# What's the limit?



## Just_A_Tundra (Aug 8, 2022)

So, I have been posting a lot of art on my account. Although, I want to know where people would draw the line as to what would be acceptable in furry art. I don't necessarily want to go too far into detail, because I'm sure that the details may be a bit much. I just want to know, from my fellow furries, what is the thing that could cross the line for you. Any answers are welcome...as long as the answers are appropriate enough for this forum...


----------



## tentiv (Aug 8, 2022)

I saw the specific artwork, and I think you're fine. When you ask what's "acceptable," it seems like you're worried that other people will react negatively to what you post. In my experience, that doesn't really happen on FA. Instead, people who don't like it ignore it, and the people who do like it tell you so. The artwork is absolutely allowed on FA (check the rules here), and it is not the worst thing I've seen.


----------



## Just_A_Tundra (Aug 9, 2022)

tentiv said:


> I saw the specific artwork, and I think you're fine. When you ask what's "acceptable," it seems like you're worried that other people will react negatively to what you post. In my experience, that doesn't really happen on FA. Instead, people who don't like it ignore it, and the people who do like it tell you so. The artwork is absolutely allowed on FA (check the rules here), and it is not the worst thing I've seen.


Thank you for your input. And yeah, I am worried if i post something others don't like. I have seen so many people in online media become villains to others, get videos made on how horrible they are, and all those things. I like to draw what I draw, and I like to share. I also know how sometimes, one image can ruin the entire thing. I am autistic, and so sometimes, I get very anxious when someone tells me there is one little detail that kind of looks like it would be offensive. One comment like that can send me flying into "Ah CRAP! What have I done?" Even if the initial thought was, "Oh this will be fine."

I just don't want to be a villain, be  hated, or anything of the sort. I know there are others that hate furries and all that, but that is not the problem, because NOBODY can help THAT. It's mostly the idea of people within a fandom that I love suddenly grabbing their pitch forks and knives and chasing after me that scares me.

One can say that I shouldn't upload that content. I just didn't realize things until AFTER a few hours since it was uploaded. Sometimes, my mind doesn't work the way it should.


----------



## TyraWadman (Aug 9, 2022)

As long as what you're posting falls within the rules of the site and the laws of your country don't sweat about what others think. It doesn't matter how hard you try to please them, random people will find reasons to hate you anyway.


----------



## Khafra (Aug 9, 2022)

Everyone has different tastes and opinions. I've met people who consider any furry art on its own beyond their comfort zone and "crossing the line".  You'd need to give more details if you want opinions on a specific topic, though, because furry art in general is pretty broad.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 9, 2022)

Art is sacred and its worldly arbiters don't mean much in the face of the eternal


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 9, 2022)

TyraWadman said:


> As long as what you're posting falls within the rules of the site and the laws of your country don't sweat about what others think. It doesn't matter how hard you try to please them, random people will find reasons to hate you anyway.


Yes, and in a way showing that what you want is to be liked is a show of vulnerability and that incentivises the opposite behavior from some people, that's why people should know to to play pangolin. Keep the shell up normally and roll over on your back only around those you know to be dispensers of belly rubs. Everyone is smart in some ways and a dumbass in others, being generally smart means avoiding your dumbass areas.


----------



## reptile logic (Aug 9, 2022)

Khafra said:


> Everyone has different tastes and opinions. _I've met people who consider any furry art on its own beyond their comfort zone and "crossing the line"._  You'd need to give more details if you want opinions on a specific topic, though, because furry art in general is pretty broad.


Regarding writing here, but it seems to apply.

Just two days ago, I had a conversation with a new beta reader, mid 70s, ex career military, into reading horror (Stephen King especially) and action/adventure stories. He's been enjoying my work so far, but stopped reading to call me and say, "Before I go on, I need to know. You say that this lizard 'became a regular visitor to her (a human's) bed'. If I keep reading, are they gonna have sex?! That's a hard 'NO' from me, and I'm kinda surprised at you."

I told him the truth, "Never mentioned it in the story, but the reader fills it in however they want. When I wrote it, I was thinking how someone will share their bed with a cat or a dog."

With that explanation, he happily continued reading. He loves the story, gave me great feedback, and asked for more. In brief, even without graphic evidence to support it, people will leap to negative conclusions based on their own preconceptions.

Draw what you enjoy drawing. There's an audience out there who will appreciate it, a number of other folks who will hate it, and a whole bunch of people who won't care at all.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Aug 9, 2022)

Now, personally, it's crossing the line for me if it's:

-Hateful or malicious. This includes bigotry, discrimination etc. Because the fandom is full of all kinds of unique people, such content is very unhealthy.
-Depicts Bestiality.
-Depicts Pedophilia.
-_Promotes_ dangerous things like self-harm or violence. I understand there are fans of gore on FA, and themes like horror and intense emotional/vent art. I'm not directing at them. My concern is if it's advocating for real life harm.

However, opinions on these things vary, and like others have mentioned, even if art doesn't fall into the categories I listed, there can be people that still take issue with it.
Keep that in mind, that it's not automatically your fault if someone complains about your art or takes offense. Art has always been about interpretation.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 9, 2022)

In another thread, someone was complaining specifically about all the gay porn and considered it distasteful. Straight porn was fine though. In the thread below that, a bunch of guys are oohing and ahhing over some good ol' man butt.

What's this show? Like others have said, you can't please everyone, and the same people who were offended over one thing will ignore something worse because the day changed.

One thing I'll never understand though is why people freak out over cub and feral, but don't even give lip service to snuff. Not too hard to find some exceedingly questionable art in that category, and from a "wElL iN tHe ReAl WoRlD iT's IlLeGaL" standpoint, it's just as bad. @Nexus Cabler - you are the first person I've seen, in every rant on objectionable material, to even mention violent art.


----------



## Goon the frank (Aug 9, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> So, I have been posting a lot of art on my account. Although, I want to know where people would draw the line as to what would be acceptable in furry art. I don't necessarily want to go too far into detail, because I'm sure that the details may be a bit much. I just want to know, from my fellow furries, what is the thing that could cross the line for you. Any answers are welcome...as long as the answers are appropriate enough for this forum...


So I'll assume this is about NSFW art. Most things I see I'll just ignore if they're not for me, but I consider red rockets and the like to be just past the line, where the area of interest is animal. Ferals are also beyond that line for me too. I took a look at your art and it seems perfectly fine by furry standards.
Haven't seen cub or snuff so no comment about that from me.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 9, 2022)

Goon the frank said:


> So I'll assume this is about NSFW art. Most things I see I'll just ignore if they're not for me, but I consider red rockets and the like to be just past the line, where the area of interest is animal. Ferals are also beyond that line for me too. I took a look at your art and it seems perfectly fine by furry standards.
> Haven't seen cub or snuff so no comment about that from me.


Well, NSFW cub art is explicitly disallowed on FA. As to snuff, I haven't encountered it per se, but some fetish content (like fatal vore and inanimate transformation) and kinda snuff-ish.


----------



## Just_A_Tundra (Aug 9, 2022)

Goon the frank said:


> So I'll assume this is about NSFW art. Most things I see I'll just ignore if they're not for me, but I consider red rockets and the like to be just past the line, where the area of interest is animal. Ferals are also beyond that line for me too. I took a look at your art and it seems perfectly fine by furry standards.
> Haven't seen cub or snuff so no comment about that from me.


Yeah, I see no point in drawing any cub or zoo art like that, because it does kind of promote the act in a way. I don't even draw or write those things offline, or at all.

I only apply NSFW aspects to the art I do of ADULT characters that are human or anthropomorphic.

Wait...is a human and an anthro being involved in sexual things zoo? I always thought that being anthropomorphic gave a character more human-like traits, making them closer to human than animal in a way. Also, they can speak and give consent, right? I'm just curious about this too....


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 9, 2022)

In my opinion, art should have no limits. I don’t believe in censoring artwork (or very much of anything, really) on a legal level. We should be free to express whatever we desire on an artistic level.

Now… the ethics of some types of art or depictions of characters might be very questionable. Nonetheless, I’d rather there be no legal repercussions for something that starts with and ends with art.

Websites do have a right to limit whatever they’d like. You’re ALSO not free from backlash or hate if what you’re drawing is unethical or perceived to be harmful.

So I don’t think there’s an objective limit. I think the limit is the ToS of whatever site you’re on. And maybe some very specific cases of harassment and defamation. But those are already covered anyhow. I have my personal limits (and I’m a bit prudish with them, sorry!) but I don’t wish to impose my will unto others and what they’re allowed to create just because I find it subjectively wrong or gross.


----------



## reptile logic (Aug 9, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> . . .
> 
> Wait...is a human and an anthro being involved in sexual things zoo? I always thought that being anthropomorphic gave a character more human-like traits, making them closer to human than animal in a way. Also, they can speak and give consent, right? I'm just curious about this too....


Even two people raised in the same family will give you two different opinions on where that fine line gets crossed. No clear answer for you on this one.

(Edit: See if what you like to draw is already out there; is what you like generally well received?


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 9, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> Wait...is a human and an anthro being involved in sexual things zoo? I always thought that being anthropomorphic gave a character more human-like traits, making them closer to human than animal in a way. Also, they can speak and give consent, right? I'm just curious about this too....


It's not and the people who think so are morons. Anthros are reskinned humans. Case closed.


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 9, 2022)

Nexus Cabler said:


> Now, personally, it's crossing the line for me if it's:
> 
> -Hateful or malicious. This includes bigotry, discrimination etc. Because the fandom is full of all kinds of unique people, such content is very unhealthy.
> -Depicts Bestiality.
> ...


Same. To be honest I'm all for horror gore, candy/pastel gore, or sexy zombies or something. Once it goes into promoting and/or fetishizing death/violence, that's when I'm going to question if that individual is a safe person to be around in reality.

I've been asked to draw Isabelle from Animal Crossing dead and hanging from a noose post SA. Of course I blocked the creep. I don't care if they're fictional. It's the same situation with cub. The fact that someone gets off to what represents kids/death is a huge red flag.


----------



## Kinguyakki (Aug 12, 2022)

There are some in the fandom who object to certain subject matter, and will go so far as to tell an artist that they shouldn't depict that subject matter.
Personally, as long as the art is not supporting non-consensual NSFW activities, including minors or human/animal relations, it's not an issue to me.  If someone does a lot of art about a specific kink or fetish that doesn't interest me, I just won't pay attention to it.  I won't message them that I don't like the subject matter. . .because, honestly, who cares?  I'm a random person on the Internet.  It's their art, no one is forcing me to look at it.


----------



## tentiv (Aug 12, 2022)

Kinguyakki said:


> There are some in the fandom who object to certain subject matter, and will go so far as to tell an artist that they shouldn't depict that subject matter.
> Personally, as long as the art is not supporting non-consensual NSFW activities, including minors or human/animal relations, it's not an issue to me.  If someone does a lot of art about a specific kink or fetish that doesn't interest me, I just won't pay attention to it.  I won't message them that I don't like the subject matter. . .because, honestly, who cares?  I'm a random person on the Internet.  It's their art, no one is forcing me to look at it.


Out of curiosity, do you believe that a depiction of non-consensual sex, if drawn with pornographic intent, necessarily supports non-consensual sex? I define "support" here as "encouraging it to happen more often in real life". It's a question I've wrestled with, especially after reading about Scott Chamberlain, who lost his political office because his SoFurry profile listed rape under Tolerates.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 12, 2022)

That situation sounds bizarre but I'm not sure I'd read much into it. Doesn't really seem like anyone made a case against the guy as much as manufactured outrage with whatever they could find. Makes me think of when people try to get teachers fired because it turns out they moonlight as a stripper or w/e. A lot of people in the world are very insular and very easy to inflame.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 12, 2022)

LameFox said:


> That situation sounds bizarre but I'm not sure I'd read much into it. Doesn't really seem like anyone made a case against the guy as much as manufactured outrage with whatever they could find. Makes me think of when people try to get teachers fired because it turns out they moonlight as a stripper or w/e. A lot of people in the world are very insular and very easy to inflame.


I don't think it's people being "insular" and "easy to inflame" by itself. A lot of the manufactured outrage stuff is folks trying to gain social standing. To limit this to FA - you can gain "standing" by being a good artist, communicate well on the forums, or commission lots of artists (if you want to go that route, let me know!). However, those require *effort.* What doesn't require effort is shitting on someone else, or joining in on a trend of shitting on someone else. So many of the internet hate mobs are people trying to improve their standing by both being in "the majority" (in concept) and knocking the competition down a peg.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 12, 2022)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> I don't think it's people being "insular" and "easy to inflame" by itself. A lot of the manufactured outrage stuff is folks trying to gain social standing. To limit this to FA - you can gain "standing" by being a good artist, communicate well on the forums, or commission lots of artists (if you want to go that route, let me know!). However, those require *effort.* What doesn't require effort is shitting on someone else, or joining in on a trend of shitting on someone else. So many of the internet hate mobs are people trying to improve their standing by both being in "the majority" (in concept) and knocking the competition down a peg.


It seemed like they were pretty clearly using it for political gain in that case though?


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 12, 2022)

I mean, political gain, social gain, fundamentally the same thing. In the case of that politician, it was more direct. Can't beat him on platform, gotta attack him some other way. That being said, were I running for office, pretty sure my accounts would get sanitized real quick.

Though I'll admit. my comment was a bit more general - I missed what you were replying to, was thinking you were citing OP getting attacked over nothing. Apparently that wasn't this thread.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 12, 2022)

There's a 2 teenagers limit at any one time in this convenience store.


----------



## Kinguyakki (Aug 12, 2022)

tentiv said:


> Out of curiosity, do you believe that a depiction of non-consensual sex, if drawn with pornographic intent, necessarily supports non-consensual sex? I define "support" here as "encouraging it to happen more often in real life". It's a question I've wrestled with, especially after reading about Scott Chamberlain, who lost his political office because his SoFurry profile listed rape under Tolerates.


I have seen some that glorifies non-consensual sex, going so far as to present it as a humorous situation where the victim is mocked for what has happened to them.  My personal feeling on it is that, if someone goes through the trouble to put time and effort into art that celebrates that kind of situation, they're not a person I'd want to support or associate with.


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 12, 2022)




----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 12, 2022)

Kinguyakki said:


> I have seen some that glorifies non-consensual sex, going so far as to present it as a humorous situation where the victim is mocked for what has happened to them.  My personal feeling on it is that, if someone goes through the trouble to put time and effort into art that celebrates that kind of situation, they're not a person I'd want to support or associate with.


I mean, rape isn't something that should fetishized it in the first place and I'd generally it shouldn't be depicted in that context here or anywhere for that matter. A lot of scumbags are into that, unfortunately.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 12, 2022)

Aaand it’s taken less than a page for this to turn into kinkshaming. Wish I could say I was surprised.

Everyone has their boundaries, whether they concern what they’re willing to draw/write/foo or what content they’re comfortable consuming. And having boundaries is fine, and healthy. Others’ boundaries should guide you in what you directly bring before them, though, not in what you create and display in your own space.

Like, I’ve written some dark stuff. I don’t ask my partners to read it because I know it’s not their thing. Demanding they do would be shitty. By the same token, it would be shitty of them to be expect me to just… not write what I want to write because the themes in the work happen to make them uncomfortable. (Or draw what I want to draw - I’ve gone pretty brutal there, too.)


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 12, 2022)

I mean... I'm into non-con and dub-con where I'm the "victim." We exist. Real rape is of course horrible and I don't promote it or want it to happen to me or anyone else. This kind of fetish is generally a BDSM roleplay thing. It's not something to take too seriously, but if someone does actually want to commit real rape, then yes that's a huge issue.

Anyway I hope I'm not considered a scumbag now.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 13, 2022)

Art is art. Fictional, not real. It depicts someone's imagination and possibly things they are into. If you don't separate fiction from reality that's on you, not the person who drew/commissioned the art piece.

There are a lot of kinks I find outright disgusting but I don't go out of my way to attack, insult or even harass people for it. I would however react if someone tries to shove it in my face.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 13, 2022)

Chomby said:


> I mean... I'm into non-con and dub-con where I'm the "victim." We exist. Real rape is of course horrible and I don't promote it or want it to happen to me or anyone else. This kind of fetish is generally a BDSM roleplay thing. It's not something to take too seriously, but if someone does actually want to commit real rape, then yes that's a huge issue.
> 
> Anyway I hope I'm not considered a scumbag now.


This is a wildly common fantasy. IIRC not _the_ most common, but right up there. I've always thought of it as a good example of the separation of fiction and practice because I think anyone would really struggle to argue that anything close to the % of people who report having it would also want to genuinely experience it (and certainly many have, and know the difference).


----------



## Punji (Aug 13, 2022)

I've never really agreed with this idea that having a given fetish or interest must mean the person is X/Y/Z because of it.

That someone into non-con must be a bad person is like saying videogames cause violence. Baseless pearl-clutching of bored housewives about some random thing they don't like.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 13, 2022)

SMH at the judgmental attitude around here!


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

I mean, there's a difference between kinkshaming and opposing the fetishization of something that is a crime and harmful. Most people here wouldn't accept cub art and or drawn child pornography as allowable content, because that is fetishizing harm to children, it could influence minors viewing it, and it serves as magnet for child predators. 

Rape is another thing that has no business being fetishized, because it is a very real crime, the fetish art of serves to a community that is into that which could also host people who be or become rapists in real life. 

Speaking neutrally, I know some people have previously said or implied into rape fantasies. I feel that might be biasing them towards defending it now. 

This is feels less about opposing against kinkshaming and more about defending its interest from criticism. 

I'm for sex positivity, but there need to be hard lines.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, there's a difference between kinkshaming and opposing the fetishization of something that is a crime and harmful. Most people here wouldn't accept cub art and or drawn child pornography as allowable content, because that is fetishizing harm to children, it could influence minors viewing it, and it serves as magnet for child predators.
> 
> Rape is another thing that has no business being fetishized, because it is a very real crime, the fetish art of serves to a community that is into that which could also host people who be or become rapists in real life.
> 
> ...


Nope, that's absolutely kinkshaming, whatever lipstick you put on it. I like you, Miles, but in this case you're not on a hill I believe you should be anywhere near. Like, yes, of course people who have a kink have more of a stake in defending it than some rando; that doesn't make doing so _wrong_. More than half of people with rape fantasies are women, and the vast majority with such fantasies of _any_ gender fantasize about being the target. 

Like... assault is also a crime. Isn't BDSM also fetishizing something that is harmful and a crime, then, by your logic? There's a disturbing number of states in the US where someone can't legally consent to S/M activities. Doesn't make fictional depictions automatically bad. 

Anyone with a rape kink knows there's a difference between fantasy and reality. 

The hard line needs to be what happens in reality.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Aug 13, 2022)




----------



## LameFox (Aug 13, 2022)

On an intuitive level I'd be willing to accept that the people who _would_ actually commit rape would also fantasize about it, but I've never seen any evidence that the reverse is true: that people who would fantasize about it—which article after article assure me are many—are likely to become rapists as a result. Like I literally just searched this due to this thread and I see over and over results saying it's pretty normal and going into various theories about why. Not just junk sites either.

I mean, believe what you want I guess, but I have to wonder what it's based on.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 13, 2022)

LameFox said:


> I mean, believe what you want I guess, but I have to wonder what it's based on.


It seems to be directed at users here, I can't imagine a better explanation than some petty online beef as to how one could get so blinded as to call anyone who enjoyed 50 shades of gray a scumbag, without knowing anything else about these millions of people.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 13, 2022)

I wouldn't know enough about anyone here to tell when something like that is based on them tbh.

Also on an amusing note it just occurred to me that following the same reasoning, vore—as a fetish based on something that if carried out in reality is definitely a crime, you cannot eat people—must also be fairly worrisome I suppose.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

quoting_mungo said:


> Nope, that's absolutely kinkshaming, whatever lipstick you put on it. I like you, Miles, but in this case you're not on a hill I believe you should be anywhere near. Like, yes, of course people who have a kink have more of a stake in defending it than some rando; that doesn't make doing so _wrong_. More than half of people with rape fantasies are women, and the vast majority with such fantasies of _any_ gender fantasize about being the target.
> 
> Like... assault is also a crime. Isn't BDSM also fetishizing something that is harmful and a crime, then, by your logic? There's a disturbing number of states in the US where someone can't legally consent to S/M activities. Doesn't make fictional depictions automatically bad.
> 
> ...


I like and respect you as well, but I disagree on this. I also don't want this escalate into fight, but people need to be honest with themselves about this. Not too long, users on the forum were vocally concerned about fetish art of underage characters in sexual situations and NSFW ads being on a site underage users, rightfully.

However, considering rape fetish verboten is apparently a bridge too far.

Not everything should be kink. Just like how pedophilia and snuff shouldn't be kinks, rape shouldn't be either. I also think that if people here have a rape fetish, they should disclose that and not act they are protesting against kinkshaming or people do their own thing. I do recognize that there are people like you who will address what they see as kinkshaming without having personal stake in the issue, too, however.

About BDSM, from what I understand about it, it's consensual activity between two willing parties, which rape, by definition, isn't. I don't have a problem with BDSM, though I'd suggest that people engage in that need to be safe while doing and respect the limits of their partners. BDSM is different that child pornography, which fetishizes sexual situations with children who can't consent, and rape fetish, which fetishizes non-consensual sex between parties.

I'm also going to add that rape fetish trivializes the experiences of actual rape victims too.

And @Frank Gulotta , I haven't read _Fifty Shades of Grey_ and don't have any judgements about it. 

But yeah, I don't trust that everyone with a rape fetish knows the line between reality and fantasy or that they might not want to act out their fantasy in reality. Being real, if someone here popped up here and said they were into drawn child pornography, but would never act on it in real life ... sensible people wouldn't believe them, rightly so.

That's where I'm at.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 13, 2022)

On consent I feel that it's worth noting when a person imagines, draws, writes, etc. a fantasy about rape there is really only one consenting party involved in the scenario, and because they're constructing it you can probably infer they do consent. Nothing happens they don't want, even if they're simulating the opposite. I suppose it might be different if they represent an actual person in it, and maybe that would constitute some kind of harassment if done without the consent of the other party, but otherwise I would say it's no more violating consent than BDSM is.


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I like and respect you as well, but I disagree on this. I also don't want this escalate into fight, but people need to be honest with themselves about this. Not too long, users on the forum were vocally concerned about fetish art of underage characters in sexual situations and NSFW ads being on a site underage users, rightfully.
> 
> However, considering rape fetish verboten is apparently a bridge too far.
> 
> ...


