# Do you consider FA a porn site?



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

I am very curious about this, as I have seen it brought up in many conversations in forums. If any pornographic material is on any site, does that automatically label it as a porn site? Do you think that is what FA is known for?

I personally believe it is not. I think it is just an art site that allows all mediums of art. (aside from certain...sensitive subjects  )


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 10, 2012)

Yes, yes I do.

Not that that's a bad thing, but let's be frank, it's what we all came here for in the first place.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Yes, yes I do.
> 
> Not that that's a bad thing, but let's be frank, it's what we all came here for in the first place.



Not everybody came to this site for porn. :/


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 10, 2012)

Well, okay, not _everybody _but those that didn't are in the minority.


----------



## Pocketmew (Sep 10, 2012)

If it is a website where 13yr olds are allowed on, I should hope it is not just a porn site!  XD I consider is an art gallery, just like Deviantart or any of the other multitudes of galleries. The only difference is we're allowed to post porn


----------



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

Pocketmew said:


> If it is a website where 13yr olds are allowed on, I should hope it is not just a porn site!  XD I consider is an art gallery, just like Deviantart or any of the other multitudes of galleries. The only difference is we're allowed to post porn



That's precisely what I thought as well.


----------



## Taasla (Sep 10, 2012)

Legally, no.
Technically, yes.

A lot of the folks who run business on FA probably wouldn't garner so much business if it weren't for the porn.  There is nothing wrong with porn, either.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 10, 2012)

First and foremost, yes it is.

You have some clean art but if I remember the numbers right the vast majority of people are looking at the porn.


----------



## Arcsol (Sep 10, 2012)

Though I see a lot of it on there a day, no I dont consider it to be. I see some kinds of art that completely blow me away that arent porn, I think its a place where most artists can grow and evolve to something way better than they were before. I come for the mindblowing art~


----------



## kayfox (Sep 10, 2012)

It is a porn site, yes.

My guess: Porn pays the bills.

Makes me wish we still had Yerf.


----------



## RTDragon (Sep 10, 2012)

Well for me yes it is considering the site history Especially if you've made an account since 2005. not surprisingly since porn is very popular on here and other sites don't allow porn. Though sadly currently no site that is for just clean art now.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 10, 2012)

Absolutely.


----------



## super boo (Sep 10, 2012)

It's both both pornographic and non-pornographic images. Who cares how it's classified? You can find amazing art however you prefer to think of the place. v  v

I really like having both in one place. Sometimes I accidentally find really gorgeous clean art when I'm looking for porn. And I've found really sexy stuff when looking for clean art. Haha.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

So I suppose I should ask, did most of you come just because of the porn? Or was there other reasons?
Not all the great artists who pay the bills with art do it by doing porn. I can think of several that do just as well. o-o


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 10, 2012)

I think Tartii is just desperately trying to find validation that her current main stomping ground isn't a pornographic gallery.

Unfortunately it is.

ONE OF US! ONE OF US!


----------



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I think Tartii is just desperately trying to find validation that her current main stomping ground isn't a pornographic gallery.
> 
> Unfortunately it is.
> 
> ONE OF US! ONE OF US!


? 
I don't see how this has anything to do with me. Its just a simple question. If it was just a pornographic place that MOST people only come to for porn, then the clean artists wouldn't be doing so well.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 10, 2012)

Oh we all like other things. There's not a favorites gallery out there that's not full of non-smutty stuff. I even paid for some commissioned myself.

But you can bet your breakfast biscuits the porn is what keeps most of em coming back.


----------



## Taasla (Sep 10, 2012)

I didn't come here for the pron, no.  It was the only site that catered to my interests (that was active), and me getting into doing mostly porn for business was incidental.  :3

And you have to be ridiculously good in order to make it doing clean art only here and/or built up a fanbase that knows you for doing clean art only.  Mostly everyone else has to resort to the dirties, which aside from the occasional creeper in a blue moon, has been fun.

edit:  Which, ironically, I don't commission porn very much at all.  I'm actually far too shy to ask for what I'd like to see.  :B


----------



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

Taasla said:


> I didn't come here for the pron, no.  It was the only site that catered to my interests (that was active), and me getting into doing mostly porn for business was incidental.  :3
> 
> And you have to be ridiculously good in order to make it doing clean art only here and/or built up a fanbase that knows you for doing clean art only.  Mostly everyone else has to resort to the dirties, which aside from the occasional creeper in a blue moon, has been fun.
> 
> edit:  Which, ironically, I don't commission porn very much at all.  I'm actually far too shy to ask for what I'd like to see.  :B



 Haha I would be a dirty, filthy liar if I said I didn't like commissioning adult themes myself! It's a guilty pleasure of humanity. 
But I first joined this site, OBLIVIOUS there was porn! But I look at artists like Falvie who do so darn well on their own, it means that the majority of people don't come JUST for the porn. Does it play a factor? SURE! Its human curiosity! We like to see things that raise our interests and cater to our 'desires' ;P. But was it the MAIN reason people joined? No I dont think so.


----------



## Teal (Sep 10, 2012)

It's an art site.






TeenageAngst said:


> Oh we all like other things. There's not a favorites gallery out there that's not full of non-smutty stuff. I even paid for some commissioned myself.
> 
> But you can bet your breakfast biscuits the porn is what keeps most of em coming back.


 I don't have any porn in my favorites.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Sep 10, 2012)

It does have porn on it tho mainly I do not think it is.
Inkbunny and SoFurry I think have more way porn than FA.

Its a miraclel when Inkbunny gets a G rated post


----------



## Taasla (Sep 10, 2012)

Tartii said:


> Haha I would be a dirty, filthy liar if I said I didn't like commissioning adult themes myself! It's a guilty pleasure of humanity.
> But I first joined this site, OBLIVIOUS there was porn! But I look at artists like Falvie who do so darn well on their own, it means that the majority of people don't come JUST for the porn. Does it play a factor? SURE! Its human curiosity! We like to see things that raise our interests and cater to our 'desires' ;P. But was it the MAIN reason people joined? No I dont think so.



I was going to use Centradragon as an example, myself.  It just about blew my mind when I first saw her stuff.  Or Balaa.  

But yeah, when I first joined FA I wasn't aware that there was adult material.  I stumbled upon the mature filter option while poking around my settings and... turned. it. off.

Oh my god, my poor brain exploded.  I had never seen seven donged boobie dragons before, but damn it, FA that stuff doesn't phase me anymore!


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 10, 2012)

I was a member for FA for a long while before I felt like a leech and started submitting stuff. I remember when I was excited to get 20 views on a submission, like just last week.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

Taasla said:


> I was going to use Centradragon as an example, myself.  It just about blew my mind when I first saw her stuff.  Or Balaa.
> 
> But yeah, when I first joined FA I wasn't aware that there was adult material.  I stumbled upon the mature filter option while poking around my settings and... turned. it. off.
> 
> Oh my god, my poor brain exploded.  I had never seen seven donged boobie dragons before, but damn it, FA that stuff doesn't phase me anymore!



OMG I looove Balaa! Centradragon is incredible as well!
And I remember when I first turned off my settings...I was freaked by the different peni and all the...really...strange fetishes. Now very few things irk me. But some stillll dooo.....>.>''


----------



## Clairissa (Sep 10, 2012)

It's mostly porn, so it's a porn site.

If there was a site that was all about art, had lots of non-pornographic art, then suddenly became 90% porn, it would be considered a porn site and blocked by any school/workplace that knows what content is posted there.

(That's what FA is by the way, minus the not being 90%+ porn to begin with)


----------



## Aetius (Sep 10, 2012)

Wait, people don't consider it a porn site?


----------



## Tartii (Sep 10, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Wait, people don't consider it a porn site?



Nope. Some of us dont.
Filter on: Regular art site. Like DA...just....with a looooot more furries.
Filter off: LOTS AND LOTS OF PRON but not 100%.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 10, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Well, okay, not _everybody _but those that didn't are in the minority.



You don't speak for all of us, son. A majority of the art on the site is clean. There's a reason for this. 



Taasla said:


> I didn't come here for the pron, no.  It was the only site that catered to my interests (that was active), and me getting into doing mostly porn for business was incidental.  :3
> 
> And you have to be ridiculously good in order to make it doing clean art only here and/or built up a fanbase that knows you for doing clean art only.  Mostly everyone else has to resort to the dirties, which aside from the occasional creeper in a blue moon, has been fun.
> 
> edit:  Which, ironically, I don't commission porn very much at all.  I'm actually far too shy to ask for what I'd like to see.  :B



I know a few artists that do primarly clean work and others who do only clean work. There's relatively no reason for me to look at porn. I just don't find it attractive. Yeah, stick that penis back in your pants, man!


----------



## Hunter (Sep 10, 2012)

Am almost tempted to flood inkbunny with Tame and mildly suggestive art .

Frankly it makes me sad that ppl are surfing the furry fandom just for porn now a days.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 10, 2012)

Yeah, I miss the halcyon days of the furry fandom when it wasn't about the porn, man. It was about like, the art! Or was it a dumpster fandom for social outcasts... I don't remember, I was smoking all kinds of stuff in those days, droogie


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 10, 2012)

Clairissa said:


> It's mostly porn, so it's a porn site.
> 
> If there was a site that was all about art, had lots of non-pornographic art, then suddenly became 90% porn, it would be considered a porn site and blocked by any school/workplace that knows what content is posted there.
> 
> (That's what FA is by the way, minus the not being 90%+ porn to begin with)



I don't know what the latest stats are, but here's last year's: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/103627-Fur-Affinity-Stats-(July-7-2011)?highlight=statistics

So "general art" technically accounts for about half of the art on the site.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 10, 2012)

That's taking music and poetry into account too, which aren't usually a "sex" medium.


----------



## Taasla (Sep 10, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> You don't speak for all of us, son. A majority of the art on the site is clean. There's a reason for this.
> 
> 
> 
> I know a few artists that do primarly clean work and others who do only clean work. There's relatively no reason for me to look at porn. I just don't find it attractive. Yeah, stick that penis back in your pants, man!



I'm a female, but ok.  Keep on truckin'.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 10, 2012)

If not a porn site, a site full of trollbait.


----------



## Wandering_Smoke (Sep 10, 2012)

I think it is perceived as a porn site. I see it as an art site that has porn. Two thirds of what I fav is clean art.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 10, 2012)

Wandering_Smoke said:


> I think it is perceived as a porn site. I see it as an art site that has porn. Two thirds of what I fav is clean art.



