowable in journals.


 they are allowed, in both


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Eevee said:


> how does posting links either flood or suck bandwidth?



I just think that the submission wouldnt otherwise exist if the purpose wasnt to just advertise the links. The non dirty image would be like a teaser, and the links the real submission.

But, Im probably just looking into things too much, and I will admit, I do know nearly nothing about bandwidth =P



> they are allowed, in both



I still think that due to the current rules, that may be up for debate ^^


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I still think that due to the current rules, that may be up for debate ^^


I will let you continue your discussion with the staff if you so choose, but my quest in regards to links has been answered; and I am happy with the outcome, as such I do not feel the need to debate it any further.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> I will let you continue your discussion with the staff if you so choose, but my answer in regards to links has been answered; and I am happy with the outcome.



Why? I believe the current rules still dont allow sheath suits =P Although I believe they should be allowed.

Anyway, I will continue this with staff, if any of them wish me to discuss my ideas or interpretations at all.


----------



## Ochosi (Nov 13, 2008)

Ok this is getting on my nerves. I feel the community is persecuting the fursuiters because they are the visual minority in the community and anytime you mention furry to a no-fur they say "O you have sex in animal suits?". Yes it is annoying but the crusaders that are in our community are trying to sweep this section of out community under that carpet and pretend that it does not exists. I agree that pictures of Bits (Real life) should not be show period, Picture of the sheath on a fursuit and or a tailhole should be fine. 



Thanks guys!


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Why? I believe the current rules still dont allow sheath suits =P Although I believe they should be allowed.



They said they are discussing that part, nothing to do now but wait for their answer


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Ochosi said:


> Ok this is getting on my nerves. I feel the community is persecuting the fursuiters because they are the visual minority in the community and anytime you mention furry to a no-fur they say "O you have sex in animal suits?". Yes it is annoying but the crusaders that are in our community are trying to sweep this section of out community under that carpet and pretend that it does not exists. I agree that pictures of Bits (Real life) should not be show period, Picture of the sheath on a fursuit and or a tailhole should be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks guys!



I fail to see how any of us are persecuting fursuiters, since we all here agree fursuits are art, and should be shown on the site, many of us including sheaths. However, I dont think tailholes should be shown, because 1) it really doesnt require any construction at all. Its just a hole. 2) The purpose of this is very obviously for sexual usage. After all, I dont imagine many fursuiters would take a dump thought their fursuit =P

so in short, sheaths yes, tailholes no. =P But thats just my opinion


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

What about Vagina and Breasts?


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> What about Vagina and Breasts?



Well, a vagina would essentialy just be a hole too, so I would have to say no... and breasts do have to be crafted, so yes, breasts would be allowable.

Actually, I change that. As long as there is no one actually in the suit, any of them should be allowable, same as with the sheath, including tailholes too I suppose.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Well, a vagina would essentialy just be a hole too, so I would have to say no... and breasts do have to be crafted, so yes, breasts would be allowable.
> 
> Actually, I change that. As long as there is no one actually in the suit, any of them should be allowable, same as with the sheath, including tailholes too I suppose.


:O A Vagina is not just a hole... 

Though if the suits "vagina" is just a hole then I can see why you wouldnt be able to show it. But if they put some effort into it it could be much more


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

ok, i understand that the fur community has some names attached to it due to some of the fettushes that may or may not apply to it. but really, having a fursuit not showing any human buts (depends on tailhole though) should be ok. i made my paws and bought my tail, and have though about posting pics of me rubbing in ways that would be conciderd adult. hell i have a page on Xtube, but i know no one wants to see those pics so i only give it to those who ask. but really, ill be making my fursuit when i get more money and i will make a yiff suit. i mean there is a fettush for everything. for a few examples, Ballonies, inflationists, beastafiles i mean the list goes on and on. there is a fettushh for electronics, i mean there is a fettush for everything. just because some people link certain fettushes to the fandom means that they dont know enough to say that its not true. everything is an art form, even sex. look at kama sutra, i mean i myself dont like the human body, its not atractive, but i mean come on. all these people that are against the fursuit posting are people that think the fandom has too much fettush stuff as is. but in reality everyone has a fettush just some more than others. we have to relyze that just because some people dont like the fettush (not saying seeing a fursuit in general is one) but really. when you go through the pics on the site and see gore then look at fursuits to me and probably more than half here would rather see the fursuits. fursuits with sheaths just show that thats what they made their suit look like.l it means they wanted the suit to be more realistic, or even easier to use at cons (because when you have to use the bathroom at a con and your in a suit its hard as hell).

for those who dont like the posting of 10+ pics at once, i mean are you crazy. i myself draw and take pics of what i look like so those who are interested (which is the reason there is a watch button to be clicked) and i wait till i want to up load all i have and sometimes that can range from 5-10 pics. right now i have about 20 sitting in my sketchbook and i havent uploaded because i moved and cnt find my scanner. but just because i post all those at once dosent mean im trying to so calld "spam" the site with art. as for sursuits, once i make mine, ill take pics but wont post till i have a good amount. one it saves time having to post all at once since if i did it when i took the pics it would take alot longer. 


oh and on the beastiality thing someone said. i doubt anyone would post even if they could because the fandom already has that name and if they did post they would have alof of angry furs commenting and trolling them (yes furs can troll too ive had a fiew and had to block them). trying to keep the fandom cleen is im possible, but keeping the fandom from geting any more names put on it is im possible too. we are (i would say human but i can because im a therian and i disagree on that point) more human than wlot think. we all have our flaws and our fettushes. its normal to have turn ons and its normal for some of the turn ons to be shund by the community. some wont even admit to having a fettush, but isnt being drawn into a relation kind of a fettush itself.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> :O A Vagina is not just a hole...
> 
> Though if the suits "vagina" is just a hole then I can see why you wouldnt be able to show it. But if they put some effort into it it could be much more



I dont see how they could do that, as it would somehow involve showing a tube up what is most likely their own vagina >.> If your talking about the more decorative "lip" type things that surround the vagina, yes, that could be crafted, but its more likely that the natural ones that are underneath would just be exposed. But still, like I said, it should still be allowed to be submitted, just as long as nobody is actually in the suit =P