I'm honestly disappointed in you Miles. Apparently you aren't as mature as I once thought. If you wish to remain close-minded about this and call us all scumbags, I guess I can't stop you, but I hope you look into the subject more later on.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2022)

Some non-consensual scenarios might exist inside contexts of play that themselves involve explicit consent.
Some people's art and writing makes that clear, and sometimes people's art makes it clear that this _isn't what they want_.




Miles Marsalis said:


> And @Frank Gulotta , I haven't read _Fifty Shades of Grey_ and don't have any judgements about it.



My _Grandad_ read fifty shades of grey back when he was alive.  God rest his soul.



Chomby said:


> I'm honestly disappointed in you Miles. Apparently you aren't as mature as I once thought. If you wish to remain close-minded about this and call us all scumbags, I guess I can't stop you, but I hope you look into the subject more later on.



I am the most mature of you all. But in the same way that a cheese is mature, all stinky and gross and blegh. :}


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2022)

While I am commenting here, I may as well make a double post to say that...in the future every company you ever work for will probably be able to discover your entire internet history. Some companies require you to tell them if you use the internet for free expression, and to provide them with records. 

So make sure you comment very carefully about any statements related to this particular topic, because there could be a very large price for a misunderstanding.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 13, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Some non-consensual scenarios might exist inside contexts of play that themselves involve explicit consent.
> Some people's art and writing makes that clear, and sometimes people's art makes it clear that this _isn't what they want_.


It's late/early here and I can't parse that first sentence. Are you talking about something like depicting BDSM which is itself depicting rape? That honestly seems a bit redundant to me, unless you're telling a story and it affects the perception of the character. They're both simulation. If for instance two people commissioned a depiction of one's character raping the other's character then that to me is not morally dissimilar to the two of them acting that out consentually (consensually? my browser considers both of these spelling errors).


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 13, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> While I am commenting here, I may as well make a double post to say that...in the future every company you ever work for will probably be able to discover your entire internet history. Some companies require you to tell them if you use the internet for free expression, and to provide them with records.
> 
> So make sure you comment very carefully about any statements related to this particular topic, because there could be a very large price for a misunderstanding.


I'll make sure to not tell my employer or coworkers my online username. There's other fetish shit I'm into that while not controversial, is quite strange.


Fallowfox said:


> and sometimes people's art makes it clear that this _isn't what they want_.


I hate that type of art and writing and it's unfortunate that the creeps who produce it give us all a bad name. There's actual psychopaths in the BDSM community which sucks.


----------



## Punji (Aug 13, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> While I am commenting here, I may as well make a double post to say that...in the future every company you ever work for will probably be able to discover your entire internet history. Some companies require you to tell them if you use the internet for free expression, and to provide them with records.
> 
> So make sure you comment very carefully about any statements related to this particular topic, because there could be a very large price for a misunderstanding.


What kind of hellish dystopia does one live in to be required to tell potential employers such irrelevant personal information and records of everything? 

This just seems like either a perpetuation of this issue of thought-criming and kinks-shaming or a subtle support against the fantasy. Bleh!


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2022)

Chomby said:


> I'll make sure to not tell my employer or coworkers my online username. There's fetish shit I'm into that while not controversial, is quite strange.
> 
> I hate that type of art and writing and it's unfortunate that the creeps who produce it give us all a bad name. There's actual psychopaths in the BDSM community which sucks.


It is a balancing act. If an employer interviewing you specifically asks if you have ever had a youtube account, then it could be in your best interest to tell them about your embarrassing furry youtube account. If they find it later they might get the impression you were not honest when you applied, even if they do not actually object to the channel's content.



LameFox said:


> It's late/early here and I can't parse that first sentence. Are you talking about something like depicting BDSM which is itself depicting rape? That honestly seems a bit redundant to me, unless you're telling a story and it affects the perception of the character. They're both simulation. If for instance two people commissioned a depiction of one's character raping the other's character then that to me is not morally dissimilar to the two of them acting that out consentually (consensually? my browser considers both of these spelling errors).



I'd prefer not to directly discuss rape, in case there are survivors of sexual abuse reading these comments. 

But let's say somebody really enjoys being forced to kiss shoes. That's common enough. 
Art depicting this might make it clear that it is a form of play being consented to, even if under the pretence that it is not enjoyable. 

By contrast, if a man has a twitter account, and posts status updates about his desire to force famous actresses to kiss his shoes, then that is more morally ambiguous and would probably constitute harassment.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

LameFox said:


> On consent I feel that it's worth noting when a person imagines, draws, writes, etc. a fantasy about rape there is really only one consenting party involved in the scenario, and because they're constructing it you can probably infer they do consent. Nothing happens they don't want, even if they're simulating the opposite. I suppose it might be different if they represent an actual person in it, and maybe that would constitute some kind of harassment if done without the consent of the other party, but otherwise I would say it's no more violating consent than BDSM is.


Putting actual people as characters is obviously wrong, but portraying and or enjoying situations, however fictional, of someone being raped is an indicator of deeply troubling behavior. Like, for everyone saying rape fetish is okay, they wouldn't dare say that in real life environment to friends, family, spouses, neighbors, and especially not to law enforcement ... because in society at large, this behavior isn't socially acceptable and it is a crime. Furthermore, this kind of material could influence individuals, especially minors, to actually commit the crime if they feel the fantasy isn't enough for them anymore. Another point I added to my previous comment is that rape fetish trivializes the actual experiences of rape victims as well, too.

People need to approach through the lens of real life, not some idealized fetish standard.


Chomby said:


> I'm honestly disappointed in you Miles. Apparently you aren't as mature as I once thought. If you wish to remain close-minded about this and call us all scumbags, I guess I can't stop you, but I hope you look into the subject more later on.


Part of me would be sorry about, but I feel strongly about this, as most people in normal society. Outside of this forum, and honestly I feel most people on this forum and the fandom would agree on this, rape considered something not be fetishized and it's not something to be trivialized in roleplay situation, however unintentionally.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Punji said:


> What kind of hellish dystopia does one live in to be required to tell potential employers such irrelevant personal information and records of everything?
> 
> This just seems like either a perpetuation of this issue of thought-criming and kinks-shaming or a subtle support against the fantasy. Bleh!


A regular professional workplace?

Society?


----------



## LameFox (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Putting actual people as characters is obviously wrong, but portraying and or enjoying situations, however fictional, of someone being raped is an indicator of deeply troubling behavior. Like, for everyone saying rape fetish is okay, they wouldn't dare say that in real life environment to friends, family, spouses, neighbors, and especially not to law enforcement ... because in society at large, this behavior isn't socially acceptable and it is a crime. Furthermore, this kind of material could influence individuals, especially minors, to actually commit the crime if they feel the fantasy isn't enough for them anymore. Another point I added to my previous comment is that rape fetish trivializes the actual experiences of rape victims as well, too.
> 
> People need to approach through the lens of real life, not some idealized fetish standard.


I mean, you can say that, but when I look into it that's really not what I find at all. And I don't think what people openly talk about is really a good indication of what is or is not moral.


----------



## Punji (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> A regular professional workplace?
> 
> Society?


None of the professional workplaces I've ever been in asked anything of the sort. The only records they ask for are employer references and proof of graduation.

Society knows well enough not to ask what any given person does on the Internet in his off hours. Did you write cringy fanfiction stories or make awful animations in the early 2000s like so many others? It's harmless but embarrassing as hell for a lot of people. Would you even want to tell someone you role-played as a gorilla with furries?

Nah fam. Criminal background checks cover the bases and then some. Only a corporate slave would want to give up their online presence so he can be monitored by the company he works for. I have never heard of this practice in Canada. Insanity.

Regardless though, kinkshame harder daddy! Tell me I'm a bad 'coon!


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 13, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> It is a balancing act. If an employer interviewing you specifically asks if you have ever had a youtube account, then it could be in your best interest to tell them about your embarrassing furry youtube account. If they find it later they might get the impression you were not honest when you applied, even if they do not actually object to the channel's content.


I don't want to work for anyone who thinks they have a right to know all the details of my personal life. I'm there to work and get paid. I'm not there to take some subjective "moral" test that has nothing to do with what I'm going to be doing for them. All they should be looking at is if I have a criminal record. That's it.

Nobody likes their privacy to be encroached on, even if they have nothing to hide. It's disrespectful as hell and it's justifiable to not want to work for someone who lacks boundaries like that. If I am rejected, so be it. I doubt every employer is problematic like that because I've heard of no such thing from family members.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 13, 2022)

Regarding pervasive corporate surveillance, since we... somehow arrived there? I think my feelings about corporations would probably worry them more if they looked up my post history.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm also going to add that rape fetish trivializes the experiences of actual rape victims too.


There's plenty of rape victims who still have rape fantasies, engage in consent play (simulated non-consent), or create art or fiction that features romanticized or sexualized sexual assault. I think they deserve just as much respect as rape victims who find fictional depictions upsetting. I'm all for jazzing your shit up with content warnings so that the latter can avoid content that will be triggering (and I'm using that in the proper psychological sense) to them, as well as so that people who just aren't into it can avoid the work. I'm not for people telling others they're not allowed to create the content they want to create because consuming that content would be traumatic to them.

I get that it makes you uncomfortable, and I'm not trying to say you need to be comfortable with it. I do wish you'd take a step back and look at your words, though. You want people to disclose it if they have a stake, but your words suggest that anyone who does so will be judged quite harshly for what makes their libido tick. Like... more than half of women have had at least one rape fantasy. Now, that study doesn't have a _huge_ sampling group, so I'm not going to say it can be generalized 1:1 to all of society or anything, but it's suggestive of it maybe not being as rare as you think.

Again, it's a separation of fiction and reality thing. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Like, for everyone saying rape fetish is okay, they wouldn't dare say that in real life environment to friends, family, spouses, neighbors, and especially not to law enforcement ... because in society at large, this behavior isn't socially acceptable and it is a crime. Furthermore, this kind of material could influence individuals, especially minors, to actually commit the crime if they feel the fantasy isn't enough for them anymore.


I mean, do you habitually discuss with friends, family, neighbors and police what gets your rocks off? Spouses/partners, maybe. Would you want to get into a discussion of _any_ sexual behavior or fantasies outside the norm with them, whether or not it's something you personally practice? I don't want to explain vore (as a random example) to my mom, but that doesn't mean it's not okay for someone to have it as a kink.

To me this all sounds way too much like justifying thought crime.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Punji said:


> None of the professional workplaces I've ever been in asked anything of the sort. The only records they ask for are employer references and proof of graduation.
> 
> Society knows well enough not to ask what any given person does on the Internet in his off hours. Did you write cringy fanfiction stories or make awful animations in the early 2000s like so many others? It's harmless but embarrassing as hell for a lot of people. Would you even want to tell someone you role-played as a gorilla with furries?
> 
> ...


Well, most workplaces would frown upon employing someone with a rape fetish and I know damn sure you wouldn't able to explain to any employer you've ever had. 

And I wouldn't mind explaining to my employer that I played the DVRP or signing any statement I've made here on the forum; because I keep my career in mind and I haven't said anything earth-shattering beside having concerns about rape fetish, apparently. 

Furthermore, a lot of people, including me, have their internet connections monitored by their workplaces since we've been working at home. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.


----------



## Regret (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, a lot of people, including me, have their internet connections monitored by their workplaces since we've been working at home. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.



This is literally the first time I have ever even heard of something like that.  What hellish dystopia do you reside in and why would anyone okay their work to monitor their home internet?  The only exception I can think of is if you are using a company provided laptop or something.  Then again, what moron would use that browse around the more dingy corners of the internet?


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 13, 2022)

I'm dismayed at the willingness some people have to just bend over so their employer can penetrate their private lives. Haven't they learned anything from dystopia novels?

Also positions of power attract psychopaths, that's a known fact; does anyone really feel okay with complying with monitoring by people who you can't monitor back but are likely into non-conventional things? or is this attitude made of fear?

If anything I wouldn't be surprised if boss monitors a shiny boring corporate talking head and thinks to themselves "here's one I won't invite to the corporate party which is where everybody actually makes headways, good obedient little shit"

I pray to God that it never comes to everyone being monitored in that way, imagine the internet being reduced to corporate drones virtue-signaling to each others ad infinitum. Fucking dismal


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2022)

Chomby said:


> I don't want to work for anyone who thinks they have a right to know all the details of my personal life. I'm there to work and get paid. I'm not there to take some subjective "moral" test that has nothing to do with what I'm going to be doing for them. All they should be looking at is if I have a criminal record. That's it.
> 
> Nobody likes their privacy to be encroached on, even if they have nothing to hide. It's disrespectful as hell and it's justifiable to not want to work for someone who lacks boundaries like that. If I am rejected, so be it. I doubt every employer is problematic like that because I've heard of no such thing from family members.



If you ever want to work in America, and are a non-citizen, you would need to give them the identities of certain social media accounts. 

Whether or not you agree with it, it is something everybody has to consider. I'm just pointing that out before anybody says anything that could be accidentally interpreted as an endorsement of what some countries or employers would consider illicit.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Regret said:


> This is literally the first time I have ever even heard of something like that.  What hellish dystopia do you reside in and why would anyone okay their work to monitor their home internet?  The only exception I can think of is if you are using a company provided laptop or something.  Then again, what moron would use that browse around the more dingy corners of the internet?


I have an internet connection provided by my firm as part of its work continuity program. I also secondary internet connection that one of my housemates maintains separately. But a lot of companies monitor employees who work from home to ensure productivity, especially since the pandemic began.









						Can Employers Monitor Employees Who Work From Home Due To The Coronavirus?
					

When working from home, there may be a new concern for workers other than going without pants. To ensure employees do what they’re supposed to, some employers have begun using surveillance apps and programs to monitor worker productivity.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Punji (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Well, most workplaces would frown upon employing someone with a rape fetish and I know damn sure you wouldn't able to explain to any employer you've ever had.
> 
> And I wouldn't mind explaining to my employer that I played the DVRP or signing any statement I've made here on the forum; because I keep my career in mind and I haven't said anything earth-shattering beside having concerns about rape fetish, apparently.
> 
> Furthermore, a lot of people, including me, have their internet connections monitored by their workplaces since we've been working at home. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.


I know I wouldn't be able to explain why I might have thought it would have been okay to bring up in casual conversation at least. The psychology behind the thing, sure. That's pretty easy, there's a lot of resources to draw upon for that. Who would even want to address an employee or coworker's fetishes? That's awkward to even imagine.

Do you really want to be known as the guy who pretends to be a sweaty-palmed gorilla around the office? I don't even like telling non-furries I'm a furry when there's literally nothing wrong or objectionable about it.

If you want to live a life shackled to some soulless corporation that doesn't care about you, living in fear of ever accidentally disclosing a single wrong-thought between all the boot-licking, that's your choice and no one will make it for you. The rest of us also have careers _and_ this unconventional hobby.

Why you would tolerate that is difficult to understand. Regardless, unless you're completely asexual you like every living person with a fairly average or higher sex drive have viewed online pornography before and likely still do somewhat consistently. That you even use FA at all is judgment enough for many people.

This is falling out of focus from the point of this thread. As much as you love my attention Miles, you don't need me to ask you not to kinkshame other people for no reason beyond it offending your delicate sensibilities.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 13, 2022)

Just going to chip in here that I work from home and my place of employment doesn't monitor my internet connection. I highly doubt this is standard practice as much as it is simply _a _practice. I really don't think your company needs to know what you do in your personal time, that's disturbing and dystopian. Could you imagine a sanitized, corporotized modern society? I'm sure you don't want to.


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 13, 2022)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm dismayed at the willingness some people have to just bend over so their employer can penetrate their private lives. Haven't they learned anything from dystopia novels?
> 
> Also positions of power attract psychopaths, that's a known fact; does anyone really feel okay with complying with monitoring by people who you can't monitor back but are likely into non-conventional things? or is this attitude made of fear?
> 
> ...



Seems like it moving more and more in that direction, unfortunately. I don’t care if someone wants to choose that lifestyle for themselves… that’s fine. But I could never. 

Miles is right that since the pandemic, many companies have started this (in my opinion, extremely invasive) procedure of monitoring the internet of their employees. More and more places offering remote work and/or government positions are moving toward this system. And by government positions I don’t mean politicians — just general government employees. 

It’s insanely dystopian and not the direction I’d ever be okay moving in. People can argue against this idea but I’ll die on this hill.

Don’t trust those with immense power over you.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 13, 2022)

Smityyyy said:


> Seems like it moving more and more in that direction, unfortunately. I don’t care if someone wants to choose that lifestyle for themselves… that’s fine. But I could never.
> 
> Miles is right that since the pandemic, many companies have started this (in my opinion, extremely invasive) procedure of monitoring the internet of their employees. More and more places offering remote work and/or government positions are moving toward this system. And by government positions I don’t mean politicians — just general government employees.
> 
> ...


Agreed, if certain control freaks obsessed with monitoring people had done it on purpose with measures against covid, they wouldn't have done it any other way. Or it's another of these "happy little accidents" like the massive wealth transfert to the already rich these measures have enabled. It was all for the greater good right


----------



## TyraWadman (Aug 13, 2022)

I have a separate line for work and they only monitor that line to ensure I don't make personal use out of it. That's all. I still have my own personal internet line which I pay for with their competitor.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 13, 2022)

Smityyyy said:


> Seems like it moving more and more in that direction, unfortunately. I don’t care if someone wants to choose that lifestyle for themselves… that’s fine. But I could never.
> 
> Miles is right that since the pandemic, many companies have started this (in my opinion, extremely invasive) procedure of monitoring the internet of their employees. More and more places offering remote work and/or government positions are moving toward this system. And by government positions I don’t mean politicians — just general government employees.
> 
> ...


Hell, even before the pandemic, I've heard of employers actually asking for _passwords_ to the social media accounts of job applicants so they can see what they do privately online.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm dismayed at the willingness some people have to just bend over so their employer can penetrate their private lives.


Hard agree. Once you're off the clock, what you do is none of your employers concern. Our free time is just that, our time.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

Foxridley said:


> Hell, even before the pandemic, I've heard of employers actually asking for _passwords_ to the social media accounts of job applicants so they can see what they do privately online.


For anything less than 400K a year, that would be a hard no.  Even for 400K a year, I would set up dummy accounts because giving out your password is Sec no no number 1


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Punji said:


> I know I wouldn't be able to explain why I might have thought it would have been okay to bring up in casual conversation at least. The psychology behind the thing, sure. That's pretty easy, there's a lot of resources to draw upon for that. Who would even want to address an employee or coworker's fetishes? That's awkward to even imagine.
> 
> Do you really want to be known as the guy who pretends to be a sweaty-palmed gorilla around the office? I don't even like telling non-furries I'm a furry when there's literally nothing wrong or objectionable about it.
> 
> ...


Your attention matters very little to me, Punji. You can bank on that.

First off, I don't really identify with the fandom or as a furry, partly because I don't want to be associated with stuff like this. My involvement in the fandom is basically the DVRP (which is more or less over), my writing commissions, and my membership here. I don't pretend to be a gorilla as you put it; it's a OC I've written a few stories with, not my identity. I interact with the fandom more than I'm in it, though there are definitely people I became friends irl with who are furries. I see my roleplaying games as Miles the same way I view roleplaying with my OCs for D&D, Eclipse Phase, or Rifts; I don't consider those my identity either. 

I'm not going to discuss what I do in the bedroom with you, but there is difference between harmless kink and fetishes that can encourage and trivialize deeply problematic tendencies like rape, pedophilia, bestiality, and snuff. I know I'd be in for a fight, at minimum, with my girlfriend if said I wanted to roleplay fantasy a rape, which she would be right about. Like, I'm assuming none one here is going to content justifying fetishes involving pedophilia, bestiality, or snuff, so why do people feel comfortable saying having rape fetish is alright? All four things are not just cringe af, but wrong and illegal. Why are people cutting out exceptions for rape?

As for my "delicate sensibilities", most people with sense in the real world, where we all live by the way, know that rape isn't something to be fetishized or trivialized in sexual roleplay. So a lot of people share my "sensibilities", especially conservatives, which some people who have and or are endorsing rape fetish like to bill themselves as. I'm also cocking an eyebrow at the resistance I'm getting on this from some people, because some of y'all are same ones who went after the mods because you were seeing NSFW ads (along with being concerned minors were seeing them) and who have just recently found religion regarding that maybe disallowing drawn child pornography and cub porn isn't a violation of free speech.

So for you and that little category, I'm really not concerned about; your morals change with the moment.

About work monitoring my internet connection, I have reservations, but I don't really view any salacious content and their main concern is catching people slacking off and memorializing workflow. I'm also a manager, so extra scrutiny is paid to my interactions with my coworkers and I can view data from their connections if need be, though everyone is paid enough that this isn't a major concern. I don't look at pornography really, partly since I'm in relationship with someone I live with, and we have a roommate, whom it'd be awkward to look at that stuff around, especially since we share the home PC and our entertainment systems. But I literally have my roommate's separate connection as I mentioned in addition to other options, so this corporate drone has privacy when he needs it.

I can understand other people's concerns about privacy, but this is the reality that people working from home might well have to deal with if this become permanent after the pandemic. If you want to latitude to work from home, there is a reasonable expectation that you will be monitored and you may have to make some concessions or develop workarounds if you want to get hired. Everyone makes their own careers choice, though.

But to bring this back to the thread topics, yeah, I think, along with most of society, that rape isn't something to be fetishized.  I have been consistent on this and this isn't the first time I've expressed this opinion. I'm immovable.

Next time there is the obligatory "why do people outside the furries fandom think furries are cringe" thread, this thread and topic should be brought up, though I feel most people in the fandom would agree with me about this.


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Your attention matter very little to me, Punji. You can bank on that.
> 
> First off, I don't really identify with the fandom or a furry, partly because I don't want to associated with stuff like this. My involvement in the fandom is basically the DVRP (which is more or less over), my writing commissions, and my membership here. I don't pretend to be a gorilla you put it; it's a OC I've written a few stories with, not my identity. I interact with the fandom more than I'm in, though there are definitely people I became friends irl with who are furries. I see my roleplaying games as Miles the same way I view roleplaying with my OCs for D&D, Eclipse Phase, or Rifts; I don't consider those my identity either.
> 
> ...



