# Underage furries and NSFW coms (What would count as NSFW?)



## Battle Foxxo (May 8, 2018)

What is your guys opinion on this? Is it illegal? Should it be if it is? Or should it be legal?

In my own opinion, I think it should be and should stay illegal, as buying minors pornographic material is illegal in the united States. 

I've seen numerous artists draw and be commissioned to draw lewd things when the person in question is 14-17 years old. Often without their own knowledge


----------



## aloveablebunny (May 8, 2018)

There are very good reasons that those considered minors should not have access to NSFW content. There are also very good reasons that adults should not be drawing NSFW content for minors.

It really needs no further explanation.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 8, 2018)

aloveablebunny said:


> There are very good reasons that those considered minors should not have access to NSFW content. There are also very good reasons that adults should not be drawing NSFW content for minors.
> 
> It really needs no further explanation.


^ This.

Minor = NO NSFW access. That includes commissions, IMO.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 8, 2018)

If you know someone is a minor, you shouldn't draw them NSFW content. If you're a minor, you shouldn't draw or consume NSFW content.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 8, 2018)

I think most of people here share the same opinion about underage accessing porn

Though I remember jerking off at a young age. Weird


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 8, 2018)

Its more like a problem with minors going out and *buying* the art themselves, or adults or other minors gifting it for them. I've noticed it among some furry servers on discord where they go and buy NSFW, or attempt to, despite being underage.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 8, 2018)

I don't even think this needs to be up for debate. 
Please don't intentionally, willingly expose minors to pornographic material.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 8, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> I don't even think this needs to be up for debate.
> Please don't intentionally, willingly expose minors to pornographic material.


^
But I still see artists doing it cause money or minors just lying about their age so they can get some drawn yiff.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 8, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> ^
> But I still see artists doing it cause money or minors just lying about their age so they can get some drawn yiff.


There's a good chance the artist may have been lied to about their age.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 8, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> There's a good chance the artist may have been lied to about their age.


There is. I've also seen some discussion about this due to law differences between countries. Depending on where both parties are, if it would even be counted as illegal.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 8, 2018)

BAN MINORS FROM FA! #MAKEFAGREATAGAIN!


----------



## Ciderfine (May 8, 2018)

The big issue is many users on here are not honest on their age. Just because someone is following the rules doesn't mean their lover or bf on the site as well wont be linking them porn on fa via skype or email. Seen it happen a lot, and I mean a lot.

I'm not sure what sense of legal action can be taken if underage users are caught as each state handles thing differently though the website domain being the victim as a user is violating its rules. In general it should be illegal to the fullest, but I know it wont do much as many young people, even ages 11 or so find porn from friends, a parents hidden playboy stash or any other case with puberty sexual urges are acted upon.

Should it be illegal? Yes, but knowing this site and how chillax it is, anyone can make a profile, lie about their age and dive right into the porn network FA is. Sadly the admins don't care for safe guards or proof about a users real identity.  

I feel its very bad that young minds access and still can without really trying adult materials on here then learning or growling normally. An echo chamber of animal porn only awaits them and will no doubt later make their lives....socially awkward or some added on harm.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 8, 2018)

I mean, there's nothing you can do about liars other than just checking to see if the person commissioning the artwork has his or her age anywhere.I imagine many artists probably have a disclaimer like "Must be 18+ to commission NSFW content" or something as that probably helps cover your butt in case someone is a liar. But if you discover or know someone is underage, you shouldn't draw them that content


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 8, 2018)

There should be a verification system thingy in FA that if done gives like a blue check icon like the ones twitter have


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 8, 2018)

Ciderfine said:


> The big issue is many users on here are not honest on their age. Just because someone is following the rules doesn't mean their lover or bf on the site as well wont be linking them porn on fa via skype or email. Seen it happen a lot, and I mean a lot.
> 
> I'm not sure what sense of legal action can be taken if underage users are caught as each state handles thing differently though the website domain being the victim as a user is violating its rules. In general it should be illegal to the fullest, but I know it wont do much as many young people, even ages 11 or so find porn from friends, a parents hidden playboy stash or any other case with puberty sexual urges are acted upon.
> 
> ...


You honestly couldn't have said it better.
I was on a server that was mostly made up of minors, 14-16 year olds, and the fact most of them were looking at porn, or saw some, or hell, even wanting porn draw of their sonas disturbs me. I used to be at that age too, but I quickly grew out of the "horny teen" phase.
Its more of a community problem to be honest, with either artists not caring or checking on who is buying it, and for people who openly post these things, or even send them directly


----------



## TrishaCat (May 8, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> There should be a verification system thingy in FA that if done gives like a blue check icon like the ones twitter have


But getting that blue checkmark is hard, and I imagine many people don't want to be sending their IDs to mods due to privacy concerns. Any sort of in depth verification system would kill NSFW content on FA.

I feel like the current system of requiring a birthday to be entered when you make an account, while imperfect, is serviceable.


----------



## Ginza (May 8, 2018)

It’s illegal, and for good reason. Selling, and exposing minors to porn- that’s just disgusting, and you, as an adult, should be responsible enough to know that.

The minors who lie about their age to purchase commissions or gain NSFW access- should equally be ashamed. By doing this, you can gets adults into _serious _trouble. So just don’t. If a minor wishes to view pornography, they should do so on public websites where nobody is held liable (and you all know full well what “websites” I refer to). If a minor chooses to find pornography themselves, and nobody is hurt or affected- I don’t care. However, they shouldn’t publicly announce this, nor should an adult be directing minors to said site.


----------



## Illuminaughty (May 8, 2018)

In all honesty, you can't stop the kids from going out and finding this stuff on their own- that happens and it'll happen no matter what you do, especially as they hit puberty and some begin to have sexual feelings.

It's _our_ job, as adults, to ensure that they stay safe from sexual predators and try to educate them about the dangers of seeking out sexual content online, as well as ensure they're educated enough about themselves and sexual acts to be _safe _even if they _do_ act on them. Because there's a _very distinct_ chance that they might.

And if someone is purposefully, knowingly and indiscriminately providing access or enabling access to harmful sexual content, opening channels to meeting dangerous people, and thereby putting young people in danger, they deserve to be _punished for it_. That is _heinous_, and illegal for very good reason. As adults, we should know better, and if one distributes or keeps sexual content, they should always be mindful not to allow minors to have access to it. That's just called "being responsible".

Because people can lie on the internet, there's really no safeguard or guarantee that the person you're talking to is the age they say they are. Mistakes can and will happen, but what matters is trying your best to be responsible for the sake of keeping kids safe. And, as a self-employed artist, you have the right to refuse service to anyone- if someone is making you question how old they really are, you don't _have_ to do the commission. It's better to be safe than sorry, especially when other people's well being is on the line.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (May 8, 2018)

Does this really need to be asked? No, minors should not be able to commission NSFW art. Nor should they be creating it or even viewing it at all. (I had a friend that seems to not understand this. She used to draw NSFW art or at least suggestive art quite constantly despite being THIRTEEN. I didn't approve of it at all but never said anything.)


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 8, 2018)

I feel like the argument needs to be constrained to artists unknowingly making art for minors, and minors knowingly concealing their age. Several posts here are railing against adults exposing minors to nsfw content. I suspect the rate at which that happens is extremely small. That is, of course, wrong and should stay prohibited, unless a parent thinks yiff is an all right thing for their child to consume. 

Therefore, I believe this behavior should be prohibited, but not punished. It seems extremely moralizing and punitive to punish young people for their natural sexual urges. 

They should of course attempt to be responsible with these urges.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 8, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I feel like the argument needs to be constrained to artists unknowingly making art for minors, and minors knowingly concealing their age. Several posts here are railing against adults exposing minors to nsfw content. I suspect the rate at which that happens is extremely small. That is, of course, wrong and should stay prohibited, unless a parent thinks yiff is an all right thing for their child to consume.
> 
> Therefore, I believe this behavior should be prohibited, but not punished. It seems extremely moralizing and punitive to punish young people for their natural sexual urges.
> 
> They should of course attempt to be responsible with these urges.


When was diddling your diddly to wolves a natural urge? Anyways I'mma grab some popcorn to watch the fireworks. 4th of July is coming early this year. :3


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> When was diddling your diddly to wolves a natural urge? Anyways I'mma grab some popcorn to watch the fireworks. 4th of July is coming early this year. :3



Lol. Well, to be honest, yiff is far closer to fantasy than actual porn. Honestly I think it is maybe a "safer" alternative? It still raises interesting questions about sex in a developing person's mind, of course. Porn viewing is best kept to a minimum at younger ages, I would say, but many are viewing this material out of curiosity. Contrary to popular American opinion, I do not think this is "corrupting young morals." If there is corruption, it is through parents and caretakers inability to teach young people healthy sexual boundaries.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Lol. Well, to be honest, yiff is far closer to fantasy than actual porn.


????
But yiff is porn?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> ????
> But yiff is porn?



Yes. I meant live-action porn, not drawn.


----------



## Silverblue_the_Gothbunny (May 9, 2018)

I'd never accept a commission from anyone under age unless it was of a purely G rated thing.  I have a child in real life, and so my feelings are fairly strong on the topic.  I would never draw anything that indicated sexual behaviour between characters that are under age, or could be mistaken for it.  That idea is very disturbing for me.  I feel similarly on heavy violence and children.

As for minors who lie about it, there's not much an artist can do, really.  You may never even find out.


----------



## Crimcyan (May 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I feel like the argument needs to be constrained to artists unknowingly making art for minors, and minors knowingly concealing their age. Several posts here are railing against adults exposing minors to nsfw content. I suspect the rate at which that happens is extremely small. That is, of course, wrong and should stay prohibited, unless a parent thinks yiff is an all right thing for their child to consume.
> 
> Therefore, I believe this behavior should be prohibited, but not punished. It seems extremely moralizing and punitive to punish young people for their natural sexual urges.
> 
> They should of course attempt to be responsible with these urges.


Fair enough points, but I do belive the minor's acount should be punished to be locked to sfw only if they get caught trying to commission a nsfw piece under it. Or lying about thier age to get nsfw.

Then for a parent thinking yiff is okay for a child? That must be a very weird family to be in, like one where the parents are furries. This is why furries shouldn't reproduce :V


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 9, 2018)

In hindsight, I wonder why we're taught sex education back in highschool


----------



## Filter (May 9, 2018)

I think kids should be kept away from the adult element, whenever possible, and not allowed to commission porn. 

If they sneak a peek at yiff online, however, I don't think that's a big deal. As long as the characters depicted are adults, and it's clear that kids are at least discouraged from viewing it.


----------



## pandasayori (May 9, 2018)

If a minor commissioned me to draw something it would be strictly limited to a G rating.  Minors lying about their age for the sake of buying lewd art is frustrating and a bit baffling.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> In hindsight, I wonder why we're taught sex education back in highschool
> View attachment 31946



Did you know 26 states in America don't have sex education? In my town, people didn't even know what condoms were. No wonder they were so messed up in other ways?



Crimcyan said:


> Fair enough points, but I do belive the minor's acount should be punished to be locked to sfw only if they get caught trying to commission a nsfw piece under it. Or lying about thier age to get nsfw.
> 
> Then for a parent thinking yiff is okay for a child? That must be a very weird family to be in, like one where the parents are furries. This is why furries shouldn't reproduce :V



Yeah, that's totally fair, but I disagree with legal repercussions for either party unless there can be proven intent to take advantage of someone. 

And well, I've seen plenty of shows and films where the parents are portrayed as giving their kids free access to porn, eh, sometimes in very crude fashions. Honestly I disagree with that much of a lackadaisical approach to things. Some boundaries are important.


----------



## Saiko (May 9, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> In hindsight, I wonder why we're taught sex education back in highschool


Lol speak for yourself. All I got was, "It's bad. M'kayy?"


----------



## Friskyaa123 (May 9, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> In hindsight, I wonder why we're taught sex education back in highschool
> View attachment 31946



American sex education taking furries into account at least as a side note, when


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 9, 2018)

That's so odd :V one would think the US (the most liberated country) would teach Sex Ed to teenagers. While we censor the shit out of every tentacle hentai porn in existence would teach kids sex Ed in highschool


----------



## Ginza (May 9, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> In hindsight, I wonder why we're taught sex education back in highschool
> View attachment 31946



Now I could be mistaken, so maybe research this a bit on the side, but I do believe that minors are allowed to be exposed to NSFW content for educational purposes.

Kind of funny really. One time I wrote a story containing the word “shit” and was called into the counselors office. Yet, we, at the same time as this story was written, were reading an extremely graphic novel on sex slavery, which included good old child rape


----------



## Silverblue_the_Gothbunny (May 9, 2018)

Ginza said:


> Now I could be mistaken, so maybe research this a bit on the side, but I do believe that minors are allowed to be exposed to NSFW content for educational purposes.



I imagine there's very strict guidelines around that.  But you could probably cover off your bases by showing non-sexual nudity as illustration for a lot of things.  Minors should, after all, know their body parts, and appropriate names.  It's recommended by anti-paedophilia workers.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 9, 2018)

There's a difference between nudity and sexual content for the purposes of titillation and such content being used in an educational context. The focus of such content is usually different. National Geographic magazines sometimes contain nudity, but it's only there to educate you, not to satiate ones horniness. As such it's deemed acceptable, while pornography isn't.

This doesn't mean though that artists should assume they're educating kids or something like that. NSFW content? Keep it away from kids.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 9, 2018)

For educational purposes, IMO there is nothing wrong in showing nudity. Sex however.. It's more of a grey area. Depends on how it is presented. But just outright sex? Hell no. Fuck that shit, no pun intended.

It's funny, really. All our teachers were awkward as hell when dealing with the subject of sex education. Didn't get the classical "condom on a cucumber" example even. It was basically just a couple of pictures, questionnaires, brief descriptions of common STD's/STI's and were told to always wear a condom when doing the deed with Junior. Barely 72 hours' worth of "material" at best. It was utterly pathetic, and this happened in 8th grade. We learned a lot more by looking up shit ourselves because we actually had the curiosity to actually know. 

This is an extremely important topic that some institutions are just.. Afraid to touch. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent STD's/STI's from being transferred, and how to deal with them. Prevent potential damage to any organs. Explain *why* someone at 13/14 compared to someone who is 18-20 are more of a bubbling mess in terms of hormones and emotions in general. There are so many aspects of this that we just didn't learn at all and had to experience and/or learn on our own.


----------



## Gryffe (May 9, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> BAN MINORS FROM FA! #MAKEFAGREATAGAIN!



That reminds me. After the great hacking of FA and the forced change of our password, I lost my first account forever. The reason ?

The special support they set up fo the recuperation asked me my birthday. And then I remembered... I registered with a random date as I was 16 at the time.

So... yeah. Good thing I'm 23 now. This account has the correct date registered


----------



## Inkblooded (May 9, 2018)

why is this even up for debate? it is both immoral and illegal to sell any pornographic content to a minor.

i also believe adult sites like F-List, Bad Dragon, and even FA do not do an adequate job of keeping minors out. Many adult furry websites just have a warning saying "Adult content - click if you are over 18" which is lazy and of course kids are going to click because if you tell them not to do something, they will do it -_- many minors also feel the need to prove that they're mature and can be taken seriously by immersing themselves in NSFW content, its really depressing.

And while FA requires you to register, it is easy to lie about your age and many adult submissions end up on SFW ratings. It is not good enough.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> There's a difference between nudity and sexual content for the purposes of titillation and such content being used in an educational context. The focus of such content is usually different. National Geographic magazines sometimes contain nudity, but it's only there to educate you, not to satiate ones horniness. As such it's deemed acceptable, while pornography isn't.
> 
> This doesn't mean though that artists should assume they're educating kids or something like that. NSFW content? Keep it away from kids.



Probably we should also talk about the effects this has on young people's minds. Most parents falsely assume their children are being mature and avoiding sexual content online. So I think people should be talking about the effects this could be having on kids, including but not limited to sexualizing them and resulting in them taking risks they might not otherwise. 



Ginza said:


> Now I could be mistaken, so maybe research this a bit on the side, but I do believe that minors are allowed to be exposed to NSFW content for educational purposes.
> 
> Kind of funny really. One time I wrote a story containing the word “shit” and was called into the counselors office. Yet, we, at the same time as this story was written, were reading an extremely graphic novel on sex slavery, which included good old child rape



Sure, that type of double standard is quite annoying. Instead we should be asking people why they use the languages and words they do.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 9, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> What is your guys opinion on this? Is it illegal? Should it be if it is? Or should it be legal?
> [...]
> I've seen numerous artists draw and be commissioned to draw lewd things when the person in question is 14-17 years old. Often without their own knowledge


Drawing/providing NSFW content for minors is illegal in most places. When minors lie about their age to get NSFW art made, they are also subjecting the artist to legal liability, which makes it a really shitty thing to do.

Similarly, hosting NSFW content created by a minor or meant to represent a minor (such as being that minor's fursona) is a legal liability for the site. Obviously long as kids have access to drawing supplies they can draw dicks, but sharing their drawn dicks subjects other people to risk. Which is not cool.

I know I had no idea about the liability side of the equation when I was a teenager - if I had I'd have steered clear of sites with 18+ clickthroughs completely instead of mostly-with-a-few-exceptions.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in many jurisdictions, anyone under 18 can't enter into a legally binding contract. Now, I'm not saying that exchanging money for G-rated art with a minor (in either direction) is a horrible thing to do, but it does constitute a greater risk, and that's something to be aware of.



Ciderfine said:


> Should it be illegal? Yes, but knowing this site and how chillax it is, anyone can make a profile, lie about their age and dive right into the porn network FA is. Sadly the admins don't care for safe guards or proof about a users real identity.


So what you're saying is, you're just dying to share your driver's license with staff? :V Didn't think so.
If there's evidence that someone is underage, and it's brought to staff attention, action is taken. That's really as much as is practical for any non-paysite to do. It sucks that kids lie, but it also sucks that parents won't fucking parent their kids enough to have a rough idea of what they're doing online.



Crimcyan said:


> Fair enough points, but I do belive the minor's acount should be punished to be locked to sfw only if they get caught trying to commission a nsfw piece under it. Or lying about thier age to get nsfw.


Mature locks are not, strictly speaking, punishment. They're a way to ensure that kids follow TOS. 
But minors who access or produce NSFW content on FA do get mature locked if/when they're caught.


----------



## Kaizou (May 9, 2018)

I don't see much room for debate. No matter how you feel about it morally laws in the US and most countries consider sharing pornography with a minor a crime,  regardless of age of consent.|

Unless you're trying to make some sort of point _(Which one...? Ew)_ by willingly going against the law I don't think any amount of cash is worth the potential fines. You might say, "Oh but Kaz, that would never happen!" but all it takes is one adult looking over the minor's shoulder to get you in hot water.

Needless to say, I believe it's our duty as adults to do whatever we can to abide by the law. I find it morally reprehensible for someone to take it upon themselves to expose minors to NSFW content- It's not the same as them seeking it out, morally or legally. 
If someone lies then hell, it sucks. But we all gotta do what we can to keep the rules working.


----------



## aloveablebunny (May 9, 2018)

This has gotten derailed to a degree.

If you are an adult and you are willingly providing known minors with NSFW content (including commissions), that is not okay. Any amount of justifying why that should be okay is a huge question of ethics and morals. Why on earth would anyone in a sane and rational mindset support the exposure of minors to NSFW content of a sexual degree?

Of course therein lies the argument of "proving" age of the people involved. Which will vary greatly based on platform and method of communication. However if there is *any* doubt that someone is a minor, be a reasonable person and walk the hell away from that - also report all parties involved.

If you justify exposing minors to NSFW content, that is as bad as actually being a pedophile. We are talking about pornograhic material, not sex education. Two VERY different subjects and two VERY different discussions.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Drawing/providing NSFW content for minors is illegal in most places. When minors lie about their age to get NSFW art made, they are also subjecting the artist to legal liability, which makes it a really shitty thing to do.
> 
> Similarly, hosting NSFW content created by a minor or meant to represent a minor (such as being that minor's fursona) is a legal liability for the site. Obviously long as kids have access to drawing supplies they can draw dicks, but sharing their drawn dicks subjects other people to risk. Which is not cool.
> 
> ...



So, people under 18 can't enter into contracts, but isn't that what the 18+ age gate is? If they click, they've jus signed a contract they can't actually sign.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 9, 2018)

If I may bring up another question for this, what would count as NSFW art? I have seen minors go on and get art of their sona in underwear (bulges included) from people on twitter, but claim "No dick is showing, its fine." One has even claimed that the artist knew of their age (16) while getting art of their sona in underwear.

Would this also stem to beach scenes? Where a minor's sona is in swim trunks or a one or two piece but in the context of the scene itself, is not meant to be lewd?

Just some additional questions to add to the topic, and I would appreciate your guys opinions on this.


----------



## Kaizou (May 9, 2018)

Just cause' rules can be broken doesn't mean they're useless. 
Really, it's not that hard. It may be difficult for minors to tell, but as adults I'm sure a lot of the time you can just vibe whether someone is underage or not with publicly available info. Weird typing? Funky payment methods? Inconsistent ages across different pages? Probably a minor. Personally I've been able to tell just by asking nicely. Trying goes a long way.



Battle Foxxo said:


> If I may bring up another question for this, what would count as NSFW art? I have seen minors go on and get art of their sona in underwear (bulges included) from people on twitter, but claim "No dick is showing, its fine." One has even claimed that the artist knew of their age (16) while getting art of their sona in underwear.



Sexual content is sexual content. Different laws have different standards, but generally speaking if it'd earn you a "questionable" rating in e621 it's probably not cool.




Battle Foxxo said:


> Would this also stem to beach scenes? Where a minor's sona is in swim trunks or a one or two piece but in the context of the scene itself, is not meant to be lewd?




Context matters. A single scene can have both benign and NSFW interpretations. A nurse ain't the same as a sexy nurse, and most humans with common sense can tell the difference.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> So, people under 18 can't enter into contracts, but isn't that what the 18+ age gate is? If they click, they've jus signed a contract they can't actually sign.


Which just means they're not legally liable for lying, I think? I don't know the finer intricacies of contract law.

It's more a concern in the sense that you may have very little recourse if a minor chargebacks you or fails to deliver what you ordered after you paid them.



Battle Foxxo said:


> I have seen minors go on and get art of their sona in underwear (bulges included) from people on twitter, but claim "No dick is showing, its fine." One has even claimed that the artist knew of their age (16) while getting art of their sona in underwear.


I personally wouldn't want to provide something with more genital detail than a Ken doll. A shapeless, minor bulge _might_ be okay, but soon as you start being able to see genital outlines, including "staggered" bulges denoting a difference between dick and balls, it's crossing over into not-actually-SFW territory.


----------



## aloveablebunny (May 9, 2018)

And to add to that further, yes, minors lying about age in order to obtain pornographic material, AND adults willingly enabling them, need to be punished. Not with just a slap on the wrist either. There are also very good reasons that countries have ages of consent for sexual activity. It is about the maturity level of the person. Ideally, everyone would be educated about these kinds of things and follow the rules and guidelines put in place with a purpose to protect minors from exposure to content that they are neither ready nor able to handle in an adult manner.

If you disagree with said rules and guidelines, take it up with the local and national government bodies who create and enforce them. If you try get around these rules for your own sick satisfaction and willingly want to participate in taking advantage of young, naive minds - there is a special place reserved just for you and it isn't pretty nor enjoyable.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

Kaizou said:


> I don't see much room for debate. No matter how you feel about it morally laws in the US and most countries consider sharing pornography with a minor a crime,  regardless of age of consent.|
> 
> Unless you're trying to make some sort of point _(Which one...? Ew)_ by willingly going against the law I don't think any amount of cash is worth the potential fines. You might say, "Oh but Kaz, that would never happen!" but all it takes is one adult looking over the minor's shoulder to get you in hot water.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think we can all agree that it's wrong to provide minors deliberately with porn, drawn or otherwise. 

But what about the morals of minors accessing and requesting that stuff? Let's assume they stay anonymous. Is this wrong?


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 9, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> For educational purposes, IMO there is nothing wrong in showing nudity. Sex however.. It's more of a grey area. Depends on how it is presented. But just outright sex? Hell no. Fuck that shit, no pun intended.
> 
> It's funny, really. All our teachers were awkward as hell when dealing with the subject of sex education. Didn't get the classical "condom on a cucumber" example even. It was basically just a couple of pictures, questionnaires, brief descriptions of common STD's/STI's and were told to always wear a condom when doing the deed with Junior. Barely 72 hours' worth of "material" at best. It was utterly pathetic, and this happened in 8th grade. We learned a lot more by looking up shit ourselves because we actually had the curiosity to actually know.
> 
> This is an extremely important topic that some institutions are just.. Afraid to touch. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent STD's/STI's from being transferred, and how to deal with them. Prevent potential damage to any organs. Explain *why* someone at 13/14 compared to someone who is 18-20 are more of a bubbling mess in terms of hormones and emotions in general. There are so many aspects of this that we just didn't learn at all and had to experience and/or learn on our own.