> ok, i understand that the fur community has some names attached to it due to some of the fettushes that may or may not apply to it. but really, having a fursuit not showing any human buts (depends on tailhole though) should be ok. i made my paws and bought my tail, and have though about posting pics of me rubbing in ways that would be conciderd adult. hell i have a page on Xtube, but i know no one wants to see those pics so i only give it to those who ask. but really, ill be making my fursuit when i get more money and i will make a yiff suit. i mean there is a fettush for everything. for a few examples, Ballonies, inflationists, beastafiles i mean the list goes on and on. there is a fettushh for electronics, i mean there is a fettush for everything. just because some people link certain fettushes to the fandom means that they dont know enough to say that its not true. everything is an art form, even sex. look at kama sutra, i mean i myself dont like the human body, its not atractive, but i mean come on. all these people that are against the fursuit posting are people that think the fandom has too much fettush stuff as is. but in reality everyone has a fettush just some more than others. we have to relyze that just because some people dont like the fettush (not saying seeing a fursuit in general is one) but really. when you go through the pics on the site and see gore then look at fursuits to me and probably more than half here would rather see the fursuits. fursuits with sheaths just show that thats what they made their suit look like.l it means they wanted the suit to be more realistic, or even easier to use at cons (because when you have to use the bathroom at a con and your in a suit its hard as hell).



Sex isnt art, its a natural function of the body.  Depictions of sex can be art, but real sex or images capturing it, I wouldnt say is art.

And the Karma Sutra isnt an art book, its a sex guide and possibly a text book on human sexual behavior.

I have never argued that this shouldnt be allowed (I dont think Ive ever argued genitalia shouldnt be allowed ;>>) Ive just argued that just because it is a fetish, doesnt make it art. And any submissions reporting sexual activity, or implied sexual activity shouldnt be allowed, on the grounds that this is an art site ^^


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I dont see how they could do that, as it would somehow involve showing a tube up what is most likely their own vagina >.> If your talking about the more decorative "lip" type things that surround the vagina, yes, that could be crafted, but its more likely that the natural ones that are underneath would just be exposed. But still, like I said, it should still be allowed to be submitted, just as long as nobody is actually in the suit =P
> 
> 
> 
> ...




sex is as much art as dancing is art. heve you seen how dificult kama sutra is, and how artistic some of the positions are. some person out there decided that they wanted to make sex an art form and came up with kama sutra, not because sex became borring, but because someone saw what most dont see, sex is a beautiful thing when you look past the sex itself.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> sex is as much art as dancing is art. heve you seen how dificult kama sutra is, and how artistic some of the positions are. some person out there decided that they wanted to make sex an art form and came up with kama sutra, not because sex became borring, but because someone saw what most dont see, sex is a beautiful thing when you look past the sex itself.



I really just think its because sex became boring, or to enhance the pleasure from the various strains the positions put on your body. Or even to support some Indian sense of spirituality.

The purpose of dance is to express every sort of motion through movement of the whole body. But.. the positions of the Karma Sutra... really, the only emotions expressed are lust and *maybe* love it is your wish to say that. In the end, no matter what the pose, the penis still ultimately ends up in the vagina.


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I really just think its because sex became boring, or to enhance the pleasure from the various strains the positions put on your body.
> 
> The purpose of dance is to express every sort of motion through movement of the whole body. But.. the positions of the Karma Sutra... really, the only emotions expressed are lust and *maybe* love it is your wish to say that. In the end, no matter what the pose, the penis still ultimately ends up in the vagina.



'you kinda just assumed that most the people here are strait. i have only ben with one fem (hopefully saying fem isnt too offensive) and after several years i just found men more attractive so dont asume the vag is all there is. 

maybe kama sutra was made because someone decided to put what they were doing in the bedroom into a book. but i guess you cant see how artful it really is. just because its out of lust or love dosent mean its not art.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> 'you kinda just assumed that most the people here are strait. i have only ben with one fem (hopefully saying fem isnt too offensive) and after several years i just found men more attractive so dont asume the vag is all there is.



I did? I was only aware that the real Karma Sutra came in a strait version. And I was referring to that. 



> just because its out of lust or love dosent mean its not art.



I think it does mean that, because it doesnt invoke any reaction out of the people viewing it other than sexual gratification, nor is it intended to do otherwise. 

The Karma Sutra itself is somewhat immune to this. Somewhat. Its purpose is also linkable to Hinduism I believe. But at that point, it serves some sort of spiritual purpose as well. But that still doesnt make it are any more than philosophy is art.

Anyway, nobody is going to be submitting the Karma Sutra, so I dont really see why we are discussing this ;>>

Posting fursuit sex is just posting pornography. The only purpose of pornography is to stimulate sexual gratification.

But, sadly, that is all still debateable, so I leave it to Staff to decide. Im not going to post here anymore, and if Staff wants my opinions or ideas on anything, they are able to contact me ^^


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I did? I was only aware that the real Karma Sutra came in a strait version. And I was referring to that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




philosiphy inspires are so sex can do the same. just because one can turn someone on and the other cant is just a conincidence. to me pics vids anything on human sex is a turn off. the body isnt interesting enough for me to be turnd on. but really in my eyes and others like me sex is an art form. its like saying building a house isnt an art form, its just built. teke a look arround the net and youl find artsy houses everwhere. my argument says, sex is art if you look past the aspect of being turned on by it.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

> My argument says, sex is art if you look past the aspect of being turned on by it.



If you remove the sexual aspects from sex, it becomes a dance depicting sex, not sex itself. If you defend that the motions and emotions are what the art is, and not the actual sex, then how can you defend sex itself as art?

Anyway, Im done here.


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> If you remove the sexual aspects from sex, it becomes a dance depicting sex, not sex itself.
> 
> Anyway, Im done here.



i said look past not remove


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I think it does mean that, because it doesnt invoke any reaction out of the people viewing it other than sexual gratification, nor is it intended to do otherwise.


So, by that logic... None of the "Adult" submissions (porn) should be allowed on FA... I think you are going down a path you do not wish to take.

Just admit that sex is Art; it does not change the fact that it is still not allowed because of the rules of FA.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

> Just admit that sex is Art; it does not change the fact that it is still not allowed because of the rules of FA.