Totally off-topic… but what does DVRP mean? I’ve seen it thrown around and have no clue lol.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Smityyyy said:


> Totally off-topic… but what does DVRP mean? I’ve seen it thrown around and have no clue lol.


The Don Vulpe RP. It's a mystery-mafia RP, lol.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> First off, I don't really identify with the fandom or a furry, partly because I don't want to associated with stuff like this.


Sorry for being off topic but, if this is how you feel, than honestly why are you even here hanging out of a furry forum?  
And not to be too petty but you say you are a manager, so I have to ask, why not take the time to proof read your wall of text style posts?? Reading your posts, it feels like you are having a mini stroke every third sentence, with missing words all over the place.


----------



## Green_Brick (Aug 13, 2022)

I'm not into furries, but as my own personal experience:

If it's something that makes me uncomfortable, something that's quite profound or borderline legal, then I would not do it. There's a number of subjects and things that fit into both categories. I'm an open-minded person, I have my own fetish and I try to be open-minded about other people's fetishes. 95% of the time, I don't care. Though, there's a select few that I would just not want to draw. Then there's legality issues with some subject matter that people may want, such as involving minors. That's a "hard NO" in my book. 

There's way more nuances and specifics to my post, but I'm sure you can figure out some of the rest yourself.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Zenoth said:


> Sorry for being off topic but, if this is how you feel, than honestly why are you even here hanging out of a furry forum?
> And not to be too petty but you say you are a manager, so I have to ask, why not take the time to proof read your wall of text style posts?? Reading your posts, it feels like you are having a mini stroke every third sentence, with missing words all over the place.


Your own posts aren't exactly works of illiteracy regularly, but yeah, I admit I'm doing other things, atm. Plus, spellcheck trips me up.

But I like the writing, the art can be cool, I have friends in the fandom, and sometimes the conversations are interesting. Everybody is entitled to their own level of engagement.

Not that I need to justify myself to you.


----------



## Punji (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Your attention matters very little to me, Punji. You can bank on that.


"Your attention matters very little to me, Punji. You can bank on that."

*_Massive wall of text larger than any post on this thread thus far*_


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Your own posts aren't exactly works of illiteracy regularly, but yeah, I admit I'm doing other things, atm. Plus, spellcheck trips me up.
> 
> But I like the writing, the art can be cool, I have friends in the fandom, and sometimes the conversations are interesting. Everybody is entitled to their own level of engagement.
> 
> Not that I need to justify myself to you.


Do you mean, "Literary works of art" ??.  Of course my posts aren't, this is a forum not a novella, but at least I don't drop words because i'm typing in a fervor of self rightious anger. 

As for the topic at hand,  the 'limit' can't really be quantified as everyone is different.  When it comes to things you don't like, the golden rule of the internet used to be, "don't interact, blacklist if you feel it nessessary, and move on", at least that is how it used to be.  No need to kinkshame, or try to grab some moral high ground on a portal of the internet for furries.  I don't often find myself agreeing with Mungo's posts, but she's right on this one.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 13, 2022)

Petition to rename the thread to, "Miles vs the Furry Fandom."


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> Petition to rename the thread to, "Miles vs the Furry Fandom."


Nah, take it more old school, something like "x vs the Furry Fandom OR, how I learned to embrace the ratio"


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Zenoth said:


> Do you mean, "Literary works of art" ??.  Of course my posts aren't, this is a forum not a novella, but at least I don't drop words because i'm typing in a fervor of self rightious anger.
> 
> As for the topic at hand,  the 'limit' can't really be quantified as everyone is different.  When it comes to things you don't like, the golden rule of the internet used to be, "don't interact, blacklist if you feel it nessessary, and move on", at least that is how it used to be.  No need to kinkshame, or try to grab some moral high ground on a portal of the internet for furries.  I don't often find myself agreeing with Mungo's posts, but she's right on this one.


I'm just saying you're the last person to crucify me over a typo. Also, I used my wall of text because I'm not answering your friends, who seem primed start something, in separate posts.

I mean, that is limit is literally quantified with the ban on cub pornography, drawn child pornography, and bestiality art here, and on other furry sites. As of yet, no one here has gone so far as to say the things I just mentioned should be allowed and are unproblematic. So I'd like to know we are making an exception for rape fetish art? Having a loophole for rape fetish weakens that rationale for banning that other content beside the people who like other banned content will point to the exception of rape fetish content, which should also be banned. 

I want a simple answer to that, which I haven't gotten.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Aug 13, 2022)

I like how many of the users in this thread will absolutely destroy each other over the usual run-of-the-mill political claptrap but when the kinks/porn come under attack or when questions regarding privacy surface a temporary alliance is established to set the record straight.

Truly, y'all are something else.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 13, 2022)

Dey took our struggle snuggles!


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 13, 2022)

Will the prophesy come true?


----------



## Xaiphafonese (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm just saying you're the last person to crucify me over a typo. Also, I used my wall of text because I'm not answering your friends, who seem primed start something, in separate posts.
> 
> I mean, that is limit is literally quantified with the ban on cub pornography, drawn child pornography, and bestiality art here, and on other furry sites. As of yet, no one here has gone so far as to say the things I just mentioned should be allowed and are unproblematic. So I'd like to know we are making an exception for rape fetish art? Having a loophole for rape fetish weakens that rationale for banning that other content beside the people who like other banned content will point to the exception of rape fetish content, which should also be banned.
> 
> I want a simple answer to that, which I haven't gotten.


Simple, stay in your lane. Use blacklists. If you want moral victories in the Furry fandom you have chosen a hell of a hill to die on for no reason. 
Or for a more on topic recommendation, Hooked on Phonics


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Xaiphafonese said:


> Simple, stay in your lane. Use blacklists. If you want moral victories in the Furry fandom you have chosen a hell of a hill to die on for no reason.
> Or for a more on topic recommendation, Hooked on Phonics


Your boyfriend would better benefit from it.

But that is a hell of an answer, considering the content.


----------



## Xaiphafonese (Aug 13, 2022)

At least he accepts his faults, instead of projecting them on to others. Ppl have odd interests. I won't waste my time judging and attacking them online. I rarely pay attention to what others do. Even less time getting angry about it. And if the best you have is to attack my SO through me, you have a weakened mind to think you can rile me with symbols on a screen from a forth grade drop out.
Have a banana and chill my guy.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm just saying you're the last person to crucify me over a typo. Also, I used my wall of text because I'm not answering your friends, who seem primed start something, in separate posts.


You're taking the criticism might hard aren't you.  Take a moment to breath while typing your reply and maybe you wont go missing entire words. This has nothing to do with 'my friends' and seemingly everything to do with your pride.  Take the L dude.  I might have some spelling errors here and there but I don't go missing entire words. 
The 'loophole' you speak of is because some people enjoy 'consent play" which is perfectly legal, while the other things you mention are quite illegal.  There's the simple answer you've been seeking.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Your boyfriend would better benefit from it.
> 
> But that is a hell of an answer, considering the content.


That's adorable coming from you Miles.  I've seen you going around posting laugh reacts inapropriatly on peoples posts simply because you don't like the user. You have a history of not letting things go, one could almost call it being a bad actor.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 13, 2022)

Xaiphafonese said:


> At least he accepts his faults, instead of projecting them on to others. Ppl have odd interests. I won't waste my time judging and attacking them online. I rarely pay attention to what others do. Even less time getting angry about it. And if the best you have is to attack my SO through me, you have a weakened mind to think you can rile me with symbols on a screen from a forth grade drop out.
> Have a banana and chill my guy.


I mean, you literally dedicated one of your four messages on here to come at me, bro. 

Oh, I graduated college, unlike some people here. 

And I'm sure you mean that banana comment innocently.


Zenoth said:


> You're taking the criticism might hard aren't you.  Take a moment to breath while typing your reply and maybe you wont go missing entire words. This has nothing to do with 'my friends' and seemingly everything to do with your pride.  Take the L dude.  I might have some spelling errors here and there but I don't go missing entire words.
> The 'loophole' you speak of is because some people enjoy 'consent play" which is perfectly legal, while the other things you mention are quite illegal.  There's the simple answer you've been seeking.


Just saying you're not one to be a grammar Nazi.

I would characterize it more as you and your friends have no moral basement and are willing to give a pass to rape fetishes and fantasies just to take side against me. 

I'd point out that if you film a rape and show it for common viewing, that is illegal. And naturally, rape is a crime. Furthermore, one of the reasons we ban the types of illicit content I mentioned because it can attract predators in addition to facilitating that kind of behavior in some rape fantasists. There is also the moral issue of rape fantasies trivializing the traumatic experiences of actual rape survivors.


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 13, 2022)

The number of members I despise here is increasing in number. I'm getting really tired of people on here thinking they're hot shit and making asses out of themselves. Know when to stop to keep at least *some* social standing before you blow it all over one argument that's going absolutely nowhere.

If you wish to keep having a positive experience on this site, pick your battles wisely. Stop pretending like you're perfect because you are not. No one is. Stop making the hole you've made yourself deeper. I doubt that what I said will make any difference but I'm trying to see if this place can become less toxic before I decide to leave. I won't be the first nor the last to jump ship because of the userbase here.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Just saying you're not one to be a grammar Nazi.
> 
> I would characterize it more as you and your friends have no moral basement and are willing to give a pass to rape fetishes and fantasies just to take side against me.
> 
> I'd point out that if you film a rape and show it for common viewing, that is illegal. And naturally, rape is a crime. Furthermore, one of the reasons we ban the types of illicit content I mentioned because it can attract predators in addition to facilitating that kind of behavior in some rape fantasists. There is also the moral issue of rape fantasies trivializing the traumatic experiences of actual rape survivors.


Not sure if you are actually this dense , or just playing dense online.
I'm not attacking your grammer, I'm pointing out that you regularly leave out complete words, there is a difference that as a 'writer' you should know.
You know nothing of my morals, but please do tell me more about myself I guess.
Who are my friends, and what morals do they lack?

You example is a false equivilance, as that's rape not censent play, which is the example I made, so please do try and stay on topic.

I think the words you should be using here would be something along the lines of "sorry for kink shaming, it seems nobody agrees with me so I'll move on", even your friend Mungo gave you the finger wag, that should be a sign for you. 


Miles Marsalis said:


> And I'm sure you mean that banana comment innocently.


Bro, your sona/oc is a Ape so, you really can't try and call foul. 
As for the topic of this thread, I suppose one limit would be, not the art itself, but the pettyness of some of the people that can't seem to blacklist, or ignore the art they don't like.


----------



## Punji (Aug 13, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Your attention matters very little to me, Punji. You can bank on that.
> 
> First off, I don't really identify with the fandom or as a furry, partly because I don't want to be associated with stuff like this. My involvement in the fandom is basically the DVRP (which is more or less over), my writing commissions, and my membership here. I don't pretend to be a gorilla as you put it; it's a OC I've written a few stories with, not my identity. I interact with the fandom more than I'm in it, though there are definitely people I became friends irl with who are furries. I see my roleplaying games as Miles the same way I view roleplaying with my OCs for D&D, Eclipse Phase, or Rifts; I don't consider those my identity either.
> 
> ...


Right, _now that I'm on my lunch break_ and you've had a chance to clean up your post I'll sate your thirst for my wacky raccy attention.

If you're not a furry, why are you commenting on a furry board using an anthro avatar and writing as well as participating in furry works of literature by your own admission? Regardless of whether you view yourself as your character or not other people outside the fandom won't be able to see the minutia of it; You'll always be exactly what they think you are.

Great, 'cause I didn't ask. Sorry Miles but this boy toy is taken. People don't condemn this because it has a very clear physical and emotional distinction between fantasy and reality. There's a world of difference between imagining getting hurt and actually feeling the hurt.

In the real world, a lot of popular mainstream film and literature features this kind of thing as well and is no less accepted for it. 50 Shades of Grey to Game of Thrones, these properties don't seem to suffer from this. Exactly how does one equate this specific fetish to people not wanting NSFW advertisements on a purely SFW platform? Obviously no one wants children to see the ads because they're not appropriate for the viewing age, not to mention a lot of users just don't want to see _any_ NSFW content at all. What the heck are you even talking about with this? I have literally no idea what you're trying to say.

If you paid attention to me as well as you act like you do, you'd see my morals are very, very unchanging. You jump on the band wagon for whatever it is that's popular to support so you can look good to your "peers," mister "not a furry."

If it's only for making sure no one is slacking off, why would they need the names of your social media handles? If you don't consume this kind of content, why do you have your roommate's separate connection as I mentioned in addition to other options? You're human, Miles. We all are.

Personally speaking, my chosen career(s) and backup plans aren't anything that can be done from home. Even so, I don't think I could accept this. Far too invasive for an entity with no concern for myself or my well-being beyond that of maintaining my productivity to the company. It seems unwise.

Like it or not, it is. It's a method of coping with trauma and stress for many when it's not just a harmless fantasy, here one moment and gone the next. No one is glamorizing real life depictions or actual real life instances because no one actually wants to really be hurt like this, nor to hurt anyone else.

"Immovable," eh? Oh I'll bet buddy. It seems like I sure can call you across the lake just by posting. 

I'm not sure that's a good idea Miles. Most people in this fandom, whom have spoken here about this at least, are expressly *not* agreeing with you. You're just kink-shaming people over things they can't control and calling them bad people for it. If such users are bad people for committing this thought crime, I wonder what that would make you.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 13, 2022)

Yeah, I'm kinda getting the violent video games argument resurging here. Like the whole, well if you kill somebody in a video game, you enjoy it in real life thing. Not exactly convincing.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 14, 2022)

RAM said:


> I like how many of the users in this thread will absolutely destroy each other over the usual run-of-the-mill political claptrap but when the kinks/porn come under attack or when questions regarding privacy surface a temporary alliance is established to set the record straight.
> 
> Truly, y'all are something else.


I guess that political compass site may have a point about the separate axes after all.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 14, 2022)

Hoookay. When I spoke up about the kinkshaming, I did _not_ intend to start up a bunch of bickering. At the risk of missing someone (and if I do, consider yourself included anyway): could @Miles Marsalis, @Punji, @Zenoth, and @Xaiphafonese please knock it off with the pointless sniping at each other? I don’t want to see it, I doubt anyone else wants to, either, and it just creates a toxic atmosphere the forum doesn’t need.

At the very least, I’d like to ask @Zenoth to not namedrop me seemingly to score points. Miles is quite aware I disagree with him. It makes me uncomfortable to be spoken about as “even your friend mungo,” and I ask you to please not do that again.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, that is limit is literally quantified with the ban on cub pornography, drawn child pornography, and bestiality art here, and on other furry sites. As of yet, no one here has gone so far as to say the things I just mentioned should be allowed and are unproblematic.


Uhhh… At the risk of sounding snarky, hate to break it to you, but there’s no rule banning artwork (or stories) depicting bestiality on FA, nor on any other furry art site that I’m aware of. The closest you get is Inkbunny’s weird policies about humans in adult art. My understanding is that just like FA’s rules regarding minors in sexual situations, that’s more about payment processors than establishing some moral high ground. (I believe FA’s initial ban on human-appearing minors _might_ have had different motivations, as I can’t remember the full timeline for certain, but the rules in their current form have come about as a combination of payment processor issues and shoring up loopholes.)

I’m sure you realize just as much as I or anyone else here does that anyone saying fictional depictions of fictional minors shouldn’t be a problem would be burning bridges and committing social suicide. What I _will_ say is that art is not CSEM (unless it’s documenting actual abuse or referenced off CSEM, which is a completely different beastie), and should not be treated as being on the same level.

I honestly didn’t think I’d be posting again in this thread. I probably won’t make another post. It’s causing me too much stress.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 14, 2022)

quoting_mungo said:


> Hoookay. When I spoke up about the kinkshaming, I did _not_ intend to start up a bunch of bickering. At the risk of missing someone (and if I do, consider yourself included anyway): could @Miles Marsalis, @Punji, @Zenoth, and @Xaiphafonese please knock it off with the pointless sniping at each other? I don’t want to see it, I doubt anyone else wants to, either, and it just creates a toxic atmosphere the forum doesn’t need.


Nonsense, that was a fascinating foret into how certain people here think and that sort of thing is better out than in. It would seem that interesting conversations are out of any given user's control.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> Just going to chip in here that I work from home and my place of employment doesn't monitor my internet connection. I highly doubt this is standard practice as much as it is simply _a _practice. I really don't think your company needs to know what you do in your personal time, that's disturbing and dystopian. Could you imagine a sanitized, corporotized modern society? I'm sure you don't want to.



I can't really comment on companies monitoring home connections- I was just making a more general comment that anything you say on the internet may end up being seen by somebody who has power over you. So when a very sensitive topic is being discussed it is worth considering that.

Several important countries, like your own country the USA, enshrine the right to free expression for their own citizens, but they do also require foreign citizens to hand over their social media account histories if they wish to take up gainful employment. The reverse may apply to you if you wish to be employed in another country.
So essentially you have to always be prepared for the fact that you might be required to give this information to people.

So that's one great reason not to have a bunch of troll accounts I guess, lmao. You may be _required_ to report their histories to take up residence abroad.



Frank Gulotta said:


> Nonsense, that was a fascinating foret into how certain people here think and that sort of thing is better out than in. It would seem that interesting conversations are out of any given user's control.



Just a general comment regarding everybody in the conservation. You can disagree with one another without being so nasty to each other. I feel that this conversation is more about the joy you all take in trying to upset and bully one another, rather than anything else.

All of you already, sadly, despise one another and view each other as completely vacuous humans with no redeeming features. (which is true of absolutely none of you).
All of you have had this _exact_ discussion about paraphilias about 5 or 6 times already, and it always develops in the same way. Quoting mungo says one thing, Miles say they disagree, and then a collection of users shout at each other, every time.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 14, 2022)

I've seen the insults fly from only one of the parties involved and that was the one person calling millions of people "scumbags", same party that also seems pretty enthusiastic about mass corporate surveillance; most others respectfully, yet passionately disagreed


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I can't really comment on companies monitoring home connections- I was just making a more general comment that anything you say on the internet may end up being seen by somebody who has power over you. So when a very sensitive topic is being discussed it is worth considering that.
> 
> Several important countries, like your own country the USA, enshrine the right to free expression for their own citizens, but they do also require foreign citizens to hand over their social media account histories if they wish to take up gainful employment. The reverse may apply to you if you wish to be employed in another country.
> So essentially you have to always be prepared for the fact that you might be required to give this information to people.
> ...


I can only say that I find the practice revolting. Some people are content with it, and all the power to them if they don't care. But, I'd go as far as to say it should enacted as a law to prohibit companies for asking for your social media. A criminal background check will suffice for any need to know information.

That said, I know that pratice is really picking up speed in many places. It's unfortunate


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Quoting mungo says one thing, Miles say they disagree, and then a collection of users shout at each other, every time.


I genuinely don’t remember that first part happening before on the subject. Not saying it couldn’t have, just that I can’t recall it. (And for the record I wasn’t speaking about Miles alone - the kinkshaming isn’t okay in my book regardless of who is doing it and he wasn’t the only one, or even the one that started it.)

At this point my primary concern (since minds are obviously not going to be changed even on “whether or not you consider it justifiable, this _is_ kinkshaming”) is the toxic bickering coming to an end.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2022)

quoting_mungo said:


> I genuinely don’t remember that first part happening before on the subject. Not saying it couldn’t have, just that I can’t recall it. (And for the record I wasn’t speaking about Miles alone - the kinkshaming isn’t okay in my book regardless of who is doing it and he wasn’t the only one, or even the one that started it.)
> 
> At this point my primary concern (since minds are obviously not going to be changed even on “whether or not you consider it justifiable, this _is_ kinkshaming”) is the toxic bickering coming to an end.


Typically when this topic comes up you comment to say that sexual fantasies involving non-consensual activity are common place. 

That is if my memory is correct (and if it is not then I apologise). The whole conversation does give me deja vu (apologies as well to french users, because I am too ignorant to spell that phrase correctly).



KimberVaile said:


> I can only say that I find the practice revolting. Some people are content with it, and all the power to them if they don't care. But, I'd go as far as to say it should enacted as a law to prohibit companies for asking for your social media. A criminal background check will suffice for any need to know information.
> 
> That said, I know that pratice is really picking up speed in many places. It's unfortunate



It is not just companies that request this information, by the way. Consular services typically ask for this sort of thing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2022)

I'm going to have to double post, again.

While several of you interpret Miles' opinion as extremely conservative, I think everybody is also aware that it _is_ the opinion of most regular day people.
Like...some 98% of people will share Miles' opinion about drawn content.

To use Kimber's example of fictional violence.
A consular officer would not judge you harshly if they found out you enjoyed reading fiction about serial killers. They would recognise that morbid fascination can be part of normal entertainment or historical interests you might have.
A consular officer_ would_ definitely be suspicious if they found out somebody had a secret social media account where they post about their erotic fascination with serial killers.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 14, 2022)

I don't really understand the focus on how other people feel about it. I only brought it up initially to illustrate that it makes no sense to assume people who fantasize about it are particularly likely to really do it—there are just too many for that to be true. The critical part of that I think is that they can have the fantasy and not do harm.

Now it seems to have evolved into this kind of dubiously genuine warning that if you are openly into it then corporations won't like you, or people won't like you, and you wouldn't want that, would you? To me it comes off very much "I am uncomfortable with this and want to frighten people into hiding it" but maybe I'm just very cynical. I've also seen way too much of this stuff over the years to believe that only 2% of people don't think it's going too far, but I assume that was probably hyperbolic.

Anyway, what people are comfortable with has a very bad history as a yardstick of what is ethically acceptable.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2022)

LameFox said:


> I don't really understand the focus on how other people feel about it. I only brought it up initially to illustrate that it makes no sense to assume people who fantasize about it are particularly likely to really do it—there are just too many for that to be true. The critical part of that I think is that they can have the fantasy and not do harm.
> 
> Now it seems to have evolved into this kind of dubiously genuine warning that if you are openly into it then corporations won't like you, or people won't like you, and you wouldn't want that, would you? To me it comes off very much "I am uncomfortable with this and want to frighten people into hiding it" but maybe I'm just very cynical. I've also seen way too much of this stuff over the years to believe that only 2% of people don't think it's going too far, but I assume that was probably hyperbolic.
> 
> Anyway, what people are comfortable with has a very bad history as a yardstick of what is ethically acceptable.



(For the purpose of this discussion I am assuming that nobody here actually has these paraphilia, and that they are only being discussed from an academic perspective.)