When I was going through those classes we were shown many things including real depictions of what STDs look like in various stages.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 9, 2018)

If people may read the last post I did, it does bring up another question to as to what would count as NSFW or lewd.


----------



## Kaizou (May 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Yeah, I think we can all agree that it's wrong to provide minors deliberately with porn, drawn or otherwise.
> 
> But what about the morals of minors accessing and requesting that stuff? Let's assume they stay anonymous. Is this wrong?



If you're asking whether it's morally wrong on the minor well, I don't think it is. There's a reason why minors are protected and held to a different standard than adults, they don't have the capacity to know just what they're doing yet.
Ideally speaking minors shouldn't view or seek out NSFW content because there is a good chance it'll do more harm than good, particularly by bringing them into contact with unsavory adults.
Yeah I looked at NSFW content when I was a kid, and yeah I went through a hell of a lot of websites. And looking back, I'm really disturbed by how many adults engaged in grooming behavior without me knowing it then. Realizing how many pedophiles you interacted with isn't great.

So no, I don't think minors should look at NSFW content.



Oblique Lynx said:


> When I was going through those classes we were shown many things including real depictions of what STDs look like in various stages.



Why is it okay for a doctor to touch a naked kid but a random person can't? Why can a mother bathe their kid and it be okay? Why is looking at STD pictures as a minor fine but looking at porn isn't?
It's almost like context matters. Hmmmm.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> But what about the morals of minors accessing and requesting that stuff? Let's assume they stay anonymous. Is this wrong?


I don't think this is a simple yes/no question.

On one hand, they are subjecting the people whose content they're consuming/requesting to potentially pretty harsh repercussions. I would say putting other people at risk just so you can have enjoyment is immoral.

The minors are also presumably lying about their age. Lies are generally not socially acceptable, and I wouldn't say lying about your age to access NSFW material falls under the common exceptions where lying is generally considered okay (white lies, lies to preserve a surprise, etc).

On the other, curiosity is a naturally occurring part of puberty. We can't deny those minors' desire for the content out of existence. Nor do I think that them wishing to see it is inherently wrong in a moral sense.


----------



## Xaroin (May 9, 2018)

Why is a minor here? Cause I came to say that sexual laws are so fucking inconsistent throughout so many different places that there is practically no way to have a specific set of binding morals until you can find some form of professional study on the topic. Issue is where does one even find a study on the topic to be able to have actual empirical data to judge something on this? because I'll go with what the guys with degrees have to say
Otherwise blindly flinging out moral "u stupid don't do" without any evidence to back it up just makes minors question "but y tho" (trust me that's a great counter argument to people who just go based off what people told them without fact checking)
So I'll probably recommend somebody find an article on this so that there can be a convincing starting point as to where the discussion can go because then you'll just leave people of my age group with the "but why tho" counter to the argument that nobody can answer because they never did research on it. Can somebody just find one of these so that the discussion can have an actual statistical starting point and maybe you can accomplish something here


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Which just means they're not legally liable for lying, I think? I don't know the finer intricacies of contract law.
> 
> It's more a concern in the sense that you may have very little recourse if a minor chargebacks you or fails to deliver what you ordered after you paid them.
> 
> ...



How so? I think sometimes a bulge is fine, especially if you're drawing a male feral. Those little farm animal toys are usually anatomically correct - I think that's a lot different from nsfw, which implies a sexual overtone at the very least. 



Kaizou said:


> If you're asking whether it's morally wrong on the minor well, I don't think it is. There's a reason why minors are protected and held to a different standard than adults, they don't have the capacity to know just what they're doing yet.
> Ideally speaking minors shouldn't view or seek out NSFW content because there is a good chance it'll do more harm than good, particularly by bringing them into contact with unsavory adults.
> Yeah I looked at NSFW content when I was a kid, and yeah I went through a hell of a lot of websites. And looking back, I'm really disturbed by how many adults engaged in grooming behavior without me knowing it then. Realizing how many pedophiles you interacted with isn't great.
> 
> ...



So, the typical "minors are too ignorant/underdeveloped to know what they're doing" argument. To an extent yes. I browsed some sites when I was that I really shouldn't have. For some reason I always managed to avoid people with grooming behavior though. I tended to be suspicious of adults hanging out on lego forums. 


quoting_mungo said:


> I don't think this is a simple yes/no question.
> 
> On one hand, they are subjecting the people whose content they're consuming/requesting to potentially pretty harsh repercussions. I would say putting other people at risk just so you can have enjoyment is immoral.
> 
> ...



Yeah, curiosity is a large part of it. Should we punish them, or talk about it and make sure practical boundaries are set, and make sure kids actually understand why the boundaries are there?


Xaroin said:


> Why is a minor here? Cause I came to say that sexual laws are so fucking inconsistent throughout so many different places that there is practically no way to have a specific set of binding morals until you can find some form of professional study on the topic. Issue is where does one even find a study on the topic to be able to have actual empirical data to judge something on this? because I'll go with what the guys with degrees have to say
> Otherwise blindly flinging out moral "u stupid don't do" without any evidence to back it up just makes minors question "but y tho" (trust me that's a great counter argument to people who just go based off what people told them without fact checking)
> So I'll probably recommend somebody find an article on this so that there can be a convincing starting point as to where the discussion can go because then you'll just leave people of my age group with the "but why tho" counter to the argument that nobody can answer because they never did research on it. Can somebody just find one of these so that the discussion can have an actual statistical starting point and maybe you can accomplish something here



What kind of study exactly? All I know are studies detailing how much of a devide there is between what minors do and what parents think their minors do. E


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> How so? I think sometimes a bulge is fine, especially if you're drawing a male feral. Those little farm animal toys are usually anatomically correct - I think that's a lot different from nsfw, which implies a sexual overtone at the very least.


This was in reference to characters wearing underwear/swimtrunks, though, not animals. Non-detailed sheaths on random feral animals I don't give many hoots about - would still probably avoid drawing them (not necessarily by omitting them, it's not that difficult to fudge composition to obscure them) on work I knew was for a minor, particularly if the character was used by the minor for self-representation. The more detail is put into the genital area, the more questionable, is a good rule of thumb IMO.



BahgDaddy said:


> Should we punish them, or talk about it and make sure practical boundaries are set, and make sure kids actually understand why the boundaries are there?


I don't see a practical purpose for punishment as the standard response. Basically, if your reaction is to scream for punishment, you should consider what the punishment is intended to accomplish. 

Even if you do decide on punishment, however, that doesn't mean that you don't also have to talk to the kid about it. Like, a couple of weeks ago I talked to one of my classmates, who's worked at a school, grades 1-9, where _50 Shades of Grey_ is part of the school library. I don't have strong feelings about books containing sexual themes being available to 9th graders (if you want to generate interest in the stone age, for all I know maybe _Clan of the Cave Bear_ and sequels will do the trick), but given how... unhealthy the portrayals of BDSM are in that series, as a kinkster I'm kind of horrified. Like... who the hell is going to debrief those kids after they check that book out?



Xaroin said:


> So I'll probably recommend somebody find an article on this so that there can be a convincing starting point as to where the discussion can go because then you'll just leave people of my age group with the "but why tho" counter to the argument that nobody can answer because they never did research on it. Can somebody just find one of these so that the discussion can have an actual statistical starting point and maybe you can accomplish something here


I can see your point but I don't think a scientific study is necessary to support all points being made in this thread. Like, if drawing you porn can get someone charged with corruption of a minor/grooming and possibly put on the sex offender registry for life, it should be perfectly reasonable to say you should not put them in that position. Responding to that with "but why tho?" would show a remarkable disregard for other people's well-being.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 9, 2018)

This will be my first and last post on this thread unless someone wants to say something to me directly.

I pretty much agree with the OP, as does basically _everyone _and their mother on this thread, though I'm surprised by the turnaround of a couple individuals who were very supportive of cub porn. Nothing like the allure of being a moderator to make motherfuckers moral. (Relax, this will only get a little more dramatic, then I'll slink back into the shadows.) That said, it is nice to see some positive agreement on something that should be common sense. Now I'll be narcissistic and say me and @WithMyBearHands have been expressing mild concern with this and related issues regarding minors on this site for weeks and @GreenZone has been top on this for even longer than we have. In return, we've caught nothing but shit for this, but now people see the problem. If this isn't some short-term moral outrage, then great, the user experience here is getting better already. I hope this trend expands to other areas and sticks.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 9, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> When I was going through those classes we were shown many things including real depictions of what STDs look like in various stages.


Well, that's one way to cause traumas I suppose.


----------



## Ciderfine (May 9, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Drawing/providing NSFW content for minors is illegal in most places. When minors lie about their age to get NSFW art made, they are also subjecting the artist to legal liability, which makes it a really shitty thing to do.
> 
> Similarly, hosting NSFW content created by a minor or meant to represent a minor (such as being that minor's fursona) is a legal liability for the site. Obviously long as kids have access to drawing supplies they can draw dicks, but sharing their drawn dicks subjects other people to risk. Which is not cool.
> 
> ...




I'm more than fine with proving im an adult with my military ID truth be told to prove I'm not some 13yo creeper, like many people i've run into on the past inside of FA. You shouldn't put words in other peoples mouths, when its very easy to prove your a real person.

I'd be fine and happy to prove I'm a real person with I.D, data references should someone make a claim of me being underage or such. And to the people saying this is a bad move: I assume yall never heard of life lock and other services of such?


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 9, 2018)

Not only 


Ciderfine said:


> I'm more than fine with proving im an adult with my military ID truth be told to prove I'm not some 13yo creeper, like many people i've run into on the past inside of FA. You shouldn't put words in other peoples mouths, when its very easy to prove your a real person.
> 
> I'd be fine and happy to prove I'm a real person with I.D, data references should someone make a claim of me being underage or such. And to the people saying this is a bad move: I assume yall never heard of life lock and other services of such?


that, but you dont need to show full ID. If anything, you could comprimise and show an ID with a date of birth, and with a note in the picture. Ive had it done before, just show my ID, write down someones name or a phrase on a sticky note and send a pic. If you are above 18, this shouldn't be much of a problem.


----------



## Niedlich the Folf (May 9, 2018)

The problem is that some people lie about their ages and there is no way to make rules to prevent this easily, however some don't lie about their age like me, but the biggest problem is if they tell the truth and ask for NSFW content still and the artist still accepts it then there's all kinds of legal problems that both parties have to deal with so if a minor ask for NSFW art then don't do it and try to get some info off of the person to make sure that their actually 18 and over of age.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> Not only
> 
> that, but you dont need to show full ID. If anything, you could comprimise and show an ID with a date of birth, and with a note in the picture. Ive had it done before, just show my ID, write down someones name or a phrase on a sticky note and send a pic. If you are above 18, this shouldn't be much of a problem.



But you can also just grab your parents id and block it out. For accessing servers, this can also be construed as phishing.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> though I'm surprised the turnaround of a couple individuals who very supportive of cub porn. Nothing like the allure of being a moderator to make motherfuckers moral.


Please don't assume things. I take issue with things that involve real people. I don't take issue with fiction. Hence my response to the cub thread versus this one.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 9, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Please don't assume things. I take issue with things that involve real people. I don't take issue with fiction. Hence my response to the cub thread versus this one.


It's worth noting I never mentioned your name on this thread. At all.


----------



## Skylar2505 (May 9, 2018)

Hi, I'm Bob. (Not really!!!)


----------



## Ginza (May 9, 2018)

Skylar2505 said:


> Hi, I'm Bob. (Not really!!!)


----------



## TrishaCat (May 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> It's worth noting I never mentioned your name on this thread. At all.


You referred to a turnaround of individuals who were supportive of cub porn. I am one such individual who was supportive of such whilst against the notion of minors being exposed to NSFW content here. As such, I very likely fit under those couple individuals. If I dont, I think my thought process may at the very least apply to others that fit under such.

Regardless, if my assumption was poorly formed, I apologize.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 9, 2018)

Those under 18 should not be able to access anything "adult" related.. be it artwork, actual porn, or even some writings.. and as a policy, that should certainly remain.. but - (in the real world) I think we all know - that most young people - if they want to look at the stuff, will find a way somehow.. (if they're determined to do so).

Under 18's who lie about their age, (in order to get NSFW commissions).. hurts everyone.. including the artist who's just trying to make some money.. (and make ends meet). There should be some kind of protections - for artists who fall victim to these types of commissioners also.



LogicNuke said:


> though I'm surprised by the turnaround of a couple individuals who were very supportive of cub porn. Nothing like the allure of being a moderator to make motherfuckers moral.



Cub is (supposed to be) consumed by adults though.. not by those under 18. There's a big difference between drawing someone underage, versus actually engaging someone who's under age.


----------



## Troj (May 9, 2018)

Links were working again as of a minute ago:

lawyersandliquor.com: Fetish Friday: The Legality of Fictional Minors in Sexual Conduct

lawyersandliquor.com: InkedFur’s Furry Friday: A Minor Issue, Part 1.

lawyersandliquor.com: InkedFur’s Furry Friday: A Minor Problem, Part 2 – Socializing with The Youngins’


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 9, 2018)

Troj said:


> www.lawyersandliquor.com: Fetish Friday: The Legality of Fictional Minors in Sexual Conduct
> 
> www.lawyersandliquor.com: InkedFur’s Furry Friday: A Minor Issue, Part 1.
> 
> www.lawyersandliquor.com: InkedFur’s Furry Friday: A Minor Problem, Part 2 – Socializing with The Youngins’


I'm getting a blank page in chrome and a Go Daddy parked page in Edge


----------



## Troj (May 9, 2018)

Ah, crap, he must be in the process of moving his site! I'll re-post the links when he gets his new site.

The short summary is, be very, very, very, very, very careful around minors, especially when sex, drugs, and other 'adult' things are involved. Don't be stupid, don't be cavalier, don't assume you're an exception to the rule, and don't assume you can claim ignorance and save your butt later.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 9, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Cub is (supposed to be) consumed by adults though.. not by those under 18. There's a big difference between drawing someone underage, versus actually engaging someone who's under age.


I could say something ... but do any of you good citizens want to address this?


----------



## Ginza (May 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I could say something ... but do any of you good citizens want to address this?



respectfully, not here please. While I'm in agreement with you, let's just not derail this further ^^


----------



## Silverblue_the_Gothbunny (May 9, 2018)

Hmm, you know, if I ended up finding out about a minor who requested NSFW art (not likely, since I pretty much no longer do anything like that for Boring Reasons), they'd have to be incredibly internet-savvy to escape me informing their carers, heh.

Cub art, nhhh.  It creeps me the hell out.  I have a child, a young child.  Anything that makes me think people could sexualise folk like her makes me want to smite.  Whether people debate it or not, whether it's legal or not, I don't really care.  Sure, it may not be particularly well thought out, but before her, I thought cub art was just distasteful.  And rapey.  Now my reaction is rather more visceral.  This could be because I've come across people trying to excuse this in real life, and they've all come across as creepy.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 9, 2018)

Ginza said:


> respectfully, not here please. While I'm in agreement with you, let's just not derail this further ^^


I literally just redirected the conversation back to y'all ... where's the derailment? As you were.


----------



## Ginza (May 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I literally just redirected the conversation back to y'all ... where's the derailment? As you were.


I wasn't accusing you of derailment. I was stating to you, and everyone, that cub debates should be taken elsewhere is all.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 9, 2018)

Troj said:


> Ah, crap, he must be in the process of moving his site! I'll re-post the links when he gets his new site.
> 
> The short summary is, be very, very, very, very, very careful around minors, especially when sex, drugs, and other 'adult' things are involved. Don't be stupid, don't be cavalier, don't assume you're an exception to the rule, and don't assume you can claim ignorance and save your butt later.



Yeah, but I found his sarcasm somewhat hard to decipher. I.e. I felt like it concealed some of what he actually meant. I think there's a lot of interpretation that can come into play under "talking to minors about sex." You could even construe crude jokes as grooming behavior if you try hard enough. The problem is because grooming behaviors usually closely resemble normal interactions with minors. That's why it's so hard to catch pedophiles.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 9, 2018)

Ginza said:


> I wasn't accusing you of derailment. I was stating to you, and everyone, that cub debates should be taken elsewhere is all.


You literally said to me:


Ginza said:


> let's just not derail this further ^^


That implies you thought I was going to derail the thread. However, putting that aside, we could ask how many underage user commission cub porn not because they are primarily attracted to it, but because they identify with it. By addressing one problem, maybe you could fix the other as well, at least partly.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (May 9, 2018)

as much as I'd maybe want minors welcome on here so they could ask 'is this weird' questions about like orientation, I'd be fearful of stealth boners of the forum members, lol


----------



## Infrarednexus (May 9, 2018)

I'm glad it's illegal and it should stay illegal.


----------



## Zhalo (May 9, 2018)

So obviously it is wrong for a minor to lie about their age to an artist to get a NSFW commission, but I honestly don't see any moral problem with a minor getting a NSFW commission, if they seek it out themselves and are upfront about their age. Obviously it is illegal, but that doesn't make it wrong. 

As the current law is you have to be the age of majority to purchase pornographic material, but I think it would make more sense if the age of consent were to be used or. I personally believe that a very low age requirement of 13 or 14 should be used instead of the current requirement of 18. Really as long as the minor is initiating the transaction, then they understand what they are doing and are not being harmed in any way. Repressing the ability for minors to explore their sexuality can lead to harm, so I think it would be best if the law would reflect the interest of the minor to explore their sexuality and sexual desires.


----------



## avisa (May 9, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> So obviously it is wrong for a minor to lie about their age to an artist to get a NSFW commission, but I honestly don't see any moral problem with a minor getting a NSFW commission, if they seek it out themselves and are upfront about their age. Obviously it is illegal, but that doesn't make it wrong.


Because then you have adults knowingly drawing porn for minors.


----------



## Zhalo (May 9, 2018)

avisa said:


> Because then you have adults knowingly drawing porn for minors.


That only sounds wrong because it is taboo, but in reality adults draw porn for minors all the time, just not directly. The 13-17 age demographic probably (I dont know this for a fact)  consumes more porn than any other age demographic and 99% of that porn is shot/drawn by adults.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (May 10, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> That only sounds wrong because it is taboo, but in reality adults draw porn for minors all the time, just not directly. The 13-17 age demographic probably (I dont know this for a fact)  consumes more porn than any other age demographic and 99% of that porn is shot/drawn by adults.



or you could just argue 'anime' if you want to argue drawn porn


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 10, 2018)

I feel like some of the negativity towards this comes from, still, viewing sex as something dirty, immoral, and so on and so forth. Puritanism, mostly stemming from religious sources, still has a quite pervasive effect on society in general. I think people would, in general, have much better attitudes towards it, and not view it as something terrible, if instead we accepted it, or embraced it even, as a natural part of being human.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (May 10, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I feel like some of the negativity towards this comes from, still, viewing sex as something dirty, immoral, and so on and so forth. Puritanism, mostly stemming from religious sources, still has a quite pervasive effect on society in general. I think people would, in general, have much better attitudes towards it, and not view it as something terrible, if instead we accepted it, or embraced it even, as a natural part of being human.



psychosexual theory: even "body of Christ" is confusing bread with an actual body because discomfort about bodies/a male body in particular


----------



## Silverblue_the_Gothbunny (May 10, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> That only sounds wrong because it is taboo, but in reality adults draw porn for minors all the time, just not directly. The 13-17 age demographic probably (I dont know this for a fact)  consumes more porn than any other age demographic and 99% of that porn is shot/drawn by adults.



I'd be surprised by this, if it were true.  According to Daily Infographic, 70% of males between 18-24 were regularly consuming online pornography (apparently defined as monthly).  That's a pretty high bar to grab for a 13 year old, and many younger teenagers will have  checks on internet usage or adults having the right to control or use their accounts.  Consumption is defined as a regular attempt to collect and use, and I'd guess that 13-17 year olds would be more occasional.  An adult has a private residence of their own most of the time, after all, and a private computer.

It's hard to find adults vs children datasets here, though I did find one that said 43% of teenagers under 18 who had already seen porn consumed it on a weekly basis.  For adults, the weekly amount seems to be a lot higher (18-30-year-olds, 63% - 31-49-year-olds, 38% - 50-68-year-olds, 25%).  Regardless, porn is a bloody awful way to learn about sex, so hopefully educators are able to jump the gun on this one and get in earlier with actual information as opposed to fantasies that don't tend to reflect reality.

In purely anecdotal information, I used to work as a webmaster for an adult entertainment site, and I'd have guessed that most of our users were 30-40.  We advertised as specialising in non-exploitive material.  'Soft' or 'cuddly' stuff just wasn't attractive to younger users.  Which was a bit sad, I felt, but...ehh.


----------



## TheArchiver (May 10, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> *I feel* like some of the negativity towards this comes from, still, viewing sex as something dirty, immoral, and so on and so forth. Puritanism, mostly stemming from religious sources, still has a quite pervasive effect on society in general. I think people would, in general, have much better attitudes towards it, and not view it as something terrible, if instead we accepted it, or embraced it even, as a natural part of being human.



You _feel_ but, you have no substantial ground to concretely _demonstrate_. Are you claiming to know better than credited psychological scholars and practitioners? Because as far as I'm concerned, you're a random, feral porn obsessed furry on a forum spouting anecdotal nonsense with _LESS _than nothing under _your_ belt to back your predatory claims. Quite a bit of vague pseudo-intellectual phrasing and cereal box anthropology, but nothing I could even loosely call *evidence*.

But by all means, you seem to have this all figured out with your own cited research and case studies I'm certain you've conducted yourself. Would you care to provide me with any of your works that can trump the PDF I have in my other tab from the Australian Institute of Family Studies that references over 200 *credited* psychological evaluations and studies of children and adolescents?


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 10, 2018)

Ciderfine said:


> I'm more than fine with proving im an adult with my military ID truth be told to prove I'm not some 13yo creeper, like many people i've run into on the past inside of FA. You shouldn't put words in other peoples mouths, when its very easy to prove your a real person.
> 
> I'd be fine and happy to prove I'm a real person with I.D, data references should someone make a claim of me being underage or such. And to the people saying this is a bad move: I assume yall never heard of life lock and other services of such?


Fair enough; a large chunk of people seem to think it's draconian beyond the acceptable to require photo ID for staff, so requiring it of everyone that wants to see or post NSFW art would logically be one step worse. I apologize for lumping you in with those people; it was a reasonable assumption given the body of opinions I've seen on the topic, but I acknowledge it was still an assumption. No insult intended.

People who are caught lying about their age _do_ need to show ID to get access to NSFW again, on FA. That seems like a pretty reasonable bar to set, to me personally.



Zhalo said:


> As the current law is you have to be the age of majority to purchase pornographic material, but I think it would make more sense if the age of consent were to be used or. I personally believe that a very low age requirement of 13 or 14 should be used instead of the current requirement of 18. Really as long as the minor is initiating the transaction, then they understand what they are doing and are not being harmed in any way. Repressing the ability for minors to explore their sexuality can lead to harm, so I think it would be best if the law would reflect the interest of the minor to explore their sexuality and sexual desires.


How do you expect the 13-year-old to pay for the pornographic material? How would you reconcile this with contract law? At best, from my understanding of contract law as it applies to custom artwork, you'd have minors able to purchase premade art (digital portfolios and similar - a 13-year-old should probably not be buying anything that requires mailing a physical product given the potential for abuse), which would only serve your stated goal of allowing the minor to explore their sexuality to a limited degree. 

There's also the question of how you would define the requirement of the minor being the one to initiate the transaction. Can they have prior interactions with the artist, or must the "hi I'm 13 I want to order some porn" be the first point of contact? Not that initiating something by necessity indicates understanding of what one's doing. I can say from experience that teenage me would not have recognized predatory behavior done reasonably skillfully, and could fairly easily have been manipulated into thinking something was her own idea when the seeds of it had been deliberately planted by an adult.

When I was... probably 13-14, my memory's a bit sketchy on exactly what year we started, my BFF and I were exploring our sexualities by passing notes back and forth in class, tag-team writing lewd-as-fuck little stories. We're like 17 months apart in age, so that's the kind of thing that is fairly age-appropriate and safe exploration of the taboo. Involving an adult in a young teen's sexual exploration/discovery comes with some fairly inherent power/authority imbalance issues that make the situation entirely too easy to exploit.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 10, 2018)

On the one hand, I don't like the idea of being overly prudish, and pretending teens don't or can't find porn, or shouldn't be able to acquire it.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone should be doing adult rated commissions for minors, or otherwise providing pornographic images directly to minors.
There is also the legal issue of porn being available to minors for sites and groups to consider, because prison sucks.
As for anyone that is "gifting" adult content, or otherwise grooming minors by providing them porn:


Spoiler


----------



## Zhalo (May 10, 2018)

Silverblue_the_Gothbunny said:


> I'd be surprised by this, if it were true. According to Daily Infographic, 70% of males between 18-24 were regularly consuming online pornography (apparently defined as monthly). That's a pretty high bar to grab for a 13 year old, and many younger teenagers will have checks on internet usage or adults having the right to control or use their accounts. Consumption is defined as a regular attempt to collect and use, and I'd guess that 13-17 year olds would be more occasional. An adult has a private residence of their own most of the time, after all, and a private computer.
> 
> It's hard to find adults vs children datasets here, though I did find one that said 43% of teenagers under 18 who had already seen porn consumed it on a weekly basis. For adults, the weekly amount seems to be a lot higher (18-30-year-olds, 63% - 31-49-year-olds, 38% - 50-68-year-olds, 25%). Regardless, porn is a bloody awful way to learn about sex, so hopefully educators are able to jump the gun on this one and get in earlier with actual information as opposed to fantasies that don't tend to reflect reality.


