# Does Backlash Against Cub Seem To Be Increasing?



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 18, 2018)

*Oh boy another cub thread, this should end well.

Created by none other than ya boy.  This is a recipe for disaster.
*
I wanted to talk about cub in terms of the increased backlash it seems to be getting as of recent, particularly within the last year or two.

In the past the furry fandom didn't have such a ruckus about it.  You can decide for yourself whether that was a good or bad thing, but regardless it seems that cub is turning into a legitimate form of contention with many inside the fandom... or at least many furries within the Twitter realm.

Have you noticed a significant increase in backlash?


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 18, 2018)

Going by the implied tendencies that may be there? Yes, I have seen more backlash against it in the 2 years I have been active on these forums and in the fandom in general.


----------



## Baalf (Apr 18, 2018)

I'm... not even sure what it is, to be honest.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 18, 2018)

BennyJackdaw said:


> I'm... not even sure what it is, to be honest.



Basically it is the depiction of furry children in sexual acts, usually in the form of pornography.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 18, 2018)

BennyJackdaw said:


> I'm... not even sure what it is, to be honest.


And keep in mind that if my terms are correct, cub is considered 12 and below.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 18, 2018)

I disagree. I have seen our society grow more and more sympathetic to child molesters and pedophiles, which is disturbing to me. The amount of praise and support pedophiles are getting from far leftists, tumblers, and sjw's is jaw dropping. I can't imagine living in a society where child sex is a part of everyday life. I think we should be stricter on cub art to discourage any idea that lusting after children is a socially acceptable lifestyle.

EDIT: I should point out that I know that you can't control what your attracted to, so I don't think we should hunt down everyone attracted to children. But at the same time we shouldn't make them think this kind of thing is tolerable.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 18, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I disagree. I have seen our society grow more and more sympathetic to child molesters and pedophiles, which is disturbing to me. The amount of praise and support pedophiles are getting from far leftists, tumblers, and sjw's is jaw dropping. I can't imagine living in a society where child sex is a part of everyday life. I think we should be stricter on cub art to discourage any idea that lusting after children is a socially acceptable lifestyle.


A little off-topic, but in the same generic area: Salon.com have some lovely articles they pulled down..

And it wasn't about cute kittens. >_>

Luckily everything is getting archived now, so people can see the insanity for themselves.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 18, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I disagree. I have seen our society grow more and more sympathetic to child molesters and pedophiles, which is disturbing to me. The amount of praise and support pedophiles are getting from far leftists, tumblers, and sjw's is jaw dropping. I can't imagine living in a society where child sex is a part of everyday life. I think we should be stricter on cub art to discourage any idea that lusting after children is a socially acceptable lifestyle.
> 
> EDIT: I should point out that I know that you can't control what your attracted to, so I don't think we should hunt down everyone attracted to children. But at the same time we shouldn't make them think this kind of thing is tolerable.



You think perhaps this is a polarization similiar to what we are seeing today with politics?

One side pushes too far in the social aspect, then a new antithesis rises to negate it?


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You think perhaps this is a polarization similiar to what we are seeing today with politics?
> 
> One side pushes too far in the social aspect, then a new antithesis rises to negate it?


I think your exactly on point. This is a pattern that has happened throughout human history.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 18, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> A little off-topic, but in the same generic area: Salon.com have some lovely articles they pulled down..
> 
> And it wasn't about cute kittens. >_>
> 
> Luckily everything is getting archived now, so people can see the insanity for themselves.


At what point do we draw the line though? I mean, how long before another disgusting atrocity is accepted and loved?


----------



## TheArchiver (Apr 18, 2018)

Yes, as it should.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 18, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> At what point do we draw the line though?


Cub is like loli: It's art. No actual butterflies were hurt or molested in the process.

Should there be legal repercussions? No. 
Social repercussions? Yes. 

However, it's up to you on whether you want to disassociate yourself with such individuals.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 18, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Cub is like loli: It's art. No actual butterflies were hurt or molested in the process.
> 
> Should there be legal repercussions? No.
> Social repercussions? Yes.
> ...


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 18, 2018)

1. As long as cub art isn't sexualized, I'm fine
2. So long as you keep it to yourself, go find a safe space for your interest. I don't want to see your shit in a general furry forum


----------



## Skychickens (Apr 18, 2018)

I've seen a lot more fights about it recently for sure. A lot of the artists getting attacked. Or people with cuter art styles getting threatened about doing cub. I mean...it's just a picture to me and doesn't hide some freaky internal desire. And if it does...well I'd rather them be drawing pictures of anthro cubs rather than hurting real kids frankly. >.>

Like, I have been enjoying drawing certain NSFW works. None of them are things I'm into, I'd actually probably freak out panic and leave. But they're just fun to draw. I like to assume the best of people and think that cub artists are just drawing what's fun for them, and there's no real vile meaning behind it, or they are getting a safe outlet for things like that. 

(*prepares for the storm*)


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


>


Nah. I am out. Already said my piece on the matter.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 18, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I disagree. I have seen our society grow more and more sympathetic to child molesters and pedophiles, which is disturbing to me. The amount of praise and support pedophiles are getting from far leftists, tumblers, and sjw's is jaw dropping. I can't imagine living in a society where child sex is a part of everyday life. I think we should be stricter on cub art to discourage any idea that lusting after children is a socially acceptable lifestyle.
> 
> EDIT: I should point out that I know that you can't control what your attracted to, so I don't think we should hunt down everyone attracted to children. But at the same time we shouldn't make them think this kind of thing is tolerable.


This is a much better way of putting it, thank you.  And as much of a bleeding heart hippie as I am, please don’t ever think that I would ever condone this shit lol.  What really pisses me off is how the pedophiles like to equate their shit to the struggles of LGBTQ community.  Get that shit outta my face ya diddlers


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 18, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> This is a much better way of putting it, thank you.  And as much of a bleeding heart hippie as I am, please don’t ever think that I would ever condone this shit lol.  What really pisses me off is how the pedophiles like to equate their shit to the struggles of LGBTQ community.  Get that shit outta my face ya diddlers


I actually have some hippie friends at my college. We share pictures of our pets and talk about dogs all day


----------



## avisa (Apr 18, 2018)

Yeah, I've really noticed an increased backlash, especially since the 2016 world series



WithMyBearHands said:


> What really pisses me off is how the pedophiles like to equate their shit to the struggles of LGBTQ community.  Get that shit outta my face ya diddlers


Dam I was thinking the same thing. I don't think society will ever be as accepting of them though (like what infrarednexus was imagining.) A lot of people say they don't care what two consenting _adults_ do...


----------



## Astus (Apr 18, 2018)

Personally I have not really seen any change in the babyfur type Fandom. It's always been a balance between people who dislike it, people who see their adult selves in the pictures, and the few pedos who mix in. It's possible that there has been more people against it following the disaster of rain furrest


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 19, 2018)

Cub has always been a hot topic but a lot of the younger Tumblr/Twitter furries have been taking the outrage to new levels. Honestly I don't care what people draw since it's fictional. I haven't seen any evidence for the argument that cub is used to groom children, and even if it were, the same could probably be said about a lot of other things, including pornography in general.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 19, 2018)

TheArchiver said:


> Yes, as it should.


Straight to the point



Astusthefox said:


> Personally I have not really seen any change in the babyfur type Fandom. It's always been a balance between people who dislike it, people who see their adult selves in the pictures, and the few pedos who mix in. It's possible that there has been more people against it following the disaster of rain furrest


Disaster? You talking about that guy who left diapers and shit lying around or am I think of some other con?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 19, 2018)

Not nearly enough.


----------



## Astus (Apr 19, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Disaster? You talking about that guy who left diapers and shit lying around or am I think of some other con?



That and other things, but basically yes


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Cub is like loli: It's art. No actual butterflies were hurt or molested in the process.
> 
> Should there be legal repercussions? No.
> Social repercussions? Yes.
> ...




except there are legal repercussions i'm pretty sure in AUS its now considered creating child pornography to do loli or cub stuff


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 19, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> except there are legal repercussions i'm pretty sure in AUS its now considered creating child pornography to do loli or cub stuff


Majority of Canada it's considered illegal to own, but some provinces will allow _locally _produced content. Importing is still illegal


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 19, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> except there are legal repercussions i'm pretty sure in AUS its now considered creating child pornography to do loli or cub stuff


Really? Well, shit.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Really? Well, shit.



we had this conversation last year we're zero tolerance on that shit now a guy went to the police with his sons phone because he was sending nudes to an older woman and the dad was done for possession of child pornography too

paedophiles names need to be changed because they end up going "missing" and never seen again before court dates if their names are mentioned on the news

like i know certain peoples views on this stuff but i'm sorry but like my countrymen i don't support any of it in the slightest there's an inherent need to protect children even at risk to your own life i can't see how people can even think like that


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

Yes, without a doubt. There's been WAY more backlash against such art and artists in recent times than there used to be. The fact that you felt the need to make a thread asking just a few weeks after there was a thread complaining about such content on FA is self-evident of this, but even beyond that, recent controversies surrounding Zaush and most recently, Tacklebawx, even moreso show this. Do you remember people sending _*mobs of death threats*_ and pushes to_* find and contact such artists' employers in attempts to get them fired*_ as a thing that existed years ago? Or Twitter and Tumblr accounts dedicated to calling out such artists as being _*dangerous predators*_? Or people going around spreading and trying to tell people to unfollow and block such artists? This is all a relatively recent thing. There was no such extreme level of contempt towards cub artist and cub art until very recently, otherwise you would've seen half of Inkbunny's userbase get attacked like this long ago.

Its incredibly unfortunate, but the fandom in general is becoming a lot more volatile and dangerous towards artists. Its not safe to draw pornography in this fandom, as people have of late especially been equating a liking of drawings to the real thing, or at least thinking that it somehow normalizes predatory actions in real life (once again, despite being so distant from real life that conceptually its not fair or realistic to believe that liking said things in art implies liking such things in real life). Draw the wrong thing and people will assume you're a rapist or a pedophile or a zoophile or some other disgusting thing. I hope that the fandom calms down as time goes on, but I genuinely fear for the future of artistic freedom within this fandom, and the fact that artists like Tacklebawx wound up getting hurt in the way that they have is distressing. Actual human beings are having their livelihoods and mental stability (as in, ability to live with peace of mind without constantly being yelled at) endangered over drawings.


----------



## TheArchiver (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> There was no such extreme level of contempt towards cub artist and cub art until very recently



It is rather pleasant to see this fandom begin to clean up its image.


----------



## Troj (Apr 19, 2018)

I think it ebbs and flows depending on current events, but that there's always been a basic level of hostility towards babyfurs, cub art, ABDLs, et al. But, I haven't kept tabs on it,  personally, so I may be oblivious/ignorant here.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 19, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> except there are legal repercussions i'm pretty sure in AUS its now considered creating child pornography to do loli or cub stuff


Canada has laws against it.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

Canada, the UK, and Australia have laws outright against it (not legal, not gray or questionable, but blatantly illegal).
Basically don't live in any of these places if you value freedom. You can even be arrested for saying mean things on the internet in the UK.


TheArchiver said:


> It is rather pleasant to see this fandom begin to clean up its image.


I'd say my mental image of this fandom is a good deal worse but...
Well, I really want this fandom to become more like the anime fandom personally. Said fandom is a comfy place. Less angry people endangering artists.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 19, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Canada has laws against it.





Battlechili1 said:


> Canada, the UK, and Australia have laws outright against it (not legal, not gray or questionable, but blatantly illegal).
> Basically don't live in any of these places if you value freedom. You can even be arrested for saying mean things on the internet in the UK.


Varies by province


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

My bad


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> Basically don't live in any of these places if you value freedom. You can even be arrested for saying mean things on the internet in the UK.


Wow, buddy, a bit much. I don't want to derail the thread, but I wanted to set this straight. The UK has hate speech laws which can be a bit stringent, sometimes. Count Dankula may be an example of this, but he decided to teach his dog the Nazi salute in a country where much of the population still remembers the Blitz during World War II and both sides of the coalition government want to quash any possible post-Brexit hate crimes against minorities. Context matters.

EDIT: Someone just pointed this out to me. I support the laws.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> Canada, the UK, and Australia have laws outright against it (not legal, not gray or questionable, but blatantly illegal).
> Basically don't live in any of these places if you value freedom. You can even be arrested for saying mean things on the internet in the UK.
> I'd say my mental image of this fandom is a good deal worse but...
> Well, I really want this fandom to become more like the anime fandom personally. Said fandom is a comfy place. Less angry people endangering artists.



Anime fandom has also had pushback against Loli.

I guess people don't like it when you sexualized children.  Who woulda thought, eh?


----------



## PolarizedBear (Apr 19, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Wow, buddy, a bit much. I don't want to derail the thread, but I wanted to set this straight. The UK has hate speech laws can be a stringent, sometimes. Count Dankula may be an example of this, but he decided to teach his dog the Nazi salute in a country where much of the population still remembers the Blitz during World War II and both sides of the coalition government want to quash any possible post-Brexit hate crimes against minorities. Context matters.


You know I've had this image for what feels like ages now and I thought it was just taking the piss, I had no idea this was real lol, nice to have context on it.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Anime fandom has also had pushback against Loli.
> 
> I guess people don't like it when you sexualized children.  Who woulda thought, eh?


I'm mildly surprised to see you taking this position, but I like it. Some people would take this issue to use as a platform for virtue signalling if their own wasn't so sturdy, but you're not one of these people. 

Cub pornography should _been _gone from FA, along with a few other things.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 19, 2018)

PolarizedBear said:


> You know I've had this image for what feels like ages now and I thought it was just taking the piss, I had no idea this was real lol, nice to have context on it.
> View attachment 30700


I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people thought it was a joke, but fuckin' hell it's true



LogicNuke said:


> I'm mildly surprised to see you taking this position, but I like it. Some people would take this issue to use as a platform for virtue signalling if their own wasn't so sturdy, but you're not one of these people.
> 
> Cub pornography should _been _gone from FA, along with a few other things.


It'd be nice if that were possible, but as evident with how the official stance is, likely won't happen any time soon


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Anime fandom has also had pushback against Loli.


Barely
At worst you've got the recent similar controversy with Digibro, but otherwise:

Not while Kodomo no Jikan is finally getting an uncensored physically published Western release.
Not when Monobeno is now published on Steam of all things
Not while Dance in the Vampire Bund continues to get its manga published in the West.
Not while characters like Shinobu from Bakemonogatari or Etna from Disgaea are beloved.
Not while people continue to laugh at and enjoy scenes like Araragi fondling Hachikuji or joking about all the scenes in Kobayashi's Dragon Maid involving Kanna.
Not while people continue to accept and turn a blind eye to characters like Mirai in Senran Kagura.
Not while hentai artists like Asanagi or Shindol or Henreader or Muk  or even the non-hentai artist Range Murata hold popularity.
Not while people continue to make jokes even now about Boku no Pico.
Not while Made in Abyss is hailed as last year's best anime and a high quality manga, which is made by a lolicon/shotacon with nudity and sexual content involving Reg and Riko throughout.
I mean I get that there are those concerned about such content in anime, and some people just ignore some of this content in favor of content they actually like and approve of in anime (such is the case for Made in Abyss and Monogatari especially I would assume), but its not as if there's anywhere near the backlash in that fandom towards such artwork as there is here in the furry fandom. The furry fandom is extremely volatile comparatively.


LogicNuke said:


> Wow, buddy, a bit much. I don't want to derail the thread, but I wanted to set this straight. The UK has hate speech laws can be a stringent, sometimes. Count Dankula may be an example of this, but he decided to teach his dog the Nazi salute in a country where much of the population still remembers the Blitz during World War II and both sides of the coalition government want to quash any possible post-Brexit hate crimes against minorities. Context matters.


Contextually that's fair I suppose, but is it really right to have such extreme pre-emptive measures taken against such speech? Is that not restricting people's rights over fear of _hypothetical _hate crimes? It just seems like a case of removing freedoms out of fear imo.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 19, 2018)

Trust battlechili to know more about anime culture than your typical japanese :V


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 19, 2018)

Eh, I kinda hope so? As much as the "it's just artwork" argument gets thrown around, I don't really like how some people undermine the problems and potential damage  that come from heavily fetishizing underage nudity and sex.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 19, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Trust battlechili to know more about anime culture than your typical japanese :V


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 19, 2018)

TheArchiver said:


> It is rather pleasant to see this fandom begin to clean up its image.


Nah, even Kiwifarms thinks furries are overreacting towards the Tacklebox drama, and that's saying something.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> *Oh boy another cub thread, this should end well.
> 
> Created by none other than ya boy.  This is a recipe for disaster.
> *
> ...



I don't have anything to go on. All I have to go on is that this forum has a lot of people who hate it and equate it with pedophilia - but this forum also has a bunch of dingbats who equate feral with zoophilia, so it's not a very good pool to draw conclusions from. 



Infrarednexus said:


> I disagree. I have seen our society grow more and more sympathetic to child molesters and pedophiles, which is disturbing to me. The amount of praise and support pedophiles are getting from far leftists, tumblers, and sjw's is jaw dropping. I can't imagine living in a society where child sex is a part of everyday life. I think we should be stricter on cub art to discourage any idea that lusting after children is a socially acceptable lifestyle.
> 
> EDIT: I should point out that I know that you can't control what your attracted to, so I don't think we should hunt down everyone attracted to children. But at the same time we shouldn't make them think this kind of thing is tolerable.



Maybe stop reading Infowars for a while? No one is tolerating pedophilia. Especially not on the left. You want to know where pedophilia was common? In rural areas in conservative blocs, like southern Missouri and further south. 

Because these areas have people who do not see a problem with 50 year old men dating 18 year old girls (or in some cases, younger. Roy Moore anyone?).

What leftists ARE doing is sometimes allowing pedophiles to be open about who and what they are, to enable them to seek counseling, and hopefully that will actually keep them from becoming offenders. You want to know what happens when people suppress everything? Nothing good.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> a bunch of dingbats who equate feral with zoophilia, so it's not a very good pool to draw conclusions from.


I'm kinda struggling to see reasons not too, honestly, but I'll leave that for another thread.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> I'm kinda struggling to see reasons not too, honestly, but I'll leave that for another thread.



oops, did I single out one of the resident dingbats? 

Regardless, if people want to see feral as indicative of zoophilic tendencies, that doesn't particularly bother me.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 19, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Cub pornography should _been _gone from FA, along with a few other things.



I'm aware of this.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm aware of this.



Are you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> What leftists ARE doing is sometimes allowing pedophiles to be open about who and what they are, to enable them to seek counseling, and hopefully that will actually keep them from becoming offenders. You want to know what happens when people suppress everything? Nothing good.



You are aware that not everyone who suppresses a sexual desire becomes a rapist, right?

It's as though you don't think people have self control.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 19, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Are you.



-_-


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You are aware that not everyone who suppresses a sexual desire becomes a rapist, right?
> 
> It's as though you don't think people have self control.



I didn't say that. I did say it's not healthy. And of course I'm not advocating pedophiles go find a kid to diddle. I am however saying that maybe if we don't vilify them so hard, they will be more likely to seek help.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 19, 2018)

If by cub, you're referring to Babyfur Littles, I'd say they're becoming more accepted within this fandom.

If by cub, you mean cub porn then I'd say there is definitely more backlash both in this fandom and within their own. From what I understand about their culture, most don't want to be associated with anything that resembles pedophilic like behavior, so attempts are often made to drive it out, just like attempts are made to drive out Zoophilic like behavior from this fandom.

Personally, none of it has any effect on me or my enjoyment of this fandom so I often ignore the issue.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 19, 2018)

It's heartening to see furries taking the initiative to purge the predators from the fandom, despite ban threats from admins.


----------



## TheArchiver (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> Well, I really want this fandom to become more like the anime fandom personally.


That would be even worse .


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> Canada, the UK, and Australia have laws outright against it (not legal, not gray or questionable, but blatantly illegal).
> Basically don't live in any of these places if you value freedom.




that awkward moment when Australia ranks much higher on the international freedom index than America does


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> that awkward moment when Australia ranks much higher on the international freedom index than America does



We often border on being a police state.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> We often border on being a police state.




Americans get this idea that they're the most free nation cause of guns... thats not actually how freedom is calculated there's also equality laws economic freedoms freedom of press freedom of education freedom of healthcare etc etc

but i mean oh noes Australia doesn't tolerate paedophilia! we must be under a Nazi regime


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> Americans get this idea that they're the most free nation cause of guns... thats not actually how freedom is calculated there's also equality laws economic freedoms freedom of press freedom of education freedom of healthcare etc etc
> 
> but i mean oh noes Australia doesn't tolerate paedophilia! we must be under a Nazi regime



Yeah, we have a lot of stupid people who believe that just so long as the rednecks have guns, it's a free country.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Yeah, we have a lot of stupid people who believe that just so long as the rednecks have guns, it's a free country.




even then in rural Australia every second car either has a rifle/shotgun on a rack in the back window or a firearm brand window sticker that you get when you buy a gun


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It's heartening to see furries taking the initiative to purge the predators from the fandom, despite ban threats from admins.


Drawing something or liking a drawing doesn't inherently make someone predatory though. To call such people predators is to give a much more malicious connotation than what most of these people being "purged" are actually doing. Very rarely is there malicious intent involved in the drawing of said art. Very rarely is there malicious intent in the consumption of said art. Very rarely are any actual human beings that could hypothetically be "preyed" on by predators are attacked using such art. There isn't any predation to speak of being attacked here. To be predatory would be to use said artwork as a means of grooming or to go even further, actually go out and harm actual human children. To call the people being "purged" predators is incredibly disingenuous.


GreenZone said:


> that awkward moment when Australia ranks much higher on the international freedom index than America does


The amount of times I hear of something being banned or censored or read about certain laws there would have me think otherwise. It doesn't exactly sound free to me when you can be arrested for art or fined for importing a video game that was refused classification or imprisoned for certain kinds of speech among other things. There are certainly a lot of different ways someone can be free versus not though I'll admit, so I suppose its moreso subjective as to what freedoms one finds personally more important versus another.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> fined for importing a video game that was refused classification or imprisoned for certain kinds of speech among other things.


[citation needed] 

despite the memes Australia does not actually ban that many games the only one i know of is hotline Miami 2 and hatred and the law is not against one importing or owning said games it just cannot be distributed 

also please provide a source where some one has been arrested for free speech


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> [citation needed]


www.cnet.com: Aussie customs to seize Mortal Kombat imports
www.classification.gov.au: FAQ import export | Australian Classification
And Valkyrie Drive Bhikkunhi and Omega Labyrinth Z were banned in Australia fairly recently. If you are caught importing them they can be seized and you can be fined.
Well, Omega Labyrinth Z was banned in 5 countries really. But not in the US thankfully.


