# "cub" is always assumed to be aged up?



## Erethzium (Feb 22, 2018)

I reported porn of a canon character who is canonically a child, and the mod response was "it could be aged up".

...so it's okay to upload cub porn as long as you don't explicitly say it's cub? Even if the character is canonically a child, you can upload it as long as you don't say that it's underage?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 22, 2018)

Not quite that simple. Mind that I never worked these tickets myself, so my knowledge is pretty limited, but the basic principle is something like this:

If it physically appears underaged, particularly compared to the artist's other work, it will be treated as underaged.
If the physical appearance plausibly could be 18+, and there's no evidence to the contrary, it will generally be treated as aged up.

This is a no-win issue for staff; you're upset staff didn't remove something you feel features a minor, and artists who feel their work does not violate the rules get upset when staff makes a different call.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 22, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Not quite that simple. Mind that I never worked these tickets myself, so my knowledge is pretty limited, but the basic principle is something like this:
> 
> If it physically appears underaged, particularly compared to the artist's other work, it will be treated as underaged.
> If the physical appearance plausibly could be 18+, and there's no evidence to the contrary, it will generally be treated as aged up.
> ...



Oh, you've _got _to be kidding.
It's not about people's feelings. It's about upholding morals and the law.

Child porn is illegal and immoral.
Case closed.

So, nobody ahould give a rat's ass if a "cub" artist is upset that their submission gets deleted.
They're a pedophile, they knew what they were in for.


----------



## Erethzium (Feb 22, 2018)

So that's where the comparison is made? To the artist's other work, instead of the character itself?

That's a really weird way of banning underaged porn. But whatever.

I remember this happening a while ago as well, reporting porn of an underaged human character who was canonically 15 years old, and the mod response was "there's no clear indication that she's underage and the artist didn't say she's underage"......really?

Why even have it banned if you're going to make up weird, contrived rules that still allow it anyway?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 22, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Child porn is illegal and immoral.


Child pornography is also not allowed on FA, so this has no relevance to the topic at hand.



Erethzium said:


> So that's where the comparison is made? To the artist's other work, instead of the character itself?


In most cases it'd probably be both. Most furry artists won't be drawing 100% on model, and even if you do draw on model I know my body didn't change a whole lot between 15 and 18. Again I'm not intimately familiar with the particulars since I never worked on the MPS team myself.



Erethzium said:


> Why even have it banned if you're going to make up weird, contrived rules that still allow it anyway?


That's... not actually what's going on, though. What you have is more akin to age restrictions on cigarettes - if you look under 18 they'll card you, but if you pass as over 18 you may get your smokes regardless. All you can show by citing canon is that the character was <canon age> at some point in time. If the art doesn't indicate a "when" relative to that point, the canon age alone doesn't indicate age in the artwork.


----------



## PerrMea (Feb 22, 2018)

OK when it comes to stuff like this, I don't like it. its really not ok you get that sometime when its something that you can't easily tell the age its really easy to slip tho the cracks :{


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 22, 2018)

Erethzium said:


> I reported porn of a canon character who is canonically a child, and the mod response was "it could be aged up".
> 
> ...so it's okay to upload cub porn as long as you don't explicitly say it's cub? Even if the character is canonically a child, you can upload it as long as you don't say that it's underage?



This is simply a grey area.

On one hand we don't wanna be going around deleting porn just because it may look like cub.

On the other hand, cub is enabling pedophilia, and small or young looking characters do raise a cause for concern.

I think a legal way to get around this is for artists to start putting an "18+_Characters" tag on their art to assure people who may have concerns that their intention is to treat it as adult.  Of course that doesn't mean it's their actual intention but it's the best we can do as a temporary bandaid.

As for a moral/individual solution, artists should just... stop drawing young looking characters in their porn.  Make them taller, or make them look older, but don't go around making small, young people in porn, all cutsie looking, and expecting people to assume they're older than 18.  That's the problem I have with a certain anime style that emphasizes the use of cuteness and displays such in porn.  I forgot what the style is called but it's almost impossible to tell whether they're underage or legal age.


----------



## TrishaCat (Feb 23, 2018)

It probably depends on whether or not said characters appear to be aged up. Basically what they look like. Canonity isn't really important if you aren't following the canon to begin with after all.





KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Child porn is illegal and immoral.
> Case closed.


Except cub doesn't count as child porn to begin with.
Drawn depictions of child-like characters in pornography is a gray area and legality depends upon your state/country. If you live in the UK, Canada, or Australia, its blatantly illegal, but in the US (where FA is based) its much more complicated. Generally speaking its not _illegal (_and certainly not considered to be child porn) but in some circumstances it might fall under obscenity laws, although that also depends on whether or not said drawings could be said to have artistic merit.
Some people might cite the PROTECT act as a means of calling it illegal, but portions of that have been deemed unconstitutional in a previous court case. In addition, just as evidence, uncensored content involving lolicon material have been and are being sold in the US (for example, the anime Dance in the Vampire Bund which Funimation initally released censored before deeming it okay to re-release uncut, or the upcoming release of Kodomo no Jikan by a manga pornography company titled Project H that happens to be about an elementary school teacher having a romantic relationship with one of his students. In the US. Uncut.) So if major companies are able to release these things no problem, its even harder to argue that its illegal is it not?

I would also argue that said drawn depictions aren't immoral either on the basis of them being just that: drawings. Nothing more.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> Except cub doesn't count as child porn to begin with.
> Drawn depictions of child-like characters in pornography is a gray area and legality depends upon your state/country. If you live in the UK, Canada, or Australia, its blatantly _illegal (_and certainly not counted as child porn_)_, but in the US its much more complicated. Generally speaking its not illegal, but in some circumstances it might fall under obscenity laws, although that also depends on whether or not said drawings could be said to have artistic merit.
> Some people might cite the PROTECT act as a means of calling it illegal, but portions of that have been deemed unconstitutional in a previous court case.
> 
> I would also argue that said drawn depictions aren't immoral either on the basis of them being just that: drawings. Nothing more.


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

(real) child porn is illegal because making it is sexual abuse of a child, and not because it is obscene. Cub porn is just drawing.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Nastala said:


> (real) child porn is illegal because making it is sexual abuse of a child, and not because it is obscene. Cub porn is just drawing.



Yeah.  It's just a drawing of a child having sex, likely with someone older.

Nothing wrong with that at all!


----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 23, 2018)

I do wonder if some of the old Robert Crumb stuff on my shelf is actually illegal under current UK law.  Strips like Joe Blow, Mr Natural and the Giant Baby, The Family That Lays Together Stays Together, if anyone feels inclined to look those up.


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yeah.  It's just a drawing of a child having sex, likely with someone older.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that at all!


You say that sarcastically. But is there really? Is it immoral to draw characters being killed? in real life, it's an equally bad if not worse crime, but you never see people debating the morality of art depicting characters being killed. Cub, like all art, is only that, regardless of how obscene it is.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Nastala said:


> You say that sarcastically. But is there really? Is it immoral to draw characters being killed? in real life, it's an equally bad if not worse crime, but you never see people debating the morality of art depicting characters being killed. Cub, like all art, is only that, regardless of how obscene it is.



Actually, you do.  Seeing characters being tortured or threatened with death in art during sex is extremely unsettling, and I would appreciate it if they disappeared into the shadows and never showed their face on FA again.  It nearly makes me throw up every time.  I would say the same for rape porn.  Furthermore, your comparison is frankly lazy.

For one, art where you're killing people typically hold an explicit purpose or message behind the art.  I don't see nonsensical violence often unless it's meant to deeply disturb or arouse people with those kinks.  Hell, you hardly see nonsensical violence in games, much less art, and the games that did present nonsensical violence, like "Hatred", received major backlash for it's tasteless approach to killing, death, and pointless murder.

What's the purpose of a serial killer to kill?  The interesting part is to find out the motivation.  That's purposeful.

What's the purpose of war?  The interesting part of war is the glory in it (albeit a Hollywood concept) or to depict the tragedies that occur during war.  That's purposeful.

What's the purpose of survival?  The interesting part is seeing how it changes you or a character, and how humanity copes with hopeless situations and forced to do things an average person wouldn't want to do.  That's purposeful.

Cub porn is to get people off.

That'd be like releasing a video game about sexually molesting a child in Gamestop.  Because it's just a video game, right?

Cub is also all the more disgusting when you know it is depicting characters who are incapable of consent.  It's not even like feral where you can make the excuse where they're sentient and are capable of consent in that fantasy context... which is still really weird and questionable in my book, but cubs are_ incapable of consenting in any context, and depicting them as capable of consenting to sex, much less actually having sex, is disrespectful, tasteless, and deplorable._


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean it is, or should be, illegal. It's not exactly my cup of tea either. Just don't look at it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Nastala said:


> Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean it is, or should be, illegal. It's not exactly my cup of tea either. Just don't look at it.



Don't like a video game?  Who needs critics; just don't play the game.

Don't like a movie?  Who needs reviews; just don't watch it.

Don't like art?  Who needs criticism; just don't look at it.

But you wouldn't do that because that's stupid.  Not only would you not view it, you would tell exactly why you wouldn't view it and why it should not be repeated.

So I'm expected to give Cub the benefit of the doubt by separating it from conversation of ethics, legality, and criticism... why exactly?


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

This thread is about whether cub is allowed, not if support it.

Is Cub ethical? I'd say it's not unethical, because not a single child is involved in the process. Some would say that it promotes thoughts about sexualizing children, but I think it's safe to assume that the majority of the people who look at it already have those thoughts. Cub just seems like a much more ethical alternative to real cp to me. If I had to guess, I'd say your next reply would be to say it's unethical to have those thoughts. We get it, you don't like it, but nobody chooses to be attracted to children. The world would be a very different place if people were able to choose their sexual attractions. 

Is cub legal? Yes. If it wasn't then e621, deviantart, r34, and many others would get visits from the fbi preeeetty frequently. Like I said, it's banned because it harms children, not because it's obscene.

Can you criticize cub? Sure idc


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Nastala said:


> This thread is about whether cub is allowed, not if support it.
> 
> Is Cub ethical? I'd say it's not unethical, because not a single child is involved in the process. Some would say that it promotes thoughts about sexualizing children, but I think it's safe to assume that the majority of the people who look at it already have those thoughts. *Cub just seems like a much more ethical alternative to real cp to me*. If I had to guess, I'd say your next reply would be to say it's unethical to have those thoughts. We get it, you don't like it, but *nobody chooses to be attracted to children*. The world would be a very different place if people were able to choose their sexual attractions.
> 
> ...



