# Spanking artwork involving underage characters



## IAN (Jul 1, 2014)

I really don't know why but this has been bothering me as of recent, and I have been wondering as to how it's somehow allowed on FA still.


We all know drawn pornography of underage-characters is not permitted on FA. This excludes innocent babyfur/kidfur artwork that is for the most part non-sexualized and a lot of times can be adorable, but there are some that are lumped within that, or "say" they are that really hit me in the wrong way.

These are the spanking themed pics that have been going around, and seemingly gaining popularity as of recent. Few examples of what I'm talking about:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13285672/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13861770/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13828383/

I mean it's like, they're practically sexualizing the ABUSE of children, getting erections and cumming over the infliction of pain to minors. Yeah you could argue that babyfurs sexualize the diaper part of kids but diaper-themed pics don't involve intentionally putting a child in severe pain, because that's just a common thing versus an intended infliction (and to me, babyfurs that focus soley on the diapers aren't actual babyfurs, just diaperfurs with younger characters). Inflicting pain to a child for sexual gratification is abuse just as sex with a minor is. And just as gut-wrenching.

There's one artist in particular who's in my watchlist who's doing several YCH's dedicated to this, and if they keep drawing this I plan to unwatch, if I don't do it soon anyway because I'm getting sick of seeing this shit.


What are your thoughts?


----------



## Harbinger (Jul 1, 2014)

The whole babyfur thing should be wiped from existence.


----------



## Valery91Thunder (Jul 1, 2014)

IAN said:
			
		

> I mean it's like, they're practically sexualizing the ABUSE of children,  getting erections and cumming over the infliction of pain to minors.


I have the mature filter enabled so I'm luckily not able to look at the pics, but _even just for this part_ it's safe to assume that is surely CP and it should be deleted. :/


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 1, 2014)

Babyfurs are creepy shits. Shocking!


----------



## Taralack (Jul 1, 2014)

Oh man I was so ready to swoop in and lock this.. *sad panda face*


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

This irritates me as well, especially as I like spanking- so I have to wade past all of that awful stuff every time I search for it. 

Other artists have been suspended because they failed to elucidate whether the characters in their images being beaten were 18 or 17, so the images in question should be removed in a heartbeat.


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

I am a little confused because all I see is spanked child??? Isn't this normal punishment for children? 
In my country it is not considered abuse or sexual. We have this punishment into high school, starting at a young age.
I don't think the drawing is interesting. But I don't think it is bad too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

tiggu said:


> I am a little confused because all I see is spanked child??? Isn't this normal punishment for children?
> In my country it is not considered abuse or sexual. We have this punishment into high school, starting at a young age.
> I don't think the drawing is interesting. But I don't think it is bad too.



A great number of people consider it erotic.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 1, 2014)

How can you see the red bruising through the fur? 
Anyway just no. Nonononono.


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> A great number of people consider it erotic.


Strange! When I see it with a child, I just think a normal punishment. Maybe if it was an adult, I would think sex play.
Thanks for answering me ^ ^


----------



## BRN (Jul 1, 2014)

The picture's you've linked are of young characters with red butts. You'd see this in Looney Tunes.

What's the big deal? :?


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 1, 2014)

Looney Tunes eh?
Not to sure about that.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 1, 2014)

BRN said:


> The picture's you've linked are of young characters with red butts. You'd see this in Looney Tunes.
> 
> What's the big deal? :?



Consider the audience for a second. This shit is obviously meant to be in some way erotic, coupled with the moderate popularity of spanking as a fetish and the inherent creepiness of your average babyfur.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

BRN said:


> The picture's you've linked are of young characters with red butts. You'd see this in Looney Tunes.
> 
> What's the big deal? :?



Paedophiles are using it to circumvent the ban on child porn. It's obvious they're getting sexual gratification out of it.

edit: It would be best if the upload policy explicitly stated that any trope fetish content can only feature adults, although I am very sure that the upload policy _already_ states only adult characters may have exposed buttocks. It also needs to state that groping and touching of erogenous zones should be adult only, and probably should state that defecation should also be exclusive to adults. 

The loopholes which some people use to circumvent the ban need to be closed.


----------



## VintageLynx (Jul 1, 2014)

Some of the comments are very dubious. One says "This is delicious" which is worse than the art to me. Come on babyfurs, get your shit together!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

VintageLynx said:


> Some of the comments are very dubious. One says "This is delicious" which is worse than the art to me. Come on babyfurs, *get your shit together!*



Don't say that; they'll take it literally.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 1, 2014)

I don't think it's too bad if it's NOT sexualized,

One particular artist, smilehkitteh, is a fan of spanky art. Not because it's sexual but because it's toony and innocent. 

Really, anything babyfur isn't all that bad if it's taken innocently. Not all of them sexualize babyfurs.  Only problem is the large number of creepy assholes that are the reason why we can't have nice things. 

Though, if the problem does get worse perhaps contact FA mods about it?

Edit: However, the one's that are linked are a bit of a red flag, here's the description of the first image

"Now you maybe wounder what it is for naughty behavior that Foxy have been up to? The thing he have done is that he have take off his diaper without Ronalds permission and the second thing is that he have play whit Ronalds favorite toy whiteout his permission. That is one thing that Ronald dont like when someone play whit his toys whiteout asking. When that sort of things happen he always end up giving that person a massive spanking. Like the spanking that Foxy is receiving now. 


Poor Foxy but this time Ronald wont Foxy to learn the hard way."

Sounds like an abusive relationship...specifically the lines 'without Ronald's permission"


----------



## BRN (Jul 1, 2014)

Abusive relationship?  It sounds like kids being kids.

Baby furs creep me the fuck out, and I don't get spanking. But I can't see a reason to ban this stuff. It's non sexual unless fetishised, and that's true of potentially any picture with an underage character in it.

Peadophiles getting off to pictures of underage characters is fucked up, but _somebody _ is always gonna get off to _ something_.

I don't like baby fur stuff in the slightest. I have a kind of visceral reaction to it, and it's all kinds of fucked up, but we should stick to vanning what's sexual, not what's fetishised.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

You shouldn't be able to get images of under aged characters' bare buttocks on the mainsite. Nudity, especially of the erogenous zones, should be limited to adult characters.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 1, 2014)

BRN said:


> I don't like baby fur stuff in the slightest. I have a kind of visceral reaction to it, and it's all kinds of fucked up, but we should stick to vanning what's sexual, not what's fetishised.



Just because a lot of babyfurs are messed up doesn't mean they all are. 

Look at the entire furry fandom, outsiders see it and think it's all about bestiality and getting off to animal porn, which...isn't always true.

Also, I agree we don't need to ban the fetishized. Everything is fetishized. Paws are fetishized, do we ban those?

^^^though what fallowfox said, we could make a point to ban showing off butts on babyfurs...


----------



## Kosdu (Jul 1, 2014)

I should start of my saying I know a babyfur who simply enjoys playing as a younger character in non-sexual ways as a way of escape, without all that creepy stuff. That is fine with me.

But it is disgusting how much pedophile fodder you find no matter where you look, including FA.
You can easily get away with it by calling them chibis, or making them feral, but it is still simply abhorrent to me to have a young character in a sexual situation.

Honestly, this and scat are two of the biggest problems within the furry community, and what makes me avoid 90% of it.... fuckinh cubporn everywhere!


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Should be re-classified to adult.
Now first artist did it fine - mature content and no excessive sexual context. Ok, I read the description. Changed my mind.
Second one - should be marked as mature. No sexual contest though.
Third one - same as the second one.

Don't exaggerate. Last two are so soft that without FA context they could be hardly even considered NSFW.

And ughh... Diapers :S


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

The current AUP, while explicitly forbidding minors in sexual situations, fails to define sexual situations. 

If they were defined as
"Any activity involving exposed genitals or buttocks, groping or implied use or stimulation of any orifice below the waste,"

Bam, all of the known loopholes closed.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

This way you're implying that stuff like this:
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mgCWJ7w4RUxy6WwWuiv03hg.jpg
which is commonly used on toilet doors here have sexual context. Et cetera. Simple "sexual situation" is in my opinion a better definition as "sexual situations" doesn't always include "activities involving exposed genitals or buttocks, groping or implied use or stimulation of any orifice below the waist".


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> This way you're implying that stuff like this:
> http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mgCWJ7w4RUxy6WwWuiv03hg.jpg
> which is commonly used on toilet doors here have sexual context. Et cetera. Simple "sexual situation" is in my opinion a better definition as "sexual situations" doesn't always include "activities involving exposed genitals or buttocks, groping or implied use or stimulation of any orifice below the waist".



If babyfurs were allowed to upload images of their characters urinating what do _you_ think a significant percentage of them would do?


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Take the pic I linked and turn the boy into furry. Still, perfectly fine. No affiliation with pedophilia and no sexual context no matter how hard you try to find it despite exposed buttocks (and urination!) because the context is already well known. But according to your definition it would be "sexual situation". As you see this definiton is also flawed.


----------



## Kosdu (Jul 1, 2014)

Edit: Ayattar, get a clue.

If the children wore leather and ball gags, would that be better for you?

I wonder how many pedophiles the FA staff has, or whether most of them are on inkbunny.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

No, it's only a brain cancer caused by the furry community.

Ouuu... Why did you edit the post? It was so cute.

No. Maybe that's because I'm still relatively normal and not tainted and first thought when I see such pictures is  "physical punishment". And even if not, situations 2 and 3 can't be clearly considered as sexual. Funny thing is, that picture no 1, whilst being the safest one when we consider the picture alone, is also the worst, because of the description.

Imo there should be also "cub/babyfur/diaper filter" avaiable.


----------



## BRN (Jul 1, 2014)

If bared buttocks, touching them, applying lubricant and applying nappies is sexual, then Pampers adverts and Johnsons Baby Oil are pampering to peadophiles aswell. 

I know it seems that this is hot topic because spanking is a sexual fetish, but you can't judge them in that context.


1) A child is in a situation which can be sexually fetishised, though not traditionally sexual

2) Any situation can be sexually fetishised

3) We should ban situations where children can be sexually fetishised

The inevitable outcome of these three steps is... wrong. And you can't pick and choose the situations you want to ban, either. There's got to be a 'rule', and "sexual content" should be it. The trouble is then defining "sexual content", like Fallow said, but bared buttocks just isn't sexual content. Think of diaper adverts and baby oil adverts as a good litmus test.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 1, 2014)

Okay, but really though, if pedophiles are going to get off on bare buttocks, they'd get off on tv commercials, paper advertisements, google images of baby butts.