GreenZone said:


> also please provide a source where some one has been arrested for free speech


I don't actually know of anyone being arrested for such. Just that its _possible _to be arrested for such
www.canberratimes.com.au: ACT parliament passes religious vilification laws


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> www.cnet.com: Aussie customs to seize Mortal Kombat imports
> www.classification.gov.au: FAQ import export | Australian Classification
> And Valkyrie Drive Bhikkunhi and Omega Labyrinth Z were banned in Australia fairly recently. If you are caught importing them they can be seized and you can be fined.
> Well, Omega Labyrinth Z was banned in 5 countries really. But not in the US thankfully.
> ...




fake news 

ebgames.com.au: Mortal Kombat X


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> fake news
> 
> ebgames.com.au: Mortal Kombat X


Not fake
Mortal Kombat had its rating overturned a few years post release (in 2013, specifically). It was originally refused classification, then re-rated 18+ years later. Back when it was still refused classification, it absolutely could've been seized and you fined under such laws, as stated in the 2nd link, which is from an Australian government website (i.e.: Not fake news)

In addition, Valkyrie Drive and Omega Labyrinth are both refused classification, not under the 18+ label.
EDIT: You can add MeiQ: Labyrinth of Death to this list.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 19, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> Not fake
> Mortal Kombat had its rating overturned a few years post release (in 2013, specifically). It was originally refused classification, then re-rated 18+ years later. Back when it was still refused classification, it absolutely could've been seized and you fined under such laws, as stated in the 2nd link, which is from an Australian government website (i.e.: Not fake news)
> 
> In addition, Valkyrie Drive and Omega Labyrinth are both refused classification, not under the 18+ label.
> EDIT: You can add MeiQ: Labyrinth of Death to this list.




i know what you're talking about now

still fake news 

at the time there was no R rating when there was it was allowed in 

key things to know about Australia we don't allow the following Drug use or sex used as a reward in video games


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 19, 2018)

Well yes, it was re-rated.
Not every game gets re-rated. Point is is that games get banned, and if a game is banned, you can be fined for it and have your game seized. Your own government website states this. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, in which case, forgive me.

And when it comes to games like Valkyrie Drive or Omega Labyrinth, these are games I would buy...Currently waiting on a Steam sale to purchase VD.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

To be fair, America has often jailed people for certain types of free speech and banned books on occasion, especially in the past.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Apr 20, 2018)

You're still debating this?
Normal people find your baby kink repulsive.
Get over it and stop making threads about it.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 20, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> you can be fined for it and have your game seized. Your own government website states this. Unless I'm misunderstanding something,




yes you are misunderstanding something it is not illegal to import and own said game it is however illegal to then give that game to some one or buy in bulk and redistribute it (also btw i hate when people from other countries say "i know your country better than you cause google")

the devs for hotline Miami 2 even released a statement saying they would not peruse any legal action against Australians pirating their game they even encouraged us to do so

also Wikipedia is not a good source of information on this as they have many "banned" games that are allowed here its also important to note the person who gives games a rating for AUS is literally 1 single old crusty man who sides with mothers it does not reflect wider Australia as a whole


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 20, 2018)

It's funny you bring this up, the latest Kothcast goes into detail about cub. How's that for synchronicity.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I didn't say that. I did say it's not healthy. And of course I'm not advocating pedophiles go find a kid to diddle. I am however saying that maybe if we don't vilify them so hard, they will be more likely to seek help.



I wouldn't vilify them if they didn't openly sexualized children in the form of Cub or Loli.

It's really that simple.


----------



## Inkblooded (Apr 20, 2018)

pedophilia is illegal and bad and why is this up for debate?? why are people so upset over the statement "child porn is illegal?" why are people so quick to try and grasp at pathetic reasons/excuses to make it socially acceptable?

of course there is "backlash" increasing because in recent years more pedophiles have tried to justify themselves under the batshit idea of being LGBT/a sexual minority.


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 20, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> pedophilia is illegal and bad and why is this up for debate?? why are people so upset over the statement "child porn is illegal?"


I don't think anyone is debating that. It's more about fictional characters in artwork being defined as "child porn".



> of course there is "backlash" increasing because in recent years more pedophiles have tried to justify themselves under the batshit idea of being LGBT/a sexual minority.


I mean when you think about it, pedophiles are probably the most oppressed people in the world. Openly outing yourself will guarantee outrage by just about everyone, even to the point of wanting you dead or jailed. People hate them even more than mass murderers.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Apr 20, 2018)

I wouldn't know because I've been in the fandom for nine months, but if so, I feel like that's a good thing. Yes, it is definitely not the same as preying on a child, but in my opinion, if the idea of children being in sexual situations turns you on, even in fiction, that's not OK. And so I'm very glad that underage NSFW is banned on FA- because it very much should be.

EDIT: and I know it's not someone's fault for being attracted to children, but that doesn't mean you should be drawing it.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> it's really that simple.


It's really actually not.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 20, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> It's really actually not.



Surveys need to be conducted on the overall perception of pedophilia before further objective discussion can be made.

But based on me and people I've spoken with?  It is.  Don't try to overcomplicate it to try and do some round-about justification.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Don't try to overcomplicate it to try and do some round-about justification.


Oh, do you mean like your blatant blanket statements and what your trying to pass off as "facts" based on your limited observations? 

While we're at it we may as well just call general furry porn what it is, Zoophilia and group everyone that has an interest in it into the Zoophiles category lol.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 20, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> I don't think anyone is debating that. It's more about fictional characters in artwork being defined as "child porn".



>Depiction of a child

>Pornographic in nature meant to cause sexual arousal

Child + Porn = [???]



Cawdabra said:


> I mean when you think about it, pedophiles are probably the most oppressed people in the world. Openly outing yourself will guarantee outrage by just about everyone, even to the point of wanting you dead or jailed. People hate them even more than mass murderers.



You assume that just because a group is oppressed means it's wrong.

We oppress criminals all the time.    There's nothing wrong with that.  Pedophiles likewise have an attraction that if left unchecked could lead to disastrous consequences.  It is up to the pedophile to seek help for it.  I am unsure as to the quality of the services available but even if they are mediocre at best, effort should be sought to nullify this attraction as best as possible.

Yes, pedophilia is oppressed; why SHOULDN'T it be?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 20, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> Oh, do you mean like your blatant blanket statements and what your trying to pass off as "facts" based on your limited observations?
> 
> While we're at it we may as well just call general furry porn what it is, Zoophilia and group everyone that has an interest in it into the Zoophiles category lol.



Your argument doesn't really work, because of course it isn't relatable to Zoophilia because furry creatures represent humans enough and are not tangible enough to have an effect on attractiveness toward real animals.

That makes your case worse because the fact that the creatures are animalistic is irrelevant here; they're pretty much as attractive as normal people, with the exception of exaggeration on its side making it even more appealing.  So the fact that the children are furries are irrelevant to the fact that they are children being used as a means to sexually arouse.  If that's the argument you're going for it falls flat in that regard.

Also, I very clearly stated that more surveys need to be conducted and I was speaking based on_ my own experience_ so I very clearly wasn't trying to pass anything off as "facts" only the things I understand as far as I understand them.


----------



## Zehlua (Apr 20, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Straight to the point
> 
> 
> Disaster? You talking about that guy who left diapers and shit lying around or am I think of some other con?


You may be thinking about the incident I had at work in which a babyfur fetishist left his dirty diaper in the bathroom trash can


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 20, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> Oh, do you mean like your blatant blanket statements and what your trying to pass off as "facts" based on your limited observations?
> 
> While we're at it we may as well just call general furry porn what it is, Zoophilia and group everyone that has an interest in it into the Zoophiles category lol.



Well, you're probably not entirely wrong, although it doesn't really matter to me personally.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 20, 2018)

Zehlua said:


> You may be thinking about the incident I had at work in which a babyfur fetishist left his dirty diaper in the bathroom trash can



Ew. Nope nope nope


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Your argument doesn't really work, because of course it isn't relatable to Zoophilia because furry creatures represent humans enough and are not tangible enough to have an effect on attractiveness toward real animals.
> 
> That makes your case worse because the fact that the creatures are animalistic is irrelevant here; they're pretty much as attractive as normal people, with the exception of exaggeration on its side making it even more appealing.  So the fact that the children are furries are irrelevant to the fact that they are children being used as a means to sexually arouse.  If that's the argument you're going for it falls flat in that regard.
> 
> Also, I very clearly stated that more surveys need to be conducted and I was speaking based on_ my own experience_ so I very clearly wasn't trying to pass anything off as "facts" only the things I understand as far as I understand them.


Now who's trying to do the roundabout justification here?

You do realize that your whole argument works in their favor too, right? 

While it's true that there are pedophiles in both fandoms, in relation to cub porn unless you know the intent and/or reason(s) as to why someone commissions and faps to cub porn, you have no right to make blanket statements and group everyone that does under the pedophilia umbrella. 

You might want to check out that Kothcast episode I linked, enlighten yourself a little.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 20, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> Now who's trying to do the roundabout justification here?



If you can show me where I'm being so "round-about" with loosely tied factors and vague terms, I'll admit to it.  But as far as I am aware, I made it as directly as I could using things we know to be true.



Mr. Fox said:


> While it's true that there are pedophiles in both fandoms, in relation to cub porn unless you know the intent and/or reason(s) as to why someone commissions and faps to cub porn, you have no right to make blanket statements and group everyone that does under the pedophilia umbrella.
> 
> You might want to check out that Kothcast episode I linked, enlighten yourself a little.



I have every right to make any statements I wish; my statements weren't blanket statements because I was simply responding to someone else and just going along with the chain of argumentation; I didn't actually make a statement as such, only going along with the statements already made.  If you'd like to accuse someone of doing blanket statements, you'd have to accuse someone else, because I'm perfectly aware that many people who produce cub pornography are Infantalists who enjoy imagining themselves as children.  Furthermore, I am aware that some people also utilize cub pornography because they've had a graphic past of abuse.  Hell, I've met someone who posts cub porn all the time; he's told me he very well understands that its all kinds of fucked up, and perhaps that's his way of coping with what he went through; however that certainly isn't the only way, and it still isn't a justifiable cause to publically share it.

That doesn't make either of those justifications valid ones.  If we were discussing whether the creators and viewers should be absolved for having viewed it, that'd be an entirely different discussion.

Also your approach to the video about how "enlightened" I need to be made only makes me want to avoid it more.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 20, 2018)

Zehlua said:


> You may be thinking about the incident I had at work in which a babyfur fetishist left his dirty diaper in the bathroom trash can


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 20, 2018)

I mentioned the Kothcast episode because it made some interesting arguments between cub porn, furry porn, similarities and the perception of those in both fandoms.

And you're entitled to your opinions and beliefs just like everyone else, but unless you have credible evidence to backup your claims neither may not reflect reality, and that's unfair on the accused.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 21, 2018)

As far as I'm concerned- _good_. Sexualization of children, regardless of whether they're fictional or real, is not something we should normalize.
Children are not _ready_ for sexual intercourse- mentally, physically, or emotionally. As they mature, they may develop sexual feelings, which is normal, but in no way does that make them ready. Even as physically mature teenagers they may not be ready.

You cannot compare pedophilia to any existing sexuality because all existing sexualities involve two (or more) _consenting adult people_. A child cannot give consent because they aren't mature enough to understand the responsibilities and consequences that come with sexual relationships and even the simple act of sex itself. This shouldn't have to be explained.

Now personally, I don't believe in "thought crime". All humans have intrusive thoughts and occasional urges to do inappropriate things- say, punching someone because they did something that annoyed you or having inappropriate fantasies about a person (that's something non-asexual people do on a fairly average basis, from what I gather). That's perfectly normal, and I wouldn't say that intrusive thoughts or inappropriate urges are any level of indicative as to whether a person is dangerous or not. 
What _isn't_ normal, and _does_ have the potential to be dangerous, is trying to rationalize these thoughts and urges, or encourage others to normalize such inappropriate behaviours so that they can be enacted without consequence.

And for the people trying to support the normalization of pedophilia, believe it or not, you aren't the center of the universe- shocking I know. I acknowledge it's easy to forget since the only perspective you have is your own.. But laws against pedophilia aren't meant solely to "repress" you, they are meant to _*protect children*_. Normalizing the sexualization of minors is a very bad idea that could lead to a very heinous result.. If you need evidence, society has had a long term and historical habit of sexually objectifying women in ways that highlight vulnerability- you can see where that's taken us.

Children are children, and not meant for sexual activity. Sexual activity is only meant to be between two (or more) _consenting adults_.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> As far as I'm concerned- _good_. Sexualization of children, regardless of whether they're fictional or real, is not something we should normalize.
> Children are not _ready_ for sexual intercourse- mentally, physically, or emotionally. As they mature, they may develop sexual feelings, which is normal, but in no way does that make them ready. Even as physically mature teenagers they may not be ready.
> 
> You cannot compare pedophilia to any existing sexuality because all existing sexualities involve two (or more) _consenting adult people_. A child cannot give consent because they aren't mature enough to understand the responsibilities and consequences that come with sexual relationships and even the simple act of sex itself. This shouldn't have to be explained.
> ...



I agree completely, but to be fair, I don't see anyone arguing for the acceptance of sexual behavior between adults and children. I only see people saying that the people enjoying this artwork (if it can be called that, since it is extremity prurient in nature) are not leading to the normalization of the sexualization of children. So the question becomes - is cub porn normalizing pedophilic tendencies, or is it not doing that at all, or does it provide an outlet? Because the people I know who enjoy cub yiff do not give off pedophile vibes at all. (Doesn't mean they're not there, it could also means I'm not detecting them or they are suppressing them.)


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I agree completely, but to be fair, I don't see anyone arguing for the acceptance of sexual behavior between adults and children. I only see people saying that the people enjoying this artwork (if it can be called that, since it is extremity prurient in nature) are not leading to the normalization of the sexualization of children. So the question becomes - is cub porn normalizing pedophilic tendencies, or is it not doing that at all, or does it provide an outlet? Because the people I know who enjoy cub yiff do not give off pedophile vibes at all. (Doesn't mean they're not there, it could also means I'm not detecting them or they are suppressing them.)



That seems to be the point that hangs people up, but in my opinion, I don't care if it's fictional or not. It's _still_ inappropriate because those characters are _still_ children.

If you want to draw or write about underage characters in a relationship with someone around their age in a respectful and realistic way, that's fine- children are people too and (depending on their age) they can have genuine romantic feelings. But if you're drawing or writing about underage characters in sexual scenarios specifically for the explicit sexual enjoyment of the viewer, or paired with an adult character for some sort of self insert fantasy, I will never view that as appropriate. 

If you want to "age them up" for a story idea or an AU involving mature themes, that can change the game.. But make it OBVIOUS. Don't just draw the child character exactly as they are and mention that they're 18+. They should _appear and act _as an adult if you're writing them in such a way. But lusting after underage characters for being underage will always seem skeevy and predatory to me.


----------



## Sagt (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >Depiction of a child
> 
> >Pornographic in nature meant to cause sexual arousal
> 
> Child + Porn = [???]


I mean, catgeorising cub, loli and real child porn all under the same umbrella is a big simplication.

I know very little about loli, so I'll ignore that, but cub porn is used by people to imagine themselves _as the cub, not the adult. _That in mind, they aren't pedophiles and I'd think it follows that the cub has the same level of intelligence as they have.

Secondly, real child porn is documenting a real crime taking place somewhere in the world, and it helps to fund an industry for child molestors to continue causing harm. Fictional drawings are just that - drawings which don't represent real people. I've yet to see a convincing enough argument made that would warrant cub porn to be banned or that would justify harassment of cub artists. Yet, just on a routine basis, I see a lot of really speculative/offensive remarks from outsiders looking in.

Personally, I know (online, at least) two people that look at cub porn, and I find it pretty annoying to see them routinely villified as "pedophiles" by the self-employed fandom police. They aren't committing a crime, nor are they pedophiles.

Similarly, I also find it annoying to see babyfurs in general become villified, because of these drawings. I don't have any statistics on me, simply because they haven't been created, but from experience I'd say that a small minority of babyfurs draw or look at cub porn.

I don't care as much if websites want to ban it; they're private companies and they can do that if that's their choice. I disagree with the reasoning they use to ban it, but ultimately I understand that some people may find it distasteful. That said, I do think it's pretty ignorant and very puritanical to ban it through legislation, like they've done in the UK, Canada and Australia.

Anyway, this discussion has been done four times over, in the past month or so. I'd have thought people would have something better to do with their lives, instead of becoming so frustrated at how others live their own, but apparently not.


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >Depiction of a child
> 
> >Pornographic in nature meant to cause sexual arousal
> 
> Child + Porn = [???]


@Lcs already provided an argument, but I also wanted to mention that being attracted to fictional depictions of children doesn't mean being attracted to actual children. Art generally differs quite a bit from the real thing.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> You assume that just because a group is oppressed means it's wrong.
> 
> We oppress criminals all the time.    There's nothing wrong with that.  Pedophiles likewise have an attraction that if left unchecked could lead to disastrous consequences.  It is up to the pedophile to seek help for it.  I am unsure as to the quality of the services available but even if they are mediocre at best, effort should be sought to nullify this attraction as best as possible.
> 
> Yes, pedophilia is oppressed; why SHOULDN'T it be?


Oppressed to the point where even a mere accusation is enough to ruin someone's career and maybe even their life? I think they should be able to seek help without the fear of losing everything.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> I mentioned the Kothcast episode because it made some interesting arguments between cub porn, furry porn, similarities and the perception of those in both fandoms.
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinions and beliefs just like everyone else, but unless you have credible evidence to backup your claims neither may not reflect reality, and that's unfair on the accused.



Fair enough; It can be difficult to make ethical arguments without some leeway.  Ethics require more reasoning than science.  Though both are very useful.



Cawdabra said:


> @Lcs already provided an argument, but I also wanted to mention that being attracted to fictional depictions of children doesn't mean being attracted to actual children. Art generally differs quite a bit from the real thing.



Notice I said depiction and not real; I am fully aware not every individual who views cub is attracted to children.

That doesn't make it less morally reprehensible to create and partake in it.

I mean, most child molesters aren't pedophiles, so I don't think it's at all obvious that things involving children or the depiction of children in sexual acts have to be conducted by pedophiles to be morally wrong.

Note that I'm not comparing babyfurs to child molesters.  Just the ethical implications.

I don't know how many times it's been stated though; the fact that it's fantasy doesn't make it automatically morally permissible.


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 21, 2018)

Bit off topic, but I thought I'd comment briefly.
Personally not fond of the cub porn, and would support it being removed from FA.
Probably wouldn't go as far as legal action though, since... well it's technically not child pornography.
Cub, Loli, Shota, etc aren't anymore pedophilia than FPS are murderers.
Cause lets face it, if you get a kick out of killing real people you're a sick ****.

I'm actually a lot more interested in people who are vehemently against 'underage depictions' though.
Since I've found three strains that can be distinguished by one simple question.
Is a artsy sexual depiction of a fictional 17 year old wrong?
1) Yes: People who pin 18 as some holy number, cause that's what they've been told and brought up with.
2) Yes: People who are able to provide biological/cognitive reasonings in the difference between 17 and 18 before making a moral call.
3) No: People who acknolwedge art isn't real, and don't see the harm.

When it comes to people who use strong wording, and express disgust, I generally find them to be type 1's xD


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> Cub, Loli, Shota, etc aren't anymore pedophilia than FPS are murderers.
> Cause lets face it, if you get a kick out of killing real people you're a sick ****.


This is also the argument I see a lot, and the one I disagree a lot with. With very rare exceptions (Postal, Hatred), violence in video games has a purpose, be it consequences, means of a conflict, etc. In cub/loli pornography, sexualizing children _is_ the purpose in itself.


----------



## Sagt (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> This is also the argument I see a lot, and the one I disagree a lot with. With very rare exceptions (Postal, Hatred), violence in video games has a purpose, be it consequences, means of a conflict, etc. In cub/loli pornography, sexualizing children _is_ the purpose in itself.


If the purpose is important, then shouldn't it be kept in mind that, although underage characters are being sexualised, it's not with pedophilic intent?

What do you think the purpose of violence and other illegal activities in Grand Theft Auto are, by the way? I've played a lot of that, and it certainly hasn't normalised those activities in real life for me, nor has it made me want to commit them myself.


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> This is also the argument I see a lot, and the one I disagree a lot with. With very rare exceptions (Postal, Hatred), violence in video games has a purpose, be it consequences, means of a conflict, etc. In cub/loli pornography, sexualizing children _is_ the purpose in itself.



Going to start by reiterating that I find the video game violence to be nonsense.
LCS covered the point one aspect of the intent thing....
But I also don't think a violence is a method to a means in a lot of games.
Otherwise there wouldn't be such great emphasis on things like blood texture, realistic animation, and gruesome after-bodies.

Again I dislike cub stuff, but I don't see a strong enough link to equate cub porn to people committing acts of pedophilia.
In regards to a lot of the people who I see expressing disgust... it generally tends to be a "I dislike it, so should everyone else" sort of sentiment that's been partially covered with a legal reference and a social "It's wrong."
Not liking something, doesn't immediately equate to something being wrong.

---------------
Completely unrelated, but I find it absolutely hilarious how the last thread I joined was about religious sin...
And the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be "If it's not hurting anyone it's okay"
And yet, the same application doesn't seem to be applied here.
... Yes I just compared pedophilia to Christianity~


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Lcs said:


> If the purpose is important, then shouldn't it be kept in mind that, although underage characters are being sexualised, it's not with pedophilic intent?


Welp, as long as you're willing to offer at least one example where underage characters are sexualized for non-pedophilic intent...



> What do you think the purpose of violence and other illegal activities in Grand Theft Auto are, by the way? I've played a lot of that, and it certainly hasn't normalised those activities in real life for me, nor has it made me want to commit them myself.


Means to an overall carnage? Games like GTA and Saints Row have a lot of violence, but they aren't centered around fetishizing violence in a way cub pornography fetishizes underage sex (not to mention said violence is either too cartoonish, or happens between two sides that willingly participate in it). There are games that _are (_again, original Postal or Hatred), and to be fair, they tend to be frown upon by both gamers and outside circles.



Rakiya said:


> But I also don't think a violence is a method to a means in a lot of games.
> Otherwise there wouldn't be such great emphasis on things like blood texture, realistic animation, and gruesome after-bodies.


Is there such emphasis? Usually, blood textures and realistic animations exist to fit the artistic direction of the game as a whole - it would be weird to create a photorealistic shooter and also mixing it with "cartoony" blood or absence of it.



> Again I dislike cub stuff, but I don't see a strong enough link to equate cub porn to people committing acts of pedophilia.
> In regards to a lot of the people who I see expressing disgust... it generally tends to be a "I dislike it, so should everyone else" sort of sentiment that's been partially covered with a legal reference and a social "It's wrong."


Again, I don't create such links - it's not like I ever said I do. My argument, though, is that fetishizing underage sex is a good way to spread some particularly unpleasant and damaging ideas about how consent works. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid enough point for me.



> Completely unrelated, but I find it absolutely hilarious how the last thread I joined was about religious sin...
> And the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be "If it's not hurting anyone it's okay"
> And yet, the same application doesn't seem to be applied here.
> ... Yes I just compared pedophilia to Christianity~


It was a semi-serious answer for a silly question - more or less a tongue-in-cheek post, don't take it too seriously. I'm not even a religious person, I just happened to read the Bible a while ago


----------



## Troj (Apr 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> So the question becomes - is cub porn normalizing pedophilic tendencies, or is it not doing that at all, or does it provide an outlet?