Right, sorry, how bold of me.  I should just assume that pedophiles have no control over their urges and all must use child pornography, and that if they don't get any sort of satisfaction from cub, they'll most certainly start illegally acquiring real child porn, or stalking playgrounds.

To be honest?  If someone has that much lack of control over their sexual urges that they have to look at porn to keep it at bay, I'd be much more concerned about_ getting that person professional help_ rather than going "Uh, here, look at some drawn porn.  Don't rape children pls."

But I'm not the one assuming that all pedophiles have to look at child porn or else they'll devolve into vicious predators or participate in illegal activities to acquire it.

Even so, just because they don't choose to be attracted to children doesn't make the attraction any more ethical.  In fact that just makes the idea of willfully participating in the attraction more disturbing, because they didn't choose to have it but choose to partake in it anyway.


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> But I'm not the one assuming that all pedophiles have to look at child porn or else they'll devolve into vicious predators or participate in illegal activities to acquire it.


I definitely did not say that. I don't even know why you think I said that.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> \Even so, just because they don't choose to be attracted to children doesn't make the attraction any more ethical.  In fact that just makes the idea of willfully participating in the attraction more disturbing, because they didn't choose to have it but choose to partake in it anyway.


This is a scene from a movie called Nymphomaniac that I think illustrates pretty well what I'm trying to convey. The girl speaking is recalling the events of several weeks ago she (psychologically) tortured people in order to extort money from them, including a self-suppressing pedophile.


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

Actually I think this is quite comparable to the way many people see furry porn. The comparison to actual sexual intercourse with animals gives it a bad name, even though it doesn't actually involve harming animals or encourage doing so.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Nastala said:


> I definitely did not say that. I don't even know why you think I said that.
> 
> This is a scene from a movie called Nymphomaniac that I think illustrates pretty well what I'm trying to convey. The girl speaking is recalling the events of several weeks ago she (psychologically) tortured people in order to extort money from them, including a self-suppressing pedophile.



Except you did, because you most prominently stated that Cub "was a more ethical alternative to child porn" as if by default the pedophile would immediately desire to acquire child pornography, and if there is no Cub to replace it, would allow the pedophile to enable child pornography.

First of all, there's little evidence that I am aware of that pornography prevents criminal activity.  Majority of men today have viewed porn, many view it regularly.  Yet sexual crimes don't seem to be on a decline.  If there is evidence for this let me know please.

Secondly, we still don't know how exactly pornography affects people, so throwing cub porn at pedophiles expecting it to be a lasting solution is not smart at all; they need treatment or therapy, not bandaids.  There is far more to sex than just the pleasure, and if a pedophile is ONLY attracted to children then that porn is not going to keep him satisfied.  It just wears down.  Not saying they'd commit a crim

Thirdly, not all pedophiles would do that, in fact I think a good 95% wouldn't do that.  So why would you talk about it like it's either or?  Like it's either cub porn or real porn and there's no alternative of, you know, treatment or therapy or any actual long-term solution to a very real problem?

As for the video, yeah, I don't understand how that's relevant.  Pedophiles suffer through an attraction that is immoral.  This much was already known.


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

I said that cub is a more ethical alternative to cp. More ethical, as in ,would you prefer people look at cp?
I didn't say porn makes people less likely to commit crimes or anything. Don't bother arguing against words that you put in my mouth.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Nastala said:


> I said that cub is a more ethical alternative to cp. More ethical, as in ,would you prefer people look at cp?
> I didn't say porn makes people less likely to commit crimes or anything. Don't bother arguing against words that you put in my mouth.



Well, my question is, who cares?  Who cares if it's more ethical than child porn; what does that prove?  Does it prove that it is ethical to begin with just because it's not as horrendous as enabling the development of child porn?  No.  If that's what you think you have a very narrow view of ethics.

The reason I pointed out the pornography thing is because we act like if these pedophiles need cub porn.

Answer is simply no.  They don't need it.  First of all, it's not a tenable solution to any pedophile's problems; it's a quick fix, and it will undoubtedly affect each one differently.  It's far too unreliable as a tenable solution even for the short turn, and it's NOT a tenable solution for the long term, especially if the pedophile is attracted EXCLUSIVLY to children.  These people need to have therapy, to ease their attraction, and to cope with it, not have it enabled by drawings of it.

It's participating in the degradation of pedophiliac reputability.


----------



## defunct (Feb 23, 2018)

It seems we've gone off on a bit of a tangent. So far you've established:
-cub enables(?) pedophilia
-cub is a little bit more okay if the artist says the character is 18
-cub is objectively bad, and the solution is that people should stop drawing it
-cub is not normal
-art of torture is also bad and people should stop drawing it
-my comparison between gore and cub is lazy
-cub porn is comparable to a video game about molesting children being sold at gamestop
-animals are sentient and can consent in feral porn, but not in cub
-you really, really do not like cub
-you should be allowed to criticize cub, which nobody had objected to
-porn does not stop sex crimes, which nobody had objected to
-living with an undesirable attraction makes you a bad person, regardless of whether you act on it or not
-porn does not stop sex crimes, we're still waiting for someone to say otherwise
-nobody cares about whether or not cub is not as bad as cp
-pedophiles do not need cub, which nobody had objected to
-people attracted exclusively to children need therapy, which nobody had objected to
-cub degrades the good public image that pedophiles have

I don't think this is going anywhere


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Nastala said:


> It seems we've gone off on a bit of a tangent. So far you've established:
> -cub enables(?) pedophilia
> -*cub is a little bit more okay if the artist says the character is 18*
> -cub is objectively bad, and the solution is that people should stop drawing it
> ...



These three.

- I did not say cub was okay if the artist says they're eighteen plus.  I said that can be used as a reassurance.  It's be much better if people just drew characters distinguishly adults.

- I didn't say animals were sentient, I stated that the excuse for feral porn is that the animals depicted are capable of consent.  For animals they cannot consent because they cannot communicate their desire in such a way that allows for a legal means of sex.  This issue is made better in art because animals can communicate their desire in most feral.  Children, however, are capable of communicating and speech, and they are still incapable of consent.

- I did not say that.  I said living with a bad attraction and acting on it is wrong, regardless of whether or not it was your choice.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 23, 2018)

@ResolutionBlaze Whether or not you like cub porn, it doesn't cause anyone harm. They are imaginery characters that don't represent real people, created by consenting adults who roleplay as_ the cub_. As in, those people want to impersonate the cub, but they aren't interested in the character as a sexual partner. To be fair here, I think that there are a minority of pedophiles too; but that's because there are devancies like that with any group under a certain label. Also, while it's personally not my thing, I know people who do like it and I don't think that instantly makes them immoral, pedophiles or child molestors; or whatever other demonisation. They're weird by society's standards but they're still nice enough people who wouldn't consider commiting a crime like that.

While there haven't exactly been many studies of babyfurs (which is expected given that it's a niche within another niche), there have been a number of them done on infantalists (the next closest thing) by psychologists. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary: 





> Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding[12] but infantilism involves role-playing exclusively with other adults;[13] infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any form of child sexual abuse.[14] Sexologist Gloria Brame states that "...infantilists who recognize and accept their sexuality - and its possible roots in infantile trauma - tend to be acutely protective of real children."[7]
> 
> John Money states that diaper fetishists may be sexually attracted to diaper-wearing babies, a condition he calls nepiophilia, but describes infantilism as autonepiophilia in which the individual desires to be and impersonate a baby and does not desire an infant as a sexual partner.[35]
> 
> In 1993, sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists[16] and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies.[36]



Although, even if you are still of the mind that cub porn is child porn, then I'll mention that (while not proof of a causal link) there is evidence of a correlation between accessibility to child pornography and lower levels of child abuse. They believe it's because it acts as a substitute; and while there's something to be said about viewing real child pornography still (because it provides demand and helps fund an industry that abuses children), artwork of anthropomorphic animals doesn't have those same implications to it.

That said, I maintain that, as a whole, there isn't a sexual attraction to a child in the first place. As far as I see it, cub porn is as close to pedophilia as anthro/feral porn is to zoophilia.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Lcs said:


> @ResolutionBlaze Whether or not you like cub porn, it doesn't cause anyone harm. They are imaginery characters that don't represent real people, created by consenting adults who roleplay as_ the cub_. As in, those people want to impersonate the cub, but they aren't interested in the character as a sexual partner. To be fair here, I think that there are a minority of pedophiles too; but that's because there are devancies like that with any group under a certain label. Also, while it's personally not my thing, I know people who do like it and I don't think that instantly makes them immoral, pedophiles or child molestors; or whatever other demonisation. They're weird by society's standards but they're still nice enough people who wouldn't consider commiting a crime like that.
> 
> While there haven't exactly been many studies of babyfurs (which is expected given that it's a niche within another niche), there have been a number of them done on infantalists (the next closest thing) by psychologists. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary:
> 
> ...



I'll give you the benefit of accepting that it's infantilism and they simply want to roleplay as the innocent child, but would not actively participate in any child activity.  That doesnt mean it still isn't doing harm.  We don't know the full extent of this much access to pornography does, much less pornography involving the sexual depiction of children.  So I don't think we should be putting the cart before the horse; we haven't had this much access to pornography at once for very long.  We don't know what the standards are.

Furthermore, it is still deplorable as they're making depictions of pedophilia activities, even if the users themselves are not necessarily pedophiles.

I'll give some ground and say that they can keep it to themselves; why should it be present in public or semi-public display?


----------



## Sagt (Feb 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'll give you the benefit of accepting that it's infantilism and they simply want to roleplay as the innocent child, but would not actively participate in any child activity.  That doesnt mean it still isn't doing harm.  We don't know the full extent of this much access to pornography does, much less pornography involving the sexual depiction of children.  So I don't think we should be putting the cart before the horse; we haven't had this much access to pornography at once for very long.  We don't know what the standards are.


But then, if the evidence isn't concrete enough either way, then why is the offhand reaction to assume it's immoral?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Furthermore, it is still deplorable as they're making depictions of pedophilia activities, even if the users themselves are not necessarily pedophiles.


That's subjective.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'll give some ground and say that they can keep it to themselves; why should it be present in public or semi-public display?


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this; are you talking about uploading them to websites and stuff?

Well, I'd say that it's so people can access it.

As a side note, I do agree with the common complaint that there isn't enough filtering between that sort of content and more innocent stuff, though. I think it would ease a lot of tension if it was out of sight from the people who find it gross.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Lcs said:


> But then, if the evidence isn't concrete enough either way, then why is the offhand reaction to assume it's immoral?
> 
> 
> That's subjective.
> ...