This. And I guess some people compare it to DA...so ya know. Just an estimate, I'd say 85% of my faves are clean.


----------



## Punnchy (Sep 10, 2012)

When fa's back up have a look at how many general submissions are uploaded incomparison to the art that is of a pornographic or mature nature. I think from my observation that it would be found that there are less porn arts then general stuff, thus making the site not porn by majority rule.


----------



## Koda (Sep 10, 2012)

No. Per my metrics when I did some scraping of the site a while back, at any given time only 20% of artwork is mature or adult in nature. That's 1 in 5.

So, simply because the non porn vastly outweighs the porn, I wouldn't call it a porn site. To me, FA is a social site, its my replacement for Facebook, twitter, blogs, whatever. FA is the only social site I belong to, and it fills that need.

You can also turn porn off on this site, or view the sfw mirror. Try doing that with Xtube


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 10, 2012)

It depends. People have their own bias on what they think the site is because of it's content.
Surprisingly, FA doesn't have a lot of porn in terms of percentage, so I wouldn't call it that. It's like calling DA a social site like myspace because some teenagers are camwhores and decide to post their camwhore pics.


----------



## TheNakedLunch (Sep 10, 2012)

I say it's a magical in-between of user toggable porn and generalness. I'm here for whatever looks cool, both suggestive and not.


----------



## Taralack (Sep 11, 2012)

Since I conduct most of my business on FA, I'd say no. You don't get your jiggles off where you work.


----------



## Rufus (Sep 11, 2012)

Sadly Yes. :/


----------



## BRN (Sep 11, 2012)

Actually, no.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 11, 2012)

Just having porn on the site doesn't make it a porn site.
Heck, even the statistics are pretty clear, by far most art on the site's rated "General".

I'm not denying there's a buttload of porn on FA, nor that there are plenty of people that only come here for it.

And just a shout-out to TeenageAngst:
Could you please stop pretending you know everything about the fandom, and stop stating your opinions / conspiracy theories as if they are fact.
I mean, shit like "There's not a favorites gallery out there that's not full of non-smutty stuff." is so far from reality...

Honestly, stop while you're still somewhat credible.


----------



## Smelge (Sep 11, 2012)

Porn sites are generally built to be a porn site. The whole thing is geared to porn from the pictures and videos right through to the actual site graphics.

So no, it's not a porn site. It's a site with porn on it. It's like saying a jug is only a jug when it's empty, and it becomes something different when you fill it with other stuff.


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 11, 2012)

It's like deviantart but with more hyper porn and ponies. And sometimes both at the same time.


----------



## Nega Wolfie (Sep 11, 2012)

To be honest I really wouldn't call it a porn site. Due to the fact pornography is something that you see people doing it, photos and videos. 
I see Furaffinity as just an art site with erotica artwork. I mean seeing that the site is for 13 and older just like Deviant Art it is nothing more but a art website.


----------



## Quilmeleon (Sep 11, 2012)

Nope


----------



## Dragonfurry (Sep 11, 2012)

Not really no. I came on FA more for the good art and nice people. The porn is second priority for me. :/


----------



## Taigitsune-Kun (Sep 11, 2012)

FA is a porn site in the same way Family Video is a porn rental store.


----------



## Draghorn (Sep 11, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Not that that's a bad thing, but let's be frank, it's what we all came here for in the first place.



Actually I didn't come here for that.  -_-  I came here from DA because, mainly I noticed several anthro/furry artists I followed there seemed to be moving here, and there seemed to be a lot of mentioning of FA among the furry artists on DA.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 11, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Yes, yes I do.
> 
> Not that that's a bad thing, but let's be frank, it's what we all came here for in the first place.



You are overgeneralizing. Many people did not come strictly to FA for the porn. Some came here either for joining a furry related site, issues pertaining to DA, or just because. Saying that everyone coes here for porn is like saying that everyone joins the furry fandom to fuck dogs.


----------



## Slaton (Sep 11, 2012)

No. I consider it to be what it says on the tin, site for furries and those interested etc... If i want porn i'll just go visit a porn site. *shrugs*


----------



## GnR (Sep 11, 2012)

Technically I would think not, It's just an art site (like DeviantArt) where people can post their work. Most of the art though is porn and most of the people on the site probably came for the porn.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 11, 2012)

GnR said:


> Technically I would think not, It's just an art site (like DeviantArt) where people can post their work. Most of the art though is porn and most of the people on the site probably came for the porn.



Food for thought for those with conformation bias. 

If you see a lot of porn on FA yourself because that what your eyes are set on, you will think it is a site built *just* for porn.


----------



## Xeras'na Bladewing (Sep 11, 2012)

I see FA a place where artists, musicians, and writers can come together and share their work. So some of the pictures are pornographic. Big deal. It's still a multimedia sharing site.


----------



## FoxWolfie (Sep 11, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I think Tartii is just desperately trying to find validation that her current main stomping ground isn't a pornographic gallery.
> 
> Unfortunately it is.



I think the stats that Dragoneer posted last year speak for themselves.



> Total Number of Submissions
> General - 3,493,103
> Mature - 532,855
> Adult - 486,858



This is not a porn site, but it does allow porn.  Sure, some people are here just for the porn, or mainly for the porn. Most almost certainly are not.  A quick look through a person's favorites gallery tends to reveal a lot about what they are here for.  My own favorites gallery contains something like 5 percent adult and mature combined. The rest is general. Why? Because I'm not here for the porn. Most of the 400+ people I'm watching aren't either - though some are.

The porn here certainly doesn't bother me. I like some of it, assuming I like the art. To say that this is a porn site though, goes against the statistics.  Porn would be classified as "adult" in the statistics, and that comes to something like only 12 percent. Even if we count simply mature art, which isn't porn, it still comes to a little under one-third. There is simply no way this can be accurately called a porn site.  On top of all this, there is a SFW mode and filters, to prevent people from seeing what porn there is if they like. I don't suspect that xTube has a SFW mode!  Perhaps that's because xTube is a porn site.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 11, 2012)

Haha Im glad to know I'm not one of the few who think that. But rather, a majority! I have had debates before about this very topic, but unfortunatly I do not do well in conversation (though I try my best.) So thanks for all of your input!


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Sep 11, 2012)

If it was a porn site then it wouldn't allow clean art so no its not.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

I'm not registered on any [other?] porn sites, so I had no control for comparrison. 
I upload plenty of non pornographic images and view plenty of non pornographic images, so it's definitely not a site exclusively for porn.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 11, 2012)

So considering all this, do you consider FA to be a good representation as the fur community on its own?
Perhaps a good example of how several people come to the fandom just for the pornography, thinking that that is what it is mainly about? And, sadly, that is what the outside world mostly views it as?
Or, do you think that the statistics speak for themselves, and that those that are into the pornography just happen to 'shine' louder than those that are into the general community (i.e. just like having a place where a lot of furs gather to discuss all aspects of the fandom?). And what makes this so?


----------



## BRN (Sep 11, 2012)

Tartii said:


> So considering all this, do you consider FA to be a good representation as the fur community on its own?
> Perhaps a good example of how several people come to the fandom just for the pornography, thinking that that is what it is mainly about? And, sadly, that is what the outside world mostly views it as?
> Or, do you think that the statistics speak for themselves, and that those that are into the pornography just happen to 'shine' louder than those that are into the general community (i.e. just like having a place where a lot of furs gather to discuss all aspects of the fandom?). And what makes this so?



Honestly, it's the _best_ representation. We've got the most users, so we've got the largest spread, right?

I like seeing all the different social circles surrounding different areas and niches of interest. I mean, take Tartii and Tartiimons as a perfect example of that sort of thing; it's like communities within community. Then there's that whole spectrum of interest - people with heavy investments in the adult side of the fandom, and those with heavy investments in cute and clean... lots to see!

Anybody from outside FA can only scratch the surface of all the community links inside, hence, they're only gonna see what they're looking to find. But I'm willing to bet that no matter what someone tries to find, they'll find exactly that, somewhere on FA.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

Tartii said:


> So considering all this, do you consider FA to be a good representation as the fur community on its own?
> Perhaps a good example of how several people come to the fandom just for the pornography, thinking that that is what it is mainly about? And, sadly, that is what the outside world mostly views it as?
> Or, do you think that the statistics speak for themselves, and that those that are into the pornography just happen to 'shine' louder than those that are into the general community (i.e. just like having a place where a lot of furs gather to discuss all aspects of the fandom?). And what makes this so?



I don't know. ;^; 
I don't want to develop an agenda to prove on this subject. I've no idea what the average person who stumbles upon fur affinity thinks... probably not a lot because all the sexual art is filtered unless they are registered and over 18, so it's not like FA is providing the same representation to the outside world as it does to its inner sanctum.


----------



## kaskae (Sep 11, 2012)

I joined FA back in 2010, and from what I can say from my experience, is that it's all up to the user whether or not it's a porn site or not. Personally, I don't believe it is. You'll find your fair share of adult work on other sites as well; does that make them explicitly porn sites?

There's a lot of it; you can't argue that. I've favorited a few pieces myself, mostly for the emotional meaning behind them. You'd be surprised how many of us don't actually stick around for the smut and stay for the community itself... at least in my case. As to whether it's a good representation for the fandom as a whole? Being that it is the largest conglomeration of furries in any given area of the Internet, I'd say yes, but only depending on how people conduct themselves.


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 11, 2012)

2012 submission statstics.

In case anyone is interested. ;p


----------



## Summercat (Sep 11, 2012)

Wanna know my thoughts? #drunkama on Furnet IRC (irc.furnet.org), ask me anything and for each answer I give I take a shot.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 11, 2012)

I always thought FA was a porn site, just seeing some of what was hosted on other sites (actual porn sites) and then being told to go here for more, why wouldn't I think that? I didn't even know 13yr olds were allowed to joined I chose a random birth year to make me 18+ on my first account.  So yes, before I joined FA yes I was here for the porn, now I'm here just to commission art whether it be clean, _artistically nude_, or straight up porn. Most of what I commission though is of me and my fiance or my characters together though.

