# Cub Question



## Reo Grand (Nov 3, 2006)

Just a quick question, completely seperate from the debate just something I've been wondering after reading through the arguments.

every argument against has noted cub art as an adult forcing themselves on a child, but what are the views on say two underaged characters engaged in a sexual act?


----------



## kitsubaka (Nov 3, 2006)

I dont think anyone has even said that yet...no one is listening to anyone anymore their just flaming each other, so I dont want to bring up the point in the actual thread because someone will be like "OH SHI~ YOUR A PEDO....


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Nov 3, 2006)

Hypothetically and speaking as if you know the ages of the characters...I'd say that if you're a year or two apart there is really no issue. 16 + 18, that's really not a big deal. I think that below 15 it gets a little fuzzy though.


----------



## Almafeta (Nov 3, 2006)

Depends on the content, I think.  I don't think most people would be offended by sweet 'first love' art/stories, I think...


----------



## TwistedDragon (Nov 3, 2006)

I think it was mentioned and thrown in along with the adult/cub relationship view, I don't really care anymore, in the end it's all up to the admins.


----------



## Reo Grand (Nov 3, 2006)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> Hypothetically and speaking as if you know the ages of the characters...I'd say that if you're a year or two apart there is really no issue. 16 + 18, that's really not a big deal. I think that below 15 it gets a little fuzzy though.



That's what I'm saying, I don't particularly like or dislike cub porn one way or the other, but I've seen drawings with characters dipicted as very young (seemingly 9-10) with other characters of the same age


----------



## Reo Grand (Nov 3, 2006)

TwistedDragon said:
			
		

> I think it was mentioned and thrown in along with the adult/cub relationship view, I don't really care anymore, in the end it's all up to the admins.



very true it will end with the admins but I'm not trying to start a debate, just trying to hear a few views without all the flaming attached


----------



## TwistedDragon (Nov 3, 2006)

Oh I know, I'm just saying, it's crazy right now, it's like five posts a minute over there at least ^^;


----------



## Onnaevilsmith (Nov 4, 2006)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> Hypothetically and speaking as if you know the ages of the characters...I'd say that if you're a year or two apart there is really no issue. 16 + 18, that's really not a big deal. I think that below 15 it gets a little fuzzy though.



yeah I totally agree with ArrowTibbs, around 15 and below I think it's wayy too young.


----------



## Draco_Cretel (Nov 4, 2006)

I myself personally think cub on cub is not bad, but cub on adult is going way too far! We all have our views on things, so nothing against any one.


----------



## Miriafox (Nov 5, 2006)

I'm quite curious on grey areas of legality in all this. I'm aware 'cubs' do not exist and are not human, but something I wasn't aware of is that drawn depictions can possibly be prosecuted under section four of this 2002 law.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR04623@@D&summ2=1&
Not trying to stir up the flames already, but if I'm interpreting this wrong, could someone /please/ help me out?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

It's nice to see people asking questions on this rather screaming about how one side is wrong.

I wish this was the discussion that happened a while ago, then at least people wouldn't engage in knee jerk reactions and just try to figure stuff out.

I think again my issue is with established characters in commercial shows, like Disney and stuff because there does seem to be more of a point of reference than someone just drawing something new and original. I'm not sure however what the "age" threshold is for me, because to me 18 means you're responsible for your fuck ups, even if you act irresponsibly. I do know the age of consent laws are different and funny, but we're talking about art where appearances are deceiving.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Miriafox said:
			
		

> I'm quite curious on grey areas of legality in all this. I'm aware 'cubs' do not exist and are not human, but something I wasn't aware of is that drawn depictions can possibly be prosecuted under section four of this 2002 law.
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR04623@@D&summ2=1&
> Not trying to stir up the flames already, but if I'm interpreting this wrong, could someone /please/ help me out?


Well for the sake of arguement we'll use strictly humanoid anthros for a basis.  A humanoid anthro may be simply viewed as a HUMAN wearing animal features and not the other way around.  At least that's what you'll see a lawyer saying.

Now that revision points out several big things but the main point is "Depictions of minors in sexual conduct".  So if you have a 10 year old boy wearing a tiger costume getting involved in something sexual, that's where this falls under. Now, if you make a CARTOON of that to make it NOT look like a costume, it still falls under here cuz it's still a 10 year old boy.