My offhand reaction is to assume that because child pornography is immoral, and that child sex is immoral, why would depictions of either be moral or morally indifferent?  It's based on a precedent we have already established that children should not be involved with sex; I believe that extends its hand into media.  Why shouldn't it?  We don't know enough about the effects of porn, so I think it's a mistake to just assume any positive findings should be taken seriously when we haven't had long-term exposure to porn at this magnitude yet.  We've had the internet for maybe 20 years or so.  That's it.  Also I don't believe for a second that just because they're not real children doesn't mean it doesn't do actual damage.  Do you not think it damages people when they see stuff like that glorified, and maybe they've experienced a similar situation as a child?

No, it's not subjective at all.  You can't just call it subjective and move on; tell me why.  I'll tell you why it's not though; because a depiction of a child having sex with an adult is a pedophiliac image.  Infantism may be the motivation but the result is an image that is pedo.


----------



## Pipistrele (Feb 23, 2018)

Lcs said:


> While there haven't exactly been many studies of babyfurs (which is expected given that it's a niche within another niche), there have been a number of them done on infantalists (the next closest thing) by psychologists. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary



We're talking about clearly pornographic artwork with underaged characters, if I understand correctly, and that kinda goes beyond mild infantilism.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> No, it's not subjective at all. You can't just call it subjective and move on; tell me why. I'll tell you why it's not though; because a depiction of a child having sex with an adult is a pedophiliac image. Infantism may be the motivation but the result is an image that is pedo.


For one, because generally speaking the child in this content is depicted as having an adult sex drive/enjoyment of sex. This is already a thing that divorces the fictional content from reality. "Deplorable" is pretty much subjective by definition though; it's a value judgment.

I have no horse in this race beyond finding it disturbing how much some people seem to want to expand the definition of "pedophilia" and vilify anyone who they then deem to fall within this expanded definition. (It's also not as straightforward as "seek help" as many therapists will report a patient who confesses to sexual interest in minors to authorities as a risk to children, just to cover their own asses _should_ the patient cross a line in the future.)


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 23, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> For one, because generally speaking the child in this content is depicted as having an adult sex drive/enjoyment of sex. This is already a thing that divorces the fictional content from reality. "Deplorable" is pretty much subjective by definition though; it's a value judgment.
> 
> I have no horse in this race beyond finding it disturbing how much some people seem to want to expand the definition of "pedophilia" and vilify anyone who they then deem to fall within this expanded definition. (It's also not as straightforward as "seek help" as many therapists will report a patient who confesses to sexual interest in minors to authorities as a risk to children, just to cover their own asses _should_ the patient cross a line in the future.)



They're not supposed to do that though. 

Personally I think if someone enjoys this porn, and they exhibit no other traits of pedophilia, there is no harm done. 

It's certainly not my cup of tea, though.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> They're not supposed to do that though.


Does their reputation less harm than being the psychologist who didn't warn police about the evil child molester - if the patient complains they can defend themselves by saying they had sincere concerns (which in my understanding trumps doctor-patient privileges). I'm not in any way condoning the practice, just saying it's a thing, so saying someone with those urges should talk to a psychologist instead of trying to self-regulate is a bit naive.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> For one, because generally speaking the child in this content is depicted as having an adult sex drive/enjoyment of sex. This is already a thing that divorces the fictional content from reality. "Deplorable" is pretty much subjective by definition though; it's a value judgment.
> 
> I have no horse in this race beyond finding it disturbing how much some people seem to want to expand the definition of "pedophilia" and vilify anyone who they then deem to fall within this expanded definition. (It's also not as straightforward as "seek help" as many therapists will report a patient who confesses to sexual interest in minors to authorities as a risk to children, just to cover their own asses _should_ the patient cross a line in the future.)



That's the thing:

_Children don't and shouldn't be depicted having adult sex drives.  Sex drive has nothing to do with the depiction of the child themselves.
_
You can't argue this because it doesn't matter what the child is depicted as;_ children.  cannot.  consent.  period.
_
Depicting children in an act as though they can is manipulative and wrong.  Not to mention that a sexual act with a child would probably be physically damaging.  You're also assuming that a child can't enjoy sex; enjoyment of sex is irrelevant.

A woman who is raped can enjoy the sex but still be raped (when I mean enjoy, I mean they achieve a climax or orgasm) and the body can be physically pleased by the experience.  How is that a ground for ethical arguments?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's the thing:
> 
> _Children don't and shouldn't be depicted having adult sex drives.  Sex drive has nothing to do with the depiction of the child themselves.
> _
> ...



I think that's crossing reality with fiction though. Of course a sex act with a child would be damaging. Cub porn on the other hand would only be harmful if it was shown that it expressly encourages or enables pedophilia... which I admit is an intertidal subject but I don't think there's an easy answer for it.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You can't argue this because it doesn't matter what the child is depicted as;_ children. cannot. consent. period._
> 
> Depicting children in an act as though they can is manipulative and wrong.


You misunderstand. The point is not that it should be hunky-dory because the child consented, but that these are essentially, at least far as sex is concerned, adults in child bodies. Not children. They are fictional characters. They can do whatever their creators want them to be able to do. In this case, consent to and enjoy sex.

This goes doubly when the "child" character is a character an adult uses to represent themselves. It's not even representative of a hypothetical child in that case, but of the infantilist adult behind the character.

As Bahg said, not my cup of tea, but I'm also disinclined to demonize someone for fantasies.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Not to mention that a sexual act with a child would probably be physically damaging.


So would getting reamed with half the dicks shown in furry artwork. It's art. It doesn't perfectly correspond to reality.


----------



## Pipistrele (Feb 23, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I'm not in any way condoning the practice, just saying it's a thing, so saying someone with those urges should talk to a psychologist instead of trying to self-regulate is a bit naive.


There's hardly any evidence that self-regulation is really a better option, though. After all, it's a sublimation, not a solution.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 23, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> There's hardly any evidence that self-regulation is really a better option, though. After all, it's a sublimation, not a solution.


Given what prison inmates tend to do to anyone they're lead to believe is a child molester, and that most people with such urges are aware of this, can hardly blame them for going that route, though. It's a shitty hand of cards to be stuck with.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> My offhand reaction is to assume that because child pornography is immoral, and that child sex is immoral, why would depictions of either be moral or morally indifferent?  It's based on a precedent we have already established that children should not be involved with sex; I believe that extends its hand into media.  Why shouldn't it?  We don't know enough about the effects of porn, so I think it's a mistake to just assume any positive findings should be taken seriously when we haven't had long-term exposure to porn at this magnitude yet.  We've had the internet for maybe 20 years or so.  That's it.  Also I don't believe for a second that just because they're not real children doesn't mean it doesn't do actual damage.  Do you not think it damages people when they see stuff like that glorified, and maybe they've experienced a similar situation as a child?


Since your thought is that the evidence available isn't conclusive enough, since not enough time has passed, then how can you give a conclusion either way? If we don't have the information available to make a conclusion, then it seems unfair to just assume that it causes harm, especially considering that the information I provided suggests the complete opposite, since it can be used as a substitute. That's what I was saying.

Again, cub porn doesn't have the same implications as regular child porn; viewing child porn involves creating demand and helping to fund children being abused, while as with cub porn that doesn't happen.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> No, it's not subjective at all.  You can't just call it subjective and move on; tell me why.  I'll tell you why it's not though; because a depiction of a child having sex with an adult is a pedophiliac image.  Infantism may be the motivation but the result is an image that is pedo.


Because the reason one might think it's "deplorable" isn't the intention of the piece, since, in that case, people imagine themselves as the imaginery cub.

Also, pedophile is sort of a loaded word; it means that someone has an attraction to children, but really people use it as if that means the person is already either a child molester or a soon-to-be child molester. Being attracted to children is unfortunate, but it's doesn't necessarily mean one act upon their desire; and actually, linking back to that study, if we assume cub porn is child porn insofar as how it can be used as a substitute for the real thing, then there are no harmful effects caused.

If you still want to consider it "deplorable", well that's your opinion, because it's subjective. It isn't fact, what you wrote was instead a normative statement.

(And again, I don't think it's fair to consider viewing cub porn as pedophilic in the first place)



Pipistrele said:


> We're talking about clearly pornographic artwork with underaged characters, if I understand correctly, and that kinda goes beyond mild infantilism.


How so?

Like I mentioned earlier, the core demand is for people to imagine themselves as the character and not for them to fantasize about it being their sexual partner.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's the thing:
> 
> _Children don't and shouldn't be depicted having adult sex drives.  Sex drive has nothing to do with the depiction of the child themselves.
> _
> ...


Again, these are imaginery characters who do not represent real people.

You didn't give a good reason for why it's so evil to do this. All you said is that it's "wrong" and "manipulative", because the non-existent children depicted don't consent. That's a lot of pathos, but not much logos.

Vore involves eating people without their consent and digesting them. Do you also think it's wrong and manipulative for characters to be depicted having that done to them? Do you reckon it will cause a misunderstanding of people thinking it's realistic to eat an animal just as large as himself; or that they will begin thinking cannabalism and murder are acceptable?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 23, 2018)

Lcs said:


> Vore involves eating people without their consent and digesting them. Do you also think it's wrong and manipulative for characters to be depicted having that done to them? Do you reckon it will cause a misunderstanding of people thinking it's realistic to eat an animal just as large as himself; or that they will begin thinking cannabalism and murder are acceptable?



Vore is disturbing.  I wish we saw less of it.  There has also been cases of people buying fish and similar sized animals so they can swallow them alive.

I also think you're comparing children to adults.

How would you like to see a child in the same scene?  A child in a torture porn, or in beheading?  Is that not unsettling?  Gross enough that adults are depicted going through that.


----------



## Pipistrele (Feb 24, 2018)

Lcs said:


> Also, pedophile is sort of a loaded word; it means that someone has an attraction to children, but really people use it as if that means the person is already either a child molester or a soon-to-be child molester. Being attracted to children is unfortunate, but it's doesn't necessarily mean one act upon their desire; and actually, linking back to that study, if we assume cub porn is child porn insofar as how it can be used as a substitute for the real thing, then there are no harmful effects caused.


It still doesn't make it normal, though. Being attracted to children is something that should ideally be fixed - we're just not quite there due to the sole fact of being a pedophile resulting in a heavy stigma. Though it also should be noted that said stigma was "achieved" by many pedophiles who actually gave up to their urges and went into child molestation, which is something to consider when discussing the topic.