Fine. Sex is art. Are you happy? But its only art as long as you can actually argue some sort of point to it, or that it invokes any sort of emotional response other than lust. In which case, it isnt even really the sex that is the subject, just a carrier or a representation



> i said look past not remove



Im not even going to get into that one



But heres something I am curious of. Please tell me how pictures of you (not you specific, but universal) rubbing yourself in a fursuit are art? What emotions does it provoke? What sort of thought does it force? What does it represent? Is there some sort of message behind it?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 13, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> I would suggest hiring an actual lawyer, but then it would probably be entirely unreadable, which wouldn't really help come to think of it.


Just for reference, I originally checked in with a lawyer to help write FA's TOS... and, uh, the cheapest lawyer I could find was about $250/hr.

Spending donation money on servers and bandwidth = good. Spending donation money on vampire sharks = bad.


----------



## x_panther (Nov 13, 2008)

yeah spendy bastards arent they? ive been trying to keep quiet since i made my piece back on page 2 e.e


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Fine. Sex is art. Are you happy? But its only art as long as you can actually argue some sort of point to it, or that it invokes any sort of emotional response other than lust. In which case, it isnt even really the sex that is the subject, just a carrier or a representation


Art is the process or product of deliberately and creatively arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions, especially beauty. Lust is an emotion, and it is not the only emotion that can come from sex, so as far as I am concerned sex is art.



Dragoneer said:


> Just for reference, I originally checked in with a lawyer to help write FA's TOS... and, uh, the cheapest lawyer I could find was about $250/hr.
> 
> Spending donation money on servers and bandwidth = good. Spending donation money on vampire sharks = bad.


You need to find a Furry Lawyer that would be willing to volunteer some time  That $250/hr is insane.


----------



## Adonis Otter (Nov 13, 2008)

Iâ€™m a fursuit maker, and have two suits that Iâ€™ve made. Iâ€™ve posted a few pictures of my suits to show the world, â€œHey, look at what I made!â€ Usually, if I post a new picture of an old suit, itâ€™s because Iâ€™ve upgraded a part, or found a picture that was particularly distinguished in some way. Donâ€™t get me wrong, I like fursuit yiff. I have considered making yiffable suits, and if I do, I want the ability to post those on FA to say, â€œHey, I made a sheef! Give me watches!â€ But if I did, Iâ€™d do it to show that I made a suit, and that suit has cajones, I would not show it as a provocative image. There is a difference. If you think that fursuits are art, when posted the art should be the fursuit, and not the pose itâ€™s in. There is a huge amount of time and effort spent in the construction of a fursuit. By taking pictures to highlight its sexuality, and not the fursuit itself, to me you are saying, â€œI donâ€™t care so much about this work of art Iâ€™m wearing, as much as that it has a hole in its crotch.â€ And as a fursuit maker, it seems like my hard work is disregarded in favor of a sex toy. The most expressive, cute, and artistic part of a furuist is its head, so why do I see so many shots of fursuiters focused between the waist and the knees? 
A friend of mine said he wanted a yiffable suit, but couldnâ€™t spend that much money on a sex toy. To me, that is the wrong mentality. A fursuit is still a fursuit, regardless of its special features. A yiffable suit is not a sex toy; it is a costume with a fly. People donâ€™t get all aroused over blue jeans because they got a zipper. And as such, I donâ€™t think pictures of fursuits in erotic poses deserve the same status as art, as pictures that are just about the suit.
But what really gets me annoyed is the vast multitudes of pictures of a suit in erotic poses, particularly when posted by people who own the suit, not who made it. This goes for non yiffy furuist pics too. Itâ€™s great to see a new shot of a suit once in a while if say, this time itâ€™s wearing a new accessory instead of just standing there. Itâ€™s great to show multiple pictures of a new suit, but how many do you need? I donâ€™t want to sign on to FA to see 50 new submissions when 30 of them are of the same suit standing in slightly different poses, especially when itâ€™s not even by the artist who made it. Fursuits are 3D objects, and have many facets that can highlight its artistic qualities in multiple photos, but after a while it just gets old. After the first ten shots, itâ€™s not about the fursuit anymore, but the person wearing it. Itâ€™s going, â€œLook at ME, look at ME! Iâ€™M all sexy like! Rawr >:3!â€ It has nothing to do with the suit in the picture, but the person whoâ€™s using the suit as a way of looking sexy. If you want to take those pictures, go ahead, do so, but please, this is an art website, not a place for you to show off how cute/sexy *you* look in a suit. There are numerous other websites where you can do that. The question is, once youâ€™ve shown your suit as an artistic creation, would you take pictures of it in poses and post them, if it was just you and not the suit? If you can do artistic shots of your suit with dramatic lighting, and/or good composition, and contrast, and all those other things in art photography, by all means, take tons of pictures. But lets be honest people, most pictures of fursuits in erotic poses have nothing to do with art what so ever.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Art is the process or product of *deliberately* and creatively arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions, especially beauty. Lust is an emotion, and it is not the only emotion that can come from sex, so as far as I am concerned sex is art.



The key word is deliberate. How many people actually have sex in order to create a response from other people? By your definition, I could pick my nose or slam a door, and it would be art. And at that point, what isnt art, and who isnt an artist?

Depictions of sex are art. But the act itself isnt because its supposed to be something shared between lovers, and just because someone takes a peek and likes what they see, doesnt mean they were meant to. 

@Adonis: Yes. Thank you.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> The key word is deliberate. How many people actually have sex in order to create a response from other people? By your definition, I could pick my nose or slam a door, and it would be art. And at that point, what isnt art, and who isnt an artist?
> 
> Depictions of sex are art. But the act itself isnt because its supposed to be something shared between lovers, and just because someone takes a peek and likes what they see, doesnt mean they were meant to.
> 
> @Adonis: Yes. Thank you.


I think by posting it on a site for others to see and admire makes it deliberate...


----------



## Huskers (Nov 13, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> What would you propose?




Having the Fursuit - Mature available in the dropdown list seems to contradict the APU , which i dont get. 

I am not saying to get rid of it , im just saying its unfair that artist can post the most goriest porn picture out there, while a fursuiter can post anything above suggestive. It makes the fursuiters feel they are the minority and such ...

believe me THERE ARE worse pictures out there that is art that should have been taken down... just my two cents 

I propose just let the fursuiters post and just say if you dont want to watch the adult rated marked (which underage people shouldnt be watching anyways when they lied about their age) dont watch it


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> I think by posting it on a site for others to see and admire makes it deliberate...