Another big term is "virtually indistinguishable". And this is the card that a lawyer or judge will use in their ruling to say, "my opinion/interpretation counts more thn yours does".  Even if you as the artist knew what you were doing, if someone pointing a finger at you sees it as a cub or pedophilia, you're still in trouble.  And if their lawyer agrees (bet on it) then you're in even BIGGER trouble.

It also keeps throwing out producing, possessing, selling and distribution.  THat means that if you have even one picture on your computer that could be considered "cub" or some other derivitive, you are in TROUBLE!  It does not MATTER what your reasoning was or if YOU saw it that way.  If the cops go through your hard drive and go "pedo" you're in trouble!


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Reo Grand said:
			
		

> every argument against has noted cub art as an adult forcing themselves on a child, but what are the views on say two underaged characters engaged in a sexual act?


And again, if we follow the law as was presented above, then both forms are "bad" because both present a minor depicted in sexual conduct.

And ya know, just to make sure I went back and reread the TOS.  It may need some updating but the first thing it talks about is how THIS particular legislation wasn't even Passed.  Now wether that is true or not I don't know and don't care it has nothing to do with my work.

(the following is a minor rant NOT focused at this thread)
But here's the immediate thing, even if that wasn't legislature, the FA admins are telling us the same damn thing.
Sexually Immature = Minor
And a big arguement people keep pushing for is the "I think this and I disagree" point.
WHO CARES if you disagree.  It tells ya right there in the TOS that the judge jury and executioners are the admins.  They don't NEED your advice or input but if they choose to ask for it at least have the courtesy to give it respectfully and simply (i'm addresseing a very narrow group with that one, not FA memebers in general).
(end of rant)

The rules are there, No kid porn.  End of story.
So now MY question is, as this has made me see just how LITTLE i understand of what people are arguing about...
Where exactly did this whole arguement and problem begin anyway?


----------



## Miriafox (Nov 5, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> Reo Grand said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's exactly what I was getting from reading it, to some small extent. I've been told again and again it's not grey area, but reviewing the actual law (that most people pulled a TL;DR on), the law has a lot open for interpretation, especially article four. 'Freedom of Expression' I understand, but this, at least to me, puts up a lot of questions on how it can possibly be handled in court. The question of whether or not 'cub' is illegal could go back and forth with this 2002 bill as I severely doubt the individuals involved thought about it as of the time of writing, so it's left for that same interpretation. I also severely doubt it would make it to the Supreme Court, though, if someone did try to prosecute for pedophilia based on this law.

Now, what /did/ amuse me is that VCL interpreted section four as those things(edit: The drawings of humans in underage sexual situations) were 'allowed', but I'm uncertain how they got that from how it's worded. However, they may have had some interpretation problems in reference to cub and decided to go with their decision to 'stay on the safe side' so to speak.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

Question is really has anyone gotten arrested and prosecuted over "cub porn".

I think that's a really good question before guessing what the courts will do with you. Please cite references of this happening as well.


----------



## KCat (Nov 5, 2006)

Thread of 2000 flames said:
			
		

> + Point of clarification (since this has been raised more than once): There is NO legal issue on anything from the mildest mature depiction of a "15 year old unclothed fur" through hardcore chibi or "cubporn". This is NOT a discussion/vote about depiction of underage humans, where legal issues can and do arise.


There were plenty of references thrown up in that thread as well. Unforunately it's all burried in that smoldering pile.


----------



## Thot (Nov 5, 2006)

Was anyone ever arrested under this law at all, as far as drawings go?
Virtually indistinguishable is a real narrow term I'd say.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Question is really has anyone gotten arrested and prosecuted over "cub porn".
> I think that's a really good question before guessing what the courts will do with you. Please cite references of this happening as well.


That's a good and wholely legitimate point!

You're not going to get arrested for drawing fan art of Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse but you SHOULD because if you didn't get permission then it's a copyright violation.  UNLESS these characters are in public domain which I THINK they are, but that was just an example.

The point is that, like you said, NO ONE is going to go to jail for making this stuff UNLESS they produce it or sell it in some public setting.  FA is a private setting and if one person goes down, we all go down (for one reason or another).