But yet again, cub pornography is a substitute, not a solution. Also, a good argument is that in a way, cub artwork also normalizes and glorifies pedophilia, which is not really something that should be normalized. On one side, cub artwork can keep existing pedos under control (which is a really dubious advantage that speaks of problems with actually finding a solution), but on the other, it can result in more potential pedos who'll find graphic depictions of molestation and underage sex attractive on some level or another (which is not unrealistic, considering how sugar-coated it is in cub/lolicon pornography).



> Like I mentioned earlier, the core demand is for people to imagine themselves as the character and not for them to fantasize about it being their sexual partner.



Majority of cub porn still caters to people with a knack for minors, with depictions of molestation and "ruining the innocence" being fetishized. With those tropes being so prevalent in both lolicon and cub artwork, it makes me a bit hard to consider the "I just watch cub to fantazise myself as a child" thing as something more than excuse.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> It still doesn't make it normal, though. Being attracted to children is something that should ideally be fixed - we're just not quite there due to the sole fact of being a pedophile resulting in a heavy stigma. Though it also should be noted that said stigma was "achieved" by many pedophiles who actually gave up to their urges and went into child molestation, which is something to consider when discussing the topic.


I don't really like bringing up pedophilia in the first place, because I think that misguides the conversation. Like I said earlier, I don't consider it to be a form of pedophilia. I understand why people may think it is, but I've given my reasons for why I think it isn't.

It was a slight tangent, so perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. The point I was trying to get across, though, was that there is a sort of moral panic as soon as the word "pedophile" is used. People can be wrongly called one or they can rightly be called one, but the implication of being called one is that people think they're a disgusting human being that fucks little children. I think that's quite nasty, because ultimately they don't have a choice in the matter about who or what they find attractive; and I don't think it's very fair to make the assumption that they're a baddie who will commit a crime like that. As in, the 'good' pedophiles (the ones who have a sense of morality, who are not sex offenders) get bunched up with the 'bad' pedophiles, leading to an enormous stigma that disallows any of these people to seek help from other people, without being branded a 'degenerate' or a 'deplorable'; or even being punished for a victimless crime.

It's risky to even have any sympathy for these people, because then you're considered as possibly being one yourself; and everyone sticks their fingers in their ears while screaming how awful pedophiles are whenever someone gives the nuance.



Pipistrele said:


> But yet again, cub pornography is a substitute, not a solution. Also, a good argument is that in a way, cub artwork also normalizes and glorifies pedophilia, which is not really something that should be normalized. On one side, cub artwork can keep existing pedos under control (which is a really dubious advantage that speaks of problems with actually finding a solution), but on the other, it can result in more potential pedos who'll find graphic depictions of molestation and underage sex attractive on some level or another (which is not unrealistic, considering how sugar-coated it is in cub/lolicon pornography).


Well, this is kind of assuming that it's some form of pedophilia, which I've contested before, with reasons.

If one is still of the view that it's pedophilia, well I brought up a study earlier in this thread which suggested that, as child pornography is legalised, sexual abuse of children decreases; and this was the confirmed result in every country it has been studied in. In this sense, the legality of child pornography is an exchange between punishing people and decreasing sexual abuse of minors. I value the latter over the former more, with no reservations, or at least when in the context of cub porn since it doesn't have the same implications as real child porn, due to it being fictional. I doubt there is a complete solution to end any sort of wrongdoing in its entirety, but I believe that there are ways to reduce them from occuring.

By "glorifies and normalises" pedophilia, do you mean that people will believe it's not as unacceptable for those types of sexual relationships to occur? That's potentially a good point. That said, I don't think anyone other than people interested in cub porn in the first place view that sort of content; and I wouldn't be so sure that it does normalise it for them. The drawings do not depict real people, which I think is a pretty big aspect to consider.



Pipistrele said:


> Majority of cub porn still caters to people with a knack for minors, with depictions of molestation and "ruining the innocence" being fetishized. With those tropes being so prevalent in both lolicon and cub artwork, it makes me a bit hard to consider the "I just watch cub to fantazise myself as a child" thing as something more than excuse.


I fit into the infantalist/diaper category myself, although to a somewhat lesser degree than some other people (I'll spare the details). I'm not interested in cub porn myself (Interestingly enough, I joined the fandom initially on completely innocent grounds - cute fursuits and a panel at Confuzzled I saw on YouTube), but I do know that for the people I've personally known, who view that content, they were an infantalist before joining the furry fandom. They use their babified fursona and they imagine themselves as that character. The character is imaginery and, to them, does not represent real people - it's instead an outlet for them to visualise a scenario which is impossible for them to otherwise engage in. I don't believe that makes them pedophiles or soon-to-be sex offenders, at all. Pedophiles have a sexual attraction to children, but what I'm describing is a paraphilia, whereby they fantasise being the child.

This is of course anecdotal, but that's the only information I can provide. If you still view it to be pedophilia, I'll maintain that I disagree but there's not much to say beyond this.


----------



## Gryffe (Feb 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Vore is disturbing.  I wish we saw less of it.



So I guess you're against rape-ish artworks, or those who involve mind control and the like as well ? By those definitions, half of the porn is going down because it's too shocking for your liking.

And zooming out of the little picture of cubs, I'm surprised you're even on FA at all, considering the same logic you're so admantly defending can be (and has been) used to link furry porn in general and feral porn in particular to zoophilia. Despite that, I'm not seeing FA going down any time soon.

(Btw, what you're demanding isn't even good as it'll open a big, nasty can of worms. What about pornographic fanarts of characters like Nowi who originate from a non-pornographic work but share the same appeal as cub works ? Are you going to ban that "regular" porn too ? On what basis ?)


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 24, 2018)

Gryffe said:


> So I guess you're against rape-ish artworks, or those who involve mind control and the like as well ? By those definitions, half of the porn is going down because it's too shocking for your liking.
> 
> And zooming out of the little picture of cubs, I'm surprised you're even on FA at all, considering the same logic you're so admantly defending can be (and has been) used to link furry porn in general and feral porn in particular to zoophilia. Despite that, I'm not seeing FA going down any time soon.
> 
> (Btw, what you're demanding isn't even good as it'll open a big, nasty can of worms. What about pornographic fanarts of characters like Nowi who originate from a non-pornographic work but share the same appeal as cub works ? Are you going to ban that "regular" porn too ? On what basis ?)




Feral does boarder the line of zoophilia.  It may even technically be zoophilia.  Difference is that feral porn typically has the excuse that the animals in them are capable of giving consent.  The big reason that isn't allowed irl is because animals cannot properly consent to sex.

However, as I said a million times, children are capable of communicating and they still cannot consent.

I'm also confused about what you find so unreasonable.  I don't like rape-ish art or pornography.  Don't you?


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Feral does boarder the line of zoophilia.  It may even technically be zoophilia.  Difference is that feral porn typically has the excuse that the animals in them are capable of giving consent.  The big reason that isn't allowed irl is because animals cannot properly consent to sex.
> 
> However, as I said a million times, children are capable of communicating and they still cannot consent.
> 
> I'm also confused about what you find so unreasonable.  I don't like rape-ish art or pornography.  Don't you?


Let's ignore the labels for a second.

Is there a definite, non-speculative reason to believe harm is caused by creating this type of content, given that the scenario depicted is fictional?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 24, 2018)

Lcs said:


> Let's ignore the labels for a second.
> 
> Is there a definite, non-speculative reason to believe harm is caused by creating this type of content, given that the scenario depicted is fictional?



Right, because people need to be physically harmed to consider something ethical or nonethical... 

Let's ignore all semblance of mental damage that could be done to those who have experienced molestation, the disrespect and shame it shows to them, that the horrific acts of child molestation is fetishized in such a way.  Let's ignore the societal damages it can cause if it was used in any context outside of the fandom.  Let's ignore the damages it does to the reputability of the fandom itself, because I'm sure everyone would love furries so much more if they saw a glimpse of this; as I'm sure anyone who feels negatively toward this stuff are just bigots and have no good reason to despise depictions of children being molested by adults.

Is it more probable that the disgust toward these depictions are unreasonable or that you simply question what's right and wrong when you shouldn't, or that your view of right and wrong are too simplistic.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 24, 2018)

*picture of bug eyed anime character that looks like a prepubescent child in a sexual situation*

Artist: This character is 18+  Im not a pedophile  Im just whacking it to this drawing of an 18+ character that happens to look like toddler  perfectly ok


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right, because people need to be physically harmed to consider something ethical or nonethical...
> 
> Let's ignore all semblance of mental damage that could be done to those who have experienced molestation, the disrespect and shame it shows to them, that the horrific acts of child molestation is fetishized in such a way.  Let's ignore the societal damages it can cause if it was used in any context outside of the fandom.  Let's ignore the damages it does to the reputability of the fandom itself, because I'm sure everyone would love furries so much more if they saw a glimpse of this; as I'm sure anyone who feels negatively toward this stuff are just bigots and have no good reason to despise depictions of children being molested by adults.


I didn't specify that the harm had to be physical anywhere, actually. If that was the impression you got, well it wasn't my intention.

Anyway, it's not like it's being shoved in victims faces as some sort of spiteful or insensitive attack against them. It's there somewhat in the open, if you go to places where there's lots of it, but victims of child sexual abuse aren't the audience who actively looks at it and they aren't supposed to look at it. Like I said earlier too, I think there should be more filtering between that sort of content and innocent stuff, so that one cannot accidentally come across it.

(Another thing to mention is that cub porn doesn't necessarily entail a cub and adult anthro having sex, which would be similar to the typical child sexual abuse scene; it can instead sometimes be something else, like just a naked cub. As in, what you're targeting is one category of cub porn.)

Also, the reputability of the fandom isn't grounds to ban something (either through national legislation or on furry websites), as far as I'm concerned. The fandom arguably already has a bad reputation and cub porn isn't the only reason for that. The implication to the bad reputation, though, is that it can possibly lead to social stigma; but as long as you give information relevant to yourself when describing your interactions with the furry fandom, then this shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 24, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I didn't specify that the harm had to be physical anywhere, actually. If that was the impression you got, well it wasn't my intention.
> 
> *Anyway, it's not like it's being shoved in victims faces as some sort of spiteful or insensitive attack against them. It's there somewhat in the open, if you go to places where there's lots of it, but victims of child sexual abuse aren't the audience who actively looks at it and they aren't supposed to look at it. Like I said earlier too, I think there should be more filtering between that sort of content and innocent stuff, so that one cannot accidentally come across it.*
> 
> ...



The fact that you're STILL defending something that you yourself admit is_ damaging and shaming to those who have actually experienced forms of child abuse or child molestation if they were to view it_ really says something.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> The fact that you're STILL defending something that you yourself admit is_ damaging and shaming to those who have actually experienced forms of child abuse or child molestation if they were to view it_ really says something.