People are perfectly entitled to have a range of opinions about what the generally accepted limits within artistic or fictional content within any community should be.
I just provided a note of caution that people should take care when they discuss this subject, in order to avoid any misunderstanding that could harm future career or travel opportunities.

_In general_ it is a good idea not to make public posts that could indicate things such as personal recreational drug use, internet piracy, and so on, even if it is socially accepted.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> (For the purpose of this discussion I am assuming that nobody here actually has these paraphilia, and that they are only being discussed from an academic perspective.)
> 
> People are perfectly entitled to have a range of opinions about what the generally accepted limits within artistic or fictional content within any community should be.
> I just provided a note of caution that people should take care when they discuss this subject, in order to avoid any misunderstanding that could harm future career or travel opportunities.
> ...


It's not the initial comment I take issue with so much as the fact that the whole discussion since then seems to be leaning heavily toward whether or not it's socially acceptable. Like, there are definitely a lot of things, even (in most of our countries, probably) mainstream, largely-accepted things people have to be careful who finds out.

That just doesn't seem very relevant to whether there's anything wrong with those things at all.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> While several of you interpret Miles' opinion as extremely conservative, I think everybody is also aware that it _is_ the opinion of most regular day people.
> Like...some 98% of people will share Miles' opinion about drawn content.


I’d certainly agree that the vast majority of people wouldn’t want to be the first one to speak up in support of it. At the same time, it’s hard to ignore how often it comes up in mainstream fiction and to some degree film, and how some of those works have attained significant popularity. If 98% of people believe that rape fantasies are wrong and monstrous, that also bodes poorly for the mental health of people who have them (which I think can safely be said to be more than 2%). Not saying that as some kind of gotcha or whatever, but rather as a general caution regarding the dangers of building up stigma about _thoughts_.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2022)

LameFox said:


> It's not the initial comment I take issue with so much as the fact that the whole discussion since then seems to be leaning heavily toward whether or not it's socially acceptable. Like, there are definitely a lot of things, even (in most of our countries, probably) mainstream, largely-accepted things people have to be careful who finds out.
> 
> That just doesn't seem very relevant to whether there's anything wrong with those things at all.


My personal view is that, at least in mainstream Western society, paraphilias that involve the fantasist forcing sex upon people who do not want it are not socially acceptable. I think that over the last few decades, with the increasing equality between men and women, that this has become increasingly clear as informal notions about sexual consent and a man's entitlement to sex have been replaced with a more formal notion of consent in which nobody is ever owed sex. 

The only exception to this would be within clearly demarcated scenarios where sexual consent is always present. A husband might pretend to be a marauding Viking who is going to ravage his wife, because they both enjoy the pretence, and have consented. 
The conjugate to these sorts of fantasy, where somebody might fantasise about being taken advantage of _by somebody else_, is not generally considered a threat to other people in mainstream Western society. I believe this is the type of fantasy that you and @quoting_mungo both indicated is common place, and that a misunderstanding about this is the source of dissonance in the conversation.

In Western society, people who have fantasies that require the absence of consent are regarded as a potential threat to others. Men who have fantasies about children are regarded as an even more egregious threat.
A man who has such fantasies about children, but claims that he does not present any risk to children, is usually regarded as either seeking to deceive other people, or seeking to deceive himself. Men with such fantasies may even seek to persuade themselves that they are not really paedophiles. They might rationalise that cartoons are not truly analogous to children, for example.

This is why users who make comments implying they do not regard these sorts of fantasies as a problem are likely to be perceived as threats to society by most people. Nobody taking care of children would feel comfortable if they knew somebody nearby had said or believed those things.


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 14, 2022)

60% of women have rape fantasies

These fantasies are normal and common

Last comment from me on this topic. As a guy who’s hardly associated with this fandom AND worked with numerous “normal people” where I have discussed sexuality — it’s laughable to suggest CNC fantasy and roleplay isn’t incredibly common. It is 100% very commonplace — _especially _among women. Sure, there’s a stigma surrounding it but that doesn’t mean that there’s not a large percentage of our population that does have an interest in it.

And if my anecdotes aren’t compelling enough (as, to be fair, I don’t have to explain why I feel I’m probably more disconnected from this fandom than most) I have linked actual studies done on the topic which indicate that rape fantasies are rather common. I understand there’s concerns around this topic and that it’s maybe not an easy thing to think or talk about, but I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that many people outside of this fandom don’t also partake. The only difference here is that we (the fandom) include these topics in anthropomorphic creatures.

And for the record, anyone could easily turn around the idea of anthros as being “dubious” and claim it leads to promotion of zoophilia as you’re sexualizing animalistic characteristics. The truth is, sex scientists have repeatedly tried to provide science to rid of the senseless stigma surrounding kinks and human sexuality. At this point, it’s tiring to hear this rhetoric passed around when it’s been proven that sexual fantasies and actual real life behavior are two very different things. Maybe intuitively, that feels “wrong” but intuition in biased animals such as ourselves isn’t always correct.

And frankly, when over 50% of women (and a similarly high level of men) report being interested in CNC in a sexual manner — I don’t really care what obfuscations of the truth broader society wants to make. We’re all very private about our sex lives, of course very few people will openly admit their interests. It’s far more likely people will just follow the crowd or disassociate in order to fit in.

That’s all for now. Just want to stop hearing that this isn’t normal or common. I’m nowhere near an expert on sex — but I trust the literature of those who are when they say that fantasy CNC and power dynamics are both extremely common, not indicative of nefarious desires, and almost entirely harmless.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> My personal view is that, at least in mainstream Western society, paraphilias that involve the fantasist forcing sex upon people who do not want it are not socially acceptable. I think that over the last few decades, with the increasing equality between men and women, that this has become increasingly clear as informal notions about sexual consent and a man's entitlement to sex have been replaced with a more formal notion of consent in which nobody is ever owed sex.
> 
> The only exception to this would be within clearly demarcated scenarios where sexual consent is always present. A husband might pretend to be a marauding Viking who is going to ravage his wife, because they both enjoy the pretence, and have consented.
> The conjugate to these sorts of fantasy, where somebody might fantasise about being taken advantage of _by somebody else_, is not generally considered a threat to other people in mainstream Western society. I believe this is the type of fantasy that you and @quoting_mungo both indicated is common place, and that a misunderstanding about this is the source of dissonance in the conversation.
> ...


Some of the articles I read were only talking about one or the other, a few I think mentioned both. A few things I gathered:

-A fantasy of _being_ raped is indeed more common (in both genders) than a fantasy of raping.
-Fantasies of raping others are still also relatively common. I think it was something like 20-30% of people had them, and maybe 5%ish had them often. I forget the gender division here.
-There's another division that applies to both of these, where some involve victims who enjoy it against their will, and others in which they don't enjoy it. They had fancy terms for these but I've honestly forgotten them since yesterday. I think the former were more common?
-They occur in a very wide variety of people, for a wide variety of reasons. Or I guess more like "associations", since the actual reasons seem to be largely speculation.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2022)

LameFox said:


> Some of the articles I read were only talking about one or the other, a few I think mentioned both. A few things I gathered:
> 
> -A fantasy of _being_ raped is indeed more common (in both genders) than a fantasy of raping.
> -Fantasies of raping others are still also relatively common. I think it was something like 20-30% of people had them, and maybe 5%ish had them often. I forget the gender division here.
> ...


Most of these scenarios can be accommodated in a safe and consensual context vis-a-vis the 'Husband pretends to be a Viking' scenario.

Some people in this thread mentioned children being portrayed in art or fiction, and there were some comments which did not make it clear that this is absolutely not acceptable. These scenarios cannot be accommodated in any consensual context because children are rightly regarded as incapable of consent. Art or fiction that portrays these scenarios provides a space around which real networks of people with similar fantasies collect, and those invariably result in the distribution of photographic content and propagation of real abuse.

This is why some of the discussion here has presented a serious problem, and why I said people should think about potential employers reading these kinds of comments.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 14, 2022)

tbh I only saw that come up in one comment and IIRC it was along the lines of 'you were against that, how can you be okay with this' so I just kind of ignored it for not making a real argument. If there were others I probably missed them skimming over the bickering about grammar and whatnot.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> My personal view is that, at least in mainstream Western society, paraphilias that involve the fantasist forcing sex upon people who do not want it are not socially acceptable. I think that over the last few decades, with the increasing equality between men and women, that this has become increasingly clear as informal notions about sexual consent and a man's entitlement to sex have been replaced with a more formal notion of consent in which nobody is ever owed sex.
> 
> The only exception to this would be within clearly demarcated scenarios where sexual consent is always present. A husband might pretend to be a marauding Viking who is going to ravage his wife, because they both enjoy the pretence, and have consented.
> The conjugate to these sorts of fantasy, where somebody might fantasise about being taken advantage of _by somebody else_, is not generally considered a threat to other people in mainstream Western society. I believe this is the type of fantasy that you and @quoting_mungo both indicated is common place, and that a misunderstanding about this is the source of dissonance in the conversation.


I believe it's _part_ of the source of dissonance, while another important part is the assumptions being made about people who create or consume media featuring non-consensual situations. These assumptions include both "people who enjoy this media must be fantasizing about being the aggressor" and "they created it so they must be into it and therefore a danger." There's _plenty_ of kinks enjoyed within furry fandom (and outside it) that cannot be safely enjoyed outside of the realm of imagination. The assumption that people who enjoy the fantasy will at some point find the fantasy insufficient and move on to action is harmful. Full stop.

You (gen) cannot know from looking at a piece of art whether the person who created or commissioned it is identifying with one side of the interaction depicted or the other (or neither - there are other reasons for art to exist than getting someone's rocks off, and that includes explicit art). You cannot know what aspect(s) of the situation appeal to them. Casting judgment based on your own interpretation of these isn't helping anyone. Particularly since art or writing aren't uncommon avenues of coping with and/or recontextualizing past sexual assault or abuse; I've seen multiple people mention their therapists know about and approve of these creative endeavors.



Smityyyy said:


> And for the record, anyone could easily turn around the idea of anthros as being “dubious” and claim it leads to promotion of zoophilia as you’re sexualizing animalistic characteristics. The truth is, sex scientists have repeatedly tried to provide science to rid of the senseless stigma surrounding kinks and human sexuality. At this point, it’s tiring to hear this rhetoric passed around when it’s been proven that sexual fantasies and actual real life behavior are two very different things. Maybe intuitively, that feels “wrong” but intuition in biased animals such as ourselves isn’t always correct.


True story: I had a classmate in my sequential art program find my art LJ account and possibly also my VCL account. She provided to leave anonymous comments on the LJ account's posts basically amounting to "hurr hurr so you're into bestiality," to try to convince multiple other classmates I was into bestiality (one of them was someone I was friends with since before who shut those attempts down), and to call up my boyfriend at the time to let him know I'd drawn porn of "a blue wolf and a red demon/devil." (It was my fursona and the red dragon fursona of a friend at the time.) When she knew he was currently visiting me.

So while I will continue to object to assertations that jumping to these conclusions are _the norm_ for non-furries, I will also absolutely say from experience that it happening is not purely a thought experiment. Most people give zero fucks about furries. Among the minority that do, there can be some real doozies, though. (This girl was also friends with one or two of my then-boyfriend's prior girlfriends, both of whom were less than fond of me, so it's also possible she had reasons for trying to spread rumors and sabotage my relationship beyond actually believing what she was saying.)


----------



## TyraWadman (Aug 14, 2022)

I think most of y'all are forgetting that this is a fantasy and like teenagers, they will butcher the meaning of the word and consider things like rough stuff/domination to be the same thing when it's obviously not. The same way that getting shot in the head in COD does not qualify as sexual assault.

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest people who romanticize tragedy/think about being traumatizingtraumatized for funsies are in need of therapy. But I also think that doesn't actually apply to most people because of my first line. The people that are using it to cope already know they need help but likely do not have access to it/someone they can confide in. I certainly wouldn't want them to be shamed, but I've been down that rabbit hole and if you're not careful, you might pull yourself down deeper and make things worse. It really can be a double edged blade since you're attracting with the art/writing aren't there to 'cope with you'.

I'm not saying we need to petition for the removal of anything with blood in it, but I definitely understand where Miles is coming from. The title of the thread was about limits and I don't think people need cliques to come out of the alley ways snapping their fingers just for letting people know where they draw the line.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 14, 2022)

To be fair I think he got that response more for the way he went about it. Opening with an ambiguously directed insult and then following up by acting like some kind of impartial observer better positioned to know right from wrong was probably not the most diplomatic ever way to express having a personal line.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

I'm not going reinvent the wheel and if people don't see why fetishizing rape, roleplaying rapes, and disseminating art of that of kind of content isn't acceptable ... I don't really know what to say about that. We can disagree about workplaces monitoring internet connections and I'm not gung ho about the practice, as I've said, but for me, fetishizing rape through art or roleplay is a line people shouldn't cross and you're kidding yourself and need to get out more if you think this is socially acceptable to most people.

It's also extremely disrespectful people that who have a rape fetish are referring to rape as "struggle snuggles" or drawing comparisons between gaming activity and roleplaying fetishizing a deeply problematic paraphilia.

I also think that on a site with minors and in a fandom with people who are underage, you don't need to have content that exposes kids to this kind of harmful either since they could pick it up, especially without appropriate context.

I'm not really bothered by a few people, some of whom are clearly defending their own fetish, criticizing me; I think this is a moral issue and I'm willing to die that on hill on principle. Scoring points on the furry forum for endorsing rape fetish isn't a low I'm willing to sink to.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

LameFox said:


> To be fair I think he got that response more for the way he went about it. Opening with an ambiguously directed insult and then following up by acting like some kind of impartial observer better positioned to know right from wrong was probably not the most diplomatic ever way to express having a personal line.


I definitely am not impartial and I was pretty clear in what I meant. I definitely feel personally about this and I have both personal and pragmatic reasons for taking the stance I am. 

That said, I don't mind the constructive criticism; I'll admit quoting_mungo and Smittyyy, along with you, have points and I learned certain things about this I didn't know before.


----------



## LameFox (Aug 14, 2022)

For my part I'm not really invested in changing your mind about it. I get that it's the kind of thing a lot of people are going to have a strong aversion to and I certainly don't think they should _have_ to feel differently. My position is mainly one of defaulting to not wanting to interfere and stifle anyone's expression without knowing for certain that there _is_ harm done and that I can draw a line of causality quite directly from someone engaging in that fantasy to that harm occurring. You've speculated about various harms it might do that I don't know are really borne out by evidence—none that I found in looking it up anyway and none that anyone else has presented so far unless I missed it. I won't pretend I can prove it doesn't exist just because I can't find it but to me personally that's not enough, so I suppose I'll agree to disagree.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm going to have to double post, again.
> 
> While several of you interpret Miles' opinion as extremely conservative, I think everybody is also aware that it _is_ the opinion of most regular day people.
> Like...some 98% of people will share Miles' opinion about drawn content.
> ...


A fascination with serial killers is different from playing a violent video game, or watching a violent movie. Violent video games have on multiple occasions been cited as a killers motive. And on multiple occasions has been shredded for being an incredibly bad supporting argument. Enjoying rape fantasies is about on the level as watching a TV series featuring rape in it. (Game of Thrones)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 14, 2022)

One final thing (hopefully?) I'd like to mention:
Any variation of think-of-the-children argument raised in opposition of this or that category of Mature/Adult-rated content is in my opinion pretty misplaced. If minors see the content, it's because either a) someone showed it to them (that's on the someone) or b) they lied about their age in order to circumvent the safeguards that are in place and gain access to the content (that's on them and their parents). It's not on the creator for creating and posting the content with the appropriate rating. So regardless what lines you're drawing, factoring in the effect you believe the content could have on hypothetical minors seeing it shouldn't be necessary. You've done your due diligence by appropriately rating it, on a site where only General-rated content can be seen by logged-out users or logged-in minors who have been truthful about their age. Mature/Adult content is even opt-in on FA, so even if you misentered your birth year by accident, it's not going to be visible to you until you change that setting yourself.

I, at the end of the day, predominantly draw my lines at malice. Hate art is not cool. Creating art just to stir up shit is not cool (and not the same as creating art to provoke thought and discussion). Using art to harass someone is not cool. I have my reservations about what is appropriate portrayal/treatment of RL people or animals, and the treatment of characters that are representative of real people. (Like... don't draw other people's fursonas being subjected to bad things or involved in sexy times without their consent, and don't be a total creep about their self-representative characters.) The _reason_ these are all not cool is because they tie back to real people with feelings. Be considerate of those feelings and you're basically good far as I'm concerned.



Fallowfox said:


> Typically when this topic comes up you comment to say that sexual fantasies involving non-consensual activity are common place.
> 
> That is if my memory is correct (and if it is not then I apologise). The whole conversation does give me deja vu (apologies as well to french users, because I am too ignorant to spell that phrase correctly).


Hm. I probably have said that much at some point, yes. Don't recall it happening and then resulting in this level of... whatever to call what happened in this thread. Buuut my memory is holier than a pope hat made from Swiss cheese, so, yanno. It's not something I'd have bothered to reply to this thread just to say if it hadn't veered into passing judgement on people rather than just "I consider this subject matter no bueno."


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm not going reinvent the wheel and if people don't see why fetishizing rape, roleplaying rapes, and disseminating art of that of kind of content isn't acceptable ... I don't really know what to say about that. We can disagree about workplaces monitoring internet connections and I'm not gung ho about the practice, as I've said, but for me, fetishizing rape through art or roleplay is a line people shouldn't cross and you're kidding yourself and need to get out more if you think this is socially acceptable to most people.
> 
> It's also extremely disrespectful people that who have a rape fetish are referring to rape as "struggle snuggles" or drawing comparisons between gaming activity and roleplaying fetishizing a deeply problematic paraphilia.
> 
> ...


Is it disrespectful to feature PTSD in your role-play or bipolar disorder? Tons of people suffer from those, are those off limits? Is it crossing the line to feature rape in Game of thrones or a video game? Get over yourself. I'm amazed that you'd willingly gloss over the fact that a large majority of women have those fantasies. Yet, here you are sounding off and stomping your feet over something that's overwhelmingly prevalent.
Well, you better be ready to chastise the majority of women for their rape fantasies then. Go ahead, sound off, tell the majority of women they're immoral.
Simmer down Helen Lovejoy, it's not problematic, tons of gay dudes ALSO like imagining themselves as the recipients of the act, but here you are to demand everybody follow a 'moral code' as if people owe an apology to the little figures in their imagination. Grow up, and get sense of humor while you're at it.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

@KimberVaile , there is marked difference between rape featuring as part of a fictional narrative to examine the issues stemming from rapes (like in Law & Order: SVU) or as something the characters experience in a non-fetish context (like Game of Thrones) ... and fictional material clearing fetishizing rape that you're jacking off to.

One is clearly not fetishizing rape (and it portraying it in rightfully poor light, like in GOT and LO: SVU) and the other is clearly using rape as sensual material which is a hard nope.

Also, a lot of works characters with bipolar disorder and PSTD (which are mental conditions, not crimes, and certainly not fetishized), with varying degrees of accuracy and respectfulness.

You're trying to justify this fetish with a poor comparison using popular media because you think that will loop people into your side of the argument, which most normal people would recognize quickly. 

And you think it's funny to call people racial slurs and that Clown World is hilarious; you have sick sense of humor.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> @KimberVaile , there is marked difference between rape featuring as part of a fictional narrative to examine the issues stemming from rapes (like in Law & Order: SVU) or as something the characters experience in a non-fetish context (like Game of Thrones) ... and fictional material clearing fetishizing rape that you're jacking off to.
> 
> One is clearly not fetishizing rape (and it portraying it in rightfully poor light, like in GOT and LO: SVU) and the other is clearly using rape as sensual material which is a hard nope.
> 
> ...



I don't think so, if you really think people imagining themselves as a the recipient of rape for their own pleasure is somehow comparable to to wanting to actual wanting to be raped or even rape themselves in real life you're delusional.
If you think it's not possible for some people to get off even to fictional deceptions of rape, you're even more delusional. Somebody can gain satisfaction and happinnes from killing a fictional characetr in a video game, so what makes it so different from getting satisfaction from a fantasy?
You think it's funny to be homophobic and harass all my gay friends. Because you're a repulsive human being, actually immoral. I didn't think I'd be talking to somebody who adopted the corporate handbook on acceptable workplace behavior into his real life, but here you are. About as engaging of a personality as a Corporate Pr manager.

But please Miles, offer me your misogyny on how a majority of women are immoral for a fantasy, huh? Tell me more about how consenting adults need to change their fetish fantasies to your liking. Do we all need a corporation monitoring our internet connection like you? So we can all be the same lifeless, insufferably boring, milquetoast ass kisser like you? Truly, you are above us all.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

By the way, to everybody wondering what would happen if Furry went corporate/mainstream. Here's a nice little glimpse of just the tip of the iceberg for what things would be purged. It'd go much further than this too. This is what will happen the moment you bend a knee to placate an outsider.

The sex positive aspects of the fandom would be totally erased.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> I don't think so, if you really think people imagining themselves as a the recipient of rape for their own pleasure is somehow comparable to to wanting to actual wanting to be raped or even rape themselves in real life you're delusional.
> If you think it's not possible for some people to get off even to fictional deceptions of rape, you're even more delusional.
> You think it's funny to be homophobic and harass all my gay friends. Because you're a repulsive human being, actually immoral. I didn't think I'd be talking to somebody who adopted the corporate handbook on acceptable workplace behavior into his real life, bu here you are. About as engaging of a personality as a Corporate Pr manager.
> 
> But please Miles, offer me your misogyny on how a majority of women are immoral for a fantasy, huh?


Most women don't roleplay rape, Kimber, and if you actually asked most women, they'd find it abhorrent. I'm certain that if you posed that canard to the women in your family, you'd get told off, at minimum, if not thrown out.

You know I'm not homophobic because I argue against that asshole a not long who literally was calling for the murder of QUILTBAG and supported you during that. Further back than that, when some of your current and former friends where regularly disrespecting QUILTBAG folks on here, I was one of the ones who spoke out against that, whereas you were conspicuously absent. I'm also friends with numerous QUILTBAG folks on here, who have never had problems with me. You also never can produce any evidence I've done or said anything homophobic to you or your friends, instead insisting that me criticizing your friends for latest bigoted or scummy thing to drop out of their mouths is "homophobia".