But we arnt talking about sex posted online, we're talking about sex in general. 

At that point, yes it would be deliberate. But then we'd be arguing whether it was just porn, or whether theres an actual, intended meaning behind it. Which is independent of whether or not you see meaning in it. And once you capture sex in a photograph, its direction, lighting, scenery, all of those things that make it art as much if not more than the sex itself.


----------



## Huskers (Nov 13, 2008)

Adonis Otter said:


> Iâ€™m a fursuit maker, and have two suits that Iâ€™ve made. Iâ€™ve posted a few pictures of my suits to show the world, â€œHey, look at what I made!â€ Usually, if I post a new picture of an old suit, itâ€™s because Iâ€™ve upgraded a part, or found a picture that was particularly distinguished in some way. Donâ€™t get me wrong, I like fursuit yiff. I have considered making yiffable suits, and if I do, I want the ability to post those on FA to say, â€œHey, I made a sheef! Give me watches!â€ But if I did, Iâ€™d do it to show that I made a suit, and that suit has cajones, I would not show it as a provocative image. There is a difference. If you think that fursuits are art, when posted the art should be the fursuit, and not the pose itâ€™s in. There is a huge amount of time and effort spent in the construction of a fursuit. By taking pictures to highlight its sexuality, and not the fursuit itself, to me you are saying, â€œI donâ€™t care so much about this work of art Iâ€™m wearing, as much as that it has a hole in its crotch.â€ And as a fursuit maker, it seems like my hard work is disregarded in favor of a sex toy. The most expressive, cute, and artistic part of a furuist is its head, so why do I see so many shots of fursuiters focused between the waist and the knees?
> A friend of mine said he wanted a yiffable suit, but couldnâ€™t spend that much money on a sex toy. To me, that is the wrong mentality. A fursuit is still a fursuit, regardless of its special features. A yiffable suit is not a sex toy; it is a costume with a fly. People donâ€™t get all aroused over blue jeans because they got a zipper. And as such, I donâ€™t think pictures of fursuits in erotic poses deserve the same status as art, as pictures that are just about the suit.
> But what really gets me annoyed is the vast multitudes of pictures of a suit in erotic poses, particularly when posted by people who own the suit, not who made it. This goes for non yiffy furuist pics too. Itâ€™s great to see a new shot of a suit once in a while if say, this time itâ€™s wearing a new accessory instead of just standing there. Itâ€™s great to show multiple pictures of a new suit, but how many do you need? I donâ€™t want to sign on to FA to see 50 new submissions when 30 of them are of the same suit standing in slightly different poses, especially when itâ€™s not even by the artist who made it. Fursuits are 3D objects, and have many facets that can highlight its artistic qualities in multiple photos, but after a while it just gets old. After the first ten shots, itâ€™s not about the fursuit anymore, but the person wearing it. Itâ€™s going, â€œLook at ME, look at ME! Iâ€™M all sexy like! Rawr >:3!â€ It has nothing to do with the suit in the picture, but the person whoâ€™s using the suit as a way of looking sexy. If you want to take those pictures, go ahead, do so, but please, this is an art website, not a place for you to show off how cute/sexy *you* look in a suit. There are numerous other websites where you can do that. The question is, once youâ€™ve shown your suit as an artistic creation, would you take pictures of it in poses and post them, if it was just you and not the suit? If you can do artistic shots of your suit with dramatic lighting, and/or good composition, and contrast, and all those other things in art photography, by all means, take tons of pictures. But lets be honest people, most pictures of fursuits in erotic poses have nothing to do with art what so ever.





So its ok for an artist to post multiple arts of huskies screwing eachother but in different poses ? (im just using it as an example) while fursuits in different poses is wrong ??


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> But we arnt talking about sex posted online, we're talking about sex in general.
> 
> At that point, yes it would be deliberate. But then we'd be arguing whether it was just porn, or whether theres an actual, intended meaning behind it. Which is independent of whether or not you see meaning in it. And once you capture sex in a photograph, its direction, lighting, scenery, all of those things that make it art as much if not more than the sex itself.


I believe we are talking of two different things. 

I'm not talking about sex in general, I am talking about sex for the deliberate purpose of being posted for others to view. 



Huskers said:


> So its ok for an artist to post multiple arts of huskies screwing eachother but in different poses ? (im just using it as an example) while fursuits in different poses is wrong ??



That would be correct. Because once a suit is finished being crafted it is no longer a piece of art, and cannot in any way shape or form be used in an artistic manor.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2008)

Huskers said:


> Having the Fursuit - Mature available in the dropdown list seems to contradict the APU , which i dont get.



Go back and read other posts before replying. It helps a lot.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> I believe we are talking of two different things.
> 
> I'm not talking about sex in general, I am talking about sex for the deliberate purpose of being posted for others to view.



Im not sure why you are talking about that, since the person who brought it up was talking about sex in general, and my responses were addressing him as such.

And it still begs the reason why you are posting it for them to view. Is it to fulfill their sexual desires, or is it to show some sort of meaning or technique, or inspire some sort of higher thinking? And at that point, it is the person who captured the image that is the artist, not the ones performing the action, they are merely part of the artists overall design.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Nov 13, 2008)

If you want to see people fucking eachother in fursuits, go to another fucking community.

If you allow sex in fursuits to be shown, NOT ONLY is it rewriting the AUP that we had all signed at the time, it is against the law.* And then someone would bend the rules a bit and show a 17 or 16 year old fucking in one, right? No one would care, right? Only the United States government, and a few other countries, too! It's a crime, damnit!

No, it should not be re-written.
Not just for some random someone with a disturbing fetish.+_

*: This is according to the FA admins, not me.
+: I hate just about every single fetish mentioned in the browse category tab, not just fursuits.
_: Furry is not my fetish.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Yeah...

I'm done, this is just getting boring now


----------



## Adonis Otter (Nov 13, 2008)

Huskers said:


> So its ok for an artist to post multiple arts of huskies screwing eachother but in different poses ? (im just using it as an example) while fursuits in different poses is wrong ??