But even though FA allows for 13yr olds I still would classify it as a porn site just by how popular it is known for hosting porn, I don't know the statistics of Mature/Adult work versus General but their either butting heads or smut is in the lead.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> I always thought FA was a porn site, just seeing some of what was hosted on other sites (actual porn sites) and then being told to go here for more, why wouldn't I think that? I didn't even know 13yr olds were allowed to joined I chose a random birth year to make me 18+ on my first account.  So yes, before I joined FA yes I was here for the porn, now I'm here just to commission art whether it be clean, _artistically nude_, or straight up porn. Most of what I commission though is of me and my fiance or my characters together though.
> 
> But even though FA allows for 13yr olds I still would classify it as a porn site just by how popular it is known for hosting porn, I don't know the statistics of Mature/Adult work versus General but their either butting heads or smut is in the lead.



Actually I think non sexual art out numbers sexual art by a large margin. [as is demonstrably the case in the statistics saellyn kindly posted].


----------



## Teal (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> I always thought FA was a porn site, just seeing some of what was hosted on other sites (actual porn sites) and then being told to go here for more, why wouldn't I think that? I didn't even know 13yr olds were allowed to joined I chose a random birth year to make me 18+ on my first account.  So yes, before I joined FA yes I was here for the porn, now I'm here just to commission art whether it be clean, _artistically nude_, or straight up porn. Most of what I commission though is of me and my fiance or my characters together though.
> 
> But even though FA allows for 13yr olds I still would classify it as a porn site just by how popular it is known for hosting porn, I don't know the statistics of Mature/Adult work versus General but their either butting heads or smut is in the lead.


 People have posted the stats several times and clean art is in the lead. -_-


----------



## Taralack (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> I don't know the statistics of Mature/Adult work versus General but their either butting heads or smut is in the lead.





FoxWolfie said:


> I think the stats that Dragoneer posted last year speak for themselves.
> 
> Total Number of Submissions
> General - 3,493,103
> ...



Well then.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 11, 2012)

There are two answers to this. The first is simple: FA is an Art site and is intended as such. It just happens to allow pornographic material with restrictions. That may be what the site is intended for but there are of course individual differences of why people come to FA. What it is intended for and what people come for are often two different things. It doesn't mean the individual opinions are false but only that people are individuals with different desires.

When I joined up Furaffinity back in the day I did so because I wanted to see more furry themed content. Personally I didn't come for porn, and I only look at porn when it is required for me to do so via a ticket. However some people only come for porn. Some people come for porn and non porn. Some people prefer to not look at porn (myself being one of them). Some come here only for fursuit related content. Others came here to post their music, or literature. Please remember these differences before you jump down each other's throats over intention versus individual desire.

EDIT: To say that "I came for porn because I like porn therefore this is a porn site is akin to me saying I went to the Wal-Mart Super Store because I like buying food therefore it is a Grocery Store. Both statements have flaws in them. That a site or business allows for some content does not always mean that content defines them. This is why a lot of people get into trouble trying to explain furry to others. They think only of themselves first and therefore define furry by what they came for instead of by what it is.


----------



## ZiggyLover4ever (Sep 11, 2012)

Yes it is a porn site and I love this site.  Awesome art here.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 11, 2012)

Sheesh, no need to jump my comment, I usually don't read the last page of threads. I apologize? I saw the stats above my post but I was just speaking from my point of view of the website and I understand the stats say otherwise but the amount of deleted material could be Mature/Adult work just as much as it could be Genereal work. Also, General is used for non-art related material as well, how much of it is actually furry related artwork? Since you can't post IRL pictures of yourself naked or in your fursuit with your wang out (can you  ) Mature/Adult could out weight General/Clean artwork.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Sheesh, no need to jump my comment, I usually don't read the last page of threads. I apologize? I saw the stats above my post but I was just speaking from my point of view of the website and I understand the stats say otherwise but the amount of deleted material could be Mature/Adult work just as much as it could be Genereal work. Also, General is used for non-art related material as well, how much of it is actually furry related artwork? Since you can't post IRL pictures of yourself naked or in your fursuit with your wang out (can you  ) Mature/Adult could out weight General/Clean artwork.



Sorry didn't mean to be jumpy.
I think the margin of error wouldn't change the result. 
No you can't post photographic nudes as far as I'm aware. 
If a substantial number of general submissions were not visual arts, but music, then maybe  mature could outweigh general but I consider that unlikely. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say it.


----------



## Teal (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Sheesh, no need to jump my comment, I usually don't read the last page of threads. I apologize? I saw the stats above my post but I was just speaking from my point of view of the website and I understand the stats say otherwise but the amount of deleted material could be Mature/Adult work just as much as it could be Genereal work. Also, General is used for non-art related material as well, how much of it is actually furry related artwork? Since you can't post IRL pictures of yourself naked or in your fursuit with your wang out (can you  ) Mature/Adult could out weight General/Clean artwork.


 Maybe it's closer to mature if you factor out photos, but the majority is still clean.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 11, 2012)

Now that I think about it, Stories and possibly even music with excessive mention of drug use and/or sexual acts could be classified as Mature/Adult as well. So even if all that was subtracted General would still have a fair amount compared to the others, MAYBE Mature could butt heads with General without the categories being broken down who knows. :3

Either way if FA is for porn or not, it has it and it won't be getting rid of it anytime soon (I hope).


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

Not that it matters anyway, like trpdwarf indicated the site's sort of like an ocean of files and everyone can fish for whatever they like.



RadioCatastrophe said:


> Now that I think about it, Stories and  possibly even music with excessive mention of drug use and/or sexual  acts could be classified as Mature/Adult as well. So even if all that  was subtracted General would still have a fair amount compared to the  others, MAYBE Mature could butt heads with General without the  categories being broken down who knows. :3
> 
> Either way if FA is for porn or not, it has it and it won't be getting rid of it anytime soon (I hope).



x3 don't worry, the porn is safe.


----------



## Teal (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Now that I think about it, Stories and possibly even music with excessive mention of drug use and/or sexual acts could be classified as Mature/Adult as well. So even if all that was subtracted General would still have a fair amount compared to the others, MAYBE Mature could butt heads with General without the categories being broken down who knows. :3
> 
> Either way if FA is for porn or not, it has it and it won't be getting rid of it anytime soon (I hope).


 Wait, I thought you could give ratings to stories as well (IDK about music).


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 11, 2012)

TealMoon said:


> Maybe it's closer to mature if you factor out photos, but the majority is still clean.



And if you take deleted items into account (Junk photos, junk art, art plagarism, "I AM LEAVING FA" deletions, etc), it would most likely come up as the mature/adult being dwarfed by clean in terms of deleted content as well.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 11, 2012)

Well, I don't think it's a porn site, but primarily a furry art/social networking site that allows porn art in it. But the MetroRail's free WI-FI sure thinks it's porn, because I can't browse FA on it.  Used to be able to, now it gets blocked because the site categorizes under "Sexuality" according to the error page I get. Lol!

Anywayâ€¦ It also depends on what your definition of porn is, I guess? Are we going merely by the mature/adult tags? Because there is a lot of art that caters to people's fetishes (be it inflation, spanking, vore, feet, what have you) that can have little to no sexual connotations _at all_ to someone who doesn't know it, except for looking a little bizarre, and in some cases, not even that. And this is art that isn't even worthy of a mature tag. It looks tame enough. But people with those fetishes may definitely use that as fap material.  So, is that porn to them? Because by that definition, a lot of the art on the site would indeed qualify as porn, I imagine.

To me, it's porn if it shows genitals and fluids, actual sex going on, and it's all drawn in a way to serve specifically as fap material. But people's definitions of porn can vary.

Wikipedia defines porn to be "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter" and pornography to involve "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner, with the entire focus on the physical act, so as to arouse quick intense reactions."

So to everyone I ask, what is your definition of it, in the context of FA submissions?


----------



## Teal (Sep 11, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> Well, I don't think it's a porn site, but primarily a furry art/social networking site that allows porn art in it. But the MetroRail's free WI-FI sure thinks it's porn, because I can't browse FA on it.  Used to be able to, now it gets blocked because the site categorizes under "Sexuality" according to the error page I get. Lol!
> 
> Anywayâ€¦ It also depends on what your definition of porn is, I guess? Are we going merely by the mature/adult tags? Because there is a lot of art that caters to people's fetishes (be it inflation, spanking, vore, feet, what have you) that can have little to no sexual connotations _at all_ to someone who doesn't know it, except for looking a little bizarre, and in some cases, not even that. And this is art that isn't even worthy of a mature tag. It looks tame enough. But people with those fetishes may definitely use that as fap material.  So, is that porn to them? Because by that definition, a lot of the art on the site would indeed qualify as porn, I imagine.
> 
> ...


 I post pictures with nudity that could probably fit into mature.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> Well, I don't think it's a porn site, but primarily a furry art/social networking site that allows porn art in it. But the MetroRail's free WI-FI sure thinks it's porn, because I can't browse FA on it.  Used to be able to, now it gets blocked because the site categorizes under "Sexuality" according to the error page I get. Lol!
> 
> Anywayâ€¦ It also depends on what your definition of porn is, I guess? Are we going merely by the mature/adult tags? Because there is a lot of art that caters to people's fetishes (be it inflation, spanking, vore, feet, what have you) that can have little to no sexual connotations _at all_ to someone who doesn't know it, except for looking a little bizarre, and in some cases, not even that. And this is art that isn't even worthy of a mature tag. It looks tame enough. But people with those fetishes may definitely use that as fap material.  So, is that porn to them? Because by that definition, a lot of the art on the site would indeed qualify as porn, I imagine.
> 
> ...



'This website has been blocked because we recently became aware some people have a fetish just for googling google to see what happens,'. Is the scenario your post conjured up to me. 
I agree that what is and isn't evidently porn is a fickle matter indeed.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 11, 2012)

TealMoon said:


> I post pictures with nudity that could probably fit into mature.




And nudity is not always porn.  That's why I wonder if people are taking this from the mature/adult tag angle, or the actual porn within the site.




Fallowfox said:


> 'This website has been blocked because we recently became aware some people have a fetish just for googling google to see what happens,'. Is the scenario your post conjured up to me.
> I agree that what is and isn't evidently porn is a fickle matter indeed.