That is the (yet-unanswered) question. Part of the problem is that (as usual) there are mediating or moderating variables in play beyond just the two we want to examine.

Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse - Wikipedia

American Psychological Association: Porn use and child abuse

Correlates and Moderators of Child Pornography Consumption in a Community Sample

Forbes: Child Pornography Reduces Child Abuse 

The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending


----------



## Sagt (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> Welp, as long as you're willing to offer at least one example where underage characters are sexualized for non-pedophilic intent...


I can only go off of experience, but I'd say that the majority (I acknowledge that there might be some predatorial types too, though, as there are devancies in every group) of cub porn is created and viewed without pedophilic intent, by people that imagine themselves _as the cub. _



Pipistrele said:


> Means to a overall carnage? Games like GTA and Saints Row have a lot of violence, but they aren't centered around fetishizing violence in a way cub pornography fetishizes underage sex (not to mention said violence is either too cartoonish, or happens between two sides that willingly participate in it). There are games that _are (_again, original Postal or Hatred), and to be fair, they tend to be frown upon by both gamers and outside circles.


It's not a particularly innocent purpose, which is the point.

It's less cartoonish than cub porn, and I doubt that killing the police or stealing their cars is something those characters willingly participated in.

When people play Grand Theft Auto, they're stealing non-real things, killing non-real characters, as well as a binch of other illegal activities. It's fun.

Should we be concerned that people find it fun to do such things in an imaginery setting? I'd say no, because it's divorced from reality.

Is there causation-based evidence that it encourages people to re-enact these fictional depictions? No.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I can only go off of experience, but I'd say that the majority (I acknowledge that there might be some predatorial types too, though, as there are devancies in every group) of cub porn is created and viewed without pedophilic intent, by people that imagine themselves _as the cub. _


Weeeelp, it's too slippery of a point to argue about, so I guess I'll probably avoid touching the subject from that perspective



> It's not a particularly innocent purpose, which is the point.
> 
> It's less cartoonish than cub porn, and I doubt that killing the police or stealing their cars is something those characters willingly participated in.
> 
> ...


There's a difference between killing cops and stealing cars in GTA and doing that in aforementioned Hatred. In GTA, you're more or less mowing down caricatures - if you played any of the GTA games, you should know all the dialogues and reactions of non-player characters are made in over-the-top, cartoonish manner, the one that's kinda hard to take with a straight face. In Hatred, you're seemingly doing the same things, but violence is much more realistic and grounded, which also makes it infinitely more disturbing. Speaking shortly, GTA is designed in such a way that many of the elements take away from the overall violence, while Hatred heavily emphasizes violence and consequences that come from it. You can guess which game is widely acclaimed, and which is berated by majority as an example of a poor taste.

I kinda see the way that argument can be used against me ("_but cub pornography also cartoonifies a lot of elements!_" or something like that), but while over-the-top elements of GTA exist to soften the violence in a way, cub pornography rarely does that for underage sex, since underage sex in cub porn _is_ the main attraction (even if you identify yourself with said underage), not a tool for something different. That's my opinion on it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> Since I've found three strains that can be distinguished by one simple question.
> Is a artsy sexual depiction of a fictional 17 year old wrong?
> 1) Yes: People who pin 18 as some holy number, cause that's what they've been told and brought up with.
> 2) Yes: People who are able to provide biological/cognitive reasonings in the difference between 17 and 18 before making a moral call.
> ...



Well, you can't compare it to Cub because the reasoning behind the "magic number 18" isn't the same as the reasoning behind cub.

The reason the age of consent is 18 is for a few reasons;

>Typically by that point the individual is graduated high school, assuming they attended.

>They have a part time job of some sort or have some sort of job experience

>They own a car or know how to drive.

>They can legally move out

Thus if something were to happen during consensual sex, such as pregnancy or a disease, you have some sort of personal structure you can fall back on; some sort of personal financial support, a diploma, and transportation.  You're far more likely to recover from a pregnancy or disease with these things than if you were entirely reliant on other people.

That's why lowering AoC to 14 or lower is absurd; how can you be old enough to consent to the risk of having children should something go wrong, but not be old enough to legally drive?  It makes no sense from a practical standpoint.  If we were to have AoC based on sexual maturity rather than practicality it would be closer to 15 or 16.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> That seems to be the point that hangs people up, but in my opinion, I don't care if it's fictional or not. It's _still_ inappropriate because those characters are _still_ children.
> 
> If you want to draw or write about underage characters in a relationship with someone around their age in a respectful and realistic way, that's fine- children are people too and (depending on their age) they can have genuine romantic feelings. But if you're drawing or writing about underage characters in sexual scenarios specifically for the explicit sexual enjoyment of the viewer, or paired with an adult character for some sort of self insert fantasy, I will never view that as appropriate.
> 
> If you want to "age them up" for a story idea or an AU involving mature themes, that can change the game.. But make it OBVIOUS. Don't just draw the child character exactly as they are and mention that they're 18+. They should _appear and act _as an adult if you're writing them in such a way. But lusting after underage characters for being underage will always seem skeevy and predatory to me.



Yes, I agree with you, it's very inappropriate. 

The next question becomes - do you or I have the moral authority to dictate whether or not this is an acceptable form of viewable and/or producible material? If yes, why?



Troj said:


> That is the (yet-unanswered) question. Part of the problem is that (as usual) there are mediating or moderating variables in play beyond just the two we want to examine.
> 
> Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



Okay, but that is actual child porn, the viewing of which is quite vile and unethical. But cub porn is very obviously not actual child pornography. I'll read these articles later - perhaps you have a specific argument you can make?


----------



## Troj (Apr 21, 2018)

Actual child porn is inherently exploitative because it overwhelmingly features real children.

Cub porn at least features imaginary characters in fantasy scenarios.

So, the question that's left hanging is whether someone who gets off to pictures of the Muppet Babies or someone else's aged-down fursona is at an increased risk for exploiting or abusing an actual child. I don't have an answer to that, because there are wheels within wheels.


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Well, you can't compare it to Cub because the reasoning behind the "magic number 18" isn't the same as the reasoning behind cub.
> 
> The reason the age of consent is 18 is for a few reasons;
> 
> ...



I'll admit that it doesn't relate much to cub porn, since cubs generally are significantly older.
The only comparison I can really make is that both are considered underage or as children.... so it was really an offtopic throw off....

But with that said... seriously?
You're trolling me right? 
I can perhaps see a knowledge aspect from education, but employment and.... driving experience? dafuq? xD
Honestly at the age of 17 most people are still pretty reliant on parents, and if someone's become ill or pregnant... the expectation would be for the parent to step in and support at all costs. Which is... frankly more reliable than a pregnant person driving themselves to hospital, and taking care of themselves pre and post pregnancy.
Highschool graduation isn't going to prepare you any more for pregnancy and STD's than a year prior xD
Nevermind that a lot of teenagers don't wait until 18... I sure as hell didn't xD

But putting that all aside, it's completely unrelated to the question unless you believe sex in art can make a character pregnant....
People aren't that dumb though, right?....


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> Completely unrelated, but I find it absolutely hilarious how the last thread I joined was about religious sin...
> And the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be "If it's not hurting anyone it's okay"
> And yet, the same application doesn't seem to be applied here.
> ... Yes I just compared pedophilia to Christianity~



If that's what a Christian thinks then they're oversimplifying teachings.

The Bible and Jesus have always taught to have self discipline, including your own thoughts.  But this isn't the Christian debate thread.


----------



## Sagt (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> Weeeelp, it's too slippery of a point to argue about, so I guess I'll probably avoid touching the subject from that perspective
> 
> 
> There's a difference between killing cops and stealing cars in GTA and doing that in aforementioned Hatred. In GTA, you're more or less mowing down caricatures - if you played any of the GTA games, you should know all the dialogues and reactions of non-player characters are made in over-the-top, cartoonish manner, the one that's kinda hard to take with a straight face. In Hatred, you're seemingly doing the same things, but violence is much more realistic and grounded, which also makes it infinitely more disturbing. Speaking shortly, GTA is designed in such a way that many of the elements take away from the overall violence, while Hatred heavily emphasizes violence and consequences that come from it. You can guess which game is widely acclaimed, and which is berated by majority as an example of a poor taste.
> ...


Do you think Postal 2 and Hatred should be made illegal?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> I'll admit that it doesn't relate much to cub porn, since cubs generally are significantly older.
> The only comparison I can really make is that both are considered underage or as children.... so it was really an offtopic throw off....
> 
> But with that said... seriously?
> ...



I never said that 18 year olds have it together enough to handle pregnancy.  I'm saying that it is the minimal point in which someone could reasonably take care of a child.  I never said it was optimal... I never said that it was recommended... I would have hoped that it was obvious that it was what I meant but I guess I can't talk about anything with anyone around here without explicit terms.

That being said, 18 and 19 year olds have the ability to take care of a child; I've seen 18 year olds pull it off.  Lots of hard work and dedication and often they have to sacrifice things in their own lives to pull it off, but they pull it off.

A 14 year old?  They're helpless.

I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making here except misrepresenting my own.

Regardless, I was arguing about the reasoning behind the 18 year old age of consent, and thus showing an 17 year old in drawn pornographic material doesn't have the same implications as _someone who is still wearing diapers._ So it wasn't necessarily off topic.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never said that 18 year olds have it together enough to handle pregnancy.  I'm saying that it is the minimal point in which someone could reasonably take care of a child.  I never said it was optimal... I never said that it was recommended... I would have hoped that it was obvious that it was what I meant but I guess I can't talk about anything with anyone around here without explicit terms.
> 
> That being said, 18 and 19 year olds have the ability to take care of a child; I've seen 18 year olds pull it off.  Lots of hard work and dedication and often they have to sacrifice things in their own lives to pull it off, but they pull it off.
> 
> ...



Sure, you could draw a 17 year old in explicit art - I mean, often their bodies are identifical to 18, 19 year old bodies, which is magically okay to draw in explicit scenarios.


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never said that 18 year olds have it together enough to handle pregnancy.  I'm saying that it is the minimal point in which someone could reasonably take care of a child.  I never said it was optimal... I never said that it was recommended... I would have hoped that it was obvious that it was what I meant but I guess I can't talk about anything with anyone around here without explicit terms.
> 
> That being said, 18 and 19 year olds have the ability to take care of a child; I've seen 18 year olds pull it off.  Lots of hard work and dedication and often they have to sacrifice things in their own lives to pull it off, but they pull it off.
> 
> ...


The argument is still completely flawed though, as the measurements are completely unrelated.
By the standards you're using, a person's ability to consent shouldn't be based on age.... but on their ability to get a drivers license.

So if a kid drops out of school at 16, gets a job at Mcdonalds, and lives in a state/country where 16 year olds can apply for a provisional drivers license... they've got at least half the qualifications of the requirements you listed. 
Saying that you've seen 18 year olds pull it off doesn't really mean anything either... since I know a few that can't....
And I know a crap tonne who are well over 18, and can't take proper care of their kids.
Alternatively, I've got a friend who doesn't have they're license and they're 28.... guess they can't give consent since they can't drive themselves to the hospital.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Sure, you could draw a 17 year old in explicit art - I mean, often their bodies are identifical to 18, 19 year old bodies, which is magically okay to draw in explicit scenarios.



I already explained this.

The proper age based on sexual health and ethics is closer to 15.

That doesn't mean that just because 17 is _T E C H N I C A L L Y _cub doesn't magically make it okay to draw characters ten years older.

Visual interpretation in drawn porn is important.  That's why I don't like art styles that make the characters age indistinguishable or questionable.  Art styles that are too cutsie, character sizes too small...

It's be kinda redundant if you made a mature looking character who looks like consenting age but then turn around and say "but she's actually 16!!! Gotcha!" As though that actually matters if I am just as inclined to mistake them for an 18 year old, ignore the reasoning behind 18 year old consent, and pretend that just because 16 is grey automatically means 7 is grey too.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I already explained this.
> 
> The proper age based on sexual health and ethics is closer to 15.
> 
> ...



I don't think that's the reasoning behind anyone say 7 is a grey area too, since it's not, since a 7 year old is prepubescent.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> The argument is still completely flawed though, as the measurements are completely unrelated.
> By the standards you're using, a person's ability to consent shouldn't be based on age.... but on their ability to get a drivers license.
> 
> So if a kid drops out of school at 16, gets a job at Mcdonalds, and lives in a state/country where 16 year olds can apply for a provisional drivers license... they've got at least half the qualifications of the requirements you listed.
> ...



I'm astonished that you can't grasp the fundamental point and instead choose to attack niggling loose ends that you somehow can't fill with your own imagition by it's implication.  So maybe I should put this in terms you can understand;

>I never stated that age of consent should be based on ability, only that the reasoning that 18 is the minimum because they are more probable to have their shit together than a 14 year old.  That _DOESN'T _mean by much or that having children that soon is okay.  That DOESN'T mean someone older may not have it together.  That DOESN'T mean someone younger wouldn't be mature enough to handle it.  That DOESN'T mean that 18 year olds make good parents.  That DOESN'T mean I endorse or recommend having children at 18.

It just means that, like laws should, they apply in general terms rather than specifics.

Have I covered it all?


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Lcs said:


> Do you think Postal 2 and Hatred should be made illegal?


Postal and Hatred _are_ illegal in several developed countries (I never said anything about Postal 2, mind you - sequel is way too juvenile with its content when it comes to violence). Also, keep in mind that both games don't have any minors you can commit acts of violence towards, while cub/loli pornography can potentially promote child abuse. Which is the problem with cub artwork in general - it fetishizes underage sex and represents child abuse as something normal (which is something you can't say even about the most violent videogames, at least among the ones available on the market)


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm astonished that you can't grasp the fundamental point and instead choose to attack niggling loose ends that you somehow can't fill with your own imagition by it's implication.  So maybe I should put this in terms you can understand;
> 
> >I never stated that age of consent should be based on ability, only that the reasoning that 18 is the minimum because they are more probable to have their shit together than a 14 year old.  That _DOESN'T _mean by much or that having children that soon is okay.  That DOESN'T mean someone older may not have it together.  That DOESN'T mean someone younger wouldn't be mature enough to handle it.  That DOESN'T mean that 18 year olds make good parents.  That DOESN'T mean I endorse or recommend having children at 18.
> 
> ...


Not really, by that logic the age of consent should be raised to 30.
Since 30 year olds are more likely to have their shit together than an 18 year old.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> Not really, by that logic the age of consent should be raised to 30.
> Since 30 year olds are more likely to have their shit together than an 18 year old.









Can someone answer me whether I'm really being this incoherent?


----------



## Sagt (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> Postal and Hatred _are_ illegal in several developed countries (I never said anything about Postal 2, mind you - sequel is way too juvenile with its content when it comes to violence).


I wanted to know if *you *think they should be illegal.



Pipistrele said:


> Also, keep in mind that both games don't have any minors you can commit acts of violence towards, while cub/loli pornography can potentially promote child abuse.


I don't see how that first portion is really relevant. Whether minors or not, it's still depicting things that would be quite horrible in real life.

For the other part, I'll mention that an argument could also be made that it potentially acts as a subsitute for the real thing, thereby reducing child abuse in effect. (If we're assuming the purpose people use cub porn is in the way you think, that is)


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Can someone answer me whether I'm really being this incoherent?



No. Only thing is, your arguments are clear in what they're saying, but there are often loopholes to expose. For instance, you stated that "an 18 yo is more likely to have their shit together," paraphrasing since I can't copypasta, which isn't a terrific argument. A better one night be that they're significantly more sexually and mentally developed than a 14 year old.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No. Only thing is, your arguments are clear in what they're saying, but there are often loopholes to expose. For instance, you stated that "an 18 yo is more likely to have their shit together," paraphrasing since I can't copypasta, which isn't a terrific argument. A better one night be that they're significantly more sexually and mentally developed than a 14 year old.



Those are entirely different arguments.

It isn't that it has loopholes.  It's that there are holes being poked in it when you can just use reasoning to understand what I meant.

Obviously I don't mean that every person at the age of 18 is competent to have children.  Quite the contrary.  But I think an 18 year old is more equipped to handle it on average than anyone younger.


----------



## Gryffe (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> This is also the argument I see a lot, and the one I disagree a lot with. With very rare exceptions (Postal, Hatred), violence in video games has a purpose, be it consequences, means of a conflict, etc. In cub/loli pornography, sexualizing children _is_ the purpose in itself.



Sure. I can feel all the deeper meaning and exalted creative energy going on in most depictions of video game violence. Gorn totally isn't a real thing.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I wanted to know if *you *think they should be illegal.
> 
> 
> I don't see how that first portion is really relevant. Whether minors or not, it's still depicting things that would be quite horrible in real life.
> ...



Hatred was despised almost across the board for tasteless treatment of violence with little context.

We've already been through this in the last cub thread Lcs


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Those are entirely different arguments.
> 
> It isn't that it has loopholes.  It's that there are holes being poked in it when you can just use reasoning to understand what I meant.
> 
> Obviously I don't mean that every person at the age of 18 is competent to have children.  Quite the contrary.  But I think an 18 year old is more equipped to handle it on average than anyone younger.



Not really poking loopholes, and your point is pain stakingly clear.
It's also just.... unrelated. 
Having your shit together and a drivers license aren't related.
Having your shit together and a graduating highschool aren't related.
Having employment experience is great, but unless we're talking sex industry, it's again unrelated.

The argument you're trying to make is that 18 is the minimum age in which a person 'generally' has certain aspects of their life worked out. Putting aside whether I agree with that or not, the question I've been asking from the start is "What aspects?"
.... And the ones you've provided are weak, if not completely irrelvant. That simple really.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Gryffe said:


> Sure. I can feel all the deeper meaning and exalted creative energy going on in most depictions of video game violence. Gorn totally isn't a real thing.



"Let's just ignore context and human nature for the purpose of my argument.  Haha, now you're wrong!"


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> Not really poking loopholes, and your point is pain stakingly clear.
> It's also just.... unrelated.
> Having your shit together and a drivers license aren't related.
> Having your shit together and a graduating highschool aren't related.
> ...



Sure, having the ability to obtain transportation, a job, and housing is completely irrelevant to the overall wellbeing of a child and dont at all aid in raising them.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> Not really poking loopholes, and your point is pain stakingly clear.
> It's also just.... unrelated.
> Having your shit together and a drivers license aren't related.
> Having your shit together and a graduating highschool aren't related.
> ...



There are various medical, biological, ethical, and scientific reasons for setting things at 18 years old. Maybe it could be 17, maybe it could be 19. I'd reccomend researching those on your own if you aren't sure what they are.


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Sure, having the ability to obtain transportation, a job, and housing is completely irrelevant to the overall wellbeing of a child and dont at all aid in raising them.


I thought we were talking about consensual sex, not child rearing?
Not sure if you've heard of them, but contraception and abortions tend to be a thing for people.
Unless of course, your argument is that people only have sex for procreation?



BahgDaddy said:


> There are various medical, biological, ethical, and scientific reasons for setting things at 18 years old. Maybe it could be 17, maybe it could be 19. I'd reccomend researching those on your own if you aren't sure what they are.


I've looked into the issue in depth in the past, and there wasn't any peer reviewed information that indicated 18 as the age.
There were a few that suggested mid-20's as the appropriate age due to biological aspects, but that was it really. 18 just seems to be the age people suggested, accepted and decided to keep promoting.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> I thought we were talking about consensual sex, not child rearing?
> Not sure if you've heard of them, but contraception and abortions tend to be a thing for people.
> Unless of course, your argument is that people only have sex for procreation?
> 
> ...



One of the lovely hurdles of having the age of consent laws is being able to throw 19 year olds in jail if they have sex with a 17 year old. Here's to land of the free! *raises beer glass and also realizes people can't drink here until 21, but can be enlisted in the military and shot at 18*


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I wanted to know if *you *think they should be illegal.


Games like Hatred or Postal? Damn right I do. The reason I don't care about Hatred or Postal that much is that they mostly fail at what they're trying to do - they're mildly disturbing at "best" and unintentionally comedic at worst. If somebody will create an elaborate, well-polished murder simulator convincing enough to actually spread the bad message, I'll be all in for banning a game like that; thankfully, I don't think we'll see something like it anytime soon. 



> I don't see how that first portion is really relevant. Whether minors or not, it's still depicting things that would be quite horrible in real life.


Children are way more vunerable towards physical abuse, and practically defenseless towards emotional abuse. That's a deal-breaker - at least adults can defend themselves in both regards to some extent.



> For the other part, I'll mention that an argument could also be made that it potentially acts as a subsitute for the real thing, thereby reducing child abuse in effect. (If we're assuming the purpose people use cub porn is in the way you think, that is)


Which is a short-term solution to a long-term problem - the solution that has the potential to actually lead to more pedophiles, due to the message cub/lolicon spreads across. Ideally, we should work on the problem from the core, not create problematic substitutes.
(From several years of experience on InkBunny and E621, I think majority of people use cub porn exactly in the way I think they do - infantilists are definitely not the main focus when it comes to cub stuff)


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Gryffe said:


> Sure. I can feel all the deeper meaning and exalted creative energy going on in most depictions of video game violence. Gorn totally isn't a real thing.


As I said, most of the gore in videogames is either too cartonish to be taken seriously, or happens with some sort of "consent". It's an excessive gore between armed opponents in a "kill or be killed" scenario - which goes into latter category. The context is also here - it's a post-apocalyptic world of zombies and scavengers; it's not something you can represent peacefully by default.


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> Games like Hatred or Postal? Damn right I do.


Even if this is consistent with your views, it still bugs me when people want to censor things "for the good of everyone". I'd rather people be able to make their own choices in what's appropriate for them or not.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 21, 2018)

Hatred shouldn't be illegal but it should be known that its a mediocre game unfortunately.
Sad, because its graphically gorgeous and has some really nice destruction effects.

Glad the devs got support though, if only because games like it should be allowed to exist and edge in games is fun. 

Best thing to come out of Hatred


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Even if this is consistent with your views, it still bugs me when people want to censor things "for the good of everyone". I'd rather people be able to make their own choices in what's appropriate for them or not.


I think my previous posts make several good arguments _for_ violence in videogames. I'm more against media that promotes and fetishizes violence for the sake of it, and keeps violence as its sole focus, without providing any justifications or purposes other than "to demonstrate mutilation". Speaking simply, I'm not against violent media, I'm more against media that exists for violence and nothing else.


This is not even the topic in question, though, so let's get back on track.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> Games like Hatred or Postal? Damn right I do. The reason I don't care about Hatred or Postal that much is that they mostly fail at what they're trying to do - they're mildly disturbing at "best" and unintentionally comedic at worst. If somebody will create an elaborate, well-polished murder simulator convincing enough to actually spread the bad message, I'll be all in for banning a game like that; thankfully, I don't think we'll see something like it anytime soon.



Wasn't Man Hunt like super fucking detailed on ways to kill someone?


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 21, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Wasn't Man Hunt like super fucking detailed on ways to kill someone?


Very detailed, just like all the ways you could die in Dead Space.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 21, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Wasn't Man Hunt like super fucking detailed on ways to kill someone?