I'd think so. How much effort is used in drawing characters in different poses? Even using a reference shot, sketches take time, error, do overs, Then there's inking and coloring on top of that. A new work of art is just that, a new work of art. It is an accomplishment, a testament to the artist's ability to create new things. A fursuiter in a different pose, however, is not a new work of art. It's still the same fursuit as before, and unless the fursuiter is impaired in a way that makes spreading his or her legs difficult, it's not much of an artistic challenge. 
Also, it's not wrong. I seem to recall saying, "If you want to take those pictures, go ahead, do so." However, this is a art website, and that's not the same as an image hosting website. If you've got tons of fursuit pictures, put them on Photobucket and LJ and websites like that.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Adonis Otter said:


> A fursuiter in a different pose, however, is not a new work of art. It's still the same fursuit as before, and unless the fursuiter is impaired in a way that makes spreading his or her legs difficult, it's not much of an artistic challenge.
> Also, it's not wrong. I seem to recall saying, "If you want to take those pictures, go ahead, do so." However, this is a art website, and that's not the same as an image hosting website. If you've got tons of fursuit pictures, put them on Photobucket and LJ and websites like that.



IMO the posing itself is not a work of art, nor is a pose acting. It takes little time or effort to pose. It is how the pose is captured by the photographer that makes it art, and the photographer sets up the pose. Really, in modeling, the one who is the artist is the photographer. Otherwise, the only thing it achieves is perhaps being a decent reference shot. 

Acting is art, and fursuiters may act. It takes skill to successfully portray a character in a convincing manner.

Poses are not art, but capturing a pose is, assuming that capturing the pose is done in an artistic (ie well constructed) manner.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> i said look past not remove


Looking past the fact that it's turning you on, the sexual part of sex, etc, is still sex.
I'll admit, there are naked pictures, EVEN LOOK ON WIKIPEDIA, but are these of guys in leather, or in latex, or fursuits? Or is it of people having sex? Or a zoom in on the sexual part? No, I'm not talking about a see-through picture of the area, I'm talking about an actual photograph of that part itself.


----------



## TwitchSandwich (Nov 13, 2008)

I'm just gonna be a horses ass and just state my opinion rather than comment on everything that's already been said 

First and foremost, the majority of users look at FA as a place to go check up and see if anyone's uploaded any kick ass dog/cat/chicken/waffle/hand grenade/monkey/guitar/etc in various position with (insert kink here) porn. FA is NOT a place that you want to look at if your internet activity is monitored at your job. It's labeled an "art" site, but any other non-internet geek would look at it as a "creepy ass'd animal porn site".

Now personally, yeah, I think showing off your junk in a fursuit picture on a public site (I say "public" 'cause sure you have to register, but it takes about 20-30 seconds to register and you're set up to look at whatever you want with no verification) would be a pretty bad judgment call on the owner of the fursuit, especially since the 4chan types pick up on that stuff -fast-.

However, sure I'm a lil biased here, but suggestive fursuit pictures should by all means be allowed. Maybe sheath, but how about show off a toy instead of showing the fandom how unsatisfied you're making people in bed with your size? Seriously, if it's that important to show it off, there WILL be plenty of PM's asking for it after posting a suggestive picture.

Those who want to argue if it's art or not, try getting that exact angle on your emotionless fursuit's head to look like your character is being suggestive, while trying to squeeze every bit of detail out of your fursuit possible with a certain pose, paw placements, tail placement, with a background that looks inviting rather than looking like you dragged your bed out of a dumpster and threw it in your basement. There's nothing artistic to that because it's suggestive? That's like calling your favorite artist's X-rated drawings "Just a dog humping another animal, not art".

So yeah, sure, allow it. There were plenty of people who disagreed over the "cub" porn stuff too, that didn't end FA, this won't either.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

TwitchSandwich said:


> I'm just gonna be a horses ass and just state my opinion rather than comment on everything that's already been said
> 
> First and foremost, the majority of users look at FA as a place to go check up and see if anyone's uploaded any kick ass dog/cat/chicken/waffle/hand grenade/monkey/guitar/etc in various position with (insert kink here) porn. FA is NOT a place that you want to look at if your internet activity is monitored at your job. It's labeled an "art" site, but any other non-internet geek would look at it as a "creepy ass'd animal porn site".
> 
> ...



Furs very rarely take the time to construct their non suggestive photography. I highly doubt theyll take the time to compose their suggestive shots. Just lurk in the violations forum, and youll see examples of what is most typically seen posted here in regards to suggestive shots. And even so, does a suggestive pose really require an adult suit? Shouldnt the photographer be able to carry the message regardless? Isnt that what makes it art? To make something that is otherwise devoid of sexuality, appear to have such?

Ultimately, I suppose I dont really see anything wrong with a suggestive pose. If its actually well constructed for the purpose of being art, and not just a hastily thrown together shot to give the viewer a boner.


----------



## TwitchSandwich (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Furs very rarely take the time to construct their non suggestive photography. I highly doubt theyll take the time to compose their suggestive shots. Just lurk in the violations forum, and youll see examples of what is most typically seen posted here in regards to suggestive shots. And even so, does a suggestive pose really require an adult suit? Shouldnt the photographer be able to carry the message regardless? Isnt that what makes it art? To make something that is otherwise devoid of sexuality, appear to have such?
> 
> Ultimately, I suppose I dont really see anything wrong with a suggestive pose. If its actually well constructed for the purpose of being art, and not just a hastily thrown together shot to give the viewer a boner.



That's pretty much my point really. It is tough to give an emotionless fursuit face an expression by means of posing for a picture. Think if it got loosened up to allow suggestive (and I'm in agreement that no real parts showing, or full blown sex to be posted either), it'd set the bar for good pictures.

And honestly, if those pictures were just suggestive, not showing off any junk or showing off how much two fursuits can bang each other, wouldn't it have been more constructive to leave the picture up there so people could comment on it? Let alone, if the picture really was that bad and hardly anything to get up in arms about, was it really worth the effort to report it?