I'm saying that it isn't, because it's not directed towards them and they are not the typical person to view it. 

I also suggested that there should be more filtering, so that they cannot accidentally stumble across it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 24, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I'm saying that it isn't, because it's not directed towards them and they are not the typical person to view it.
> 
> I also suggested that there should be more filtering, so that they cannot accidentally stumble across it.



Right.  There's nothing wrong with cub porn... Just make sure that the wrong people don't see it;  But I assure you, there's nothing wrong with cub porn.  As long as people who have anything negative to say about it keep away....


----------



## Sagt (Feb 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right.  There's nothing wrong with cub porn... Just make sure that the wrong people don't see it;  But I assure you, there's nothing wrong with cub porn.  As long as people who have anything negative to say about it keep away....


Actually, I think there are still some things that can be bad or unpleasant about it, but I wouldn't say they constitute grounds for it to be banned on either a national level (which it is in my country and a number of others, IIRC) or on furry websites.

Also, I haven't said that people can't say negative things about it - they're free to think and say it's gross - instead what I'm saying is that the intention of the work isn't pedophilic and I don't think it should be banned.

And yeah, creators should avoid putting it in the faces of victims of child sexual abuse, since some of them might personally find it disrespectful. Although having said that, it's not like they are the intended audience of this content, or that there's a record of people intentionally shoving in the faces of victims to cause them distress; and even if victims of child molestation can accidentally stumble across some while browsing, there's a preventative solution to this I suggested - more advanced filtering.

Your posts are becoming more and more condescending and snide, so I think it's time for me to leave this conversation now.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 24, 2018)

Lcs said:


> Actually, I think there are still some things that can be bad or unpleasant about it, but I wouldn't say they constitute grounds for it to be banned on either a national level (which it is in my country and a number of others, IIRC) or on furry websites.
> 
> Also, I haven't said that people can't say negative things about it - they're free to think and say it's gross - instead what I'm saying is that the intention of the work isn't pedophilic and I don't think it should be banned.
> 
> ...



It's because it seems to be the only way to see how formulaic and absurd this defense is.

"They're not the intended audience"

So what?  Does that make the creation of it less tone-deaf and tasteless toward those whose suffered through it?  Instead of saying, _"You're right, cub is pretty messed up as a concept, I don't think we should allow it."_ you say, _"We just need to hide it better."
_
If that isn't a twisted sense of logic just to justify its continued existence idk what is.  It's absurd.  Intention means nothing..._  Nothing_.  Results mean more than intent.  If the intent was to roleplay a scenario as a child... that's more of a bedroom kink, not a "create art of a child in sexually vulnerable positions" sort of kink, because one is for yourself, and another is for you and to share.  Which the invention of that means that it's pedophilic in nature, whether the intention was for it to be or not.


----------



## Ginza (Feb 24, 2018)

Cub is fucking weird. I'm sorry, it just is. I may be the most intolerant and subjectively "ignorant" person on the planet to say that, but it's just how I feel. While none of the sexual side of the fandom really appeals to me, some stuff I let slide more than others. I've stated before that while I'm not into it, bondage, paws, etc are all fine really. Weird? yep, but that's no issue. What I do draw the line at is rape, cub, gore, necrophilia, etc. People enjoying things that depict someone being brutally hurt or used, seems awfully suspect to me. Feral can be argued, but I don't consider it all that bad. It depends heavily on context though. Two random dogs going at it, is just weird. They just look like dogs and that's just weird to me. However, some styles and feral story-lines, I give a pass on. It all walks a fine line, and is just weird.

I guess some subjects I'm just super closed-minded on, and this is one. I don't condone it, and don't believe it should be permitted. I also think the argument on it being fictional, is somewhat of a fallacy. Then again though, I suppose all yiff can have this argument made, as it depicts animals. Still, these animals are depicted as fully sentient, consenting, adult humanoid animals *shrugs*


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 24, 2018)

Ginza said:


> Cub is fucking weird. I'm sorry, it just is. I may be the most intolerant and subjectively "ignorant" person on the planet to say that, but it's just how I feel. While none of the sexual side of the fandom really appeals to me, some stuff I let slide more than others. I've stated before that while I'm not into it, bondage, paws, etc are all fine really. Weird? yep, but that's no issue. What I do draw the line at is rape, cub, gore, necrophilia, etc. People enjoying things that depict someone being brutally hurt or used, seems awfully suspect to me. Feral can be argued, but I don't consider it all that bad. It depends heavily on context though. Two random dogs going at it, is just weird. They just look like dogs and that's just weird to me. However, some styles and feral story-lines, I give a pass on. It all walks a fine line, and is just weird.
> 
> I guess some subjects I'm just super closed-minded on, and this is one. I don't condone it, and don't believe it should be permitted. I also think the argument on it being fictional, is somewhat of a fallacy. Then again though, I suppose all yiff can have this argument made, as it depicts animals. Still, these animals are depicted as fully sentient, consenting, adult humanoid animals *shrugs*



I support feral, even non-sentient, because after all, this is something animals actually do. Uh, granted a lot of times they don't do it in _quite _the manner expressed in the art, but whatever.

Compared to cub yiff, however, which literally doesn't occur in any fashion presented in the "art."


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 24, 2018)

Battlechili1 said:


> It probably depends on whether or not said characters appear to be aged up. Basically what they look like. Canonity isn't really important if you aren't following the canon to begin with after all.Except cub doesn't count as child porn to begin with.
> Drawn depictions of child-like characters in pornography is a gray area and legality depends upon your state/country. If you live in the UK, Canada, or Australia, its blatantly illegal, but in the US (where FA is based) its much more complicated. Generally speaking its not _illegal (_and certainly not considered to be child porn) but in some circumstances it might fall under obscenity laws, although that also depends on whether or not said drawings could be said to have artistic merit.
> Some people might cite the PROTECT act as a means of calling it illegal, but portions of that have been deemed unconstitutional in a previous court case. In addition, just as evidence, uncensored content involving lolicon material have been and are being sold in the US (for example, the anime Dance in the Vampire Bund which Funimation initally released censored before deeming it okay to re-release uncut, or the upcoming release of Kodomo no Jikan by a manga pornography company titled Project H that happens to be about an elementary school teacher having a romantic relationship with one of his students. In the US. Uncut.) So if major companies are able to release these things no problem, its even harder to argue that its illegal is it not?
> 
> I would also argue that said drawn depictions aren't immoral either on the basis of them being just that: drawings. Nothing more.



Except fictional content does, and has been proven to, have real life consequences.
Whether real children or not isn't always relevant. 
The fact is, the individual still gets off to kids. They're still sexually attracted to minors, and even if they haven't _yet_ committed a real offense of pedophilia, it's only a matter of time.

You can drop the whole artistic merit argument. We all know that pictures of underage furries or anime characters being raped has no artistic or cultural merit.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 24, 2018)

The hell kind of thread is this?

Cub, like loli, is a grey area. It's not exactly got a good reputation, but I'd much rather have it around than increased abuse of children. Japan is making it work. 

A character may be "canonically" 13-17, but that doesn't mean an artist can't draw them as 18+ and/or make them look more mature. It's porn. Nothing more, nothing less.

I tend to throw it in the heap alongside vore, necrophilia, rape, feral, +++: I stay the fuck away from the degeneracy.


----------



## Ciderfine (Feb 26, 2018)

Many artists do this on here, making 5-9 YO characters with abs, or adult looking anatomy but with creepy as fuck baby faces and soft child like features in the blended mix. You did good by reporting it, but keep reporting it.

Artists on here are the biggest rule breakers because many of them only exist in wanting to have their work remain up and infect the system. Hell I've had artists attack me in every way possible for reporting them for breaking the rules of many kinds. Artists sadly who do this have a cult of delusion that what they do is art and we all have to beat them down again and again until they are bloody broken and understand the rules.

Shit, one time an artist uploaded irl animal masturbation gifs as a "Artistic reference". There is a serious professional issue with cub artwork. Other sites cater to cub but this is not one of them for many a reason. I got a raisin feeling like wine you gonna run into a lot more of the crazies. 

NEVER EVER take their word for granted, people in the fandom are cruel, sick manipulative fucks like a few pedos I sadly ran into. Safe haven this aint.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 9, 2018)

Nastala said:


> (real) child porn is illegal because making it is sexual abuse of a child, and not because it is obscene. Cub porn is just drawing.


Wins thread.


----------



## DinoVore (Mar 13, 2018)

Erethzium said:


> I reported porn of a canon character who is canonically a child, and the mod response was "it could be aged up".
> 
> ...so it's okay to upload cub porn as long as you don't explicitly say it's cub? Even if the character is canonically a child, you can upload it as long as you don't say that it's underage?



Well, that is unfair as I got hit for ONE or so items that broke the rules (didn't know that it applied to animals and thought it had been just to humans) and loads of them that were legitimately aged up were pulled as well.  Had a clean record and suddenly got a week ban on all accounts and a final warning (which usually is what comes before a perma ban).  Talk about nuts! 

I actually posted a thread showing how I felt that, perhaps because a rival vore writer wanted me out of the way, I seemed singled out.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Wins thread.



Nice opinion.  How about next time actually participate in the thread rather than confirm your own beliefs.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

I stand by my post.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

I hear alot of furries throwing the word "Size difference". Oh boy


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 13, 2018)

DinoVore said:


> Well, that is unfair as I got hit for ONE or so items that broke the rules (didn't know that it applied to animals and thought it had been just to humans) and loads of them that were legitimately aged up were pulled as well. Had a clean record and suddenly got a week ban on all accounts and a final warning (which usually is what comes before a perma ban). Talk about nuts!


Honestly, that's on you for not reading the rules carefully; AUP 2.7 explicitly mentions that "minors" includes adolescent animals. The immediate escalation to final warning is also covered in AUP:


			
				Acceptable Upload Policy section 7.3 said:
			
		

> *7.3 Escalation*
> Violations of the following sections may be escalated immediately to the 4th Offense Level: 2.4, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5. These sections have been highlighted for your convenience.


(2.7 used to be 2.12, so there's a mistake in the numbering, but the highlighting is there on 2.7, and the number is correct in the plain English version.)


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> I stand by my post.



Strange, considering the post was really just a condescending way of saying "I agree with this person".


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Am I not allowed to agree with someone? I feel like that short sentence summed the entire discussion up concisely. Feel free to add to the discussion if you disagree, after all; that's what you just ribbed me for isn't it?

I'd rather have _you_ consider me to be strange than be intolerant of other people drawing imaginary things on a website and sharing it.