The whole plot of Manhunt was about a convict forced to participate in a snuff movie, all while trying to escape said scenario and avenge the director. Violence in Manhunt comes from context of the game and has a reason to exist, which separates it from "violence for the sake of violence".

(Seriously, I think I've elaborated on my views well enough in previous dozens of posts, so I'm not going to answer another VG-related question in this thread)


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Apr 21, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Even if this is consistent with your views, it still bugs me when people want to censor things "for the good of everyone". I'd rather people be able to make their own choices in what's appropriate for them or not.


On that note, I'm reminded of a certain hotel chain in Japan that openly funds extremism.






For a society that is deeply concerned with what its members support, we have a bad habit of turning a blind eye to where our money goes once it's out of our hands.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 21, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> On that note, I'm reminded of a certain hotel chain in Japan that openly funds extremism.


>start watching
"The Nanking Massacre didn't happen"
"Comfort women weren't a thing"
Oh boy, I get to post this doujin page:


Spoiler


----------



## Sagt (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> Which is a short-term solution to a long-term problem - the solution that has the potential to actually lead to more pedophiles, due to the message cub/lolicon spreads across. Ideally, we should work on the problem from the core, not create problematic substitutes.
> (From several years of experience on InkBunny and E621, I think majority of people use cub porn exactly in the way I think they do - infantilists are definitely not the main focus when it comes to cub stuff)


You say that, but there isn't really a true solution to the problem in the first place. The rate at which children are molested can be reduced (although it's hard to know what exactly has that effect), but there will always be people that are attracted to that sort of stuff, and who will act upon their desires.

Your suggestion is yet another psuedo-solution. Afterall, it could just as easily be argued that banning it makes them more likely to do real harm (especially since they lack a support system), by taking away the substitute they have and making them more sexually repressed.

Anyway, there isn't evidence that your solution is better than mine, nor is there evidence than mine is better than yours; this whole line of thinking is literally all just conjecture right now.

-

(As a side note, I was just thinking that, in some ways, it might not be such a bad thing that the fandom trashes cub porn as hard as it does. I mean, I guess the backlash serves a role, by keeping people that create/use cub porn in check about being ethical, so that what they do stays fictional. It also means that they can surround themselves with people with interests beyond just sex, so that they can maintain normal relationships with people, and not turn into creeps.

I can't help but think that if it were outright banned, or if it had no involvement with the furry fandom, where outsiders can push back with ethical concerns, that a lot of those people would still create cub porn, but just in really dodgy circles. As in, echo chambers on the dark web and other such hidden areas, where they can be exposed to and surrounded by really disgusting people or ideas.

Still though, I definitely cannot agree that all people who look at cub porn are pedophiles, or prone to predatorial behaviour.)


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 21, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> The whole plot of Manhunt was about a convict forced to participate in a snuff movie, all while trying to escape said scenario and avenge the director. Violence in Manhunt comes from context of the game and has a reason to exist, which separates it from "violence for the sake of violence".
> 
> (Seriously, I think I've elaborated on my views well enough in previous dozens of posts, so I'm not going to answer another VG-related question in this thread)


Fucking never saw it only heard of it when I was younger. That violence is nothing compared to modern shit


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 21, 2018)

I think the primary philosophical difference between fictional underage smut and fictional violence in games is that while fictional violence in games is usually geared toward other adults who are also armed and have some sort of agency of their own, a child is a vulnerable person who doesn't have that advantage. Ever notice how in a lot of RPG-type games with open worlds it's actually impossible to harm children, or there aren't any visible children around to be harmed? Abusing kids who don't have the capability to fight back or defend themselves is generally considered taboo, even in fiction, and I think it should stay that way. (And don't even get me started on "corporal punishment", I have some _choice_ words on that. I do _not_ believe in it, full stop, period, end of sentence, end of thought.)

I don't think the age 18 is a "magical age wherein you are suddenly an adult". People below the age of 18 have sexual feelings and engage in sexual activity together. It's life, it's nature, and it's going to happen regardless of what anyone says. All we can do, as adults, is ensure they are educated enough about their bodies and sex itself to be responsible and safe.
The age of consent exists to keep mature people from taking advantage of vulnerable young people who are not in the same level of development. An 18 year old person is most likely _physically mature_, so even though they may not be full functioning adults in society just yet, they can make the calls on what they do with their _physically mature body_.

As far as underage fiction smut goes, it's just another power fantasy- and while there's nothing necessarily wrong with a power fantasy, it waxes inappropriate to project that fantasy onto groups of people who are already dependent and easy to exploit.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 21, 2018)

I'm still mad that the child killing scene in Tales of Berseria was censored when brought to the West. You should be allowed to kill children in games dammit.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 21, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> I think the primary philosophical difference between fictional underage smut and fictional violence in games is that while fictional violence in games is usually geared toward other adults who are also armed and have some sort of agency of their own, a child is a vulnerable person who doesn't have that advantage. Ever notice how in a lot of RPG-type games with open worlds it's actually impossible to harm children, or there aren't any visible children around to be harmed? Abusing kids who don't have the capability to fight back or defend themselves is generally considered taboo, even in fiction, and I think it should stay that way. (And don't even get me started on "corporal punishment", I have some _choice_ words on that. I do _not_ believe in it, full stop, period, end of sentence, end of thought.)
> 
> I don't think the age 18 is a "magical age wherein you are suddenly an adult". People below the age of 18 have sexual feelings and engage in sexual activity together. It's life, it's nature, and it's going to happen regardless of what anyone says. All we can do, as adults, is ensure they are educated enough about their bodies and sex itself to be responsible and safe.
> The age of consent exists to keep mature people from taking advantage of vulnerable young people who are not in the same level of development. An 18 year old person is most likely _physically mature_, so even though they may not be full functioning adults in society just yet, they can make the calls on what they do with their _physically mature body_.
> ...



Both violent video games and cub smut are geared towards adults, so I'm not sure what your comparison was initially in your statement. You also use tiny, hard to read font for some reason. It makes me avoid your posts a lot, which may or may not be your intention. 

And yes, young people are sexually active creatures. Many people do not enjoy acknowledging this, and actively seek to suppress sexual activity on the count of minors. Minors shouldn't engage in sexual activity with adults, of course, but a lot of times it's highly suppressed between them of age as well. Responsible sex education is of course not a thing in this country. 

Anyhow, we already know cub porn is wildly inappropriate. Is there anything new to offer to the debate?


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 21, 2018)

I've been debating whether to post on this thread for awhile partly because I'm not a furry and partly because I'm _very _suspicious behind the motivations for this thread, especially since _certain _poster has some, shall we say, _interesting _views when it comes to child welfare laws. That said, I think it's been obviously to those outside the furry community the issue of cub pornography problematic and needs to be handled. The furry community is just catching up to the conclusion that there is a need and will to fix the problem. 

I have a simple solution to the cub pornography problem and _only _the cub pornography problem. The wider issues of pedophilia in fandom (yes, it's there), pedophilia among babyfurs (yes, it's there, but not every babyfur is a pedophile), babyfurs protecting pedophiles ( yes, it happens, but there are more who criticize the shit out of it), and the more urgent of issue of handling pedophiles in wider society (unless you know what an *inchoate offense* is without looking it up, I don't really want to hear your opinion on the matter) are problems that either have discussed to death here or I'm not talking on a Saturday night before I party at the local pub with my peeps and unlimited atomic wings til midnight.

Here is the simple solution:

Everybody who is vocal about the need to fix this issue can volunteer for a "community watch group" that reports cub pornography on the main site to the mods. The FA mods get some helping hands and the volunteers get to fix the problem. The cub pornography that should be on the lookout for should include minors involved in underage sex, minors urinating and defecating in diapers, scat, and diaper changing on minors. There is no reason anyone needs to see this shit, period. Adult baby content stays as long as it's clearly an adult, which means "chibi" and "little people" don't cut it, nice try. The volunteers could use this forum to coordinate. How about that.

While we're on the subject of making Fur Affinity Great Again (don't steal this, I trademarked it), how about we get rid of the vore and snuff on FA, too.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 21, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> I thought we were talking about consensual sex, not child rearing?
> Not sure if you've heard of them, but contraception and abortions tend to be a thing for people.
> Unless of course, your argument is that people only have sex for procreation?



*Oh my fucking god
*
I don't understand how you managed to throw the entire argument out the window considering that was the entire foundation of what we were arguing about.

You didn't move the goalposts; you moved the entire fucking racetrack.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 21, 2018)

I have already said my opinion in the other thread(s) about this, but I guess I will say it again.

Cub porn is fantasy, the people making and the people consuming it are harming no one by doing so. Unlike real child porn, there are no real children involved, so in reality nothing truly "wrong" is happening.

I don't understand why everyone's gut reaction is to ban things *they* find appalling. This crap happens with basically everything, people want to ban books with ideas they find appalling/disagree with, people wanted to ban "immoral" movies when they were first starting to become a thing, and obviously people want to ban violent video games. I find this whole anti-cub porn "movement" to be basically the same thing.

The argument that it makes people into child molesters is just as unsubstantiated as the argument that violent video games make people into thieves and murderers. There is no good evidence that people who consume cub porn are more likely to molest children, just as there is no evidence that violent video games make people murder. We are actually now getting evidence that violent video games consumption may have a negative correlation with murder rate. It is quite possibly that cub porn consumption may have a negative correlation with child molestation, just as violent video games consumption may have with murder rate.



Pipistrele said:


> Means to an overall carnage? Games like GTA and Saints Row have a lot of violence, but they aren't centered around fetishizing violence in a way cub pornography fetishizes underage sex (not to mention said violence is either too cartoonish, or happens between two sides that willingly participate in it). There are games that _are (_again, original Postal or Hatred), and to be fair, they tend to be frown upon by both gamers and outside circles.


It could easily be said that GTA and Saints Row do fetishize violence, the easiest example I can think up is the torture scene in GTA V, which was shown in explicit detail because it is violent. Also many people just play GTA and Saints Row as a sort of violent sandbox game, just going around and running people over, shooting them, etc.

There is nothing wrong with games being violent just to be violent it adds shock value and serves as an outlet for many people through the means of fantasy.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> *Oh my fucking god
> *
> I don't understand how you managed to throw the entire argument out the window considering that was the entire foundation of what we were arguing about.
> 
> You didn't move the goalposts; you moved the entire fucking racetrack.


Are you shocked the dumpster fire you lit is burning out of control?

And goalposts belong on playing fields, not a racetrack. Racetracks have finish lines.

Lay off, the discussion is still on track.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 22, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Cub porn is fantasy, the people making and the people consuming it are harming no one by doing so. Unlike real child porn, there are no real children involved, so in reality nothing truly "wrong" is happening.


People would rather not use a site where child pornography art is being posted, even if it isn't harming anyone directly. Though there is the liability issue of possibly having pedophiles who like cub pornography on the same site as users who are minors. And there are users who are minors because I've run across some on the main site and in this very forum. These are two groups I think most would rather not come in contact with one another.

There is also the argument of normalizing cub pornography and the stigma on the furry community for allowing cub pornography, which, believe me, exists.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 22, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Are you shocked the dumpster fire you lit is burning out of control?
> 
> And goalposts belong on playing fields, not a racetrack. Racetracks have finish lines.
> 
> Lay off, the discussion is still on track.



Can you at the very least read up on conversations before criticizing interactions within them?

I don't know how many times I've stated the general reasoning behind making 18 a MINIMAL age of consent based on practical grounds.

The person I'm arguing with seems to be ignoring everything I'm stating, cherry picking certain arguments I've made and addressing them without the context of the rest of the argument.  It's infuriating.  Because of it, the argument about it has gone on way too long because of their refusal to actually sit down and try to understand the argument, making kneejerk posts reacting to my arguments that strawman the entire thing.

So it has little to do with the thread at hand.  It's hardly even on topic; it was meant as a small bit of info to make context for a future argument, but this person seems so hung up on this argument that I can't make any progress with where I was going with it and instead I'm stuck defending an argument that is continuously ignored.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 22, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I've been debating whether to post on this thread for awhile partly because I'm not a furry and partly because I'm _very _suspicious behind the motivations for this thread, especially since _certain _poster has some, shall we say, _interesting _views when it comes to child welfare laws. That said, I think it's been obviously to those outside the furry community the issue of cub pornography problematic and needs to be handled. The furry community is just catching up to the conclusion that there is a need and will to fix the problem.
> 
> I have a simple solution to the cub pornography problem and _only _the cub pornography problem. The wider issues of pedophilia in fandom (yes, it's there), pedophilia among babyfurs (yes, it's there, but not every babyfur is a pedophile), babyfurs protecting pedophiles ( yes, it happens, but there are more who criticize the shit out of it), and the more urgent of issue of handling pedophiles in wider society (unless you know what an *inchoate offense* is without looking it up, I don't really want to hear your opinion on the matter) are problems that either have discussed to death here or I'm not talking on a Saturday night before I party at the local pub with my peeps and unlimited atomic wings til midnight.
> 
> ...



I'm starting to like vore. Don't kick my descent into degeneracy dude. Oh and I browse art of animals screwing each other.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'm starting to like vore.


Can I eat you? :V


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 22, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Can I eat you? :V



Only in a certain manner.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Can you at the very least read up on conversations before criticizing interactions within them?
> 
> I don't know how many times I've stated the general reasoning behind making 18 a MINIMAL age of consent based on practical grounds.
> 
> ...


Poor you.

Don't start dumpster fires if you can't take the heat.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'm starting to like vore. Don't kick my descent into degeneracy dude. Oh and I browse art of animals screwing each other.


Lord have mercy. At least you're not into The Killing Time.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 22, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Lord have mercy. At least you're not into The Killing Time.



I had to go look it up actually. I have watched the Shining if that counts. About as far into the horror genre as I want to go.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I had to go look it up actually. I have watched the Shining if that counts. About as far into the horror genre as I want to go.


Just to be sure, we're talking about the FA group?


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 22, 2018)

guesswhosback said:


> There isnt anything more beautiful than a teen boy making love to his papa.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 22, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Poor you.
> 
> Don't start dumpster fires if you can't take the heat.



I don't even think you yourself know what you're talking about.

Because we obviously aren't talking about the same thing if you're this ignorant.  Nobody is this oblivious to context.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 22, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Just to be sure, we're talking about the FA group?



Oh, no, hang on... okay, I found an artist called killing time, aside from that I don't know what you mean.


----------



## Rakiya (Apr 22, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Poor you.
> 
> Don't start dumpster fires if you can't take the heat.


Soon enough you'll realize you're wasting your time.
Everything you say is a misunderstanding until you agree with them.
Otherwise you're just ignorant cause they can't possibly be wrong.

Best to just ignore and move along. 
Otherwise you might hurt their feelings.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 22, 2018)

Rakiya said:


> Soon enough you'll realize you're wasting your time.
> Everything you say is a misunderstanding until you agree with them.
> Otherwise you're just ignorant cause they can't possibly be wrong.
> 
> ...



Now you're just being rude.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 22, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> People would rather not use a site where child pornography art is being posted, even if it isn't harming anyone directly. Though there is the liability issue of possibly having pedophiles who like cub pornography on the same site as users who are minors. And there are users who are minors because I've run across some on the main site and in this very forum. These are two groups I think most would rather not come in contact with one another.
> 
> There is also the argument of normalizing cub pornography and the stigma on the furry community for allowing cub pornography, which, believe me, exists.


I have no problem with sites self regulating, if that is what the owners of the sites want to do. Personally I think it is a good thing that FA does not allow NSFW cub art, because in a way FA is the first furry image board someone will find if they start googling for one. I think it is best if we leave morally questionable and extremely controversial things out of what could be considered the face of the fandom.

Other less known sites such as e621 will fill the space left by FA. I think the way FA setup is good as it is right now if your worried about the reputation of fandom.

But overall I don't think there should be a stigma against cub porn as long as it is kept separated from the "face of the fandom" it is fine.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I don't even think you yourself know what you're talking about.
> 
> Because we obviously aren't talking about the same thing if you're this ignorant. Nobody is this oblivious to context.


You do realize that throwing around rhetorical terms doesn't make you seem smarter?

You started what you knew would be an extremely controversial and argumentative thread as evidenced by the subtext here:

*Oh boy another cub thread, this should end well.

Created by none other than ya boy. This is a recipe for disaster. *

So you knew certain people would be triggered by this debate.

Fortunately, most people came to this thread to be reasonable.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 22, 2018)

I don't know if I'm necessarily qualified to discuss the finer points of comparing fictional underage smut to fictional violence in media, especially seeing as I don't tend to play violent videogames, and when I do, I don't play them violently. I have a 100+ hour playthrough of Fallout: New Vegas going wherein I haven't killed or even attacked a single person in the game.. So there's that I suppose.

All I know is that these two things don't necessarily need to be compared to come to the conclusion that porn involving children is wrong. That's really what it comes down to- child porn, real or fictional is inappropriate and exploitative. This thread and all threads like it have gone in circles because, honestly.. There's only so many ways to _say that_, and if someone doesn't understand, acknowledge or realize it- I don't know what else to tell you.

Also, nowhere have I ever said that I think all people who experience pedophile preferences should all be burned at the stake or that they're all universally heinous people- I firmly believe that _everyone_ should be able to unashamedly seek help for their problems so that they can proceed to live their best life. The less we stigmatize mental illness, the more people will feel less fear at the idea of getting help.. And the more people get help, the less likely an actual tragedy might happen.

But de-stigmatizing harmful mental illness and normalizing its effects are two very different things, and it's for the best that we don't lose track of that in this discussion.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Apr 22, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


>


OK, this is off-topic but
It's Bubbles!



Illuminaughty said:


> I don't know if I'm necessarily qualified to discuss the finer points of comparing fictional underage smut to fictional violence in media, especially seeing as I don't tend to play violent videogames, and when I do, I don't play them violently. I have a 100+ hour playthrough of Fallout: New Vegas going wherein I haven't killed or even attacked a single person in the game.. So there's that I suppose.
> 
> All I know is that these two things don't necessarily need to be compared to come to the conclusion that porn involving children is wrong. That's really what it comes down to- child porn, real or fictional is inappropriate and exploitative. This thread and all threads like it have gone in circles because, honestly.. There's only so many ways to _say that_, and if someone doesn't understand, acknowledge or realize it- I don't know what else to tell you.
> 
> ...



That's what I was thinking. How come everything you say happens to be my own thoughts?


----------



## Lawkbutt (Apr 22, 2018)

I can't stand cub, honestly and it's good that the furry fandom is trying to clean itself out.


----------



## Kyr (Apr 22, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> I don't know if I'm necessarily qualified to discuss the finer points of comparing fictional underage smut to fictional violence in media, especially seeing as I don't tend to play violent videogames, and when I do, I don't play them violently. I have a 100+ hour playthrough of Fallout: New Vegas going wherein I haven't killed or even attacked a single person in the game.. So there's that I suppose.
> 
> All I know is that these two things don't necessarily need to be compared to come to the conclusion that porn involving children is wrong. That's really what it comes down to- child porn, real or fictional is inappropriate and exploitative. This thread and all threads like it have gone in circles because, honestly.. There's only so many ways to _say that_, and if someone doesn't understand, acknowledge or realize it- I don't know what else to tell you.
> 
> ...


9/10 post.

Only docked you a point because you chose a font that almost blended into the background.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 22, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> That's really what it comes down to- child porn, real or fictional is inappropriate and exploitative.


for something to be exploitive it has to harm someone else. Which is something that fiction can't ever do.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 23, 2018)

i want to show you guys this 





do you know how much shit this is currently getting on facebook you're a fucking minority stop fucking defending Paedophiles


----------



## modfox (Apr 23, 2018)

pedophiles need to be burned on a stake


----------



## Saiko (Apr 23, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> for something to be exploitive it has to harm someone else. Which is something that fiction can't ever do.


The biggest problem I see with fictional cub porn is its potential use in grooming, which is certainly harmful. Part of the core appeal of furry porn is its ability to "clean up" just about anything and make it attractive. Compared to "normal" porn, that makes it especially effective as a way to manipulate young furries by normalizing behaviors that shouldn't be normalized, at least not at a young age. Someone on the first or second page did say that this isn't something we ever hear about in practice, but given the topic I think we should err on the side of caution. Until we have more numbers, we should assume the numbers are bad; and artists should have an obligation to at least be extremely particular about cub commissions.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> i want to show you guys this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is a sexual attraction - a paraphilia.


----------



## OvineTanuki (Apr 23, 2018)

Why is this even a discussion? No matter how much white-knighting you do, people are gonna draw what they want. Besides helping you feel morally superior, complaining about it on a forum isn't going to do anything. There's a lot of stuff I find a bit iffy about things like feral/cub/loli, but at the end of the day, my personal morals don't hold any real merit for what the staff decides to do, so why would yours? If you find it distasteful, oh well. You just have to suck it up and keep on going. Life's too short and the world is too messed up with far bigger, and quite frankly, more deadly concerns than weirdos drawing puppies wearing diapers. Also as a random side note, this is just a general comment on the 4+ threads talking about this.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 23, 2018)

Saiko said:


> The biggest problem I see with fictional cub porn is its potential use in grooming, which is certainly harmful. Part of the core appeal of furry porn is its ability to "clean up" just about anything and make it attractive. Compared to "normal" porn, that makes it especially effective as a way to manipulate young furries by normalizing behaviors that shouldn't be normalized, at least not at a young age. Someone on the first or second page did say that this isn't something we ever hear about in practice, but given the topic I think we should err on the side of caution. Until we have more numbers, we should assume the numbers are bad; and artists should have an obligation to at least be extremely particular about cub commissions.


Most cub porn is cub on cub, cub on young/sibling, or solo. It is actually pretty rare that artists make cub on adult porn. I don't know how you think someone is going to groom a kid by showing them cub porn over the internet, but I doubt it would really be that effective and I also doubt that it has ever happened.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 23, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Most cub porn is cub on cub, cub on young/sibling, or solo. It is actually pretty rare that artists make cub on adult porn. I don't know how you think someone is going to groom a kid by showing them cub porn over the internet, but I doubt it would really be that effective and I also doubt that it has ever happened.



why are you even defending this shit? it has been shown that furries do groom young furries this was shown in peer studies


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> why are you even defending this shit? it has been shown that furries do groom young furries this was shown in peer studies



I honestly highly doubt that. And if it is true, I doubt it occurs at a higher rate in the fandom vs outside it.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 23, 2018)

Because I don't think we should go banning any type of media. What I am arguing is actually what I think, but I am in no way passionate about the issue as it really does not affect me in any way. The reason I am debating this is because I enjoy debate and underdog positions are always the most satisfying positions to debate.

Also if it has been shown in a study then *show* me the study. Even if it was to be shown to have happened in a study unless it is shown to happen with shocking frequency then my position will remain the same. For example propaganda can be used to make terrorists, but in no way do I think that means we should ban it.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I honestly highly doubt that. And if it is true, I doubt it occurs at a higher rate in the fandom vs outside it.