If the image itself is not intended to be in a sexual manner, then why ban it? 

Like I said, paws/feet are fetishized, and some weirdos see it as a sexual fetish, why ban an image that isn't meant to be fetishized?

People are going to find loopholes regardless, the spanking happens to be a new loophole in the system. Maybe if you find the intent of the image before pulling out the banhammer wouldn't that be better?

Also, are you just going to just vapidly discuss this on a forum post with no action, or is it an issue serious enough to contact mods and change FAF submission guidelines?


----------



## Kosdu (Jul 1, 2014)

BRN said:


> If bared buttocks, touching them, applying lubricant and applying nappies is sexual, then Pampers adverts and Johnsons Baby Oil are pampering to peadophiles aswell.
> 
> I know it seems that this is hot topic because spanking is a sexual fetish, but you can't judge them in that context.
> 
> ...



I agree with you, my post and FallowFox's revolve more around the issue that there are some pictures that are obviously intended as fetish art.

If only there were an easier way to judge these things, see if it is intended to be fetishised.



I mean, it seems to me the matter is that spanking can be every bit as sexual as harcore bdsm to some folks.


I'm way too tired to keep posting, but atleast we all seem to be against cubporn, that's one thing I like about FaF.
/faints

(One indicator is if there is a mature or adult rating, blushing, erect penises... Etc)


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jul 1, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Take the pic I linked and turn the boy into furry. Still, perfectly fine. No affiliation with pedophilia and no sexual context no matter how hard you try to find it despite exposed buttocks (and urination!) because the context is already well known. But according to your definition it would be "sexual situation". As you see this definiton is also flawed.



Unfortunately it is such a grey area. What's to stop the artist of such an image (I didn't want to view any of them, but I get the gist) saying it's more of an "artistic" situation, conveying discipline/punishment and such, instead of admitting they're getting off to it?

Considering it is FA, the safest way to go would probably be assuming that it IS a fetish thing and risk lumping the occasional artist in there who DID have a non-sexual intent.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Frankly, if you do get rid of the occasional image of 'non sexual' diaper change etc, what of value is being lost? It's worth preventing paedophiles from exchanging fap fodder, to the extent that if you are searching for legal material with the same tags that _their_ content crowds out regular content.

It would be better to accidentally get rid of some innocent images, than accidentally allow the site to host porn for paedophiles.


----------



## IAN (Jul 1, 2014)

Seeing as this thread's grown quite a bit I'm not just going to reply to one person but reply to all generally:


My issue isn't particularly with just sexualizing just the child anatomy and the nudity. Let's face it, as others have said anything can be considered sexual by some in some way (shit, some weird-ass furries get off just to the sight of an anthropomorphic character to begin with). It's the fact that the ABUSE of children is getting sexualized. Like these people are enjoying the sight of a helpless child in pain, as a result of an older, larger, more dominant force.


I remember another thread about babyfurs where that looney StreetCircus guy tried to use a bunch of weird Freuidian Psychology as to why babyfurs were objectively wrong, but what bothered me was that the picture he used was an innocent drawing of a cute cub who was sad he spilled milk, which he said was "fetishsizing the helplessness of a child."

I thought he was full of shit with that example but in the event of this "spanking" artwork involving kids the argument actually stands. And it's actually troublesome, because the depictions involve children being put into physical pain and essentially being abused for sexual gratification.


----------



## Kosdu (Jul 1, 2014)

I honestly wish we could ban scat on the mainsite too

It's no large secret I have a hypnosis kink.... I don't mind pics with clean diapers, don't get off to them either, but there is literally so much disgusting shit on there... it is disgusting.

To me pictures of shit have no artistic merit and are simply disgusting.

Off topic, but yeah.

And on the mainsite, cub porn seems to be effectively legal through chibis and "adult" young looking characters.


----------



## IAN (Jul 1, 2014)

Kosdu said:


> I honestly wish we could ban scat on the mainsite too
> 
> It's no large secret I have a hypnosis kink.... I don't mind pics with clean diapers, don't get off to them either, but there is literally so much disgusting shit on there... it is disgusting.



There's really no banning something just because you dislike the sight of it. I'll agree that open scat outside of diapers is very gross but hell, if some people are into that shit, let them have it.

This is more on the issue of moral standards. Bizzarre fetishes like scat, diaperfurs (adult characters), and watersports may come off as gross but they're not morally wrong in the same sense that cub spanking pics are.


And also I've seen several chibi pics get removed by admins for looking far too much like children. Morally those drawings aren't anything harmful if the characters are above age, but it doesn't help that the character shares the anatomy with that of a 5 year old despite being 18.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Kosdu said:


> I honestly wish we could ban scat on the mainsite too
> 
> It's no large secret I have a hypnosis kink.... I don't mind pics with clean diapers, don't get off to them either, but there is literally so much disgusting shit on there... it is disgusting.
> 
> ...



There's no problem with scat though? It's not everyone's cup of tea but it's not abusive or illegal either.



IAN said:


> There's really no banning something just because you  dislike the sight of it. I'll agree that open scat outside of diapers is  very gross but hell, if some people are into that shit, let them have  it.
> 
> This is more on the issue of moral standards. Bizzarre fetishes like  scat, diaperfurs (adult characters), and watersports may come off as  gross but they're not morally wrong in the same sense that cub spanking  pics are.
> 
> ...




I agree. It doesn't matter if most people view a fetish as disgusting if the subjects are adults- imaginary ones at that.

 When children are the subject of sexual fantasies that is unacceptable, though.


----------



## VintageLynx (Jul 1, 2014)

Spanking is something that adults do to kids and even 'innocent' spanking seems a bit twisted to me. Why not have something more likely going on in babyfur art like sulking or depicting what normal infants of any species do - play fighting or such?


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Oh no the imaginary cartoon animal children are being abused we have to stop this!


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

My question is: if you get off to children being fetishized, what the hell is wrong with you?




Hana-Nezumi said:


> Oh no the imaginary cartoon animal children are being abused we have to stop this!



How dare people get off to *children* drawn in sexual and fetished situations! Stop the presses!


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> My question is: if you get off to children being fetishized, what the hell is wrong with you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They're not real.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> They're not real.



No, but it still should not be permitted on FA.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> They're not real.



It doesn't matter if they are real or not, they are *children*.
You are getting off to *children*.
You are sexualizing *children*.
Children. Keyword here.

Seek psychological help. Please.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> It doesn't matter if they are real or not, they are children.
> You are getting off to children.
> Children. Keyword here.
> 
> Seek psychological help.


In most video games you kill people. Murder them. It doesn't matter that they aren't real. So obviously everyone who derives joy from killing people in videogames must have psychological problems.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> In most video games you kill people. Murder them. It doesn't matter that they aren't real. So obviously everyone who derives joy from killing people in videogames must have psychological problems.



That is a very healthy remark.

If someone is a pedophile who is jerking off to some pics of unreal animal people in his home seclusion... then I'm ok with it. Sorry, but everyone has his right to be fucked up, for as long as his weirdness doesn't affect other people and he keeps his weirdness to himself. From all the people in the world, you furry weirdos should be able to understand it.

Though, I do agree that FA is not a place for such things. Because of reputation et cetera.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> In most video games you kill people. Murder them. It doesn't matter that they aren't real. So obviously everyone who derives joy from killing people in videogames must have psychological problems.



Being sexually attracted to children actually is a psychological problem. Whether or not the subject is real, the attraction is. 

Playing pretend soldiers isn't a psychological issue.



Ayattar said:


> That is a very healthy remark.
> 
> If someone is a pedophile who is jerking off to some pics of unreal  animal people in his home seclusion... then I'm ok with it. Sorry, but  everyone has his right to be fucked up, for as long as his weirdness  doesn't affect other people and he keeps his weirdness to himself. From  all the people in the world, you furry weirdos should be able to  understand it.
> 
> Though, I do agree that FA is not a place for such things. Because of reputation et cetera.



I agree, although I still think it's a mental illness. [perhaps I am using this word incorrectly]

However my agreement is naive, and would change if evidence emerged to show that it increased the probability of such people harming real children.


----------



## VintageLynx (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> In most video games you kill people. Murder them. It doesn't matter that they aren't real. So obviously everyone who derives joy from killing people in videogames must have psychological problems.



That's why they are age rated. When you are adult enough to understand you get to play. Cubs/kids aren't old enough to decide anything so it's an adult fantasy in which the characters represented are living adult fantasies only.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jul 1, 2014)

But "all characters are over 18" even if they are wearing diapers/sucking on lollypops/clearly could not be mistaken for anything but babyfur 
please, you aren't fooling anyone


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> However my agreement is naive, and would change if evidence emerged to show that it increased the probability of such people harming real children.



And this evidence would be useless since only pedophiles jerk to such images, and only pedophiles hurt children. I hope you understand this logic.



monochromatic-dragon said:


> But "all characters are over 18"  even if they are wearing diapers/sucking on lollypops/clearly could not  be mistaken for anything but babyfur
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But... But... But animals reach adulthood when they're 1 year old, sometimes faster! 18 years old cat? That would be like... 120 years in human measure! Gerontophilia! Gross!

On more serious note, in official porn industry there are ways to go around - they're using adult girls with very tiny and undeveloped bodybuilt.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> And this evidence would be useless since only pedophiles jerk to such images, and only pedophiles hurt children. I hope you understand this logic.



...? No; it would be decisive. If it was demonstrated that paedophiles who viewed such imagery were more likely to hurt children in real life, then that would be a solid argument against outlawing such imagery entirely- proliferation of drawings included.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

So the intensity of the exposure. I see. Makes sence.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jul 1, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> But... But... But animals reach adulthood when they're 1 year old, sometimes faster! 18 years old cat? That would be like... 120 years in human measure! Gerontophilia! Gross!
> 
> On more serious note, in official porn industry there are ways to go around - they're using adult girls with very tiny and undeveloped bodybuilt.



OP's examples aren't even the worst that I've seen... in fact I don't see much in the way of leering comments or anything like that on either of them. I'm sure if I had adult art enabled on my FA though I'd see a lot more. I just choose not to see the vast majority of furry fetish art because its not my thing, and I am sure that most of it probably qualifies as weird, unusual, or creepy to downright disgraceful.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Being sexually attracted to children actually is a psychological problem. Whether or not the subject is real, the attraction is.
> 
> Playing pretend soldiers isn't a psychological issue.
> 
> ...