Yeah, I was really taken aback by it too, and thinking back, now I realize that until then I would have never thought of FA as a porn site at all. Just a furry site. But then again, I had only just joined, and always browsed with all filters on. Still do, with the adult one.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 11, 2012)

Fetishes appear in porn but aren't porn themselves. If there's nothing sexual going on such as vaginal or anal (or even oral) destruction, or something involving fluids of either male or female counterparts I don't think it's porn. :S
Feet being tickled, or your character being devoured by another wouldn't be in my porn radar, there's even clean bondage but it can be involved in sexual acts.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Fetishes appear in porn but aren't porn themselves. If there's nothing sexual going on such as vaginal or anal (or even oral) destruction, or something involving fluids of either male or female counterparts I don't think it's porn. :S
> Feet being tickled, or your character being devoured by another wouldn't be in my porn radar, there's even clean bondage but it can be involved in sexual acts.



Agreed. But I once dated someone who considered any material that you can get off to by looking at it to be porn. So it's debatable. I agree with you, personally. At least as far as what makes FA qualify as a porn site, I don't think that stuff should count. And without that, porn really seems to only a fraction of the material IMO... I may be wrong. Still, from the numbers I've seen, it looks that way.


----------



## Teal (Sep 11, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> And nudity is not always porn.  That's why I wonder if people are taking this from the mature/adult tag angle, or the actual porn within the site.


 Lots of people post anykind of nudity under adult. So if you factor out that then the adult category gets even smaller.


----------



## MaltedMilkBrawls (Sep 11, 2012)

Yes and no.
Like a lot of people made mention, a majority of FA's content is porn. I'm also certain that a good number of people only visit FA because of that factor. In that respect, yes, it is a porn site.
But it is also a place to showcase galleries of non-pornographic works as well as their pornographic counterparts. Compared to the number of explicitly pornographic works and works that are intended to be masturbatory-material although not explicitly porn, the number of clean  works is far in the minority. But it is still a facet of FA that cannot fairly be left out of the equation. It is a gallery-showcasing website that is less biased towards the nature and offensiveness-factor of the works that are allowed to be posted(In most cases. I'm sure someone could make a list of the things that are excluded, but that would be nit-picking).


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

TealMoon said:


> Lots of people post anykind of nudity under adult. So if you factor out that then the adult category gets even smaller.



I occaisionally post 'any kind of nudity' as mature, and I hate doing that because I don't feel some of those works are actually sexual, but I'm afraid they'll get removed from my gallery if I don't.



MaltedMilkBrawls said:


> Yes and no.
> Like a lot of people made mention, a majority of FA's content is porn.  I'm also certain that a good number of people only visit FA because of  that factor. In that respect, yes, it is a porn site.
> But it is also a place to showcase galleries of non-pornographic works  as well as their pornographic counterparts. Compared to the number of  explicitly pornographic works and works that are intended to be  masturbatory-material although not explicitly porn, the number of clean   works is far in the minority. But it is still a facet of FA that cannot  fairly be left out of the equation. It is a gallery-showcasing website  that is less biased towards the nature and offensiveness-factor of the  works that are allowed to be posted(In most cases. I'm sure someone  could make a list of the things that are excluded, but that would be  nit-picking).



...the opposite is true, a minority is porn. 
Some people probably do visit just for porn though. 

Anyway if I might dare a claim, I think artistic porn is just a subset of regular art, so without being exclusively or predominantly aimed at being a porn site it probably isn't, eventhough some people visit it just for porn. 

I'm sure some people visit wikipedia just to find articles that describe stuff they're into.


----------



## Teal (Sep 11, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I occaisionally post 'any kind of nudity' as mature, and I hate doing that because I don't feel some of those works are actually sexual, but I'm afraid they'll get removed from my gallery if I don't.


 For me it's just they look more "sexy" than "artistic".


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

TealMoon said:


> For me it's just they look more "sexy" than "artistic".



I love nudity from both perspectives and depends what my intent is producing a drawing, although I fear some people won't agree and will issue trouble tickets if I draw the sexual zones even from just a dry asexual anatomical perspective.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 11, 2012)

TealMoon said:


> Lots of people post anykind of nudity under adult. So if you factor out that then the adult category gets even smaller.



I post any non-sexual nudity under Mature, myself.



Fallowfox said:


> I occaisionally post 'any kind of nudity' as mature, and I hate doing that because I don't feel some of those works are actually sexual, but I'm afraid they'll get removed from my gallery if I don't.




â€¦for this same reason. =n=



MaltedMilkBrawls said:


> Yes and no.
> Like a lot of people made mention, a majority of FA's content is porn.





MaltedMilkBrawls said:


> Compared to the number of explicitly pornographic works and works that are intended to be masturbatory-material although not explicitly porn, the number of clean works is far in the minority.



Am I totally misreading/misunderstanding the numbers here? http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/103627-Fur-Affinity-Stats-(July-7-2011)?highlight=statistics

Because according to those, while Mature submissions are viewed the most (yet surprisingly not Adult ones) General submissions are in the far majority? I'm surprised anyone would say the number of clean works is far in the minority after these numbers were made available so I'm honestly wondering if I'm not reading something right, not trying to be a smartass. Numbers hurt my brain.


----------



## MaltedMilkBrawls (Sep 11, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> ...the opposite is true, a minority is porn.


Actually... I don't think that we can prove whether either you or I are correct on that note. We would have to have a credible, recorded ratio of porn-to-nonporn quantities to prove which case is true. All I know is that the _perceived_ majority (based on how many complaints of porn and mentions of it are on the forums, journals, etc., as well as that people are even addressing the concern that this is a 'porn site' rather than a gallery site) is pornographic or fetishy(which I will place as in-explicit but intended "porn" ) in nature.
Actually... now that you mention it, I really would like to see a recorded ratio of porn-inteded works to non-porn ones. That would be interesting and helpful for when this topic comes up again in 2 weeks.   But yeah, simply saying "the opposite is true of what you said" and leaving it at that with no real proof will not do at all. And I apologize for not backing my original statement either.




Fallowfox said:


> Anyway if I might dare a claim, I think artistic porn is just a subset of regular art, so without being exclusively or predominantly aimed at being a porn site it probably isn't, eventhough some people visit it just for porn.


That is pretty much a summary of what I had stated bro. Like minds I suppose~ <:3



Fallowfox said:


> I'm sure some people visit wikipedia just to find articles that describe stuff they're into.


I do not doubt it lol!


----------



## MaltedMilkBrawls (Sep 11, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> I post any non-sexual nudity under Mature, myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh!! Thank you! This is a very useful statistic.
I apologize for not backing any source either. I was basing my 'stats' off of perceived comparison and all of the complaints and porn-mentioners in journals and forums. Good to know that there are real stats though.  I stand corrected!

(ALSO, Sorry for double posting :C)


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 11, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> Agreed. But I once dated someone who considered any material that you can get off to by looking at it to be porn. So it's debatable. I agree with you, personally. At least as far as what makes FA qualify as a porn site, I don't think that stuff should count. And without that, porn really seems to only a fraction of the material IMO... I may be wrong. Still, from the numbers I've seen, it looks that way.



Reminds me of a TV show (was it Will & Grace?) that had a "pansexual" male appear in one of the main casts home, when he said he was pansexual she feared for the life of her kitchen ware, lol. People will fap to anything nowadays, even if it isn't porn to begin with.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 11, 2012)

MaltedMilkBrawls said:


> Ahh!! Thank you! This is a very useful statistic.
> I apologize for not backing any source either. I was basing my 'stats' off of perceived comparison and all of the complaints and porn-mentioners in journals and forums. Good to know that there are real stats though.  I stand corrected!
> 
> (ALSO, Sorry for double posting :C)



But you know, using your "porn-intended" term from earlier, and going back to my original point, then it's much more evenly matched, I think. There is a LOT of seemingly innocent art that is fetishy in nature, and potential fap material.  Or it sure feels like a lot!

But this thread's question wasn't whether FA is or isn't a porn site, is it? But rather what "feel" one gets from it, one's own consideration of how FA would be categorized. Legally, it's not a porn site (right?) Whether it feels like one depends on one's definition of porn and what you have been most exposed to while browsing the site.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Reminds me of a TV show (was it Will & Grace?) that had a "pansexual" male appear in one of the main casts home, when he said he was pansexual she feared for the life of her kitchen ware, lol. People will fap to anything nowadays, even if it isn't porn to begin with.



LOL!! Well, another friend of mine once told me some people get off to photos of flowers, I'm not sure if he was being serious, but I wouldn't be surprised by anything at this point. 

[*EDIT*: There is such a thing. Some googling showed me that it does include flowers as well. What a world.]


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 11, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> [*EDIT*: There is such a thing. Some googling showed me that it does include flowers as well. What a world.]



Treegasm.
Search it. Do it. I dare you.


----------



## dmf (Sep 11, 2012)

FA is as much or as little a porn site as Google.  It's a diverse community; metaphorically speaking, it has "the good, the bad and the ugly".  And it actually does allow teenagers to register and disables adult content by default account settings even for users over 18.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 11, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Treegasm.
> Search it. Do it. I dare you.



HOW did I not know this existed!

Aaah, I see I double-posted above. I don't know how to fix it. ;m; So sorry!



dmf said:


> FA is as much or as little a porn site as Google.



Except Google allows you to search for porn sites but doesn't actually host them, while FA hosts pornographic material on its site. I may be using the wrong terms here but you get what I mean. Considering this, I'm not sure this is an accurate comparison.


----------



## Quickwing (Sep 11, 2012)

I'm surprised no one has questioned the statistics of posted material type vs. number of favorites and/or page views per submission type. I'm not making insinuations either way, just humor me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2012)

Quickwing said:


> I'm surprised no one has questioned the statistics of posted material type vs. number of favorites and/or page views per submission type. I'm not making insinuations either way, just humor me.



This was questioned casually in several other threads. Rudimentary statistics indicated sexual images were _probably _more likely to get favourites and watchers, would this redefine FA as a porn site? 
It obviously has that string in its bow, but since an entire community still exists with their filters on I don't think it would define FA as a 'porn site'* even if that were the most popular genre. 

*In the sense of a website with the primary concern of providing porn.


----------



## Traediras (Sep 12, 2012)

I believe there have been stats thrown around a few times re: breakdown of submissions, and the majority of artwork submitted was in fact G-rated material. But on the logic that FA is a porn site since there's porn on it, that would also make deviantART, SoFurry, InkBunny, e621, etc. porn sites. I don't believe FA (or any other art site for that matter) is a porn site based solely on that fact alone, because there are always going to be people who are there just for the clean art, and the porn can be filtered out anyway (even though sometimes that fails only because of human error). If they were, we wouldn't be seeing any clean submissions!