I might be completely off that's why I said "I don't know for a fact" I was just assuming anecdotally off my experiences.


Silverblue_the_Gothbunny said:


> In purely anecdotal information, I used to work as a webmaster for an adult entertainment site, and I'd have guessed that most of our users were 30-40. We advertised as specialising in non-exploitive material. 'Soft' or 'cuddly' stuff just wasn't attractive to younger users. Which was a bit sad, I felt, but...ehh.


Yeah, personally that would just make me depressed because I don't have a SO. :/


----------



## Zhalo (May 10, 2018)

TheArchiver said:


> You _feel_ but, you have no substantial ground to concretely _demonstrate_. Are you claiming to know better than credited psychological scholars and practitioners? Because as far as I'm concerned, you're a random, feral porn obsessed furry on a forum spouting anecdotal nonsense with _LESS _than nothing under _your_ belt to back your predatory claims. Quite a bit of vague pseudo-intellectual phrasing and cereal box anthropology, but nothing I could even loosely call *evidence*.
> 
> But by all means, you seem to have this all figured out with your own cited research and case studies I'm certain you've conducted yourself. Would you care to provide me with any of your works that can trump the PDF I have in my other tab from the Australian Institute of Family Studies that references over 200 *credited* psychological evaluations and studies of children and adolescents?


Do you really need to start insulting @BahgDaddy to try to prove your point? Sex is viewed not as a natural thing and as an  unacceptable topic of discussion in the majority of America (I believe it is slightly better in Europe as far as I know). If you start a conversation with someone about sex especially if you are not close to them, it will most of the time make the other person embarrassed, withholding, or uncomfortable with the conversation. Even seeing your friends naked is extremely taboo to most people in the US.


----------



## Zhalo (May 10, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> How do you expect the 13-year-old to pay for the pornographic material? How would you reconcile this with contract law? At best, from my understanding of contract law as it applies to custom artwork, you'd have minors able to purchase premade art (digital portfolios and similar - a 13-year-old should probably not be buying anything that requires mailing a physical product given the potential for abuse), which would only serve your stated goal of allowing the minor to explore their sexuality to a limited degree.


Just like anything else with cash, debt card, or PayPal. I don't know jack shit about contract law, but I do know minors are allowed to purchase regular art commissions that are mailed, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make.


quoting_mungo said:


> There's also the question of how you would define the requirement of the minor being the one to initiate the transaction. Can they have prior interactions with the artist, or must the "hi I'm 13 I want to order some porn" be the first point of contact? Not that initiating something by necessity indicates understanding of what one's doing. I can say from experience that teenage me would not have recognized predatory behavior done reasonably skillfully, and could fairly easily have been manipulated into thinking something was her own idea when the seeds of it had been deliberately planted by an adult.


I just mean it would not be okay for an artist to go around asking minors directly if they want an NSFW commission, but if the minor asks the artist then it would be okay.



quoting_mungo said:


> When I was... probably 13-14, my memory's a bit sketchy on exactly what year we started, my BFF and I were exploring our sexualities by passing notes back and forth in class, tag-team writing lewd-as-fuck little stories. We're like 17 months apart in age, so that's the kind of thing that is fairly age-appropriate and safe exploration of the taboo. Involving an adult in a young teen's sexual exploration/discovery comes with some fairly inherent power/authority imbalance issues that make the situation entirely too easy to exploit.


I look at the artist making the drawing, just as any other merchant selling a product. The minor would be the one with the power in the relationship because they have the money.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 10, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> I just mean it would not be okay for an artist to go around asking minors directly if they want an NSFW commission, but if the minor asks the artist then it would be okay.


If the artist knows they are a minor and draw NSFW art they are actively breaking the law. The artist is eligible for whatever laws apply in terms of willingly exposing a minor to pornographic material. The minor's hornyness is going to cause problems for someone else, and aren't even accountable for their actions due to their status as, you guessed it, a minor, and as such are not eligible to a decent amount of laws due to their age.

We have laws for NSFW consumption set at 18 for a reason. It's a problem for some minors apparently, and their actions can and will get *others* into trouble because of their lack of understanding of what their actions will cause. The minor may be fine with it, but the laws are not, and the artist may not be either. If or when the artist finds out, they can easily use whatever means they have at their disposal to get their art if posted, taken down.

Even if they are open about being a minor and ask for a NSFW commission it goes in the same category as willingly exposing a minor to NSFW material. Minor may be fine with it, artist may not. Artists are to follow the law, or potentially be held accountable to them. A concept too farfetched for some people, apparently.



Zhalo said:


> I look at the artist making the drawing, just as any other merchant selling a product. The minor would be the one with the power in the relationship because they have the money.


And it's the artists' right to refuse working for a minor. Just because you have money doesn't make you all mighty.

Lie on this front and you are basically potentially making someone *else* potentially accountable to the law due to your own lack of accountability.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 10, 2018)

What would count as NSFW art if a minor got it?
I want some opinions on this without having to make a new thread. What is the line for NSFW?
Could a minor get art of their Sona in underwear? A bikini? What is the line for it? 
I'm genuinely curious to know what you guys would have to say on that because, as I have said before, I've seen Twitter artists make art for minors with their sonas in underwear but with bulges and.. it's oof.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (May 10, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Just like anything else with cash, debt card, or PayPal.



PayPal? I thought you had to be eighteen(and prove it) to have an account?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 10, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> What would count as NSFW art if a minor got it?
> I want some opinions on this without having to make a new thread. What is the line for NSFW?
> Could a minor get art of their Sona in underwear? A bikini? What is the line for it?
> I'm genuinely curious to know what you guys would have to say on that because, as I have said before, I've seen Twitter artists make art for minors with their sonas in underwear but with bulges and.. it's oof.


Bulges *could* go as SFW if it's not the focus of the piece, or is just meant to show "this is a male". Otherwise, IMO, no.

Bikinis are more SFW in general due it being an outside attire at the beach/pool/in general. It's an attire meant to be used outside, and as such goes as SFW in general.

Underwear is a little more.. Situational, but more mainly an indoor and private attire. In the bedroom? Could easily go as NSFW. 
Sleeping on the couch of which you just so happened to sleep in your underwear, it's not the focus of the piece? Could easily go as SFW. 
Underwear clearly meant to stir up an aroused state? Yeah, no. NSFW. 

It's extremely situational, Foxxo. Scene, attire, hell, even how the character looks with their eyes. Bedroom eyes are kinda hard to miss. 



Sunburst_Odell said:


> PayPal? I thought you had to be eighteen(and prove it) to have an account?


Not necessarily 18, but you need a verified bank account and/or debit card. An item mainly only those over 18 have, though there a decent amount of exceptions. I had a bank account made in my name at the age of 7, but couldn't use anything on it until the age of 15. 

Normally you can't get a debit card until you're 18 in some countries anyway, unless you borrow you parents' credit/debit card. Of which they will find out what you're up to.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (May 10, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Not necessarily 18, but you need a verified bank account and/or debit card. An item mainly only those over 18 have, though there a decent amount of exceptions. I had a bank account made in my name at the age of 7, but couldn't use anything on it until the age of 15.
> 
> Normally you can't get a debit card until you're 18 in some countries anyway, unless you borrow you parents' credit/debit card. Of which they will find out what you're up to.


Huh. Interesting. After researching how PayPal accounts work a bit more, I could possibly see if my parents would be OK with me having one(and using their card). Maybe then I could finally start taking commissions. But, just to clarify with the context of this thread, they'd only be SFW.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 10, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Bulges *could* go as SFW if it's not the focus of the piece, or is just meant to show "this is a male". Otherwise, IMO, no.
> 
> Bikinis are more SFW in general due it being an outside attire at the beach/pool/in general. It's an attire meant to be used outside, and as such goes as SFW in general.
> 
> ...


Welp, the kid I know got it with a bulge and a  blush on his face
That artist is boned...


----------



## Yakamaru (May 10, 2018)

Sunburst_Odell said:


> Huh. Interesting. After researching how PayPal accounts work a bit more, I could possibly see if my parents would be OK with me having one(and using their card). Maybe then I could finally start taking commissions. But, just to clarify with the context of this thread, they'd only be SFW.


If you are under 18 you need your parents'/guardians' explicit permission to have a credit card/debit card and a bank account. In terms of funds, you get them from your parents usually. 

On this front in my opinion parents should be strict on what is and isn't allowed. NSFW always being a no-go. SFW however? Hell, if the artist is good I'd probably commission them too if I had kids.



Battle Foxxo said:


> Welp, the kid I know got it with a bulge and a  blush on his face
> That artist is boned...


Well, I did say *could*. 

It's a matter of the context of the piece. If it's a bulge that's just, you know, *there*, to indicate a male, then I don't have an actual problem with it, and I doubt people nor the law have any problem with it, as it's not the focus nor the purpose of the art. If it is the focus of it, then it could easily count as NSFW.


----------



## Zhalo (May 10, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> If the artist knows they are a minor and draw NSFW art they are actively breaking the law. The artist is eligible for whatever laws apply in terms of willingly exposing a minor to pornographic material. The minor's hornyness is going to cause problems for someone else, and aren't even accountable for their actions due to their status as, you guessed it, a minor, and as such are not eligible to a decent amount of laws due to their age.
> 
> We have laws for NSFW consumption set at 18 for a reason. It's a problem for some minors apparently, and their actions can and will get *others* into trouble because of their lack of understanding of what their actions will cause. The minor may be fine with it, but the laws are not, and the artist may not be either. If or when the artist finds out, they can easily use whatever means they have at their disposal to get their art if posted, taken down.
> 
> Even if they are open about being a minor and ask for a NSFW commission it goes in the same category as willingly exposing a minor to NSFW material. Minor may be fine with it, artist may not. Artists are to follow the law, or potentially be held accountable to them. A concept too farfetched for some people, apparently.


I never said it would be a good idea to break the law and I would never encourage someone to do so. I only said what I think the law should be.


Yakamaru said:


> And it's the artists' right to refuse working for a minor. Just because you have money doesn't make you all mighty.


This is true it is a mutual interest to trade money for services, both parties hold power because they are reliant on each other.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 10, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> I never said it would be a good idea to break the law and I would never encourage someone to do so. I only said what I think the law should be.


Sorry, I misread. My apologies.

13-17 year olds are going to find their NSFW content regardless if they so desire. There's so many sites where you can just go incognito on and find whatever your heart desire.

IMO however, minors shouldn't be allowed to commission NSFW content. Current laws prohibit it, and I would much prefer people to follow them so as the artists aren't going to be potentially eligible legally speaking.

Should there be some changes? Could do with being a little more lenient, although the intentional exposure to minors will always be a big no-no in my eyes.



Zhalo said:


> This is true it is a mutual interest to trade money for services, both parties hold power because they are reliant on each other.


Indeed. Mutual interest, but one party can be held accountable, the other cannot, so the playing field isn't on that front, unfortunately.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 10, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I could say something ... but do any of you good citizens want to address this?



Sorry my mind was in a haze yesterday.. when I wrote my half-baked reply; as I was only half-paying attention to this topic. As I mentioned earlier, minors shouldn't be allowed to access the stuff.. (and we all can agree on there, I think).

I was just saying that I think it's (a bit unfair) though - to hold an artist accountable (legally) - and get into all kinds of legal trouble, for completing a NSFW piece (for a minor) - if that artist was lied to by the commissioner (in regards to his/her age).

I don't see how that's the artists fault, in any way.

If a minor uses a fake ID (to get into a bar), for example - how is that the bars fault, if the ID looks real and legit, and it turns out to be a fake?

There needs to be some accountability, (not only on the adults) - but also on the minor, (for lying) - and also on the minor's parents/guardians, (for being asleep at the switch), and allowing the NSFW website to be visited, or the NSFW piece to be commissioned, in the first place.

It shouldn't be (partly) an online stranger's job - to help parent your own kids.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 10, 2018)

I've been meaning to bring this up earlier but I remembered something a friend told me. One furry discord doesn't allow under 18 year olds into the NSFW, but the kids on that server went and made their own server to share porn. I used to think "oh, just teens sharing porn, nothing bad." But as I started to think, it made me a bit uncomfortable, especially since my friend was there (He was a mod and was under 18, so they invited him), and he told me that people would wanna meet him but not because he was a mod and (this is a whole other conversation)
Anyway, younger furs getting NSFW is getting easier since they could just make discord group chats and private servers to share content, and if no one reports it, nothing happens.Not to mention how I know of a server made up of almost entierly of minors (ranging from 13 to 19, only two or three people are 18 or older), where they had _*fights and drama happen*_, after the last owner deleted the NSFW for a joke. I dont even think its legal for someone under 18 to have a NSFW section in their server, let alone make the age to get in be 16+


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 10, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Sorry my mind was in a haze yesterday.. when I wrote my half-baked reply; as I was only half-paying attention to this topic. As I mentioned earlier, minors shouldn't be allowed to access the stuff.. (and we all can agree on there, I think).
> 
> I was just saying that I think it's (a bit unfair) though - to hold an artist accountable (legally) - and get into all kinds of legal trouble, for completing a NSFW piece (for a minor) - if that artist was lied to by the commissioner (in regards to his/her age).
> 
> ...


I remember a friend saying ignorance isn't a good defense in the courtroom. As they have scanners and tech to check if a ID is fake or not. Thats all I have to say but I do see your point.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 10, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> I remember a friend saying ignorance isn't a good defense in the courtroom. As they have scanners and tech to check if a ID is fake or not. Thats all I have to say but I do see your point.



Not everybody - the local mom and pop shop - that has 4 stools (inside a small bar) on the edge of a 2-lane country road, probably doesn't have said technology. But I see your point also.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (May 10, 2018)

not gonna say I was never underage in furry stuff when I shouldn't have been, but I wasn't too bad, like 15 at the time


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 10, 2018)

TheArchiver said:


> You _feel_ but, you have no substantial ground to concretely _demonstrate_. Are you claiming to know better than credited psychological scholars and practitioners? Because as far as I'm concerned, you're a random, feral porn obsessed furry on a forum spouting anecdotal nonsense with _LESS _than nothing under _your_ belt to back your predatory claims. Quite a bit of vague pseudo-intellectual phrasing and cereal box anthropology, but nothing I could even loosely call *evidence*.
> 
> But by all means, you seem to have this all figured out with your own cited research and case studies I'm certain you've conducted yourself. Would you care to provide me with any of your works that can trump the PDF I have in my other tab from the Australian Institute of Family Studies that references over 200 *credited* psychological evaluations and studies of children and adolescents?



Your post is embedded with various logical fallacies. My enjoyment of feral porn is irrelevant to the discussion, since it's not what we're talking about. 

Also, calling my claims predatory is emotional tugging, designed to elicit an emotional reaction from me and distract from the matter at hand, which in my case is an assertion that our religious and puritanical society leads to sexual immaturity. 

Now, what research do you want me to cite, and what exactly does your research indicate? You haven't stated either of these things, merely dropped fancy-sounding qualifiers to make your argument seem superior, when in fact it is entirely composed of lazy insults.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 10, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> I remember a friend saying ignorance isn't a good defense in the courtroom. As they have scanners and tech to check if a ID is fake or not. Thats all I have to say but I do see your point.



That's not ignorance, it's subterfuge. If a minor lies about their age and or fakes their ID, that is entirely on them and is in no way the fault of the artist or the bar, etc. That shouldn't even be a debatable point.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 10, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> I remember a friend saying ignorance isn't a good defense in the courtroom. As they have scanners and tech to check if a ID is fake or not. Thats all I have to say but I do see your point.


Generally ignorance of the law isn't a good defense. If someone deliberately misrepresents themselves to get age restricted anything and there isn't anything that would have obviously indicated they were a minor, the law is on your side in the us. 
Example
A 17 year old uses a fake ID to purchase alchohol. The clerk and store are not held legally liable. 
A 10 year old uses a fake ID to purchase alchohol. The clerk and store get fined, and the store may have its liquor license revoked.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 10, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> That's not ignorance, it's subterfuge. If a minor lies about their age and or fakes their ID, that is entirely on them and is in no way the fault of the artist or the bar, etc. That shouldn't even be a debatable point.



Mish brings up a good point about this though, on terms of the ignorance.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Generally ignorance of the law isn't a good defense. If someone deliberately misrepresents themselves to get age restricted anything and there isn't anything that would have obviously indicated they were a minor, the law is on your side in the us.
> Example
> A 17 year old uses a fake ID to purchase alchohol. The clerk and store are not held legally liable.
> A 10 year old uses a fake ID to purchase alchohol. The clerk and store get fined, and the store may have its liquor license revoked.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 10, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Generally ignorance of the law isn't a good defense. If someone deliberately misrepresents themselves to get age restricted anything and there isn't anything that would have obviously indicated they were a minor, the law is on your side in the us.



And thank god for that !


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 10, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> Mish brings up a good point about this though, on terms of the ignorance.



Well, yeah, I mean if a 5 year old waves their parents ID at you, common sense there. But, say me, I have looked 21 for a long time, and did not even get carded the first few times I bought alcohol.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 10, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Well, yeah, I mean if a 5 year old waves their parents ID at you, common sense there. But, say me, I have looked 21 for a long time, and did not even get carded the first few times I bought alcohol.


Not carding in that case would be negligent, and get the hypothetical cashier/store in trouble if they got caught.


----------



## Silverblue_the_Gothbunny (May 10, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Yeah, personally that would just make me depressed because I don't have a SO. :/



Hmm, I meant that we got a lot of requests for much rougher, more violent stuff.  The requests were rarely phrased pleasantly, basically the assumption was always that people could do whatever they wanted to the women involved because sex worker.  Presumably there were nicer folks out there who just didn't make requests, but at least as far as commercial pornography was involved, you do develop a great loathing for that type of client.  And you know, you kinda hope you don't run into them in the dark.

Meh, anyway, I've always looked a lot older than I actually am, however once you get past your twenties, it's not much of a benefit 

I wonder if the furry stuff at least has the benefit that people don't expect it to exist iRL.


----------



## Zhalo (May 11, 2018)

Silverblue_the_Gothbunny said:


> Hmm, I meant that we got a lot of requests for much rougher, more violent stuff.  The requests were rarely phrased pleasantly, basically the assumption was always that people could do whatever they wanted to the women involved because sex worker.  Presumably there were nicer folks out there who just didn't make requests, but at least as far as commercial pornography was involved, you do develop a great loathing for that type of client.  And you know, you kinda hope you don't run into them in the dark.
> 
> Meh, anyway, I've always looked a lot older than I actually am, however once you get past your twenties, it's not much of a benefit
> 
> I wonder if the furry stuff at least has the benefit that people don't expect it to exist iRL.


_Oof_ I misread your previous post so bad then X_X, I am not really into actual porn though, I am more into drawn stuff.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 11, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Just like anything else with cash, debt card, or PayPal. I don't know jack shit about contract law, but I do know minors are allowed to purchase regular art commissions that are mailed, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make.


Mailing cash is not a great idea, most artists do not have a merchant account to natively process debit card payments, and PayPal does have age limits. The linked page also mentions some relevant things about contract law. A more recent post answering the same general question can be found here.

Also, if you're allowing your 13-year-old to give out their legal name and address to strangers on the Internet, you're honestly probably kind of a shitty parent.



Zhalo said:


> I just mean it would not be okay for an artist to go around asking minors directly if they want an NSFW commission, but if the minor asks the artist then it would be okay.


And you have to understand that there has to be a clear way to draw the line; it'd be quite possible for a cunning groomer to basically bait a young teen into having explicit conversation with them under the pretense of just being a commission artist, so you can't just say "well in these clear cut cases..." Most cases aren't clear cut. Most of my commission customers have been people whom I've had prior interaction with, and I'm saying that creates a potential giant loophole for predators to lure teens through.



Zhalo said:


> I look at the artist making the drawing, just as any other merchant selling a product. The minor would be the one with the power in the relationship because they have the money.


That's a rather naive way of looking at it, though. The minor might have the power in the exchange itself (though that's pretty debatable) due to holding money, but that doesn't change the overall power balance in society at large. Most (decent) kids will respect adults, which means the adult is in a position of authority. Anything they do will therefore have a veneer of legitimacy. I can say in hindsight that some of the interactions I had online in my mid-teens were pretty darn inappropriate, but at the time I didn't really reflect over how creepy they were.

Like, I realize you think you're savvy and can look out for yourself. And maybe that's true in your specific case, I don't know. Either way, I've been there. But I can say with confidence that there _are_ people out there who'd jump at the chance to have a legitimate reason to have minors describe their sexual fantasies to them, and the things that didn't raise red flags for my "savvy" 15-year-old self could in hindsight have ended very differently. And badly. 

I fucking hate to be sitting in the "protect the children" camp, but there's a lot of potential for abuse here with very little societal benefit.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 11, 2018)

Ginza said:


> Now I could be mistaken, so maybe research this a bit on the side, but I do believe that minors are allowed to be exposed to NSFW content for educational purposes.
> 
> Kind of funny really. One time I wrote a story containing the word “shit” and was called into the counselors office. Yet, we, at the same time as this story was written, were reading an extremely graphic novel on sex slavery, which included good old child rape



(someday, Imma figure-out how to reply to MULTIPLE posts at one time (like I see others doing)...  I a PC-Challenged Furry, oh yes I am!  pffft)

Most have already said stuff I was going to type, so I won't repeat 'em all here.

Re: 'Sex Education' in H.S. (or Junior High, nowadays?).
I remember two years of mandatory 'Health Education' courses (one semester each).  Amazingly, not ONE thing taught was 'News' to us students, even those of us who'd never actually had sexual intimacy with another.  If you grew up in a rural/farming environment?  lol  There was NOTHING about 'Sex Ed.' that really taught you anything.  
I'll give it this credit:  STD's.  For that topic alone, I'd say 'Sex Ed.' should be mandatory for all young adults (H.S. Junior/Senior years).  Unsafe sex isn't worth the possible consequences that can utterly wreck your life (and this isn't even broaching the teen/young-adult pregnancy issue).

What 'I' (and a few others who I talked with, later), noticed as a glaring lack?  "Sexual Abuse" issues.  Hopefully so many decades later, they've included this in any type of instruction?

Now, I won't derail this topic with that, merely making a note about it.

In these modern days of internet/digital art and all others?

Unless it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt than an Artist did a personal piece (commission OR 'Gift Art'), to another that they KNEW was under-aged?  I can't see how any Artist could be held accountable for it.  Supervising children's activities online is NOT an Artist's job.

That is the responsibility of the child's parents/adult guardians.  Hold THEM accountable if this is discovered.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 11, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> *throws firecracker into the fire to give the dumpster some flare*


Just a firecracker?

Humph!

::Lugs 15 gallon propane tank over, then *HURLS* into fire, before turning-around and running for mah life!... ::

Now, who brought da marshmallows?

;-)


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 11, 2018)

Troj said:


> Links were working again as of a minute ago:
> 
> lawyersandliquor.com: Fetish Friday: The Legality of Fictional Minors in Sexual Conduct
> 
> ...


VERY cool reply (and links!)

Thanks for sharing this.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 11, 2018)

Zhalo said:


> Do you really need to start insulting @BahgDaddy to try to prove your point? Sex is viewed not as a natural thing and as an  unacceptable topic of discussion in the majority of America (I believe it is slightly better in Europe as far as I know). If you start a conversation with someone about sex especially if you are not close to them, it will most of the time make the other person embarrassed, withholding, or uncomfortable with the conversation. Even seeing your friends naked is extremely taboo to most people in the US.



Do you (and others who don't seem to have a problem with it?), honestly believe exposing minors to sexually explicit material is a wise idea?
There is a metric shit-ton of difference between a minor seeing/being exposed to the basics behind nudity and sexuality, and being exposed to hardcore, deviant sexual material.
I won't delve into all the many (thousands) of studies that support censoring this kind of thing to young, developing minds.  Neither will I seek-out the counter studies and arguments that claim otherwise.  That's a circular discourse that really doesn't help.

I will agree that making simple nudity, and the basics of male/female anatomy taboo is a mistake, too.  Kids pick-up on an adult's nervousness much faster than most adults realize.  If a kid sees the adult behaving that way, their curiosity is going to peek, and of course they're then going to pursue the topic with even more enthusiasm.