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

TwitchSandwich said:


> That's pretty much my point really. It is tough to give an emotionless fursuit face an expression by means of posing for a picture. Think if it got loosened up to allow suggestive (and I'm in agreement that no real parts showing, or full blown sex to be posted either), it'd set the bar for good pictures.
> 
> And honestly, if those pictures were just suggestive, not showing off any junk or showing off how much two fursuits can bang each other, wouldn't it have been more constructive to leave the picture up there so people could comment on it? Let alone, if the picture really was that bad and hardly anything to get up in arms about, was it really worth the effort to report it?



My point is, my of what people submit isnt well formed, nor is any real attempt made at such. xP If they had an interest in actually well forming it, they would have done so. After all, they posted a suggestive picture anyway, despite the rules =P

I also dont think that the fake genitalia shouldnt be showing either (in suggestive poses). Suggestive pretty much means just that, something that is innocent, done in such a way that suggests sexuality. Since, for the fetish, the fake genitalia is what is actually turning the user on, I believe at that point it isnt really being suggestive, its beating someone over the head with the intent. So suggestive photos I have no problems with. *shrugs* But maybe I am over reaching? I dunno. Thats just how it seems to me.


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> My point is, my of what people submit isnt well formed, nor is any real attempt made at such. xP If they had an interest in actually well forming it, they would have done so. After all, they posted a suggestive picture anyway, despite the rules =P
> 
> I also dont think that the fake genitalia shouldnt be showing either (in suggestive poses). Suggestive pretty much means just that, something that is innocent, done in such a way that suggests sexuality. Since, for the fetish, the fake genitalia is what is actually turning the user on, I believe at that point it isnt really being suggestive, its beating someone over the head with the intent. So suggestive photos I have no problems with. *shrugs* But maybe I am over reaching? I dunno. Thats just how it seems to me.



ok now i dont agree when you say fake genitalia shouldent show. FA has a sponsor fron Bad Dragon and if there is a pis of someone in a fursuit wiuth one of their products sticking out of the sheath then it brings more atention to their store. did you know more than 3 times furs own zetas than fursuits in the fandom. a pic showing a fursuiter wich some type of product from zeta or bad dragon sticking out of their sheath looking cute seems like its nothing too bad, like something that should be able to be posted.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> ok now i dont agree when you say fake genitalia shouldent show. FA has a sponsor fron Bad Dragon and if there is a pis of someone in a fursuit wiuth one of their products sticking out of the sheath then it brings more atention to their store. did you know more than 3 times furs own zetas than fursuits in the fandom. a pic showing a fursuiter wich some type of product from zeta or bad dragon sticking out of their sheath looking cute seems like its nothing too bad, like something that should be able to be posted.



They cant do that though, that violates the "by you" "for you" rules =P 

Also, at that point, thats advertisement, not art, because it isnt meant to invoke emotion, but sell a product. The only one who could do that are the owners of Bad Dragon themselves, and even then its considered a sculpture, and it can be displayed by itself. I fail to see how that ought to have any impact on rules with fursuits.


----------



## Komodog (Nov 13, 2008)

here's an idea

why not introduce another adult filter, much like the current one in place, only this one be exclusively for fursuit (adult)?

that way murrsuiters can stop screaming FURRRRSECUUUUUUUSSSSSHHHHHUUUUUNNNNNN, and the rest of us don't have to look at their crusty murrholes appearing on the front page.


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> They cant do that though, that violates the "by you" "for you" rules =P
> 
> Also, at that point, thats advertisement, not art, because it isnt meant to invoke emotion, but sell a product. The only one who could do that are the owners of Bad Dragon themselves, and even then its considered a sculpture, and it can be displayed by itself. I fail to see how that ought to have any impact on rules with fursuits.



you totally didnot just say advertising isnt art, and maybe certain types arent but alot of them are.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> you totally didnot just say advertising isnt art, and maybe certain types arent but alot of them are.



Please dont make me start talking about advertisements... *rubs temples* Yes, they can be constructed with skill, and thus are useful for study, but the only intention behind an advertisement is to sell a product, they dont mean anything. Please dont make me go any further into this.


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Please dont make me start talking about advertisements... *rubs temples* Yes, they can be constructed with skill, and thus are useful for study, but the only intention behind an advertisement is to sell a product, they dont mean anything. Please dont make me go any further into this.



do you know how much art ability you need to make advertisements, im not talking about advertising certain thing, but tha advertisement itself is art not the product at hand


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> do you know how much art ability you need to make advertisements, im not talking about advertising certain thing, but tha advertisement itself is art not the product at hand



Like I said, they take skill to make, but the ultimate intent of which is to sell the product. It isnt supposed to inspire emotion in you nor is it supposed to promote higher thinking. The only though it is supposed to inspire is "must... buy... product..."


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Like I said, they take skill to make, but the ultimate intent of which is to sell the product. It isnt supposed to inspire emotion in you nor is it supposed to promote higher thinking. The only though it is supposed to inspire is "must... buy... product..."



and yet artists look at it and think how good the quality is and all that i mean its art no matter what the meaning is bvehind it


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> and yet artists look at it and think how good the quality is and all that i mean its art no matter what the meaning is bvehind it



There is a difference between marveling at skill, and marveling at meaning >.> Like I said, its a good learning tool, because they still take skill to make. Just because something is pretty doesnt make it art. Things that are horrendously ugly or break all the known rules are just as capable of being art. But there is some sort of meaning behind them, thats what makes them art. They invoke higher thought or feeling that otherwise wouldnt be invoked.

Is there anything you *dont* consider art?


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> There is a difference between marveling at skill, and marveling at meaning >.> Like I said, its a good learning tool, because they still take skill to make. Just because something is pretty doesnt make it art. Things that are horrendously ugly or break all the known rules are just as capable of being art. But there is some sort of meaning behind them, thats what makes them art. They invoke higher thought or feeling that otherwise wouldnt be invoked.
> 
> Is there anything you *dont* consider art?



im an artist and a gaming artist at that so everything is art


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> im an artist and a gaming artist at that so everything is art



Is this art? 
http://gawker.com/380036/dog+starving-artist-just-gets-more-unpopular
http://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/6831.html

Because Im an artist, and a student of fine arts at that, and I dont think everything is art. I can find inspiration in everything, but that doesnt make them art.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

*double post*


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> Is this art? http://gawker.com/380036/dog+starving-artist-just-gets-more-unpopular
> 
> Because Im an artist, and a student of fine arts at that, and I dont think everything is art. I can find inspiration in everything, but that doesnt make them art.



just because you dont see it dosent mean i dont. everyone sees everything differently. so with fursuits somethings may be art when others think its not


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> just because you dont see it dosent mean i dont. everyone sees everything differently. so with fursuits somethings may be art when others think its not



I didnt say I didnt see it. But did you honestly read those links? I want to know if you actually, really do see.