Sadly, it does tend to occur more often in anime and furry fandoms - in case of both fandoms, it comes mostly to a blend of relatively unexperienced kids and teenagers who participate in it (there are a lot of 12-16 years old folks on FAF alone, for example), and older dudes with a good amount of fetishes under the belt; both demographics not being separated by anything at all. Which is also one of the reasons I find cub problematic - it would probably be morally alright in general, but in case of this fandom, it spreads some unpleasant messages in a place where said messages can have the worst effect.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> Sadly, it does tend to occur more often in anime and furry fandoms - in case of both fandoms, it comes mostly to a blend of relatively unexperienced kids and teenagers who participate in it (there are a lot of 12-16 years old folks on FAF alone, for example), and older dudes with a good amount of fetishes under the belt; both demographics not being separated by anything at all. Which is also one of the reasons I find cub problematic - it would probably be morally alright in general, but in case of this fandom, it spreads some unpleasant messages in a place where said messages can have the worst effect.



I dont disagree, really. I know I have take the stance of defending people, but the reality is I don't know anyone's ultimate intentions. Some people may honestly find the idea of getting a minor to open up to them stimulating, or exciting, to see how far they can get it. Forbidden fruits and all that.

So I won't say cub doesn't squick me out, it does, but then you know, BDSM also squicks me out, and a few other ferishes as well.

One possible consequence we haven't explored is minors viewing cub porn. I wonder what the consequences of that is? We've only really talked about this from an adults perspective. I wonder what it does to minors if you find that stuff and see young people being portrayed in sexual situations?


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 23, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> why are you even defending this shit? it has been shown that furries do groom young furries this was shown in peer studies


Whoa wait what are you serious?


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> One possible consequence we haven't explored is minors viewing cub porn. I wonder what the consequences of that is? We've only really talked about this from an adults perspective. I wonder what it does to minors if you find that stuff and see young people being portrayed in sexual situations?


Wouldn't young minors have no sex drive therefore no motivation to seek it out in the first place, also once they do find cub porn what would motivate them to continue viewing it.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 23, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Most cub porn is cub on cub, cub on young/sibling, or solo. It is actually pretty rare that artists make cub on adult porn. I don't know how you think someone is going to groom a kid by showing them cub porn over the internet, but I doubt it would really be that effective and I also doubt that it has ever happened.


Not to mention that the grooming argument is dumb to begin with.
You can hypothetically use all sorts of things for harmful actions other than their intended purposes. You could probably teach a child to stab someone using a doll and a knife as an example. Things shouldn't be banned just because someone can hypothetically do something harmful using it.

If you're going to punish anyone, punish the predators actually grooming children using such content. Not the artists drawing it, and not the people enjoying said art.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Wouldn't young minors have no sex drive therefore no motivation to seek it out in the first place, also once they do find cub porn what would motivate them to continue viewing it.



No because prepubescents don't know what sex is, not really. It's basically theoretical knowledge if they even do know what it is, like that the solar system is extremely large. 

But pubescents and post-pubescents could see this art, say a 15 year old, and maybe think seeing sexualized 13 year olds in incest art is interesting, or something. There's much more than just Lion King cub yiff - it can also include young anthro characters designed very much to look like children and young teens.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No because prepubescents don't know what sex is, not really. It's basically theoretical knowledge if they even do know what it is, like that the solar system is extremely large.
> 
> But pubescents and post-pubescents could see this art, say a 15 year old, and maybe think seeing sexualized 13 year olds in incest art is interesting, or something. There's much more than just Lion King cub yiff - it can also include young anthro characters designed very much to look like children and young teens.


Well hopefully they will have received comprehensive sexual education on what is right and wrong... oh wait yeah nevermind.

Though in all seriousness, we have come back to the original argument of whether or not cub porn makes people into pedophiles.

Also, I understand what you are trying to say with the example, but a 15 yr old taking a liking to a 13 yr old is not uncommon it is the equivalent of a high school sophomore and a 8th grader dating it is a little bit weird, but not wrong. Hell in my state it would be legal for me to have consentual intercourse with a 13 yr old because the age of consent is 16 or within 4 yrs. I don't necessarily think it would be okay for me to do so, but I could legally.


----------



## ThunderSnowolf (Apr 23, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> I'm still mad that the child killing scene in Tales of Berseria was censored when brought to the West. You should be allowed to kill children in games dammit.



You'd have to be really sick to think that killing children is fun or good. 
And no, you shouldn't.


----------



## ThunderSnowolf (Apr 23, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Most cub porn is cub on cub, cub on young/sibling, or solo. It is actually pretty rare that artists make cub on adult porn. I don't know how you think someone is going to groom a kid by showing them cub porn over the internet, but I doubt it would really be that effective and I also doubt that it has ever happened.


You should probably take a look at Inkbunny then.
You know what? Actually, don't. They've got some sick people there.


----------



## ThunderSnowolf (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No because prepubescents don't know what sex is, not really. It's basically theoretical knowledge if they even do know what it is, like that the solar system is extremely large.
> 
> But pubescents and post-pubescents could see this art, say a 15 year old, and maybe think seeing sexualized 13 year olds in incest art is interesting, or something. There's much more than just Lion King cub yiff - it can also include young anthro characters designed very much to look like children and young teens.



When I was a prepubescent kid, I knew what sex was and more. Do you mean all prepubescents? Because I'm sorry to say this isn't true.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

ThunderSnowolf said:


> When I was a prepubescent kid, I knew what sex was and more. Do you mean all prepubescents? Because I'm sorry to say this isn't true.



I'm saying sexual education in this country is dismal, so yes, I feel confident in saying the average prepubescent doesn't know what sex is. And especially not sexual ethics.


----------



## Troj (Apr 23, 2018)

The average prepubescent _absolutely _knows what sex is (approximately), because they have peers, television, the radio, and the Internet.

But, when I was a kid, while my peers got gotten the memo that penis+ vagina= baby, my peers insisted that, for example, one time a man PEED INSIDE A LADY, and then they had a BABY MADE OF PEE.

That's the level of "knowledge" we're dealing with here.

Needless to say, they were just as ignorant (or even more so) about contraception, sexual health, consent, and relationships.

The very real danger here is that the body is hot to trot before the heart and the brain are really, truly ready for love, sex, marriage, and the baby carriage.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> The average prepubescent _absolutely _knows what sex is (approximately), because they have peers, television, the radio, and the Internet.
> 
> But, when I was a kid, while my peers got gotten the memo that penis+ vagina= baby, my peers insisted that, for example, one time a man PEED INSIDE A LADY, and then they had a BABY MADE OF PEE.
> 
> ...



Right, which is why it's important for youth to axtually know what sex is. Just knowing it means a guy bangs a girl doesn't mean you know what sex is, not in human social interactions contexts.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Apr 23, 2018)

*Have not read through the thread. Don't care to enter the debate going on really. But just going to throw my 2 cents into the mix:*

I work with pedophiles on a daily basis. Ones that have actually molested kids. They are some of the most unremorseful, manipulative, wicked individuals I've ever met. A lot of them have admitted during therapy that they've been molested in the past. (Its a twisted positive feedback loop that people that are molested as kids tend to grow up to be pedophiles themselves) Many have also admitted that they got into it because they stumbled onto kiddy pornography and it grew on them. All of them have said that if given the chance they would do it again.

That said, my stance on cub art is that while it is fictional and does not harm people directly, I feel that it is unhealthy in that it normalizes and desensitizes people to sexual acts toward children. Its the familiarity effect. Do I think that everyone who gets off to cub porn is going to go out and diddle kiddies? No, but I do think that it nurtures an unhealthy fantasy which encourages people to perseverate on the idea of it. So when an opportunity to act on it does occur, they do.

Pedophilia in all forms is unhealthy and predatory in nature. Allowing cub, to me, is a tacit approval of it. We shouldn't be demonizing pedophiles that haven't done anything to children yet but just have urges. That just drives them underground where they're most likely to keep focusing on it until someone ends up getting hurt. We should be trying to treat them. We are not doing ANYONE any favors by fostering their antisocial paraphilia by allowing sexualized cub art. Cub art justly deserves any backlash it gets.

That's all. Peace people. <:


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 23, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> A lot of them have admitted during therapy that they've been molested in the past.



Ugh.. It sickens me how horrible acts beget horrible acts.. And it's sad that the cases of abused peoples saying "No, this awful cycle ends with me." are so dismally few compared to those that just perpetuate it.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 23, 2018)

Trust on Garth's opinion of this.

He knows more about pedophiles than any of us will ever know. 

No amount of googling will not put you in a position above Garth :V


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> Ugh.. It sickens me how horrible acts beget horrible acts.. And it's sad that the cases of abused peoples saying "No, this awful cycle ends with me." are so dismally few compared to those that just perpetuate it.



Yes, and there's a lot of psychological reasons for why that feedback loop occurs. Some of it is probably getting even/passing the buck behavior, other times it is because it's normalized, other times various reasons I'm really not qualified to discuss. :v


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 23, 2018)

ThunderSnowolf said:


> You'd have to be really sick to think that killing children is fun or good.
> And no, you shouldn't.


I don't really follow.
Fiction is cool because it lets you pretend to be someone else and/or experience things that you either can't or shouldn't. Entering a new world, being a new person, meeting new people, doing things you could never do, etc.
When I play an antagonist in a video game, or rather, when I am playing the part of the villain and I have the control to be as villainous as I so please, I am pretending to be a monsterous person within the realm of fiction. When I bombed Megaton in Fallout 3, thus destroying dozens of people's homes and killing dozens of people, I committed a heinous act within fiction. But this act is meaningless; I didn't actually kill anyone, nor do I desire to. No one was _actually _displaced. I was playing a character in a fictional world that has nothing to do with my own real one.
Why does involving children in this equation have any sudden meaningful heinousness outside of the realm of fiction? If I were to download a mod to let me kill the citizens of Little Lamplight in Fallout 3, why does this suddenly become heinous and wrong in a way that no one would bat an eye at otherwise? Sure, children are much more vulnerable, defenseless people, but I was already pretending to be bad to begin with. Killing children would just be another heinous act _within the realm of fiction_.

The interesting thing especially about involving children in tragedy in fiction is that people (generally speaking) naturally care about what happens to kids because they're so defenseless. So if you're trying to say, write a story in which a tragedy occurs, people are more likely to be emotionally effected if those involved in the tragedy are children. So not only does "child murder" existing within fiction have the capability of enhancing "role-playing" in games, it can also make stories more impactful on an emotional level. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to do these same things that don't involve children. I just find it really difficult to understand why the concept of even killing children in fiction is something people would find morally reprehensible.

Of course, I've said it before; I don't have a problem with anything in fiction. I believe fiction is completely morally separated from the real world and that "anything goes" basically.


GarthTheWereWolf said:


> We are not doing ANYONE any favors by ...allowing sexualized cub art.


Allowing such art fosters and encourages creativity and allows a greater variety in the kinds of art available that can be artistically analyzed whilst allowing people to explore ideas and concepts that cannot and should not be replicated in the real world.


GarthTheWereWolf said:


> Pedophilia in all forms is unhealthy and predatory in nature. Allowing cub, to me, is a tacit approval of it. We shouldn't be demonizing pedophiles that haven't done anything to children yet but just have urges.


And statements like this come with the assumption that things like cub art have a relationship with pedophilia to begin with; how can you be so sure someone who likes such art would also be attracted to actual children?


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 23, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> I don't really follow.
> Fiction is cool because it lets you pretend to be someone else and/or experience things that you either can't or shouldn't. Entering a new world, being a new person, meeting new people, doing things you could never do, etc.
> When I play an antagonist in a video game, or rather, when I am playing the part of the villain and I have the control to be as villainous as I so please, I am pretending to be a monsterous person within the realm of fiction. When I bombed Megaton in Fallout 3, thus destroying dozens of people's homes and killing dozens of people, I committed a heinous act within fiction. But this act is meaningless; I didn't actually kill anyone, nor do I desire to. No one was _actually _displaced. I was playing a character in a fictional world that has nothing to do with my own real one.
> Why does involving children in this equation have any sudden meaningful heinousness outside of the realm of fiction? If I were to download a mod to let me kill the citizens of Little Lamplight in Fallout 3, why does this suddenly become heinous and wrong in a way that no one would bat an eye at otherwise? Sure, children are much more vulnerable, defenseless people, but I was already pretending to be bad to begin with. Killing children would just be another heinous act _within the realm of fiction_.
> ...



To an extent, I agree- I respect the difference between fiction and reality. But at the same time, these sorts of violent heinous acts are far removed from what a lot of us are familiar with. So much so, that they don't strike us as realistic or even plausible. Very few people living in wealthy/developed countries in the modern world have actually seen the results of such devastation, or experienced it themselves. It seems almost cartoonish and impossible because it's not an experience we know. Like superheros fighting robot aliens from outer space. We can remove ourselves from the context because we've never experienced said context.

If you asked someone like, say, a war veteran who has seen mass devastation and death actually happen in front of them, they might have more reservations about committing such acts, even in video games that aren't real, because the acts presented have _been_ a reality for them. But that's not the point, what I'm trying to get at, is that while acts of outlandish violence and destruction in games seem intensely removed from reality because most of us have no real life comparison, the prevalence of child abuse (specifically sexual abuse) is alarmingly common by comparison.

A lot of people in society today have been abused by people they should have been able to trust. A lot of people have been sexually abused as children, and sexual abuse toward people of all ages, genders, sexes, etc is an issue that hits hard because it hits way too close to home. It's the enemy we are familiar with for its shocking normality, something that some people live their entire lives _in fear_ of.

Entire cities getting blown up isn't something that happens to people all over the world every day. Sexual abuse of minors is.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 23, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> If you asked someone like, say, a war veteran who has seen mass devastation and death actually happen in front of them, they might have more reservations about committing such acts, even in video games that aren't real, because the acts presented have _been_ a reality for them. But that's not the point, what I'm trying to get at, is that while acts of outlandish violence and destruction in games seem intensely removed from reality because most of us have no real life comparison, the prevalence of child abuse (specifically sexual abuse) is alarmingly common by comparison.
> 
> A lot of people in society today have been abused by people they should have been able to trust. A lot of people have been sexually abused as children, and sexual abuse toward people of all ages, genders, sexes, etc is an issue that hits hard because it hits way too close to home. It's the enemy we are familiar with for its shocking normality, something that some people live their entire lives _in fear_ of.
> 
> Entire cities getting blown up isn't something that happens to people all over the world every day. Sexual abuse of minors is.


You're saying its much more commonly "real" to a lot of people, but doesn't that make such content not so much wrong in and of itself, but rather that  such content exists as "triggers" (in the actual sense, not in the memetic sense that has become so prevalent in recent times) for such people? Oftentimes art and content on the internet is separated and hidden via tags or via just certain artists having certain niches or certain art sites having certain niches. If such content is very real to a lot of people and feels real even within the realms of fiction to the point of being painful/discomforting, doesn't that just mean that said people should/could simply be kept away from such content/have such content hidden away? Tags exist on a variety of sites in order to make sure people don't see things they don't want to see. Blocking functions exist to ensure people don't see content from those that make them uncomfortable. All sorts of tools exist to help keep such content away from people who might be personally affected by such content. So when such exists, and if we say that it shouldn't exist because its a real and uncomfortably common experience for people, is it so much wrong in itself rather than it being something that simply makes people uncomfortable? And do discomforting things really need to be made nonexistent when one could simply not have to participate in and/or not see such content? 

EDIT: It appears I've been blocked by Illuminaughty. I...apologize if I said something hurtful or upsetting. It was not my intention to upset anyone. Also if I misunderstood what I was told, I apologize for that too.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> I don't really follow.
> Fiction is cool because it lets you pretend to be someone else and/or experience things that you either can't or shouldn't. Entering a new world, being a new person, meeting new people, doing things you could never do, etc.
> When I play an antagonist in a video game, or rather, when I am playing the part of the villain and I have the control to be as villainous as I so please, I am pretending to be a monsterous person within the realm of fiction. When I bombed Megaton in Fallout 3, thus destroying dozens of people's homes and killing dozens of people, I committed a heinous act within fiction. But this act is meaningless; I didn't actually kill anyone, nor do I desire to. No one was _actually _displaced. I was playing a character in a fictional world that has nothing to do with my own real one.
> Why does involving children in this equation have any sudden meaningful heinousness outside of the realm of fiction? If I were to download a mod to let me kill the citizens of Little Lamplight in Fallout 3, why does this suddenly become heinous and wrong in a way that no one would bat an eye at otherwise? Sure, children are much more vulnerable, defenseless people, but I was already pretending to be bad to begin with. Killing children would just be another heinous act _within the realm of fiction_.
> ...



Your last statement is valid, I think. While I agree with Garth that offending pedophiles are nasty fucks, I disagree with the assertion that this yiff will lead to pedophilic desires and actions. What little cub porn I've viewed has not induced me to suddenly start lusting after children. I'd really prefer my sexual partners to have functioning parts.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 23, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> I work with pedophiles on a daily basis. Ones that have actually molested kids.


What is your profession?


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Apr 23, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> What is your profession?



Nurse at a maximum security forensic hospital for the criminally insane. I am IRL Nurse Ratched.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 23, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> Nurse at a maximum security forensic hospital for the criminally insane. I am IRL Nurse Ratched.


That job sounds dreadful
How do you deal with that?


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Apr 23, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> That job sounds dreadful
> How do you deal with that?



The state--> 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 <-- me


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 24, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> EDIT: It appears I've been blocked by Illuminaughty. I...apologize if I said something hurtful or upsetting. It was not my intention to upset anyone. Also if I misunderstood what I was told, I apologize for that too.


What? Why? They seemed to be engaging you politely.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 24, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> What? Why? They seemed to be engaging you politely.


If I had to guess, I probably just came off as overly stubborn and/or maybe insensitive, or maybe my insistence on arguing this made me come off as creepy. Which wasn't my intention, but I can see where someone might think that.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 24, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> If I had to guess, I probably just came off as overly stubborn and/or maybe insensitive, or maybe my insistence on arguing this made me come off as creepy. Which wasn't my intention, but I can see where someone might think that.



I've been finding your posts enjoyable and well thought out, so I am not sure. It's different reasons for everyone.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 24, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> That job sounds dreadful
> How do you deal with that?


How is this new to you?! You know Garth longer than me! :V


----------



## Crimcyan (Apr 24, 2018)

I'm not going to read this thread, don't need a headache.
But one thing I did notice with the fandom that it's starting to get more intolerant then what it used to be from what I seen.
Many people joined this fandom because of it being a "accepting community" where they can act like complete degenerates with zero ethics/morals, and my guess is that alot of furries got sick of that behavior and started to go against it which is now causing the backlash that you see with cub.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 24, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> *Have not read through the thread. Don't care to enter the debate going on really. But just going to throw my 2 cents into the mix:*
> 
> I work with pedophiles on a daily basis. Ones that have actually molested kids. They are some of the most unremorseful, manipulative, wicked individuals I've ever met. A lot of them have admitted during therapy that they've been molested in the past. (Its a twisted positive feedback loop that people that are molested as kids tend to grow up to be pedophiles themselves) Many have also admitted that they got into it because they stumbled onto kiddy pornography and it grew on them. All of them have said that if given the chance they would do it again.
> 
> ...



Damn


----------



## Troj (Apr 24, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> I work with pedophiles on a daily basis. Ones that have actually molested kids. They are some of the most unremorseful, manipulative, wicked individuals I've ever met. A lot of them have admitted during therapy that they've been molested in the past. (Its a twisted positive feedback loop that people that are molested as kids tend to grow up to be pedophiles themselves) Many have also admitted that they got into it because they stumbled onto kiddy pornography and it grew on them. All of them have said that if given the chance they would do it again.



I've run up against two main types of pedophiles: The predatory ones you mentioned who are utterly devoid of remorse or any sense of responsibility, and the immature, emotionally-stunted, often-intellectually-disabled ones who are drawn to children because they feel like peers. 

I feel genuinely bad for the latter, and am repulsed by the former.

Thanks for your input, Garth. Always nice to hear from people with skin in the game and actual experience in the topic at hand.

What would you say to the argument that cub art or similar "victimless" porn provides pedophiles with a safe outlet for their urges? Does that hold water, or do things not play out that way in reality?

What about the argument that some fans of cub art and the like imagine themselves as the cubs? Any reaction to that?


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Apr 24, 2018)

Troj said:


> What would you say to the argument that cub art or similar "victimless" porn provides pedophiles with a safe outlet for their urges? Does that hold water, or do things not play out that way in reality?



I'd say that it is just feeding into their fantasy and that extinction of the behavior is far more effective means of controlling it. Letting them continue to feed on it is merely providing positive stimulus for the urge making them more likely to want to keep doing it in the future. Further the "Cub" scene provides communities for these predators to hide out in and encourage one another's urges. Incidentally it also provides law enforcement a place to lure in and entrap predators before they can do real harm. Its a mixed bag.

The problem is is that pedophilia is difficult to treat. In many ways its similar to alcohol or drug addiction in that the more they are exposed to it, the more they stimulate themselves to it: the more positive reinforcement they are receiving from it and the harder it is for them later to get off of it. Cub, because it is victimless, accustoms them to the sexualization of children. "Loli" in anime has the same problem. Something that should be unsavory in a healthy adult is made normal from repeat exposure.

One thing I've noticed from pedophiles is how often they dehumanize their victims in their mind so that they can rationalize away the damage they are doing to their victim and avoid blame for their actions. "I didn't hurt them. They enjoyed everything I did." "They wanted it just as much as I did!" "I was helping them." They live in their fantasy and detest the term "sexual offender" because in their mind they aren't. They were simply sharing a pleasurable act with a child.  Getting them to get past this and take part in therapy is like pulling teeth at times.

Cognitive therapy to aid them in recognizing and breaking down their rationalizations helps. "_You didn't do anything to hurt them, yet they were willing to testify against you?_" In addition to this we try to teach impulse control techniques and empathy training as well. We've also utilized penile plethysmographs to gauge what stimuli they are aroused to and then apply classical conditioning where they receive an unpleasant stimulus on viewing the object of their desire such as a foul odor or a bad taste. Both have been effective is the short term for dampening their urges.

Long term its tricky, since there's so many factors at work such as stresses in their life, substance usage, access to children, etc. It just takes one lapse in their self control and back they go to my facility because they re-offended. The drug Lupron has been used to chemically reduce their sexual desire, but it has side effects and they have to agree to the treatment which very few are willing to do. Probably one of the best things for them is to build up a supportive web of people who will hold them accountable for good behavior once they re-enter the community. Its part of the problem I have with the cub scene as they provide a support group for the BAD behaviors.

I'm rambling, but the way I see it is that it's not doing anyone any favors by providing an outlet for the behaviors. It's not weaning them off it. It's providing fuel for the fire.



Troj said:


> What about the argument that some fans of cub art and the like imagine themselves as the cubs? Any reaction to that?



I'd say that while their fantasy is benign, cub art draws in the predators envisioning themselves as the perpetrators of the acts on the cubs. Not just those with the benign fantasy of being the cub. There's just no real effective means to identify and separate the two among the consumer group, and considering the considerable real life potential for harm because of that I'd sooner just see cub done away with. It would help if within the cub community those with this benign fantasy were more vehement in the ousting and removal of those in their group that showed the predatory preferences, but more often than not I see blanket acceptance in the group and a willingness to defend the predators since they perceive a call-out on cub as an affront toward their own fantasy.


