# Can a transformation be sexually explict?



## sagehorn (Aug 7, 2012)

I came across this one gallery that had several submissions of child characters, many toddlers, some no older than ten, going through a transformation of growing udders.
The descriptions of the art, lean on the heavy fetish side.
I reported them, just to be safe. 
But I was told that it is not sexually explicit.

I am wondering at what line does transformation become sexually explicit?
Its it when nudity and/or breast/cock  becomes involved? Or simply just some udders bursting out of a toddler's diaper?


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 7, 2012)

Depends. Udders could be considered on par with breasts so, yes, that may not be allowed. I'd probably need to see the images to make a better judgement call. Is the character is turning into a non-anthro cow? Could be allowed. Udders are sorta standard fare. If they're turning into a busty adult with udders... well, maybe not. It would depend on the context, whether it's intended to be mature. Sort of a grey area. Would really depend on "is this intended to be kept in line with the species... or is it clearly meant to be more than that."

Also, I don't think characters the age of 10 can be considered a toddler anymore. =P That kind of ends about 2 or 3.


----------



## sagehorn (Aug 7, 2012)

Ah, poor wording on my choice, sorry, I menat children over all, haha. 

As for the submissions, they stay as children, and sprout udders and tails those are the only changes. 

As for the artist comments. 

Well, here. http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2767993/


----------



## Zenia (Aug 7, 2012)

Ugh... the first two parts of that picture aren't too bad... but the udder one along with the submissions description are gross.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 7, 2012)

The udder doesn't even bother me, it's actually the description underneath like "Smack dat ass" (to get the milk out) on an underage girl? ummmmm


----------



## Teal (Aug 7, 2012)

I find the udder gross, and that description...


----------



## Zenia (Aug 7, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> The udder doesn't even bother me, it's actually the description underneath like "Smack dat ass" (to get the milk out) on an underage girl? ummmmm


I agree. The udder isn't *bad* ... just the fondling of it and the description are squicky.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 7, 2012)

Definitely seems explicit to me.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 9, 2012)

If not visually, the description heavily implies it as explicit.


----------



## BRN (Aug 9, 2012)

I think the posters in this thread are jumping the gun.

 This sort of cartoon is something you'd see on a jokey calendar you buy some relative-you-don't-really-know for Christmas. It's tasteless but hardly sexually explicit.


----------



## Anubite (Aug 9, 2012)

Weird, very weird, I wouldnt count it as explicit. The comments make it worse though, not my cup of tea.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX said:


> I think the posters in this thread are jumping the gun.
> 
> This sort of cartoon is something you'd see on a jokey calendar you buy some relative-you-don't-really-know for Christmas. It's tasteless but hardly sexually explicit.



Lemme know how well you'll function in society going "Smack dat ass" to 10 year old girls in public.


----------



## BRN (Aug 9, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Lemme know how well you'll function in society going "Smack dat ass" to 10 year old girls in public.



 Don't muddle the issue; we're discussing the picture, not the attitude of those who "liked" it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX said:


> Don't muddle the issue; we're discussing the picture, not the attitude of those who "liked" it.



Someone didn't read the description.


----------



## BRN (Aug 9, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Someone didn't read the description.



The picture stands alone from its description, you know that. What are you claiming?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX said:


> The picture stands alone from its description, you know that. What are you claiming?



No it does not. It's part of the image. What are YOU claiming?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 9, 2012)

...not sure if asking what eachother's claims are rhetorically serves any function greater than 'no u,'. 

The description shows they created the image with sexual intent, whilst the image might not be considered inherently sexual _without _its description we stumble into a realm of visual semantics where nobody can decide anything on those grounds.

Hence it is explicit by practical measure.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 9, 2012)

All I could think of when reading this was this sort of thing. 



Arshes Nei said:


> No it does not. It's part of the image. What are YOU claiming?



I think it might be better worded to say that it's part of the _submission_.


----------



## BRN (Aug 9, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> No it does not. It's part of the image. What are YOU claiming?


:/

How is a distinctly seperable textual description at all part of the content of an _image_? I'm claiming - rather clearly, I'd think - that the sexual content of an image must be judged on its own merits. I think you're confusing fetishistic content with sexual content, but in terms of actual indecency, what on earth makes that image pornographic? It's a cartoon girl squeezing a bizarre udder. 

If I saw it pinned on a colleague's cubicle, or as an illustration on a greetings card, I'd think nothing of it beyond "haha, how silly".


----------



## sagehorn (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX said:


> :/
> 
> How is a distinctly seperable textual description at all part of the content of an _image_? I'm claiming - rather clearly, I'd think - that the sexual content of an image must be judged on its own merits. I think you're confusing fetishistic content with sexual content, but in terms of actual indecency, what on earth makes that image pornographic? It's a cartoon girl squeezing a bizarre udder.



The description shows us the attitude behind that artist. Who, clearly drawn this for the sexual satisfaction. 

The art on its own wouldn't be considered sexual in nature. But when the attitude behind it shows effectively sexual molestation of a little girl, yes, it is sexual, yes it is pornographic. Once the attitude of the artist is revealed, the description can't be separated from the picture.

Its the same case if there is a photo of a little girl in a swimming suit. Maybe her mother took the photo to put in a scrap book. That is fine, and normal.
But if you find that same photo in the hands of some one with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, it completely changes.

The fact that this is a drawn child, doesn't change anything. 
Its a matter of principles and context.