*edit* Just a few more links

http://www.artfagcity.com/wordpress_core/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/starving-art-dog.jpg
http://www.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/04/dogart.jpeg
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/ArtDog_450x300.jpg
http://www.theginblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/dog3.JPG


----------



## DenzuPuppy (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I didnt say I didnt see it. But did you honestly read those links? I want to know if you actually, really do see.
> 
> *edit* Just a few more links
> 
> ...


 
my question is why do you even have these pics, these are depicting a sad scene i mean come on your not geting what im saying so you do what evers in your power to prove me wrong. just because you send me pics like this isnt going to change my mind no matter what you say


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> my question is why do you even have these pics, these are depicting a sad scene i mean come on your not geting what im saying so you do what evers in your power to prove me wrong. just because you send me pics like this isnt going to change my mind no matter what you say



I dont have these pics. They are links. And the only reason I even know about this, is because it was a topic on these forums some time ago. And pretending that things like this dont happen wont make it all better.

But Im using them to try and make a point. All I want you to say is whether or not this is art. And if it is, why it is art. Its all Im doing.

You see, you cant answer my question, without making me right, can you? If you say that it isnt art, then you admit that not everything is art. If you say yes, it is, the only possible justification that this... vile thing can be art is because it had intended purpose, inspired higher thought, and provokes emotion. No matter what you say in response, youd just prove yourself wrong, wouldnt you?


----------



## Eevee (Nov 13, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> im an artist and a gaming artist at that so everything is art


okay



> aslfhuaeglwfigulaergbargbargjhbaf



is that art

it took no skill or thought and it has no point

much like a large chunk of FA submissions!


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I dont have these pics. They are links. And the only reason I even know about this, is because it was a topic on these forums some time ago. And pretending that things like this dont happen wont make it all better.
> 
> But Im using them to try and make a point. All I want you to say is whether or not this is art. And if it is, why it is art. Its all Im doing.
> 
> You see, you cant answer my question, without making me right, can you? If you say that it isnt art, then you admit that not everything is art. If you say yes, it is, the only possible justification that this... vile thing can be art is because it had intended purpose, inspired higher thought, and provokes emotion. No matter what you say in response, youd just prove yourself wrong, wouldnt you?


It is art. Why? Because it is a deliberately and creative arranging of elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. This piece brings a lot of emotions out in people. I do not agree with it, and I think the people that actually went and saw it and did not attempt to feed the dog are bastards, but it is art non-the-less.


----------



## Emil (Nov 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> It is art. Why? Because it is a deliberately and creative arranging of elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. This piece brings a lot of emotions out in people. I do not agree with it, and I think the people that actually went and saw it and did not attempt to feed the dog are bastards, but it is art non-the-less.



Correct. At least, IMO =P


----------



## Balto.Woof (Nov 13, 2008)

Though, I have interest in such subjects.  I have to honestly say that such material does not belong on FA.  There are plenty of better suited (no pun intended) places on the internet to post and share such material.

I vote to go no further than Anthro/Fantasy yiffy art.  

Thanks 

-Balto Woof


----------



## TwitchSandwich (Nov 13, 2008)

Balto.Woof said:


> Though, I have interest in such subjects.  I have to honestly say that such material does not belong on FA.  There are plenty of better suited (no pun intended) places on the internet to post and share such material.
> 
> I vote to go no further than Anthro/Fantasy yiffy art.
> 
> ...



Fuck it, I say ban that too since there might be one or two people that won't like that either


----------



## Balto.Woof (Nov 13, 2008)

TwitchSandwich said:


> Fuck it, I say ban that too since there might be one or two people that won't like that either



Scotchgard FA please


----------



## rpolack (Nov 14, 2008)

look everyone, I wasn't planing on replying to this but this is starting to out of hand.  so lets take me for example, I don't like cub porn, vore, scat, watersports or anything that looks like murder porn.  however if its furry art it is totally legal to be posted on this sight.  so you know what i do... I dont watch it.  if someone wants to have "fantasies" and not reality about that stuff and if the people that run this sight are ok with that then fine.  i just will not have anything to do with it.  but if someone wants to pretend having sex in a fursuit with another person in a fursuit or to show there pee pee  sticking out of there suit then that is all of the sudden a problem?  I mean i just don't get it, especially if there is an adult selection on the picture submission.  

Now i know that FA is suppose to be for furry and furry only people only, but aren't suiters a part of the furry fandom.  so if they want to "whore" them selfs out by showing there wankers though there suit for the attention of others then how is that different from someone drawing a johnson just so they can get people to watch them and maybe order a commission from them?  

so in short, who cares.  and on a personal level, I prefer real cock over cartoon cock.  I love suiters and all the do is help make the fantasy come true for people like me.  and when I say fantasy i mean the fantasies that are legal in these united states of America and that don't involve bowel movements. ;p


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2008)

DenzuPuppy said:


> did you know more than 3 times furs own zetas than fursuits in the fandom.


Can I get statistics and sales figures? Because, uh... yeah. =P


----------



## Nanakisan (Nov 14, 2008)

oh for the love of jenova not another fursuit thread.


----------



## Emil (Nov 14, 2008)

One of the most common arguments Ive seen here to argue that fursuit porn they should be allowed is that "Things here are already bad, so what harm could possibly come of letting things get worse?" Isnt this argument really ridiculous?

Also, at this point Id like to break down the sides of those who have participated in this thread, based on their personal, often self stated views on the matter.

*Pro*

-Who cares, we allow everything else
-_Participates in/has interest in fursuit porn_

*Con*

-Is only against the idea that fursuit porn belongs on an artsite
-_Participates in/has interest in fursuit porn_, but still believes it doesnt belong on an artsite

It looks to me that some people who are actually interested in it, dont believe it has reason to be on an art site. It really just makes me think that people who want it to be on site, really dont think so because it belongs here, but because they just want free fursuit porn =\ Because, if someone with the same interests, can look at the same data, and come to the opposite conclusion, it just makes me think that the other sides opinion is biased. But thats just my interpretation, could be wrong.