I'd never condone showing a child explicit porn/sexual material.  Even if fictional.

Kids do not have to 'Grow-up' faster/quicker in today's society.  I'm talking sexuality, and even these abhorrent 'Fashion Shows' where children are decked-out in alluring clothing and painted-up like clowns.  That creeps me the hell out, and I've never understood how other adults could condone or support it.
Kids DO need to become more 'MATURE' (by that, I mean 'Responsible'), for their behavior!  Too many spoiled brats that grow up into self-entitled-feeling adults for my preference.

You teach children maturity/responsibility by example.  Or not.  You reap what you sow, after all.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 11, 2018)

Silverblue_the_Gothbunny said:


> Hmm, I meant that we got a lot of requests for much rougher, more violent stuff.  The requests were rarely phrased pleasantly, basically the assumption was always that people could do whatever they wanted to the women involved because sex worker.  Presumably there were nicer folks out there who just didn't make requests, but at least as far as commercial pornography was involved, you do develop a great loathing for that type of client.  And you know, you kinda hope you don't run into them in the dark.
> 
> Meh, anyway, I've always looked a lot older than I actually am, however once you get past your twenties, it's not much of a benefit
> 
> I wonder if the furry stuff at least has the benefit that people don't expect it to exist iRL.



Honestly yeah, I think so. There's a lot of neat stuff out there that looks good as drawn furry yiff, that I would never be comfortable viewing done to an actual person. 



quoting_mungo said:


> Mailing cash is not a great idea, most artists do not have a merchant account to natively process debit card payments, and PayPal does have age limits. The linked page also mentions some relevant things about contract law. A more recent post answering the same general question can be found here.
> 
> Also, if you're allowing your 13-year-old to give out their legal name and address to strangers on the Internet, you're honestly probably kind of a shitty parent.
> 
> ...



It's not likely sharing fantasies with minors has any social value. In some cases it might. A minor might be confused about the type of fantasy they enjoy, and feel bad about it. They may not feel comfortable, or be unable to talk about this, with their parents. Granted, I know a lot of people would, unfortunately, take advantage of a such a situation. They also might be better off keeping that between peers. I am not very sure. 



Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> (someday, Imma figure-out how to reply to MULTIPLE posts at one time (like I see others doing)...  I a PC-Challenged Furry, oh yes I am!  pffft)
> 
> Most have already said stuff I was going to type, so I won't repeat 'em all here.
> 
> ...



I don't know if what areas do have sex ed are doing a good job of it. Many areas do not have sex ed, and if they do, they don't talk about the effects of porn viewing on a developing mind, or healthy consent, tackling rape culture, blah blah blah.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 11, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Not everybody - the local mom and pop shop - that has 4 stools (inside a small bar) on the edge of a 2-lane country road, probably doesn't have said technology. But I see your point also.



I clearly remember visiting bars with my father.  I was @5 years of age, my younger sister, 3.  We'd be served 'Roy Rogers' (for me), and 'Shirley Temples' (for my sis), and allowed to play 'Pool', which consisted of pushing the balls across the velvet rather than trying to use the cues.
This was also a time when every retailer had coin-operated cigarette machines at their doorways.  For .25 (average), I/my sister would happily scurry over, drop the coin(s), and pull the appropriate handle, then scurry back to deliver the package of cigs.
It was a different time, yes.
Did THIS scar me or my sister in negative ways? (second-hand smoke not withstanding.  I'm sure our bodies absorbed as much as the adults who's heads were smothered in the acrid smoke?).

No.

Was taking two young children INTO a damned bar (and of course, our father/adult figure, were DRINKING at the bar, only to then drive us wherever we were going, after), a smart thing to do?

Hell no.

I realize this wouldn't be permitted in today's society (extremely rural settings notwithstanding), and I support this.  

That 'Lead by example' concept, again.  If I/my siblings were given .25 for EVERYTIME we heard, "Smoking's bad for you, don't do it!"  Or the flip-side of the coin, "Drinking's bad for you, don't do it!"?  I could've retired by age 18.

This is where common sense, and the rise in maturity comes into play.  Did I start smoking at a young age?  Yep.  Did I start drinking at a young age?  Yep.  I put a halt to smoking, when I realized I was actually feeling that *RUSH*, and the addiction began appearing.  I didn't want to be chained to that monkey.  I DO indulge in the occasional pipe smoke (tobacco, not '420', though I have no real issues with folks who do enjoy that particular leaf).

Drinking?  Still a problem but one I'm aware of, and monitor very, very closely.  I don't drive while drinking.  I don't enjoy my shooting sports while drinking (or suffer the fools who do this in my presence.  I leave such 'Parties')...

As an adult, I/we all have to make decisions about how we wish to live our lives.

As a parent, or guardian for a minor?  It's my job to show them from my own mistakes/wisdom gained, how to avoid making such mistakes (by example or reasoning).


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 11, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> Do you (and others who don't seem to have a problem with it?), honestly believe exposing minors to sexually explicit material is a wise idea?
> There is a metric shit-ton of difference between a minor seeing/being exposed to the basics behind nudity and sexuality, and being exposed to hardcore, deviant sexual material.
> I won't delve into all the many (thousands) of studies that support censoring this kind of thing to young, developing minds.  Neither will I seek-out the counter studies and arguments that claim otherwise.  That's a circular discourse that really doesn't help.
> 
> ...



Actually yes, it's quite bizarre how many people will be quite all right with these fashion shows that border on lolita, and then be completely opposed to minors being sexual in any way. Confusion much? No wonder we're a society of sexually confused idiots. 

Now, I haven't seen anyone argue that deliberately exposing minors to porn isn't an issue. If they do say that I'll have a problem with it too. 

No, I think what we are actually saying is that sex is a natural curiosity, and it's going to be explored. I think people have a responsibility to make sure healthy portrayals can be found, in whatever small ways are possible. 

Let's take one example. Many young gays find anal (bareback) porn online through curiosity. They then think this is normal, when it's in fact not that common and also very unsafe. Ouch! And no one is talking about this.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 11, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Well, yeah, I mean if a 5 year old waves their parents ID at you, common sense there. But, say me, I have looked 21 for a long time, and did not even get carded the first few times I bought alcohol.


heh
You lucky bastard!  

I'm OVER 50 (shush), yet when I shave, still have a very 'Babyish-faice', and often get carded at the store when purchasing alcohol!
Hell, I'm not insulted!  More-like:  complimented!

:-D


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 11, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> It's not likely sharing fantasies with minors has any social value. In some cases it might. A minor might be confused about the type of fantasy they enjoy, and feel bad about it. They may not feel comfortable, or be unable to talk about this, with their parents. Granted, I know a lot of people would, unfortunately, take advantage of a such a situation. They also might be better off keeping that between peers. I am not very sure.


Keeping it between peers or speaking to trusted local adults with relevant training like counselors (which at least here schools must have on staff) is definitely safer. 

If you look at online grooming cases, it's not all that rare for them to transition into blackmail situations. Making it legal to obtain the blackmail material won't exactly help protect the kids. (Not to mention, commissioning <kink> is generally more stigmatized than simply viewing it, so it's higher-value blackmail material. Something about money exchanging hands makes modern western society moral panic about sex multiply manifold.)


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (May 11, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Actually yes, it's quite bizarre how many people will be quite all right with these fashion shows that border on lolita, and then be completely opposed to minors being sexual in any way. Confusion much? No wonder we're a society of sexually confused idiots.
> 
> Now, I haven't seen anyone argue that deliberately exposing minors to porn isn't an issue. If they do say that I'll have a problem with it too.
> 
> ...



I agree with you.
This is where (and I don't mean to harp on it), 'Parental Guidance/Supervision' comes into play.
Now, I'm not a parent (decided young I'd never Sire children in this life).  I have supervised/helped-raise all 5 of my younger sibs, and of course I have baby-sat friends/neighbor's children, so I have some practical experience along those lines.
I did not grow-up with today's easy access to pornography.  This internet/computer world is a totally new kind of danger for such things.  When I do watch over minors now?  If they're on the PC, they're in the same room as I am (their parents set-up the PC for precisely this reason).  If they're doing homework, merely surfing the net, playing video games?  Fine and dandy.
Oh, did I mention their parents also have tracking for the PC(s)? THEY go back and check to ensure their kids didn't wander (or try to) into dangerous waters.

That is the way it should be done, IMHO.

My main reason for replying to your post?

'Curiosity'.
Amen!!!
I hate it when parents 'SHUSH!' a child (even if NOT their own!  I've seen this happen, many times!), for asking an honest question about something they see, hear, or just think-up.  What a terrible way to squash a child's developing mind!!!
This happened to me, too.  Very 'Old School' and nearly archaic at times.  I've been spanked for broaching the topic of drugs (as a pre-teen).  I've been spanked (by 'Spank', I don't mean paddled by hand on my covered backside.  I'm talking a belt against bare flesh, that leaves welts), for asking about things that were 'Too adult" in the eyes/thoughts of my parental/adult guardians.
I was taught early-on to not talk, not ask, and that's a horrible way for a child to grow-up.

I think its important to answer any question a child asks, but you have to reply in appropriate ways.  Feed their curiosity while protecting them.  Not saying this is an easy thing.  Parenting isn't.

I'll leave this on an amusing note-

As a kid, I once saw two dogs 'Tied'.  Never having seen this behavior (and they were obviously *STUCK together*), I asked my Uncle what's going on?  This particular Uncle was extremely course at times, and took great delight in teasing me/my cousin at every opportunity.  In this particular instance, he answered with a laugh and a grin, "They're sharing farts!".

Seemed perfectly reasonable to my young mind (if a bit gross!), and we went about our merry way w/o discussing it further.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 11, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Keeping it between peers or speaking to trusted local adults with relevant training like counselors (which at least here schools must have on staff) is definitely safer.
> 
> If you look at online grooming cases, it's not all that rare for them to transition into blackmail situations. Making it legal to obtain the blackmail material won't exactly help protect the kids. (Not to mention, commissioning <kink> is generally more stigmatized than simply viewing it, so it's higher-value blackmail material. Something about money exchanging hands makes modern western society moral panic about sex multiply manifold.)



Yeah, and that's honestly why I advocate for open discussions about this sort of thing. Groomers and pedophiles need the darkness and privacy to properly groom their victims - sharing stuff in the open, imo, is actually less dangerous. Maybe? Unless groomers will then target their victims in other ways - it's not exactly something I've given much thought to, considering how unsavory it is, and the fact that it's disturbing that we have to be this careful.



Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> I agree with you.
> This is where (and I don't mean to harp on it), 'Parental Guidance/Supervision' comes into play.
> Now, I'm not a parent (decided young I'd never Sire children in this life).  I have supervised/helped-raise all 5 of my younger sibs, and of course I have baby-sat friends/neighbor's children, so I have some practical experience along those lines.
> I did not grow-up with today's easy access to pornography.  This internet/computer world is a totally new kind of danger for such things.  When I do watch over minors now?  If they're on the PC, they're in the same room as I am (their parents set-up the PC for precisely this reason).  If they're doing homework, merely surfing the net, playing video games?  Fine and dandy.
> ...



Yeah, I firmly disagree with such authoritarian measures to keep young people have having free speech. I experienced a similar situation to you, there, but fortunately my parent was candid and honest enough to simply respond, "they're mating, this is how they make new puppies," or some such, which looking back, was a delightfully honest response to a 5 or 6 year old's inquiry.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 11, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Actually yes, it's quite bizarre how many people will be quite all right with these fashion shows that border on lolita, and then be completely opposed to minors being sexual in any way. Confusion much? No wonder we're a society of sexually confused idiots.
> 
> Now, I haven't seen anyone argue that deliberately exposing minors to porn isn't an issue. If they do say that I'll have a problem with it too.
> 
> ...



Yeah, deliberately sexualizing kids is just flat wrong. But kids will explore their own sexuality on their way to adulthood, and counselors and parents should handle that without freaking the fuck out. 

My issue with commissions and individuals furnishing porn to minors is it gets into sketchy territory. Obviously, if the minor concealed their age well enough to get around it I'm not going to hate on the artist, but if you know they are a minor, just don't.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 11, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> In this particular instance, he answered with a laugh and a grin, "They're sharing farts!".


Honestly that doesn't sound too farfetched from something dogs would actually do.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (May 11, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Honestly that doesn't sound too farfetched from something dogs would actually do.


Precisely, probably hence why it worked


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 11, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Yeah, deliberately sexualizing kids is just flat wrong. But kids will explore their own sexuality on their way to adulthood, and counselors and parents should handle that without freaking the fuck out.
> 
> My issue with commissions and individuals furnishing porn to minors is it gets into sketchy territory. Obviously, if the minor concealed their age well enough to get around it I'm not going to hate on the artist, but if you know they are a minor, just don't.



Yeah, totally agreed, on all counts; no one should deliberately furnish porn, drawn or otherwise, to a minor. 



Cawdabra said:


> Honestly that doesn't sound too farfetched from something dogs would actually do.



Ahhh XD


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Well, yeah, I mean if a 5 year old waves their parents ID at you, common sense there. But, say me, I have looked 21 for a long time, and did not even get carded the first few times I bought alcohol.





Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Not carding in that case would be negligent, and get the hypothetical cashier/store in trouble if they got caught.



If someone looks like they're over 21 already, then they probably wouldn't ask for ID; as the person looks like an adult already. Adults don't get carded at 7/11's or at bars - (only "underage looking" patrons do). 

In a very busy bar, or inside a store that has a very long line - bartenders and cashiers don't have time usually, to card every single person that comes through the front doors; so - judgement calls are often made based on appearance, all the time.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 13, 2018)

The law actually expects you to make a concerted effort to be careful carding. Police departments often send in people on that borderline appearance into stores to try to buy liquor. Failing to card them can nail you with a fine, in the low triple digit range. Had it happen to a coworker. If it happens too many times at the same location, that location's license can be revoked. Most of the time it doesn't get caught, but that doesn't change the legal standard. I've only not been carded once in my life, at a shop'n'save. That was on my 21st birthday.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 13, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> If someone looks like they're over 21 already, then they probably wouldn't ask for ID; as the person looks like an adult already. Adults don't get carded at 7/11's or at bars - (only "underage looking" patrons do).
> 
> In a very busy bar, or inside a store that has a very long line - bartenders and cashiers don't have time usually, to card every single person that comes through the front doors; so - judgement calls are often made based on appearance, all the time.





Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The law actually expects you to make a concerted effort to be careful carding. Police departments often send in people on that borderline appearance into stores to try to buy liquor. Failing to card them can nail you with a fine, in the low triple digit range. Had it happen to a coworker. If it happens too many times at the same location, that location's license can be revoked. Most of the time it doesn't get caught, but that doesn't change the legal standard. I've only not been carded once in my life, at a shop'n'save. That was on my 21st birthday.



I'm just pointing out a real world observation; (I'm not saying it's legally correct, or right). It's just what happens in the heat of the moment, (in the middle of a crowded bar). If a bartender has twenty people in line, (and the person in front of him at the brass rail - looks over 21), then he's not going to bother carding them. He's too busy making the drinks, taking the money, and reducing the wait times in the line.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Unless groomers will then target their victims in other ways - it's not exactly something I've given much thought to, considering how unsavory it is, and the fact that it's disturbing that we have to be this careful.


Consider how common it is, even on this forum, for people to shame others for being into <kink>. Consider how many, among the people who're open about their kinks in online spaces, very much do not want that to filter through to family, employers, RL friends, etc. Most predatory people are good at picking out the vulnerable kids, and if little Timmy is commissioning niche smut (anthro/feral porn, ABDL-related content, rape porn, anything really that has a lot of detractors) not only does that mean Timmy is likely to be primed to crave acceptance, it also means that if Timmy starts to get wise to the groomer's actions down the line, the groomer can simply use the threat of outing him for commissioning that art as blackmail.

There needs to be open discussion about sexuality in the abstract, and about grooming and predatory behavior, but we need to do this in a way that doesn't give would-be predators a convenient go-to defense for the initial stages of their grooming behavior. It's absolutely disturbing that this needs to be a consideration, but here we are. World sucks, and the best we can do is try to minimize the damage.



Connor J. Coyote said:


> If someone looks like they're over 21 already, then they probably wouldn't ask for ID; as the person looks like an adult already. Adults don't get carded at 7/11's or at bars - (only "underage looking" patrons do).
> 
> In a very busy bar, or inside a store that has a very long line - bartenders and cashiers don't have time usually, to card every single person that comes through the front doors; so - judgement calls are often made based on appearance, all the time.


I haven't gone out drinking in the US under the age of 30, so I don't have first-hand experience with how carding works over there. I know here (drinking age for served drinks is 18, minimum age for buying alcoholic anything in the liquor store is 20) businesses will have policies with a bit of margin. Liquor stores have signs posted to the general effect of "if you're 25 or under, please have ID ready" (I think it's 25, at least, might be higher - I've not been in one for over a year); basically if you look within like five years of legal age, they'll card you. Meaning looking 18/20 isn't enough. And I don't know a lot of <20-year-olds who look over 25.

It's still a judgment call based on appearance, and it always will be, but it's not based on just passing for "turned 18/20 yesterday".


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 13, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Consider how common it is, even on this forum, for people to shame others for being into <kink>. Consider how many, among the people who're open about their kinks in online spaces, very much do not want that to filter through to family, employers, RL friends, etc. Most predatory people are good at picking out the vulnerable kids, and if little Timmy is commissioning niche smut (anthro/feral porn, ABDL-related content, rape porn, anything really that has a lot of detractors) not only does that mean Timmy is likely to be primed to crave acceptance, it also means that if Timmy starts to get wise to the groomer's actions down the line, the groomer can simply use the threat of outing him for commissioning that art as blackmail.
> 
> *There needs to be open discussion about sexuality in the abstract, and about grooming and predatory behavior*, but we need to do this in a way that doesn't give would-be predators a convenient go-to defense for the initial stages of their grooming behavior. It's absolutely disturbing that this needs to be a consideration, but here we are. World sucks, and the best we can do is try to minimize the damage.
> 
> ...



Which is exactly why I think talking about sexual topics in an open and honest manner is the best idea. Groomers can't hold power over minors who've become self confident about their kinks.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Which is exactly why I think talking about sexual topics in an open and honest manner is the best idea. Groomers can't hold power over minors who've become self confident about their kinks.


If you want minors to be so self-confident about their kinks that they don't mind being outed to parents, school friends, etc, you're frankly expecting too much of them. Most adults don't want their kinks (again, this particularly goes for the more niche kinks out there, but not only them) disclosed to their coworkers and extended family, so what makes you think it's plausible to create an environment where kids _for whom it's developmentally appropriate to want to fit in with their peers_ are blasé about the prospect?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 13, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> If you want minors to be so self-confident about their kinks that they don't mind being outed to parents, school friends, etc, you're frankly expecting too much of them. Most adults don't want their kinks (again, this particularly goes for the more niche kinks out there, but not only them) disclosed to their coworkers and extended family, so what makes you think it's plausible to create an environment where kids _for whom it's developmentally appropriate to want to fit in with their peers_ are blasé about the prospect?



Plausibility is a different matter. But in a way, you've already achieved that here. I can't count the numbers of times I've seen a minor (or other adult of course) admit to liking something that's obviously yiff specific. 

And you're also confusing the online sphere with the one of reality. I really don't expect people irl to reach the point, anytime soon, where talking about stuff openly is alright, except in some very progressive areas. 

That's the great thing about anonymity - unless someone has told people onlines their personal info, no one has any power over anyone else here. Very interesting to see what benefits that often has.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> And you're also confusing the online sphere with the one of reality. I really don't expect people irl to reach the point, anytime soon, where talking about stuff openly is alright, except in some very progressive areas.


Nah; I realize the separation of online vs offline is a large part of the openness. But just because you _want_ to keep your online and offline life separate, doesn't always mean people will let you. To treat them as though there's some great chasm separating them is naive.



BahgDaddy said:


> That's the great thing about anonymity - unless someone has told people onlines their personal info, no one has any power over anyone else here. Very interesting to see what benefits that often has.


I really can't tell whether you are actually, sincerely missing the glaring flaw in your reasoning here. This whole discussion is about minors purchasing NSFW artwork. I can't really think of a (reliable) way for a kid to pay for porn without at least some of their personal information getting disclosed to the artist in the process.

Online predators are also incredibly skilled at taking crumbs of information and assembling them into a whole - practically all people disclose more online than they think, just in the course of conversation. Online anonymity is to some degree an illusion.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 13, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Nah; I realize the separation of online vs offline is a large part of the openness. But just because you _want_ to keep your online and offline life separate, doesn't always mean people will let you. To treat them as though there's some great chasm separating them is naive.
> 
> 
> I really can't tell whether you are actually, sincerely missing the glaring flaw in your reasoning here. This whole discussion is about minors purchasing NSFW artwork. I can't really think of a (reliable) way for a kid to pay for porn without at least some of their personal information getting disclosed to the artist in the process.
> ...



That's because I'm not talking about minors purchasing yiff. That's just setting themselves up for trouble. Plus they have to pay for it - bye bye, anonymity. I'm just talking about public conservations about stuff. That's all. 

And, seriously, we need parents to be the ones who come to grips with their kids being sexual creatures. Good grief, most of this is honestly a religious problem.


----------



## Blythulu (May 13, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The law actually expects you to make a concerted effort to be careful carding. Police departments often send in people on that borderline appearance into stores to try to buy liquor. Failing to card them can nail you with a fine, in the low triple digit range. Had it happen to a coworker. If it happens too many times at the same location, that location's license can be revoked. Most of the time it doesn't get caught, but that doesn't change the legal standard. I've only not been carded once in my life, at a shop'n'save. That was on my 21st birthday.



Can confirm. I worked in a convenience store and miffed a lot of older costumers over this law. Funny part was some of the time when I was doing the carding I was 15 and not legally supposed to be selling them the alcohol, but my boss was dumb and had me working alone anyway so I had to. Even so, I wanted to follow the law as much as I could. Point is, my boss got in trouble once because they sent in an underage looking person and I did card them, but then a few minutes later a cop came in and carded me in return. I didn't get into any trouble but my boss got a fine and he was a jerk to me for the rest of the summer because of it. ¯\_(ヅ)_/¯¯


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 15, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> Can confirm. I worked in a convenience store and miffed a lot of older costumers over this law. Funny part was some of the time when I was doing the carding I was 15 and not legally supposed to be selling them the alcohol, but my boss was dumb and had me working alone anyway so I had to. Even so, I wanted to follow the law as much as I could. Point is, my boss got in trouble once because they sent in an underage looking person and I did card them, but then a few minutes later a cop came in and carded me in return. I didn't get into any trouble but my boss got a fine and he was a jerk to me for the rest of the summer because of it. ¯\_(ヅ)_/¯¯



Wow.. the carding can certainly cut both ways, (that's true). ☺


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> But getting that blue checkmark is hard, and I imagine many people don't want to be sending their IDs to mods due to privacy concerns. Any sort of in depth verification system would kill NSFW content on FA.
> 
> I feel like the current system of requiring a birthday to be entered when you make an account, while imperfect, is serviceable.


It's not even serviceable.
It's literally like putting a cone in front of a freight train.


----------



## Blythulu (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's not even serviceable.
> It's literally like putting a cone in front of a freight train.


Here's the thing... kids are gonna find porn. It's a fact of life.

I found my kink online when I was, what... 11? I didn't understand it. I thought it was a joke site (my kink is sfw, lucky me). But the point is I found it, and I read every single story and looked at every bit of art and no 'put in your birth date' stopped me. So in that sense, you are right.

On the other hand, there really isn't much more to be done other than the birth date system from an admins standpoint. Unless you want to start having people enter their drivers license numbers or credit card information to look at these sites (and want to enter your own, too, with all the dangers that presents and knowing that hackers are *for sure* going to start targeting sites like this one if that went into effect), minors are gonna find stuff. Not just porn. They are going to find gore sites, and sites teaching about flat-earth theory, or saying that Martin Luther King was secretly an alien, or weird videos on youtube of Spiderman tying up Elsa, tickling her, and wearing her bra. If someone underage has access to the internet and isn't getting guidance from their parents, they are going to stumble across lots of things that will stick with them and make them feel weird in good ways and bad ways. It's an unfortunate reality. (Though in some cases, like mine, it can actually turn out to be a good thing- I never got to learn about sex from my parents except for not to let older men touch my bathing suit area, and I grew up very repressed because of that- it would have been much worse if I hadn't found those sites, so there's a case for the argument I see others making about letting kids be curious- but keep in mind my 'thing' was still sfw so that's on a bit of a different level.)

The only thing sites can do is try to warn kids to stay off. The only thing the community can do is self-police. Make sure we tag NSFW stuff when we can to keep it out of google images. Stay out of spaces meant for underage folks and behave ourselves as best we can when we are in a space that asks for decorum (like this forum, for instance. Usually I toss the 'F' word around pretty liberally, but when I saw that this forum has more of a PG13 vibe, I decided to replace it with 'heck' whenever I felt it coming on). And, most importantly, refuse to engage with users on mature subjects if they have made their age known, and encourage them to leave the mature areas (of course reporting could help in this situation, but if they are determined they will just make another account).