----------



## Troj (Apr 24, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> One thing I've noticed from pedophiles is how often they dehumanize their victims in their mind so that they can rationalize away the damage they are doing to their victim and avoid blame for their actions. "I didn't hurt them. They enjoyed everything I did." "They wanted it just as much as I did!" "I was helping them." They live in their fantasy and detest the term "sexual offender" because in their mind they aren't. They were simply sharing a pleasurable act with a child. Getting them to get past this and take part in therapy is like pulling teeth at times.



Yep, I've seen this too, and I've also noticed the exact same pattern in zoophiles, too.



GarthTheWereWolf said:


> The problem is is that pedophilia is difficult to treat. In many ways its similar to alcohol or drug addiction in that the more they are exposed to it, the more they stimulate themselves to it: the more positive reinforcement they are receiving from it and the harder it is for them later to get off of it.



Do you think it's an actual sexual orientation, and that's why it's so hard to treat?

Habits and addictions, you can treat. But, as we've seen with "pray way the gay" therapies, there's no "curing" someone of their core, innate sexual orientation.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Apr 24, 2018)

Troj said:


> Do you think it's an actual sexual orientation, and that's why it's so hard to treat?
> 
> Habits and addictions, you can treat. But, as we've seen with "pray way the gay" therapies, there's no "curing" someone of their core, innate sexual orientation.



I do not think that it is an actual orientation. Merely a sexual preference that they have learned over time. I think that their life circumstance has not equipped them with the skills, attitudes, emotional regulation, and self-confidence that are necessary to meet their needs in appropriate ways with adults. Adults they see as threatening, demanding, and controlling. Because of this pedophiles feel more comfortable with children than adults because children are perceived as nonthreatening, obliging, and easy to control by the pedophiles.


----------



## Troj (Apr 24, 2018)

That's my gut sense, too--though, I also suspect that there's more than one "type" of pedophile, so we can't just apply a one-size-fits all approach to the lot.


----------



## Filter (Apr 24, 2018)

I hope they stay far away from the fandom. It's difficult to say whether the tolerance for cub has has increase or decreased in recent years, but I want it gone.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 24, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> I do not think that it is an actual orientation. Merely a sexual preference that they have learned over time. I think that their life circumstance has not equipped them with the skills, attitudes, emotional regulation, and self-confidence that are necessary to meet their needs in appropriate ways with adults. Adults they see as threatening, demanding, and controlling. Because of this pedophiles feel more comfortable with children than adults because children are perceived as nonthreatening, obliging, and easy to control by the pedophiles.



So lack of self confidence and control are part of the equation, then?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 24, 2018)

Troj said:


> Yep, I've seen this too, and I've also noticed the exact same pattern in zoophiles, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To be fair, zoophiles "humanize" rather than "dehumanize" their victims; they basis of their rationalization is that their animals are sexual creatures with more human than animal emotions.


----------



## Troj (Apr 25, 2018)

^^^Fair enough. I meant that the "Ooh, I'm not hurting them; they like it!" rationalization process is eerily similar.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 25, 2018)

about control stuff, do you guys have doubts that a pedophile genuinely is attracted to a body, type situation? Like supposedly they target kind of plain or even ugly looking kids, like literally reasoning they'll have low self esteem possibly. I don't know I think I heard that somewhere


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 25, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> about control stuff, do you guys have doubts that a pedophile genuinely is attracted to a body, type situation? Like supposedly they target kind of plain or even ugly looking kids, like literally reasoning they'll have low self esteem possibly. I don't know I think I heard that somewhere



Some classify pedophilia as a paraphilia, which means it qualifies as a sexual orientation I think, just a super messed up one. 

It's possibly to be attracted to younger people. Especially overly physically mature looking teens will look attractive - that's just sort of natural. What's not "natural" is to be attracted to the child of the species - something hardly any other species does. I don't even know of another species with a pedophilia problem. 

One hypothesis I've come across says that, when women developed a hidden estrus, it whacked things up in the male psyche. Before then, women would have given off very obvious signs of being sexually receptive. After that point in evolution, the males have to guess constantly at who is and who isn't sexually receptive, and it whacked things up a bit, making it harder for them to tell who is receptive and who isn't - which opened the door for viewing kids in a sexual manner. 

Obviously that hypothesis has a ton of holes in it, but it is something to think about.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Apr 25, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> One possible consequence we haven't explored is minors viewing cub porn. I wonder what the consequences of that is? We've only really talked about this from an adults perspective. I wonder what it does to minors if you find that stuff and see young people being portrayed in sexual situations?


I'm a minor and the very idea that some people draw characters my age, (or even younger?!), in sexual situations frightens me greatly. A dear friend of mine was sexually assaulted when she was twelve/thirteen years old and I was so scared for her. The fact that some people find that idea "sexy", even with sparkly cute fluffy cartoon animals, is sickening to me.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 25, 2018)

sunburst_odell said:


> I'm a minor and the very idea that some people draw characters my age, (or even younger?!), in sexual situations frightens me greatly. A dear friend of mine was sexually assaulted when she was twelve/thirteen years old and I was so scared for her. The fact that some people find that idea "sexy", even with sparkly cute fluffy cartoon animals, sickens me.



can everyone listen to this individual and stop trying to rationalise/defend paedophiles


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 25, 2018)

No
Especially when I find the idea of equating such art with pedophilia in itself to be silly
Or equating anything in fiction with something in reality really.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 25, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> No
> Especially when I find the idea of equating such art with pedophilia in itself to be silly




i don't think you really understand how disgusting and aberrant it actually is mate i had an ex girlfriend who was the victim of childhood sexual abuse i was prepared to go away for life when i found out and met him i had to be held down by 3 people 

Stop defending it


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Apr 25, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> No
> Especially when I find the idea of equating such art with pedophilia in itself to be silly
> Or equating anything in fiction with something in reality really.


No, they're not equal. Of course not. Actual attraction to real children is far worse

But it doesn't make attraction to fictional children OK. Because they still look like children. You're still being turned on by children. And that is still very far from OK. 

I just don't see how or why people are justifying this. It's not like this is some minor fetish or kink.


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 25, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> i don't think you really understand how disgusting and aberrant it actually is mate i had an ex girlfriend who was the victim of childhood sexual abuse i was prepared to go away for life when i found out and met him i had to be held down by 3 people
> 
> Stop defending it


This is what we call a knee-jerk reaction.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 25, 2018)

Why didn't you just call the police and let them take care of it?
I was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child. I told my parents about it after realizing what was going on, they talked to the police, there was a court case, and my cousin was most likely sent to prison (I can't remember what happened after the court case since its been so long and my parents kept me out of most of the legal stuff involved)
I have since moved on.
I don't really think depictions in cartoons have anything to do with my being inappropriately touched by an older cousin when I was 6 or 7. Sure such art maybe hits a little too close to home for some people, but that only implies personal discomfort. Its depressing and unfortunate that actual kids get hurt and suffer such kinds of abuse. I could've had it a whole lot worse, and the fact that your friends and girlfriends suffered such is terrible. 
But this doesn't imply that such art has anything to do with abuse of actual children. I sincerely do not believe that people that like said art are pedophiles, as there is a large gap between fiction and reality to the degree where one could very well like something in fiction without liking it in reality. Even moreso when talking about furry art since the characters aren't even supposed to be human. Although even humans in art oftentimes don't look like actual humans. Or do big-eyed anime vampire lolis with no noses, discolored hair, and a lack of 3D features look like actual human children to you?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 25, 2018)

sunburst_odell said:


> I'm a minor and the very idea that some people draw characters my age, (or even younger?!), in sexual situations frightens me greatly. A dear friend of mine was sexually assaulted when she was twelve/thirteen years old and I was so scared for her. The fact that some people find that idea "sexy", even with sparkly cute fluffy cartoon animals, is sickening to me.



Well yeah, I know people who've been sexually assaulted, even close family have had it happen to them. (It's usually done by other family members, too - people with control over you somehow.) 

I've never defended cub yiff itself. And I'd definitely throw lolita art under the bus any day. My only real contention is calling people wo view the art pedophiles.

Which, since none of them are here vocally admitting to it, i don't know if they're pedophilic or not.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2018)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> *Have not read through the thread. Don't care to enter the debate going on really. But just going to throw my 2 cents into the mix:*
> 
> I work with pedophiles on a daily basis. Ones that have actually molested kids. They are some of the most unremorseful, manipulative, wicked individuals I've ever met. A lot of them have admitted during therapy that they've been molested in the past. (Its a twisted positive feedback loop that people that are molested as kids tend to grow up to be pedophiles themselves) Many have also admitted that they got into it because they stumbled onto kiddy pornography and it grew on them. All of them have said that if given the chance they would do it again.
> 
> ...



You have the only posts worth reading in this thread. Thank you for your extensive insight based on your years of professional experience, wise blue pooch. c:


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 25, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> It's possibly to be attracted to younger people. Especially overly physically mature looking teens will look attractive - that's just sort of natural. What's not "natural" is to be attracted to the child of the species - something hardly any other species does. I don't even know of another species with a pedophilia problem.
> 
> One hypothesis I've come across says that, when women developed a hidden estrus, it whacked things up in the male psyche. Before then, women would have given off very obvious signs of being sexually receptive. After that point in evolution, the males have to guess constantly at who is and who isn't sexually receptive, and it whacked things up a bit, making it harder for them to tell who is receptive and who isn't - which opened the door for viewing kids in a sexual manner.
> 
> Obviously that hypothesis has a ton of holes in it, but it is something to think about.



sometimes I think you're a little sketchy but it's cool to have someone informed enough about the 'we're still technically animals' perspective

also I think either shrews or badgers or possums the male rapes the young females, it's something weird like they can retain the seed and get fertilized later, something really weird like that


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 25, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> sometimes I think you're a little sketchy but it's cool to have someone informed enough about the 'we're still technically animals' perspective
> 
> also I think either shrews or badgers or possums the male rapes the young females, it's something weird like they can retain the seed and get fertilized later, something really weird like that



Yeah, rape is common in various animal species, but trying to bang young uns isn't.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 25, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Yeah, rape is common in various animal species, but trying to bang young uns isn't.



this was both but still interesting your point


----------



## Katook (Apr 26, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Why didn't you just call the police and let them take care of it?
> I was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child. I told my parents about it after realizing what was going on, they talked to the police, there was a court case, and my cousin was most likely sent to prison (I can't remember what happened after the court case since its been so long and my parents kept me out of most of the legal stuff involved)
> I have since moved on.
> I don't really think depictions in cartoons have anything to do with my being inappropriately touched by an older cousin when I was 6 or 7. Sure such art maybe hits a little too close to home for some people, but that only implies personal discomfort. Its depressing and unfortunate that actual kids get hurt and suffer such kinds of abuse. I could've had it a whole lot worse, and the fact that your friends and girlfriends suffered such is terrible.
> But this doesn't imply that such art has anything to do with abuse of actual children. I sincerely do not believe that people that like said art are pedophiles, as there is a large gap between fiction and reality to the degree where one could very well like something in fiction without liking it in reality. Even moreso when talking about furry art since the characters aren't even supposed to be human. Although even humans in art oftentimes don't look like actual humans. Or do big-eyed anime vampire lolis with no noses, discolored hair, and a lack of 3D features look like actual human children to you?




My psychologist asked me who I was attracted to, like what types of people, when it came up in conversation. I told her I was having a hard time thinking of anyone I found attractive that wasn't an anime character, to which she replied how they don't count because anime characters are NOTHING like real people. And honestly look at any anime character next to a real person and tell me they are anywhere near similar. I think human teenage boys in the 14-18 year range are revolting in most interactions with them, but I LOVE anime boys who fall in that range most commonly since the anime popular in my circles and conventions are the high shcool and /or sports ones.

It's not at all okay to sexualise any minors at all--- but the entire anime community has millions partaking and funding the production of sexually explicit and exagerrated, stylised, totally disproportionate to real-life-people, teenagers in hentai and ecchi themed anime, and the aforementioned loli/shota.
---
I have a couple points I feel like I've made before on this topic, but to sum them up 

*1)* Reality =/= fictional works.

*2) *Art should never ever be censored. E V E R. As in removed, penalised, illegal, etc,
--issues with this come from the repetitive debate on "What counts as art?" and if pornographic and explicitly erotic things should be counted as art. (If it's all fictional works/drawn from ground up, and no one was hurt in the creation of it, it is the FAULT OF THE CONSUMERS for misusing the created work, and should not be penalized or criminalised)

*3)* I see and share the discomfort with lolicon and shotacon depictions that are no doubt abusive in most moral contexts and average ethical ideation. This splits from discomfort into a neutral observation/acceptance of cub and loli/loli or shota/shota or loli/shota. Age gaps are what make me the most uncomfortable, so seeing an adult in a sexual situation with a child, regardless of the realism, bothers me. Also the 3d simulations are disgusting to me too. It's purely in the drawn and heavily stylised art that I can appreciate a drawing that others would find horrifying(no judgement).

Which goes back to the thing my psych said about anime people not counting as far as valid attractions go towards others. Because the art style has them so far removed from reality, they aren't really the same in our brain.

*4) *For website to website rules on if cub/loli/underage art is allowed, it should be dictated by the laws the websites' origins have. Even if I personally don't agree with said laws because Art should not be criminalised. Mature works should be reserved for mature viewers, however in this day and age of internet access capabilities, anyone who wants to find something is gonna find it.

---
We talked a lot about some of my sexual interests because I've always been a sexually inclined person, even from childhood. I'm actually just fascinated by sex all around, and want to go to school to eventually aid in animal conservation efforts by working with zoos and being involved with breeding programs. The interest for me probably started when my family acquired three new gerbils, all told to be male. Two were female, and through that, we got to witness the cycle of mating-nesting-birthing-raising of the gerbils. 
Since then I've bred only feeder insects and crested geckos, and currently am waiting on the sow at the ranch I work on to  give birth to her first litter of Kune Kune piglets! 

Now with all my fascination with sex-- I do have a high libido, however my IRL fetishes are very tame compared to the art I draw or look at. Mild exhibitionism and voyeurism, and some selective types of watersports about covers it lol. Also naturally I like my tails and furry accessories, especially as my partner is also a furry. She and I have known each other for almost four years and are coming up on our one year anniversary, and are in a healthy relationship with each other.  


I think that that's all I wanted to say... Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and tastes in art, but I do think it's wrong to assume attacking/shaming/hating those who enjoy things you may not agree with ideologically, because for some, it's very simple not to confuse fake from real. If you can't separate yourself from whatever you read into in an image, that's on you, not the person who drew it. Unless they drew it specifically to attack you psychologically. But that's obviously not what's been discussed.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 26, 2018)

tbh I think it comes in waves really. there's big flare-ups against cub and then it dies back down again.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 26, 2018)

Katook said:


> I think human teenage boys in the 14-18 year range are revolting in most interactions with them


:'(


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 26, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> :'(


I think its mostly due to immaturity. I dont like the demographic either. very immature and I dont want to be around them either. some 18 year olds are fine but I would never have a relationship with them. waaaay too young and inexperienced in life. I want a partner with a full time job who is independent, pays rent on their own apartment, and preferrably has a college degree and is over the age of 30.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 26, 2018)

Zrcalo said:


> I think its mostly due to immaturity. I dont like the demographic either. very immature and I dont want to be around them either.


Okay, now you guys are just being mean


----------



## Haru Totetsu (Apr 26, 2018)

I think what bothers me about the whole issue is...we'll never know if cub porn images are truly harmful or may in fact be beneficial (as in they choose to pay for a piece of art rather than touch a child kind of beneficial), because we'll never get a proper look into the matter. No private organisation is going to study this sort of thing because there's no profit in it, and governments won't because of the fear of angering all the people so adamantly against it.

I just want proper studies into it done to see if it's harmful or helpful in the fight to protect actual children from harm. Because then we can know what we're doing is actually going to help them or if the people truly into cub porn have been part of the problem. Knowing what bad and good were actually doing is always the first part of any battle because acting on an emotional high, like people do usually leads to things going to a ridiculous extreme. I'd give examples but the only one that comes to mind in Adolph Hitler and we all know how well that'll go down.


----------



## Katook (Apr 26, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Okay, now you guys are just being mean



RIP sorry to generalise, buddy! I myself am 21 and have some friends who are in the high school range, but when you work fast food across the street from a highschool..... >3>


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Apr 26, 2018)

Katook said:


> RIP sorry to generalise, buddy! I myself am 21 and have some friends who are in the high school range, but when you work fast food across the street from a highschool..... >3>


I'm not gonna lie; most teenagers are basically assholes. That's the reason I didn't have very many friends in middle school except for people I already knew before we entered our teen years and the people they knew. Everyone else was a douchebag most of the time. So I can't say I blame you for generalizing. But I assure you there are some good, rational people such as myself. We're a rare breed, but we exist.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 26, 2018)

Haru Totetsu said:


> I think what bothers me about the whole issue is...we'll never know if cub porn images are truly harmful or may in fact be beneficial (as in they choose to pay for a piece of art rather than touch a child kind of beneficial), because we'll never get a proper look into the matter. No private organisation is going to study this sort of thing because there's no profit in it, and governments won't because of the fear of angering all the people so adamantly against it.
> 
> I just want proper studies into it done to see if it's harmful or helpful in the fight to protect actual children from harm. Because then we can know what we're doing is actually going to help them or if the people truly into cub porn have been part of the problem. Knowing what bad and good were actually doing is always the first part of any battle because acting on an emotional high, like people do usually leads to things going to a ridiculous extreme. I'd give examples but the only one that comes to mind in Adolph Hitler and we all know how well that'll go down.



there was a post a few pages back that had a guy who actually worked with pedophiles explain the psychology and his own experiences with it.
basically no, it doesnt help, and in fact makes it worse.


----------



## Astus (Apr 26, 2018)

Here's a literature review on the subject; I'm not sure how valid it is or not, I just did a quick search and clicked on something near the top; though most things in the search result were similar https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Iza31glZonM1aZTIqbq8_ (PDF file)


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 26, 2018)

Zrcalo said:


> there was a post a few pages back that had a guy who actually worked with pedophiles explain the psychology and his own experiences with it.
> basically no, it doesnt help, and in fact makes it worse.



But he didn't actually single out cub porn for causing or enabling pedophiles, I don't think. 

Basically I view it as fiction. If we were talking about actual CP I'd be throwing a shit fit.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Apr 26, 2018)

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).

But, (when we step back, and look at the "bigger picture") - it's usually the "anti-cub crowd" - that is usally "anti sex" in general also, (I find); and they prefer that this Fandom be "squeaky clean", and "G-rated", only. "Knots, yiff, fap, cub, and murr" - (are all terms they'd probably love to see go away), as well - and that's a much larger debate - (that this Fandom has been having, for years).

I (personally) believe in sexual freedom, (and open sexual expression) - but.. whether sex and sexuality is an appropriate ingredient, (in the Furry Fandom cookie mix) - is usually in the eye of the beholder, of course ☺.. (and there are many Furs on the other side, who also argue) - that this Fandom was actually created (around sex, and sexuality) - in the first place.. as it was a "safe place" for people to express these desires and views, (without criticisms and judgements).

I agree with them, (and the latter viewpoint).

Unfortunately though, (it appears) that such criticisms and judgements - (which we were trying *so hard* to avoid and remove), when we first started out - are now "part and parcel" of anything (even remotely risque) in this Fandom, (these days). ☺


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 26, 2018)

sunburst_odell said:


> I'm not gonna lie; most teenagers are basically assholes.



that's why you yell at them until they emotionally break down and then build them back up into a better person 

some can't be saved though


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 26, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> that's why you yell at them until they emotionally break down and then build them back up into a better person
> 
> some can't be saved though



I never was one for the military boot camp treatment.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 26, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I never was one for the military boot camp treatment.



pfffft they joined us if you're so emotionally fragile that being yelled at is "Traumatising" and makes you discharge as happened in one case in all honesty i don't know how you'd function in the real world


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 26, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> pfffft they joined us if you're so emotionally fragile that being yelled at is "Traumatising" and makes you discharge as happened in one case in all honesty i don't know how you'd function in the real world



Lol. Being able to be yelled just means you can handle being yelled at. 

For my case, my problem is I yell back. In case you haven't noticed.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 27, 2018)

some furry could easily be ephebophilia, whatever that word is it's just cub is unsubtle, easier to spot and be taboo about it and  you know

my avatar fara phoenix, one fanart of her was definitely underage just not cub


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 27, 2018)

Zrcalo said:


> there was a post a few pages back that had a guy who actually worked with pedophiles explain the psychology and his own experiences with it.
> basically no, it doesnt help, and in fact makes it worse.


I'd take a well done, peer reviewed study over anecdotes.


----------



## Sagt (Apr 27, 2018)

The big point of disconnect for me, on the suggestion that it normalises child abuse, is that there is a lack of conclusive evidence to prove either positive or negative causation between accessability to child porn (real or fictional) and child sexual abuse.

@GarthTheWereWolf gave his input, and from what I had a look at, it seemed like there were studies which pretty much gave the same conclusion of child molestors. In those studies, they found a positive correlation, after they asked child molestors in prison questions about whether real child (note: not of fictional or non-human) porn contributed to a downward spiral for them towards molesting actual children. That said, I'm pretty sceptical, because there's some level of unavoidable confirmation bias with that methodology, and it lacks any input from the non-offending pedophiles. Also, it doesn't say much to the effects of _fictional_ child porn, which is much more divorced from reality.

On the other hand, there is also evidence that there is either a negative correlation or no correlation at all, which the researchers conducting these studies usually state in their conclusions that it's likely because it acted as a substitute. One of those studies, in particular, found that in every country or city they tested in (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sweden and the USA), child sexual abuse decreased or stayed the same when accessability to child porn grew. (To be clear, I'm aware that real child porn is still wrong, because it funds an industry to abuse actual children somewhere in the world. Though, fictional art doesn't have the same implications.) However, it is still just a correlation, and not conclusive proof.

Another consideration to keep in mind is that there is a difference between fetishising real children, fictional children, and cartoonish anthro wolf pups in diapers. I don't believe that an attraction to one would necessarily mean an interchangeable attraction to one of the others.

Also, while anecdotal, I personally know two people who look at cub porn, yet neither fit into the category of 'pedophile' (hence why I'm finding a large portion of this discussion annoying). Instead, they like to imagine themselves as the cub instead of as an adult, which I guess would be a type of infantalism. That in mind, not everyone who looks at cub porn is a pedophile, and none of us know the true proportions of the two consumer groups, or if there is even a sizeable demographic of pedophiles at all.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 27, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> I (myself) am a firm believer that "cub porn" is a form of artistic expression..


You have got to be kidding me.
Never mind cub art but cub porn? I'm going to fucking lose my mind.