----------



## jorinda (Sep 12, 2012)

I actually came here for the non-adult art. And I'm glad there's that new "SFW" option, so I ca look at clean art while I'm at work.


----------



## Conn1496 (Sep 12, 2012)

I joined for the general art. To be honest, it's not _really_ a porn site. It's sort of like saying any site that allows mature content is a porn site. FA's primary purpose is for art, and if people wanna make that art sexual, then that's not a problem. FA has porn, but that doesn't mean it has to be labelled a porn site. It's like trying to say a pub has food, so it's a cafe. Not really the same...


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

Traediras said:


> I believe there have been stats thrown around a few times re: breakdown of submissions, and the majority of artwork submitted was in fact G-rated material. But on the logic that FA is a porn site since there's porn on it, that would also make deviantART, SoFurry, InkBunny, e621, etc. porn sites. I don't believe FA (or any other art site for that matter) is a porn site based solely on that fact alone, because there are always going to be people who are there just for the clean art, and the porn can be filtered out anyway (even though sometimes that fails only because of human error). If they were, we wouldn't be seeing any clean submissions!



Deviantart? On what notion? They allow artistic nudity and most anything outside human nudes.. Which are rarely pornographic, there are a few people who slit through the cracks and post just down right porn (genital on orifice). Care to post any large activity of porn on dA?



Conn1496 said:


> I joined for the general art. To be honest, it's not _really_  a porn site. It's sort of like saying any site that allows mature  content is a porn site. FA's primary purpose is for art, and if people  wanna make that art sexual, then that's not a problem. FA has porn, but  that doesn't mean it has to be labelled a porn site. It's like trying to  say a pub has food, so it's a cafe. Not really the same...



What do you label as porn? Anything in mature should be artistic nudity imo, anything that has splooge or fluids flailing about should be porn since it'd be masturbation if not sex of some sort.


----------



## Tekkirai (Sep 12, 2012)

FA is absolutely a porn site.

Plus just looking at the art, there's not a second on the frontpage that it's not littered with (usually rather horribly drawn) porn/fetish art. It's what most people come here for, there's not much appreciation here for real art imo. You can see that in anything from the amount of porn art to the number of views/watches artists get when they do or don't draw porn. Quality also makes no difference, absolutely horrible artists get way more attention so long as they draw fetish/porn related things as opposed to a true artist who actually knows what the colour theory is, understands proportions, etc.


----------



## Nightmare (Sep 12, 2012)

A vast majority of art here is porn, and a good deal of people come here just for the porn.
However it is an art site and there are some(though not nearly as popular) clean art.
So 50/50, yes and no for me.


----------



## isaxxsaix (Sep 12, 2012)

I came to FA to be able to follow some of my favorite Fursuit makers, completely unaware of the NSFW part of the site. Yeah, I do have smutty, pornographic pictures in my favorites because it piqued my interest in ways other than sexual pleasure. But that's just me.

But, technically, FA is a Porn site just because of the mass amounts of NSFW material floating about. To me, it's just an art site.


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 12, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> A vast majority of art here is porn









We've already covered this. The majority of the art is -not- porn.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> So considering all this, do you consider FA to be a good representation as the fur community on its own?
> Perhaps a good example of how several people come to the fandom just for the pornography, thinking that that is what it is mainly about? And, sadly, that is what the outside world mostly views it as?
> Or, do you think that the statistics speak for themselves, and that those that are into the pornography just happen to 'shine' louder than those that are into the general community (i.e. just like having a place where a lot of furs gather to discuss all aspects of the fandom?). And what makes this so?



Pointless drama, people competing for attention, ridiculous fetishes, visual imagery that wouldn't look out of place on /b/, "white people problems" stacked so high they need pressurized cabins, porn everywhere, overzealous white knights and followers, cancerous personalities that exist only to use others on the site as garbage cans for their emotions, bad trolls, people with legitimate problems who've been ostracized from society because they're broken individuals and this is the only community that openly accepts anyone and everyone, and a few people who enjoy giving the monkey cage a good shake every now and then.

Yes, it's pretty much the quintessential furry experience. Nothing could be added or should be subtracted, it's perfect.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> this is the only community that openly accepts anyone and everyone


*Takes a deep breath and a sip of water, clears throat a little before speaking.*

*No.*


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> this is the only community that openly accepts anyone and everyone


What the actual fuck? Do you live under a rock *mountain*?

You're either braindead blissfully naive or a really, really bad troll. Either way... stop posting. *PLEASE.*


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Tekkirai said:


> FA is absolutely a porn site.
> 
> Plus just looking at the art, there's not a second on the frontpage that it's not littered with (usually rather horribly drawn) porn/fetish art. It's what most people come here for, there's not much appreciation here for real art imo. You can see that in anything from the amount of porn art to the number of views/watches artists get when they do or don't draw porn. Quality also makes no difference, absolutely horrible artists get way more attention so long as they draw fetish/porn related things as opposed to a true artist who actually knows what the colour theory is, understands proportions, etc.



Verging on a no true scotsman fallacy. 'True' artists know colour theory/ 'True' scotsmen wear kilts. 
 If a lot of people like fetishistic art hosted on FA that you do not this doesn't define the website as exclusively pornographic.
I do understand what you're talking about, I feel like some of my pieces which aren't that good get a lot more attention than ones I thought were good, but that's based around my artistic prejudices.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> What the actual fuck? Do you live under a rock *mountain*?
> 
> You're either braindead blissfully naive or a really, really bad troll. Either way... stop posting. *PLEASE.*



I guess I'm blissfully naive, but in my years in the fandom so far the only people I've noticed furries have it out for are people with standards or common sense. Other than that pretty much anything will fly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I guess I'm blissfully naive, but in my years in the fandom so far the only people I've noticed furries have it out for are people with standards or common sense. Other than that pretty much anything will fly.



And I'm guessing you're the one individual with common sense and standards who'se realised this and is infinitely superior to the lot of them? ;3


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I guess I'm blissfully naive, but in my years in the fandom so far the only people I've noticed furries have it out for are people with standards or common sense. Other than that pretty much anything will fly.



Have you seen the sexuality thread(s)? Lol, my first time on this forum and I'm already getting bashed for trying to be a speshul snoflake because I chose to represent myself as pansexual versus bisexual.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

I came for the "broken individual" bit, stay for the porn, and do like shaking the occasional monkey cage.

Furries also couldn't tell tongue-in-cheek comments from actual opinions. Mostly because there are lots of people in the fandom who are just that ri-god-damn-diculous.




RadioCatastrophe said:


> Have you seen the sexuality thread(s)? Lol, my first time on this forum and I'm already getting bashed for trying to be a speshul snoflake because I chose to represent myself as pansexual versus bisexual.



I'd do the same thing, this pansexual thing has yet to be explained to me satisfactorily. Like this actually cheered me up, maybe we're getting some quality control finally.


----------



## Tekkirai (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Verging on a no true scotsman fallacy. 'True' artists know colour theory/ 'True' scotsmen wear kilts.
> If a lot of people like fetishistic art hosted on FA that you do not this doesn't define the website as exclusively pornographic.
> I do understand what you're talking about, I feel like some of my pieces which aren't that good get a lot more attention than ones I thought were good, but that's based around my artistic prejudices.



I at least need my Scotsmen with bagpipes though, I mean...come on.
But no, FA is not solely based on porn, but I am sure it is the major attraction of the site, so in that sense I should have been a bit more descriptive. The example you yourself mentioned is something most artists encountered or will encounter during their stay here. My friends as well as myself included.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Tekkirai said:


> I at least need my Scotsmen with bagpipes though, I mean...come on.
> But no, FA is not solely based on porn, but I am sure it is the major attraction of the site, so in that sense I should have been a bit more descriptive. The example you yourself mentioned is something most artists encountered or will encounter during their stay here. My friends as well as myself included.



A significant portion of bagpipers suffer from hearing problems...maybe karma does exist. 
Pornographic art probably is a large reason why people are pulled towards the website, yes.



TeenageAngst said:


> I came for the "broken individual" bit, stay  for the porn, and do like shaking the occasional monkey cage.
> 
> Furries also couldn't tell tongue-in-cheek comments from actual  opinions. Mostly because there are lots of people in the fandom who are  just that ri-god-damn-diculous.
> 
> ...



Sarcasm is difficult to pick up over the internet. :c


----------



## Nightmare (Sep 12, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> We've already covered this. The majority of the art is -not- porn.


Last I checked MY OPINION did not have to match everybody else's.
I am well aware of there rest of the thread.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> We've already covered this. The majority of the art is -not- porn.



The vast majority of submissions is not porn. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts the vast majority of non-music non-poetry submissions are rated Mature or Adult.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> A significant portion of bagpipers suffer from hearing problems...maybe karma does exist.
> Pornographic art probably is a large reason why people are pulled towards the website, yes.
> 
> 
> ...



It's not just pornography that gets a lot of attention. Anything catering to a particular interest with somebody will get attention because it personally 'thrums' with that individual. That is why, most of the time, on deviantArt you will see fanart on the front page. The fanart represents a fandom or character that people personally like, and because it is personal preference to them they enjoy seeing art of it, and thus will favorite it.
Are there some 'dense' (I use this extremely loosely, as this is not always so, but most people I have encountered are) individuals you will favorite porn for the sake of porn. But I do NOT believe that a favorites gallery filled with JUST pornography of active individuals of this site exists. 

Also, TeenageAngst, I have asked you before and I will ask you again, stop referring to 'white people' in a negative manner. Racism is disgusting.



> Last I checked MY OPINION did not have to match everybody else's.
> I am well aware of there rest of the thread.



No it doesn't, but when your opinion is wrong proven by actual legit facts then well...its wrong.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> Last I checked MY OPINION did not have to match everybody else's.
> I am well aware of there rest of the thread.



Sorry but if your opinion was 2+2=5 then objectivity does come knocking at the door. The ratio of adult to general art on FA was different in reality to your opinion. Your opinion doesn't need to match reality, but it would be more useful if it did, right?


----------



## Nightmare (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Sorry but if your opinion was 2+2=5 then objectivity does come knocking at the door. The ratio of adult to general art on FA was different in reality to your opinion. Your opinion doesn't need to match reality, but it would be more useful if it did, right?