This isn't one of those problems that the site admins or moderators can do much about. It's too prevalent. Self-policing and spreading information is all we can do to try to keep kids off sites. Spreading information is the most vital one. Look at Elsagate (which I mentioned earlier with the Spiderman tying up Elsa thing). Those videos were rampant, and parents didn't even know. Once they did, they had a riot, the videos got (rightfully) removed, and I'm betting a lot of parents started making sure to check in on what their kids were watching.

We aren't babysitters. We can try to keep it safe, but we can't be omnipotent, and neither can the people running these sites. It's not fair to ask them to be.

That's my two cents.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> Here's the thing... kids are gonna find porn. It's a fact of life.
> 
> I found my kink online when I was, what... 11? I didn't understand it. I thought it was a joke site (my kink is sfw, lucky me). But the point is I found it, and I read every single story and looked at every bit of art and no 'put in your birth date' stopped me. So in that sense, you are right.
> 
> ...


It goes beyond kids just doing the naughty.  They'll find out one way or the other, and perhaps if we had some proper legal structure around pornography we may actually be able to do some controlled studies on porn after a few generations (UK is starting one where you have to purchase a license for access to a porn site, which y'know, its the UK so I don't think they're doing this out of benevolacnce but it's a step in the right direction in terms of security).  Anyway, it's to protect NSFW producers as well.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> Here's the thing... kids are gonna find porn. It's a fact of life.
> 
> I found my kink online when I was, what... 11? I didn't understand it. I thought it was a joke site (my kink is sfw, lucky me). But the point is I found it, and I read every single story and looked at every bit of art and no 'put in your birth date' stopped me. So in that sense, you are right.
> 
> ...



 I had a similar experience. I viewed porn at 11 and it really threw me for a loop (I stumbled across some REALLY hardcore stuff on accident). I wish I felt like I could have talked about it with someone (NOT someone online. Fuck, that would have been a disaster, more likely than not). But porn is everywhere, and, I think we need to be talking about the effect it can have one people - and not just shoveling everything under the rug like Good Puritans ™


----------



## Blythulu (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It goes beyond kids just doing the naughty.  They'll find out one way or the other, and perhaps if we had some proper legal structure around pornography we may actually be able to do some controlled studies on porn after a few generations (UK is starting one where you have to purchase a license for access to a porn site, which y'know, its the UK so I don't think they're doing this out of benevolacnce but it's a step in the right direction in terms of security).  Anyway, it's to protect NSFW producers as well.



I don't funamentally disagree with you, I want to make that clear off that bat. I do understand where you are coming from. I just also can't see a reality where it is justifiable to ask for a system where people must verify their identities to access sites like furaffinity, deviantart, or tumblr. (Those are just the three sites that come to mind that have an equal young community and porn community).

First of all, right off the bat there's an issue of defining what is outright sexual and what is artistic? Do we have to pull out our license and credit card info to see a womens nipple, but not a mans? Or all nipples? Or is it only when genitals are shown, and functioning in the way they tend to? What if it's educational? And then we bring in sfw kinks and such, how do we find out if something is a kink or just another weird video on the internet? Half of the stuff I like looking at is on youtube, no problem. If a minor stumbled onto it they might end up grossed out, weirded out, or aroused. Flip a coin. (edit: A very strange, three-sided coin. lol.) Things like this are really difficult to define, and it is so easy to go overboard.

Second of all, there's the issue of identity protection. Whatever information we do use to verify would immediately be in danger of being stolen or leaked. There are huge companies that can't manage to keep their online site safe, how can we expect it from art-hosting sites? Even the big ones have issues, let alone any up-and-comers. That also means that if a site you enjoy takes a turn towards something you don't like, there will be less competition because people won't be able to afford to host sites like that anymore, because the security cost alone for the bare minimum would be too high. And that's not even mentioning how some people would do anything they can to avoid getting their real life mixed with their kinks and online porn life... and those people won't _stop looking for porn_. They'll just look for other ways to get it- which could end up accidentally putting kids more at risk because they'll have to hide it in places one wouldn't suspect.

Thirdly, and this ties directly into your point about protecting producers, what a situation like that would be doing is essentially pitting the problem onto someone else. Not the parents or guardians , but someone else... someone who can be sued, fined, and put in jail because they didn't do enough to keep minors from looking at their website. Producers should not be held accountable for who looks at their work, and that is what the birth date being entered already protects them from. I am actually a little confused by your assertion that it will protect creators, because right now the system (at least legally) is very iron-clad, near as I can tell. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe anyone could blame the creator/producer in our current system, because the minor would have to _lie_ to reach the product. I seriously doubt that this is a problem at the moment, whereas once you create a law, it will be. Producers and site managers will more than likely be targeted early and often, because with a new law it will be so much easier for them to slip up.

Finally... there will never be _one_ legal structure. You just mentioned the UK. The UK might do something, yes. That doesn't mean the US/Chinese/Korean/South American/ect hosts of any given website have to follow that law. It means people in the UK have to follow that law... which could almost immediately be undermined by a simple proxy, more likely than not. The whole world will probably never agree on this issue. Obviously the affect porn has on people should be researched, because once we understand something it is easier to discuss and understand, but even if it did come out that children watching porn has terrible effects on them (which will be a hard case to make, and a hard thing to prove), that's not going to make adults all simultaneously decide that they are all willing to make it more difficult and dangerous to access porn at once. Some might agree to it, but considering how taboo the subject is to talk about and how intense and innate sexual desire is... it will not be easy.

Again, I don't disagree that this is an issue to discuss. I just think reality is more complicated than you and some people in this thread may be giving it credit. There is no easy answer.


----------



## Blythulu (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I had a similar experience. I viewed porn at 11 and it really threw me for a loop (I stumbled across some REALLY hardcore stuff on accident). I wish I felt like I could have talked about it with someone (NOT someone online. Fuck, that would have been a disaster, more likely than not). But porn is everywhere, and, I think we need to be talking about the effect it can have one people - and not just shoveling everything under the rug like Good Puritans ™



Tbh finding porn was super easy before the internet for me, but I also grew up in a neglectful household so I don't know what the norm is. I just know for sure that "XXX" is not a movie, at least not in my household, and I really wish my father had better taste.

Seriously though, communication is key. 100% agree. It's really hard to know where that line is, because kids do have fragile psyche and you can mess them up by telling them too much just as easily as telling them too little, and then you have kids like me who grew repressed early (I wonder why, lol) and had to figure stuff out on their own, and I couldn't have done that without the internet giving me access to stuff. Every child is different.

That said, my biggest problem with minors on these sites isn't at all what they could be seeing. I remember backing out of porn and kink stuff I didn't like at 11-16, and I give the younger generation credit. I know they will do the same, because I don't think minors are stupid. If they can't handle it, they will leave. I am much more concerned with who they could be potentially interacting with. I can preach about making sure to be vocal if a minor is on an 18+ site and encouraging them to leave, but I'm not naive. Some people won't. Some people see a target, and that's the one situation where I really do see the point of the other side of this discussion, and don't want to write it off completely.

Like I said. No easy answer, unfortunately. orz


----------



## Cawdabra (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> UK is starting one where you have to purchase a license for access to a porn site, which y'know, its the UK so I don't think they're doing this out of benevolacnce but it's a step in the right direction in terms of security).  Anyway, it's to protect NSFW producers as well.


Sounds like a terrible security risk in my opinion. Plus, forcing sites to be pay-to-view is also bleh. Also, will they stop at just blatant porn sites, or will they include stuff like FA or e621 eventually?


----------



## Sagt (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> UK is starting one where you have to purchase a license for access to a porn site, which y'know, its the UK so I don't think they're doing this out of benevolacnce but it's a step in the right direction in terms of security


There is going to be a requirement for porn websites to have an age verification system and there could be a ban on "non-conventional" sex acts, but licenses and paywalls aren't being introduced. Also, I'm pretty sure it's been delayed, and it could possibly end up not happening at all.

Anyway, you're the first person I've seen to say anything good about the online pornography restrictions that come with this bill.

Personally I think the restrictions are stigmatising, dangerous, and discriminatory. But still, I prefer seeing praise over tired comparisons between the UK and past dictatorships... I remember a thread on this forum from last year, discussing the bill; it turned into people suggesting that the UK is a dictatorship, that civil war would ensue, and that this was a slide towards Hitler/USSR-style authoritarianism. :l


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> Tbh finding porn was super easy before the internet for me, but I also grew up in a neglectful household so I don't know what the norm is. I just know for sure that "XXX" is not a movie, at least not in my household, and I really wish my father had better taste.
> 
> Seriously though, communication is key. 100% agree. It's really hard to know where that line is, because kids do have fragile psyche and you can mess them up by telling them too much just as easily as telling them too little, and then you have kids like me who grew repressed early (I wonder why, lol) and had to figure stuff out on their own, and I couldn't have done that without the internet giving me access to stuff. Every child is different.
> 
> ...



I don't think minors are stupid, but honestly I'm really concerned about the effects porn viewing can have on minor's development. There's a lot of porn out there that really just doesn't usually happen in a typical relationship.


----------



## Blythulu (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't think minors are stupid, but honestly I'm really concerned about the effects porn viewing can have on minor's development. There's a lot of porn out there that really just doesn't usually happen in a typical relationship.


That's fair. On my end, I think that no one can say they didn't see anything upsetting as kids. They are pretty resilient when they have the power (ie: as long as they have a back button, I think they will be okay seeing some weird stuff). Like with my story- my sister and I found my fathers porn, and my sister wanted to watch it and I didn't. It's an upsetting situation, but I left the room. I still think about it sometimes (and tbh it was just two women in a bath, it wasn't traumatic, but the context around it upset me because 1) I was too young and 2) I knew it was my fathers), but it didn't ruin me forever, and I think the only reason it resonated was the lack of _choice_. I tried to convince my sister to stop the tape, and she said no. After that I did leave, but still. (edit: to be clear, she was only a year older and I don't begrudge her or anything, it wasn't any sort of abuse, she was just dealing with learning stuff her own way). Compare that to later on when I was on the internet and had total control, and when I saw something that was 100% not my kink and upsetting (guro, for instance), I had complete power over whether I looked at it or not.

I'd personally rather a kid find the weirdest porn than a gore site. I still remember seeing my first dead body in gaiaonline, on some random fun forum, being spammed by some evil asshole. And maybe that one stuck with me for the same reason- I wasn't in control. I didn't get to chose to see it, and it felt extra violating because it happened while I was just talking with friends. Meanwhile if I had gone to a site where I knew people were posting 18+ images, I would have been prepared for something like that. I don't know. A part of me doesn't trust researchers to look at it from all sides, and I guess my point is that giving the kid control might be way more helpful than we give it credit? And that sort of thing would be hard to replicate in tests, and if researchers are going in with some bias already they probably wouldn't factor it in in the first place.

When it comes to the effects porn viewing has on development, I see more issue with younger viewers having too much access to the stuff they _do_ like, rather than stuff that might upset them. After all, that is likely what they will be seeing much more of during their development, rather than a potentially upsetting kink that they will probably back out of. Porn addiction is a thing that can potentially ruin relationships for people, and it is not easier than ever to get hooked early. But I'm not a scientist, and these are all just personal anecdotes which is in no way proof of anything.


----------



## Troj (May 16, 2018)

Well, let's keep in mind that people have said the same thing about radio, jazz music, rock music, metal music, violent movies, video games, and the Internet, among countless other things.  The tendency is always to assume that the new or misunderstood technology or social trend is going to destroy "the youth."

As with other things, if a person comes from a healthy, supportive environment, and if they've received solid modeling and a good education in things like relationship, consent, health, and sex, and they're reasonably psychologically healthy, you can sit 'em down with _Salo: 120 Days in Sodom_, and they won't be worse for wear.

The people you have to worry about are the ones who haven't received that social support, modeling, or education, or who are otherwise psychologically vulnerable.

My tendency would also be to consider other/additional factors that might contribute to social alienation or psychological dysfunction besides the things that are easy and fun to scapegoat, like porn or the Internet, and to consider treating things like porn addiction or social media obsession as symptoms of a disease, rather than as the disease itself, even as just a thought experiment.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Sounds like a terrible security risk in my opinion. Plus, forcing sites to be pay-to-view is also bleh. Also, will they stop at just blatant porn sites, or will they include stuff like FA or e621 eventually?





Troj said:


> Well, let's keep in mind that people have said the same thing about radio, jazz music, rock music, metal music, violent movies, video games, and the Internet, among countless other things.  The tendency is always to assume that the new or misunderstood technology or social trend is going to destroy "the youth."
> 
> As with other things, if a person comes from a healthy, supportive environment, and if they've received solid modeling and a good education in things like relationship, consent, health, and sex, and they're reasonably psychologically healthy, you can sit 'em down with _Salo: 120 Days in Sodom_, and they won't be worse for wear.
> 
> ...



Pornography isn't new though.  The access to it has changed.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> That's fair. On my end, I think that no one can say they didn't see anything upsetting as kids. They are pretty resilient when they have the power (ie: as long as they have a back button, I think they will be okay seeing some weird stuff). Like with my story- my sister and I found my fathers porn, and my sister wanted to watch it and I didn't. It's an upsetting situation, but I left the room. I still think about it sometimes (and tbh it was just two women in a bath, it wasn't traumatic, but the context around it upset me because 1) I was too young and 2) I knew it was my fathers), but it didn't ruin me forever, and I think the only reason it resonated was the lack of _choice_. I tried to convince my sister to stop the tape, and she said no. After that I did leave, but still. (edit: to be clear, she was only a year older and I don't begrudge her or anything, it wasn't any sort of abuse, she was just dealing with learning stuff her own way). Compare that to later on when I was on the internet and had total control, and when I saw something that was 100% not my kink and upsetting (guro, for instance), I had complete power over whether I looked at it or not.
> 
> I'd personally rather a kid find the weirdest porn than a gore site. I still remember seeing my first dead body in gaiaonline, on some random fun forum, being spammed by some evil asshole. And maybe that one stuck with me for the same reason- I wasn't in control. I didn't get to chose to see it, and it felt extra violating because it happened while I was just talking with friends. Meanwhile if I had gone to a site where I knew people were posting 18+ images, I would have been prepared for something like that. I don't know. A part of me doesn't trust researchers to look at it from all sides, and I guess my point is that giving the kid control might be way more helpful than we give it credit? And that sort of thing would be hard to replicate in tests, and if researchers are going in with some bias already they probably wouldn't factor it in in the first place.
> 
> When it comes to the effects porn viewing has on development, I see more issue with younger viewers having too much access to the stuff they _do_ like, rather than stuff that might upset them. After all, that is likely what they will be seeing much more of during their development, rather than a potentially upsetting kink that they will probably back out of. Porn addiction is a thing that can potentially ruin relationships for people, and it is not easier than ever to get hooked early. But I'm not a scientist, and these are all just personal anecdotes which is in no way proof of anything.



I agree on all that, except that I don't think porn addiction is a thing. By many people's metrics, I'm addicted to masturbation.

Anyway that's not relevant, but it's possible porn addiction is a thing. It's just the only people I see who push that narrative, usually have a religious background.

And kids are going to view this material. A lot of them, anyway. Some schools are starting to have conversations about this - classes for, i guess, talking about the types of porn out there and the effects it might have. As in, not like "You're going to get addicted to this," but more like, "these are the stereotypes porn is going to instill into you." In the modern age of feminism, I don't know why people aren't criticizing the constant flood of male-dom ultra-sexist porn.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I agree on all that, except that I don't think porn addiction is a thing. By many people's metrics, I'm addicted to masturbation.
> 
> Anyway that's not relevant, but it's possible porn addiction is a thing. It's just the only people I see who push that narrative, usually have a religious background.
> 
> And kids are going to view this material. A lot of them, anyway. Some schools are starting to have conversations about this - classes for, i guess, talking about the types of porn out there and the effects it might have. As in, not like "You're going to get addicted to this," but more like, "these are the stereotypes porn is going to instill into you." In the modern age of feminism, I don't know why people aren't criticizing the constant flood of male-dom ultra-sexist porn.



>criticising porn

Porn is literally meant to adhere to a particular sexual fantasy.  Sometimes that's male dominated.  And porn viewers, at least for visual porn, is predominately male.

To politicize porn is to politicize people's sexual fantasies; unless you're prepared to regulate what people fantasize about, then don't bother unless it's grossly illegal and immoral.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >criticising porn
> 
> Porn is literally meant to adhere to a particular sexual fantasy.  Sometimes that's male dominated.  And porn viewers, at least for visual porn, is predominately male.
> 
> To politicize porn is to politicize people's sexual fantasies; unless you're prepared to regulate what people fantasize about, then don't bother unless it's grossly illegal and immoral.



And, as you've pointed out on a regular basis in various cub threads sprawling across the forum, fantasy often informs reality. You've got young gay boys out there, for instance, thinking anal sex is "the thing" for gays to do, when it fact it's actually extremely risky and is practiced at a lower rate amongst gays than straights. Bye bye, gay anal sex myth. 

Also we're not politicizing it, or attempting to regulate it, so I literally dunno know you're talking about in your last line.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> And, as you've pointed out on a regular basis in various cub threads sprawling across the forum, fantasy often informs reality. You've got young gay boys out there, for instance, thinking anal sex is "the thing" for gays to do, when it fact it's actually extremely risky and is practiced at a lower rate amongst gays than straights. Bye bye, gay anal sex myth.
> 
> Also we're not politicizing it, or attempting to regulate it, so I literally dunno know you're talking about in your last line.



I was mainly referring to your comment about "male dominated porn" which isn't the same as cub.

I won't get into cub here.


----------



## Blythulu (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I agree on all that, except that I don't think porn addiction is a thing. By many people's metrics, I'm addicted to masturbation.
> 
> Anyway that's not relevant, but it's possible porn addiction is a thing. It's just the only people I see who push that narrative, usually have a religious background.
> 
> And kids are going to view this material. A lot of them, anyway. Some schools are starting to have conversations about this - classes for, i guess, talking about the types of porn out there and the effects it might have. As in, not like "You're going to get addicted to this," but more like, "these are the stereotypes porn is going to instill into you." In the modern age of feminism, I don't know why people aren't criticizing the constant flood of male-dom ultra-sexist porn.


Tbh I think we are still 100% on the same page, I just used an unhelpful phrase.

My last relationship was decimated by my partners sexual addiction (ie: yes, lots of porn, but I was fine with that, wasn't cool with the cheating and lying because of their huge reliance of sexual gratification). When the people around me (including one theapist and one religious 'helper' I accidentally stumbled upon while reaching out to one of those suicide hotline chats for guidance) called it addiction to porn, I just went with that. So going in, I have a bias. It did destroy one of my relationships- but _my ex_ did it, not the reliance on porn.

From what I understand from talking to our therapist (who was his before we started going in for couples), it started as a 'reliance' on porn, which twisted his idea of what a sexual relationship would be like to the point where he wasn't able to handle an actual relationship that wasn't entirely based around sex. This _may or may not_ be a result of how much porn he watched growing up, but I know that he told me he started actively masturbating to internet porn around 9 years of age, which does still blow my mind because I didn't even realize my kink was actually a kink until I was at least 14. But that's probably stunted by the repression and such.

That said if I had told that religious lady who forced me to pray for my boyfriends soul in that chat to 'free him from the demon porn' (still bitter about that, protip my dudes: call the national suicide hotline, don't use suicide-help chats online, the internet is full of people trying to take advantage of you at your weakest moments) exactly how many times I masturbate and read erotica/participate in kink roleplays/watch porn in a week, she probably would have prayed for me, too, and I think I have a fairly healthy relationship with sex.

I wouldn't exactly say I believe in addiction to porn anymore than I believe in addiction to marijuana (sorry, it's the only comparison I have, not trying to start a whole seperate discussion). What I do believe in is unhealthy methods of coping, which can than be morphed into unhealthy things- in my case, it was my partner believing 100% that sex should be like a porno to the point where he couldn't have a healthy adult relationship without cheating. That doesn't mean porn is bad, but I do think that it's important to talk to kids about _all_ things, including both pornography and how relationships and sex can happen in a healthy way. More than anything I advocate for spreading knowledge and communication, I think that would solve a lot of problems when it comes to the subject of sex.

So yeah, I think we do agree, I just needed to clarify.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

Blythulu said:


> Tbh I think we are still 100% on the same page, I just used an unhelpful phrase.
> 
> My last relationship was decimated by my partners sexual addiction (ie: yes, lots of porn, but I was fine with that, wasn't cool with the cheating and lying because of their huge reliance of sexual gratification). When the people around me (including one theapist and one religious 'helper' I accidentally stumbled upon while reaching out to one of those suicide hotline chats for guidance) called it addiction to porn, I just went with that. So going in, I have a bias. It did destroy one of my relationships- but _my ex_ did it, not the reliance on porn.
> 
> ...



That's all fine and dandy, but I don't think even our society knows what a healthy relationship is, healthy sex, or so on.  In fact I think since the so called Sexual Revolution we've been less mature about sex and relationships than before; it's like a child with an endless hoard of candy, eating and eating like a glutton pig until their cramps start coming in.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 16, 2018)

2d > 3dpd


----------



## Blythulu (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's all fine and dandy, but I don't think even our society knows what a healthy relationship is, healthy sex, or so on.  In fact I think since the so called Sexual Revolution we've been less mature about sex and relationships than before; it's like a child with an endless hoard of candy, eating and eating like a glutton pig until their cramps start coming in.



I think that's where research and communication come in. Not boundaries and restrictions.

Letting your kids touch the stove to find out it's hot kinda works. Pretending you don't even have a kitchen and never letting them see an oven also kinda works, so long as they are really keen on a raw-food diet and always will be. But I believe you're a better parent and person if you sit them down, tell them it's hot, and explain why that is and how they should use it.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's all fine and dandy, but I don't think even our society knows what a healthy relationship is, healthy sex, or so on.  In fact I think since the so called Sexual Revolution we've been less mature about sex and relationships than before; it's like a child with an endless hoard of candy, eating and eating like a glutton pig until their cramps start coming in.



I think the effects are ultimately positive. Don't tell me you want to go back to 1600s when we killed gays at the stakes


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I think the effects are ultimately positive. Don't tell me you want to go back to 1600s when we killed gays at the stakes


That's... certainly a leap from anything I was implying.
I wasn't actually commenting on the effects of anything; I'm saying we've been less mature about sex in general since the Sexual Revolution.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's... certainly a leap from anything I was implying.
> I wasn't actually commenting on the effects of anything; I'm saying we've been less mature about sex in general since the Sexual Revolution.



Oh. Yeah, I misread what you said. I agree - I think we've been on a steady downhill decent in our sexual maturity. Seems like a lot of people want to return to the era when women wore skirts all the time and were submissive housewives, for instance.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Oh. Yeah, I misread what you said. I agree - I think we've been on a steady downhill decent in our sexual maturity. Seems like a lot of people want to return to the era when women wore skirts all the time and were submissive housewives, for instance.


That's not at all an indication of sexual immaturity.  That is a result of Conservatism, but this is evidenced more by women themselves than by men forcing their will or some shit.
-
Face it; some women want to be housewives and are okay with being stay-at-home moms.  Lord knows its hard work and a commendable one at that.  But our society treats motherhood and having children in general as such an ugly thing... it's really sad.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's not at all an indication of sexual immaturity.  That is a result of Conservatism, but this is evidenced more by women themselves than by men forcing their will or some shit.
> -
> Face it; some women want to be housewives and are okay with being stay-at-home moms.  Lord knows its hard work and a commendable one at that.  But our society treats motherhood and having children in general as such an ugly thing... it's really sad.



If someone thinks that's the only healthy way to be, then yes, it's sexual immaturity.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 17, 2018)

A. Yes, porn and marijuana can be addictive in rare circumstances. It is possible, and harmful. That doesn't mean porn should be banned, even if it is disgustingly kinky. As long as consent is there, and no permanent harm comes to the participants, let it ride.
B. I'm not suggesting we should impose something impossible and unreasonable like carding for porn, I'm saying that artists should be responsible when selling or gifting art, and that artists who clearly knew they providing nsfw commissions to minors should be held accountable.
C. The reason for B is primarily because we get into some sketchy grooming shit too easily here, and it is easier to draw the line at making any nsfw for minors, than try to police every commission involving a minor.
D. I genuinely think that minors should receive good sex ed, and be able to access porn. I know no age restriction ever stopped me from accessing porn sites when I was a teen. There are still laws that FA must abide so long as it wants to function in countries that are so banhappy.
E. Fuck the UK and its prudish bullshit, and I feel sorry for its citizens.
F. We should strive to keep the site properly age gated, though you can't stop my prolific swearing. Keep the NSFW out of the SFW areas. That includes graphic violence.
G. Community policing and promp reporting and intervention in cases of flagrant grooming of minors are everyone's responsibility. If you see shit, say shit.