----------



## Zenia (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX said:


> If I saw it pinned on a colleague's cubicle, or as an illustration on a greetings card, I'd think nothing of it beyond "haha, how silly".


And if the greeting written on the outside of that card was "Ooh yeah, smack dat ass!" would it still be ok?


----------



## BRN (Aug 9, 2012)

sagehorn said:


> The description shows us the attitude behind that artist. Who, clearly drawn this for the sexual satisfaction.
> 
> The art on its own wouldn't be considered sexual in nature. But when the attitude behind it shows effectively sexual molestation of a little girl, yes, it is sexual, yes it is pornographic. Once the attitude of the artist is revealed, the description can't be separated from the picture.
> 
> ...


I can't help but feel that the belief that text, and the intent of the artist, belong to the image is part of an irreconciliable school of thought. For me, the text and the intent belong to my perception of the artist's integrity, not  the image.

 I refute the statement that the image is sexual and pornographic. My stance is that were I to see the image on its own before knowing the intent of the artist, I would not see anything sexual in the image. How knowledge of other people's external perceptions can alter the internal state of art is absolutely bizarre to me; an unassailable, illogical, untenable position. 



Zenia said:


> And if the greeting written on the outside of that card was "Ooh yeah, smack dat ass!" would it still be ok?



But it isn't. If it were written on the image, it wouldn't be that _seperable_ piece of text. It isn't part of the image; the metaphor doesn't stand. If it were part of the card it wouldn't be seperable.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX, I don't understand the point you're trying to make

A trouble ticket can be written for not just the art, but the intent of it

By your logic I can defend stolen art because I didn't know it was stolen, so it's perfectly okay, because the art still stands on its own
BUT the problem is FA still works on a method of art ALONGSIDE intent

We have the intent

Therefore we have a problem


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX said:


> :/
> 
> How is a distinctly seperable textual description at all part of the content of an _image_? I'm claiming - rather clearly, I'd think - that the sexual content of an image must be judged on its own merits. I think you're confusing fetishistic content with sexual content, but in terms of actual indecency, what on earth makes that image pornographic? It's a cartoon girl squeezing a bizarre udder.
> 
> If I saw it pinned on a colleague's cubicle, or as an illustration on a greetings card, I'd think nothing of it beyond "haha, how silly".


cause thats how you are Six, you actually have to stop thinking how you would feel towards and think how other folks would react, cause if I saw the same thing with the words "Smack dat ass" wondering why would you have such a thing. I would see it comical if it was a donkey getting slapped if the same words was used.

Understand that a picture it self could be non sexual, I get that remove the description and really it does come off as something being silly, but really the description show that there is a chance there is sexual reasons behind it. Though I read enough Hentai to know going
A guy in the crowd: I pay you $500 dollars To do her while milking her !
its no longer cutesy it becomes a bit creepy

You have to understand that often time the Description shows the reasons if not the meaning behind the picture...but furries being furries 90% of them dont read the description.
In this situation its still general though...the person who requested the pic showed that they had nothing of sexual desire on it, as they made a comment on said submission wishing the description showing something else.


----------



## Zenia (Aug 9, 2012)

SIX said:


> If it were written on the image, it wouldn't be that _seperable_ piece of text. It isn't part of the image; the metaphor doesn't stand. If it were part of the card it wouldn't be seperable.


The only thing that can be separated are the comments left by OTHERS on the art. The artist drew the picture, the artist made the description... therefore they are a matched set.


----------



## sagehorn (Aug 9, 2012)

I wish not to get in to an argument of what goes behind art. But intent and art are very much intertwined. You can't have art with out intent. When one interprets something, they have to do so while considering the intent behind it, the same way that judges and juries do. It takes things out of context to not consider in the intent of the person. 

As Dragoneer stated earlier: It would depend on the context, whether it's intended to be mature.  Sort of a grey area. Would really depend on "is this intended to be kept  in line with the species... or is it clearly meant to be more than  that."

In addition to this, it would be possible to argue that without context the image IS a sexual one. Attaching pubescent characteristics (udder) to a prepubescent character is problematic. And no, breasts aren't automatically sexual, but the character is fondling the udder. Plus, since the character is under the age of consent, it could easily be considered on-consensual transforming...


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 9, 2012)

Zenia said:


> The only thing that can be separated are the comments left by OTHERS on the art. The artist drew the picture, the artist made the description... therefore they are a matched set.


but you are forgetting the person who requested the picture, reading the comments on who asked for the pic showed that they didnt have any sexual desire towards the pic. (though a possibility they did due to the whole "milking machine" part)


----------



## Zenia (Aug 9, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> but you are forgetting the person who requested the picture...


But in making the description the artist did, he made it sexualized.


----------



## sagehorn (Aug 9, 2012)

I did breeze through they're favorites. And they have several submissions Favorited that involve udders being grown, milked; not so innocently depicted. So, there is a high possibility that this was a request with sexual intent.


----------



## Anubite (Aug 9, 2012)

I feel that when theirs children involved, its not quite right. Something about it doesnt sit well when a child has udders and within the gallery of said person their are more child related things. Man its weird.


----------



## Bittertooth (Aug 9, 2012)

It looks to me like the middle picture has some of the butt revealed, kinda like those Coppertone sunscreen bottles.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 9, 2012)

Someone pass the eye soap please.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 9, 2012)

d.batty said:


> Someone pass the eye soap please.



I'll go borrow you some bleach...


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 9, 2012)

This is why I took up drinking.


----------