Also, sure, there are some sick people who might be turned on rape in GOT or LO: SVU, just like there are people who might be aroused by rapes they see reported the news ... but those people are sick and the media was never meant to be viewed pornographically. 

Which you're missing.

But it's not unrealistic to think that rape fetish material and roleplay does inspire some in that community to commit rape for real. Many rapists have been document as fantasizing about and roleplay rapes before actually committing them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> By the way, to everybody wondering what would happen if Furry went corporate/mainstream. Here's a nice little glimpse of just the tip of the iceberg for what things would be purged. It'd go much further than this too. This is what will happen the moment you bend a knee to placate an outsider.
> 
> The sex positive aspects of the fandom would be totally erased.



I am sure you would agree that I am not an 'outsider'.

My opinion is that art which depicts minors in sexual scenarios should not be distributed on the internet. That is fur affinity's official policy. 
I am not comfortable with the idea of people who fantasise about abusing children. That is a reasonable position, which is almost universally shared among normal folk, so it is surprising that it causes contention here. 

Surprising and in many ways concerning.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> By the way, to everybody wondering what would happen if Furry went corporate/mainstream. Here's a nice little glimpse of just the tip of the iceberg for what things would be purged. It'd go much further than this too. This is what will happen the moment you bend a knee to placate an outsider.
> 
> The sex positive aspects of the fandom would be totally erased.


I feel you, Frank, and others don't companies involved in the furry fandom because you feel you'd be able to get away with less shady shit that you normally wouldn't. Like, I'll admit that most companies would frown upon producing rape fetish material. In that regard, we agree, though on opposite sides obviously. I also admit that broadly, I don't care if mainstream companies offer services to the furry fandom; I've got bigger concerns than to fret about that and if you pressed me, I'd said maybe more mainstream involvement will clean up the sex offender shit that happens in the fandom, because I think safety preempts enjoyment, especially when it comes to minor protection. But I'm not eagerly awaiting corporation oppression of furries like how you and your friends are saying, I'm copacetic either way.

That being said, IMVU own FA for a number of years. Some y'all were here for that; I admit I probably wasn't here for most of that since I came here in 2018, if I remember dates correctly. 

For all the whining about the corporate influence, I don't really see where much has changed from the ground level since the buyback. Like, the site still has much of the same content and most people complaining about the IMVU days are still here to complain about them, so I don't see this dark and dreary future for furries if companies sponsor sites and events along catering to fandom needs. 

I feel people are worrying about far-fetched fears instead of confronting present concerns.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Most women don't roleplay rape, Kimber, and if you actually asked most women, they'd find it abhorrent. I'm certain that if you posed that canard to the women in your family, you'd get told off, at minimum, if not thrown out.
> 
> You know I'm not homophobic because I argue against that asshole a not long who literally was calling for the murder of QUILTBAG and supported you during that. Further back than that, when some of your current and former friends where regularly disrespecting QUILTBAG folks on here, I was one of the ones who spoke out against that, whereas you were conspicuously absent. I'm also friends with numerous QUILTBAG folks on here, who have never had problems with me. You also never can produce any evidence I've done or said anything homophobic to you or your friends, instead insisting that me criticizing your friends for latest bigoted or scummy thing to drop out of their mouths is "homophobia".
> 
> ...


So you're speaking anecdotally? Most women don't have fantasies about that because you say so and the study linking meant nothing entirely? Like, the only way you'd even know that for sure is if you spoke about sexual matters to those people, which I mean. Obviously you shouldn't do.
So don't tell me that, it's absolutely inappropriate to mention anything sexual to your family. I'd get weird looks for even mentioning a penis or vagina, because they're my family, not my partner. Honestly, who in god's name tells their family about what gets their dick hard? That's for your partner. Or whatever person you consented to having sexual encounters with.

You're not privy to who I pal around with, what I discuss or criticize in private messages or what have you. So that point is moot. I can't really determine if there is a change or not with your relations to the LGBT community. I can go off past actions as you can, but is that really productive? I guess that's for you to decide. I'm certainly not going to just let act as if you're an infallible paragon at my expense. that said, if you desire a mature discussion however, we can do that too. I'll leave that choice to you.

Again, it's the dame logic as demonizing somebody for enjoying killing in a video game. Will that personally, who exactly is that hurting? At worst the person is hurting themselves IF that.

So lets assume this person likes committing the act in a fantasy and uses roleplay as an outlet. So we assume the minority who likely has other issues going on represents everybody else who fantasizes?


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I am sure you would agree that I am not an 'outsider'.
> 
> My opinion is that art which depicts minors in sexual scenarios should not be distributed on the internet. That is fur affinity's official policy.
> I am not comfortable with the idea of people who fantasise about abusing children. That is a reasonable position, which is almost universally shared among normal folk, so it is surprising that it causes contention here.
> ...


It's a shame I don't agree with hosting cub porn at all. Because it involves a minor in a sexual situation and an attraction to child like bodies and the real difference here is children can't consent really. Adults can consent between each other, children are not capable of it. Not to mention that cub porn relies on referenes of children, which, you know. Is not ok? Kind of a huge difference?


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I feel you, Frank, and others don't companies involved in the furry fandom because you feel you'd be able to get away with less shady shit that you normally wouldn't. Like, I'll admit that most companies would frown upon producing rape fetish material. In that regard, we agree, though on opposite sides obviously. I also admit that broadly, I don't care if mainstream companies offer services to the furry fandom; I've got bigger concerns than to fret about that and if you pressed me, I'd said maybe more mainstream involvement will clean up the sex offender shit that happens in the fandom, because I think safety preempts enjoyment, especially when it comes to minor protection. But I'm not eagerly awaiting corporation oppression of furries like how you and your friends are saying, I'm copacetic either way.
> 
> That being said, IMVU own FA for a number of years. Some y'all were here for that; I admit I probably wasn't here for most of that since I came here in 2018, if I remember dates correctly.
> 
> ...


It's not shady, it's a fantasy usually involving yourself as the victim for most people.
Nor, am I presuming this is your end goal, I'm not, but your view has similarities in how a corporation might view this issue. But yes, how dare people dislike the idea of being policed on fantasies.

For all whining you do about jokes, and not having the time for these replys, you sure do seem to give much attention to what random furry users think on maters like corporate influence and sexual fetishes. Random furry forum users at that.

I've been in the fandom for around 20 years, I dare  say I know it's culture and it's standards enough to feel that corporate influence could harm it more than help.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> It is not just companies that request this information, by the way. Consular services typically ask for this sort of thing


I've never had Sprint or AT&T ask for my SocMed ever.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> So you're speaking anecdotally? Most women don't have fantasies about that because you say so and the study linking meant nothing entirely? Like, the only way you'd even know that for sure is if you spoke about sexual matters to those people, which I mean. Obviously you shouldn't do.
> So don't tell me that, it's absolutely inappropriate to mention anything sexual to your family. I'd get weird looks for even mentioning a penis or vagina, because they're my family, not my partner. Honestly, who in god's name tells their family about what gets their dick hard. That's for your partner. Or whatever person you consented to having sexual encounters with.
> 
> You're not privy to who I pal around with, what I discuss or criticize in private messages or what have you. So that point is moot. I can't really determine if there is a change or not with your relations to the LGBT community. I can go off past actions as you can, but is that really productive? I guess that's for you to decide. I'm certainly not going to just let act as if you're an infallible paragon at my expense. that said, if you desire a mature discussion however, we can do that too. I'll leave that choice to you.
> ...


Most of those women aren't actually acting out those fantasies in roleplay or embracing rape as their fetish; they had the thought and decided against it, which is what normal people do. 

And we're on a public forum; you and your friends interactions, positive and negative, on full display here, which y'all constantly forget. I can walk you through memory specifically, if you'd like, using statements you've made on the forum.

Plus, don't think I don't see you bullshitting about a "change" in my behavior; I've been very consistent about supporting the QUILTBAG community and, like I've said, I have friends I care about belong to community. 

So calling me homophobic is stupid beyond belief. 

And video games, particulary FPS, can technically inspire someone to kill; a few mass shooters were inspired by CoD and GTA through the years. However, most of video games don't glorify violence or pander to some sexual urge to kill, the violence in them is part of the narrative and many games actually deconstruct the violence, like _Spec Ops: The Line_. It's not like with rape porn, where it is inherently linked to a fetish for that material, which can incentivize someone to act out the fantasy.

I'm also going to point out that you and others never really addressed my concerns about how this kind of content can influence minors in the fandom, since they're member on the site who might not able to put that material in proper context.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> It's not shady, it's a fantasy usually involving yourself as the victim for most people.
> Nor, am I presuming this is your end goal, I'm not, but your view has similarities in how a corporation might view this issue. But yes, how dare people dislike the idea of being policed on fantasies.
> 
> For all whining you do about jokes, and not having the time for these replys, you sure do seem to give much attention to what random furry users think on maters like corporate influence and sexual fetishes. Random furry forum users at that.
> ...


I mean, contrary to what you guys think, I'm shifting between doing things in real life and occasionally things on here. It's also a Sunday, so I don't mind giving a piece of my mind about something offensive on a thread about the topic.

I've repeatedly said people are entitled their own opinion about corporate influence in the fandom; I don't care about that as much as I do about rape fetish being more normalized on this site; as a user I'm entitled to my take on that.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Most of those women aren't actually acting out those fantasies in roleplay or embracing rape as their fetish; they had the thought and decided against it, which is what normal people do.
> 
> And we're on a public forum; you and your friends interactions, positive and negative, on full display here, which y'all constantly forget. I can walk you through memory specifically, if you'd like, using statements you've made on the forum.
> 
> ...



No shit Miles, women who have rape fantasies don't want to act them out in real life? Say it isn't fucking so! It's almost like it's PREFERABLE that it stays a fantasy. Christ almighty. This is what it's all about, rape is a fantasy and it matters little if it's done in roleplay or art. As long as it's not taken out in real life.

I know what you did to me any my gay friend group. Don't sit here and tell me it was well intentioned. It was a deliberate attack, and you're here telling me it somehow wasn't an ill intentioned motivated attack against my and my friends groups sexuality. THATS the bullshit. yeah, that attack against and all my friends in that community that happened to ALL BE GAY wasn't a coincidence. O fucking kay. Just a happy fucking coincidence, huh? Going above and beyond to fuck with a bunch of gay people. Don't fucking sit here and gaslight me about that shit.

The few handful of shooters that were inspired from video games, probably the same case for rape fantasies, maybe a handful had them. They're the minority. Compared to the vast majority of people who play video games with no problems, much the same as the vast majority of people who have rape fantasies don't act on them. Mental illness is a bigger factor in those shooters inspired by video games. Everybody who played Doom 2016, which heavily glorifies violence didn't end up shooting up a public place. How fucking weird, huh?

What do you want me to say? Seriosuly, I don't think minors should be exposed to ANY NSFW material. They shouldn't be seeing any NSFW content in the first place.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 14, 2022)

Pretty sure sexual assaults can and do still happen in glossy corporations whose official twitter account virtue signals everyday about *insert today's favorite victim flavor*, in case anyone needed a case in point about fantasies and realities being different; so I'm not sure why someone would believe that corporatization would stop sexual crimes in the furry fandom of all places. Fetus levels of naivety? Stupidity? or plain old bad faith?

Literally all your PR department being up your ass about your intimate life would change for the furry fandom, is that it would become as boring as the mainstream media.


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> You're trying to justify this fetish with a poor comparison using popular media because you think that will loop people into your side of the argument, which most normal people would recognize quickly.


Your fundamental error here is assuming people are 'justifying this fetish', when in reality people are saying you just have a bad take on it. Kink shaming is not a conservative stand point, you are just being ostentatious for the fun of it at this point.  

@quoting_mungo  I did not 'drop your name for points', I used you as an example, and in one of the rare times I agree'd with you.


----------



## Flamingo (Aug 14, 2022)

Chomby said:


>


I was going to make this joke. I'm so happy.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, contrary to what you guys think, I'm shifting between doing things in real life and occasionally things on here. It's also a Sunday, so I don't mind giving a piece of my mind about something offensive on a thread about the topic.
> 
> I've repeatedly said people are entitled their own opinion about corporate influence in the fandom; I don't care about that as much as I do about rape fetish being more normalized on this site; as a user I'm entitled to my take on that.


Yes, yes, this completely ubiquitous fetish that so many women have. So offensive. It's a fetish and you bring to this forum, a puritan attitude straight from the 18th century, that women must be chaste, pure and bereft of any slight sexual deviancy aside from martial sex and nothing else, and all I'm saying, is  that it hardly fits in the fandom. That's a Burned Furs take, but by all means you're entitled to your take.


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 14, 2022)

Time to unwatch this thread. If I see Miles type "normal people" again I'm going to shit. Farewell.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 14, 2022)

Chomby said:


> Time to unwatch this thread. If I see Miles type "normal people" again I'm going to shit. Farewell.


Well, you know where to come if you need a laxative.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> Yes, yes, this completely ubiquitous fetish that so many women have. So offensive. It's a fetish and you bring to this forum, a puritan attitude straight from the 18th century, that women must be chaste, pure and bereft of any slight sexual deviancy aside from martial sex and nothing else, and all I'm saying, is  that it hardly fits in the fandom. That's a Burned Furs take, but by all means you're entitled to your take.


You're basing that off a statistically small sample size and taking it as gospel for the population, first off.

But you're kidding yourself if you think most women or people in general have a rape fetish. 

Also, those are a lot of positions you're ascribing to me ... that are a far cry from disapproving of your rape fetish. Just go through the list:

1. I don't think women need to be chaste and they're entitled to their sexual freedom. Obviously.

2. There is whole universe of kinks that are acceptable for anyone, including women, that don't involve literally jacking off to rape or criminal sexual activity. Again obviously, those kinks are alright. 

3. If I had a problem with premarital sex, I wouldn't had it. 

Now, I don't know whether this was pure hyperbole on your part since you are prone to histrionics or you threw that statement out as serious and will pass it off as hyperbole now that you see how ridiculous it is, but clearly there is a lot ground between not approving of rape fetishes, which is the norm, ... and literally being a Burned Fur.

Nuance.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> You're basing that off a statistically small sample size and taking it as gospel for the population, first off.
> 
> But you're kidding yourself if you think most women or people in general have a rape fetish.
> 
> ...


Even if you want to discard that very notable study, you realize that that study is more evidence than you supplied, yes?
You're kidding yourself if you think you actually know the average women's sexual desires to a tee. You'd require intimate knowledge of a very large majority of women to even claim that, which very few people do. Furries are notable in that there are among the few communities that are sexually open to this extent. All you're seeing is people being more transparent about their sexual desires. Some people just like to imagine being raped. Certainly not something you should talk about in public, but you know. I honestly fail to see why you would condemn somebody for wanting to imagine themselves being degraded. That's just how some people are. Who gives a shit?

And I'll say, again, who cares if they want to imagine themselves being a victim of rape? Give me your take on that actually, for the great majority of people who imagine themselves of the victim of that act. What thought crime are they committing? Are they committing a great immoral wrong by letting themselves be complicit in a imaginary crime?
This doesn't even factor in the fact that the establishment of such a fantasy is between two consenting adults.

I dunno Miles, you're prone to being one of the most petty users on the platform and engage in competitive morality games to try and place yourself on higher ground. At the expense of quite a few people at that, judging by some recent comments. But, I guess as long as you look better than everybody else, right?
If hyperbole is the worst I am doing now, so be it.

It's not my place to pass judgment for someones fetish, and you are exhibiting a very burned furs attitude. Also, I'll make it clear since it was such a problem before. This is *hyperbole*. Of course I don't know if you have an issue with other fetishes people have. So hey maybe it's not too hyperbolic. Who knows?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

Zenoth said:


> Your fundamental error here is assuming people are 'justifying this fetish', when in reality people are saying you just have a bad take on it. Kink shaming is not a conservative stand point, you are just being ostentatious for the fun of it at this point.
> 
> @quoting_mungo  I did not 'drop your name for points', I used you as an example, and in one of the rare times I agree'd with you.


I'm not taking this as a conservative standpoint, though I'd argue you're cutting exceptions for yourself if you think conservatives here stateside are going approve of rape fetish, especially in the current environment. I don't want to get political on this, but let's be real.

However, I genuinely believe my position and, to quote Zoolander, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills talking to some of you that think this okay.



KimberVaile said:


> No shit Miles, women who have rape fantasies don't want to act them out in real life? Say it isn't fucking so! It's almost like it's PREFERABLE that it stays a fantasy. Christ almighty. This is what it's all about, rape is a fantasy and it matters little if it's done in roleplay or art. As long as it's not taken out in real life.
> 
> I know what you did to me any my gay friend group. Don't sit here and tell me it was well intentioned. It was a deliberate attack, and you're here telling me it somehow wasn't an ill intentioned motivated attack against my and my friends groups sexuality. THATS the bullshit. yeah, that attack against and all my friends in that community that happened to ALL BE GAY wasn't a coincidence. O fucking kay. Just a happy fucking coincidence, huh? Going above and beyond to fuck with a bunch of gay people. Don't fucking sit here and gaslight me about that shit.
> 
> ...


First, you know meant women not acting out roleplays and actively identifying as rape fetishist, not committing actual rapes. If women are having fantasies about being raped in their thoughts, that is problematic and potentially offensive to people who actually have raped, but not as bad as the people who have fantasies about raping people. But truthfully I view both as problematic.

About me being allegedly homophobic, did I force one of your friends to make a comment about how gay couples will make poor parents and that they might kill their adopted children? And then did I make you defend them by calling them simply a "strict traditionalist" but a good friend?

Did I make Kyr, who was your goddamn friend, compare homosexuals to literal pedophiles in the most stupid manner possible?

Did I force Frank to make transphobic jokes and a mockery the Pride Month thread a couple years ago before enforcement got stricter here?

Did I make your friends get permanently banned for that kind of behavior at one point?

Because none of that stuff sounds QUILTBAG friendly to me, but it happened here.

Like, I criticize you all because of the asshole things you, which you've admitted to previously pandering for sympathy. Not because you're gay.

So if you want to hang me for expressing my opinion and approving of your rape fetish, I'm cool with that because I don't.

But call me a homophobe? Show me some receipts beside saying I nebulously bullied your friends and ignoring the vast majority of gay people on here I'm friends with or at least friendly with.

About minors viewing NSFW material here, obviously it shouldn't happen, but also obviously, it happens on the main site to point we have minor protective services here. So maybe having rape fetish content on the main site removed so minors can't stumble on it might not be a bad idea. Artists also mistag their work at times, which bypasses the SFW filter, which I hear my artist friends frequently complain about. Not having the material is one solution.

EDIT: We've been arguing back and forth about and I've got better stuff to do that argue with people whose minds are made up. We're never going to see eye to eye on this, so this is pointless. 

As a general note, if you're into rape fetish, I don't want to know you.

Out.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> First, you know meant women not acting out roleplays and actively identifying as rape fetishist, not committing actual rapes. If women are having fantasies about being raped in their thoughts, that is problematic and potentially offensive to people who actually have raped, but not as bad as the people who have fantasies about raping people. But truthfully I view both as problematic.
> 
> About me being allegedly homophobic, did I force one of your friends to make a comment about how gay couples will make poor parents and that they might kill their adopted children? And then did I make you defend them by calling them simply a "strict traditionalist" but a good friend?
> 
> ...



Are you listening to what you are saying? You are advocating that women having private roleplays revolving around rape fantasies are somehow harming somebody who suffered actual rape. You do realize private roleplays are rarely published right? This has got to be the worst take I've ever seen.

Hey Miles, am I responsible for what other people say? Am I expected to like what other people say?

I'm not Frank, or Yaka or that guy that has the name that starts with a k and ends in an r, which btw you should stop fucking mentioning him for obvious fucking reasons related to a friend of mine who spoke to you on this very issue. But thanks for ignoring that. Great job. Like I said, you're not privy to my private conversations or what I said in opposition to these things outside of the forums or even which of these users I even dm or talk to outside this forum. But of course, none of that matters, it all has to be public so you can look as good as possible, not actually help people get any better.

No, you criticized me to a group of friends who were all gay and screamed and belittled them when they didn't take the bullshit you gave them. How the fuck do you expect me to look at behavior like that an assume you did all of this in good will? Couldn't even be civil with the person you were trying to lie to. You belittled them for not buying your poison for an hour. But no, not weird at all, right? Not indicative of anything?
You've got little to prove you're doing any of your shit out of good will. Just look at this cluster of an argument and tell me you're doing the community a service for what is nothing more the fedora tipping and moralizing over a common fetish. How many people uninvolved have been put down over your unwarranted snipes?

Or, hear me out. You can increase the moderation on the site. You know, just a thought.

EDIT: Most people here don't want to know you period. This argument was quite persuasive in that.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm not Frank, or Yaka or that guy that has the name that starts with a k and ends in an r, which btw you should stop fucking mentioning him for obvious fucking reasons related to a friend of mine who spoke to you on this very issue. But thanks for ignoring that. Great job. Like I said, you're not privy to my private conversations or what I said in opposition to these things outside of the forums or even which of these users I even dm or talk to outside this forum. But of course, none of that matters, it all has to be public so you can look as good as possible, not actually help people get any better.
> 
> No, you criticized me to a group of friends who were all gay and screamed and belittled them when they didn't take the bullshit you gave them. How the fuck do you expect me to look at behavior like that an assume you did all of this in good will? Couldn't even be civil with the person you were trying to lie to. You belittled them for not buying your poison.
> You've got little to prove you're doing any of your shit out of good will. Just look at this cluster of an argument and tell me you're doing the community a service for what is nothing more the fedora tipping and moralizing over a common fetish. How many people uninvolved have been put down over your unwarranted snipes?
> ...


One last note.

I bet you don't want me to bring up Kyr because of all the shit you stirred up with him and defended. But you publicly agreed with you pals and defend them when they came under criticism. You're right; I only know what you said publicly, but the fact that you didn't have the balls to confront you friends publicly about what they said and the people intentionally hurt doesn't fill me with confidence in you standing up them in private. 

But you know what?

If you think I've been homophobic, quote something homophobic I've said to you or anyone for that matter.

I've asked you repeatedly for this and you never produced anything.

Just a thought.

If not, I'm out.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> One last note.
> 
> I bet you don't want me to bring up Kyr because of all the shit you stirred up with him and defended. But you publicly agreed with you pals and defend them when they came under criticism. You're right; I only know what you said publicly, but the fact that you didn't have the balls to confront you friends publicly about what they said and the people intentionally hurt doesn't fill me with confidence in you standing up them in private.
> 
> ...