----------



## Troj (May 17, 2018)

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

Before the Sexual Revolution, sexual minorities were trapped in the closet, domestic abuse and sexual assault victims suffered in silence, people languished in unhappy marriages, vanilla sex was largely seen as the only option, and people were caught in the paradigm that to fuck, you had to get married.

The Sexual Revolution and its aftermath have helped to ameliorate and shed light on those problems, but now, we've had to grapple with STDs, communication skills, navigating consent and boundaries, sex addiction, and using hookups, apps, and porn to compensate for insecurities and fill "the hole" (that's what she said).

While I feel civilization has largely evolved for the better, people as individuals aren't necessarily more mature or less mature than they were 100 years ago; they're just grappling with new dilemmas, expectations, and social norms.

Ultimately, the hope is that we can find a happy middle ground between the sterile prissiness of the 50s and unbridled hedonism of the 60s (to reduce those time periods to broad stereotypes).

This calls for a song:


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

Troj said:


> Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.
> 
> Before the Sexual Revolution, sexual minorities were trapped in the closet, domestic abuse and sexual assault victims suffered in silence, people languished in unhappy marriages, vanilla sex was largely seen as the only option, and people were caught in the paradigm that to fuck, you had to get married.
> 
> ...



Some people aren't willing to negotiate their axioms.

>Any belief that people should he encouraged to practice sexual restraint and discipline is met with talks about you being some sort of backward Puritan.

>The notion that individuals should have increased sexual control, and youre met with remarks about being a slut.

Both are ridiculous fallacies


----------



## Troj (May 17, 2018)

How you express these opinions matters (first), because (second) many people are sensitive to the "calling cards" of views or attitudes they consider objectionable.

For a lot of people, words like "restraint," "control," and "discipline" have extremely negative connotations.

In reality, most people are on board with principles like discipline and self-restraint, as long as they're not being pushed in a repressive, oppressive, or hurtful manner.

So, you've got to know and respect your audience.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

Troj said:


> How you express these opinions matters (first), because (second) many people are sensitive to the "calling cards" of views or attitudes they consider objectionable.
> 
> For a lot of people, words like "restraint," "control," and "discipline" have extremely negative connotations.
> 
> ...


I'll be honest; I've never heard discipline ever used in a negative connotation.


----------



## Troj (May 17, 2018)

You haven't hung out with enough religious fundies, then--especially the ones who are ga-ga for corporal punishment!


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

Troj said:


> You haven't hung out with enough religious fundies, then--especially the ones who are ga-ga for corporal punishment!


I guess.


----------



## Gradiusgadwin (May 19, 2018)

They're just drawings. A product of fantasy. Fictional stuff. Therefore it should stay legal.

Also it's a common thing that people who do virtue signaling about how bad are underage drawings are usually actual pedophiles or pedophiles apologists. Take for example the ex moderator of NeoGAF that was accusing japanese video games for promoting pedophilia and at some point they arrested him for having actual child porn.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 19, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> They're just drawings. A product of fantasy. Fictional stuff. Therefore it should stay legal.
> 
> Also it's a common thing that people who do virtue signaling about how bad are underage drawings are usually actual pedophiles or pedophiles apologists. Take for example the ex moderator of NeoGAF that was accusing japanese video games for promoting pedophilia and at some point they arrested him for having actual child porn.


That wasn't even what we were discussing, and that would be a tu quoque/ad hominem on the later part of your argument.


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 19, 2018)

I don't understand why human bodies and human sexuality is taboo for anyone at all. 
I also have no data on pornography of any sort causing harm on minors. They seek it out on their own. 
I've even seen research where it helped prevent teenage pregnancy. 
I understand I have my own cognitive biases, but I have in general found no data in the social sciences* that give any basis for an argument that minors can't handle the consumption of pornography. The only support these views seems to have is "conventional wisdom" which is something I've never grasped. I don't get into group mentalities and don't accept things as true just because they're the common view. 
That said, I personally have no investment to this viewpoint. I'm willing to be dissuaded. I just need the data to back up the dissuasion. 
(*The social sciences need a lot of work, and this is my acknowledgement of that. Psychology is still acknowledges too much Freudian woo shoo and sociology is just used as a blunt weapon to push agendas. I also acknowledge that it's hard to navigate social science research because even published papers that have crumbled under peer review enter scholarly publications way too often, which is why I can't trust articles on Google Scholar without scrupulous examination. Correlation will be used to justify theories of causation... it's a mess.)


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 19, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> I don't understand why human bodies and human sexuality is taboo for anyone at all.
> I also have no data on pornography of any sort causing harm on minors. They seek it out on their own.
> I've even seen research where it helped prevent teenage pregnancy.
> I understand I have my own cognitive biases, but I have in general found no data in the social sciences* that give any basis for an argument that minors can't handle the consumption of pornography. The only support these views seems to have is "conventional wisdom" which is something I've never grasped. I don't get into group mentalities and don't accept things as true just because they're the common view.
> ...



Hi fellow Oregonian :3

And I agree. But, gauging the "harm" is hard to figure out. Personally I think most of the damage comes from first telling youth that sex is harmful, bad, evil, and dirty, etc., but they then seek it out anyway because their bodies tell them to, and so the cognitive dissonance is too much for them to handle. At least, that's how I felt - I felt like I was doing something so wrong, and probably going to hell, that it is probably most of what sent me for a loop.


----------



## Gradiusgadwin (May 20, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> That wasn't even what we were discussing, and that would be a tu quoque/ad hominem on the later part of your argument.


Isn't this conversation about underage furries drawings? Because that's what I talk about. Don't get mad just because you don't can't handle the truth.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 20, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> Isn't this conversation about underage furries drawings? Because that's what I talk about. Don't get mad just because you don't can't handle the truth.


The discussion is about people making NSFW commissions for minors. I'm not mad, you made assertions based in illogical fallacies. So I called them out.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 20, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> Isn't this conversation about underage furries drawings? Because that's what I talk about. Don't get mad just because you don't can't handle the truth.



Underaged furries drawing vs. underage furry drawings


----------



## Gradiusgadwin (May 20, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The discussion is about people making NSFW commissions for minors. I'm not mad, you made assertions based in illogical fallacies. So I called them out.


That's not how it looks from the opening post.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 20, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> That's not how it looks from the opening post.





Battle Foxxo said:


> What is your guys opinion on this? Is it illegal? Should it be if it is? Or should it be legal?
> 
> In my own opinion, I think it should be and should stay illegal,* as buying minors pornographic material is illegal in the united States.*
> 
> I've seen numerous artists draw and be commissioned to draw lewd things when the person in question is 14-17 years old. Often without their own knowledge


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 20, 2018)

All this is quite a juxtaposition.
It's impossible for minors to give consent to sex because children are not mature enough to understand sex yet alot of people are fine showing minors porn


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> All this is quite a juxtaposition.
> It's impossible for minors to give consent to sex because children are not mature enough to understand sex yet alot of people are fine showing minors porn


There is a difference between allowing minors to access porn of their own volition, and showing minors porn. People who deliberately show porn to minors generally need to have a seat.

Minors aren't able to consent to sex with an adult because the part of the brain responsible for judgement and decision making isn't fully developed, combined with the power dynamic between adults and children makes coercion almost implicit. Teenagers are still likely to sexually experiment with one another, which is the equivalent to the example of two drunk fuckers at a party screwing because they are both too addled to make good life choices; neither party is at fault.


----------



## Troj (May 20, 2018)




----------



## BahgDaddy (May 20, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> There is a difference between allowing minors to access porn of their own volition, and showing minors porn. People who deliberately show porn to minors generally need to have a seat.
> 
> Minors aren't able to consent to sex with an adult because the part of the brain responsible for judgement and decision making isn't fully developed, combined with the power dynamic between adults and children makes coercion almost implicit. Teenagers are still likely to sexually experiment with one another, which is the equivalent to the example of two drunk fuckers at a party screwing because they are both too addled to make good life choices; neither party is at fault.



I think they're more capable than we give them credit for. I think people constantly treating them like sexually undeveloped, emotionless objects actually backfires and causes more problems than it solves. A lot of times this leads to sexual experimentation that basically like a layperson trying to diffuse a bomb. People seem to not want to teach minors how to diffuse the bomb, in the form of decent sex education. Apparently sex education is viewed as moral corruption and such.


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> All this is quite a juxtaposition.
> It's impossible for minors to give consent to sex because children are not mature enough to understand sex yet alot of people are fine showing minors porn


It's not even a matter of "not being mature enough to understand". It's all about the power dynamic. 
I think understanding sex is less complicated than understanding a smart phone and I've seen a lot of minors with smart phones. They're not too young to understand, they're too underexposed and uneducated about the topic to understand. Restriction won't solve this problem.
In fact the lack of sexual education given to minors and the taboo of them ever approaching sexual topics is probably one of the primary reasons that predators can manipulate minors into dangerous situations.
The difference is, in the case of pornography, if a minor goes seeking it themselves, has complete control over what they get and what they see, that's a lot different than an adult and a minor trying to have sexual contact.
I mean I looked at porn as a pre-teen and teenager. It didn't scar me, it wasn't beyond my comprehension. It's some base level shit to understand that because you know, a lot of people have been there. 
It's also some base level shit to know that if someone is subtly influencing an underdeveloped mind into a situation that society hasn't prepared them as a minor to be able to cope with, and then physically, financially, and socially has the power to prevent any withdrawl of consent, that it's a dangerous situation.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 20, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> It's not even a matter of "not being mature enough to understand". It's all about the power dynamic.
> I think understanding sex is less complicated than understanding a smart phone and I've seen a lot of minors with smart phones. They're not too young to understand, they're too underexposed and uneducated about the topic to understand. Restriction won't solve this problem.
> *In fact the lack of sexual education given to minors and the taboo of them ever approaching sexual topics is probably one of the primary reasons that predators can manipulate minors into dangerous situations.*
> The difference is, in the case of pornography, if a minor goes seeking it themselves, has complete control over what they get and what they see, that's a lot different than an adult and a minor trying to have sexual contact.
> ...



Yeah, I couldn't agree more. We seem to be on the same wavelength about this stuff, which is great. I'm from Missouri, and there is no sex ed, and also a lot of religious hoohaw. And, well, also a lot of sexual predators. The number of registered sex offenders in my town was more than 10 times higher than my town here in Oregon. People in general, in this country, view sex as something depraved unless it's, you know, exactly to how they consider sex to be beneficial and healthy. 

I think we do our nations youth a major disservice by not teaching them sex ed. (Or at least something aside from abstinence education.)


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 20, 2018)

Ya, sex ed is a big deal. Can't say I'm a fan of abstinence only nonsense.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 22, 2018)

I just found out my ex got a bunch of fetish art from artists despite him being 17 years old. Oh boy..


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> I just found out my ex got a bunch of fetish art from artists despite him being 17 years old. Oh boy..



That's really close to 18, though. Is there actually anything wrong with that? Ontologically speaking, that is. (it's probably illegal, although there is no actual law against minors specifically buying drawn porn, to the best of my knowledge. Most people seem to just file it into the drawer of "corruption of a minor," yet I really don't see that applying in this case.)


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> I don't understand why human bodies and human sexuality is taboo for anyone at all.
> I also have no data on pornography of any sort causing harm on minors. They seek it out on their own.
> I've even seen research where it helped prevent teenage pregnancy.
> I understand I have my own cognitive biases, but I have in general found no data in the social sciences* that give any basis for an argument that minors can't handle the consumption of pornography. The only support these views seems to have is "conventional wisdom" which is something I've never grasped. I don't get into group mentalities and don't accept things as true just because they're the common view.
> ...




Porn use has no control group since the invention of the internet.

And if pornography prevents teenage pregnancy, so do video games.  Idk, that stat just seems kind obscure to me.  Saying pornography prevents pregnancy is like saying that riding a bike prevents car accidents... its like.... yeah...


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Porn use has no control group since the invention of the internet.
> 
> And if pornography prevents teenage pregnancy, so do video games.  Idk, that stat just seems kind obscure to me.  Saying pornography prevents pregnancy is like saying that riding a bike prevents car accidents... its like.... yeah...



Lots of things seem obscure to you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Lots of things seem obscure to you.



What of it?


----------



## Battle Foxxo (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> That's really close to 18, though. Is there actually anything wrong with that? Ontologically speaking, that is. (it's probably illegal, although there is no actual law against minors specifically buying drawn porn, to the best of my knowledge. Most people seem to just file it into the drawer of "corruption of a minor," yet I really don't see that applying in this case.)


It isnt legal to make or sell porn to minors. It is meant to be pornographic, the image, so now the artist (and many more, according to what I have been told) are able to get into legal trouble for selling and making porn for a minor.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 22, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> I just found out my ex got a bunch of fetish art from artists despite him being 17 years old. Oh boy..


That's a bit borderline, and I'd have to look at the situation as a whole.


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Porn use has no control group since the invention of the internet.


That's not true. There are control groups, primarily in the South. It's not legally enforced, but socially there's enough pressure that there are plenty who don't look at porn because they feel like they'd be making themselves too selfish to care for their partners.
And what we've found is that in places where sex is that very taboo and pornography is that very controlled, teenage pregnancy goes up. Rape goes up. Even if all it does is redirect sexual energy elsewhere, that's a good way to get the desired results. I don't get the problem. If more people riding bikes, as per your example, somehow made less car thefts, there'd be a lot of people in a lot of cities pushing bike ownership, because even if it seems to some people to be a funky correlation, I mean, if it works?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> That's not true. There are control groups, primarily in the South. It's not legally enforced, but socially there's enough pressure that there are plenty who don't look at porn because they feel like they'd be making themselves too selfish to care for their partners.
> And what we've found is that in places where sex is that very taboo and pornography is that very controlled, teenage pregnancy goes up. Rape goes up. Even if all it does is redirect sexual energy elsewhere, that's a good way to get the desired results. I don't get the problem. If more people riding bikes, as per your example, somehow made less car thefts, there'd be a lot of people in a lot of cities pushing bike ownership, because even if it seems to some people to be a funky correlation, I mean, if it works?


Social pressure and taboo =/= a control group.
A control group would be closer to, say, NoFap; a direct choice to willingly not view pornography.  Control groups have to be free of as many biases as possible; social pressures and taboos are the opposite of that.


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Social pressure and taboo =/= a control group.


Even given the... remote locations and limited access to internet that were specificly targeted to...
No...
I get the feeling that you wouldn't be satisfied with any control group. There's no point in trying with this. -sighs-


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> Even given the... remote locations and limited access to internet that were specificly targeted to...
> No...
> I get the feeling that you wouldn't be satisfied with any control group. There's no point in trying with this. -sighs-


As I stated; a control group is meant to be as unbiased as possible.  Social pressure against pornography is the exact opposite of unbiased, even if they don't traditionally have access; while the lack of access can determine one part, the social pressure and the stigma can relay an entirely different result.  Don't get frustrated with me just because something is insufficient.
EDIT: This response is especially true since those in the South tend to be conservative and conservatives tend to have a higher disgust response.  Thus the social stigma is more so going to enhance that disgust response, thus you're not getting as much of an unbiased control group.


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 22, 2018)

_*Eppur si muove*_
Our findings are valid no matter how you try to invalidate them and will persist to be valid no matter how you try to delude yourselves or others. Peer reviewed, retested, and personally fucking experienced. We know pornography is not harmful. I won't lie, getting the data is difficult, and while we won't be able to 100% control for every little thing, that's the nature of things when you are dealing with the study of human minds. We will instead notate all that could have interfered, refine and refine and refine our data collection as we have for years, and we will continue to find that it causes no harm as we have for years.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> It isnt legal to make or sell porn to minors. It is meant to be pornographic, the image, so now the artist (and many more, according to what I have been told) are able to get into legal trouble for selling and making porn for a minor.



I didn't ask about legalities. Of course it's illegal to draw porn for a minor. You seem to forget the minor is doing this voluntarily. I notice you yourself are only 18 - do you think there's some massive brain difference between this year and last?

So, what I'm actually asking is, what's wrong with a minor having either porn drawn for them, or drawing it themselves?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> _*Eppur si muove*_
> Our findings are valid no matter how you try to invalidate them and will persist to be valid no matter how you try to delude yourselves or others. Peer reviewed, retested, and personally fucking experienced. We know pornography is not harmful. I won't lie, getting the data is difficult, and while we won't be able to 100% control for every little thing, that's the nature of things when you are dealing with the study of human minds. We will instead notate all that could have interfered, refine and refine and refine our data collection as we have for years, and we will continue to find that it causes no harm as we have for years.


An insistence that it is valid does not convince me of its validity.  Nor should it convince anyone.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> As I stated; a control group is meant to be as unbiased as possible.  Social pressure against pornography is the exact opposite of unbiased, even if they don't traditionally have access; while the lack of access can determine one part, the social pressure and the stigma can relay an entirely different result.  Don't get frustrated with me just because something is insufficient.
> EDIT: This response is especially true since those in the South tend to be conservative and conservatives tend to have a higher disgust response.  Thus the social stigma is more so going to enhance that disgust response, thus you're not getting as much of an unbiased control group.



You don't get true control groups in social studies. A true control group would be throwing a bunch of people in jail and forcing them to not watch Lon until they were 18, and then studying the results. You're bacially making the "tobacco fallacy," whereby the level of science you request is literally impossible to accommodate, and you do this knowing no one will be able to achieve the goalpost you've set. 

For the record yes, I'm from ye south. Teen pregnancy, rape culture, pedophilia, all rampant. I just don't see that out here on the immoral liberal left coast.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> An insistence that it is valid does not convince me of its validity.  Nor should it convince anyone.



Lol. No one has any obligation to convince you of anything.


----------



## Kurgarra Lilitu (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> An insistence that it is valid does not convince me of its validity.  Nor should it convince anyone.


Nor will people who have experienced porn in their youth and not been scarred from it be able to find any reason to believe your view when we have data and a palpable reality that they have seen with their own eyes backing them up.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Kurgarra Lilitu said:


> Nor will people who have experienced porn in their youth and not been scarred from it be able to find any reason to believe your view when we have data and a palpable reality that they have seen with their own eyes backing them up.


There is data against pornography.  Plenty of it.  But I'm not trying to convince people of my argument right now; I'm saying that utilizing studies that research the rural south as a control group is not a proper control group, because it doesn't take into the account the factors of disgust-based thinking, lack of access to social situations, general lack of regular person-to-person contact, the result of passed down beliefs rather than personal choice to avoid pornography... the list can go on.  That's why I'm unconvinced of studies that utilize the rural south as a control group, as though the various other factors cannot contribute to the results.  If you want a better control group, study NoFap participants.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You don't get true control groups in social studies. A true control group would be throwing a bunch of people in jail and forcing them to not watch Lon until they were 18, and then studying the results. You're bacially making the "tobacco fallacy," whereby the level of science you request is literally impossible to accommodate, and you do this knowing no one will be able to achieve the goalpost you've set.
> 
> For the record yes, I'm from ye south. Teen pregnancy, rape culture, pedophilia, all rampant. I just don't see that out here on the immoral liberal left coast.


I wouldn't make this argument if there were better control groups or if there could be better control groups.
-
NoFap is a far better control group than the rural south.  Otherwise, you'll look at the south and all you'll say is "Oh, not looking at porn creates rapists"
-
Which is more likely?  That not looking at porn makes rapists?  Or that sexual stigma makes rapists, combined with a large number of other factors?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> There is data against pornography.  Plenty of it.  But I'm not trying to convince people of my argument right now; I'm saying that utilizing studies that research the rural south as a control group is not a proper control group, because it doesn't take into the account the factors of disgust-based thinking, lack of access to social situations, general lack of regular person-to-person contact, the result of passed down beliefs rather than personal choice to avoid pornography... the list can go on.  That's why I'm unconvinced of studies that utilize the rural south as a control group, as though the various other factors cannot contribute to the results.  If you want a better control group, study NoFap participants.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> I wouldn't make this argument if there were better control groups or if there could be better control groups.
> -
> NoFap is a far better control group than the rural south.  Otherwise, you'll look at the south and all you'll say is "Oh, not looking at porn creates rapists"
> -
> Which is more likely?  That not looking at porn makes rapists?  Or that sexual stigma makes rapists, combined with a large number of other factors?



NoFap participants are a bunch of indoctrinated nitwits who've, for some reason, bought into the idea that madturbation is bad for you. The rationale is almost ALWAYS tied into religious rationale and has absolutely NO scientific backing. These people will have so many preconceived notions and skewed ideas about sex that they are an even worse control group. There's absolutely no reason to do that aside from the fact that you think it would be a good idea. 

And yes. stigma surrounding sex, especially when it is not talked about at all like in religious circles, creates all sorts of negative backfire effects.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> NoFap participants are a bunch of indoctrinated nitwits who've, for some reason, bought into the idea that madturbation is bad for you. The rationale is almost ALWAYS tied into religious rationale and has absolutely NO scientific backing. These people will have so many preconceived notions and skewed ideas about sex that they are an even worse control group. There's absolutely no reason to do that aside from the fact that you think it would be a good idea.
> 
> And yes. stigma surrounding sex, especially when it is not talked about at all like in religious circles, creates all sorts of negative backfire effects.


NoFap isn't religiously based, it doesn't believe masturbation is bad, and you have no evidence for any of your claims.
-
The NoFap bit is a part of the "detox" from pornography.  Avoid masturbation for x amount of days and porn.  After the detox you are free to masturbate as you will.  So I don't know where you're getting these notions from, especially since its on their own webpage.
-
What is NoFap?
-
You can make criticisms about its science, sure, but it makes for a far better control group because people have CHOSEN this, rather than indoctrination as you would like to proclaim.  Unfortunately for you, yelling something more loudly doesn't make it true.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> NoFap participants are a bunch of indoctrinated nitwits who've, for some reason, bought into the idea that madturbation is bad for you. The rationale is almost ALWAYS tied into religious rationale and has absolutely NO scientific backing. These people will have so many preconceived notions and skewed ideas about sex that they are an even worse control group. There's absolutely no reason to do that aside from the fact that you think it would be a good idea.
> 
> And yes. stigma surrounding sex, especially when it is not talked about at all like in religious circles, creates all sorts of negative backfire effects.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> NoFap isn't religiously based, it doesn't believe masturbation is bad, and you have no evidence for any of your claims.
> -
> The NoFap bit is a part of the "detox" from pornography.  Avoid masturbation for x amount of days and porn.  After the detox you are free to masturbate as you will.  So I don't know where you're getting these notions from, especially since its on their own webpage.
> -
> ...



I think NoFap is a bit of both - both indoctrination and choice. Some people sign up because they want to.. and others are arm-twisted into going to it, because of morals, religion, peer pressure, or whatever.

Either way - I think any kinds of the sexual "cures" (that are peddled to people) and floating out there for consumption - usually causes more harm than good, (in the long run) to the person that it's supposed to be "helping".


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> NoFap isn't religiously based, it doesn't believe masturbation is bad, and you have no evidence for any of your claims.
> -
> The NoFap bit is a part of the "detox" from pornography.  Avoid masturbation for x amount of days and porn.  After the detox you are free to masturbate as you will.  So I don't know where you're getting these notions from, especially since its on their own webpage.
> -
> ...



Detox? That's just bad self control being blamed on porn. I watch porn when and if I want it. When I don't want it, I don't watch it, and vice bersa. And I don't have to watch it, I'm quite capable of ahem enjoying myself without it. 

And yeah. I do have evidence for my claim. So saying that is just snotty and hoity toity. One of the founders has a theology degree and another founder has a website similar to NoFap but with a much more overt religious context. So yeah. *tosses NoFap out the window, along with your assertions*


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Detox? That's just bad self control being blamed on porn. I watch porn when and if I want it. When I don't want it, I don't watch it, and vice bersa. And I don't have to watch it, I'm quite capable of ahem enjoying myself without it.


Good for you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> And yeah. I do have evidence for my claim. So saying that is just snotty and hoity toity. One of the founders has a theology degree and another founder has a website similar to NoFap but with a much more overt religious context. So yeah. *tosses NoFap out the window, along with your assertions*


"Oh god, a Theology degree. I guess that completes my_ argumentum ad hominem_."


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> "Oh god, a Theology degree. I guess that completes my_ argumentum ad hominem_."



Yes. And it was from a Christian college, as well. Yeah... no bias there. And no. Not argumentum ad hominem. If someone is legitimately indoctrinated to that point, they almost always have restrictive notions on sex. So it's really no surprise something like NoFap came from that source, since it's clearly just another campaign to make people feel bad about how their bodies naturally function.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 22, 2018)

www.google.com: Common Sense about the Effects of Pornography


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 23, 2018)

While NoFap is based in bunk nonsense, it isn't based in religious bunk. The original formation was from a largely atheist circle on Reddit. It was based on the fact that when men go without sexual relief, they have an increase in testosterone. This is the body trying to increase sex drive to get you to fuck. Instead, people bought into myth that higher testosterone is inherently a good thing, so they should not fap to increase their testosterone. Abstaining to build sexual tension and temporarily increase libido is something some couples do for fun, but suffering those side effects long term due to psuedoscience related to testosterone can become uncomfortable.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Yes. And it was from a Christian college, as well. Yeah... no bias there. And no. Not argumentum ad hominem. If someone is legitimately indoctrinated to that point, they almost always have restrictive notions on sex. So it's really no surprise something like NoFap came from that source, since it's clearly just another campaign to make people feel bad about how their bodies naturally function.