Pedophillia is classified as a abnormal psychological disorder by the DSM-V. People who have a history of psychological disturbances have a higher risk of engaging in molestation.

The slippery slope with drawn images vs photographs is that the former is not engaging in sexual exploration and slavery and can be used to "curb" desires by a margin, but that's akin to giving a crack addict bits of crack to wean him off of the drug.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Being sexually attracted to children actually is a psychological problem. Whether or not the subject is real, the attraction is.
> 
> Playing pretend soldiers isn't a psychological issue.


So for sexual attraction, there's no difference between fantasy and reality, but for violence, there is? Where is your logic?

Also if you insist on calling it a psychological problem, it's not, according to the DSM-5, which is the most widely accepted standard for psychiatric diagnosis: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf

It says to be diagnosed one must "have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person's psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent"

PERSONS. As in actual, real life people. Not. Fictional. Cartoon. Animals.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> So for sexual attraction, there's no difference between fantasy and reality, but for violence, there is? Where is your logic?
> 
> Also if you insist on calling it a psychological problem, it's not, according to the DSM-5, which is the most widely accepted standard for psychiatric diagnosis: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf
> 
> ...



"
In the case of pedophilic *disorder,* the notable detail is what wasnâ€™t revised in the new manual. Al

-
though proposals were discussed throughout the DSM-5 development process, diagnostic criteria ulti
-
mately remained the same as in DSM-IV TR.  Only the disorder name will be changed from pedophilia 

to pedophilic *disorder* to maintain consistency with the chapterâ€™s other listings" 

It seems to agree paedophilic disorder is a psychological problem. Dressing the subjects up like animals doesn't change the fact that the target audience is paedophiles.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> So for sexual attraction, there's no difference between fantasy and reality, but for violence, there is? Where is your logic?



The first thing that comes into my mind is we rarely see people being sexually excited about killing NPCs.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> Also if you insist on calling it a psychological problem, it's not, according to the DSM-5, which is the most widely accepted standard for psychiatric diagnosis: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf



Because it is a psychological problem no matter how you want to dress it. And you may want to overlook your link because it is reclassifying it as a disorder.



> It says to be diagnosed one must "have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person's psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent"



That would also file under molesters, which is also another egg for people who have to severely engage in the physical behavior. And before we go into a tanget: Pedophiles are not all molesters and there are different classifications for it and the disorder.

If a person is  under stressed and fixated with the images (Drawn or not) and know the act is wrong itself, it makes the person a pedophile. He is not a molestor. Pedophilic Molestors seek sexual activity with minors.



> PERSONS. As in actual, real life people. Not. Fictional. Cartoon. Animals.




So, give it ears and a tail and it's not a child? Logic found. :V
Fiction or not, you are still sexualizing and fetishizing children. Telling a person that it is "Fiction" doesn't change what it is or provide it magical teflon. It is drawn child pornography. You jack off to a ton of cub porn, you are a pedophile.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

If you're a person who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy you should be able to understand what I'm saying. Fictional characters cannot be victims. And just because someone is attracted to drawings of cartoon children does not mean they are attracted to real children. You are all just blinded by your own personal dislikes to think about it logically. But I expected as much.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> If you're a person who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy you should be able to understand what I'm saying. Fictional characters cannot be victims. And just because someone is attracted to drawings of cartoon children does not mean they are attracted to real children. You are all just blinded by your own personal dislikes to think about it logically. But I expected as much.



I am thinking very logically at the moment, but I'm not the one blinded by a slippery slope "it's fiction". Yes it is fiction, but it is child porn. Don't like it? Tough shit. 
If you put makeup and a dress on a pig doesn't change it into a human. It's still a pig, and it is now wearing makeup and a dress.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> So, give it ears and a tail and it's not a child? Logic found. :V



And what if a person is both pedophile and zoophile so he can achieve sexual satisfatcion only when jerking to cartoon animal children? You see? I've found a way! This way children, human children will be safe!

Aww... crap... But he might as well put them into a murrsuit... Even worse q.q


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> If you're a person who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy you should be able to understand what I'm saying. Fictional characters cannot be victims. And just because someone is attracted to drawings of cartoon children does not mean they are attracted to real children. You are all just blinded by your own personal dislikes to think about it logically. But I expected as much.



Nobody is upset about the plight of the fictional character. We're upset that people who are sexually gratified by such fantasies are present on FA and are using the site for those ends. 

You're right that a person's attraction to cartoons does not necessitate an attraction to real children, but that will be the case for a large number of those people. 

FA has stipulated that exhibiting sexual attraction to children is not permitted on the website, and many of us feel that icons similar to those in question in the OP are a means by which paedophiles evade that ban, by exploiting ambiguous situations that feature child nudity.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> If you're a person who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy you should be able to understand what I'm saying. Fictional characters cannot be victims. And just because someone is attracted to drawings of cartoon children does not mean they are attracted to real children. You are all just blinded by your own personal dislikes to think about it logically. But I expected as much.



It's considered a problem because there is no reason anyone would DRAW a child[fur] in a sexual/fetish scenario unless they got their rocks off to it. There is no reason anyone would deliberately seek this out, if not to get off to it. If someone is attracted to a child-fur, you can assume they're attracted to kids in real life.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> And what if a person is both pedophile and zoophile so he can achieve sexual satisfatcion only when jerking to cartoon animal children? You see? I've found a way! This way children, human children will be safe!
> 
> Aww... crap... But he might as well put them into a murrsuit... Even worse q.q



It's the furry fandom; no one and nothing is safe.
And your sarcasm needs more work.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> I am thinking very logically at the moment, but I'm not the one blinded by a slippery slope "it's fiction". Yes it is fiction, but it is child porn. Don't like it, tough shit.
> If you put makeup and a dress on a pig doesn't change it into a human. It's still a pig, and it is now wearing makeup and a dress.


Yet a fictional pig is not a pig. If you had a stuffed animal of a pig and tore off its head that wouldn't make you an animal abuser.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

AlexxxLupo said:


> It's considered a problem because there is no reason anyone would DRAW a child[fur] in a sexual/fetish scenario unless they got their rocks off to it. There is no reason anyone would deliberately seek this out, if not to get off to it. If someone is attracted to a child-fur, you can assume they're attracted to kids in real life.


HOW can you assume that? It's not the same thing at all.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> Yet a fictional pig is not a pig. If you had a stuffed animal of a pig and tore off its head that wouldn't make you an animal abuser.



If someone jacks off to drawings of pigs they would, however, be a zoophile.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You're right that a person's attraction to cartoons does not necessitate an attraction to real children, but that will be the case for a large number of those people.


There is no proof of this and I find it very unlikely.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> It's the furry fandom; no one and nothing is safe.
> And your sarcasm needs more work.



Not possible until I stop being a mongoloid.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If someone jacks off to drawings of pigs they would, however, be a zoophile.


Not if they're cartoon pigs that look and act nothing like real pigs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> There is no proof of this and I find it very unlikely.



So they're _not _paedophiles, but then they discover that they're turned on by child porn, provided that it's of cartoon characters? Really?



This is like suggesting that men attracted to krystal fox 'usually aren't really heterosexauls- they're probably not attracted to_ real_ women,'


----------



## Kalmor (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana, if someone DREW (not photographed) a human kid in a sexual situation, would that also be okay? How does putting fur on them and changing a few body characteristics (add tails, or whatever) suddenly make that okay?


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> So they're _not _paedophiles, but then they discover that they're turned on by child porn, provided that it's of cartoon characters? Really?


That is _exactly_ the case with all people I know who are interested in cub art.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> Yet a fictional pig is not a pig. If you had a stuffed animal of a pig and tore off its head that wouldn't make you an animal abuser.



If I take a photo of a child, it is a picture of a child, not a real person. Therefore, person-hood is excluded because the picture is an object and not a child.



Hana-Nezumi said:


> That is _exactly_ the case with all people I know who are interested in cub art.



And just to reiterate: General Cub art =/= Cub porn


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> If I take a photo of a child, it is a picture of a child, not a real person. Therefore, person-hood is excluded because the picture is an object and not a child.





Kalmor said:


> Hana, if someone DREW (not photographed) a human kid in a sexual situation, would that also be okay? How does putting fur on them and changing a few body characteristics (add tails, or whatever) suddenly make that okay?


No, that wouldn't be okay. It wouldn't be okay with adding tails and stuff if it's based on a real picture of a kid because then there is a victim. If the picture is an entirely fabricated cartoon there is no victim.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Kalmor said:


> Hana, if someone DREW (not photographed) a human kid in a sexual situation, would that also be okay? How does putting fur on them and changing a few body characteristics (add tails, or whatever) suddenly make that okay?



Depends. I discovered that drawing something you're not really into can get you closer or at least more tolerant (like: meh, whatever, I seen/drew it so many times) to the subiect. I'm serious The possibilities of developing various deviations are endless here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Bottom line is that porn of minors isn't allowed on FA and some users are obviously using ambiguous images that involve nudity of minors to slip their fap fodder through the net.

It shouldn't be allowed, and many of us don't want to come across it when we're browsing without our filters on.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> No, that wouldn't be okay. It wouldn't be okay with adding tails and stuff if it's based on a real picture of a kid because then there is a victim. If the picture is an entirely fabricated cartoon there is no victim.


But if it's a drawn picture of a photo of a child with ears and a tail, it's a victimless crime. Therefore it is not bad. :V


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> But if it's a drawn picture of a photo of a child with ears and a tail, it's a victimless crime. Therefore it is not bad. :V



According to the law it isn't a crime. Ahh, sorry, misread.

Though, this discussion went totally off-topic. We're discussing cub porn which is forbidden on FA and it won't change. Let's go back to the spanking (mmmmm... *.*)


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> But if it's a drawn picture of a photo of a child with ears and a tail, it's a victimless crime. Therefore it is not bad. :V


No, because the child in the original photo is the victim.

Look, it's fine if you don't like cub art. Be disgusted! That's fine! I have NO problem with that. If you don't want it on FA, I'm fine with that too. I don't care! But to assume the people that like it are all pedophiles is just incorrect.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> No, because the child in the original photo is the victim.
> 
> Look, it's fine if you don't like cub art. Be disgusted! That's fine! I have NO problem with that. If you don't want it on FA, I'm fine with that too. I don't care! But to assume the people that like it are all pedophiles is just incorrect.