Ah a man of your word to the end. So you continue mentioning my stalker and inflaming his obsessive tendencies to win an internet argument. Despite what DarkNoctus said to you. So much for you word, huh?

Miles Marsalis everybody! Encouraging my stalker by mentioning his name despite being advised by somebody to drop his name for that very reason.
Big ole golf clap for you Miles. You're such a moral person. Good job! You quite literally went out of your way to mention my stalker and potentially give him reason to begin his obsessive tendencies again by mentioning him. Just so you can win an internet argument.

All I can say Miles, is that I speak for myself, I'm not responsible for anybody else.
But congrats Miles, everybody knows public confrontations work, and that dms aren't you know. More productive to changing somebodys mind. Nope, it's all got to be  show, right Miles?

You're so moral and care so much.

I've told you many times what you did, we both know what users you singled out to try poison against me then turn on them just the same.

Keep digging that hole Miles.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 14, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> Ah a man of your word to the end. So you continue mentioning my stalker and inflaming his obsessive tendencies to win an internet argument. Despite what DarkNoctus said to you. So much for you word, huh?
> 
> Miles Marsalis everybody! Encouraging my stalker by mentioning his name despite being advised by somebody to drop his name for that very reason.
> Big ole golf clap for you Miles. You're such a moral person. Good job!
> ...


I freely admit I don't care about you. I'm upfront about that, believe that.

And you certainly spoke for those people when people spoke against them, including your former pal.

Furthermore, I think you're overstating what we talked about and your friends know exactly what you get up toand believe, but hold out hope for you anyway, which I damn well don't. 

Night.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I freely admit I don't care about you. I'm upfront about that, believe that.
> 
> And you certainly spoke for those people when people spoke against them, including your former pal.
> 
> ...


Miles, I go out of my way not to have to come into contact with your filth. I've made it clear I want nothing to do with you.
You take it a step further, your grudge is so great, that you would actively try and cause me harm because I disagreed with you. I don't hold the same petty overtly vindictive attitude you have.

That was the point I was trying to make. You actively seek to harm people you don't like. It speaks volumes about your character.

You can think what you want about how I interact with people off site and who I associate with. I don't have to prove anything. Being good isn't just a performance for me, unlike you. You know what was talked about, and you willing disregarded it to try and win a few points.

But take solace, you've easily earned the crown of the worst, most immoral, toxic member on the forums, and you're not even a furry. Quite an accomplishment.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 14, 2022)




----------



## Zenoth (Aug 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm not taking this as a conservative standpoint, though I'd argue you're cutting exceptions for yourself if you think conservatives here stateside are going approve of rape fetish, especially in the current environment. I don't want to get political on this, but let's be real.


You playing dumb is getting rather old, so I'll leave it at this.  
I'm not 'cutting execeptions', that's you putting words in my mouth, all I'm saying is that you are in the wrong in both kink shaming, and assuming people here are defending their own kinks, when they are simply giving you the due shit, to your comments.

You are also coming across rather misogynistic, trying to speak for all women, and obtuse by ignoring evidence supplied for you. 

Also I'd be willing to believe that politicians are into far worse shit behind closed doors but that's besides the point. 

The most concerning thing here is the fact that you, Miles, seem to not be able to sepperate fantasy and reality.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 15, 2022)

This was one for the ages


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 15, 2022)

Just one more thing

I remember reading a long time ago that such a fetish is very common with former victims of sexual assaults; that's often what fetishes are : unorthodox ways for the brain to cope with bad past experiences. But these "scumbags" obviously should also be despised and shunned because they don't conform to the corporate smiley face view of what's socially acceptable.


----------



## Just_A_Tundra (Aug 15, 2022)

....That's it,  I can see I've upset a lot of people here. I didn't mean to upset everyone. Just tell me to take it down, and I will. This art piece seems to have sparked an entire thing that I had no intention of starting. Now I feel really bad, and even disgusting for this. I'm sorry, everyone, okay? I should have refrained from trying this out. Now I feel like a terrible person...for the piece and sparking this whole conversation. I knew it was a case of "It will be fine" when uploading it, and then a "Ah, Crap!" moment after it was uploaded...I'm not denying things here, but I am absolutely sorry.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Aug 15, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> ....That's it,  I can see I've upset a lot of people here. I didn't mean to upset everyone. Just tell me to take it down, and I will. This art piece seems to have sparked an entire thing that I had no intention of starting. Now I feel really bad, and even disgusting for this. I'm sorry, everyone, okay? I should have refrained from trying this out. Now I feel like a terrible person...for the piece and sparking this whole conversation. I knew it was a case of "It will be fine" when uploading it, and then a "Ah, Crap!" moment after it was uploaded...I'm not denying things here, but I am absolutely sorry.


You aren't a terrible person, and you didn't do anything wrong.

This is normal for FAF and happens in many of the threads, regardless of subject matter.

You didn't start the fighting, so don't worry.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 15, 2022)

Nexus is correct, there is no way you could have known this would happen. Not any fault of yours. Don't worry over it.


----------



## Filter (Aug 15, 2022)

I quietly unwatch artists if their uploads contain the following:

- Minors in sexual/fetish situations
- Adult babies/diaper fetish
- Pee/poop fetish
- Necrophilia
- Abuse or gratuitous suffering
- Nonconsent

People can have all sorts of reasons for drawing this stuff, so I'm not going to pretend to read their minds, but I don't want to see it.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Aug 15, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> So, I have been posting a lot of art on my account. Although, I want to know where people would draw the line as to what would be acceptable in furry art. I don't necessarily want to go too far into detail, because I'm sure that the details may be a bit much. I just want to know, from my fellow furries, what is the thing that could cross the line for you. Any answers are welcome...as long as the answers are appropriate enough for this forum...


What a valuable topic!
I've been snooping around the various furry platforms I've discovered/been directed to, for some years now.
One thing remains constant throughout all of them-
Each has their own Rules/Regulations, and it can't be said enough that anyone who tries to post something there, had better make themselves aware of such, or risk having the Mods/Owner drop their respective hammers accordingly.
I take great exception to not knowing a Rule and violating it, or rubbing too close to the 'Line,' the first time, and being burned at the stake/censored/banned when there is no history of being a troll/trouble-maker (has happened to me, likely will again).  
Since all of these platforms are what people call 'Privately Owned', they can make whatever Rules they want, and they can also break their own Rules whenever/however they like.
I for one won't post anything here, no matter how tame, that I write/draw, because I've already learned I cannot rely on this site's Mods/Owner to respect their own standards.  That's o.k., it's my personal decision, as it is theirs.  My opinion doesn't matter one wit to them.  

Such is the human condition.

Getting back to your OP/Topic-

I don't have a problem with anything anyone writes/draws.  They're words/pictures, not real life actions.
This does not mean I LIKE everything I've seen people write or draw!  (I get so frustrated at people trying to malign my supporting a person's Right to speak/write/draw, but also not liking or supporting their particular perspective).  I've stumbled across many hundreds of pictures or stories, 'Liked' them for themselves, only to discover what that Author/Artist usually composes is covering things I do not like.  Doesn't mean the things I've seen/read and like aren't worthy in-and-of-themselves.  All the rest?  Hey, whatever works for them/their followers is on them!

Just be very, very wary...  
Sites change their Rules far too easily/often for my tastes.  What was 'O.k.' today may find you villified tomorrow.  The political/feelings' tides are far too erratic for my preferences.

Good luck!


----------



## quoting_mungo (Aug 16, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> ....That's it,  I can see I've upset a lot of people here. I didn't mean to upset everyone. Just tell me to take it down, and I will. This art piece seems to have sparked an entire thing that I had no intention of starting. Now I feel really bad, and even disgusting for this. I'm sorry, everyone, okay? I should have refrained from trying this out. Now I feel like a terrible person...for the piece and sparking this whole conversation. I knew it was a case of "It will be fine" when uploading it, and then a "Ah, Crap!" moment after it was uploaded...I'm not denying things here, but I am absolutely sorry.


No, don’t worry about that. You asked a perfectly reasonable question, and people reacted to some of the replies. That reaction then snowballed due to prior animosity between certain users.

Not that I can’t sympathize - there’s absolutely a part of me that wishes I hadn’t made my first post, even as I also think it was important that it was made. I’m sorry your thread got derailed to the degree that it made you doubt yourself like this.



Filter said:


> I quietly unwatch artists if their uploads contain the following:
> 
> - Minors in sexual/fetish situations
> - Adult babies/diaper fetish
> ...


This is the right way to handle being uncomfortable with subject matter!


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> It's a shame I don't agree with hosting cub porn at all. Because it involves a minor in a sexual situation and an attraction to child like bodies and the real difference here is children can't consent really. Adults can consent between each other, children are not capable of it. Not to mention that cub porn relies on referenes of children, which, you know. Is not ok? Kind of a huge difference?


It sounds we totally agree on the view that any sexual content featuring underage characters is unacceptable and that its distribution on the internet should be a criminal offence.

I've been made aware that some users who I have on my block list have been quoting my posts or directly trying to respond to me. 
If I am not responding to you it is because you are on my block list. 
I do not wish to specify names, but if there are continued attempts to contact me, I will check with a staff member and then post usernames, in case these users are unaware. 

Ty


----------



## TrishaCat (Aug 16, 2022)

Punji said:


> I know you've blocked me ya' dummy. Just because I don't put up with your abuse in private doesn't mean you're protected from valid criticism publicly either.
> 
> Case and point here with your attempt at entrapment through the use of fallacy:
> 
> ...


Tbh he probably has you blocked precisely because you make posts like this. I can understand you're upset but it's important to try and be more...polite and respectful of others feelings. Also you should probably just respect the block and not bother him. I don't pretend to know what yalls beef is with each other but it's just better to be calm and respectful


----------



## Punji (Aug 16, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> Tbh he probably has you blocked precisely because you make posts like this. I can understand you're upset but it's important to try and be more...polite and respectful of others feelings. Also you should probably just respect the block and not bother him. I don't pretend to know what yalls beef is with each other but it's just better to be calm and respectful


He has me blocked for a very different reason and I've only ever been softer and kinder to him than he to I, including here on the FAF. Toxic behaviour ought to be highlighted regardless. Blocking valid criticism doesn't make the criticism any less valid.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Aug 16, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> So, I have been posting a lot of art on my account. Although, I want to know where people would draw the line as to what would be acceptable in furry art. I don't necessarily want to go too far into detail, because I'm sure that the details may be a bit much. I just want to know, from my fellow furries, what is the thing that could cross the line for you. Any answers are welcome...as long as the answers are appropriate enough for this forum...


The only things I think that'd "cross the line" (as you write) is if the content violate's any of the site's posting guidelines..... and so - I'd advise to just follow those (and you're probably good)..... as a lot of us often learned the hard way that the guidelines are things that are wise to follow.

Beond that, it's kinda your business (as far as the quality of the content goes).

You know, for example - I post a lot of trivial stuff on my account.... which is usally more personal in nature (things like photos, journals, and that sort of stuff).... and is the type of content that would mostly interest people close to me, or that follow me.... and keeping things that way is fine too.... and not necessarily for likes, or popularity, or whatever.
----------------------------------------------


Punji said:


> He has me blocked for a very different reason and I've only ever been softer and kinder to him than he to I, including here on the FAF. Toxic behaviour ought to be highlighted regardless. Blocking valid criticism doesn't make the criticism any less valid.


[EDIT]: In a way - I concur with you - in that _"blocking valid criticisms doesn't make it any less valid"_.... but I'll add to that with you - in that it's also *how* one responds to said behaviors that matters....... as making comments and directly replying to those that have blocked you is a violation of the TOS maybe..... *but* critiquing their points in the abstract is not.... where said points (and *not* behavioral responses) are what one needs to focus on..... and not the individual per say.


KimberVaile said:


> It's a shame I don't agree with hosting cub porn at all. Because it involves a minor in a sexual situation and an attraction to child like bodies and the real difference here is children can't consent really. Adults can consent between each other, children are not capable of it. Not to mention that cub porn relies on referenes of children, which, you know. Is not ok? Kind of a huge difference?


(I'll chime into this convo and say this if I may): in that - there's a big difference between "protecting the children" (on the one hand) versus limiting the free expressions and free speeches of others (on the other hand) that aren't harming anyone.

One's enjoyment of cub content (within the right internet venue) is protected by the First Amendment (here in the U.S. at least)..... and this is true no matter how unsavory others on the community may find the content personally..... and thus - one's enjoyment of this material is in turn protected also from being infringed upon by others.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 16, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> The only things I think that'd "cross the line" (as you write) is if the content violate's any of the site's posting guidelines..... and so - I'd advise to just follow those (and you're probably good)..... as a lot of us often learned the hard way that the guidelines are things that are wise to follow.
> 
> Beond that, it's kinda your business (as far as the quality of the content goes).
> 
> You know, for example - I post a lot of trivial stuff on my account.... which is usally more personal in nature (things like photos, journals, and that sort of stuff).... and is the type of content that would mostly interest people close to me, or that follow me.... and keeping things that way is fine too.... and not necessarily for likes, or popularity, or whatever.


I'm treading lightly here and making some assumptions about the staff, but there reason the site has posting guidelines regarding content is because there needs to be a hard limit. 

Like, underage characters shouldn't been drawn in sexual situations or bestiality shouldn't be portrayed.

They're setting a low bar that isn't intrusive.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Aug 16, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm treading lightly here and making some assumptions about the staff, but there reason the site has posting guidelines regarding content is because there needs to be a hard limit.
> 
> Like, underage characters shouldn't been drawn in sexual situations or bestiality shouldn't be portrayed.
> 
> They're setting a low bar that isn't intrusive.


Yes... they're not being intrusive, on here at least.... it's their platform and their prerogative about what's acceptable or not..... but as said above if certain activities are "within the right internet venue" then (if they're in the U.S. at least) then it's their business also to engage that activity...... so long as no real people are involved.


----------



## TrishaCat (Aug 16, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> (I'll chime into this convo and say this if I may): in that - there's a big difference between "protecting the children" (on the one hand) versus limiting the free expressions and free speeches of others (on the other hand) that aren't harming anyone.
> 
> One's enjoyment of cub content (within the right internet venue) is protected by the First Amendment (here in the U.S. at least)..... and this is true no matter how unsavory others on the community may find the content personally..... and thus - one's enjoyment of this material is in turn protected also from being infringed upon by others.


They're not talking about legality, just morality. Theyre saying they dont think its okay, which is fine. Plus this place has users all over the world, not just the US.
Saying this as someone that likes cub art


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Aug 16, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> They're not talking about legality, just morality.


I know..... but it was important to point out the legal issues also I felt; as sometimes people frequently label this content as "illegal" and not just immoral (kind of like what that other user hinted at above).... and so - I felt to point out that here in the U.S. at least, it's not illegal anywhere.


----------



## Punji (Aug 16, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> [EDIT]: In a way - I concur with you - in that _"blocking valid criticisms doesn't make it any less valid"_.... but I'll add to that with you - in that it's also *how* one responds to said behaviors that matters....... as making comments and directly replying to those that have blocked you is a violation of the TOS maybe..... *but* critiquing their points in the abstract is not.... where said points (and *not* behavioral responses) are what one needs to focus on..... and not the individual per say.


That's of course fair, and if this is actually against moderation I'm happy to simply ignore it.

However, that said I addressed one small public comment pages ago and only now after the whole thread has been wrung through has it been mentioned as an unnamed call-out post hiding within a post directed at another user. I almost completely forgot the complaining user ever posted in this thread at all. He's only bringing it up now for a reason, inflammatory as it is.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 16, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> They're not talking about legality, just morality. Theyre saying they dont think its okay, which is fine. Plus this place has users all over the world, not just the US.
> Saying this as someone that likes cub art


I'm just going to say for the moment that we shouldn't just be thinking about the legality of portraying underage characters in sexual situations; morally people shouldn't be making fetish material of it and people shouldn't enjoying it either. 

We can be flexible on some things, but this shouldn't be one of them, especially since it involves children. 


Frank Gulotta said:


> Just one more thing
> 
> I remember reading a long time ago that such a fetish is very common with former victims of sexual assaults; that's often what fetishes are : unorthodox ways for the brain to cope with bad past experiences. But these "scumbags" obviously should also be despised and shunned because they don't conform to the corporate smiley face view of what's socially acceptable.


I spoke to someone here about this; I wouldn't call the people you mentioned scumbags especially it is a coping mechanism for them, probably recommended by a therapist who they check in with. 



Connor J. Coyote said:


> Yes... they're not being intrusive, on here at least.... it's their platform and their prerogative about what's acceptable or not..... but as said above if certain activities are "within the right internet venue" then (if they're in the U.S. at least) then it's their business also to engage that activity...... so long as no real people are involved.


It's still fucked up and it's not just their business, whatever "internet venue" they're in.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Aug 17, 2022)

Kinguyakki said:


> I have seen some that glorifies non-consensual sex, going so far as to present it as a humorous situation where the victim is mocked for what has happened to them.  My personal feeling on it is that, if someone goes through the trouble to put time and effort into art that celebrates that kind of situation, they're not a person I'd want to support or associate with.


This is mainly where I start to have a problem, as a SA victim who has dealt with both the self-doubt and comments blaming me for what happened, to the point of hearing people make comments about victims "wanting" it to happen to them.

If I like an artist's style and check their gallery, and I see a lot of art along those lines. . .I get that it may be something they are personally into, but I will not follow them because I don't want to see that theme.  To me, it's not a thing to joke about or make light of the victim's situation.  I'm just not going to scold or shame the artist for THEIR kink.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Aug 17, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> ....That's it,  I can see I've upset a lot of people here. I didn't mean to upset everyone. Just tell me to take it down, and I will. This art piece seems to have sparked an entire thing that I had no intention of starting. Now I feel really bad, and even disgusting for this. I'm sorry, everyone, okay? I should have refrained from trying this out. Now I feel like a terrible person...for the piece and sparking this whole conversation. I knew it was a case of "It will be fine" when uploading it, and then a "Ah, Crap!" moment after it was uploaded...I'm not denying things here, but I am absolutely sorry.


Hold on a moment...
I have lived nearly sixty years on this spinning rock.  I have been a voracious reader since my earliest years.  As I grew, my exposure to more mature topics was met.  
Remember 'Old Yeller?'  How about so many of the 'Tom Sawyer/Huckleberry Finn' stories?  "Moby Dick?"
How about 'Roots'?
Please take a long, somber moment to appreciate the solemnity of these stories.
Are they polite?  Kind?  'PC?'
No, they are not.
If we applied this current stupidity of 'WOKE', how many would never see/read/appreciate such solemn/serious topics?

NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR FEELING!!!

Please.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Aug 17, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> Hold on a moment...
> I have lived nearly sixty years on this spinning rock.  I have been a voracious reader since my earliest years.  As I grew, my exposure to more mature topics was met.
> Remember 'Old Yeller?'  How about so many of the 'Tom Sawyer/Huckleberry Finn' stories?  "Moby Dick?"
> How about 'Roots'?
> ...


I couldn't agree more, art needs to enjoy absolute freedom but even when under control of the driest, most boring people imaginable, it strives : sometimes contraints even make it stronger by forcing creativity to seek unorthodox ways. The only thing that's vital to it, is a backbone


----------



## Bababooey (Aug 17, 2022)

Wait there's one more thing I gotta say before I drop out of this thread again. @Miles Marsalis? I think I found a picture of you.


----------



## RTDragon (Aug 17, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> ....That's it,  I can see I've upset a lot of people here. I didn't mean to upset everyone. Just tell me to take it down, and I will. This art piece seems to have sparked an entire thing that I had no intention of starting. Now I feel really bad, and even disgusting for this. I'm sorry, everyone, okay? I should have refrained from trying this out. Now I feel like a terrible person...for the piece and sparking this whole conversation. I knew it was a case of "It will be fine" when uploading it, and then a "Ah, Crap!" moment after it was uploaded...I'm not denying things here, but I am absolutely sorry.



Well i haven't been here in the forums for years. but from reading this entire thread reminded me so much of the purges of nsfw content on websites especially ones that act as a containment for content. But won't be surprised to see something similar  happening. especially if places with enforced tagging. Considering there's not as many places left for it these days.


----------



## The_Happiest_Husky (Aug 17, 2022)

Does anyone here actually know how to not start an argument? How tf did this end up 7 pages long


----------



## TrishaCat (Aug 17, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> because the content has no artistic merit


I do not understand this
So much cub and loli/shota artwork takes great effort and talent to be able to create, and the resulting artpieces can be analyzed and criticized for style, shading, use of color theory, proportions, lineart, themes, level of detail, and so on. No two artists draw these things the same way, and they can be compared and contrasted between artists.
I don't understand how they can be said to not have some form of artistic merit; I can understand where people are coming from claiming it's immoral, but lacking artistic merit? Great time, effort, and creativity is put in to create such artwork.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> I do not understand this
> So much cub and loli/shota artwork takes great effort and talent to be able to create, and the resulting artpieces can be analyzed and criticized for style, shading, use of color theory, proportions, lineart, themes, level of detail. No two artists draw these things the same way, and they can be compared and contrasted between artists.
> I don't understand how they can be said to not have some form of artistic merit; I can understand where people are coming from claiming it's immoral, but lacking artistic merit?



I will let you answer this question yourself. 

A photographer documents real sexual abuse. Should his cameraman-ship be considered to assess the artistic merit of his work?
What value would be lost to the canon of Art if his video tapes had not been produced in the first place?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> I never really think about photography when I consider art, but it would be wrong of me to deny photography as a form of art that takes talent and effort.
> Still, when photography is used for things like that...
> I could never assume value to something created through the horrors and suffering of another. At that point its not art, it's terrible exploitation in my eyes.



Then you accept that the technical skill required to produce a piece of media is not essential to any artistic merit it may have.
The question being answered here is, _does the piece of media elevate or diminish the human spirit_?

On a *much* lighter note, this argument could be applied to a visually stunning but disappointing movie at the cinema. The film might just be a pop-corn flick designed to make money and have no artistic merit, even if it was well produced.

Movies are also a good example of the generally accepted limits that apply to artistic expression in Western society. Cinema is art, and the 'Passion of the Christ' is undoubtedly an attempt to produce high art...but it is also R-rated, and legal limitations therefore apply to its distribution.


----------



## Punji (Aug 17, 2022)

Artistic mediums can be used for non-artistic pursuits.