That I find very hypocritical considering you participate in this community.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Am I not allowed to agree with someone? I feel like that short sentence summed the entire discussion up concisely. Feel free to add to the discussion if you disagree, after all; that's what you just ribbed me for isn't it?
> 
> I'd rather have _you_ consider me to be strange than be intolerant of other people drawing imaginary things on a website and sharing it.
> 
> That I find very hypocritical considering you participate in this community.



My apologies; I didn't know you were the gatekeeper of the furry fandom.

First of all, I've been debunking that point for three whole pages.  So I've already made the arguments against.

Second of all, fiction doesn't equal imaginary.  Child molestation does exist.  It's not some myth.  You must agree.  Why should I be tolerant of disgusting images of children in obscene scenes and sexual acts?  That's the problem with tolerance; can't even think for yourself.

You're calling me a hypocrite, again, I'm sorry if you were the appointed gatekeeper of the fandom.  This statement embodies precisely  what's wrong with this fandom.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Not sure where you think you're going with this gatekeeper nonsense.

Like you said, this stuff exists and I agree it's awful and anyone with human decency wouldn't tolerate it if could be helped.

But it's not as prevalent as you make it out to be. I don't almost ever see it. Maybe that's because I ignore it, along with all the other nonsense that doesn't interest me. I must be using the internet wrong, because it seems to be a major problem for you.

As for debunking for 3 pages, you're not going to convince me that someone choosing the imaginary drawing side of child molestation is isn't the lesser evil among the two focal points of the single sentence quote in my post. Again:


Nastala said:


> (real) child porn is illegal because making it is sexual abuse of a child, and not because it is obscene. Cub porn is just drawing.



I agree with this. This is my point of view. Nothing I've seen has proven this statement false in this thread. Would you care to *ADD* to the discussion or are you more concerned about whether or not _I have_. I don't feel I need to but you seem to prefer to dictate not only what fashion other people are allowed to post in this topic while not applying the same standard to yourself, but also what imaginary BS people should be allowed to submit on their profiles with nothing other than a casual attachment to the situation no greater than any other user's.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Not sure where you think you're going with this gatekeeper nonsense.
> 
> Like you said, this stuff exists and I agree it's awful and anyone with human decency wouldn't tolerate it if could be helped.
> 
> ...



Your previous argument accused me of hypocrasy and intolerance;

"I'd rather have _you_ consider me to be strange than be intolerant of other people drawing imaginary things on a website and sharing it."

And because you called me a hypocrite "Considering I was a part of the community" you seem to assume what the furry fandom wants and desires, thrusting yourself forward as an unelected representative of the fandom.  Hence, a gatekeeper, as though you can determine who should or shouldn't be in the fandom, or who is or isn't worthy of being in the fandom.

You go on to say that cub is a lesser evil to molestation.  I never said it wasnt.  But that doesn't mean it isn't simply evil or tasteless or wrong on its own.  Saying one thing is okay because something worse exists is like saying it's okay to take money out of someone's wallet because it's not as bad as a full scale house burglary.

Cub is depicting something in a positive light that should never be done in a positive light.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Let me help you understand the actual context of what was said.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Your previous argument accused me of hypocrasy and intolerance;
> 
> "I'd rather have _you_ consider me to be strange than be intolerant of other people drawing imaginary things on a website and sharing it."
> 
> And because you called me a hypocrite "Considering I was a part of the community" you seem to assume what the furry fandom wants and desires, thrusting yourself forward as an unelected representative of the fandom.  Hence, a gatekeeper, as though you can determine who should or shouldn't be in the fandom, or who is or isn't worthy of being in the fandom.



You misunderstood.

I consider you a hypocrite because you are part of a group who is frowned upon for creating unconventional artworks, and frowning on others for creating (albiet deplorable) unconventional artworks.

You don't like it so you don't want other people doing it; however noble you think your reasoning is for feeling the need to stifle other people's right to create what they want. You don't have to look at it. I don't. Point your eyes at one of the other billions of things that exist in the universe if it bothers you so much.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> You go on to say that cub is a lesser evil to molestation.  I never said it wasnt.  But that doesn't mean it isn't simply evil or tasteless or wrong on its own.  *Saying one thing is okay because something worse exists is like saying it's okay to take money out of someone's wallet because it's not as bad as a full scale house burglary.*
> 
> Cub is depicting something in a positive light that should never be done in a positive light.



I never said it was positive. Nice try?

Anything else or have you nothing left for substance having used all your effort on semantics? Still waiting for you to tell me why me quoting a sound opinion which has yet to be debunked is not allowed in this topic. You seemed to take offense, calling me out the way you did. Should I like your posts? Did you want likes? I'll like them for you if that's what this is about because you haven't shown any substance so far that I feel I should take as anything other than bitching and moaning about what other perverse fucks are drawing. Who cares? We're furries and a lot of weird stuff on this site can't be found in any other fandom so it becomes a cesspool. We've all accepted that. Deal with it because it isn't going to go away because you don't like it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Let me help you understand the actual context of what was said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How am I a hypocrite?  It sounds like you're suggesting I have to accept all unconventional works in order to not be hypocritical.  How does having an opinion about certain things make me a hypocrite?

Furthermore, your solution for people creating detestable displays and shining child sexuality in a positive light is to... ignore it?  Turn a blind eye to something that is clearly wrong?  Fantastic solution.

All this isn't reasoning.  This is you making excuses for other people's wrong behaviors and justification for you not doing anything about it.

_"We're furries, we're fucked up we just got to accept it."_

Bull.  Shit.  And you wonder why even other furries despise this fandom.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

You're right. I'm ignoring it, and it's not a solution.

I don't think there's a solution to whatever we could consider this problem to be that will fix whether or not people molest kids other than paying our taxes and hoping the cops take care of them before someone actually does something like what's depicted in this sort of artwork. I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that taking the ability for someone to let off steam harmlessly away from them would have a positive outcome. I think it would just frustrate them into actually doing something.

Another thing to mention is sometimes the stuff depicted is just a passive interest in the concept.

The things I'm into online are despicable. I enjoy the concepts/ideology behind all sorts of things that would horrify me in actuality. I'd prefer it if those sorts of things remained virtual. Then myself and others can ignore them if need be and no one gets hurt.

I think having outlets is a good deterrent to actual criminal behavior. The other half of the argument being that these works glorify those acts, which is an opinion you seem to share. (Without needlessly quoting you.). Do you feel the same about violent movies and video games? How about marijuana prohibition and prostitution? It's proven that making something taboo is a great way to also make it more exciting and appealing to those who are curious. Obviously those mainstream things are more parallel than related, but the point I'd like to extract from those examples is that media isn't responsible for people's behavior. People mentally unfit to abide by societal norms aren't doing those things because something else convinced them to; it exists inside of them to begin with.

I apologize for getting a little heated. I'm distracted at work, hasty, and I'm being unnecessarily abrasive. Those are bad excuses. I just don't think it's healthy to opress these urges if there's a harmless way to imbibe in them.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> You're right. I'm ignoring it, and it's not a solution.
> 
> I don't think there's a solution to whatever we could consider this problem to be that will fix whether or not people molest kids other than paying our taxes and hoping the cops take care of them before someone actually does something like what's depicted in this sort of artwork. I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that taking the ability for someone to let off steam harmlessly away from them would have a positive outcome. I think it would just frustrate them into actually doing something.
> 
> ...



I've said this previously; if a person has to rely on porn to keep them from committing crimes, then I'm more concerned about getting them actual professional help.

Not all pedophiles who view this are criminal, they know their desire is wrong.  And as stated above most draw these as depictions of fantasy rather than any actual desire to bone children.  Furthermore, we haven't had this widespread access to porn very long.  We don't know it's full concequences yet.

I'll also apologize for getting heated.  I got on you originally because I saw the agreement of another's point done in a condensending way, as though anything else I've said throughout the thread hasn't mattered, at least by the "Wins thread" statement.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Fair nuff.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Fair nuff.



I also want to point out; violent media is an entirely different beast.

First we have to determine whether violence in itself is bad, and it's not.  Whether it's investigating the mind of a serial killer, delving deep into the tragedies of war, or shooting the shit out of demons, there is explicit purpose in the violence that isn't just random.  There's also a biological factor... I mean, who hasn't played cops and robbers or ghost in the graveyard as a kid, especially as a male?  Those aren't really peaceful, they're competitive and reenact violence.  You don't see kids reenacting sexual behaviors.  Violence digs deeper into psychological reasoning behind it.  Sex does not, sex has a far more explicit purpose.

Violence can be made with purpose.  Games like Hatred are loathed because of its senseless and brutal violence; the goal in that game is to murder as many innocent people as possible in multiple brutal fashions.  It's not trying to tell us anything or tell a story.

Sure it may be interesting to delve deep into the mind of a psychopath but that isn't how the game is marketed.  It's marketed to be edgy.  That's why it was hated.

Sex us the same way.  If it's senseless people find it of poor taste.

So when people make these media, there had to be explicit purpose behind it.  The meaning behind violence justifies it's existence.  If it was just senseless and trying to take itself seriously, then yeah that crosses a line.

Cub is incapable of having that flexibility because child molestation, as a real thing, us not a subject that can be shined in a positive light.  Violence is rarely shined in positivity, and if it is it's typically ending up like Hatred.  It's seen as dirty, necessary, but justified... unless you're depicting the effects of childhood trauma from sexual acts as a kid, media involving pedophilia doesn't have the same justifications.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

I agree. That's why I mentioned it runs parallel as opposed to being directly related. I meant those examples mostly serve as society's scapegoat. It shifts blame from the actual mental instability of the person who would be willing to act upon those inherent desires, which I don't feel is fair if the intention as you say was to convey a purpose.

All the same, an outlet to me is the most reasonable way to deflect those desires.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> I agree. That's why I mentioned it runs parallel as opposed to being directly related. I meant those examples mostly serve as society's scapegoat. It shifts blame from the actual mental instability of the person who would be willing to act upon those inherent desires, which I don't feel is fair if the intention as you say was to convey a purpose.
> 
> All the same, an outlet to me is the most reasonable way to deflect those desires.



Right but that outlet doesn't necessarily need to be a thing of similar concept.  An outlet for a pedophile doesn't need to be pedo-like porn.

It can be a hobby, anything which allows you to put energy to something else.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

I suppose. Though it would be hard to convince someone who makes this stuff not to without an actual reason why they can't. They can and that's all there is to it. I'd rather let them have their nasty little part of the internet and leave them be as the rest of society does with furries.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> I suppose. Though it would be hard to convince someone who makes this stuff not to without an actual reason why they can't. They can and that's all there is to it. I'd rather let them have their nasty little part of the internet and leave them be as the rest of society does with furries.