I think they're denying being paedophiles so that they don't have to acknowledge that they're perhaps not as nice people as they would like to think they are- by placating their desire with fiction so that they can distance themselves from being associated with child rape. 

But as long as the cartoons they masturbate over, however unlike children, are identifiable as children, they are paedophiles. 


I agree with ayattar though. Child porn is already explicitly banned on FA, and we're discussing whether ambigious child nudity that may be exploited for sexual gratification should be hosted on a furry porn gallery. I don't think it should be within 100 miles of it.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I think they're denying being paedophiles so that they don't have to acknowledge that they're perhaps not as nice people as they would like to think they are- by placating their desire with fiction so that they can distance themselves from being associated with child rape.


How do you know that? You can read their minds?



> But as long as the cartoons they masturbate over, however unlike children, are identifiable as children, they are paedophiles.


That's like saying all furries involved in the sexual side, since they are identifiable as animals no matter how anthro, are all zoophiles.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> How do you know that? You can read their minds?
> 
> 
> That's like saying all furries involved in the sexual side, since they are identifiable as animals no matter how anthro, are all zoophiles.



No, I can't read their minds. It's my hypothesis and I don't think they would admit being paedophiles if they were. 

Most furries are not attracted to animals or drawings of mere animals. They're usually attracted to what is essentially normal humans with decorations stuck on them. It's usually vanilla. 
That's why we can clearly assert 'to be a furry is not necessarily to be a zoophile'

If one is sexually attracted to images of children, of whatever form, that is not evadable. They are simply paedophiles.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> No, I can't read their minds. It's my hypothesis and I don't think they would admit being paedophiles if they were.
> 
> Most furries are not attracted to animals or drawings of mere animals. They're usually attracted to what is essentially normal humans with decorations stuck on them. It's usually vanilla.
> That's why we can clearly assert 'to be a furry is not necessarily to be a zoophile'
> ...


What's the basis for your distinction between the two?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> No, because the child in the original photo is the victim.
> 
> Look, it's fine if you don't like cub art. Be disgusted! That's fine! I have NO problem with that. If you don't want it on FA, I'm fine with that too. I don't care! But to assume the people that like it are all pedophiles is just incorrect.



The cub art i don't have a problem with, it's just the porn, the enablers, and the deniers. If you are fixated on cub PORN, then you are simply jacking off to FICTIONAL FURRY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. And Child pornography does not have to be real photos at all, it can be drawn. Yes, drawn child porn is victimless, but it is child porn. 

Same applies to Lolicon and Japanese forms of drawn child pornography.

Fallow iterated it best. Because of the stipulation of being called that, that's why people who get sexual gratification from that subject matter avoid and deflect as much as possible to not call it as such and lessen the shame factor for people who engage in that behavior or that side of the fandom. 

Regardless, the Cub porn cannot and will not stay on FA.



Hana-Nezumi said:


> That's like saying all furries involved in the sexual side, since they are identifiable as animals no matter how anthro, are all zoophiles.



And comparing that logic is also comparing it to other fandoms and their porn content; anything not remotely human is zoophilia. So orcs, Twi'leks, Elves, Tauren, trolls, krogan, Turian,  Asari, etc. are essentially zoophillia fodder.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> What's the basis for your distinction between the two?



I can't elucidate an exact limit, but it is clear that typical furries are far from bestiality. 

I may disagree with 100 other users about at what exact point a transition would be made between furry and bestial, if such a point's existence is even meaningful. The same is true about us trying to ascertain the exact instant a young man becomes an old man. 

It does not mean we can't distinguish one from the other. 


On the other hand, if it's evident the characters in a pornographic image are children, then it is child porn. People who like child porn are paedophiles.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

Well if y'all refuse to see how the distinction between fantasy and reality makes having an interest in cub porn different from being a pedophile I guess I can't make you. I'm done. Believe what you want to believe.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> Well if y'all refuse to see how the distinction between fantasy and reality makes having an interest in cub porn different from being a pedophile I guess I can't make you. I'm done. Believe what you want to believe.



People attracted to drawn child porn and people attracted to photographic imagery are both paedophiles. Just like Normans and Corsicans are both French, even if they are not much like one another.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 1, 2014)

My blunt opinion on it? It's a fetish and they are trying to hide that. Same counts for all diaper-realated things.
They are hiding their weird fetishes behind a cute scene or behind the argument that kids are getting spanked. It is the same as those "chibified" characters. I have reported _countless_ images where the uploader specifically said that the characters involved are over the age of 18 but guess what? If you look at the same image in the same user's Inkbunny gallery the image is labaled as child porn!
They are lying and they are hiding their weird fetishes to make their images compatible with the rules. End of story.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> Well if y'all refuse to see how the distinction between fantasy and reality makes having an interest in cub porn different from being a pedophile I guess I can't make you. I'm done. Believe what you want to believe.



You can deny and lie about it to make the shame feel small if you must, but it is what it is regardless of fiction or photo. And the funny thing about art is that it allows to do whatever we want under the guise of fiction since creative liberty rules here. for those that need an imaginary release, we can put our desires onto canvas. That's all I am going to say.




Fallowfox said:


> People attracted to drawn child porn and people attracted to photographic imagery are both paedophiles. Just like Normans and Corsicans are both French, even if they are not much like one another.



I still stand by my pigs analogy. :V

But we're such terrible people not knowing the difference between reality and fiction. All child porn are real life images! :V
Anyways, the biggest problem I have with the "Liberal" side of the cub community are the people using the deflection tactic in order to enable people who may or may not need counselling.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 1, 2014)

The difference between sexual art of normal furries and cubs is that one has consenting adults and the other features children. Anthros are sentinent beings that can consent and make choices unlike real-life animals. They might share some looks but they are a completely different race therefore can't be considered bestiality. Cubs however are of the same race but are children. That's the difference. They are not adults and I don't want to see it when my filters are off. It doesn't have to be explicit but these loopholes are annoying and still have the same concept behind them. I don't mind cub art, I've drawn it myself before, but fetishizing it is gross and I don't want to see that. Ever. On a site that bans cub porn I should be safe from seeing such things.


----------



## Armored Chocobo (Jul 1, 2014)

Cub porn is just imaginary child porn, which puts them one teensy-tiny step up from being child rapists.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 1, 2014)

Everytime I see something like that on FA makes me feel bad about myself, like why I am in the same web as these sick fucks


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 1, 2014)

Okay, good debate, but on topic

OP was discussing spanking. So has everyone decided that they should cap the loophole in fetishizing child nudity? Is someone going to contact mods about it?

Otherwise this whole thread is just argument, kind of like politics. All talk but getting nothing done.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 1, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> Okay, good debate, but on topic
> 
> OP was discussing spanking. So has everyone decided that they should cap the loophole in fetishizing child nudity? Is someone going to contact mods about it?
> 
> Otherwise this whole thread is just argument, kind of like politics. All talk but getting nothing done.



He was discussing spanking featuring _underage_ characters. People are discussing the ramifications of allowing what is undeniably wank material featuring children, which is pretty fucked up.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 1, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> If you're a person who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy you should be able to understand what I'm saying. Fictional characters cannot be victims. And just because someone is attracted to drawings of cartoon children does not mean they are attracted to real children. You are all just blinded by your own personal dislikes to think about it logically. But I expected as much.


I have met rocks with less density than you. Pull your head out of your ass and get a fucking clue.


----------



## Hana-Nezumi (Jul 1, 2014)

d.batty said:


> I have met rocks with less density than you. Pull your head out of your ass and get a fucking clue.


I'm so insulted.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

I've notified dragoneer of this thread, in hope of bringing this matter to his attention so that he can set about making sure the mainsite doesn't host images of underage spanking.


----------



## AnInquisitiveFox (Jul 2, 2014)

My thought process: 

"I should not click on this link, I know its going to be creepy"

*clicks link*

"This is indeed creepy."

One of these days I will skip the part where I click the GD link.  
How do people enjoy that?


----------



## delphoxy (Jul 2, 2014)

my POV:
ugh
look, man, i don't care what gets ya off at night
but for fuck's sake, don't shove it in my face.
also:
those pics look an awful lot like i'm intended to jerk off to them, given the avatars of the posters and commentors


----------



## TreacleFox (Jul 2, 2014)

I don't see why spanking would be less moral or 'worse' then other "x artwork involving underage characters".


----------



## KATAMARI DEMOCRACY (Jul 2, 2014)

Please do not spank it to underage animal cartoons.

e: And when you stop doing that, please get hit by a bus.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 2, 2014)

TreacleFox said:


> I don't see why spanking would be less moral or 'worse' then other "x artwork involving underage characters".



Maybe because it's blatant fetish porn?


----------



## tisr (Jul 2, 2014)

Basically, what Hana-Nezumi is trying to get across,

is that the reason why we consider paedophillia to be a crime is because it harms children physically and emotionally. But in a case where no children are harmed, what makes this act condemnable?

Disclaimer: This is not necessarily the position I hold about the above subject matter, I'm just trying to rephrase Hana-Nezumi's argument, and hopefully I understood it right.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 2, 2014)

tisr said:


> Basically, what Hana-Nezumi is trying to get across,
> 
> is that the reason why we consider paedophillia to be a crime is because it harms children physically and emotionally. But in a case where no children are harmed, what makes this act condemnable?
> 
> Disclaimer: This is not necessarily the position I hold about the above subject matter, I'm just trying to rephrase Hana-Nezumi's argument, and hopefully I understood it right.



 Devil's Advocate: There's a difference between those that explicitly look at the images, versus those that actively molest children. I think I've covered that in my earlier posts. Just because someone may be a pedophile (Or Pedophilic Disorder) does not mean that they actively molest children. There are different levels of it, and some more "benign" than other sub-classifications of the disorder itself. It isn't rocket science or Quantum physics.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 2, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Devil's Advocate: There's a difference between those that explicitly look at the images, versus those that actively molest children. I think I've covered that in my earlier posts. Just because someone may be a pedophile (Or Pedophilic Disorder) does not mean that they actively molest children. There are different levels of it, and some more "benign" than other sub-classifications of the disorder itself. It isn't rocket science or Quantum physics.



Of course. I honestly don't care what people whack their dicks too so long as they're not hurting anyone.