So because 95% of the work I stumble upon on a daily basis of this site is porn, my opinion is wrong?
My opinion goes off what my eyes do. You all can keep your stats.
I'm not freaking here to argue.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> So because 95% of the work I stumble upon on a daily basis of this site is porn, my opinion is wrong?
> My opinion goes off what my eyes do. You all can keep your stats.



That's like saying,"I have never seen a butterfly emerge from a cocoon! Therefore, regardless of what scientists show or videos try to convey to me, they are all wrong because my belief that caterpillars and butterflies are seperate beings entirerly is legit."
Yeah you can try and stand by your own thoughts and try to say most art on this site is porn if you want but....there is a huge difference between theory's and facts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> So because 95% of the work I stumble upon on a daily basis of this site is porn, my opinion is wrong?
> My opinion goes off what my eyes do. You all can keep your stats.



>< please don't _make up_ statistics. 
The irony of you cirticising actual statistics with made up ones is too much. D: 

But honestly, there are a variety of reasons you might sumble upon porn in a majority of your browses and searches. Maybe because pornographic items are more popular, maybe because your search queries match adult work or you have chosen to watch artists who produce said work. 

It's not possible for a single individual to get a hollistic view of an entire online community, so that's why the statistics are more likely to provide reliable information than our personal anecdotes. :]


----------



## Nightmare (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> That's like saying,"I have never seen a butterfly emerge from a cocoon! Therefore, regardless of what scientists show or videos try to convey to me, they are all wrong because my belief that caterpillars and butterflies are seperate beings entirerly is legit."
> Yeah you can try and stand by your own thoughts and try to say most art on this site is porn if you want but....there is a huge difference between theory's and facts.


Okay would you rather me say, since you people obviously can't leave crap alone, statistically yes it's not a porn site, but I view it as a partial porn site purely for the fact that much of what I see is porn.
Is that any better?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> It's not just pornography that gets a lot of attention. Anything catering to a particular interest with somebody will get attention because it personally 'thrums' with that individual. That is why, most of the time, on deviantArt you will see fanart on the front page. The fanart represents a fandom or character that people personally like, and because it is personal preference to them they enjoy seeing art of it, and thus will favorite it.
> Are there some 'dense' (I use this extremely loosely, as this is not always so, but most people I have encountered are) individuals you will favorite porn for the sake of porn. But I do NOT believe that a favorites gallery filled with JUST pornography of active individuals of this site exists.
> 
> Also, TeenageAngst, I have asked you before and I will ask you again, stop referring to 'white people' in a negative manner. Racism is disgusting.



"Issues primarily affecting middle-class Anglo-Saxon protestant Americans" better?

By "white people" I don't mean all people who are white. I mean people who act white. For example, here in NOVA I am surrounded by white people. They're black, asian, Indian, arabic, and white, but they're all "white" in the sense they've never had a life-changing problem in their lives, don't worry about money for survival, wear expensive clothing, dress the same, act the same, and basically operate under the assumption that everyone they encounter has a C.F.I. of at least $70k a year. It's W.A.S.P. culture.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> Okay would you rather me say, since you people obviously can't leave crap alone, statistically yes it's not a porn site, but I view it as a partial porn site purely for the fact that much of what I see is porn.
> Is that any better?



You seem to think we are being aggressive towards you, but we aren't. This is a thread DISCUSSING the topic, not for people to walk in, blatantly state what they want and believe they are completely right, and walk off. I mean you could do that if you want, but why keep posting acting like your being attacked?
We are simply saying that somebody's opinion against actual facts really doesn't hold much up.

 Now if you personally want to believe that this site is a porn site that is completely up to you and you have the freedom to say so. Everybody can come to this site and 'use/view' it as they want. But keep in mind that your views are opinion and not facts.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

When a significant portion of the contributions are porn, it's a porn site. If I only used heroin 3 hours of the 24 hour day I'd still be a heroin user.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> "Issues primarily affecting middle-class Anglo-Saxon protestant Americans" better?
> 
> By "white people" I don't mean all people who are white. I mean people who act white. For example, here in NOVA I am surrounded by white people. They're black, asian, Indian, arabic, and white, but they're all "white" in the sense they've never had a life-changing problem in their lives, don't worry about money for survival, wear expensive clothing, dress the same, act the same, and basically operate under the assumption that everyone they encounter has a C.F.I. of at least $70k a year. It's W.A.S.P. culture.



Yes, all of that was very apparant from the words 'white people', I myself use racial terms to refer to people who talk in cinemas. :v




TeenageAngst said:


> When a significant portion of the  contributions are porn, it's a porn site. If I only used heroin 3 hours  of the 24 hour day I'd still be a heroin user.




Fallacy. If I play sport once a week I'm not an athelete; see how counter examples exist? 
A significant portion of the contributions are porn, and you can probably treat FA like a porn site if you want to, but it's not intrinsically pornographic. :]


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> When a significant portion of the contributions are porn, it's a porn site. If I only used heroin 3 hours of the 24 hour day I'd still be a heroin user.



Honestly I am not going to fight a pointless battle. If people still want to insist that this site is a porn site because they THINK most of the contribution is pornography, regardless of statistics, there is no point continuing this conversation.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes, all of that was very apparant from the words 'white people', I myself use racial terms to refer to people who talk in cinemas. :v



All black people do talk in the movies... I do it too even though I'm "white people". 
Seriously why do we need to bring made up races into all this? We're all of the same species why do we need sub-groups to distinguish ourselves?


----------



## RTDragon (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> Honestly I am not going to fight a pointless battle. If people still want to insist that this site is a porn site because they THINK most of the contribution is pornography, regardless of statistics, there is no point continuing this conversation.



Then why did you make a thread about this in the first place? You have to expect  people are going to have different views on this.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

RTDragon said:


> Then why did you make a thread about this in the first place?



She wanted to know others opinions, but opinions based on thin-air aren't opinions they're assumptions. Assuming makes and ass out of U and ME, mostly you though.
Also this site can be only for porn if you put on the GA filter, and visa versa.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

RTDragon said:


> Then why did you make a thread about this in the first place? You have to expect  people are going to have different views on this.



Probably because they thought official statistics would change said views.



RadioCatastrophe said:


> All black people do talk in the movies... I do it too even though I'm "white people".
> Seriously why do we need to bring made up races into all this? We're all  of the same species why do we need sub-groups to distinguish  ourselves?



Because we're part of the furry master race, duh. ;3


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

RTDragon said:


> Then why did you make a thread about this in the first place?



 The point of the thread was to get a full understanding of what people think. But when the same two people continue to insist what a site is when facts have been brought up....its a discussion that will not go anywhere. They are going to insist their own ideas without bringing anything else to the conversation. Yes I want to discuss what people think of the site...but by talking to these individuals the conversation will do nothing but go in circles.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Because we're part of the furry master race, duh. ;3



*LABELS LABELS EVERYWHERE*


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> The point of the thread was to get a full understanding of what people think. But when the same two people continue to insist what a site is when facts have been brought up....its a discussion that will not go anywhere. They are going to insist their own ideas without bringing anything else to the conversation. Yes I want to discuss what people think of the site...but by talking to these individuals the conversation will do nothing but go in circles.



*of whether people think.

...that's a little mean, I know, sorry gaise but please recognise opinion fallacies. Opinions can be wrong if they don't reflect reality, and the beliefs we build on opinions can definitely be wrong.


----------



## Teal (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> But honestly, there are a variety of reasons you might sumble upon porn in a majority of your browses and searches. Maybe because pornographic items are more popular, maybe because your search queries match adult work or you have chosen to watch artists who produce said work.


 I've noticed that such works are more likely to actually have tags.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> All black people do talk in the movies... I do it too even though I'm "white people".
> Seriously why do we need to bring made up races into all this? We're all of the same species why do we need sub-groups to distinguish ourselves?



Because "middle class" is too broad and "rich people" is too subjective. White people is just right. We all know that jerk with the backwards baseball cap who's parents bought him a car, pay for his college, and give him an allowance which he blows at Holister and Oakley. They think they know about politics because they watch MSNBC, they know all about the job market because they use "solutions" and "team management" in conversation and have a LinkedIn account. They're a white person. They might be black, they might be brown, they might be purple, but they're embracing white culture.




Tartii said:


> Honestly I am not going to fight a pointless battle. If people still want to insist that this site is a porn site because they THINK most of the contribution is pornography, regardless of statistics, there is no point continuing this conversation.



Issue settled, Tartii has consecrated her opinion. God forbid we have different standards of a porn site. I'm gonna go smoke. Don't call me a smoker though, I only smoke 6 of the 24 hours in a day.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Because "middle class" is too broad and "rich people" is too subjective. White people is just right. We all know that jerk with the backwards baseball cap who's parents bought him a car, pay for his college, and give him an allowance which he blows at Holister and Oakley. They think they know about politics because they watch MSNBC, they know all about the job market because they use "solutions" and "team management" in conversation and have a LinkedIn account. They're a white person. They might be black, they might be brown, they might be purple, but they're embracing white culture.



I think the proper term for such a lad would be "Douchebag", it's more appropriate in my opinion. But I understand where you're coming from in a sense.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Because "middle class" is too broad and "rich people" is too subjective. White people is just right. We all know that jerk with the backwards baseball cap who's parents bought him a car, pay for his college, and give him an allowance which he blows at Holister and Oakley. They think they know about politics because they watch MSNBC, they know all about the job market because they use "solutions" and "team management" in conversation and have a LinkedIn account. They're a white person. They might be black, they might be brown, they might be purple, but they're embracing white culture.



White people includes people from all walks of life; it's even more diffuse than the two previous terms. x3 

Using diffuse racial terms to describe traits which transcend race is really confusing and sounds rather racist. :\



TealMoon said:


> I've noticed that such works are more likely to actually have tags.




That and artwork which people really care about when they produce it. If you search 'graphite' for instance the search results by date often reflect a lot of care in the production of the images in comparrison to the norm.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Because "middle class" is too broad and "rich people" is too subjective. White people is just right. We all know that jerk with the backwards baseball cap who's parents bought him a car, pay for his college, and give him an allowance which he blows at Holister and Oakley. They think they know about politics because they watch MSNBC, they know all about the job market because they use "solutions" and "team management" in conversation and have a LinkedIn account. They're a white person. They might be black, they might be brown, they might be purple, but they're embracing white culture.



White....culture..../facepalm.
I don't see what this has to do with the thread at all...but let me let you in on a little secret.