Another thing that pisses me off is how people here can just brush off a person who have waaaaaay more experience in this matter. If you don't have a diploma and years of hands on experience to boot, please fuck off and when you get there fuck off from there too. Then fuck off some more. Keep fucking off until you get back here, then fuck off again >:V


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 27, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Another thing that pisses me off is how people here can just brush off a person who have waaaaaay more experience in this matter. If you don't have a diploma and years of hands on experience to boot, please fuck off and when you get there fuck off from there too. Then fuck off some more. Keep fucking off until you get back here, then fuck off again >:V


Yes I agree we should completely disregard and ignore anyone's opinion who is not some kind of "expert" on a topic. (But I'm not an expert on the topic of disregarding opinions so you should just ignore my above opinion)


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 27, 2018)

Drawings are, by their nature art, pornographic or no. They can be analyzed for style, criticized for proportions, use of color theory, detail, etc. If you draw something, no matter what it is, it's a form of artistic expression. People even call such drawings cub "art", right? People commission "artists" to draw "art". It would be insulting to artists all over to disregard the time and effort they put into their drawings just because of what is being depicted in the drawings themselves, cub art or no.

Also I appreciate Garth's posts in this thread especially and find them interesting and informative. I don't think anyone is necessarily brushing his posts off even whilst disagreeing. But his experience is with criminals such as those who have harmed children. Is that necessarily directly related to the topic? (not that his experience is any less informative regarding the nature and treatment of pedophiles and I absolutely do not mean to imply that his opinion isn't important, because it definitely is)


----------



## Haru Totetsu (Apr 27, 2018)

Zrcalo said:


> there was a post a few pages back that had a guy who actually worked with pedophiles explain the psychology and his own experiences with it.
> basically no, it doesnt help, and in fact makes it worse.


One guy talking to a few pedo's doesn't make a study that has explored the dynamic and drastic nuances of human psychology. Which again is an example of you and people like you being the real problem. There are people with paedophilia desires that don't want to act on them and are struggling with their sexuality and instead of them being able to just talk about it and get the help they need, people like those that are so quick to judge an image of a fictional character as equal to that of a real human being, convince them to keep to themselves, only ever opening up with other paedophiles, usually the type that has and will commit the most atrocious acts towards actual children who then motivate the more timid and scared with those desires to not push those feeling and desires away or to seek help, but act on them.

With that in mind its just as likely you and those with your opinion going on such tirades have made just as many paedophiles as cub porn may have done. Which is conjecture...there's no basis for it because there's no actual studies done. So my original point stands. Which in case it wasn't obvious its that no-one knows what the heck they're talking about because no one's looked into it. heck even if we did the results would either be corrupted by the most vile pedo's in the world, who just happen to be in positions of power or wealth, or they're corrupted by people like Zrcalo and everyone else whose very anti-cub porn corrupting the evidence to "protect the children" even though the whole point of the study would be to find out how best to protect children from such actions.

So far the only one that seems to understand no-one knows how to really look at this is Lcs whose summed up the topic beautifully.


----------



## Katook (Apr 27, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> You have got to be kidding me.
> Never mind cub art but cub porn? I'm going to fucking lose my mind.
> 
> Another thing that pisses me off is how people here can just brush off a person who have waaaaaay more experience in this matter. If you don't have a diploma and years of hands on experience to boot, please fuck off and when you get there fuck off from there too. Then fuck off some more. Keep fucking off until you get back here, then fuck off again >:V




What are your qualifications in this topic? And unless you know how to draw, you can't claim pornographic works are not art as they do take artistic skill, foundations, knowledge of colour theory, proportion, perspective, composition, ANATOMY!!!
Then claiming those who do create such works, whether out of self expression or paid work, is wildly ignorant and just refusing to accept the fact not everyone who enjoys taboo subjects is an inherently evil person.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 27, 2018)

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).



You're tripping.


----------



## Katook (Apr 27, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> You're tripping.




So do depictions of murder encourage murder?


----------



## Katook (Apr 27, 2018)

Gun violence was proven to not be attributed to violent mass murdering simulators even when those are widely sold to the most impressionable of youthful minds, ready to be molded by enviornmental influences.

If violent video games don't attribute to creating murderers, then ADULTS who are already for the most part cognitively developed, aren't gonna start getting influenced to diddle kids by looking at a cartoon puppy's penis. If they already have pedophilia, then they already have the attraction to prepubescent children(under 14 years of age is the typical range I see described as pedophilia).

That being said, if a website has rules against any sexual depictions of any character appearing underage, then one should respect that and find a different platform to host their artworks.

For sure accidentally coming across Zuko and Aang diddling as exposure to my first homosexual depiction I really was shocked to see as a kid, but it didn't turn me gay :v


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 27, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> pfffft they joined us if you're so emotionally fragile that being yelled at is "Traumatising" and makes you discharge as happened in one case in all honesty i don't know how you'd function in the real world



In case you don't actually live in the "real world", people don't typically scream profanities and insults in your face on a daily basis. Unless you work in a job where that's (sadly) to be expected. Which, for the record, still doesn't make it right.

Most people in the "real world" these days treat eachother like equal human beings, and _that's how it ought to be_. No one is obligated to stand around and get abused by somebody else. Negativity and anger breeds its own. And I agree with @BahgDaddy , if someone yells at me like that, the chances that I'm going to get mad and fight back (or simply ignore them and walk away if that's an option) are a lot higher than the chance that I'll cower back or deign to "learn" anything from them. And I certainly won't respect them, seeing as they couldn't afford me the same favour.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 27, 2018)

Lcs said:


> The big point of disconnect for me, on the suggestion that it normalises child abuse, is that there is a lack of conclusive evidence to prove either positive or negative causation between accessability to child porn (real or fictional) and child sexual abuse.
> 
> @GarthTheWereWolf gave his input, and from what I had a look at, it seemed like there were studies which pretty much gave the same conclusion of child molestors. In those studies, they found a positive correlation, after they asked child molestors in prison questions about whether real child (note: not of fictional or non-human) porn contributed to a downward spiral for them towards molesting actual children. That said, I'm pretty sceptical, because there's some level of unavoidable confirmation bias with that methodology, and it lacks any input from the non-offending pedophiles. Also, it doesn't say much to the effects of _fictional_ child porn, which is much more divorced from reality.
> 
> ...




I mean it could be possible. Nobody's brought up the obvious point that furries aren't gonna get more and more into a fantasy until they screw a pooch unless they're already like that


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 27, 2018)

I've been doing a lot of research on pedophilia recently. I'm not an expert now by any means, but the point was not to form an elaborate opinion on why it exists, but to see if anyone else had a solid opinion or research on why it happens. It doesn't loom like anyone really knows why it happens. I'm guessing, though, you need a high degree of lack of empathy for other people to actually do it.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 28, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I've been doing a lot of research on pedophilia recently. I'm not an expert now by any means, but the point was not to form an elaborate opinion on why it exists, but to see if anyone else had a solid opinion or research on why it happens. It doesn't loom like anyone really knows why it happens. I'm guessing, though, you need a high degree of lack of empathy for other people to actually do it.



I totally despise the 'acts on it' crowd over the group that only fetishizes something, to be honest. Could apply to anything. Actually having an affair with a porn star, lol

Edit: he actually did it, the absolute madman


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 28, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> I totally despise the 'acts on it' crowd over the group that only fetishizes something, to be honest. Could apply to anything. Actually having an affair with a porn star, lol
> 
> Edit: he actually did it, the absolute madman



I'm pretty sure he'd bone a fence post.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 28, 2018)

>cub porn
>art


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 28, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'm pretty sure he'd bone a fence post.



well I think at the end of the day he's straight but really only a matter of lipstick on the fence post

Edit: I just called him "straight but trying too hard"


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 28, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> only a matter of lipstick on the fence post



this can be read many ways lol

Edit: like maybe the pee story

Edit: convenient portable tubes


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 28, 2018)

Why did Trump get mentioned in a cub thread?


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Apr 28, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Why did Trump get mentioned in a cub thread?


I can only imagine _reducto ad absurdum_ being the reason.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 28, 2018)

Haru Totetsu said:


> One guy talking to a few pedo's doesn't make a study that has explored the dynamic and drastic nuances of human psychology. Which again is an example of you and people like you being the real problem. There are people with paedophilia desires that don't want to act on them and are struggling with their sexuality and instead of them being able to just talk about it and get the help they need, people like those that are so quick to judge an image of a fictional character as equal to that of a real human being, convince them to keep to themselves, only ever opening up with other paedophiles, usually the type that has and will commit the most atrocious acts towards actual children who then motivate the more timid and scared with those desires to not push those feeling and desires away or to seek help, but act on them.
> 
> With that in mind its just as likely you and those with your opinion going on such tirades have made just as many paedophiles as cub porn may have done. Which is conjecture...there's no basis for it because there's no actual studies done. So my original point stands. Which in case it wasn't obvious its that no-one knows what the heck they're talking about because no one's looked into it. heck even if we did the results would either be corrupted by the most vile pedo's in the world, who just happen to be in positions of power or wealth, or they're corrupted by people like Zrcalo and everyone else whose very anti-cub porn corrupting the evidence to "protect the children" even though the whole point of the study would be to find out how best to protect children from such actions.
> 
> So far the only one that seems to understand no-one knows how to really look at this is Lcs whose summed up the topic beautifully.



"Which again is an example of you and people like you being the real problem. "
not really. I wouldnt mind befriending someone who had struggles like that and who, themselves, had never done anything. Or if they served time already. One of the biggest things that bothers me is that people who go to prison and serve time still get treated like shit even if they've done their time and reformed. 

"paedophilia desires that don't want to act on them and are struggling with their sexuality "
I wouldnt classify pedophilia as a sexuality. It's a philia. It's the same as being sexually attracted to animals, or chairs.

"With that in mind its just as likely you and those with your opinion going on such tirades have made just as many paedophiles as cub porn may have done. "
so you're saying that because maybe once in a blue moon I'll say "sorry I dont draw cub characters" or "I dont support pedophilia and I dont like cub art" is basically me creating pedophiles.... 
while I agree that if a person is exceptionally rabid, they can shove cub people towards more cub porn areas due to ostracization, its ultimately the beliefs of the individual that affect their own behavior. I've had several friends of mine called pedophiles because their characters "looked too young" or they'd have some gift art made of their characters as cubs.  Like seriously, there are real pedophiles and there are people who dont even have that philia being labelled as it. its like how people swing around the "nazi" stick nowadays. 

"results would either be corrupted by the most vile pedo's in the world,"
thats not how studies work. 
If a study about cub porn that was run correctly included "the most vile pedos in the world" then my opinion would be to ban cub porn.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 28, 2018)

Katook said:


> So do depictions of murder encourage murder?



gonna go out on a limb and say that from my experience it depends on whats depicted and why. I've had to actually convince several people to not go into their place of work to shoot it up because they saw that others who had done so were effective.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 28, 2018)

So, something interesting happened last night, where I got involved in a discussion with someone who likes cub porn, and basically used convoluted logic and rationalism (in an alarmingly similar fashion to how I use it) to say that maybe pedophilia wasn't as big of a problem as we make it out to be. 

Do I need to rethink my stance on cub porn now?


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 28, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> So, something interesting happened last night, where I got involved in a discussion with someone who likes cub porn, and basically used convoluted logic and rationalism (in an alarmingly similar fashion to how I use it) to say that maybe pedophilia wasn't as big of a problem as we make it out to be.
> 
> Do I need to rethink my stance on cub porn now?



my question would be, does he use cub porn as a replacement for the real stuff?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 28, 2018)

Zrcalo said:


> my question would be, does he use cub porn as a replacement for the real stuff?



Well, he was ambivalent on the matter of cub yiff, and we both agreed it was too fictionalized to even represent reality enough to be realistic, but then he started using roundabout arguments to draw questions on why pedophilia is wrong. "Perhaps we need more studies and data on that," for instance.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 28, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Well, he was ambivalent on the matter of cub yiff, and we both agreed it was too fictionalized to even represent reality enough to be realistic, but then he started using roundabout arguments to draw questions on why pedophilia is wrong. "Perhaps we need more studies and data on that," for instance.



ehhhhh seems sketchy.
as a fan of gore, I find furry gore to be very different and unrealistic from real life gore. But there are people out there who want to commission a pic in their head, but replace the humans with furries so they dont seem creepy. 

which I always thought was hilariously ironic.


----------



## Katook (Apr 28, 2018)

Zrcalo said:


> gonna go out on a limb and say that from my experience it depends on whats depicted and why. I've had to actually convince several people to not go into their place of work to shoot it up because they saw that others who had done so were effective.




And you didn't report those people to the authourities for being a threat to society since you've had to "actually convince" them not to shoot up their work place? Sure.  Sounds likely.

(edit for not finishing my sentence lol)


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 28, 2018)

Katook said:


> And you didn't report those people to the authourities for being a threat to society since you've had to "actually convince" them not to shoot up their work place? Sure.  Sounds likely.
> 
> (edit for not finishing my sentence lol)



actually yes. when it's your friends and you go over to their house and talk them down, and they KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE and KNOW IT WOULD BE YOU TO CALL THE COPS. then yes. sure. you can not believe me.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Apr 29, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> You're tripping.


Nope; absolutely not... 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.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 29, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Nope; absolutely not... 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.


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 (Apr 29, 2018)

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.


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.

The same thing applies to cub porn.. as it's not actual CP, (that we're seeing).. if it was, (then that's a different story).

It's merely an artistic expression, that has no basis in reality. An artistic expression that (here in the US) is also protected by the First Amendment, btw. ☺


----------



## Katook (Apr 29, 2018)

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.
> 
> ...



How is this so hard for people to grasp? Literally there are so many immoral and illegal depictions in art LIKE MURDER AND DISMEMBERMENT and violent sex, gang bangs, rape art,
Not to mention the billions of works out there featuring a hypersexualised high schooler(under 18 but already physically matured even when their brains are still technically kids), but no one panics about that.

If it's a mature work, or idealogically sensitive, then those who wish to avoid sensitive art should.

Literally everyone who thinks art influences reality is living in a made up world, and the suppression of artistic expression is arguably more dangerous to supress than allow.


There is no realism to the vast majourity of cartoon-based subjects.

(Edit for typo)


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 29, 2018)

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.





Katook said:


> Literally there are so many immoral and illegal depictions in art LIKE MURDER AND DISMEMBERMENT and violent sex, gang bangs, rape art,
> Not to mention the billions of works out there featuring a hypersexualised high schooler(under 18 but already physically matured even when their brains are still technically kids), but no one panics about that.


And all of these things, when drawn, are art!

Also the mention of hypersexualized highschoolers in fiction reminded me that Gal Gun 2 came out on the Switch the other day (somewhat NSFW). Just take a moment to take in that this of all things came out uncensored on a Nintendo device. This game is banned in Germany. A previous game, Double Peace, is banned in New Zealand.


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 29, 2018)

Katook said:


> How is this so hard for people to grasp? Literally there are so many immoral and illegal depictions in art LIKE MURDER AND DISMEMBERMENT and violent sex, gang bangs, rape art,
> Not to mention the billions of works out there featuring a hypersexualised high schooler(under 18 but already physically matured even when their brains are still technically kids), but no one panics about that.


Kids and death are the two most sensitive things to people. So emotions tend to take over.


----------



## Fleye (Apr 29, 2018)

The only thing I'm seeing in this thread is one group going;
"You like something I dislike, that makes you stupid and gross"
And another group saying:
"It's not harming anyone, leave us alone"

I don't really like cub-related stuff, but I have to agree with the second group. People have already pointed out that the characters are fictional, and I personally haven't come across any proper research which links fictional cub/child stuff with the grooming of pedophiles. And I can't imagine why this wouldn't have been researched and published if the link was there. I mean you'd think this sort of stuff would be looked into and aired out if gun violence and fictional violence get looked into. 

I realize that there are questionable and disgusting people who like cub stuff, but then again I also understand that there's disturbed individual playing violent games as well. Until proven the argument is silly, and the onus of proof in this instance should be on those complaining about it. Flimsy opinions are easy to toss around, but if it's so wrong, maybe providing some proper research would help?


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 29, 2018)

re: knots, I think some of the stuff is so stylized it's at 'cool dildo' level by that point. I've seen hyperreal looking stuff on furries it's not good. And I don't really like em either way in the first place. Glans are pretty cool

Edit: like dildo logic, even if knots weren't in real life it would probably end up as a type of dildo at some point hahaha


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 29, 2018)

Art is, however, a sort of mirror image of the real world. I would say, cub reflects some aspect of the world, but, doesn't necessarily influence it in any meaningful fashion. 



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.



There are also countries where it's illegal to be gay, so what does this prove?


----------



## Fleye (Apr 29, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> 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.
> ...



Simple answer; It doesn't prove anything.

The age of adulthood (age of majority) varies between a lot of countries, and while 18 is a standard. It's not a sure thing. The age of consent also varies between those countries too, with some going disturbingly low, and others sticking to post-20y. 

Homosexuality is a point, but there are also countries where pornography in its entirety is outlawed. Other countries most furry art would be considered inappropriate legally. Religions ban a whole heap of things depicted in a lot of furry art, and social mainstream would consider the bulk of furry art weird if not disturbing. Hence trying to use the laws of a specific country or code really doesn't work for this argument. If it were a legal issue it'd be black & white, easy to solve. And we could all move on to more interesting discussions.

As for portraying an illegal act, it's already been covered numerous times that other art portrays illegal/disturbing acts; ranging from cub to murder, to other fetishes. These don't seem to be causing a fraction of the controversy that cub seems to.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

I literally cannot understand why people do not have a problem with drawing basically kiddie porn.  And who says I don’t hate rape art and vore art and whatever else?  It’s all disgusting and why are we making it okay?


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> I literally cannot understand why people do not have a problem with drawing basically kiddie porn.  And who says I don’t hate rape art and vore art and whatever else?  It’s all disgusting and why are we making it okay?



That bearhands, is the right question.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

Basically me @ this whole thread


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

There's nothing wrong with rape art or vore art either and they're both okay because they're expressions of desires within the realm of fiction that don't translate to reality or imply anything about people's interests in the real world. Vore fetishists aren't interested in eating people irl. Most people don't actually want to be raped even if they have such fetishes.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> here's nothing wrong with rape or vore art either



are you fucking serious right now? i honestly can't tell if that's a disgusting troll attempt or if you're being serious


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> are you fucking serious right now?


Definitely serious.
I already expressed in this thread that I don't have a problem with child murder in fiction or cub art in fiction. Why would I draw the line at rape or vore? (in fiction)


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Definitely serious.
> I already expressed in this thread that I don't have a problem with child murder in fiction or cub art in fiction. Why would I draw the line at rape or vore? (in fiction)



you know if Mungo was still here she'd ban you for that right? its disgusting


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> you know if Mungo was still here she'd ban you for that right? its disgusting


I somehow doubt that considering I haven't broken any of the rules (to my awareness). 
Plus there's a non-zero chance I've said these things before on this forum years ago. I'm not a new user; I just came back after being away for a while, and I imagine controversial topics like this had to have popped up at least once or twice between 2013 and 2015.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> I somehow doubt that considering I haven't broken any of the rules (to my awareness).
> Plus there's a non-zero chance I've said these things before on this forum years ago. I'm not a new user; I just came back after being away for a while, and I imagine controversial topics like this had to have popped up at least once or twice between 2013 and 2015.



wrong *1.2 Do not discuss violent or sexual crimes.*


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> wrong *1.2 Do not discuss violent or sexual crimes.*


Content in fiction aren't violent or sexual crimes
Unless you wish to imply this very thread existing is breaking the rules?

Also the explanation and elaboration of the rule is:


			
				Rules said:
			
		

> Do not discuss details or experiences of committing, illegal acts involving sex, violence, or abuse against any creature, living or dead. Recounting and taking responsibility for past history may be permitted at staff discretion provided that harmful or illegal acts are not cast in a positive light.


None of which I've done.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Content in fiction aren't violent or sexual crimes
> Unless you wish to imply this very thread existing is breaking the rules?
> 
> Also the explanation is:
> None of which I've done.




yes i do but staff are protecting it a number of us have reported it


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Content in fiction aren't violent or sexual crimes
> Unless you wish to imply this very thread existing is breaking the rules?
> 
> Also the explanation and elaboration of the rule is:
> None of which I've done.


Yeah it kinda is.  So many people are so quick to defend borderline kiddie porn, no matter what medium it’s in


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

Such is an exercise in futility, and that has nothing to do with who the moderators are but rather that no one is discussing criminal activity. 
No one is recounting or encouraging an act of cannibalism or rape. 

But while we're at it
@SSJ3Mewtwo @Dragoneer It'd be appreciated if you'd elaborate on what exactly the grounds of these rules cover.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> but rather that no one is discussing criminal activity.




you are its well known that neer is wilfully ignoring the laws of other countries as long as it remains legal in the country that hosts the server

cub/loli/any fiction minor porn is currently banned in
Australia
United Kingdom
Germany and other parts of the EU
im pretty sure Canada too

and rape porn is banned fucking everywhere dude it has been for years


----------



## Astus (Apr 30, 2018)

If my sex and gender across cultures teacher was to look at this thread right now, she'd probably have a mini stroke and immediately recite, word for word, key passages of Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography: Men Possessing Women _and Robert Jensen's _Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity_. The reason being because both claim that by making pornographic content that normalizes certain ideas or behaviors, you basically help propagate the ideas and eventually make people do it. They reward themselves with lots of good neurotransmitters every time they see that, with downgrading of neurons as they continue they'll look for more stimulus, and maybe do it in the real world because they have a desire to see it done, and because their brain rationalized it as being normal because they see it in porn 

I don't know whether or not that would actually be the case since most of the studies they referenced in those books weren't very good or were about different things than they claimed... but this whole debate seemed like something she'd make up just to be able to put her two cents of superiority into a conversation. Also she made me read both of those above books cover to cover and present them to the class over the course of 50 minutes. Off topic it was funny because in my senior presentation on Tolerance and Adaptabiity of Life Through Extremophiles, I accidentally brought up that PowerPoint and everyone had a good laugh about that...

What's the thread about again? Oh yeah... don't do cub porn yo. It's one thing to have to see it every now and then browsing babyfur pics, and it's another to feel sick at a few of the comments people leave. Aka if you want to keep your lunch down, don't browse Inkbunny without the SFW filter on.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Apr 30, 2018)

Discussion subject matter such as rape is a touchy subject, but the rules are meant to bar talking about real life past events (such as admitting on the forum breaking the law), or similar conduct.  

Fictional content is fictional, however, so it's not a real thing.  Users are welcome to talk about the various concerns of art with such subject matter, as long as they don't also break the rules regarding Adult-rated content in areas that are visible to a minor.

Example:

"I think the murder of children is absolutely fabulous done in Stephen King's "It"."

While that might make some people wince, "It" is a work of fiction.  No one was admitting to harming children, or admiring children being harmed in real life.

Edgy as all heck to say, but not against the rules.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> no one is discussing criminal activity.