_However_ and this a big however, the argument is about FA's ban on kiddy porn (which FA defines as "depicting...minors (humanoid or feral adolescents who act/behave like humans) in sexual situations". Given the audience of these images, who make comments like "_That foxy deserves all the spankings_" and "_This is delicious_" combined that this is on FA, a website that is often thought of being a porn site as well as the fact that diapers/infantilism and spanking are 2 very visible sexual fetishes. I don't see how anyone can not think that these aren't meant to be sexual without being insanely naive.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 2, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Of course. I honestly don't care what people whack their dicks too so long as they're not hurting anyone.
> 
> _However_ and this a big however, the argument is about FA's ban on kiddy porn (which FA defines as "depicting...minors (humanoid or feral adolescents who act/behave like humans) in sexual situations". Given the audience of these images, who make comments like "_That foxy deserves all the spankings_" and "_This is delicious_" combined that this is on FA, a website that is often thought of being a porn site as well as the fact that diapers/infantilism and spanking are 2 very visible sexual fetishes. *I don't see how anyone can not think that these aren't meant to be sexual without being insanely naive*.



Blind. 

To put it bluntly, people who skirt around and use loopholes like that to post their wank material need to post it somewhere else and that particular loophole closed.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 2, 2014)

^^^Like Hana said, a lot of this 'pedophilic' stuff, in which people find images of young children attractive but do not engage in sexual activity with children,

A lot of us are furries, a lot of us like to fap to anthropomorphic animals, which have the images of animals. They may stand on two legs and talk like us, but they have ears and tails and animal faces and are also still very animal in image. Doesn't that make many people zoophiles, it isn't bestiality, but zoophilia, right? Just because they don't see REAL animals as sexually attractive, doesn't mean it still isn't zoophilia. I'm pretty sure that's what everyone else sees when they look at yiff, disturbed because of the idea that these people jack of to animals.

Also, to add to it and further play this 'devil's advocate game' I actually did talk to a zoophile on another website. Ozriel called infant art something like (not in the exact words) 'bits of crack' kind of something to stave off an addiction, like a lesser drug to get your kicks on. If infant art is 'bits of crack' to pedophiles, then yiff is 'bits of crack' to zoophiles. Like I said, the person I talked to did like furry yiff, and his exact words were "it's a gateway", his EXACT words


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 2, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> Also, to add to it and further play this 'devil's advocate game' I actually did talk to a zoophile on another website. Ozriel called infant art something like (not in the exact words) 'bits of crack' kind of something to stave off an addiction, like a lesser drug to get your kicks on.* If infant art is 'bits of crack' to pedophiles, then yiff is 'bits of crack' to zoophiles. Like I said, the person I talked to did like furry yiff, and his exact words were "it's a gateway", his EXACT words*



That's a slippery slope, and the crack analogy went over your head, so I'll explain it in layman's terms:

Most drug rehab clinics give severe crack cocaine addicts a downgraded bit of the drug in order to help curb the addiction and begin other treatments to help get them off of it completely. Not a gateway, which is completely different than what I had explained earlier.  Gateway implies that the person had already started looking at it and wants to look for more because the drawn stuff isn't working anymore. Digression... Jeebus...


Furry Anthro Art and feral art are very distinguishable, and feral art can be argued that is zoophilic than your general furry porn. otherwise, you could also group all anthro-based sentient creatures into that realm because they are "not human" for that reason alone. Also, you have to be very careful in taking your friends opinions into an account. Just because he has zoophilic tendencies and considers it a gateway to jacking off to animals in National Geographic doesn't mean everyone else does.

I could say that all furries are sick perverts, but that's my opinion and it should not be taken for granted.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 2, 2014)

Omg, my 8 gigs of furry prawns means I want to sex my dog!
What do I do?! Help meeeeeee


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 2, 2014)

d.batty said:


> Omg, my 8 gigs of furry prawns means I want to sex my dog!
> What do I do?! Help meeeeeee



Seek help in Jesus, you filthy deviant. :V


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 2, 2014)

I know I know.
Im a furry and a perv, who would have known?


----------



## Calemeyr (Jul 2, 2014)

Hana-Nezumi said:


> Well if y'all refuse to see how the distinction between fantasy and reality makes having an interest in cub porn different from being a pedophile I guess I can't make you. I'm done. Believe what you want to believe.


You're taking this a little too seriously, mate. Why are you being so contrarian about this whole issue, playing devil's advocate and messing with faulty logic? You don't get off to the stuff, do you?

The fact is, there is a loophole, and it needs to be closed. This whole argument against changing the loophole is the same as all those chantards saying lolicon isn't pedophilic. Yeah, because they get off to lolicon.

Of course no one is being hurt in the art. We just want to make people who show signs that they might hurt children leave FA. So the child porn needs to go. Let them have their Inkbunny or whatever. A doctor would be better.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

I don't think we necessarily have to force people like that to leave FA. They simply mustn't exhibit _that_ facet of themselves on FA. If they post normal art that does not elude to illegal and immoral material then we'd have to tolerate their presence.

anyway, at the topic in general I lament the fact that the paedophillic spanking images often outnumber the normal, acceptable spanking images. I want to be able to search for normal spanking images, and obviously I can't put my filter up while I do that.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 2, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Also, you have to be very careful in taking your friends opinions into an account. Just because he has zoophilic tendencies and considers it a gateway to jacking off to animals in National Geographic doesn't mean everyone else does.
> 
> I could say that all furries are sick perverts, but that's my opinion and it should not be taken for granted.



Why assume this person is my friend? I just talked to them once I don't even know who they are. Just because I'm "defending" another way of thinking doesn't mean I agree with it. Just trying to see the argument from another angle, which few people do. 

Anyways, I didn't mean for the gateway and cocaine addict example as the same thing. It's both a curb in one aspect, and a gateway in another sense. Probably didn't phrase it right. 

And again, not saying we're all furfags that like animal sex, I AM one obviously! I'm just saying, that is EXACTLY what people think when it comes to anthro animal sex


----------



## Calemeyr (Jul 2, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think we necessarily have to force people like that to leave FA. They simply mustn't exhibit _that_ facet of themselves on FA. If they post normal art that does not elude to illegal and immoral material then we'd have to tolerate their presence.
> 
> anyway, at the topic in general I lament the fact that the paedophillic spanking images often outnumber the normal, acceptable spanking images. I want to be able to search for normal spanking images, and obviously I can't put my filter up while I do that.


You can't force them to leave directly. If the removal of fetishized child art doesn't make them leave, then maybe they aren't as dangerous as we'd thought. I mean, you can't know if they are somewhat into that stuff if they post normal art. The guys who left in droves because of the cub ban a few years back, those people were creepy.

The other issue is what you said. Most of us don't like seeing fetishized children.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> Why assume this person is my friend? I just talked to them once I don't even know who they are. Just because I'm "defending" another way of thinking doesn't mean I agree with it. Just trying to see the argument from another angle, which few people do.
> 
> Anyways, I didn't mean for the gateway and cocaine addict example as the same thing. It's both a curb in one aspect, and a gateway in another sense. Probably didn't phrase it right.
> 
> And again, not saying we're all furfags that like animal sex, I AM one obviously! I'm just saying, that is EXACTLY what people think when it comes to anthro animal sex



I don't know, I think most normal members of the public are cool with furry sex, they're even cool with sex in animal costumes. 

Much of the 'you're a secret zoophile' bullshit originates from introverted teenagers on the internet.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 2, 2014)

Godamnit ppl, shit like this is why Fallow can't find fap material without seeing children. 

And doesn't he deserve better than that?

Think you pedos, think. 

:v


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Godamnit ppl, shit like this is why Fallow can't find fap material without seeing children.
> 
> And doesn't he deserve better than that?
> 
> ...



This alone is obviously reason enough, guys.


----------



## IAN (Jul 2, 2014)

To be honest, the reason I made my post wasn't all about the pedo/sexual side of things like everyone is focusing on. Hell, even if the pic is not intentionally sexualized, the situation still bothers be because in a sense it's "glorifying" child abuse. Like we're being made to look at a grown adult abusing a child as if it's a good thing.

We as adults can find a pouty child being told to sit in a corner for stealing cookies from a cookie jar. Because we find kids act cute when their pouting and angry. But to me, when you draw a picture that is either supposed to be sexualized or just innocently appear as "cute" that is of a child being inflicted severe pain, glorified with bright and flashy colors and fluffy animals, there's something wrong.


Hell it gets worse every day, right after I made this thread I see this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13876028/  Fuck, that situation's not even of a punishment, it's of an adult going "You won't follow my demands, therefore I shal put you in pain."  That's just straight child abuse right there. I fear for these people's future offspring should they ever have any. This is painful to look at.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 2, 2014)

Oh its that you don't like the act of spanking a kid. 

Well, I don't much care for a person castrating a person irl. But hey, if I don't want to see that on fa...I just don't type in "castration" in the search bar. And the world keeps spinning.


----------



## IAN (Jul 2, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Oh its that you don't like the act of spanking a kid.
> 
> Well, I don't much care for a person castrating a person irl. But hey, if I don't want to see that on fa...I just don't type in "castration" in the search bar. And the world keeps spinning.


 Doesn't help when half of your watching list has flocked to drawing it, and the community you associate with a lot within the fandom has gained a spontaneous obsession with drawing it to the point you can't look anywhere without seeing it.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 2, 2014)

IAN said:


> Doesn't help when half of your watching list has flocked to drawing it, and the community you associate with a lot within the fandom has gained a spontaneous obsession with drawing it to the point you can't look anywhere without seeing it.



Is it really getting that far out of hand? I mean...this is the first I've heard of it. I sorta hate that you can't seem to escape it but after all, you could just unwatch people. It's just one of those things that happens in a art community. People and their tastes change


----------



## Misomie (Jul 2, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Oh its that you don't like the act of spanking a kid. Well, I don't much care for a person castrating a person irl. But hey, if I don't want to see that on fa...I just don't type in "castration" in the search bar. And the world keeps spinning.


As Fallowfox commented multiple times, it's not that simple. Ignoring something doesn't make it magically go away. FA doesn't allow childporn. We want the loopholes closed. Is it that hard for you to understand?


----------



## xAngelStormx (Jul 2, 2014)

This reminds me too much of a master-slave relationship... It definitely has some kind of erotic design.