(Mathematical calculations, forensic photography, et cetera)


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 17, 2022)

The_Happiest_Husky said:


> Does anyone here actually know how to not start an argument? How tf did this end up 7 pages long


I'm more surprised you're shocked a contentious topic would lead to the butting of heads.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## The_Happiest_Husky (Aug 17, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm more surprised you're shocked a contentious topic wouldn't lead to the butting of heads.
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I don't actually have a y idea what's going on, I just read the first and last couple posts and I'm like "whoa"


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 17, 2022)

Chomby said:


> Wait there's one more thing I gotta say before I drop out of this thread again. @Miles Marsalis? I think I found a picture of you.


----------



## Flamingo (Aug 18, 2022)

I have to admit I think of it every time. Although I respect Miles for unironically using a fedora tip as a profile picture.


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 18, 2022)

To be honest, I'm going to side with the fact that if there is no victim involved in fiction, then there is no wrong. Though it needs to be legal. Don't want to get people into trouble.

I never respected the idea that we have to go even against controversial certain fiction because some people has trouble telling between fiction and reality. If someone does act on it, then the fault goes to the person, not the art. And to ban it because some people has this trouble differenting it is like banning all art. Like there are probably commonly legal accepted art that "caused" a person to act out bad, so does that mean that such example art should be banned too because of that? I would argue no.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 18, 2022)

Flamingo said:


> I have to admit I think of it every time. Although I respect Miles for unironically using a fedora tip as a profile picture.


I think he's going more for a private investigator look, which suits him


----------



## Filter (Aug 18, 2022)

Flamingo said:


> I have to admit I think of it every time. Although I respect Miles for unironically using a fedora tip as a profile picture.





SirRob said:


> I think he's going more for a private investigator look, which suits him


Whenever I see his profile pic, I think Blues Brothers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2022)

SirRob said:


> I think he's going more for a private investigator look, which suits him


Miles' Monkey looks frightening similar to my Brother, because of his sideburns.


----------



## ConorHyena (Aug 18, 2022)

Filter said:


> Whenever I see his profile pic, I think Blues Brothers.


agreed.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 18, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Miles' Monkey looks frightening similar to my Brother, because of his sideburns.


So you’re saying your brother is hot, in other words, and by extension you’re saying you are hot, and you are saying this to me, who gets crushes over every breathing male in the animal kingdom


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 18, 2022)

Diamond Man said:


> To be honest, I'm going to side with the fact that if there is no victim involved in fiction, then there is no wrong. Though it needs to be legal. Don't want to get people into trouble.
> 
> I never respected the idea that we have to go even against controversial certain fiction because some people has trouble telling between fiction and reality. If someone does act on it, then the fault goes to the person, not the art. And to ban it because some people has this trouble differenting it is like banning all art. Like there are probably commonly legal accepted art that "caused" a person to act out bad, so does that mean that such example art should be banned too because of that? I would argue no.


I can cite direct examples, mostly from long-since-banned accounts, but I've seen arguments that seem to believe that just because someone draws a red rocket today, tomorrow they'll be on the family dog. They pose it as if its perfectly logical, akin to someone describing chicken nuggets as really good and then someone seeing that and going and getting some chicken nuggets - in other words, totally indifferent to how many steps are typically in between. Basically the argument you're against. However, I've found that in many cases, these people themselves cannot distinguish a line between fantasy and reality, like that distinction is broken.

So I wonder if those making the most vocal arguments that [insert art here] will make you a [insert negative quality here] aren't projecting their own issues. Either knowingly, or unknowingly.


----------



## Just_A_Tundra (Aug 18, 2022)

Diamond Man said:


> To be honest, I'm going to side with the fact that if there is no victim involved in fiction, then there is no wrong. Though it needs to be legal. Don't want to get people into trouble.
> 
> I never respected the idea that we have to go even against controversial certain fiction because some people has trouble telling between fiction and reality. If someone does act on it, then the fault goes to the person, not the art. And to ban it because some people has this trouble differenting it is like banning all art. Like there are probably commonly legal accepted art that "caused" a person to act out bad, so does that mean that such example art should be banned too because of that? I would argue no.


My only problem with the ARTWORK being the stuff, like cub and so on, it is actually dangerous. Sure, it can be used as a substitute in one or more ways, but it does carry the potential of inspiring others to do what the artwork suggests. Even if it is on the person viewing it, it's still a danger.  I know that some people can use art to do some things and help themselves with certain frustrations, but there are ALWAYS going to be people out there that would be INSPIRED to do bad things. This goes along with cub, violence, and other things a person should not be involved in. For the safety of things, people, and all, I think it would be best not to show off art that's like this...


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 18, 2022)

I'm caught between being kind of mad that we're openly debating whether art fetishizing criminal sexual activity is alright and having to civil about it when in any context outside of the fandom (and most in it) this would be considered unacceptable out of hand.

I admit that someone fantasizing about being raped is different from someone fantasizing about raping someone, and that the former isn't as bad as the latter, though I have deep reservations about the former and an outright problem with the latter. Speaking with some people and considering some things, I can see where rape survivors might use fantasies about being raped to cope with actual trauma; that I don't have any problem with and I sympathize with those people.

I do also have a problem when people use those rape survivors as a shield for them indulging in a rape fetish, as if that justifies their own activities and proclivities. 

Putting that aside, now I'm seeing people arguing that any type of art is acceptable, regardless of whether the material portrays even such thing as underage characters in sexual situations ... and very little pushback against it compared what I got for opposing rape fetish material.

If anything, I see people seeing any should go for art while conspicuously ignoring the people saying cub porn and drawn child pornography isn't harmful and or they like it. 

Where is the condemnation and the standard?


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 18, 2022)

Genuinely surprised and disgusted to know we have people openly into underage stuff. Yikes.


----------



## Crimcyan (Aug 18, 2022)

Man if you are into cub porn and openly admit it on a public forum you should go to a therapist and admit it to them so they can help you rather than looking like a nonce publicly


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 18, 2022)

This is  partly why I specifically said that people shouldn't take exceptions for harmful paraphilias ; those people very often unable to directly criticize those are into other harmful paraphilias ... because they're into compromising material themselves. So they give each other a pass because they're all morally compromised.

Kinks and fetishes aren't inherently bad, but there need to be clearly defined limits, as we're seeing here.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 18, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> Earlier a conversation made me realize that also that even how people perceive arts value can be different from person to person. Its a whole mess of argument that goes well beyond "lol people can't distinguish fiction from reality"


I'm citing direct examples here. Literally the guy went "Some dude assaulted a girl dressed as Cream (from Sonic), so therefore anyone who posts art (no qualifiers, like any art) of Cream should be banned from conventions because they might assault someone." Now, I'd put this off as one loony, but I've heard similar in other threadnaughts. Really struct me as projection.

The argument might go beyond, but it sure as hell hasn't on many occasions here.



Just_A_Tundra said:


> My only problem with the ARTWORK being the stuff, like cub and so on, it is actually dangerous. Sure, it can be used as a substitute in one or more ways, but it does carry the potential of inspiring others to do what the artwork suggests. Even if it is on the person viewing it, it's still a danger.  I know that some people can use art to do some things and help themselves with certain frustrations, but there are ALWAYS going to be people out there that would be INSPIRED to do bad things. This goes along with cub, violence, and other things a person should not be involved in. For the safety of things, people, and all, I think it would be best not to show off art that's like this...


Where's the line here? Someone can post endless vore but no one would expect them to jump into a alligator's mouth. So is that okay, even though it's violent? Someone can post endless art of folks getting it on in public (which in most cases is illegal). Is that the line, you did say depicting illegal acts? If its on a playground, but adult characters, is that the line because it might be near kids? I can edge (heh) this line endlessly with further and further tweaks. How about this - two "adult" characters with a noticeable size difference. How much difference is fine, versus more or less cub with extra steps? What if its two adult characters, one half the size of the other, on a playground but they're both drawn relatively "adult" looking?

I'm generally against censorship on an objective level, regardless of content. If this view is good or bad, eh, that's on you. But snuff is as illegal as underage, yet one is allowed, one isn't... If we're really trying to avoid "crime" it would seem both, along with feral, non-consensual, torture, and so on should all be banned.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 18, 2022)

Smityyyy said:


> Genuinely surprised and disgusted to know we have people openly into underage stuff. Yikes.


Sadly its a recurrent topic here. This must have been the 20th debate on cub porn subject, with the same members playing defense for it.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 18, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> Sadly its a recurrent topic here. This must have been the 20th debate on cub porn subject, with the same members playing defense for it.


Are you talking this month?

Note, lest I get hanged - I'm not endorsing cub with my arguments. Or feral. Or anything. Rather pointing out that we harp on one or two items, missing the trove of everything else that's arguably as bad.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 18, 2022)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> I can cite direct examples, mostly from long-since-banned accounts, but I've seen arguments that seem to believe that just because someone draws a red rocket today, tomorrow they'll be on the family dog. They pose it as if its perfectly logical, akin to someone describing chicken nuggets as really good and then someone seeing that and going and getting some chicken nuggets - in other words, totally indifferent to how many steps are typically in between. Basically the argument you're against. However, I've found that in many cases, these people themselves cannot distinguish a line between fantasy and reality, like that distinction is broken.
> 
> So I wonder if those making the most vocal arguments that [insert art here] will make you a [insert negative quality here] aren't projecting their own issues. Either knowingly, or unknowingly.


Eh, it doesn't seem like that much a stretch to believe that a person's sexual interests in fictional media would be a reflection of their real-life sexual interests. I mean, there's a reason there's so much eye candy in movies and TV: it appeals to people with more vanilla sexualities. It's not much a stretch that a person who likes sexualized art of underage characters would also be interested in real CSEM.

One good point that Trisha _does_ make is that fictional depictions can and do influence people's behavior in real life. Often it's innocuous, like boosting the popularity of a name, but there are more serious cases such as with _The Sorrows of Young Werner. _


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 18, 2022)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> Are you talking this month?
> 
> Note, lest I get hanged - I'm not endorsing cub with my arguments. Or feral. Or anything. Rather pointing out that we harp on one or two items, missing the trove of everything else that's arguably as bad.



No someone on here confessed to liking pedophilic art and then edited it out after people didn’t react positively.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 18, 2022)

Smityyyy said:


> No someone on here confessed to liking pedophilic art and then edited it out after people didn’t react positively.


Ah, well, yeah. Okay.



Foxridley said:


> Eh, it doesn't seem like that much a stretch to believe that a person's sexual interests in fictional media would be a reflection of their real-life sexual interests. I mean, there's a reason there's so much eye candy in movies and TV: it appeals to people with more vanilla sexualities. It's not much a stretch that a person who likes sexualized art of underage characters would also be interested in real CSEM.
> 
> One good point that Trisha _does_ make is that fictional depictions can and do influence people's behavior in real life. Often it's innocuous, like boosting the popularity of a name, but there are more serious cases such as with _The Sorrows of Young Werner. _


I go back to my point on vore - no one expects a vore enthusiast to go stick their head in a lion's mouth. Curious where that line is.


----------



## Punji (Aug 18, 2022)

Foxridley said:


> Eh, it doesn't seem like that much a stretch to believe that a person's sexual interests in fictional media would be a reflection of their real-life sexual interests. I mean, there's a reason there's so much eye candy in movies and TV: it appeals to people with more vanilla sexualities. It's not much a stretch that a person who likes sexualized art of underage characters would also be interested in real CSEM.
> 
> One good point that Trisha _does_ make is that fictional depictions can and do influence people's behavior in real life. Often it's innocuous, like boosting the popularity of a name, but there are more serious cases such as with _The Sorrows of Young Werner. _


While I think that's generally true, there are still real hard limits on what a person is willing to do, regardless of outside influences. Playing a racing game doesn't necessarily make someone speed on the highway nor does watching a heist movie inspire people to rob a casino or bank. Those who are willing to commit crimes and violent acts are willing regardless of artistic depictions of it.

It's difficult to say in a broad capacity that liking one type of art equates to liking and tolerating the real-world counterpart. Maybe one leads to the other, I can't say. But we ought to make sure we're not putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 18, 2022)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> Ah, well, yeah. Okay.
> 
> 
> I go back to my point on vore - no one expects a vore enthusiast to go stick their head in a lion's mouth. Curious where that line is.


Real-life pedophilia is more of a thing than people deliberately feeding themselves to animals. I understand actual pedophiles and zoophiles have been exposed within the fandom.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Aug 19, 2022)

Foxridley said:


> Real-life pedophilia is more of a thing than people deliberately feeding themselves to animals. I understand actual pedophiles and zoophiles have been exposed within the fandom.


You say that, but I know of a few cases of people willingly offering themselves up to be cannibalized. Albeit a _few_ cases, but it's not without precedence. Granted, vore is also an extreme example, so to that end actual rapists/assaulters have been unmasked too... but art depicting non-consensual acts typically doesn't get anyone riled (the...4 page explosion in like 3 hours on this thread notwithstanding). 

My argument, therefore, is it doesn't make sense to bar _some_ of the bad, but not all. And the arguments that "well, it must mean they're..." don't hold up when not equally applied.


----------



## ConorHyena (Aug 19, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Putting that aside, now I'm seeing people arguing that any type of art is acceptable, regardless of whether the material portrays even such thing as underage characters in sexual situations ... and very little pushback against it compared what I got for opposing rape fetish material.


Honestly, I think at this point it may be a bit more of a tired-issue? It's always the same people defending pedo stuff, with the same arguments that have been exchanged (and disproven) countless times, while the discussion on non con/consensual non-con etc is a completely different one. (I'm too tired to read up on everything but has that distinction been made yet?)

yes CP is a problem, even the drawn version of it (there's a good reason as to why it's banned in a lot of places) While it doesn't immediately make you an offender if you are an actual pedophile (most child molesters are not) it increases your chance to offend by a massive amount. 

Anyone who wants more details on this is free to send me a DM (I have been active in the field during university times) that way it can be discussed much easier and with less *yawn* from the usual quarters.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 19, 2022)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> You say that, but I know of a few cases of people willingly offering themselves up to be cannibalized. Albeit a _few_ cases, but it's not without precedence. Granted, vore is also an extreme example, so to that end actual rapists/assaulters have been unmasked too... but art depicting non-consensual acts typically doesn't get anyone riled (the...4 page explosion in like 3 hours on this thread notwithstanding).
> 
> My argument, therefore, is it doesn't make sense to bar _some_ of the bad, but not all. And the arguments that "well, it must mean they're..." don't hold up when not equally applied.


I guess it’s a matter of how wrong the act is considered (not all crimes are equal) and the (at least perceived) likelihood that it would actually be be committed. Even in prison, pedophiles are the bottom rung of the moral ladder.

Some of that is reflected in criminal codes (I looked up some of the penalties) using your earlier example: getting it on in public is a misdemeanor in most states that can get someone a fine and up to a year in jail.

CSEM gets a person 5 to 20 years. Actual pedophilic acts can easily get them life in prison, and execution could be on the table in some states until 2008.

Though I can’t quite say I disagree with you on the depiction of porn of rape, torture, etc.


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 19, 2022)

Just_A_Tundra said:


> My only problem with the ARTWORK being the stuff, like cub and so on, it is actually dangerous. Sure, it can be used as a substitute in one or more ways, but it does carry the potential of inspiring others to do what the artwork suggests. Even if it is on the person viewing it, it's still a danger.  I know that some people can use art to do some things and help themselves with certain frustrations, but there are ALWAYS going to be people out there that would be INSPIRED to do bad things. This goes along with cub, violence, and other things a person should not be involved in. For the safety of things, people, and all, I think it would be best not to show off art that's like this...


I don't think there is any evidence that the danger is any different than typical violent media. I think the better answer is to be more responsible with it right. It isn't ever fair to blame victimless art that for example, clearly said to not do so in reality. There is also the danger of removing it too, like bottling up urges or something like that.

If it's really on them, then it doesn't make sense to ban any victimless art involving that topic. Using "danger" anyway would be as subjective as a lot of typical art.


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 19, 2022)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> I can cite direct examples, mostly from long-since-banned accounts, but I've seen arguments that seem to believe that just because someone draws a red rocket today, tomorrow they'll be on the family dog. They pose it as if its perfectly logical, akin to someone describing chicken nuggets as really good and then someone seeing that and going and getting some chicken nuggets - in other words, totally indifferent to how many steps are typically in between. Basically the argument you're against. However, I've found that in many cases, these people themselves cannot distinguish a line between fantasy and reality, like that distinction is broken.
> 
> So I wonder if those making the most vocal arguments that [insert art here] will make you a [insert negative quality here] aren't projecting their own issues. Either knowingly, or unknowingly.


I feel like the real issue is the person, so when combating the issue, we avoid blaming certain arts and have proper education mainly. If the art directly told the person to do it then I might blame it too. Another point I should bring out is that there might not be evidence that certain issues is due to confusion but more that if the person didn't have the art, they would of probably still done it anyway. It's something I heard involving very controversial specific art I think.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 19, 2022)

I mean, there have been studies proving that child pornography, whether it is real or artistically rendered, does influence people, particularly children.

There is a reason pedophiles often show pornography their victim; they know the pornography will entice them into harmful sexual activity. It's already been established that pornography can cause conditions such as sex addiction and give young people a skewed perception of sex, so illicit pornography, like child pornography, can most definitely influence people to commit sexual abuse or convince children that sexual activity with adults is acceptable.

Pornography is also used by pedophiles create to stronger the belief in gender stereotypes, especially for males. So, those people who are regularly watching it will treat women like sex objects, which leads to sexual violence and violence against women.

It also needs to be noted that though it is good to  oppose child pornography in any form on online platforms due to the fact that can influence people to engage in inappropriate sexual activity with children, it is also isn't the main reason to oppose it.

The main reason to oppose it is that pedophiles view this illicit wherever they can find it and if your online community has that content, pedophiles will be on the platform viewing it, which puts children in that community at risk.

So whether the child pornography is real or simulated, it shouldn't be tolerated.

Some of y'all need to get your heads on straight.


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 19, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, there have been studies proving that child pornography, whether it is real or artistically rendered, does influence people, particularly children.
> 
> There is a reason pedophiles often show pornography their victim; they know the pornography will entice them into harmful sexual activity. It's already been established that pornography can cause conditions such as sex addiction and give young people a skewed perception of sex, so illicit pornography, like child pornography, can most definitely influence people to commit sexual abuse or convince children that sexual activity with adults is acceptable.
> 
> ...



There’s genuinely not enough pushback from our community against literal pedophilic porn. Real or not, you’re fetishizing children/minors. It’s gross. Nothing about that ought to be normalized.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 19, 2022)

ConorHyena said:


> Honestly, I think at this point it may be a bit more of a tired-issue? It's always the same people defending pedo stuff, with the same arguments that have been exchanged (and disproven) countless times, while the discussion on non con/consensual non-con etc is a completely different one. (I'm too tired to read up on everything but has that distinction been made yet?)
> 
> yes CP is a problem, even the drawn version of it (there's a good reason as to why it's banned in a lot of places) While it doesn't immediately make you an offender if you are an actual pedophile (most child molesters are not) it increases your chance to offend by a massive amount.
> 
> Anyone who wants more details on this is free to send me a DM (I have been active in the field during university times) that way it can be discussed much easier and with less *yawn* from the usual quarters.


Yes, the distinction was made a few pages ago. And yes, many of the members who have been here a while have seen this argument play out innumerable amounts of times. The people defending CP don't ever change their stances regardless of what argument have been made or how factual they are. You are correct. I am unsure as to why some members seemingly forget how often this same exact argument has been rehashed with little purchase or gain, but I digress. I understand not everybody wants to have to dig through this thread. Regardless, this is a good take on the subject.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 19, 2022)

As for CP. I'm hardly a fan of repeating myself, so for my own take on it. CP is not excusable,it involves a minor in a sexual situation and an attraction to child like bodies. Children can't consent really. Adults can consent between each other, children are not capable of it. That and cub porn relies on references of children. None of that is normal or ok. I'm not particularly a fan of rehashing this debate just so I can argue with a brick wall again. To those of you out there who defend this, you need to reevaluate your values for your own sake.


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 19, 2022)

Was gonna quote but it became too limited.

A lot of that one argument I found on here seems to be based off the propaganda against porn in general, which is usually based off a lot of fallacies. There was a psychological report showing that the issue with a lot of porn is more akin to being an individual problem. The whole 'Your Brain on Porn" thing was often pseudoscience when it's being used as an agenda against all of it at once. The arguments here also reminds me of a case where I think someone wanted porn in general banned because of stereotype fears, but then someone commented saying that it's the education that is key. General lawful porn doesn't create stereotypes, stupidity, ignorance or some other personal issue of the individual does, *so the best moral way to combat that is combating the stupidity and/or ignorance with proper education and/or therapy if it's that bad.* It's like the issue with Jaws from what I hear, but that wouldn't justify banning the mere existence of it would it? Like someone maybe said: Fiction doesn't effect reality, the stupidity that lets it effect reality does.

Also here is some key things I think.

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mszucm









						Porn Isn’t the Problem
					

Arguments about porn probably aren’t about porn.




					www.psychologytoday.com
				




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/9iih3b/_/e6jyqxu

Another thing I want to point out, about the more sensitive topic, is that there has been sayings that the problem is more akin to being individuals as well and even then there was _never_ truly proof that certain controversial fiction has directly caused it. The only argument I've seen was reports of someone committing child abusive behavior and turned out the person also liked child dolls or something like that, yet as far as I know, *they never proved the line between the two.* The person would of equally likely still have done the crime even without it, hell, probably even quicker because there is no victimless outlet slowing them down if they never had it. If there were inspiration, then refer back to the first big paragraph.

I've seen this debate a thousand times, and a lot of the arguments against specific victimless crime has been very fallacious and (probably even intentionally) ignores the recent research and commentary suggesting that pedophilia is an individual issue and that it could be used (in a careful manner) in a way to help control urges, or even better, *change them for the good. *It's not 100% proven in my opinion, but I do feel convinced that it's not 100% disproved either so ignoring something that might save thousands of IRL children isn't really "better than nothing". If it's truly proven to 100% make it worse then I would only want to ban it to the wrong kind of people but not toward those that exclusively likes unrealistic portions of imaginary characters.