Well, being a furry doesn't raise a paliphera of ethical questions.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It can be a hobby, anything which allows you to put energy to something else.


The thing is sexual interest is a different field of interest from hobbies as you put it.
Having these people interested in say video games doesn't curb their desire to abuse children
In fact this approach only serves to ignore the problem


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> The thing is sexual interest is a different field of interest from hobbies as you put it.
> Having these people interested in say video games doesn't curb their desire to abuse children
> In fact this approach only serves to ignore the problem



It doesn't mean you can't have accountability partners, professional help, and so on.

But pornography is a bandaid fix.  Feeding the sexual proclivity doesn't make it go away.  However extensive and willing abstinence has shown to help alleviate desires in time.

Willingly abstaining from a certain sexual desire is not repression.  It's not the absolute smothering of sexual desire.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Maybe the people who do this are closeted because they are ashamed and feel helpless. This could be their only way of dealing with it without acting on those desires. (I believe you acknowledged this earlier.) You can't expect someone getting away with criminal behavior to just turn themselves in willingly because it's the right thing to do according to the views of society that they can't help not sharing.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Maybe the people who do this are closeted because they are ashamed and feel helpless. This could be their only way of dealing with it without acting on those desires. (I believe you acknowledged this earlier.) You can't expect someone getting away with criminal behavior to just turn themselves in willingly because it's the right thing to do according to the views of society that they can't help not sharing.



Maybe.  I'm not one to assume the worst in people just because hey have a certain sexual attraction.

Ironically, even in this argument it stigmatizes pedophiles by assuming the worst.

Pornography, especially if drawn, gets boring after a while.  I don't trust it to be a tenable solution for the long term.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Well if you felt you had no other way and drawing your ideal scenario as opposed to doing any other sort of act was what you chose, it still seems best. Why take that away?

I'm into inflation, fatfurs, stench and musk, mild scat, trans, gays, small weens, lisps, clothed orgasms, etc. I could go on and on. I could never adequately explain myself to a normal person and nothing reasonably good would come of it if I were to try, but FA gives me way to indulge in the concepts without affecting anyone else in reality and I feel that's healthy. (Mind you the furry cesspool got me into nearly all of it. I had originally just been interested in fat chicks and weight gain.)

You can't help what you desire. Unfortunately some desires can't be acted upon so what can you honestly expect a person with something truly shameful that they're forced to keep to themselves to do about it?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

Like Yakamaru said and I can atest to it, Japan is a perfect example of using drawn porn as an outlet. Though I cannot say if this works outside Japan as there are other factors that gave Japan its low crime rate


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Like Yakamaru said and I can atest to it, Japan is a perfect example of using drawn porn as an outlet. Though I cannot say if this works outside Japan as there are other factors that gave Japan its low crime rate



You'd have to assume a high proportion of Japanese are pedophilia crimes which were altered by it.

Japan also has a very very low age of consent.  I think it's like, 12 now.

All that being said, I don't think we should look toward Japan as prime examples.  I highly doubt that Loli leads to low crime rate.  Loli doesnt prevent crime like theft.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You'd have to assume a high proportion of Japanese are pedophilia crimes which were altered by it.
> 
> Japan also has a very very low age of consent.  I think it's like, 12 now.
> 
> All that being said, I don't think we should look toward Japan as prime examples.  I highly doubt that Loli leads to low crime rate.  Loli doesnt prevent crime like theft.



How do we know it doesn't?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Second of all, fiction doesn't equal imaginary. Child molestation does exist. It's not some myth.


Fiction by definition means it's made up. Most/all literature (depending on where you draw the line for defining "literature") is fiction. The opressive systems portrayed in _Oliver Twist_ did exist, but that doesn't make the story of young Oliver any less a product of Dickens's imagination. That child molestation exists doesn't mean every fictional portrayal of it is documenting real instances of child sexual abuse. The point that @Nastala made and @Dongding agreed with is that child pornography, defined as photographic or video material containing sexually explicit imagery of children, is by its nature documenting a crime. There is a real victim out there somewhere. If we accept that this is the primary reason for outlawing child pornography (that it cannot be produced without a crime being committed _aside_ from the production of child pornography), then it logically follows that there's no real reason to make fictional depictions_ illegal_. That this is the rationale is largely supported by what other types of pornography are illegal - snuff, torture porn, bestiality. Whether the drawn/rendered artwork is moral/ethical to produce/host/consume is a completely different matter.

Far as I'm concerned child pornography laws should be rewritten from the ground up to instead be prohibitions/regulations of _any_ material documenting criminal activity above a certain threshold. Kids filming their mates kicking the snot out of someone? Spreading that video should be illegal. (This would also neatly solve the awkward issue of those completely innocent but undeniably nude baby photos Mommy took when Baby had his first bath. Or the sexting teens who may under current US law end up being labeled as sex offenders for life for sending/receiving nude selfies with their same-age boy/girlfriend.)



ResolutionBlaze said:


> First we have to determine whether violence in itself is bad, and it's not. Whether it's investigating the mind of a serial killer, delving deep into the tragedies of war, or shooting the shit out of demons, there is explicit purpose in the violence that isn't just random.


That violence is not in itself inherently bad is a completely arbitrary determination that you've made based on your own values. Which are colored by growing up in a culture that normalizes violence. There are plenty of well-received games where what I would say can only really be described as "bad" violence is a core part of gameplay. Just look at GTA.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> You don't see kids reenacting sexual behaviors.


Actually, yes, kids do, in multiple cultures, and they grow up absolutely fine. And honestly, "playing doctor" is a precursor to reenactment of sexual behaviors. The reason we don't see it much in western culture is because we punish any hint of it, deeply ingraining in children that their genitals are something dirty and shameful. Realistically, your feet are going to be dirtier than your crotch, but we don't have a problem with kids touching their feet and babies sucking on their toes are generally subject to lots of wooed cooing. It's an arbitrary cultural boundary. Just like your acceptance of violence.

Note that I'm not saying "kids should have sex and we should watch" by any of this. I'm saying that you're very obviously basing your reasoning on an underlying sex-negative, violence-positive attitude that's all too common in the US. Child porn is still bad. Cub porn should still not be posted to FA because the rules say it is not welcome.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right but that outlet doesn't necessarily need to be a thing of similar concept. An outlet for a pedophile doesn't need to be pedo-like porn.
> 
> It can be a hobby, anything which allows you to put energy to something else.


That's ignoring the way people actually function to an alarming degree. Very few people can substitute non-sexual activities for sexual gratification in the long term. Not indulging sexual desire may temper/slow a person's sex drive, but if that was all it took to erase sexual desire altogether we'd likely have gone extinct by now. Honestly your arguments strike me as problematically sex-shamey along with being pretty naïve.

Kinks don't just go away, and many or most pedophiles (leaving aside the point that not every person who enjoys cub porn is a pedophile for the time being) don't just have their attraction to children as a "kink", but as a sometimes-exclusive sexual preference. That's considerably stronger. As any other creature on Earth that reproduces sexually, sexuality _is_ a base urge for most people at _least_ as much as competition (which really is an extension of reproduction instinct to the best of my understanding) or violence. 

Yes, in an ideal world they could safely seek help to safely deal with their urges. I know I've mentioned a couple times before on this forum, I believe it may even have been in this thread (but my laptop hates me right now so I'm not opening more tabs to check), that reality is far from that ideal world. Pedophilia is, far as our society is concerned, basically a thought crime.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You'd have to assume a high proportion of Japanese are pedophilia crimes which were altered by it.
> 
> Japan also has a very very low age of consent.  I think it's like, 12 now.
> 
> All that being said, I don't think we should look toward Japan as prime examples.  I highly doubt that Loli leads to low crime rate.  Loli doesnt prevent crime like theft.



You know I meant child abuse but whatever
You are technically correct on the national age of consent but each municipality have their own law on age of consent in Tokyo where I live it's still 18.
Loli is heavy marketed in japan that and along multiple depraved pornography only the sick mind can think of but despite all this Japan is rated 1.0 for rape statistics (2010) in comparison to United States 27.3 rating (2010) thought to be fair there has been a decreasing trend of rape cases in America 
Rape statistics - Wikipedia
I'm not even going to mention the alarming increase of virgins in japan over the age of 40 and it's decreasing population.
Drawn porn is plausible but like I said, there are many factors to consider if we're taking this route


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

The fact that pedophilia even exists indicates a serious fault in our evolutionary programming somewhere.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> The fact that pedophilia even exists indicates a serious fault in our evolutionary programming somewhere.


bonobo chimpanzees exhibit cases of pedophilia but the minors act as willing participants.
Ofc humans have transcended beyond monkeys so it's still something terrible


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> The fact that pedophilia even exists indicates a serious fault in our evolutionary programming somewhere.


I don't know that it's been established to be a genetic thing? Evolution can't really do much about sex maps getting warped due to whatever wonkiness before and during the early years of puberty.



Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> bonobo chimpanzees exhibit cases of pedophilia but the minors act as willing participants.
> Ofc humans have transcended beyond monkeys so it's still something terrible


Bonobos are not monkeys >(
Also if you're a bonobo sex does solve literally all social conflicts, so... :V


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> bonobo chimpanzees exhibit cases of pedophilia but the minors act as willing participants.
> Ofc humans have transcended beyond monkeys so it's still something terrible



Very rare in other species. It's not reproductively valid behavior. With humans even with supposed "consent" from the minor it still causes psychological damage.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I don't know that it's been established to be a genetic thing? Evolution can't really do much about sex maps getting warped due to whatever wonkiness before and during the early years of puberty.
> 
> 
> Bonobos are not monkeys >(
> Also if you're a bonobo sex does solve literally all social conflicts, so... :V



Everything about us is a genetic thing. Or, genetics lays the basis from sociological behaviors to springboard from. Only hypoethes I know of to explain pedophilia is that when female humans developed a concealed estrus, males became confused and resorted to sometimes banging kids because they couldn't figure out when a female was reproductively available. Which is honestly a terrible hypothesis that blames women and doesn't seem to hold a whole lot of water. Basically we're the horniest species around and sometimes we get fucked up, I think that's a good hypothesis.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Very rare in other species. It's not reproductively valid behavior.


Depends on what age span you're looking at, tbh. The closer you get to puberty the more commonly you'll see it in the animal kingdom, basically. (And once you hit puberty it's not pedophilia anymore by the definition of the word.) Sure, not reproductively valid, but neither is humping stuffed toys (or other inanimate surrogates) or same-sex pair bonding, and we see those in a lot of species.