----------



## alphakitsune (Jul 2, 2014)

Oh gosh. Today I saw a babyfur pic with a baby with a sexy face and a diaper that said "spank me". Yeah, this needs to stop.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 2, 2014)

Misomie said:


> As Fallowfox commented multiple times, it's not that simple. Ignoring something doesn't make it magically go away. FA doesn't allow childporn. We want the loopholes closed. Is it that hard for you to understand?


 Is it that fucking hard to read what IAN posted right before mine? That she wasn't bringing this up due to pedophilia but because he/she considers this child abuse? 

Godamn. I don't think I've seen someone not do their homework this badly since CannonFodder.


----------



## Shadow Jaeger (Jul 2, 2014)

I would agree it is discusting and it should be banned but i would rather let pedophiles stay inside and get off to this, that wont hurt anyone seeing as its fiction than try to rape my future children and young family members.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

shadowsinhiding said:


> I would agree it is discusting and it should be banned but i would rather let pedophiles stay inside and get off to this, that wont hurt anyone seeing as its fiction than try to rape my future children and young family members.



They can do that on inkbunny. Just away, away from the FA mainsite.


----------



## Shadow Jaeger (Jul 2, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> They can do that on inkbunny. Just away, away from the FA mainsite.



The only way i could agree with you is in the form of a quote from the spongebob movie.

â€˜â€˜ we're on a pedo hunt and don't tell us we don't know how to weed them out! " 

We should get all the pedos and push them somewhere else! ( god i could keep going will all these stupid quotes XD )


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 2, 2014)

The fandom should be a lot less tolerable with this shit, why can't we kick out pedos of the fandom?


----------



## Misomie (Jul 2, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Is it that fucking hard to read what IAN posted right before mine? That she wasn't bringing this up due to pedophilia but because he/she considers this child abuse? Godamn. I don't think I've seen someone not do their homework this badly since CannonFodder.


I don't get what you're trying to say. It's an abusive image of a child used for SEXUAL gratification/enjoyment. Sounds pretty pedo for me. It shouldn't be tolerated.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 2, 2014)

As many had said when CNN covered anime lolicon artwork, if they aren't real people no children are actually getting hurt from it. US law also seems to be under a gray area as to that sort of artwork.

Nonetheless.
If FA doesn't want sexualized artwork of such, it should be removed and should not be posted. I assume this should include the spanking fetish sort of stuff.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 2, 2014)

Kitsune Cross said:


> The fandom should be a lot less tolerable with this shit, why can't we kick out pedos of the fandom?



It is difficult to remove people who have a fluffy barrier that they use to remove themselves from the reality of what they are. Honestly this is the biggest thing that concerns me when it comes to the cub community, is the constant denial that cub porn is child porn creates a situation where many people not only actively deny something that is part of them, but they also find a community that feeds that denial. People need to be more...aware of what they are? So should others be. This helps create a safety net where if people are honest with themselves, and honest with the community it can help people recognize red flags when behavior goes from harmless to leaning towards engaging in harm.

EDIT: This is kind of like the fatty art community. By itself it's harmless right? It's mostly silly fantasy that has no bearing on reality. However within this community there is also a sub-community that is blind that the fact that their excessive weight gain they strive for is not okay. So rather than acknowledged they all have a problem and should probably work towards fixing it, they feed into the mentality that it isn't a problem, and enable their own early deaths. It's a good example of how hiding the reality of a problem can lead to it being a worse problem for some individuals. Communities should avoid setting up such things within their own.

Also the community unfortunately still feels the effects of the pants on head silly movement of "Tolerance and acceptance" that has permanently put blinders on a good number of the community when it comes to unacceptable behavior.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 2, 2014)

^This is why I'm an 'Intolerant-Fur'....or I was until some 'Tolerant-Furs' threw a shrieking spackfit and had the group banned^


Fallowfox said:


> The current AUP, while explicitly forbidding minors in sexual situations, fails to define sexual situations.
> 
> If they were defined as
> "Any activity involving exposed genitals or buttocks, groping or implied use or stimulation of any orifice below the waste,"
> ...



I don't want to _sexualize _the little crinkle-ass, I just want to beat him into a meaty puree


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 2, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> is the constant denial that cub porn is child porn


I have a question. When you say "child porn", are you saying that cub porn is the same as pornography of real children?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 2, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> I have a question. When you say "child porn", are you saying that cub porn is the same as pornography of real children?



Here we go again...
Just because it is drawn pictures of children in sexually suggestive situations does not make it any less or invalidates it as Child porn.
It's Fictional Child porn, but it is Child porn. The only difference between the photographed shit and the stuff drawn is that the former has no victims.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 2, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Here we go again...
> The only difference between the photographed shit and the stuff drawn is that the former has no victims.


You mean the latter. The latter has no victims. Photographed stuff has victims.

And does that not make all the difference? Isn't the reason child porn is wrong because children are being harmed?

Or is that not what's being argued here and I'm missing the point?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 2, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> I have a question. When you say "child porn", are you saying that cub porn is the same as pornography of real children?



No I am not saying that photographs equal drawings. I acknowledge however, that drawn pornography of child characters falls into the category of child porn.



Battlechili1 said:


> You mean the latter. The latter has no victims. Photographed stuff has victims.
> 
> And does that not make all the difference? Isn't the reason child porn is wrong because children are being harmed?
> 
> Or is that not what's being argued here and I'm missing the point?



Even if the drawn content doesn't have victims, that doesn't mean that people cannot be concerned especially if a community exists around the drawn medium that enables people to deny a real condition within themselves.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 2, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> You mean the latter. The latter has no victims. Photographed stuff has victims.
> 
> And does that not make all the difference? Isn't the reason child porn is wrong because children are being harmed?
> 
> Or is that not what's being argued here and I'm missing the point?



Sorry didn't catch that. lol

The two are analogous as pornography of children, the difference lies with the art being just a drawn medium.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 2, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> No I am not saying that photographs equal drawings. I acknowledge however, that drawn pornography of child characters falls into the category of child porn.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the drawn content doesn't have victims, that doesn't mean that people cannot be concerned especially if a community exists around the drawn medium that enables people to deny a real condition within themselves.


Ah. Well all right.
And you're right. I can certainly understand one being concerned about such artwork, especially with, as you said, people denying things about themselves.

I have another question though. It has to do with the deniable bit you're mentioning. Why is it bad if people deny such about themselves?


Ozriel said:


> Sorry didn't catch that. lol
> 
> The two are analogous as pornography of children, the difference lies with the art being just a drawn medium.


lel. Don't worry about it, mistakes happen.

Anyways, artwork itself can be used as a means of expressing things and representing things in ways that they could not in real life. If that's the case, then wouldn't that mean its possible for one to like such artwork but have no interest in the real thing? Kind of like how some people prefer viewing 2D pornography in general over real pornography.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 2, 2014)

Misomie said:


> I don't get what you're trying to say. It's an abusive image of a child used for SEXUAL gratification/enjoyment. Sounds pretty pedo for me. It shouldn't be tolerated.



Welp. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. 

IAN wanted the pedo part off the table to focus more on the *morality of spanking a kid.* I was gonna indulge her/him. Pedobear, Zombie Micheal Jackson and every member of the catholic church can tell these pics are made for pedo-faps. 

You don't get points for noticing that.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 2, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Welp. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
> 
> IAN wanted the pedo part off the table to focus more on the *morality of spanking a kid.* I was gonna indulge her/him. Pedobear, Zombie Micheal Jackson and every member of the catholic church can tell these pics are made for pedo-faps.
> 
> You don't get points for noticing that.



Since you didn't quote IAN I assumed you were replying to the rest of the thread. 

Your quote


> Oh its that you don't like the act of spanking a kid.
> 
> Well, I don't much care for a person castrating a person irl. But hey,  if I don't want to see that on fa...I just don't type in "castration" in  the search bar. And the world keeps spinning.


pretty much sounds like a reply to the thread in general. Pretty much sounds like if you don't like seeing kids spanked than don't search for it kind of thing (which people have pointed out doesn't work). 

You saying just to ignore it does nothing to help the problem that it's there. Don't know why you were being so snappy.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 2, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Since you didn't quote IAN I assumed you were replying to the rest of the thread.
> 
> Your quote
> 
> ...



Sometimes we do that here on faf. Esp. if its directly under the person. I dunno why we do. But it happens. 

And ignoring pedophilia is negative. Ignoring spanking is a different matter however. But I've said me and IAN changed the subject and really will not be stressing that anymore because...damn. 

Although if you are looking for a easy solution and not just here to discuss, I can offer an easy one. Go leave a shout on Neer's page.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 2, 2014)

So glad none of the artists I watch draw any of this crap. If they do start, I will unwatch and tell them why.


----------



## Shadow Jaeger (Jul 3, 2014)

Wow...are you guys really arguing about whether its child porn or child abuse.-_- ITs both! Come on now guys stop fighting about this, fighting about a silly thing like this is not going to do us any good. Instead of moaning at each other we could actually try and get rid of it.


----------



## Joey (Jul 3, 2014)

Meh. Yeah none of the people I watch draw anything like this either.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 3, 2014)

shadowsinhiding said:


> Wow...are you guys really arguing about whether its child porn or child abuse.-_- ITs both! Come on now guys stop fighting about this, fighting about a silly thing like this is not going to do us any good. Instead of moaning at each other we could actually try and get rid of it.



FAF...

These are your posters now. The 2014'ers. 

Don't read the whole thread, that's for losers. And context is imaginery. 

This thread is ass.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 3, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> FAF...
> 
> These are your posters now. The 2014'ers.
> 
> ...



us oldfags right XD


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 3, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> It is difficult to remove people who have a fluffy barrier that they use to remove themselves from the reality of what they are. Honestly this is the biggest thing that concerns me when it comes to the cub community, is the constant denial that cub porn is child porn creates a situation where many people not only actively deny something that is part of them, but they also find a community that feeds that denial. People need to be more...aware of what they are? So should others be. This helps create a safety net where if people are honest with themselves, and honest with the community it can help people recognize red flags when behavior goes from harmless to leaning towards engaging in harm.
> 
> EDIT: This is kind of like the fatty art community. By itself it's harmless right? It's mostly silly fantasy that has no bearing on reality. However within this community there is also a sub-community that is blind that the fact that their excessive weight gain they strive for is not okay. So rather than acknowledged they all have a problem and should probably work towards fixing it, they feed into the mentality that it isn't a problem, and enable their own early deaths. It's a good example of how hiding the reality of a problem can lead to it being a worse problem for some individuals. Communities should avoid setting up such things within their own.
> 
> Also the community unfortunately still feels the effects of the pants on head silly movement of "Tolerance and acceptance" that has permanently put blinders on a good number of the community when it comes to unacceptable behavior.