That’s literally the entire point of this thread.  Of course there’s backlash.  Thank god there’s  backlash.  This isn’t okay and it should absolutely be illegal if it isn’t already.  God I hate this country sometimes


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Astusthefox said:


> If my sex and gender across cultures teacher was to look at this thread right now, she'd probably have a mini stroke and immediately recite, word for word, key passages of Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography: Men Possessing Women _and Robert Jensen's _Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity_. The reason being because both claim that by making pornographic content that normalizes certain ideas or behaviors, you basically help propagate the ideas and eventually make people do it. They reward themselves with lots of good neurotransmitters every time they see that, with downgrading of neurons as they continue they'll look for more stimulus, and maybe do it in the real world because they have a desire to see it done, and because their brain rationalized it as being normal because they see it in porn
> 
> I don't know whether or not that would actually be the case since most of the studies they referenced in those books weren't very good or were about different things than they claimed... but this whole debate seemed like something she'd make up just to be able to put her two cents of superiority into a conversation. Also she made me read both of those above books cover to cover and present them to the class over the course of 50 minutes. Off topic it was funny because in my senior presentation on Tolerance and Adaptabiity of Life Through Extremophiles, I accidentally brought up that PowerPoint and everyone had a good laugh about that...
> 
> What's the thread about again? Oh yeah... don't do cub porn yo. It's one thing to have to see it every now and then browsing babyfur pics, and it's another to feel sick at a few of the comments people leave. Aka if you want to keep your lunch down, don't browse Inkbunny without the SFW filter on.




that is a load of shit also i can't take anything you say seriously on the subject when your fursona is a diper fur often depicted sexualised you only change the age in sexualised images suddenly they turn into their early 20s


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> you are its well known that neer is wilfully ignoring the laws of other countries as long as it remains legal in the country that hosts the server
> 
> cub/loli/any fiction minor porn is currently banned in
> Australia
> ...



FA is in compliance with US law, and we cannot control what sites people access across the planet.  

This is not the first time you have taken this sort of approach in threads with similar subject matter.  Please keep context in mind, along with the responsibility of other users.  If someone shouldn't be browsing content that they think is illegal where they are, FA has no control of that.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

Thanks for the clarification SSJ3Mewtwo
I figured that was the case but it was important to make sure.





GreenZone said:


> and rape porn is banned fucking everywhere dude it has been for years


When actual people are involved sure.
But drawings? I'll admit I don't have _any _knowledge of the law regarding this, but there's a heck of a lot of officially licensed cartoon pornography involving rape being sold in the US so I can't help but be doubtful towards the idea of it being banned in fiction here.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> that is a load of shit also i can't take anything you say seriously on the subject when your fursona is a diper fur often depicted sexualised you only change the age in sexualised images suddenly they turn into their early 20s



Watch it.  I will step in if things remain hostile.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> FA is in compliance with US law, and we cannot control what sites people access across the planet.
> 
> This is not the first time you have taken this sort of approach in threads with similar subject matter.  Please keep context in mind, along with the responsibility of other users.  If someone shouldn't be browsing content that they think is illegal where they are, FA has no control of that.



yeah cool do we need to ask IMVU how they feel about all this? do they even know this is going on


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

pretty sure if the Australian Gov can force Valve to change policy and give refunds (something that became international policy too) then a Gov can force FA to stop allowing this stuff


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> pretty sure if the Australian Gov can force Valve to change policy and give refunds then a Gov can force FA to stop allowing this stuff



FA doesn't permit Mature/Adult-rated cub content, and hasn't for years.  If you see an image on the site which you feel violates that policy, report it via Trouble Ticket, and it will be reviewed.  That has been FA's stance for years now.

If a decision is reach that you don't agree with, such as an image you feel violates the rule is deemed acceptable, that is another matter.  But FA is not going to bar any and all pictures involving child characters, regardless of rating, and especially in the case of pictures which are totally General.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> pretty sure if the Australian Gov can force Valve to change policy and give refunds (something that became international policy too) then a Gov can force FA to stop allowing this stuff


There are games sold on Steam that are banned in some countries.
You can even buy a pornographic lolicon VN on Steam right now (Monobeno)
You remember Illusion, the company that made Rapelay? They're also selling a porn game on Steam right now. (VR Kanojo)


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Apr 30, 2018)

Taking a step back from the issue, the argument that something depicting a potentially troubling subject matter is "merely art" obfuscates the fact that art, by its very nature as an expression, glorifies its subject matter, regardless of whether it's intended to idolize, demonize, or entertain. A war movie with a pro-peace message glorifies war just as much as _Starship Troopers_ or the heroically-embellished renditions of battles fought during the Napoleonic War, and the same holds true for cub porn and its related subject matter.

So go ahead and dress it up all you want as make-believe under the assumption that cartoon kiddy porn is not hurting anyone, but realize that most people aren't going to know or care about that distinction, especially not in a society that 's particularly sensitive when it comes to children and sex, let alone the two combined.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Taking a step back from the issue, the argument that something depicting a potentially troubling subject matter is "merely art" obfuscates the fact that art, by its very nature as an expression, glorifies its subject matter, regardless of whether it's intended to idolize, demonize, or entertain. A war movie with a pro-peace message glorifies war just as much as _Starship Troopers_ or the heroically-embellished renditions of battles fought during the Napoleonic War, and the same holds true for cub porn and its related subject matter.
> 
> So go ahead and dress it up all you want as make-believe under the assumption that cartoon kiddy porn is not hurting anyone, but realize that most people aren't going to know or care about that distinction, especially not in a society that 's particularly sensitive when it comes to children and sex, let alone the two combined.




we're friends now


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> wrong *1.2 Do not discuss violent or sexual crimes.*



Apparently you don't understand the difference between fiction and reality. Hope you don't watch too many movies with terrorism in them, you might become a terrorist!

Oops, now I'm discussing illegal activities. 

See? I can sound like an idiot too!


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 30, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> I literally cannot understand why people do not have a problem with drawing basically kiddie porn.  And who says I don’t hate rape art and vore art and whatever else?  It’s all disgusting and why are we making it okay?



I'm not okay with it. I hope to never give that impression, either. However, unlike others, I know how to separate my emotions from my logic. And logically I see no issue with the art, reprehensible though it may be. Basically all furry art is problematic in some way. And it is all cartoonish, and dumb looking, in its own way. I can literally yawn my way past cub porn when I find it. Half the time I dot even know it's fucking cub porn unless I look at the label. 



GreenZone said:


> yes i do but staff are protecting it a number of us have reported it



Yay for moral busy bodies!


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> we're friends now


Don't get me wrong; I've got no interest in defending or condemning such people, not least of all when I have more pressing matters to attend to. At the end of the day however, the biggest concern I have for other people is whether or not they are able to discern between fiction and reality, and suffice to say that I've seen far too many Don Quixotes running around, tilting at windmills.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'm not okay with it. I hope to never give that impression, either. However, unlike others, I know how to separate my emotions from my logic. And logically I see no issue with the art, reprehensible though it may be. Basically all furry art is problematic in some way. And it is all cartoonish, and dumb looking, in its own way. I can literally yawn my way past cub porn when I find it. Half the time I dot even know it's fucking cub porn unless I look at the label.
> 
> 
> 
> Yay for moral busy bodies!


What you stand against is just as important as what you stand for.  This isn't a grey area or a matter of opinion.  It's morally fucked and I'm morally obligated to say something.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

Tbh the main reasons I've even been so argumentative in this thread is because I also felt morally obligated to say something.
I don't want to see artists or consumers of art be bullied or hurt by others, so I felt like I had to defend this. I don't want to see artists getting death threats or losing their jobs. Such can be extremely painful and has direct real life consequences and suffering, so I felt I needed to try and protect them. I can't allow people to be hurt in such a way, and the people encouraging others to do such things _scare _me.
Plus I'm also extremely protective of art and speech in general; I don't want content creators to be limited in what they can say or do, as I feel that's dangerous and could have far reaching consequences, stealing away people's freedoms whilst also limiting creativity.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Tbh the main reasons I've even been so argumentative in this thread is because I also felt morally obligated to say something.
> I don't want to see artists or consumers of art be bullied or hurt by others, so I felt like I had to defend this. I don't want to see artists getting death threats or losing their jobs. Such can be extremely painful and has direct real life consequences and suffering, so I felt I needed to try and protect them. I can't allow people to be hurt in such a way.
> Plus I'm also extremely protective of art and speech in general; I don't want content creators to be limited in what they can say or do, as I feel that's dangerous and could have far reaching consequences, stealing away people's freedoms whilst also limiting creativity.



no this is not about free speech this is about protecting children and putting away sick individuals paedophiles do not reform you talk to anyone who deals with them and they all say the same thing they're manipulative they show no remorse for what they do and they admit that if released they will likely do it again 

paedophilia is not a sexual orientation its not a gender its not something to be socially accepted its a mental sickness


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Tbh the main reasons I've even been so argumentative in this thread is because I also felt morally obligated to say something.
> I don't want to see artists or consumers of art be bullied or hurt by others, so I felt like I had to defend this. I don't want to see artists getting death threats or losing their jobs. Such can be extremely painful and has direct real life consequences and suffering, so I felt I needed to try and protect them. I can't allow people to be hurt in such a way, and the people encouraging others to do such things _scare _me.
> Plus I'm also extremely protective of art and speech in general; I don't want content creators to be limited in what they can say or do, as I feel that's dangerous and could have far reaching consequences, stealing away people's freedoms whilst also limiting creativity.


Then they would be best advised to not draw cub porn.  Just because it's a thing doesn't mean it has to be accepted, tolerated, or allowed.


----------



## Fleye (Apr 30, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Then they would be best advised to not draw cub porn.  Just because it's a thing doesn't mean it has to be accepted, tolerated, or allowed.


That's the thing though, you're not advising anyone. You're demanding they stop because they're "morally fucked" (in your own words).



GreenZone said:


> no this is not about free speech this is about protecting children and putting away sick individuals paedophiles do not reform you talk to anyone who deals with them and they all say the same thing they're manipulative they show no remorse for what they do and they admit that if released they will likely do it again.


Source?  It's great (kind of) to see people getting really passionate about this topic, but I don't see anything that proves banning cub porn results in children being protected. If you're going to argue it's common sense, by your logic banning cub porn could remove an outlet for pedophiles and put more children at risk. How many pedophiles do you know? I don't know of any in real life, but I find it hard to believe that all of them fit the description you portray. 

To be honest people like @WithMyBearHands  and @GreenZone  scare me the most.
Emotionally volatile, powered by a sense of righteousness, and have difficulty discerning fiction from reality.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

Fleye said:


> That's the thing though, you're not advising anyone. You're demanding they stop because they're "morally fucked" (in your own words).
> 
> 
> Source?  It's great (kind of) to see people getting really passionate about this topic, but I don't see anything that proves banning cub porn results in children being protected. If you're going to argue it's common sense, by your logic banning cub porn could remove an outlet for pedophiles and put more children at risk. How many pedophiles do you know? I don't know of any in real life, but I find it hard to believe that all of them fit the description you portray.
> ...


That's the fucking problem.  Getting positive reinforcement for something that's _almost _child porn just makes it easier for people to become desensitized to the real thing.  How dare people who are worried about how this affects certain undesirable people and how they approach actual real world children, ever speak up and be so intolerant amirite :V


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

Actual pedophiles get encouraged by this.  This behavior shouldn't be welcomed.


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

Fleye said:


> powered by a sense of righteousness



this made me kek something hard being against pedophilia is literally righteous


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

You do realize that you are literally condemning us for being against people trying to have sex with children?  That's like being mad at people who were against slavery in the civil war bc these Southern aristocrats just really need to be able to push their product even though content or method is illegal


----------



## GreenZone (Apr 30, 2018)

www.cnsnews.com: Child Trauma Expert: Pro-Pedophilia Groups Are ‘Grooming’ Public to Accept Adult-Child Sex

"pro pedophile groups are grooming children"


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> www.cnsnews.com: Child Trauma Expert: Pro-Pedophilia Groups Are ‘Grooming’ Public to Accept Adult-Child Sex
> 
> "pro pedophile groups are grooming children"


That pisses me off too, when diddlers try to use the gay community's struggles to hide behind.


----------



## Zhalo (Apr 30, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> You do realize that you are literally condemning us for being against people trying to have sex with children?  That's like being mad at people who were against slavery in the civil war bc these Southern aristocrats just really need to be able to push their product even though content or method is illegal


Now your just misrepresenting the argument right in front of us, NO ONE IN THIS THREAD HAS SAID ONCE THAT HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN IS OKAY! The entire argument going on right now is whether or not cub porn should be protected under free speech/ legal. 


GreenZone said:


> no this is not about free speech this is about protecting children and putting away sick individuals


This is EXACTLY what someone arguing for violent media to be banned would say. Just wanted to point that out.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Apr 30, 2018)

Goodness gracious... how did this thread (fall into the toilet) so fast - (in the past day)? Where's all this anger coming from? It's Monday... (it's all good, folks). ☺

Here... have a chill pill, everyone :









WithMyBearHands said:


> I literally cannot understand why people do not have a problem with drawing basically kiddie porn.  And who says I don’t hate rape art and vore art and whatever else?  It’s all disgusting and why are we making it okay?



Sorry, but no... there's a very big difference between making expressive thought and speech okay, verses making (actual illegal content) being okay.

TBH - I don't really get how anyone (out there) can make such a broad leap - by equating a sketched, lined, and colored drawing - (with the actual, real stuff). 

They are simply not the same thing - dearie dears. ☺

It might be disgusting, (in artistic taste) - certainly... I agree with you there, (as some of this stuff is just as nasty to me, on a personal level), also... but it's nothing *unlawful*... (at least here in the U.S., anyway).

→ If I draw a cup of coffee, (next to a piece of pie on a plate) - on a piece of paper, (it doesn't make it real). An actual photo - of coffee inside a mug, (with an actual piece of apple pie on a plate) - *is real*... you follow?

* In other countries, it may be different there... (I don't know)... and if it's unlawful in those places, then that's certainly a different story - (for those folks that live there, anyway). And perhaps banning it (in those areas) - might be appropriate... but in those areas only, (not for *all of us*).

→ One more thing please, before I leave this thread... (in my postings above) - I was *not* condoning illegal activities, in any way... I was merely trying to defend (First Amendment) artistic expression - which seems to be constantly under seige these days - (in so many societal quarters).

There's a very big difference there, also.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 30, 2018)

Just gonna drop this here



 


www.google.co.jp: When a drawing or cartoon image can land you in jail

"Cartoon" anthropomorphic characters can fall under the category "Cartoon"

I hope you guys are ready to go to jail :V


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 30, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> www.google.co.jp: When a drawing or cartoon image can land you in jail
> 
> "Cartoon" anthropomorphic characters can fall under the category "Cartoon"
> 
> I hope you guys are ready to go to jail


>Middlesborough
>the UK
I thought we already knew it was illegal there. Canada too as well as portions of Australia.


Connor J. Coyote said:


> Goodness gracious... how did this thread (fall into the toilet) so fast - (in the past day)?


I claimed that there's nothing wrong with rape in fiction or vore in fiction either and then the thread exploded.


----------



## Ginza (Apr 30, 2018)

I don’t support cub, and no matter how much logic I approach this with, it still makes my gut wrench. I’ll always find it disgusting, and incomparable to any other pornography. However, I just want to put one single thing in perspective- and it’s perhaps a very good question for those of us who are coming on here spewing the “I am taking the moral high ground” rhetoric


If cub porn is equal to pedophilia; then furry porn is equal to zoophilia. If it’s not okay to sexualize young characters, then theoretically, it’s not okay to sexualize innocent animals. We all just think it’s okay because we’re furries and like it. Thus, do we see any problem with it? No. 

Just something to keep in mind. Also, no, I don’t support cub porn. However, I’m seeing a lot of fallacies, and wanted to add my input


----------



## Sagt (Apr 30, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Just gonna drop this here
> 
> View attachment 31445
> 
> ...


From your link:


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 30, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> no this is not about free speech this is about protecting children and putting away sick individuals paedophiles do not reform you talk to anyone who deals with them and they all say the same thing they're manipulative they show no remorse for what they do and they admit that if released they will likely do it again
> 
> paedophilia is not a sexual orientation its not a gender its not something to be socially accepted its a mental sickness



If anyone goes near a child or touches them in an inappropriate manner, I'll be amongst the first to stop such behavior as soon as possible. 

The way your post is worded suggests you are a. calling cub porn viewers pedophiles, and b. considering locking them away. The mental gymnastics required to come to such a conclusion are appalling.


----------



## Troj (Apr 30, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> I literally cannot understand why people do not have a problem with drawing basically kiddie porn. And who says I don’t hate rape art and vore art and whatever else? It’s all disgusting and why are we making it okay?



I think it is important to question and explore the actual impact media has on people's attitudes and behavior, rather than to purely assume or speculate in a vacuum.

I also think we should tread very carefully, thoughtfully, and respectfully around the whole matter of self-expression, and need to think twice and make sure we have an iron-tight rationale before imposing or proposing restrictions on speech. 

All that aside, I think kiddie porn is disgusting, so it grosses me out when I see people defending, justifying, softballing, or rationalizing kiddie porn _itself._


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 30, 2018)

Troj said:


> I think it is important to question and explore the actual impact media has on people's attitudes and behavior, rather than to purely assume or speculate in a vacuum.
> 
> I also think we should tread very carefully, thoughtfully, and respectfully around the whole matter of self-expression, and need to think twice and make sure we have an iron-tight rationale before imposing or proposing restrictions on speech.
> 
> All that aside, I think kiddie porn is disgusting, so it grosses me out when I see people defending, justifying, softballing, or rationalizing kiddie porn _itself._



I don't see anyone defending kiddie porn, do you?


----------



## Katook (Apr 30, 2018)

Fleye said:


> That's the thing though, you're not advising anyone. You're demanding they stop because they're "morally fucked" (in your own words).
> 
> 
> Source?  It's great (kind of) to see people getting really passionate about this topic, but I don't see anything that proves banning cub porn results in children being protected. If you're going to argue it's common sense, by your logic banning cub porn could remove an outlet for pedophiles and put more children at risk. How many pedophiles do you know? I don't know of any in real life, but I find it hard to believe that all of them fit the description you portray.
> ...




Not even caught up on reading this yet but CHRIST THIS.

Like how hard is it to understand smudging graphite in certain =/= going out and finding a kid to molest

Edit: Finished catching up. I like how that post about it being illegal in the UK was cut off before LCS added the rest of it which just said the same thing the rest of us are saying.

If drawing cub/zoo/rape/vore/gore/murder is illegal, it's a victimless crime and I am of the belief all victimless crimes should not even be classified as crimes. It's a crime when someones' rights are violated or infringed upon, and drawing a character that someone else doesn't agree with the portrayal of is not a crime. 

It's the same as me getting pissed off that someone has a confederate flag on their truck which ObViOuSlY means they want all black people to go back to being 3/5s of a person or less >:v  Or swastikas encouraging anti-semitic violent actions.
But those images are allowed because of 'muh freedoms'


----------



## Troj (Apr 30, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't see anyone defending kiddie porn, do you?



Felt it was important to state for the record.

There can be a confusing and blurry line here, of course, where people who are genuinely principled and well-intentioned are accused of approving of this-or-that form of objectionable speech, and people who are sympathetic to some form of objectionable speech will hide behind lofty principles that they really don't believe in.


----------



## Katook (Apr 30, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't see anyone defending kiddie porn, do you?





Troj said:


> Felt it was important to state for the record.
> 
> There can be a confusing and blurry line here, of course, where people who are genuinely principled and well-intentioned are accused of approving of this-or-that form of objectionable speech, and people who are sympathetic to some form of objectionable speech will hide behind lofty principles that they really don't believe in.




I had to reread Troj's comment a couple times to get what they meant. They weren't really accusing those of us who are defending artists' rights to draw what they want of defending child pornography. Their comment actually said in it that it's wrong to accuse those who are speaking 'for' cub porn, of being sympathetic to child molesters( those of which have not been defended here, despite what a few select people seem to wrongfully believe)

In laymans' terms, since Troj kinda uses some of the same descriptive language I use, I think they're saying the line is blurred when you have people who don't struggle with pedophilia and who don't possess attraction towards children defending the fictional sexualisation of them, and then you have people who DO partake/consume IRL photographic or cinematic child porn simultaneously VEHEMENTLY speaking against sexual situations with children to cover their own asses and make up for the guilt/shame they have for urges they(as I wholeheartedly believe) cannot control. 


Urges come involuntarily, but it's how you respond to them that makes or break a person's character. When you act on urges that violate someones' rights, then you become an issue. 
This goes for sexual crimes,
Theft,
Suppression and punishment of expression/identity

But with the species' natural desire to protect our young for the best chances of survival, I can see how it's jarring to see others who don't find the fictional abuse of children a major concern... Often these people are religious and can't find the differences between what's real and what's not since their reality is dictated around a fictional story.../// but that's also a generalisation, my past religious trauma, and other situations causing me to relate most abuse to the suppression and delusions caused by religion.

Some of the comments here can be easy to misinterpret if you just glance over them, but when you take half a minute to think(@people like greenzone and mikazuki) it really doesn't deserve the overinflated fear-mongering that a drawing is gonna brainwash people into being molesters.

*I mean, people already think being a Furry makes you a gay zoophile, might as well tack on pedophile to that too now. Is that the reputation you guys want to keep reinforcing?? Because you're a part of this group too.*


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 30, 2018)

Katook said:


> I had to reread Troj's comment a couple times to get what they meant. They weren't really accusing those of us who are defending artists' rights to draw what they want of defending child pornography. Their comment actually said in it that it's wrong to accuse those who are speaking 'for' cub porn, of being sympathetic to child molesters( those of which have not been defended here, despite what a few select people seem to wrongfully believe)
> 
> In laymans' terms, since Troj kinda uses some of the same descriptive language I use, I think they're saying the line is blurred when you have people who don't struggle with pedophilia and who don't possess attraction towards children defending the fictional sexualisation of them, and then you have people who DO partake/consume IRL photographic or cinematic child porn simultaneously VEHEMENTLY speaking against sexual situations with children to cover their own asses and make up for the guilt/shame they have for urges they(as I wholeheartedly believe) cannot control.
> 
> ...



I mean, when you roleplay as basically a wolf person, or something, it's probably a little zoophilic, which everyone will deny, of course, but really, it doesn't matter. 

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, I was indeed lost at what Troj was trying to get across. And yeah, the stronger someone screeches against something, the more it looks a bit like "methinks he doth protest too much." I can be fairly dispassionate about cub stuff because it really doesn't affect me one way or the other. And it really probably doesn't effect anyone else.


----------



## Katook (Apr 30, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I mean, when you roleplay as basically a wolf person, or something, it's probably a little zoophilic, which everyone will deny, of course, but really, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the clarification, I was indeed lost at what Troj was trying to get across. And yeah, the stronger someone screeches against something, the more it looks a bit like "methinks he doth protest too much." I can be fairly dispassionate about cub stuff because it really doesn't affect me one way or the other. And it really probably doesn't effect anyone else.



I'm in kind of the same boat of it doesn't affect me one way or the other, but yeah I see where the confusion was because I had to go back and reread a couple times to get the context down haha


----------



## Troj (Apr 30, 2018)

Sorry for being unclear. The thought was triggered by people seeming like they were about to start launching into ad hominems.

Basically, I was acknowledging that a person might actually have honest or principled reasons for not wanting to just automatically bring the hammer down on cub porn.

At the same time, there are _also _people who periodically try to justify their own bad opinions or behaviors with pseudo-intellectual rationalization or "muh free speech."

So, you've got to listen carefully to the argument a person is making, and how they're making it, and then you need to pay attention to what they say and do otherwise.


----------