Could you be any more melodramatic?
-
The site literally says that is not the case, but of course, you want to attribute whatever negative connotations you can to any opposition.  I'm not even arguing about the science behind it; that was never my point.  But boy did you certainly want to make it my point so you could toss away any sort of tension with your argument.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Could you be any more melodramatic?
> -
> The site literally says that is not the case, but of course, you want to attribute whatever negative connotations you can to any opposition.  I'm not even arguing about the science behind it; that was never my point.  But boy did you certainly want to make it my point so you could toss away any sort of tension with your argument.



Of course they'll say that's not the case! But either way, it's pseudoscience, and your point is a red herring (deflection) from the fact that sexual repression leads to social ills such as rapists, sexual perversions like pedophilia, etc.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Of course they'll say that's not the case! But either way, it's pseudoscience, and your point is a red herring (deflection) from the fact that sexual repression leads to social ills such as rapists, sexual perversions like pedophilia, etc.


My point is that there are better control groups then rural southerners.  There's no red herring to be had.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> My point is that there are better control groups then rural southerners.  There's no red herring to be had.


Except the point contested was that NoFap is a bad control group, which it is. The reasons given were wrong, but the conclusion was correct. Regardless, the medical consensus based upon current research is that porn and regular masturbation are normal and healthy barring external factors and behavioral issues. We have a history of the causal effects of sexual repression, and while they aren't so apocalyptic as stated, they aren't good. They mostly effect individual health and happiness though, and the degree to which they contribute to violence is questionable; because social groups with sexual repression tend to have other backwards views regarding consent and sexual conduct.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Except the point contested was that NoFap is a bad control group, which it is. The reasons given were wrong, but the conclusion was correct. Regardless, the medical consensus based upon current research is that porn and regular masturbation are normal and healthy barring external factors and behavioral issues. We have a history of the causal effects of sexual repression, and while they aren't so apocalyptic as stated, they aren't good. They mostly effect individual health and happiness though, and the degree to which they contribute to violence is questionable; because social groups with sexual repression tend to have other backwards views regarding consent and sexual conduct.


Is it safe to say that pornography_ can_ be used by a portion of people as a replacement for actual relationships with other people?  Much like video games or oversaturation of media can have an effect on social life if not kept in balance?
-


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Is it safe to say that pornography_ can_ be used by a portion of people as a replacement for actual relationships with other people?  Much like video games or oversaturation of media can have an effect on social life if not kept in balance?
> -


Pornography does not satisfy as a replacement for relationships. Anything can have an effect on social life if not kept in balance. It's called behavioral addiction, and is usually related to other mental problems. One can become addicted in such a way to anything that is pleasurable. But we don't ban kids from playing video games, we limit their play time so they don't allow it to impact the rest of their life. And that works, and usually helps to develop habits of moderation. It is also important to not allow pornography to be your child's sex ed, because porn is based in fantasy, not reality. If a minor is made aware of the difference then they aren't likely to do anything stupid, because the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality develops well by the age they are going to be interested in porn. But someone who is ignorant of that fact and tries to do things the way they are done in porn is going to have a less than satisfactory experience, and possibly knock someone up.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Social pressure and taboo =/= a control group.
> A control group would be closer to, say, NoFap; a direct choice to willingly not view pornography.  Control groups have to be free of as many biases as possible; social pressures and taboos are the opposite of that.


I hope you realize the irony of your statement. NoFap is no more free of biases than Southern social stigma and taboos.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I hope you realize the irony of your statement. NoFap is no more free of biases than Southern social stigma and taboos.



I never said it was, there is no perfect control group, but those making a conscious choice to avoid pornography makes a far better control group than an indoctrinated rural community.


----------



## Troj (May 23, 2018)

An additional interesting wrinkle:

www.livescience.com: Religious People More Likely to Think They're Addicted to Porn


----------



## metafang (May 30, 2018)

if someone underage is using the internet in a way that is them intentionally manipulating the tools of online world to be able to access adult content, i see that as taking things out of others' hands. I respect that young persons decision to do so.

at the same time, i know that i wouldn't be comfortable doing work for an under age client that was nsfw in any way because of social norms.
i talk openly with friends who are younger people about sex, but i don't want to draw porn for 14 y/os. drawing porn for ppl feels too personal for me to be ok with that. 
so if someone had lied before and self disclosed to me at a later point, i would have to end that commission. 

it would have to be one way or another - an under age person lying in order to access content they are comfortable with and covering their own tracks, which obviously is outside of others' control, or no nsfw content for self reported minors. 

encouraging consent culture means including people who self-censor and self-curate their online experience regardless of age. 

as long as legal protections are in place and there is no predation on minors, i believe one true benefit of the internet is the free sharing of sexual content with out the limits imposed by puritan colonial standards which have now been violently globalized and in the end mainly serve patriarchy.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 30, 2018)

metafang said:


> if someone underage is using the internet in a way that is them intentionally manipulating the tools of online world to be able to access adult content, i see that as taking things out of others' hands. I respect that young persons decision to do so.
> 
> at the same time, i know that i wouldn't be comfortable doing work for an under age client that was nsfw in any way because of social norms.
> i talk openly with friends who are younger people about sex, but i don't want to draw porn for 14 y/os. drawing porn for ppl feels too personal for me to be ok with that.
> ...


----------



## theawakening (May 30, 2018)

This thread is dead. Who cares if it's illegal or not? 

Just let it be.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 31, 2018)

metafang said:


> if someone underage is using the internet in a way that is them intentionally manipulating the tools of online world to be able to access adult content, i see that as taking things out of others' hands. I respect that young persons decision to do so.
> 
> at the same time, i know that i wouldn't be comfortable doing work for an under age client that was nsfw in any way because of social norms.
> i talk openly with friends who are younger people about sex, but i don't want to draw porn for 14 y/os. drawing porn for ppl feels too personal for me to be ok with that.
> ...



Minors are not able to give consent to adults because their ability to make decisions  is hindered by their brain not being far enough developed. Adults and children should not be directly interacting regarding sexuality outside of an education, because that opens too much opportunity for abuse, and it makes it impossible to effectively draw the line where things have become inappropriate. And that last part is a gibberish and inaccurate blob of vaguely leftist buzzwords.


----------



## metafang (May 31, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Minors are not able to give consent to adults because their ability to make decisions  is hindered by their brain not being far enough developed. Adults and children should not be directly interacting regarding sexuality outside of an education, because that opens too much opportunity for abuse, and it makes it impossible to effectively draw the line where things have become inappropriate. And that last part is a gibberish and inaccurate blob of vaguely leftist buzzwords.



we feel the same way. I only talk with people underage about sex in educational contexts.

I am a survivor of online sexual abuse. All I do all day when I'm not working is draw comix where I'm slaughtering pedophiles.

No one can deny that under age people make adult aged accounts for things frequently ; I wish they would not, because I am personally not comfortable exchanging sexual content w ppl underage unless, as you said, it's educational. ^ post was about the facts of how people lie.

Also,  in after ovi's trolltasticness thinking they can summon trauma experiences out of me with this meme turning pedophilia into a joke, or twist nuanced things i said into some kind of "gotcha" moment where people get to make shit up about me for their entertainment. i see u and raise you my entire fortune of zero fucks. much love


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 31, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Minors are not able to give consent to adults because their ability to make decisions  is hindered by their brain not being far enough developed. Adults and children should not be directly interacting regarding sexuality outside of an education, because that opens too much opportunity for abuse, and it makes it impossible to effectively draw the line where things have become inappropriate. And that last part is a gibberish and inaccurate blob of vaguely leftist buzzwords.



Minor's can't give consent to adults because more of societal and physical power play. Minors are in many ways inferior to adults, both legally and physically. To attempt to coerce a minor into sexual situations is unethical because of that. On the other hand I get kind of tired of phrases like " their brain to being far enough developed." I was running two farms, driving between them, and working and prepping for college all at the same time when I was 16, my brain was working just fine thank you very much. 

And actually those vaguely leftist buzzwords, while probably true, could be expounded upon.



> as long as legal protections are in place and there is no predation on minors,



I think this means we keep legal protections in place. If the laws are the same, and so it still lands you a big fat prison sentence to try to have sex with a minor, things should stay the same. Ultimately sexual conversations should be educational in their scope. I'm not sure there is much social utility in allowing minors to talk sexually with adults, although it could cause a sort of openness and respect. After all, if minors are self confident and self assured, it is much harder to take advantage of them. Honestly I think the puritans understand this, and that is why they fight against any sort of sexual knowledge. 



> i believe one true benefit of the internet is the free sharing of sexual content



This one is self explanatory. This seems like a good thing. We've made it really easy to find a lot of very helpful advice, from places like Go Ask Alice, say. We've also made it really easy to find really BAD stuff! Maybe if we talk about it, we'll weed out the bad stuff and talk about why it's bad.



> with out the limits imposed by puritan colonial standards



Puritans, like American evangelists say, and colonialism, the idea of spreading our ethics throughout the world and slowly eradicating other ways of living, of thought, of being. Colonialism killed a lot more off than just human life. If puritans had there way, porn would be illegal, and sex outside marriage would be punishable by death.



> which have now been violently globalized



As stated previously, puritans believe their view are superior and should be spread everywhere. 



> and in the end mainly serve patriarchy.



Because a bunch of sexually repressed, sexually  misinformed women and children are very easy for power hungry males to take advantage of.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 31, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Minor's can't give consent to adults because more of societal and physical power play. Minors are in many ways inferior to adults, both legally and physically. To attempt to coerce a minor into sexual situations is unethical because of that. On the other hand I get kind of tired of phrases like " their brain to being far enough developed." I was running two farms, driving between them, and working and prepping for college all at the same time when I was 16, my brain was working just fine thank you very much.
> 
> And actually those vaguely leftist buzzwords, while probably true, could be expounded upon.
> 
> ...



The part of the brain responsible for judgement and decision making isn't entirely developed until one's mid twenties, though we have come to acknowledge that it is reasonably developed before that time to make decisions related to consent, and based on physical evidence and societal standards consider that age to be around 18. 

Colonialism is whole kettle of fish separate from puritanism, and the US didn't invent being sexually repressed. One only needs to look at the UK's porn laws to get an understanding of that.

While sexism results in the standard being stricter for girls than boys, the "think of the children" mentality goes above and beyond just that. Sex as sin is a mentality that has been around for a long time, and the need of the church to approve a relationship plays a big role in the development of that culture. 



metafang said:


> encouraging consent culture means including people who self-censor and self-curate their online experience *regardless of age*.
> 
> as long as legal protections are in place and there is no predation on minors, i believe one true benefit of the internet is the free sharing of sexual content *with out the limits* imposed by puritan colonial standards which have now been violently globalized and in the end mainly serve patriarchy.



You still have to draw a line at non educational interactions regarding sex and sexuality between adults and minors, which is what this post seems to be against. Perhaps it is simply poorly worded. I'm not saying that minors shouldn't be able to find porn online; I am saying that commissioning NSFW artwork gets into some sketchy territory when the customer is a known minor and the artist is an adult, and a line needs to be drawn to prevent grooming and sexual abuse of minors, and the obfuscation of such acts.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 31, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The part of the brain responsible for judgement and decision making isn't entirely developed until one's mid twenties, though we have come to acknowledge that it is reasonably developed before that time to make decisions related to consent, and based on physical evidence and societal standards consider that age to be around 18.
> 
> Colonialism is whole kettle of fish separate from puritanism, and the US didn't invent being sexually repressed. One only needs to look at the UK's porn laws to get an understanding of that.
> 
> ...



Ehh, yeah, but it's a gradient of development. And I'm no neuro scientist, so I'm not going to make conjecture in that regard. All I can go off is how I felt at that age and how others acted, and quite frankly there's a lot of 18, 19, and 20 yos that it would be pretty easy to take advantage of. And a lot of 16 and 17 year olds who have their shit together and can tell creeps to take a flying leap out of a jumbo jet over the Atlantic. 

Basically it's still pretty easy for men to take advantage of women in various ways. For instance the bottom link in @metafang s post is pretty horrifying. So 4chan is what happens when you allow complete and totally unbridled free speech. And you know what that's bs - we have to have rules in this society. 

Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, a lot of times trying to have sex with minors has nothing to do sex. Oddly enough. And now I'm rambling because it's late and I risk saying stuff I don't fully back because it's an interesting topic.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Minor's can't give consent to adults because more of societal and physical power play. Minors are in many ways inferior to adults, both legally and physically. To attempt to coerce a minor into sexual situations is unethical because of that. On the other hand I get kind of tired of phrases like " their brain to being far enough developed." I was running two farms, driving between them, and working and prepping for college all at the same time when I was 16, my brain was working just fine thank you very much.
> 
> And actually those vaguely leftist buzzwords, while probably true, could be expounded upon.
> 
> ...


Minors cannot consent as their brains have not fully developed and can be easily coerced and don't fully have the capability for completely sound judgement. End of discussion. 



metafang said:


> we feel the same way. I only talk with people underage about sex in educational contexts.
> 
> I am a survivor of online sexual abuse. All I do all day when I'm not working is draw comix where I'm slaughtering pedophiles.
> 
> ...


How the hell was I trying to summon trauma experiences?  You were talking about talking to kids sexually. You really shouldn't be doing that so informally. You should only talk about it in a way to educate them. And no, that doesn't mean having weirdly sexual conversation with a minor as an equal. Tell them what they should do and what they shouldn't and then end the discussion there.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Minor's can't give consent to adults because more of societal and physical power play. Minors are in many ways inferior to adults, both legally and physically. To attempt to coerce a minor into sexual situations is unethical because of that. On the other hand I get kind of tired of phrases like " their brain to being far enough developed." I was running two farms, driving between them, and working and prepping for college all at the same time when I was 16, my brain was working just fine thank you very much.
> 
> And actually those vaguely leftist buzzwords, while probably true, could be expounded upon.
> 
> ...


Just because you felt like you had it all figured out didn't mean you actually did.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Minors cannot consent as their brains have not fully developed and can be easily coerced and don't fully have the capability for completely sound judgement. End of discussion.
> 
> 
> How the hell was I trying to summon trauma experiences?  You were talking about talking to kids sexually. You really shouldn't be doing that so informally. You should only talk about it in a way to educate them. And no, that doesn't mean having weirdly sexual conversation with a minor as an equal. Tell them what they should do and what they shouldn't and then end the discussion there.


This and this:


Ovi the Dragon said:


> Just because you felt like you had it all figured out didn't mean you actually did.


... are fair points minus the emoji. This:


Ovi the Dragon said:


>


... was unnecessary. I daresay it was sheer trolltasticness.

If you've got a response, PM me.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> This and this:
> 
> ... are fair points minus the emoji. This:
> 
> ...


Do you go around critquing posts now?  And I was gonna leave after I made that pedobear joke as I think it was good enough a response but then I was accused of trying to bring up traumatic experiences so I felt I needed to step in to say NOPE! Didn't do that.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Do you go around critquing posts now?  And I was gonna leave after I made that pedobear joke as I think it was good enough a response but then I was accused of trying to bring up traumatic experiences so I felt I needed to step in to say NOPE! Didn't do that.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


>


Am sorry fam.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Do you go around critquing posts now?  And I was gonna leave after I made that pedobear joke as I think it was good enough a response but then I was accused of trying to bring up traumatic experiences so I felt I needed to step in to say NOPE! Didn't do that.


Just saying you made fair points and didn't need to drop the "pedobear" on @metafang . I don't know think you know him, so nobody else is accusing you of that. You just apologized to him, which was the right thing.


----------



## Leo Whitepaw (May 31, 2018)

theawakening said:


> This thread is dead. Who cares if it's illegal or not?
> 
> Just let it be.


Someone's feeling jealous


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Do you go around critquing posts now?  And I was gonna leave after I made that pedobear joke as I think it was good enough a response but then I was accused of trying to bring up traumatic experiences so I felt I needed to step in to say NOPE! Didn't do that.



Your comments have, for the most part, not added anything to the discussion. You've also belittled someone who've experienced actual sexual abuse with a meme apparently generally used on pedophiles, simply because someone disagrees with you. That's in extremely poor taste. 


Ovi the Dragon said:


> Just because you felt like you had it all figured out didn't mean you actually did.



That's pretty rude. Not unexpected, considering your debate tactics (or rather lack thereof), but I still am pointing that out. 



Ovi the Dragon said:


> Minors cannot consent as their brains have not fully developed and can be easily coerced and don't fully have the capability for completely sound judgement. End of discussion.
> 
> 
> How the hell was I trying to summon trauma experiences?  You were talking about talking to kids sexually. You really shouldn't be doing that so informally. You should only talk about it in a way to educate them. And no, that doesn't mean having weirdly sexual conversation with a minor as an equal. Tell them what they should do and what they shouldn't and then end the discussion there.



So something magically happens at age 18 where suddenly it's legal for them to become a stripper in Las Vegas, film porn, bang anyone they want to, and they'll be able to magically understand it all? Yeah right.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Your comments have, for the most part, not added anything to the discussion. You've also belittled someone who've experienced actual sexual abuse with a meme apparently generally used on pedophiles, simply because someone disagrees with you. That's in extremely poor taste.
> 
> 
> That's pretty rude. Not unexpected, considering your debate tactics (or rather lack thereof), but I still am pointing that out.
> ...


No nothing magical happens right away. 18 is the best age to set the laws to. And it's true about you thinking you have things all figured out. If you were to ask any teenager if they were smart enough to handle adult things they'd respond with yeah. No one knows they aren't ready until things actually start happening.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> No nothing magical happens right away. 18 is the best age to set the laws to. And it's true about you thinking you have things all figured out. If you were to ask any teenager if they were smart enough to handle adult things they'd respond with yeah. No one knows they aren't ready until things actually start happening.



And how will they know then? This is why conversations are important, so people can figure out what boundaries are and such. In truth, pedophiles rely on dark corners, misinformed and misguided sexuality. If everyone is allowed to talk about things in an honest and open manner, that doesn't happen as often imo. And I'm not talking like let's let everything devolve to 4chan levels, quite the opposite really.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> And how will they know then? This is why conversations are important, so people can figure out what boundaries are and such. In truth, pedophiles rely on dark corners, misinformed and misguided sexuality. If everyone is allowed to talk about things in an honest and open manner, that doesn't happen as often imo. And I'm not talking like let's let everything devolve to 4chan levels, quite the opposite really.


We keep them from getting into those situations by having laws in place. Talking openly, however much you wish it to mean something good, will allow those who want to take advantage of kids to easily talk to them about sex. It's very, very much a bad idea. Educate them, but don't just go around openly talking about sex with them. Say what is needed to be said and then drop the discussion.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> We keep them from getting into those situations by having laws in place. Talking openly, however much you wish it to mean something good, will allow those who want to take advantage of kids to easily talk to them about sex. It's very, very much a bad idea. Educate them, but don't just go around openly talking about sex with them. Say what is needed to be said and then drop the discussion.



I think it is the style of communication that would be important. Obviously Uncle McChester going "oh really so you like such and such and you're a 15 yo girl drooool" is like totally not okay. But like, someone talking about whether or not they're attracted to males or females, I think is fine, and I've seen a variety of these conversations here handled in a mature and not-creepy fashion.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I think it is the style of communication that would be important. Obviously Uncle McChester going "oh really so you like such and such and you're a 15 yo girl drooool" is like totally not okay. But like, someone talking about whether or not they're attracted to males or females, I think is fine, and I've seen a variety of these conversations here handled in a mature and not-creepy fashion.


Talking about who you're attracted to is way different from talking straight up about fiddling someone.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Educate them, but don't just go around openly talking about sex with them. Say what is needed to be said and then drop the discussion


Honest question - who is the arbiter of what needs to be said vis-a-vis sex ed? I'm not saying anything about whether any given person has crossed the boundary of appropriateness, here, but some posts in this thread seem to imply anything beyond reproductive sex ed is off limits, and that's not how teenage curiosity works.

To me the line lies roughly somewhere around where you pass from generalities and facts to specific desires of the people involved; between clinical language and eroticism. Don't needlessly lead kids into sexual discussion (unless you are, professionally, in the role of educator, and acting in that capacity, obviously), but don't brush their questions off when they have them, either. If you feel they are getting too intimate with their conversation (describing sexual fantasies or whatever), be upfront with why you don't feel like having that conversation with them is a good idea. Something like "this is not an appropriate conversation to be having with a stranger online - is there a Health teacher or school councilor you could talk to instead?" will do great. 

I've had the experience of my high school bringing in a sexologist to speak on a sex ed theme day (that's generally how sex ed tends to be taught here, as short-term bursts of information spanning a day or two every so often), just to have her answer an audience question about anal sex with something that, honestly, was a shitty-ass answer with no real basis in reality. Maybe her aim was to discourage stupid teens from trying it, I don't know. But I do know that her way of handling it is not what I consider to be in line with the duty of the adult world when it comes to educating the new generation, and given her profession/area of expertise I find it very hard to believe she sincerely was that ignorant of the facts. I happened to be in regular contact with some great people at the time, who maybe shouldn't have been so sexually open with me even before I turned 18, but who were not speaking with me in any predatory manner, so I could see her bullshit for what it was, but I doubt most of the people in the audience could. There's a ton of misinformation out there, and we have a duty not to deliberately add to it, no matter how noble we feel our cause is.

As long as you stay reasonably clinical and don't go into unnecessary explicit detail, saying that "yes, some people enjoy X" if a minor asks about it isn't out of line from where I'm standing. I kind of liked the article I read a while back (I think it was linked from this forum?) about a porn literacy program for teens. Seems like a cool initiative.



BahgDaddy said:


> But like, someone talking about whether or not they're attracted to males or females, I think is fine, and I've seen a variety of these conversations here handled in a mature and not-creepy fashion.


That's less open discussion about sex and more open discussion about sexuality, though. While there's overlap, I can't say I would consider them to be the same.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Honest question - who is the arbiter of what needs to be said vis-a-vis sex ed? I'm not saying anything about whether any given person has crossed the boundary of appropriateness, here, but some posts in this thread seem to imply anything beyond reproductive sex ed is off limits, and that's not how teenage curiosity works.
> 
> To me the line lies roughly somewhere around where you pass from generalities and facts to specific desires of the people involved; between clinical language and eroticism. Don't needlessly lead kids into sexual discussion (unless you are, professionally, in the role of educator, and acting in that capacity, obviously), but don't brush their questions off when they have them, either. If you feel they are getting too intimate with their conversation (describing sexual fantasies or whatever), be upfront with why you don't feel like having that conversation with them is a good idea. Something like "this is not an appropriate conversation to be having with a stranger online - is there a Health teacher or school councilor you could talk to instead?" will do great.
> 
> ...


Trying to ask who is the arbiter of what sex talk is fine and what isn't is like asking who is the arbiter of right and wrong. I think many professionals would say you should not talk like an equal to a kid about sex. Answering questions about if they're worried if they're weird or not for liking a certain thing is fine. But talking how two adults do about sex is completely unacceptable. I don't know about you but most of how adults talk to each other about when it comes to sex is very very not okay for a kid to be talked to like an equal there.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (May 31, 2018)

Oof my grammar took a hit in that last sentence.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 31, 2018)

I've seen people try to defend outright grooming as if it where open and honest discussion about sex and sexuality, and seen idiots buy it.
Teenagers can be fully expected to make good decisions given time, but are easy to manipulate emotionally, and have poor decision making skills under pressure. 
18-21 is a good ballpark place to put the age of consent based on our current understanding of the science, with some reasonable allowance for people within 4 years of age of one another. This is to prevent exploitation.
This should extend to ordering of NSFW artwork on commission, as it runs into some sketchy situations that can be exploitative. 
This should not be construed to mean that minors should be utterly barred from sexuality. Minors should, in general, not be deliberately sexualised. Minors should not however be punished for being sexual(except as it puts their own safety at risk), or for enjoying sexual material(porn, game of thrones, etc). Southpark is sometimes ill informed, but their episode "Good Times with Weapons" hits it right on the nose; "Yeah. I guess parents don't give a crap about violence if there's sex things to worry about." -Stan
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy
www.newscientist.com: Let science decide the voting age


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Oof my grammar took a hit in that last sentence.