Why does everything have to be so fucked up?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 3, 2014)

Kitsune Cross said:


> Why does everything have to be so fucked up?



Humans in general are capable of being a very interesting species and that's all I can say.

 I meant to type this and it slipped my mind but as per OP, spanking is still a controversial subject when it comes to using it as a punishment for kids. While one person may consider the act of spanking child abuse, another may not. It really depends upon what side of the fence you are on. In a lot of older books and even older shows it's been implied that characters (child ones) were punished via spanking. The use of this imagery implied or shown via imaginary media (drawing, cartoon, etc) is still to some degree acceptable in some parts of society. I severely doubt (and this is just my personal opinion) that the images furries are making of cub characters being spanked are for innocent reasons. That is not to say some furs out there may see it as nonsexual, sort of an "Oops my character got in trouble". My doubts on that being a majority should be obvious.

This is kind of why it's hard to ban something like this because it goes down a very slippery slope. If we ban this what next? Are we going to ban pictures of cub furs in diapers because some furs jack off to that kind of thing?


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 3, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Humans in general are capable of being a very interesting species and that's all I can say.
> 
> I meant to type this and it slipped my mind but as per OP, spanking is still a controversial subject when it comes to using it as a punishment for kids. While one person may consider the act of spanking child abuse, another may not. It really depends upon what side of the fence you are on. In a lot of older books and even older shows it's been implied that characters (child ones) were punished via spanking. The use of this imagery implied or shown via imaginary media (drawing, cartoon, etc) is still to some degree acceptable in some parts of society. I severely doubt (and this is just my personal opinion) that the images furries are making of cub characters being spanked are for innocent reasons. That is not to say some furs out there may see it as nonsexual, sort of an "Oops my character got in trouble". My doubts on that being a majority should be obvious.
> 
> This is kind of why it's hard to ban something like this because it goes down a very slippery slope. If we ban this what next? Are we going to ban pictures of cub furs in diapers because some furs jack off to that kind of thing?



That would be great! Please make it happen


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 3, 2014)

Wait, are people arguing about whether or not its okay to depict minors being abused in art?

And are people arguing about whether or not spanking even counts as abuse?

These both seem...odd.
Spanking is abuse or isn't abuse depending on who you asked, as stated earlier by another. I used to get spanked as a child. I'm glad I was. Also, its legal for the school in my town to paddle children should they misbehave, if that means anything. And depiction of violence in art against others seems fine. Its art after all.

But I don't think either of these really apply here because its likely the artwork being talked about here is fetishistic in nature. But how could one prove such in some cases? Its 2-dimensional artwork anyways.


----------



## Armored Chocobo (Jul 3, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> But I don't think either of these really apply here because its likely the artwork being talked about here is fetishistic in nature. But how could one prove such in some cases? Its 2-dimensional artwork anyways.



Fantasizing about something is really one step away from actually doing the deed. They're fantasizing about spanking children in a fetishistic way.

Which is cause for concern.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 3, 2014)

While I have strong views on the subject, I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to discuss spanking as a form of discipline- as some users have begun to. 

The kind of imagery being discussed in the OP, and which is proliferated on the mainsite, is only ambiguous to the naive. Everyone with a modicum of wit about them can see that paedophiles are making use of those images for sexual gratification and that any viewers who are not are in a marginal minority. The images' display of child nudity is simply unacceptable when they are rated as mature material and hosted on a site which has lots of hardcore pornographic art. 

Just no. 

I sent a message to dragoneer about it, but am yet to hear anything.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 5, 2014)

Armored Chocobo said:


> Fantasizing about something is really one step away from actually doing the deed. They're fantasizing about spanking children in a fetishistic way.
> 
> Which is cause for concern.


So should images of characters fighting have action taken on them because they may spur violence? Counter to that, there's a group who find footwear sexually arousing. Do we ban images of shoes because somebody may see pictures of a child wearing shoes and find that arousing? There are people who see balloons -- yes, balloons -- and have an attraction to them. Shall we ban images of children holding/near balloons because somebody may find that attractive as well?

There will always be somebody who takes things too far. Somebody who always wants/needs/craves the unattainable or the too far.

Bottom line, we will not be taking action on this as a whole. If individuals are taking things too far or certain submissions go too far, yes, we will investigate that and review/discuss simple submissions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Dragoneer said:


> So should images of characters fighting have action taken on them because they may spur violence? Counter to that, there's a group who find footwear sexually arousing. Do we ban images of shoes because somebody may see pictures of a child wearing shoes and find that arousing? There are people who see balloons -- yes, balloons -- and have an attraction to them. Shall we ban images of children holding/near balloons because somebody may find that attractive as well?
> 
> There will always be somebody who takes things too far. Somebody who always wants/needs/craves the unattainable or the too far.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not be taking action on this as a whole. If individuals are taking things too far or certain submissions go too far, yes, we will investigate that and review/discuss simple submissions.



These are images of children with naked buttocks, in which the commentators are openly expressing sexual desire with comments such as 'this is delicious'. This isn't an ambiguous problem- paedophiles are clearly using this as a loophole to post child nudity and sexual tropes on the mainsite. 

I don't think any of us could find an example of an image which fits that description which _isn't_ being used as paedophile wank material on the mainsite, and the rate that these images are being uploaded is too quick for individual reporting to get rid of them; we users already are reporting them, to no avail. ._.


Images of exposed child buttocks amongst galleries of images of blow jobs and anal sex is *not *acceptable.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 5, 2014)

Dragoneer said:


> So should images of characters fighting have action taken on them because they may spur violence?


There's no ban on violence on FA. 



Dragoneer said:


> Counter to that, there's a group who find footwear sexually arousing. Do we ban images of shoes because somebody may see pictures of a child wearing shoes and find that arousing?


The majority of shoe-related kid-centric art on FA isn't blatantly sexual. Seriously, tell me the majority of spanking art isn't fetish-related. 



Dragoneer said:


> There are people who see balloons -- yes, balloons -- and have an attraction to them. Shall we ban images of children holding/near balloons because somebody may find that attractive as well?


That's a stupid comparison and you know it.



Dragoneer said:


> There will always be somebody who takes things too far. Somebody who always wants/needs/craves the unattainable or the too far.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not be taking action on this as a whole. If individuals are taking things too far or certain submissions go too far, yes, we will investigate that and review/discuss simple submissions.



So TL;DR FA will continue to allow kiddy porn on FA as to avoid pissing off a bunch of pedophiles. Great.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Art in which children are wearing shoes doesn't feature any nudity. Spanking art both features a common sexual trope, and nudity. It is not suitable on a website that hosts pornography, especially since people who make these images rate them as mature, so if you're searching for adult spanking material for pornographic purposes, you wind up being served kiddy porn.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 10, 2014)

http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-00205/8/Acceptable-Upload-Policy-AUP.html

I think the new AUP probably solves this issue, as child nudity is now explicitly forbidden.  The new, explicitly written rules, also forbid users from submitting sex art of  characters who appear to be children with the bogus claim that they are over over 18. I'm sure that will be music to a lot of people's ears.


----------



## Harbinger (Jul 10, 2014)

That does sound good, so now can we move on to the galleries of dog photo's next to porn of anthro's fucking similar looking ferals?


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-00205/8/Acceptable-Upload-Policy-AUP.html
> 
> I think the new AUP probably solves this issue, as child nudity is now explicitly forbidden.


What what? That seems...This actually bothers me for some reason. I'd like to cite an artist I really like: Range Murata. None of it is furry, however, even after just googling his name and clicking images it will be plainly seen that the artwork he draws is...well, it somewhat sexualizes characters that appear to be underage. Some pictures even show nipples. And yet, all the while, the artist works professionally and is highly regarded throughout the world, and I've even seen one person claim that despite his artwork being like that, its never done distastefully. It may also be worth mentioning that such artwork has been imported to the US, presumably legally. That rule, if its new, seems like overkill to me.



Armored Chocobo said:


> Fantasizing about something is really one step away from actually doing the deed. They're fantasizing about spanking children in a fetishistic way.
> 
> Which is cause for concern.


I'm not sure that people necessarily are fantasizing about such, and if they are, it may be of 2D fictional characters that don't and can't exist, and the differences may be enough where one may be perfectly happy liking such art but still hate it in real life.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2014)

FA functions as a porn site. 'tasteful' 'somewhat sexualised' child nudity does not belong shoulder to shoulder with explicit images of penetrative furry sex. This is the appropriate choice.


----------



## Sar (Jul 13, 2014)

Like everything else we would like to ban, there is obviously the issue of whether or not it is a "restriction of creativity". The above images in the OP can easily be restricted under this context. The only way this could be allowed in a sense is if such acts are considered relevant to the story, but even then no one is ever going to read the shit people submit to FA all the time. 

Saying that however, that leeway is also open to an broad interpretation of what is within context that could be abused. Some cases, it can be accepted if it is relevant and if this was a recognized site for storytelling. But this is FA, a site where members of the Furry Fandom converse and whack off to anthros. Any creative art site owner with common sense wouldn't take the risk of drawing such a blurred fine line.

I personally don't feel the baby-fur community should belong on the site at all, nor do I wish to waste time catering artwork to their kind. However, for all the things people are into in this Fandom, there are limits that should be put in place on this site in respect to what they can submit. The only problem is I do not have a transparent solution to this topic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 13, 2014)

I'm fine with babyfurs, provided their adult images explicitly feature adults and that any images of minors they produce feature no nudity or ambiguous sexual tropes.

I'm sure most of them already adhere to such a standard by their own volition, and will be just as glad that the new FA AUP provides better grounds to remove paedophillic content from their community as the rest of us are.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 13, 2014)

I see it like this:
Things that can be considered to be fetishes should always be seen as fetishes when underage characters are involved. While only 1/3 of all artwork (be it drawings, written works or music) is porn, most people do see FA as a porn site.
Adult characters in diapers? Fetish. Spanking among adult characters? Fetish. Diapers and spanking on underage characters on a site that most people see as a porn site? Fetish. No question about it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 8, 2014)

In spite of your policy change, paedophiles continue to upload these images. 

When you report them, nothing happens. 

When you tell their uploaders that the AUP forbids this content, they laugh in your face because they know nobody will be bothered to remove these images, even though there is a manageable number that could be removed in only a couple of days' work. 