I am completely white. But nothing was ever bought for me. I had to work for everything I own. I am putting myself through college. My family is very middle class. We work carefully through things, and never buy new cars. If we had a lot of money it would be great, but we don't. I like to think my family as modest. We serve the community, feed the poor, volunteer in events. So no, 'white culture' is not 90210.
So don't base a 'culture' of people because you met some pompous dood with a baseball cap who wronged you somehow or just made you mad.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> White people includes people from all walks of life; it's even more diffuse than the two previous terms. x3
> 
> Using diffuse racial terms to describe traits which transcend race is really confusing and sounds rather racist. :\



I mostly picked it up from people I hang out with. It's more immediately apparent what's going on when a group of 5 or so white teenagers are complaining about "white people" while in a shopping mall eating chinese food. It's very self-referential, we all openly admit how lamely white we are, but we make the provision at least we're not "that" white.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> White....culture..../facepalm.
> I don't see what this has to do with the thread at all...but let me let you in on a little secret.
> 
> I am completely white. But nothing was ever bought for me. I had to work for everything I own. I am putting myself through college. My family is very middle class. We work carefully through things, and never buy new cars. If we had a lot of money it would be great, but we don't. I like to think my family as modest. We serve the community, feed the poor, volunteer in events. So no, 'white culture' is not 90210.
> So don't base a 'culture' of people because you met some pompous dood with a baseball cap who wronged you somehow or just made you mad.



This tangent reminds me of a guy at my college who was wearing baggy pants and a base ball cap, who reall liked rap music. 

People were criticising the way he dressed 'for being too black,'. I really have a struggle getting inside those people's heads- does the fact their stereotype of black people mean it's improper when someone who isn't black meets that stereotype? x3


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> This tangent reminds me of a guy at my college who was wearing baggy pants and a base ball cap, who reall liked rap music.
> 
> People were criticising the way he dressed 'for being too black,'. I really have a struggle getting inside those people's heads- does the fact their stereotype of black people mean it's improper when someone who isn't black meets that stereotype? x3



LOL I don't know. I think its more of a style of life rather than something tied down to a particular race. xD
To tie ANYTHING to a race just seems silly to me. xD


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I mostly picked it up from people I hang out with. It's more immediately apparent what's going on when a group of 5 or so white teenagers are complaining about "white people" while in a shopping mall eating chinese food. It's very self-referential, we all openly admit how lamely white we are, but we make the provision at least we're not "that" white.



I'm the whitiest black chick you'll meet, my fiance is white and he says he's blacker than I am. It's sad when your own racial group doesn't accept you because of your way of life or how you dress, talk, what you listen to, or who you decide to spend your life with in the end. But using such terms can get confusing, Americans can't seem to give a word/phrase one definition and leave it at that there has to be 5 that have nothing in common with one another.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> White....culture..../facepalm.
> I don't see what this has to do with the thread at all...but let me let you in on a little secret.
> 
> I am completely white. But nothing was ever bought for me. I had to work for everything I own. I am putting myself through college. My family is very middle class. We work carefully through things, and never buy new cars. If we had a lot of money it would be great, but we don't. I like to think my family as modest. We serve the community, feed the poor, volunteer in events. So no, 'white culture' is not 90210.
> So don't base a 'culture' of people because you met some pompous dood with a baseball cap who wronged you somehow or just made you mad.



Protestant work ethic, considerable means compared to those on welfare, and looking to be offended by taking what I said and trying to apply it to your own situation. Probably white guilt in there too.


----------



## Tartii (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Protestant work ethic, considerable means compared to those on welfare, and looking to be offended by taking what I said and trying to apply it to your own situation. Probably white guilt in there too.



So basically you hate/dislike people who are better off than you? Well okay then.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Tartii said:


> So basically you hate/dislike people who are better off than you? Well okay then.



I don't hate them per se, I just resent their arbitrary superiority. I was born poor, they were born well off. Neither of us did anything to deserve to be where we are, but I'm relatively victimized by society in terms of what I'm able to do with what I have. To compensate for this I amuse myself with righteous indignation at those who have it better than me but still feel the need to complain. It's not malicious and I have a lot of friends who are way richer than I am but that's because they're legitimately grateful for what they have and realize it was through no doing of their own.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

To bring this back to the topic of the OP, would everyone agree it is fair to say that FA isn't inherently a 'porn site', but it provides the resources so that users can treat it like one if and when they want to?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

It really depends what you consider a "porn site". If the site needs to have the majority of it's overall submissions be porn, then no, FA is not a porn site. If you consider the qualification to be a substantial portion of the submissions and community to be porn related, then yes it is. And then there's always those who think it's not inherently porn related because it gives the option of general submissions, those who think it is because it even allows porn, those who think it's all people come for, etc.

It can be construed either way but people will always think you're naive for thinking it isn't a porn site and presumptuous for thinking it is.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

Yeah I'd have to say it's an art site, a database for artists and commissioners alike to post art of different medias. Whether it be drawings (digital and traditional), music, writing/story, or whatever flash is considered as. It can be mostly relating to things you'd view on a porn site or it can be like any family orientated art site filled with... furries


----------



## Sax (Sep 12, 2012)

I might begin to see FA as a porn site if you could filter out the general, or general+mature, pics and only keep the adult ones. But outside of that, no. 
For me a porn site is 100% porn or nearly. Youporn or such doesn't have "kitten playing with puppies" vids shown along gangbangs.


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:
			
		

> The vast majority of submissions is not porn. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts the vast majority of non-music non-poetry submissions are rated Mature or Adult.


see: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/7302713/ -- I could go into a lot of detail proving you wrong, but I shouldn't have to. Look at the numbers for yourself, if you want... but even if *80%* of all *ALL* the "General" rated submissions were not visual art and stories the majority of it would still be non-porn. Do you know why? I'll tell you. Even taking into account miscatagorization (eg. marking something as Mature when it should be Adult) there shouldn't be any porn labelled as Mature as per the guidelines which can be viewed when you upload a submission. This also doesn't take into account the people who label all of their art as "Adult" or "Mature" despite obviously being a "General" rated submission. I can think of 4 artists off the top of my head who do this, and I am sure there are others. Either way, the majority of art in this site is classified as non-porn.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 12, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> see: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/7302713/ -- I could go into a lot of detail proving you wrong, but I shouldn't have to. Look at the numbers for yourself, if you want... but even if *80%* of all *ALL* the "General" rated submissions were not visual art and stories the majority of it would still be non-porn. Do you know why? I'll tell you. Even taking into account miscatagorization (eg. marking something as Mature when it should be Adult) there shouldn't be any porn labelled as Mature as per the guidelines which can be viewed when you upload a submission. This also doesn't take into account the people who label all of their art as "Adult" or "Mature" despite obviously being a "General" rated submission. I can think of 4 artists off the top of my head who do this, and I am sure there are others. Either way, the majority of art in this site is classified as non-porn.



I didn't state this but I consider "porn" to be partial nudity or greater, thus mature works count. Also:



> It can be construed either way but people will always think you're naive for thinking it isn't a porn site and presumptuous for thinking it is.


----------



## HillyRoars (Sep 12, 2012)

Yes. And I know there are ways to keep from going to that portion of the site but I still give very heavy warnings to anyone that I'm showing something on the site to because of the general nature of it :x


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

I just thought of this; FA does not allow explicit photos.


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I didn't state this but I consider "porn" to be partial nudity or greater, thus mature works count. Also:



You consider _any_ kind of nudity to be porn? Seriously...? Wow. 

My local art museum is full of porn then. :V


----------



## Soline (Sep 12, 2012)

Yep, it's an artistic porn site though, kinda like SuicideGirls, in that people do use it for more than just pornography. And that's a good thing, If I just wanted porn, I'd go to 4chan sexyboards...or any number of sites,if I just wanted furry porn, it'd be fchan or inkbunny. But I come here because I can get a decent amount of feedback on my own drawings and stories, and give my opinions on others, it gives me tonnes of pictures to reference and practice from, and hundreds of artists to aspire to.


So yes, it's a porn site, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## Soline (Sep 12, 2012)

Plus, porn is just something you can masturbate/get horny to. Which is -everything-. Every piece of semi-nude artwork in a museum, someone's masturbated to. Your facebook pictures, masturbated to. Your legs in that skirt the other day or your slightly sweaty t-shirt and broad shoulders, masturbated to. Avatar? Secrets of NIMH? America's Next Top Model? All been masturbated and fantasised to by someone in the world, and all could technically be called porn. doesn't make em bad (Cept Next top model, that's just awful right from the bat)


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> You consider _any_ kind of nudity to be porn? Seriously...? Wow.
> 
> My local art museum is full of porn then. :V



And there are entire beaches of porn lying in the sun on the Greek coast, as well as villages of porn artists living in central africa. x3



Soline said:


> Plus, porn is just something you can  masturbate/get horny to. Which is -everything-. Every piece of semi-nude  artwork in a museum, someone's masturbated to. Your facebook pictures,  masturbated to. Your legs in that skirt the other day or your slightly  sweaty t-shirt and broad shoulders, masturbated to. Avatar? Secrets of  NIMH? America's Next Top Model? All been masturbated and fantasised to  by someone in the world, and all could technically be called porn.  doesn't make em bad (Cept Next top model, that's just awful right from  the bat)



^ This comment has been masturbated to.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 12, 2012)

Marina Neira said:


> You consider _any_ kind of nudity to be porn?


No, just the kind that makes up most of FA.


----------



## Sandy-the-wolfhusky (Sep 12, 2012)

I'd say it's becoming more and more like a porn site everyday... and I don't like it :/ But oh well FA is already cracking down on porn anyways. Oh and also I also consider any form of nudity porn. (except if a man has his shirt off or men and women in bathing suits -including herms- unless of course ment to be in a sexual mannor then yes I consider it porn) But hey people's got their opinions so you better just respect it


----------



## Marina Neira (Sep 12, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> No, just the kind that makes up most of FA.



I've yet to run into any porn while keeping my adult filter on. Anything I've seen (or posted) with a Mature tag has been tasteful nudity. I guess I've just been lucky.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Sandy-the-wolfhusky said:


> I'd say it's becoming more and more like a porn site everyday... and I don't like it :/ But oh well FA is already cracking down on porn anyways. Oh and also I also consider any form of nudity porn. (except if a man has his shirt off or men and women in bathing suits -including herms- unless of course ment to be in a sexual mannor then yes I consider it porn) But hey people's got their opinions so you better just respect it



...seriously the no true scotsman fallacies about the definition of porn are becoming intollerable. Porn is defined as explicit, what seems to be happening here is no distinction between shades of eroticism and pornography.