This also reminds me of the insane propaganda against "feral" porn, because some "zoophiles" like it (even though many zoophiles like two-legged one too). At this point the idiotic reasoning against victimless fiction might as well go against all anthro porn because I'm pretty dang sure some zoophiles out there will love to screw a dog shaped head, which 80% of anthro porn is based on. Especially since many of us already accept the "perverted" nature of using animal parts, which is the main element of most anthro porn entirely.

So because of this, I still stand with the victimless side with one exception knowing 1. many of the arguments against it are baseless and hypocritical and 2. since taking away victimless outlets will likely bottle up urges making the situation worse and 3. I can't stand banning victimless fiction against the type of people that aren't into real children or real animals when it's even possible (despite 1. and 2.) that the wrong type of people, if it truly is worse for them at the moment, could be prohibited from getting it but not the people that has good morals and knows the difference, and 4. Sort of partly with 2. but I thinks some of the arguments in defense of certain things were not really debunked, but I'm not too sure what the arguments are so I'll let this one be unsure.
The one exception is if it's that bad to the individual where it's best not to have access to it. Which I consider a separate issue with proper therapy likely being the answer.


----------



## Foxridley (Aug 19, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> Cub art does not resemble children, and the appeal of it has nothing to do with an attraction to children.
> The appeal of it is simply "its cute in a Hello Kitty sorta way".


Do you mean art in general or pornographic art? Cuz that’s a big difference there.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Aug 19, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> Cub art does not resemble children, and the appeal of it has nothing to do with an attraction to children.
> The appeal of it is simply "its cute in a Hello Kitty sorta way".



lol


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 19, 2022)

Ain’t no fuckin way you said porn depicting underage characters is “Cute in a Hello Kitty way” bruh. Unbelievable.


----------



## Crimcyan (Aug 19, 2022)

Where tf is Chris Hansen when you need him


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 19, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> Cub art does not resemble children, and the appeal of it has nothing to do with an attraction to children.
> The appeal of it is simply "its cute in a Hello Kitty sorta way".


To be honest, you're a little right but not fully. I think I might get where you are coming from though.
Some "cub" content contains bodily shape that really doesn't resemble children at all. I know a character that looks like a flying cat but apparently is supposed to be a baby of another species. So I got no moral worrying issue at all with someone liking that kind of character because I don't believe it's truly enough of being pedophilia. But I believe some "cub" characters do have a lot more features that does show a lot of resemblance.


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 19, 2022)

If y’all want “cute” art, then look at cute art of actual adult characters. I mean, if it’s really about “cuteness” then you don’t need that cuteness specifically depicted as underage characters now do you?

And they’re not exactly “ageless dolls” when they’re specifically described as being underage and designed to look the part too.

I don’t care what you need to look at on your own time but Jesus Christ is it disturbing that you’re defending porn of underage characters when you’re on a PUBLIC forum that has minors on it. This is not only embarrassing for the fandom but also the _exact _reason I say kids aren’t very safe in this fandom. Genuinely disturbing shit.


----------



## TrishaCat (Aug 19, 2022)

I want to comment on several things you're saying, but
Well, this whole thread shouldn't be here I guess. Its about contentious nsfw art
And if thats the case I guess I can agree that this probably isn't appropriate to discuss on this forum. I will delete prior posts and refrain from posting further about this. I apologize any trouble I've caused and for any discomfort I might've caused anyone.


----------



## Floofy Puggles (Aug 19, 2022)

Drawings that depict the sexualization of minors = Loli/Cub. It does not matter if the character is fictional or is "500 years old". I am still going to think that the person who is commissioning such a piece either has underlying issues or is a pedo.


----------



## Crimcyan (Aug 19, 2022)

Floofy Puggles said:


> Drawings that depict the sexualization of minors = Loli/Cub. It does not matter if the character is fictional or is "500 years old". I am still going to think that the person who is commissioning such a piece either has underlying issues or is a pedo.


Why does the dog in your pfp have boobs


----------



## Floofy Puggles (Aug 19, 2022)

Crimcyan said:


> Why does the dog in your pfp have boobs


BBW


----------



## LameFox (Aug 20, 2022)

ConorHyena said:


> Honestly, I think at this point it may be a bit more of a tired-issue? It's always the same people defending pedo stuff, with the same arguments that have been exchanged (and disproven) countless times, while the discussion on non con/consensual non-con etc is a completely different one. (I'm too tired to read up on everything but has that distinction been made yet?)
> 
> yes CP is a problem, even the drawn version of it (there's a good reason as to why it's banned in a lot of places) While it doesn't immediately make you an offender if you are an actual pedophile (most child molesters are not) it increases your chance to offend by a massive amount.
> 
> Anyone who wants more details on this is free to send me a DM (I have been active in the field during university times) that way it can be discussed much easier and with less *yawn* from the usual quarters.


Yeah paedophilia is something that I basically see no reason to engage with in this kind of thread. It strikes me as a totally different discussion because it's not only about depicting a scenario or act that would be considered immoral in reality, it seems to rely on a whole different attraction too. There is no amount of time and effort I could spend on a discussion that would argue someone out of being attracted to children. Best they can do AFAIK is choose not to harm any and I'm not qualified to get them through that, I don't know what helps and what doesn't.

On top of that there's an annoying trend of people trying to turn a conversation there because it's the worst thing they can think of and they want to try to push you into arguing over that instead of things with a whole lot more grey in them that you were initially taking about. Which gets tedious. This really happens a lot.

Also, frankly nobody is gonna compensate me for the psychic damage I'd take trying to read up on it, and without that I'd only be making stuff up as I go anyway.


----------



## Crimcyan (Aug 20, 2022)

Floofy Puggles said:


> BBW


Is bbw the limit


----------



## Floofy Puggles (Aug 20, 2022)

Crimcyan said:


> Is bbw the limit


No


----------



## Crimcyan (Aug 20, 2022)

Floofy Puggles said:


> No


Y


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 20, 2022)

BBW


----------



## Crimcyan (Aug 20, 2022)

Smityyyy said:


> BBW


Is this the bbw group?


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 20, 2022)

Moment I see something on 4 legs or looks a whole 5 years old, I'm out. In a sexual manner obv.

If I had it my way on a site, both of those would be banned.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Aug 20, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> It's still fucked up and it's not just their business, whatever "internet venue" they're in.


Well, that's a matter of opinion, frankly...... as drawn cub content and drawn zoophilia (for many in the community) isn't necessarily considered either illegal or even immoral for many of us.... as I wrote (on another thread) on here one time, to another user called LogicNuke:


LogicNuke said:


> You're still portraying an illegal act, the same way as if you drawing human child porn. There are countries where cub pornography is illegal.





Connor J. Coyote said:


> The same thing could be said for depictions of knots, gore, vore, and feral scenes, also.
> 
> Drawing someone in a murrsuit - having intercourse with a "knotted" feral Fur, could be construed as beastiality, for example; which is also an illegal act, (in many jurisdictions).. but (most of us) believe and know - that there's not an actual illegal act, that's taking place or being represented with what we're seeing.. and there are thousands of depictions like this, everywhere in this Fandom.
> 
> ...


and this posting here (as I wrote below) I think sums up what many of us in the community think and feel regarding these matters:


Connor J. Coyote said:


> I (myself) am a firm believer that "cub porn" is a form of artistic expression.. (as it's not actually real, in any way). It's not a real person, (or a real event) that actually exists - (in the real world).. so, I've never really figured it out - as to why there was such an "anti-cub crusade", (that seems to be unrelenting, in this Fandom), which keeps generating this controversy, (that drags on, for years).
> 
> I think it's the sexual aspects, that bother these (anti-cub) people the most; and not really so much that an underage character is being represented. (Remove the sexual aspects) - and I think that alot of this controversy would probably go away, (and it wouldn't be so hotly debated).
> 
> ...


And so in my mind - it all comes down to weighing the moral outrages of a few, versus the ability (of us all) to speak and express ourselves freely - in the context of speech, which covers artistic representations.... and (like I said to Mr. Logic Nuke at the time):


Connor J. Coyote said:


> it's created, lined, and colored.. on a piece of virtual paper.. and a big eraser (brushed on the surface of it) - can get rid of it, very easy.. so, (in my book) - that isn't reality.


--------------------------------------------


Diamond Man said:


> To be honest, I'm going to side with the fact that if there is no victim involved in fiction, then there is no wrong. Though it needs to be legal. Don't want to get people into trouble.
> 
> I never respected the idea that we have to go even against controversial certain fiction because some people has trouble telling between fiction and reality. If someone does act on it, then the fault goes to the person, not the art. And to ban it because some people has this trouble differenting it is like banning all art. Like there are probably commonly legal accepted art that "caused" a person to act out bad, so does that mean that such example art should be banned too because of that? I would argue no.


Absolutely..... to all that.

Drawing a depiction of non-consensual vore (for example) could be seen as exploiting a victim that's being eaten; and yet... many of those that are outraged (and even angered) by cub and zoophilic content often times don't "bat an eye" twice, when content like vore, BDSM, and even violent role play scenarios are freely expressed at the same time on these same venues.


----------



## Smityyyy (Aug 20, 2022)

You’d think people would know when to shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing themselves.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Aug 20, 2022)

Connor, I know you like to play devil's advocate, but holy sh*t. Don't do it with cp.


----------



## ben909 (Aug 20, 2022)

agree with nexus here mostly

i do however understand some of connors points


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 20, 2022)

Judge Spear said:


> Moment I see something on 4 legs or looks a whole 5 years old, I'm out. In a sexual manner obv.
> 
> If I had it my way on a site, both of those would be banned.











						I'm Done by Another-Realm on DeviantArt
					






					www.deviantart.com
				




__________

Less related, I shouldn't really expect a lot of people to agree with me on here. I mean I hear this place usually prefer emotion over logic, so I wouldn't be surprised. But I do say maybe the reason why some people say the same "old" stuff is because they probably still make good points logically, but then again I don't fully know what they were, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it's what I assume it is. lol

And yeah I don't know why I bothered talking about it on a forum of age like this, however I feel like this applies to both sides.


----------



## ben909 (Aug 20, 2022)

will add that fennikin's later forms are 100% anthro designs


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 20, 2022)

Diamond Man said:


> I'm Done by Another-Realm on DeviantArt
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 20, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, that's a matter of opinion, frankly...... as drawn cub content and drawn zoophilia (for many in the community) isn't necessarily considered either illegal or even immoral for many of us.... as I wrote (on another thread) on here one time, to another user called LogicNuke:
> 
> 
> and this posting here (as I wrote below) I think sums up what many of us in the community think and feel regarding these matters:
> ...


I mean, you've argued for pedophile art being acceptable on almost every thread where the issue has even tangentially come up, for years, and you're too senseless and smug to realize that if you publicly promote that shit, people are going to have problems with it because it is wrong on so many levels.

The points you've mentioned in your post about pedophilic art being victimless are moot as are the arguments some people are making about artistic freedom allowing for it. I'm even going to say that though it is has been shown that pedophilic art can influence the people who enjoy it to actually commit crimes against children, that particular point isn't as relevant as the following:

If you have a platform where pedophilic art can be viewed, you will have users that platform who view and enjoy that content. Being charitable, those specific users have pedophilic fantasies, at minimum, which deeply problematic because they can be risk to children on the platform. At worst, those user are pedophiles who will only view that art, but attempt to have improper contact with minors on the platform, which happens in the fandom constantly. That definitely poses a risk to children.

There is also the fact that pedophilic art can be used to groom children and that children can be influenced easily by that since they lack context. This is another reason artists shouldn't be drawing this material, artistic freedom be damned.

Like, it's not fucking stretch that people who are into pedophilic fantasies won't try to act on them. 

Stop justifying this shit. Seriously.


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 20, 2022)

Judge Spear said:


>


Doesn't change the fact that it's true and that right now I'm seeing the same old debunked, baseless claims against victimless fiction. In other words maybe, the same "old" arguments that defended victimless fiction I'm assuming still wins over the "it promotes bad thing (no proof)" arguments generally.


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 20, 2022)

Diamond Man said:


> Doesn't change the fact that it's true and that right now I'm seeing the same old debunked, baseless claims against victimless fiction. In other words, the same "old" arguments I'm assuming wins.



Sure, champ. Go look up the Zoosadism scandal of 2018 and get back to me.
The rest of you don't bother, unless 800 milligrams of Lexapro twice a day sounds fun to you.


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 20, 2022)

Judge Spear said:


> Sure, champ. Go look up the Zoosadism scandal of 2018 and get back to me.
> The rest of you don't bother, unless 800 milligrams of Lexapro twice a day sounds fun to you.


That has nothing to do with anthropomorphic four legged smut. You are basing your argument off the bs that if someone did something wrong and liked furry pron, then it's all the pron's fault. Ps there are zoophiles thst liked two legged smut too. Just saying.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 20, 2022)

Diamond Man said:


> That has nothing to do with anthropomorphic four legged smut. You are basing your argument off the bs that if someone did something wrong and liked furry pron, then it's all the pron's fault. Ps there are zoophiles thst liked two legged smut too. Just saying.


Like I said for CP, allowing zooaphilic art on a platform will attract zooaphiles to that platform, which brings down and poses a threat to the community.


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 20, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> ---Large Response---


Should point out that some fictional content are sadly illegal, which means someone could be sent to an abusive facility and probably added to a somewhat life ruining thing known as the sex offender registry for having a drawing of a character that doesn't exist.
Other than that, I can see someone is mainly using their brain today I think. 


Miles Marsalis said:


> Like I said for CP, allowing zooaphilic art on a platform will attract zooaphiles to that platform, which brings down and poses a threat to the community.


There is two-legged art that does the same thing in terms of attraction. Again you are blaming the wrong thing too. There is *no evidence* that art was the sole cause for the choices these people made. It's very likely that horrible event that happened still would of happened even without that crap online. Also note that zoophiles not getting access to fictional imaginary sapient furry content isn't going to change the risk of IRL animals besides contacting someone as aiding from there. Heck it would probably make it worse.

Even if somehow the art did "caused" someone to do it out there, it's the person's fault. Just like how it's the person's fault for being "inspired" by GTA causing the death of two cops (which he got sentenced to death by). What's the best answer to this? Fixing the person. There are a lot of people that finds anthro-feral content attracted and doesn't want to do it with their dog.









						Why the Anti-furry Feral Arguments Fail
					

WARNING: This isn't a place meant to be read for minors. If you are a minor, do not read. I do not know if it's too much, but I put this wa...




					multiversefeeling.blogspot.com
				



Read the following sub-sections:
-_Argument: "But zoophiles like it!"-

-Argument: "But it can create a safe haven for zoophiles!"-

-Argument: "But someone who liked feral porn offended, that proves feral porn leads to bestiality!"-_


This is probably going to be my last reply to you (actually my previous one was probably indirectly) because I assume you're one of those puritins who relies on already debunked fallacious arguments, and aren't you the same person that wishes ALL porn was banned because of fear of stereotypes? That's real low... So yeah, I won't expect you to change and I'm sure a bunch of people who prefers emotion over logic will up-vote you, but that doesn't debunk any of the arguments here and some people reading might see something good here. After this, I'm still gonna stand for the basic rights of certain freedom of expression since the arguments I've had up were never proven wrong as far as I know. Plus it's morally wrong to attack people for drawing victimless fiction regardless if it's in favor of your feelings or not.
_-Edit had to remove this link because of one commenter showing a link to something.-_

This saying I have might also apply to me replying here in general.


----------



## Kinguyakki (Aug 20, 2022)

Foxridley said:


> Real-life pedophilia is more of a thing than people deliberately feeding themselves to animals. I understand actual pedophiles and zoophiles have been exposed within the fandom.


I would be 100% okay with pedophiles putting their heads in the mouths of alligators or lions, or in front of stampeding herds of bison or hippos or something.  Just saying.


----------



## Flamingo (Aug 20, 2022)

Adult cub art is strictly forbidden on Fur Affinity and will result in the termination of our services to you. Defending and advocating for it will probably have a similar outcome. Just so everyone is clear.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 20, 2022)

Diamond Man said:


> Should point out that some fictional content are sadly illegal, which means someone could be sent to an abusive facility and probably added to a somewhat life ruining thing known as the sex offender registry for having a drawing of a character that doesn't exist.
> Other than that, I can see someone is mainly using their brain today I think.
> 
> There is two-legged art that does the same thing in terms of attraction. Again you are blaming the wrong thing too. There is *no evidence* that art was the sole cause for the choices these people made. It's very likely that horrible event that happened still would of happened even without that crap online. Also note that zoophiles not getting access to fictional imaginary sapient furry content isn't going to change the risk of IRL animals besides contacting someone as aiding from there. Heck it would probably make it worse.
> ...


I mean, some assholes here definitely described as disliking all porn or wanting to ban all porn to justify their own ends, but no I don't think all porn should be banned or I don't hold all porn in disgust. There is definitely porn and kinks that are unproblematic and perfectly healthy. I did make some comments here about how it is weird that on FA there is NSFW material, but minors seem to be allowed though barred from that content. (More specifically, any site with pornographic or explicit  material I have heard of besides this doesn't allow minors at all.) But I'd say that not liking minors in adult spaces isn't puritanical view. So don't paint me as some anti-pornography crusader; I'm not. And while I have an open mind to reasonable arguments, I clearly I have proven don't given I damn how people feel about me supporting the right but unpopular thing; I'll die on that hill.

What does seem to be going on is that you're trying to paint fetish art that portrays pedophilia and zooaphilia as being a victimless and harmless activity, along with making some facile arguments about artistic freedom to justify your position. 

However, you can't deny that pedophiles and zooaphiles view content that caters to their illicit fetish because they like it. If that content is on a site, they will view it and will probably link up with each other share that as well. Certainly for pedophiles and a little less certainly for zooaphiles (because animals can't browse the internet like children can), there is a risk that will try to entice children into sexual activity or other improper contact. Correct if I'm wrong, but I also remember there being some kind of situation where zooaphiles in the fandom got together to sexually and violently abuse animals after meeting on the internet, so zooaphiles aren't exempt from this either.

Now, could you trust people who fantasize about engaging in sexual activity with children and animals? Sure, but you'd stupid and or sick to.

It makes far more sense to bar that illicit content in the first place to protect kids on the platform and elsewhere rather than create circumstances where abuse becomes likely and inevitable.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Aug 20, 2022)

Flamingo said:


> Adult cub art is strictly forbidden on Fur Affinity and will result in the termination of our services to you. Defending and advocating for it will probably have a similar outcome. Just so everyone is clear.


Respectfully, it hasn't for years and this is just the latest argument. It's better that when people used to seesaw on this every month a few years ago, but it clearly still happens.


----------



## KimberVaile (Aug 20, 2022)

This thread is quite something, it's like a reunion tour of the worst possible aspects about this forum and the fandom at large.
Like, damn son. It's got it all, obnoxious fedora tipping from disingenuous assholes, hardcore cub porn defenders coming out the woodworks again, what's next? How can we dig even deeper? Lmao.


----------



## TrishaCat (Aug 20, 2022)

Just let it go Diamond Man/Connor, they made a point that this isn't appropriate for a forum that has minors on it and I have to agree. Let it go, move on.
"Professor Oaks words echoed: Theres a time and place for everything, but not now."

I think OP probably got what they wanted from this thread already anyways


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 20, 2022)

Flamingo said:


> Adult cub art is strictly forbidden on Fur Affinity and will result in the termination of our services to you. Defending and advocating for it will probably have a similar outcome. Just so everyone is clear.


Just to be clear, *I wasn't trying to promote it on the website.* I was just giving out a moral opinion about it. Is just having a moral opinion about it allowed?



Miles Marsalis said:


> What does seem to be going on is that you're trying to paint fetish art that portrays pedophilia and zooaphilia as being a victimless and harmless activity, along with making some facile arguments about artistic freedom to justify your position.


I'm still waiting for proof for this...


Miles Marsalis said:


> However, you can't deny that pedophiles and zooaphiles view content that caters to their illicit fetish because they like it. If that content is on a site, they will view it and will probably link up with each other share that as well. Certainly for pedophiles and a little less certainly for zooaphiles (because animals can't browse the internet like children can), there is a risk that will try to entice children into sexual activity or other improper contact. Correct if I'm wrong, but I also remember there being some kind of situation where zooaphiles in the fandom got together to sexually and violently abuse animals after meeting on the internet, so zooaphiles aren't exempt from this either.


Involving just the zoophilia topic (I still stand with my other one), you're repeating the same exact argument, which was already countered with the argument pointing out the fact that *there are two-legged smut attracting zoophiles too.* EVERY ART has a risk, *every fandom has a risk.* There is literally a lot of fandoms that attracted a lot of screwed up people, and there were talks and talks about abusing children, animals, and/or other types when they met. The problem with you is that you're blaming the entire wrong thing and you're literally cherry picking.

I am aware that there are zoophiles that hid in this fandom, then some of them talked to each other about abusing animals (I assume that's the issue you're talking about) and I get it, it really sucks. However to blame lawful art itself because of the wrong people isn't fair to those (involving two-legged or four-legged) that enjoys it. As someone who actually IS a feral furry fan, I am morally against banning it because of the wrong people. You ban it, then I asked that the rest of furry pron gets banned. I could of sworn I found a court case where someone abused animals and children and the guy seemed to like some really ugly humanoid sonic smut. I could of sworn it was so humanoid that I don't even think I can call it furry. There is literally zoophiles that came because of two-legged art. We don't blame the person, we refuse to solve the real problem, then we need to restrict all lawful art as much as possible then...


----------



## Diamond Man (Aug 20, 2022)

TrishaCat said:


> Just let it go Diamond Man/Connor, they made a point that this isn't appropriate for a forum that has minors on it and I have to agree. Let it go, move on.
> "Professor Oaks words echoed: Theres a time and place for everything, but not now."
> 
> I think OP probably got what they wanted from this thread already anyways


Why don't we just tell everyone to drop the subject then here? Because those other people against my arguments are not talking appropriately either.


----------



## TrishaCat (Aug 20, 2022)

Diamond Man said:


> Why don't we just tell everyone to drop the subject then here? Because those other people against my arguments are not talking appropriately either.


I know and I agree. I mean this whole thread probably shouldn't be here.
But like, people are understandably uncomfortable and it's best to respect that discomfort and not actively continue arguing for the thing they're disturbed by. Making people feel bad kinda sucks, yknow? They don't wanna argue about this, and I imagine it's tiring for you to argue about it too. A mod threatened to take action, and this isn't an 18+ forum,, there's just so much reason to let it go.


----------



## Flamingo (Aug 20, 2022)




----------