It's okay all we do mistakes sun times 


Ovi the Dragon said:


> Trying to ask who is the arbiter of what sex talk is fine and what isn't is like asking who is the arbiter of right and wrong. I think many professionals would say you should not talk like an equal to a kid about sex. Answering questions about if they're worried if they're weird or not for liking a certain thing is fine. But talking how two adults do about sex is completely unacceptable. I don't know about you but most of how adults talk to each other about when it comes to sex is very very not okay for a kid to be talked to like an equal there.



I think that's an all right distinction. See we're getting somewhere. I think it's great to tell people they're not weird for liking something, or enjoying themselves in a certain manner. We have a huge system of stigmas about sex in society, largely built up by religious standards. They're not healthy, but they have to be replaced by something better, otherwise you wind up with no standards. 

But yeah, two adults talking about how they like doing each other and then including a minor in the discussion seems like a bad idea, even if there were no predatory intentions.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 31, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Trying to ask who is the arbiter of what sex talk is fine and what isn't is like asking who is the arbiter of right and wrong. I think many professionals would say you should not talk like an equal to a kid about sex. Answering questions about if they're worried if they're weird or not for liking a certain thing is fine. But talking how two adults do about sex is completely unacceptable. I don't know about you but most of how adults talk to each other about when it comes to sex is very very not okay for a kid to be talked to like an equal there.


That's kind of my point, though. You say "say what needs to be said and drop it"; if that's supposed to be the standard you also have to be able to be able to point at a reasonable definition of "what needs to be said". I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd rather we tried to keep minors ignorant of the fact that people have sex for enjoyment. Is discussing the _concept_ of recreational sex more than what "needs to be said", then? Is the fact that there are positions other than missionary? And so on.

How I personally talk about sex with other adults depends on a giant range of factors, including whom I'm talking to, what we're talking about, and what the purpose of the conversation is. Negotiating consent is different from discussing the sexual biology of fictional species, is different from discussing the portrayal of sex and sexuality in works of fiction, is different from exchanging fantasies with a partner, is different from discussing sex ed ideology, and so on. Some of those are more inappropriate for minors than others. It's quite possible to be frank without being explicit, and to me that's an important distinction, too. As is weighing safety vs creep factor - if I have reason to believe this kid in his late teens is going to engage in a sex act regardless of what I say, it's better to tell him (again, in clinical, non-eroticized language) how to do it safely (or why it's not possible to do it completely safely) than to let him potentially come to harm or cause harm to his partner.

I would not say that anything that isn't getting into the sexuality (in the sense of specific sexual desires, kinks and fantasies, not in the sense of "are you gay/straight/bi/other?") of either person involved should be considered _exploitative_ by default, though. Pedobear McKiddy-Diddly isn't going to be very likely to successfully groom someone by having factual, non-eroticized conversations about birds and bees with them. Starting to get into "what are you into/here's what turns me on" is where it's beyond a doubt getting too skeevy.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> 18-21 is a good ballpark place to put the age of consent based on our current understanding of the science, with some reasonable allowance for people within 4 years of age of one another. This is to prevent exploitation.


While I'm not up to date on what research may have been done in the field, my personal experience (including observations of friends and sexual partners) kind of suggests that the first few years of being sexually/romantically active are always going to be a clusterfuck to some degree or other. Shitty relationship decisions are part of how we develop the maturity to not repeat them. This is not to say that skeevy adults should be cruising for teenagers or young adults in that bad-decision window, at all, just that no matter where you put AoC, I believe you'll find manipulative and exploitative behavior adjacent to it.

Best way of avoiding sexual exploitation is better sex ed. That should include things like how to recognize manipulative/exploitative/abusive behavior in relationships, and how to deal with it. Yes, kids think they're invulnerable and can handle anything, but they're still more likely to recognize bad news if you provide them with accurate, realistic information about warning signs.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (Jun 29, 2018)

Found out a semi popular artist that draws minors sonas in their underwear, often posing lewdly. Oof, apparently he's nice but in all honesty... I can't see past it. I have a  (obvious) more conservative stance on this stuff but.. oof... I can't really see past people if they do some things.


----------



## Cawdabra (Jun 29, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> Found out a semi popular artist that draws minors sonas in their underwear, often posing lewdly. Oof, apparently he's nice but in all honesty... I can't see past it. I have a  (obvious) more conservative stance on this stuff but.. oof... I can't really see past people if they do some things.


I'm assuming you're talking about Tacklebox.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 29, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> Found out a semi popular artist that draws minors sonas in their underwear, often posing lewdly. Oof, apparently he's nice but in all honesty... I can't see past it. I have a  (obvious) more conservative stance on this stuff but.. oof... I can't really see past people if they do some things.


It's not a conservative thing, that is just disgusting.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 29, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> Found out a semi popular artist that draws minors sonas in their underwear, often posing lewdly. Oof, apparently he's nice but in all honesty... I can't see past it. I have a  (obvious) more conservative stance on this stuff but.. oof... I can't really see past people if they do some things.



That seems odd. Definitely a moral grey area there.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (Jun 29, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> I'm assuming you're talking about Tacklebox.


no, someone else


----------



## Flumpor (Jun 30, 2018)

When I was 14, there were about 3 people in my class who never had sex. And I asked my younger (17) brother how his class was when he was 14 and in the same school I was. He said most of them didn't have sex.
That just shows that there is a wide range of teenagers on different levels of adulthood. My peers were very liberal and open with sex. With my brothers peers it is more "tabu".

I am telling this because I don't know what side I should take. Personally I know how easy access to porn is as a teenager, hell we watched porn at the schools IT-Center and played CS:S regularly during IT-Classes. And I am thinking that why not let the teenagers buy some stuff that lets them depict their sexual fantasy and have someone they can openly converse with about sex.
On the other hand do I not like the idea of having another outlet for teenagers that distances them further away from physical relationships and dealing with their sexuality apropriately, putting their pornographic fetishes and real life sexuality in context. (Many fans do enjoy Rape scenarios in porn, but despise it IRL, in a developing mind however confusing porn and reality could have negative inpacts on that association and development.
The main problem here is that you dont really know the person you are drawing for and how "advanced" they are in their progression and their word doesn't count for anything as teenagers can't really judge themselves and that's why ultimately I would say you shouldn't draw NSFW comissions for them, there is just a way to wide range of time this could have a negative impact.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Jun 30, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> What is your guys opinion on this? Is it illegal? Should it be if it is? Or should it be legal?
> 
> In my own opinion, I think it should be and should stay illegal, as buying minors pornographic material is illegal in the united States.
> 
> I've seen numerous artists draw and be commissioned to draw lewd things when the person in question is 14-17 years old. Often without their own knowledge


This is an interesting question because it requires two dimensions - the legal dimension and the moral dimension.

The legal dimention is obvious, but I am curious as to where people get their moral dimension. Is this dimension objective, so that it is wrong to disagree with it?

I am not at all advocating for giving sexual content to minors, I just find such questions roaming around in the fandom to spark a particular interest in this philosophical fox.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (Jun 30, 2018)

Felix Bernard said:


> This is an interesting question because it requires two dimensions - the legal dimension and the moral dimension.
> 
> The legal dimention is obvious, but I am curious as to where people get their moral dimension. Is this dimension objective, so that it is wrong to disagree with it?
> 
> I am not at all advocating for giving sexual content to minors, I just find such questions roaming around in the fandom to spark a particular interest in this philosophical fox.


I get mine because well.. I kinda saw it first hand, and almost went down that road. It messes with you when you're older and skews your perspective on sex and relationships, and to one case I know of.. opens up a door to some.. illegal activties. "Oh, I have lewd art of my sona, i wonder how i'll look if I pose like it!" and yeah... you see where that goes


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 30, 2018)

Felix Bernard said:


> This is an interesting question because it requires two dimensions - the legal dimension and the moral dimension.
> 
> The legal dimention is obvious, but I am curious as to where people get their moral dimension. Is this dimension objective, so that it is wrong to disagree with it?
> 
> I am not at all advocating for giving sexual content to minors, I just find such questions roaming around in the fandom to spark a particular interest in this philosophical fox.



My moral dimension arises from principles of healthy sexual expression. I believe most forms of sexual exploration are fine, provided they're not between adults and minors. And adults drawing porn for minors starts to bridge that gap in a potentially creepy way.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Jun 30, 2018)

Fair enough, I would ask more questions to get at the heart of this. But that’ll do for now.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 2, 2018)

Battle Foxxo said:


> Found out a semi popular artist that draws minors sonas in their underwear, often posing lewdly. Oof, apparently he's nice but in all honesty... I can't see past it. I have a  (obvious) more conservative stance on this stuff but.. oof... I can't really see past people if they do some things.





Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> It's not a conservative thing, that is just disgusting.



Well, that's your opinions. The value of artistic creativity is rather subjective, and is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 2, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, that's your opinions. The value of artistic creativity is rather subjective, and is in the eye of the beholder.


What is this pedophile justification fuckery?


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 2, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, that's your opinions. The value of artistic creativity is rather subjective, and is in the eye of the beholder.



It's not about "artistic creativity". Holy SHIT, I'm so tired of people saying this pseudo-intellectual crap to defend misconduct in art communities.


----------



## Battle Foxxo (Jul 2, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> What is this pedophile justification fuckery?





XoPachi said:


> It's not about "artistic creativity". Holy SHIT, I'm so tired of people saying this pseudo-intellectual crap to defend misconduct in art communities.


Thank you, was about to say similiar things


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 3, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> It's not about "artistic creativity". Holy SHIT, I'm so tired of people saying this pseudo-intellectual crap to defend misconduct in art communities.


Whether it classifies as "misconduct" or not, is also subjective. If it's not your cup of tea, than it's probably best to just ignore it.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> What is this pedophile justification fuckery?



(I'm trying really hard to avoid controversial topics on here, these days) - but, as I said in the cub thread earlier here : forums.furaffinity.net: Does Backlash Against Cub Seem To Be Increasing? (which was around the same time that this thread was originally posted):



Connor J. Coyote said:


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


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 3, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Whether it classifies as "misconduct" or not, is also subjective. If it's not your cup of tea, than it's probably best to just ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm trying really hard to avoid controversial topics on here, these days) - but, as I said in the cub thread earlier here : forums.furaffinity.net: Does Backlash Against Cub Seem To Be Increasing? (which was around the same time that this thread was originally posted):


Cub porn is created for and frequently by pedophiles. Whatever moral arguments for its right to exist don't defend its right to be hosted on any platform, and don't address that the people who create consume such media are PEDOPHILES and at the very least need some serious psychological treatment. No defense against censorship extends to protect them from rightful backlash and banning from platforms. 

I'm frankly disturbed by people who come forward to so avidly defend cub porn despite its inherently pedophilic nature. 

To dismiss your ad hominem attack, I enjoy furry porn quite frequently, occasionally including fetishes.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 3, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Cub porn is created for and frequently by pedophiles. Whatever moral arguments for its right to exist don't defend its right to be hosted on any platform, and don't address that the people who create consume such media are PEDOPHILES and at the very least need some serious psychological treatment. No defense against censorship extends to protect them from rightful backlash and banning from platforms.
> 
> I'm frankly disturbed by people who come forward to so avidly defend cub porn despite its inherently pedophilic nature.
> 
> To dismiss your ad hominem attack, I enjoy furry porn quite frequently, occasionally including fetishes.



I don't know if there's much psychological help for pedophiles to be had. Most of them are probably non offending. There's a general assumption that pedophiles will all try to go bone kids, which after some research and conversations, I've concluded probably isn't the case. Most of them probably do not offend anyone, they know it is wrong and won't act on their desires.

Hopefully. 

In other words, pedophiles are not necessarily sexual predators. And, sexual predators are not necessarily pedophiles. 

Also, the argument that cub porn indicates pedophilia, causes pedophilia, and is made by pedophiles has been kicked around this forum several dozen times in just the short time I've been here and largely don't hold much water.

For me personally, I do not seek it out, but if I do happen upon it, a lot of times I don't even know it's cub unless it's labeled as such.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 3, 2018)

Depending on where you are, it exists. If not there, it fucking needs to.
Causes no. That is nonsense. No more than seeing gay porn would turn a man gay.
Indicates? Absolutely. It is pornographic content featuring fictional minors. It's one key word off being proper child porn, and indicates sexual paraphalia for minors.
Those who create it are either themselves pedophiles or cashing in off of it.

It is true that most pedos aren't offenders by the numbers, it is also true that even the fucking pedophiles acknowledge it is a problem to be overcome and the temptation is there. When the pedophiles start organizations against CP and molestation it really takes some fucked standards to not be on that level. When even they say its fucked, and you are advocating for the validity or moral equivalence cub porn, you have sunken pretty far below the bar.

HOW! My blacklist has grown over time and that was of the things I added early on that I didn't know needed adding. Shit is pretty fucking disturbing, and I don't remember it being subtle.

So I will continue to call cub porn every demeaning term under the sun.


----------



## Cawdabra (Jul 3, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Indicates? Absolutely. It is pornographic content featuring fictional minors. It's one key word off being proper child porn, and indicates sexual paraphalia for minors.


It generally doesn't even resemble that of its real life counterpart, so I do find it hard to believe everyone who consumes it is a pedo.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 3, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> It generally doesn't even resemble that of its real life counterpart, so I do find it hard to believe everyone who consumes it is a pedo.


The point of cub porn is to be or appear as an underage character which, by merit of being porn, the consumer is intended to get off to. Finding clearly underage appearance sexualy attractive is pedophilia. (Trying to write at too damn early AM without accidentally calling people in the chat pedophiles)


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 3, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Whether it classifies as "misconduct" or not, is also subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm trying really hard to avoid controversial topics on here, these days)



Its not even about the content being cub so much as it is that Ovi claimed an *adult* is producing porn for *underaged* patrons.

Holy shit, Connor. Did you read his post? Maybe you should try harder to avoid these topics.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 3, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The point of cub porn is to be or appear as an underage character which, by merit of being porn, the consumer is intended to get off to. Finding clearly underage appearance sexualy attractive is pedophilia. (Trying to write at too damn early AM without accidentally calling people in the chat pedophiles)



If that's true, people who draw feral porn want to bang real dogs, people who write incestuous stories want to fiddle with their siblings, and people who browse art of vore are wannabe cannibals. 

See how stupid it sounds when you draw the corollary? 

Personally, I've always greatly suspected that those who rail most strongly against a subject are either themselves involved in it, or afraid of their own lack of self control, like the pastor who rants about gays day in and day out and has a gay relationship on the side.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 3, 2018)

Incest fetishisation is a thing, and usually obsesses with others doing it in and of the act itself due to the taboo. 

Feral Characters are not equivalent to animals. There is a dimension of intelligence there, that is the focus of the interest.

Vore is rarely a realistic depiction of anything.

People have fucked up fetishes and most people don't act on them. The question is the potential and propensity for harm. 

Subtle Ad HominemTM


----------



## Skychickens (Jul 3, 2018)

If you're a minor, hell no. You're a damned minor and it's not like you're not going to find it anyway...but you shouldn't even be commissioning in the first place. You. Are. A. MINOR. There's a reason for that rating. There is a reason it's called ADULT CONTENT. Wait until you have your full prefrontal cortex, thanks. Look all you want, I can't stop you. 

Though if someone lied about their age to an artist it shouldn't be the artist's fault. Most NSFW artists have checks and balances to try and prevent as much as possible but.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 3, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Incest fetishisation is a thing, and usually obsesses with others doing it in and of the act itself due to the taboo.
> 
> Feral Characters are not equivalent to animals. There is a dimension of intelligence there, that is the focus of the interest.
> 
> ...



Exactly, most people don't act on them, so stop calling them pedophiles please. 



Skychickens said:


> If you're a minor, hell no. You're a damned minor and it's not like you're not going to find it anyway...but you shouldn't even be commissioning in the first place. You. Are. A. MINOR. There's a reason for that rating. There is a reason it's called ADULT CONTENT. Wait until you have your full prefrontal cortex, thanks. Look all you want, I can't stop you.
> 
> Though if someone lied about their age to an artist it shouldn't be the artist's fault. Most NSFW artists have checks and balances to try and prevent as much as possible but.



If the minor remains anonymous, can anyone actually present a logical argument that is not some variant of "hurr durr yer a minor and can't think for yourself dint ruins your innocences uwu"?


----------



## Skychickens (Jul 3, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Exactly, most people don't act on them, so stop calling them pedophiles please.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minor remains anonymous, can anyone actually present a logical argument that is not some variant of "hurr durr yer a minor and can't think for yourself dint ruins your innocences uwu"?


Na. Your innocence is getting ruined one way or another. Mine was gone by the time I was 13. I just am really against minors making NSFW comms. Or really commissions in general with real money. If you don't have a job, this isn't something you should be spending your (or your parent's/guardian's) money on. If you don't have your whole prefrontal cortex, your ability to reason and react well is not fully developed. (which is actually closer to your mid twenties) Making a decision that could possibly land someone in jail is not taking into account the full consequences of your actions. 

And sure, adults don't always make smart decisions any better. But at least they're old enough to understand being stupid has consequences and have the full mental capacity to understand that.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 3, 2018)

Skychickens said:


> Na. Your innocence is getting ruined one way or another. Mine was gone by the time I was 13. I just am really against minors making NSFW comms. Or really commissions in general with real money. If you don't have a job, this isn't something you should be spending your (or your parent's/guardian's) money on. If you don't have your whole prefrontal cortex, your ability to reason and react well is not fully developed. (which is actually closer to your mid twenties) Making a decision that could possibly land someone in jail is not taking into account the full consequences of your actions.
> 
> And sure, adults don't always make smart decisions any better. But at least they're old enough to understand being stupid has consequences and have the full mental capacity to understand that.



Okay, so are you philosophically opposed to minors getting NSFW commissions, or are to opposed to letting them spent any money of their own on things they want? And why do you feel you have the authority to tell them what they should and shouldn't do?

It's true they're not good at making decisions. But they don't learn by never getting to make decisions.  This modern idea of never letting young people make their own decisions on things is, I think, actually detrimental.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 3, 2018)

So we should let kids take out loans and buy cars now?

Pedophile
-a person who is sexually attracted to children.
Exactly what part of that requires you to be a molester? Admitting you have a problem is part of dealing with shit like that, so giving people that shitty out just prevents people from seeking treatment, and normalizes it.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 3, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Exactly, most people don't act on them, so stop calling them pedophiles please.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minor remains anonymous, can anyone actually present a logical argument that is not some variant of "hurr durr yer a minor and can't think for yourself dint ruins your innocences uwu"?



Ya'll remember this thread? lmao
forums.furaffinity.net: Serious question


----------



## Battle Foxxo (Jul 3, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> So we should let kids take out loans and buy cars now?
> 
> Pedophile
> -a person who is sexually attracted to children.
> Exactly what part of that requires you to be a molester? Admitting you have a problem is part of dealing with shit like that, so giving people that shitty out just prevents people from seeking treatment, and normalizes it.


when you know 15-17  year olds who like cub and babyfur porn and say their doesnt make them pedos


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 4, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> So we should let kids take out loans and buy cars now?
> 
> Pedophile
> -a person who is sexually attracted to children.
> Exactly what part of that requires you to be a molester? Admitting you have a problem is part of dealing with shit like that, so giving people that shitty out just prevents people from seeking treatment, and normalizes it.



I got my first car and business loan when I was 17, but I guess I should go back and tell everyone to undo all that, since clearly because I was so young I didn't have the brain power to make literally any decisions on my own. 

Pedophiles are necessarily bad people. They have a mental wiring that they can't help, they should seek help to control it or just always know they have to control it. 

Again, calling all people who like cub porn pedophiles is just plain stupid, and honestly a little bigoted. 

But don't worry, we furries are real accepting, tolerant people. 


XoPachi said:


> Ya'll remember this thread? lmao
> forums.furaffinity.net: Serious question



Where's that middle finger icon when I need it...


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 4, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> *Pedophiles are necessarily bad people. They have a mental wiring that they can't help, they should seek help to control it or just always know they have to control it. *


So the merit of good in evil is not in action, but inherent to brain structure?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 4, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> So the merit of good in evil is not in action, but inherent to brain structure?



Sorry, I meant they're NOT necessarily bad people.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 4, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Cub porn is created for and frequently by pedophiles. Whatever moral arguments for its right to exist don't defend its right to be hosted on any platform, and don't address that the people who create consume such media are PEDOPHILES and at the very least need some serious psychological treatment. No defense against censorship extends to protect them from rightful backlash and banning from platforms.
> 
> I'm frankly disturbed by people who come forward to so avidly defend cub porn despite its inherently pedophilic nature.
> 
> To dismiss your ad hominem attack, I enjoy furry porn quite frequently, occasionally including fetishes.



Again, these are all personal opinions. Whether this is a pedophilic activity, or it's just another form of artistic expression - is certainly in the eye of the beholder, also.

No one is holding "a gun to your head" and saying (you and others) must consume it, by the way.

No one is forcing you to watch it, to commission it, to _create_ it, or to approve of it - either. I italicized and underlined the word "create" here - (as that is exactly what's being done) in these situations - "creation".

You and others (who are uncomfortable with it) can just ignore it - use your adult "SFW" filters, and (if needed) report any postings - (that are not tagged properly as a NSFW "adult" piece). After all, that's what the "report" function is for, on many sites.

Reporting an art piece that is mistagged, (meaning it's adult, but is not labelled as such) - is very different than reporting it (because one doesn't like the content), by the way. ☺

Drawing a cup of coffee on a piece of real, (or virtual) paper is certainly different - than brewing a cup of it, taking a photo of it, and then drinking it afterwards.. ya feel me?


----------



## Rabbtit (Jul 5, 2018)

I didn't read the entire thread so I probably missed out a lot and this might have already been said but

Minors will, and always have found access to NSFW content. I advise against it but I wholeheartedly blame it on the lack of sexual education. I received none. My parents didn't tell me, school didn't teach me anything in health class beyond, "don't do drugs". I think it should be the school's responsibility but of course /those/ parents will bitch and moan about their child being properly educated, right?

At 10 I was already on Newgrounds, playing interactive porn games,

13-14 I was on xat roleplaying as anime characters and learning about sex from people my age (or a little bit older)

Luckily, I was a smart kid. I never did anything bad that would endanger me. I chatted with people you'd probably find on To Catch a Predator, tbh. Nothing bad ever happened, as I usually told them to eat shit and die (I was a depressed edgy kid ok) and I never fell for any traps that some kids might.

The problem isn't minors finding porn - the problem is the LACK OF EDUCATION ABOUT THE TOPIC OF SEX, THAT KIDS ARE PUTTING THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY BY EXPOSING THEMSELVES TO POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS MATERIALS THAT THEY DON'T YET UNDERSTAND. It's a shame. 

They'll take everything the wrong way - of course they will, because they're just kids. Porn will set up so many unrealistic expectations for them. Adults that aren't incels can handle it, because we know how it really is, and what's real and what isn't. But for kids? Man, that shit can fuck you up. I'm 22 and still learning things about how my body is supposed to work - from the internet. 

---

Also I see the topic has somehow shifted to babyfur/cubstuff now and yeah if the character in question is a *literal child* and not just acting as one (ageplay?) that's fucking sick and any minors depicted in sexual acts in art is gross bye


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 5, 2018)

Rabbtit said:


> I didn't read the entire thread so I probably missed out a lot and this might have already been said but
> 
> Minors will, and always have found access to NSFW content. I advise against it but I wholeheartedly blame it on the lack of sexual education. I received none. My parents didn't tell me, school didn't teach me anything in health class beyond, "don't do drugs". I think it should be the school's responsibility but of course /those/ parents will bitch and moan about their child being properly educated, right?
> 
> ...



I agree, sex education needs to be much better, and cub porn is pretty gross.


----------



## Rabbtit (Jul 5, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I agree, sex education needs to be much better, and cub porn is pretty gross.


yeah lmfao on what fucking planet do they think this is ok


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jul 5, 2018)

Rabbtit said:


> yeah lmfao on what fucking planet do they think this is ok



I'm not particularly concerned about it, since it doesn't actively harm anyone. So it doesn't really bother me that it exists. 

But, actually sexally abuse a real kid, and ill run them through the chipper shredder myself.


----------



## David Drake (Jul 5, 2018)

Teens are such a gray area. 

Obviously, if the commissioner in question has not yet gone through puberty, that's bad (and if the subject of the art hasn't either, that's evil).

After puberty...you do want to be as careful legally as you can, but as I remember what it was like being a teen I'm morally okay with it as long as nobody is being taken advantage of.


----------



## Eli Wintershade (Jul 7, 2018)

I remember a quote very well from my best friend. He does commissions, and sadly will draw ANYTHING you ask of him from ANYONE (No I will not link you to him, go find yourself) I remember what he told me while completely drunk and the next day confirmed, "I will accept requests from anyone, it is my job. I hate that I do it, but it keeps me off the streets and pays the bills" While I disagree with his willingness to take a request from anyone for anything I also understand it from a professional perspective, it gets him his cash at the end of the day.

In short sadly it depends on the artist and how they look at things for what they will and won't do. I personally do not like or support cub porn, but I also will not condemn those who like it.


----------