----------



## Summercat (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> ...seriously the no true scotsman fallacies about the definition of porn are becoming intollerable. Porn is defined as explicit, what seems to be happening here is no distinction between shades of eroticism and pornography.



This.

(Further, the ratio of adult:mature:clean art has been declining over the years in favor of clean art)

edit, trying to find that, actually.

edit edit

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7302713/


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 12, 2012)

Summercat said:


> This.
> 
> (Further, the ratio of adult:mature:clean art has been declining over the years in favor of clean art)
> 
> ...



That's interesting. Maybe some people register, draw loads of sexual imagery and then diversify their art and include some general art too. Maybe sexual imagery is more likely to be deleted 'has a higher decay constant', or perhaps the demograph is changing a little.


----------



## Summercat (Sep 12, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> That's interesting. Maybe some people register, draw loads of sexual imagery and then diversify their art and include some general art too. Maybe sexual imagery is more likely to be deleted 'has a higher decay constant', or perhaps the demograph is changing a little.



We simply don't know about the deleted art. Could be all porn, could be all mature, could be all clean. More likely it's related to the same general:mature:adult ratio as the remaining (although possibly skewed towards general to allow for 'now streaming' announcements).


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 13, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I didn't state this but I consider "porn" to be partial nudity or greater, thus mature works count.



Seriously...? MFW I read that.

I've officially decided that you are nothing but a troll. /ignored


----------



## Hinalle K. (Sep 13, 2012)

The mainsite is definitely a porn site...


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> ...seriously the no true scotsman fallacies about the definition of porn are becoming intollerable. Porn is defined as explicit, what seems to be happening here is no distinction between shades of eroticism and pornography.



The lines blur betweeen what a person believes porn to be in all honesty. You have those who belive that some works of art that study the human figure to be porn.



Sandy-the-wolfhusky said:


> I'd say it's becoming more and more like a porn site everyday... and I don't like it :/ But oh well FA is already cracking down on porn anyways. Oh and also I also consider any form of nudity porn. (except if a man has his shirt off or men and women in bathing suits -including herms- unless of course ment to be in a sexual mannor then yes I consider it porn) But hey people's got their opinions so you better just respect it



So I guess life studies in art are porn then? :V
You are overgeneralizing. Porn isn't a mass quanitiy on the Mainsite as much as you think it is. Maybe you look at it too much and think that it is a large staple of the images uploaded.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 13, 2012)

Cooking the books by placing nudity with advanced innuendo under "General"?

Neat trick.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 13, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> Seriously...? MFW I read that.
> 
> I've officially decided that you are nothing but a troll. /ignored



Hmm.. from his logic a women breast feeding her child is porn, or someone in a bikini could possibly considered porn. Maybe even someone in a hospital robe with the back untied is a porn star?


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 13, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Hmm.. from his logic a women breast feeding her child is porn, or someone in a bikini could possibly considered porn. Maybe even someone in a hospital robe with the back untied is a porn star?



This is porn because someone, somewhere has fapped to it. :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 13, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> This is porn because someone, somewhere has fapped to it. :V



Porn is in the palm of the beholden.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 13, 2012)

asdfghjkas

Allow me to rephrase it, NSFW or "fappable" is "porn". Technically it's softcore but w/e. If it's naked/suggestive enough that someone walking by would think "why the hell are you looking at that?" then it counts.

Obviously things like the aforementioned hospital robe and breast feeding are not. A boner partially concealed by the character's tail with him holding a condom in his mouth... well, that's another story. It has to do with the tone.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 13, 2012)

FA can't be a porn site. 

Porn sites yield profit.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Porn is in the palm of the beholden.



Someone is probably fapping to your avvie. Let me mark it as adult just in case.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 13, 2012)

Would me finding cars sexy make a car dealership a porn store? I was thinking about hitting up a few places later today :I


----------



## ObeyTheSnarf (Sep 13, 2012)

TBH I came to FA for the porn, mostly to post it.    I do hear from a lot of people with their filters on that they don't consider it a porn site though.  There is a lot of good clean art.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 13, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Would me finding cars sexy make a car dealership a porn store? I was thinking about hitting up a few places later today :I



Depends:






That is the very definition of tasteful nudity right there.

http://www.wallpaperez.org/wallpaper/car/Koenigsegg-Widescreen-932.jpg(nsfw)

That however is pornography.

Then again this is coming from a fellow who commissions automotive pornography.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 13, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Depends:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tag your links if it is explicit. 
I can't see it because where I am filters it as Adult conent. >:V


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 13, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Someone is probably fapping to your avvie. Let me mark it as adult just in case.



I should definitely produce a series of skinless pornography; nobody's thought of that before! 

Oh wait... http://www.devilspenny.com/wp-content/uploads/plastination-sex-von-hagens.jpg [warning preserved corpses in sexual poses]


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I should definitely produce a series of skinless pornography; nobody's thought of that before!
> 
> Oh wait... http://www.devilspenny.com/wp-content/uploads/plastination-sex-von-hagens.jpg [warning preserved corpses in sexual poses]



Everything is porn. :V
Someone's fapping to this thread right now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 13, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Everything is porn. :V
> Someone's fapping to this thread right now.



This shall be known as the porn uncertainy principle. The more one tries to pin down a universal definition the more elusive it becomes. x3


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 13, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Depends:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Too fat, too show-offy. I like small slick and round cars. Something similar to this beauty here:

http://cdn.celebritycarsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lindsay-Lohan-Porsche-Cayman-S1.jpg


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 13, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Tag your links if it is explicit.
> I can't see it because where I am filters it as Adult conent. >:V








You're my new favorite mod.


----------



## Catilda Lily (Sep 13, 2012)

No, but that's because I don't come here for porn.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 13, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> Too fat, too show-offy. I like small slick and round cars. Something similar to this beauty here:
> 
> http://cdn.celebritycarsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lindsay-Lohan-Porsche-Cayman-S1.jpg



Porsches are many things; dependable, classy, fast, smooth, but good looking is not one of them.

I prefer this German beauty:
http://images.drive.com.au/drive_images/Editorial/2009/03/31/vw_Golf_GTI_6_L_700.jpg


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 13, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Porsches are many things; dependable, classy, fast, smooth, but good looking is not one of them.
> 
> I prefer this German beauty:
> http://images.drive.com.au/drive_images/Editorial/2009/03/31/vw_Golf_GTI_6_L_700.jpg



We have completely different tastes I can see xD
I'm also a fan of Mazda RX7 1993 vers. Your car has too much butt for my taste


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 13, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> You're my new favorite mod.



Bite me.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Sep 13, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> We have completely different tastes I can see xD
> I'm also a fan of Mazda RX7 1993 vers. Your car has too much butt for my taste



http://youtu.be/ldTtAURFwSg


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 13, 2012)

FA allows porn but that does not make it a porn site, as there is nothing said by the owners of the site that it is a porn site and there are no implications that the site is dedicated to porn. Redtube and Hard Blush are porn sites. Furaffinity is not a porn site. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete fucking moron and should just GTFO my internet.


----------



## drekian (Sep 13, 2012)

The simple answer:

Content filter on: Oh look at all the pretty and innocent arts!
Content filter off: *jawdrop* o.o

There is a lot of NSFW content here. Same goes for many (if not all) furry art communities though.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 14, 2012)

drekian said:


> Content filter on: Oh look at all the pretty and innocent arts!


*HAHAHA.*

Tbh, it's still bad but no where near as bad as when the filter is off.
The ratio between good and bad art is actually also significantly higher while the filter is on.


----------



## drekian (Sep 17, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> *HAHAHA.*
> 
> Tbh, it's still bad but no where near as bad as when the filter is off.
> The ratio between good and bad art is actually also significantly higher while the filter is on.



True that. It really depends where you look whether or not you'll need brain-bleach with the content filter off.


----------



## Charles Rabbit (Sep 25, 2012)

This is a porn website?  I'm getting the hell out of here! No wonder alot of the people here are disrespectful, hateful, rude and self-centered basters!! Is there a way to deactivate my account? 

I tought this was public furry place to talk about stuff. Some of things said here are not what you would say public place to everyone hearing.
In disappointment
Charles Rabbit


----------



## Mayonnaise (Sep 25, 2012)

Nope. Not a porn site.


----------



## Xaerun (Sep 25, 2012)

Yes. Next question?


----------



## BJbear2001 (Sep 25, 2012)

No, I don't.
(edited)
I don't like the amount of pornography that I see in Furaffinity, but after reading a few comments here I can't complain about FA. I use the settings and sfw.furaffinity so that I can watch good artists that have wished they didn't have to draw porn like Lapinbeau. It does make me miss out on stories that involve wars and stuff though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> This is a porn website?  I'm getting the hell out of here! No wonder alot of the people here are disrespectful, hateful, rude and self-centered basters!! Is there a way to deactivate my account?
> 
> I tought this was public furry place to talk about stuff. Some of things said here are not what you would say public place to everyone hearing.
> In disappointment
> Charles Rabbit



Go to any forum, you will find extremist views being discussed there which wouldn't be touched at arm's length in public as well as dispresectul hateful rude self-centred bastards of all descriptions. 

This forum is a furry place to talk about stuff including sexuality *if* you wish, the mainsite is a place to post and viewart including sexual art *if *you wish.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 25, 2012)

Why is this thread still going? It's been said by staff several times that while Fur Affinity does allow for porn it's not a porn site. What you arrive for is up to you, but your specific interest does not trump what the site was intended for or as. This thread is growing redundant with the same replies being made over and over, and never really belonged in Site Discussion to begin with. FA is not a Porn Site. Thread closed.

EDIT: To be clear Site Discussion exists as a place to bring up important concerns or ask important questions regarding the main side and generate useful discussion between users and staff. Once the question highlighted by the OP is fully answered and or useful discussion ceases to exist expect threads to be closed. This is done to prevent other users from coming in and misleading users after the question has been answered. Remember people often read an OP and tend to skip straight to the last post. If the last post is 4 pages after the official answer with people going on about their opinions about the matter it defeats the purpose of staff answering OP's question.


----------