And as far as the citing references thing goes, I cite the firing at Disney Studios so long ago (not technically a LEGAL incident but it's all i really got) and the commentary but the Justice depertment at my University (keep in mind they're specialized as in focused on one or another type of law)


----------



## Miriafox (Nov 5, 2006)

Thot said:
			
		

> Was anyone ever arrested under this law at all, as far as drawings go?
> Virtually indistinguishable is a real narrow term I'd say.



It's relatively recent, 2002, so it's possibly unlikely, but then again the internet gambling law was recently created and the enforcement of that has been little less then a total failure. I'm still digging around looking for news articles in retrospect but I was sort of hoping someone would be able to provide where this law has been used, if at all, in the past four years, and how it was interpreted.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 5, 2006)

Thank you, KCat.



			
				Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> If the cops go through your hard drive and go "pedo" you're in trouble!



Sorry, but I cannot see how that can /legally/ happen. There is no legal issue (n.b. we are talking 'bout depictions of non-humans, anyhow) and nothing even particularly press-worthy compared with other "scare links" that are made; and those generally only happen when there is an actual crime, e.g. "killer had violent videogames at home", etc.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Miriafox said:
			
		

> Thot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well first, I'd like to see if this one was even PASSED, because according to the note in the FA TOS, it wasn't.

But like I said above, that MAY need to be updated and I'm not one who knows how to tell.  But I know if it wasn't passed, it can't be enforced.

But my GUESS is not likely.  These people who produce this material are more likely to get busted for pedophilic acts or abuse before anyone ever sees their images (this statement includes NO assumption that ANYONE or EVERYONE who produces an image that COULD be classified as "cub" art is automatically a pedo).


----------



## Miriafox (Nov 5, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> Miriafox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR04623@@D&summ2=1& - 6/25/2002--Passed House amended. Like I said though, and they're right, it does not technically apply to cub, at least I think, but I wasn't aware that you could get in trouble drawing underage humans, for that matter. That means certain hentai sites may/may not be in trouble.
Though, guys, seriously, if the TOS said it wasn't passed then someone is not doing their homework. I'm quite aware it's EASY to do a TL;DR but that's just silly. Even VCL got that part right.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Thank you, KCat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, firs off i said I was using humanoid anthros as my base.  If you have baby Simba fucking baby Nala well...I don't know, another grey area.  but I SPECIFICALLY stated the use of humanoid anthros for this one and like I also said, it doesn't really matter if they're not technically human, they LOOK human and that is what they will be guaged against.

Example:  If you have 2 people, dress up in full body costumes, lets say ones Barney the Dinosaur and the other is Geoffrey the Giraffe (you know, from Toys R Us).  And you equip theor costumes with false genitalia, and you go and have them fuck each other and take pictures of it to show.  A number of things can happen.

A: public place = public indecency and obscenity, but we don't arrest animals that fuck in public do we?
B: It's NOT going to fall under beastiality of coarse but what if one guy was out of his suit, would it be beastiality then?  No of coarse not, they're people in suits!
C: They're NOT animals they're people in suits! 
 Well of coarse they are but what if (and I hate what if's) they say that they THINK of themselves or WANT people to think of themselves as the animals they are dressed up as (believe me it could happen, conceptual artists do some fucked up stuff)?  Well then it really doesn't MATTER what they think we still come back to the above points.
D: Do the images count as pornography...oh we may need to go to the mountain on that one
E: what if it wasn't a couple of guys in suits but rather a drawing or a sculpture?  Well if it's presented privatly (same as if these guys DID this stuff in private) nobody would care, but if they presented the images in a public place then they're open to the filtration of sexual acts as pornography...BUT, we don't censor 2 tigers fucking on the discovery channel so would we censor a picture of 2 other animals fucking it out?

Now that went a lot longer thani had intended and I apologise.  But Another point that I notice keeps coming up is "real" vs. "fictional".  ANd that probably has a debate all it's own but isn't connected to the purpose of this thread.

Press-worthy?  what's that got to do with anything?
Scare Links? Who cares about those either?  Y2K, D&D, Magic the Gathering, Violent videogames, and violence / sex on TV.  THOSE are some big "scares" made out by people who don't care enough to know what they're talking about.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Miriafox said:
			
		

> Master_Oki_Akai said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right, there's a lot of folks in a lot of trouble out there for this stuff but wether they get CALLED on it I think depends on WHO they piss off.  I know we have a LOT of people stealing art blatantly who are in other countries and as a result we really can't touch them...