Not that it matters anyway, since the Dragoneer has stated he has no intention of ever allowing it =P


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 14, 2008)

^Yet you still continue to try to bring up shit...

Anyways, you forgot to mention that currently what I am attempting to get passed is to allow fur suits that are fully intact and show no human flesh. I would also like to have suggesting suits (Pin ups) allowed. 

What has been stated is that you can provide links in your submission to off-site sources of human or human in animal suit sex.


----------



## Emil (Nov 14, 2008)

Basically, this is what I now propose

-Fursuit sex, or simulated fursuit sex should not nor ever be allowed
-Adult suits should be allowed to be submitted, as long as the suit isnt being worn. Manaquins and stuffings are fine. 
-Suggestive photos should be allowed, as long as no sexual characteristics are shown (either real, or fake) essentially limiting suggestive poses to non adult suits (but really, an adult suit can be used, just as long as nobody sees the bits)


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 14, 2008)

Alright, let me go ahead and list out my reasoning.

There is currently an Adult Fursuit Section, but the rules do not allow for adult suits. This is because of a rule that was changed however long ago for some reason or another. The problem is that you guys never removed the Adult Section, which just sets people up for failure. 

There is no reason, in my opinion, that a fursuit with crafted "bits" cannot be shown on the site. At this point it is just like a sculpture, or any other work of art. Suggestive poses, in my opinion, should also be allowed as neither of these things are *Sex* which is the big kicker due to the Child Protective blah blah blah stuff.

Fursuits are Art; and I do not believe in censorship. I understand that Sex cannot be shown, but falling short of that there should be no reason why Fursuits are not allowed. There is no law or regulation against it, to my knowledge.

Fursuits do not end at the completion of the construction process. Even if a suit is purchased the "art" you create still there. It takes a lot of work to get emotion out of a lifeless head. It's hard to get a natural looking pose when you have 10% of your normal view, cannot see where your tail is sitting, or know if your suit is bunched up in odd places. 

That's pretty much all I have to say on it.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 14, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Eevee is just a programmer; he does not have "FurAffinity Staff" under his name, and he to my knowledge does not do anything the normal staff does do.  Therefore I do not classify him as being on staff.


You are right in that anyone with a green name isn't a policy/admin type. But they _are_ staff. Saying that they aren't is like saying that the cafeteria staff at a school don't work for the school because they aren't teachers.



Quiet269 said:


> I know net-cat works on the site, but I do not know his full role, can I take what is said here as "Gospel" and run with it? Or do I need it verified through someone else before we can start posting links to Xtubewithin a submission?


RTFAUP. 

There is nothing regarding the links in descriptions. Now, there are some other provisions that my apply to some activities, (spamming or illegal activities and such,) but it would be horribly unfair of us to remove links.

-----

Now, it seems to me that, based on the AUP and the reasoning behind it, "sheath suits" would be acceptable to upload as long as it is extremely clear that it's not being worn. (That would rule out stuffing and mannequins, although I suppose you could still do it if you left the head off, or something.) If you want to wear a sheath suit and upload it, put some pants on first. 

*DISCLAIMER:* This is not site policy, it is my opinion. If somebody with a blue name says or has said no, _follow their statement._ If you quote this as an excuse, you will be laughed at.


----------



## Shiron Mana (Nov 14, 2008)

a friend of mine showe this page to me some days ago. i read hole thing. i'm shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this page is orginal Furry Page there all furries and fursuiters show their art and suits 


End of my reply. i will say no more of this man


----------



## Emil (Nov 14, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Fursuits do not end at the completion of the construction process. Even if a suit is purchased the "art" you create still there. It takes a lot of work to get emotion out of a lifeless head. It's hard to get a natural looking pose when you have 10% of your normal view, cannot see where your tail is sitting, or know if your suit is bunched up in odd places.



To pose is to become a human mannequin. Setting the pose is the photographers job, not the one in the suit, they just do what theyre told. They are just the subject. If the fursuiter themself is the photographer, then when taking the picture they are making their decisions on what looks natural as a photographer, not a fursuiter.

What youre talking about isnt fursuiting, its photography. Fursuiting is what you do when you go out and interact with others, and roleplay your character to bring them to life. In short, its acting, and it is art. But capturing an image in a photograph, and using that image to instill emotion, now *that* is photography.


----------



## Quiet269 (Nov 14, 2008)

So, they're both art, and you're still trying to start shit?

Gotcha.


----------



## Emil (Nov 14, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> So, they're both art, and you're still trying to start shit?
> 
> Gotcha.



My point is, is youre arguing for something thats right, with a completely incorrect understanding of why, or even what makes these things what they are >< I mean, youre arguing that these rules violate the rights of fursuiters, when they dont. The fursuiter is only the subject, not the artist in a photograph x.x The real rights being violated are of the photographer.

You being right is just a coincidence


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 14, 2008)

Didn't you say you were done a while ago? Is this the "gift" that keeps giving?


----------



## Emil (Nov 14, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Didn't you say you were done a while ago? Is this the "gift" that keeps giving?



Yes, you are right. Im finished here. Youre probably better of just locking the thread lol


----------



## Roland (Nov 14, 2008)

Things that we have established:
1.) Fursuits are art
2.) The porn is not
3.) Taking pictures that portray an action or feeling is art
4.) Hip-thrusting (and the like) in front of a camera is not
5.) Realistic porn will never be allowed on FA. Period.
6.) Dildos that were not made by you will never be allowed on FA. Period.
7.) Posting a picture of your fursuit is just as justified as posting a drawn commission you've received.  
8.) It is not your right to post sexual fursuit pictures to FA.  Real sexual acts are not allowed on FA, the same should apply whether or not you are in a fursuit. 
9.) The adult fursuit section is legacy and should not confuse the user so long as they actually read the AUP.
10.) Fursuiting/bringing a lifeless character to life is art, but is not subject to being post onto FA, as it is likely to require video, not pictures.
11.) Actually creating the fursuit is art.  Simply wearing it (and posing in it for your typical MySpace photo) is not. 

That's my list for now, considering what I've seen from this thread.  Am I missing anything?


----------