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/14728435/#cid:88467192 [warning, contains indecent images of a child]


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Oct 8, 2014)

Internet


Best place to hurt your delicate sensibility


----------



## IAN (Oct 8, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> In spite of your policy change, paedophiles continue to upload these images.
> 
> When you report them, nothing happens.
> 
> ...



I'm not bothered as much by the nudity aspect as I am the fact that someone is not only adoring but likely getting turned-on by a larger being inflicting physical pain to a small helpless child.

Sexualizing a nude child is one thing, but sexualizing a child helplessly being put in pain? Seriously...


----------



## mcjoel (Oct 8, 2014)

Yeah I've got to agree it's pretty sick to have kids in any artwork that's even remotely erotic. But you kind of have to expect quite a lot since the pics involve spanking.


----------



## Ieono (Oct 8, 2014)

I'm into spanking, but definitely not into babyfurs or any sort of minors. Since furries generally see themselves as their fursonas, then a babyfur would be seen the same way as human children on any other site. I can understand how it is highly inappropriate in that regard. 

The whole thing is very strange, especially since many of the artists and "admirers" of this work are into diapers and being treated as babies themselves. I understand that weirdness doesn't equate to immorality, but with sexualized-underaged material., there is no grey moral area.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 9, 2014)

IAN said:


> I'm not bothered as much by the nudity aspect as I am the fact that someone is not only adoring but likely getting turned-on by a larger being inflicting physical pain to a small helpless child.
> 
> Sexualizing a nude child is one thing, but sexualizing a child helplessly being put in pain? Seriously...



Users commenting on the image, and images like this, claim 'oh it's not sexual' when you point this out...despite the fact their favourites are choc-full of other very similar content featuring adult characters in what are unambiguously sexual situations...or even worse, when they leave comments on pictures of children describing them as 'hot' or 'delicious'. 

This is why it was so good we persuaded the staff to make any nudity that would be interpreted as sexual in characters of legal age, to be interpreted as indecent in underage characters. It robbed those users of the 'oh it's not sexual' facade they were deploying...a facade they knew was ridiculous because they were rating their submissions as mature or adult content. 

But unless the staff actually remove some of these images, nothing will have changed. >< 

It's horrible, because when you actually are into spanking, and you search 'spanking' on the mainsite, every tenth image might feature an underage character.



Ieono said:


> I'm into spanking, but definitely not into babyfurs  or any sort of minors. Since furries generally see themselves as their  fursonas, then a babyfur would be seen the same way as human children on  any other site. I can understand how it is highly inappropriate in that  regard.
> 
> The whole thing is very strange, especially since many of the artists  and "admirers" of this work are into diapers and being treated as babies  themselves. I understand that weirdness doesn't equate to immorality,  but with sexualized-underaged material., there is no grey moral  area.



I concur. I don't care whether someone is a diaperfur, provided any sexual content they produce only entails adult characters. 

If it features underage characters, then it obviously doesn't belong on the website, or the internet at all.


----------



## VintageLynx (Oct 9, 2014)

If these were human babies depicted being put in these situations there would be a much larger negative reaction. This shows to me that 1. People think immature animal abuse is acceptable and 2. People like to see minors being abused.

'Furry' is what we make it and this is part of what it is being made. No wonder parts of this fandom have a dodgy reputation.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 9, 2014)

We need to persuade diaperfurs who aren't paedophiles, and who don't want to be associated with them [this should be a sweeping majority of them], to complain about and report these images more frequently so that the staff take more notice, or at the very least the users posting these images are so swamped with negative reactions that they stop of their own volition.


----------



## IAN (Oct 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> We need to persuade diaperfurs who aren't paedophiles, and who don't want to be associated with them [this should be a sweeping majority of them], to complain about and report these images more frequently so that the staff take more notice, or at the very least the users posting these images are so swamped with negative reactions that they stop of their own volition.



You see, from experience as both a babyfur (non-sexual) and diaperfur I have found a good half of them are actually pedophiles. It's a sad truth no one in that group wants to accept.

It's like, you see their FA gallery with innocent cub pics with the occasional squicky diaper pic that's not immediately sexual, then you find their Inkbunny page with a favorites or sometimes even main gallery that's loaded with extremely sexual cub content. Even worse when you find the comments they leave on some of the pics.


I may even be hypocritical in all of this because there are pics in my babyfur/diaperfur-FA gallery that feature my character in diapers at the age of 14, his main age that doesn't change with time (age I was when he was created) unless the pic is suggestive/adult enough that it merits an age-boost to 18.

Most of those pics are meant to be non-sexual because I find it more to be just plain cute than kinky (with some situational exceptions, but of course not without his age at 18 ) but at the same time I feel really bad commissioning such art or writing about it because to many it IS a kink. And by putting my character in such situations that are obviously sexual to some, I'm stooping to their level naturally. =\


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 9, 2014)

IAN said:


> You see, from experience as both a babyfur (non-sexual) and diaperfur I have found a good half of them are actually pedophiles. It's a sad truth no one in that group wants to accept.
> 
> It's like, you see their FA gallery with innocent cub pics with the occasional squicky diaper pic that's not immediately sexual, then you find their Inkbunny page with a favorites or sometimes even main gallery that's loaded with extremely sexual cub content. Even worse when you find the comments they leave on some of the pics.
> 
> ...



That's very depressing in that case, and surprising because I was aware [or at least under the impression] that regular abdl who aren't furries are unlikely to be paedophiles. 

What ethical implications images that concern underage characters which aren't intended to be sexual, but are interpreted to be, is a slightly more nuanced matter. 

I feel that when people are submitting images of children and rating them as mature, or as adult, that they full-well-know they're crossing the line.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Oct 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That's very depressing in that case, and surprising because I was aware [or at least under the impression] that regular abdl who aren't _*furries*_ are unlikely to be paedophiles.



There's your problem. When you start to change a child's appearance, people are more likely to overlook pedophilia porn. Because "well, its not human" or "it's just a drawing." In a fandom based around fantasy, its easier to hide behind a cute cat face and mask things. 

Anyway, I sure hope that you don't get a response like "oh he's clothed!! He's wearing a diaper! ^__^" Because I will have to head desk if thats the case.


----------



## IAN (Oct 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That's very depressing in that case, and surprising because I was aware [or at least under the impression] that regular abdl who aren't furries are unlikely to be paedophiles.



Even that I can't agree with anymore tbh.

I used to be a member of an AB/DL forum (that plummeted painfully) that had a memberbase that supposedly "despised" pedophilia, yet I remember reading a piece in the story section by one prominent user that had a scene over-accurately describing a 6-year-old getting a diaper change (going as far to even describe her genitalia) that just made my stomach turn in a bad way.

That from what I recall was what made me never post again at that place, and I later visited to find out one of the mods (around age 40 or so) got arrested for sex with a minor.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Oct 9, 2014)

You can't stop these people sexualizing innocent children especially on the internet. They could make a website that focuses on this subject but ISP will most likely pull that website down.

A probable reason for them to settle on FA


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 9, 2014)

Marazhuki said:


> You can't stop these people sexualizing innocent children especially on the internet. They could make a website that focuses on this subject but ISP will most likely pull that website down.  A probable reason for them to settle on FA


  It is possible to remove all the images they upload to FA, and ban repeat offenders.   My trouble tickets haven't been answered in up to over a year [no ticket I have ever submitted has been answered].  If flagged submissions were actually processed, we would not have this problem on FA and paedophiles would be forced off the site.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 9, 2014)

Marazhuki said:


> You can't stop these people sexualizing innocent children especially on the internet. They could make a website that focuses on this subject but ISP will most likely pull that website down.
> 
> A probable reason for them to settle on FA





It is possible to get rid of the images, but the admins have to be more proactive and on-top of dealing with the reports that DO violate the rules, such as Cub porn.
Which means, maybe, making a separate category when filing tickets to be removed quickly. I have a few that's been sitting for months, and a couple of them circumventing to another site like IB.

And that's what IB is for, not FA. IB caters to those types of people and "welcomes" it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 14, 2014)

Well, in spite of the AUP forbidding any image of a child that features 'nudity *or* sexual situations' 3 trouble tickets of this subject were just dismissed for 'not being porn' - though they definitely featured bare buttocks...and one commentator actually says the image turns them on. 

I mean...really. We argued for the AUP to be redressed to combat this loophole just so that the mainsite staff could ignore the ammendment and continue enforcing the old rule, the one that lets paedophiles circumnavigate anti cub-porn rules by posting nude drawings of children in fetishised situations and then pretending they're not ...or in some cases simply admitting they are... sexually gratified. 


I quote "_I'm going to go ahead and admit that I like spank art depicting both  cubs and adults. Do I like it because I have no morals? No. Do I like  myself for viewing it? Not really. I blame my parents for the most part ,  for hitting me as a child like in this picture._"

and even this user, who admits images of children being beaten turns him on, agrees that users "_probably shouldn't be posting half nude cubs on a site like furaffinity._"

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/14728435/

He made those comments publicly


----------



## ElZorroValdez (Oct 14, 2014)

Just... no.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Well, in spite of the AUP forbidding any image of a child that features 'nudity *or* sexual situations' 3 trouble tickets of this subject were just dismissed for 'not being porn' - though they definitely featured bare buttocks...and one commentator actually says the image turns them on.
> 
> I mean...really. We argued for the AUP to be redressed to combat this loophole just so that the mainsite staff could ignore the ammendment and continue enforcing the old rule, the one that lets paedophiles circumnavigate anti cub-porn rules by posting nude drawings of children in fetishised situations and then pretending they're not ...or in some cases simply admitting they are... sexually gratified.
> 
> ...



No...why...just no...


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Oct 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Well, in spite of the AUP forbidding any image of a child that features 'nudity *or* sexual situations' 3 trouble tickets of this subject were just dismissed for 'not being porn' - though they definitely featured bare buttocks...and one commentator actually says the image turns them on.
> 
> I mean...really. We argued for the AUP to be redressed to combat this loophole just so that the mainsite staff could ignore the ammendment and continue enforcing the old rule, the one that lets paedophiles circumnavigate anti cub-porn rules by posting nude drawings of children in fetishised situations and then pretending they're not ...or in some cases simply admitting they are... sexually gratified.
> 
> ...



Furaffinity should be the place of choice for psychiatrists, get rich 1 cp pic a time


----------