But a quick note if you don't mind. COuld you clarify TL;DR for me please?


----------



## Miriafox (Nov 5, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> Miriafox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too Long; Didn't Read. Yeah, I'm aware it's childish net speak but it's about how I feel about not actually reading sources.
EDIT: However, I am still having difficulty, myself, reading through a lot of the definites here. The US bill making process is about as efficient and easy to understand as trying to jump start a car with a hammer.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Miriafox said:
			
		

> Too Long; Didn't Read. Yeah, I'm aware it's childish net speak but it's about how I feel about not actually reading sources.



No no I agree, People should read through the material they're signing up for beforehand.  The idea that it was too long for them to read is not an excuse and doesn't excempt you from the consequences.

Now on the other hand you may have read it but still don't understand it, but you better find a way of understanding it before you sign anything.

But here's something interesting (to me).  It doesn't go against ANYTHING that has been said so far but Arshes wanted legal references here's one that I got recently (again, disconnected from subject).
I walked out to the mall here to take photos for my Photography class.  I was going to shoot some shadows.  No sooner do I pull my camera out does a security guard walk out and tell me "we have a no photographs policy".  I asked him what that meant and he said "meaning we do not allow photos" (not an answer). And then I asked hom when that was implemented and where I could go to find that posted so I could see it.  He said "I don't know WHEN it was posted specifically but we don't need to post it, you just need to know that it's our policy".  Those were his exact words.

Now, I've worked retail before, and I KNOW people don't always read policies before they make a purchase but we kept all our policies on big banners over the check out counters so they were clear as day.  And even if someone said "if i knew that I wouldn't have come here" it didn't matter, THAT was the policy (I should note that made such comments were making very suspect transaction requests).

Policy is policy and it doesn't matter if you bothered to read it or not but dammit it SHOULD be available and forthright in its presentation!


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 5, 2006)

Miriafox said:
			
		

> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR04623@@D&summ2=1& - 6/25/2002--Passed House amended. Like I said though, and they're right, it does not technically apply to cub, at least I think, but I wasn't aware that you could get in trouble drawing underage humans, for that matter.



Afaik, I've seen nothing in the majority-FA countries beyond what refers to "visual depictions that are, or are virtually indistinguishable from, that of a pre-pubescent child" or words such as those. 100% referring to *depictions of human children*.

Yup, there are already clear issues with regards to such content - see also refs. to Canada and South Africa on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon - which are well-known, but that's where the line stops.

aside: Even with such restrictions and untested legislation, we have the National Gallery down in London, here, showing pretty-darned realistic paintings in public depicting the "Rape of Ganymede" (taking the modern-day "acceptable content" limits one step further than "Leda and the Swan", of course, if you know your mythology).
And parents with kids casually walking by and looking at both of those without any particular fuss...

02c, as ever, fwiw.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Miriafox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ya know, that is an excellent point.  Is there a real PROBLEM here or is it just us american fucks whipping out our Big Brother Moral sticks looking to beat on something again?

Speaking of artists, I cannot remember this womans name at the moment but she was a feminist artist who eventually committed suicide, but one "perfomance piece" she did was where she staged her own rape.  She busted up her house and left herslf naked on the counter.  Now, THAT was considered art by the artist.  But I really doubt that when her friends walked in to find her amidst debree with her ass hanging out in the kitchen, that they were thinking, "what is the purpose of this piece?".

So could we be making a bigger deal out of the situation than it is?  Probably, the more I look at it and listen to peoples arguements.
But is it an importnat issue?  If it's in the TOS then it's at least important to FA members on SOME level, but I'd have to say it's MOST important to the Admins who are MAKING the decisions and of coarse the people who are PRODUCING the Cub art in the first place.  Which again, would be a violation of TOS, if not to say the law in your area.

The more I read the more I hear more circular arguements and logic, so I gotta wonder but I'm thinking I still haven't gotten the whole story here...


----------



## Dragonrider1227 (Nov 5, 2006)

I don't personally like Cub Porn, but I find it awfully pointless to ban something on a place that not only allows porn, but lets you filter it out


----------