BahgDaddy said:


> Everything about us is a genetic thing. Or, genetics lays the basis from sociological behaviors to springboard from.


Susceptibility to certain stressors which result in abnormal sexual wiring, sure. But blaming it on evolution rather than acknowledging that we may have shaped society into something that provokes such paraphilias doesn't follow. We cannot (to the best of my knowledge) say for sure that, for instance, pedophilia occurred among hunter-gatherer humans, prior to the advent of agriculture. If a hypothetical genetic trigger caused little or no ill effect until evolutionary pressure on the species lessened, then evolution has no hand in the paraphilia/behavior. (A gene would also have to be dominant and consistently expressed to reliably get bred out of a population even if it was disadvantageous and the species was under high evolutionary pressure - we still have hemophilia in the species ffs.)

But yes. It basically amounts to "sometimes we get fucked up". I just don't believe we have the data to support blaming that one on evolution.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Mar 13, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Like Yakamaru said and I can atest to it, Japan is a perfect example of using drawn porn as an outlet. Though I cannot say if this works outside Japan as there are other factors that gave Japan its low crime rate



Mmm... no.
It doesn't work as an outlet, it works as a free pass for people to create a pedophile-safe culture. 
There are vending machines that sell schoolgirl's panties, the age of consent is something ridiculous like 14.
In no way is it stopping offending pedophiles; it's breeding them.

You don't see this in countries with a higher age of consent and a ban on child porn.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Depends on what age span you're looking at, tbh. The closer you get to puberty the more commonly you'll see it in the animal kingdom, basically. (And once you hit puberty it's not pedophilia anymore by the definition of the word.) Sure, not reproductively valid, but neither is humping stuffed toys (or other inanimate surrogates) or same-sex pair bonding, and we see those in a lot of species.
> 
> 
> Susceptibility to certain stressors which result in abnormal sexual wiring, sure. But blaming it on evolution rather than acknowledging that we may have shaped society into something that provokes such paraphilias doesn't follow. We cannot (to the best of my knowledge) say for sure that, for instance, pedophilia occurred among hunter-gatherer humans, prior to the advent of agriculture. If a hypothetical genetic trigger caused little or no ill effect until evolutionary pressure on the species lessened, then evolution has no hand in the paraphilia/behavior. (A gene would also have to be dominant and consistently expressed to reliably get bred out of a population even if it was disadvantageous and the species was under high evolutionary pressure - we still have hemophilia in the species ffs.)
> ...



It's possible sexual repression leads to pedophilia. I would say pedophilia was rather more common in repressed areas where I am from than where I live now. But I think that explains everything either.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Mmm... no.
> It doesn't work as an outlet, it works as a free pass for people to create a pedophile-safe culture.
> There are vending machines that sell schoolgirl's panties, the age of consent is something ridiculous like 14.
> In no way is it stopping offending pedophiles; it's breeding them.
> ...


In your own honest opinion, how many of these pedophiles that draw cub porn do you think haven't actually acted upon their urges and molested a real child?

How many people that spank to that porn do you think haven't actually acted up their urges and molested a real child?

If you came up with a number higher than zero, I would say that it's worth it just as an outlet alone to keep them busy doing that instead of actually acting upon their urges and molesting children.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> In your own honest opinion, how many of these pedophiles that draw cub porn do you think haven't actually acted upon their urges and molested a real child?
> 
> How many people that spank to that porn do you think haven't actually acted up their urges and molested a real child?
> 
> If you came up with a number higher than zero, I would say that it's worth it just as an outlet alone to keep them busy doing that instead of actually acting upon their urges and molesting children.



Few, if any. And those that haven't_ yet _assaulted a child probably still think about it.

But my point is that the porn is not preventing these numbers; it's encouraging them. 
Because if they're allowed to have that porn, they're validated. It's basically telling them hey, it's perfectly okay if you get off to the fantasy of raping children!

They don't need an outlet, they don't need a "compromise" and they sure as hell don't need to be comfortable.
If someone wants to fuck kids, the only thing they need is a permanent jail sentence; and death if they have actually assaulted a child.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Well a bunch of sexually frustrated would-be child rapists with absolutely no legal way to deal with their urges doesn't sound good to me either.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Well a bunch of sexually frustrated would-be child rapists with absolutely no legal way to deal with their urges doesn't sound good to me either.



You're not getting it.
If child porn and sexualization of children didn't exist, there would most likely be none. It's the material that creates pedophiles.

I don't believe that, in a better society where kids aren't sexualized, people would just become pedophiles out of the blue. It doesn't work like that.

For the same reason that "ass to mouth" was considered disgusting by almost everyone, until today's mainstream porn, and now even 15 year old boys are trying to coerce their girlfriends into doing shit like that.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

You're too certain.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

Also come on. You're suggesting the media you view determines your sexuality. It's the other way around.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Mmm... no.
> It doesn't work as an outlet, it works as a free pass for people to create a pedophile-safe culture.
> There are vending machines that sell schoolgirl's panties, the age of consent is something ridiculous like 14.
> In no way is it stopping offending pedophiles; it's breeding them.
> ...


I understand how you feel, I'm not entirely a fan of all the shebang but issue of pedophilia didn't get any better with what the Standard is doing now. We should be open to all option


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Also come on. You're suggesting the media you view determines your sexuality. It's the other way around.



Media does actually have an impact on behaviour, and pedophilia isn't a sexuality.
A sexuality is being straight, bisexual or gay.
Pedophilia is a dangerous disorder, nothing more.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

I'll compromise with it being inbetween a sexuality and a fetish. We're all talking out of our bums anyways.


----------



## JJPaw (Mar 13, 2018)

Cub is self-explanatory. If a cub is like a child to animal. Then that's what it is. Don't know why people want to try finding the middle ground or even questioning it is crazy. But then again I think it's between pedophile sympathizers and closet pedos who would defend this kind of cub stuff and think it's age don't matter or assumed it's age up.

Let's stop blurring things here please.

www.furaffinity.net: Not a Toy... by PaciPup <---- Cub
www.furaffinity.net: Mary's little lamb by Loupylupine <---- Fetish-related cub porn


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

JJPaw said:


> Cub is self-explanatory. If a cub is like a child to animal. Then that's what it is. Don't know why people want to try finding the middle ground or even questioning it is crazy. But then again I think it's between pedophile sympathizers and closet pedos who would defend this kind of cub stuff and think it's age don't matter or assumed it's age up.
> 
> Let's stop blurring things here please.
> 
> ...



I would hesitate to call them pedophiles if they like the art. I'll be honest, some of it is rather attractive - of course, its drawn to be that way, which is quite worrisome, and I don't deliberately peruse it. However if I see a piece of it I don't go "oh hey think I'll do diddle a kiddo now."


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Well a bunch of sexually frustrated would-be child rapists with absolutely no legal way to deal with their urges doesn't sound good to me either.



Why do you continuously assume that every pedophile is a would-be child rapist?

I was molested by a fourteen year old gay teen.  He wasn't a pedophile.

I knew a pedophile who has never seriously condoned his own attraction.  I didn't know him too well but I did talk with him for a bit.

You can't talk about how scared pedophiles are to get professional help because of stigmatization, then proceed to stigmatize them.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I would hesitate to call them pedophiles if they like the art. I'll be honest, some of it is rather attractive - of course, its drawn to be that way, which is quite worrisome, and I don't deliberately peruse it. However if I see a piece of it I don't go "oh hey think I'll do diddle a kiddo now."



Yet.

Pornography is still in its infant stages to this degree.  We aren't sure what long term effects are on generations yet.  I worry what the results could be.

Considering I've attempted homosexual activities because of gay furry porn, this has me concerned about what overexposure to really damaging stuff could do, especially to the younger ones who have more time to be exposed.

But I don't have anything on that subject.  Just musings.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Why do you continuously assume that every pedophile is a would-be child rapist?
> 
> I was molested by a fourteen year old gay teen.  He wasn't a pedophile.
> 
> ...



Correct, pedophiles aren't harmful unless they act on those impulses. At which point, they should promptly be locked up or something. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yet.
> 
> Pornography is still in its infant stages to this degree.  We aren't sure what long term effects are on generations yet.  I worry what the results could be.
> 
> ...



Well, you've probably had those impulses before, or were simply unwilling to try it until you saw others doing it in a healthy manner. I don't think the argument that cub porn is going to actually craft pedophiles holds too much water. Granted I'm glad FA kicked that stuff out, or I probably wouldn't even use this site...


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Why do you continuously assume that every pedophile is a would-be child rapist?


I was going to an extreme since that was the cut of clay I was working with in order to emphasize with Kill.Maim since that was his perception of what a pedophile seemed to be. I was _relating.
_
Up until that point I had only refered to pedophiles as people with an urge/desire to molest children. (Unless I'm mistaken. You can point it out if I'm wrong but if I had it wasn't my intent.)


----------



## JJPaw (Mar 13, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I would hesitate to call them pedophiles if they like the art. I'll be honest, some of it is rather attractive - of course, its drawn to be that way, which is quite worrisome, and I don't deliberately peruse it. However if I see a piece of it I don't go "oh hey think I'll do diddle a kiddo now."



Then what's the justification in liking it? What's there to like about it?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 13, 2018)

JJPaw said:


> Then what's the justification in liking it? What's there to like about it?



I... don't actually really know.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

JJPaw said:


> Don't know why people want to try finding the middle ground or even questioning it is crazy. But then again I think it's between pedophile sympathizers and closet pedos who would defend this kind of cub stuff and think it's age don't matter or assumed it's age up.



I do not have the energy to be worked up as most people when it comes to tackling issues of pedophilia nor do I have the position to feign anger at these people. people who have not acted on child abuse does not warrant my hatred only my indifference. If this translate to me being a pedo sympathizer then we have ourselves a problem


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I do not have the energy to be worked up as most people when it comes to tackling issues of pedophilia nor do I have the position to feign anger at these people. people who have not acted on child abuse does not warrant my hatred only my indifference. If this translate to me being a pedo sympathizer then we have ourselves a problem



There's a difference between being indifferent and turning a blind eye.

We shouldn't be turning blind eyes to things we haven't discussed the ethics of.  And I don't think we've maturely discussed it in the fandom.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 13, 2018)

Dongding said:


> I was going to an extreme since that was the cut of clay I was working with in order to emphasize with Kill.Maim since that was his perception of what a pedophile seemed to be. I was _relating.
> _
> Up until that point I had only refered to pedophiles as people with an urge/desire to molest children. (Unless I'm mistaken. You can point it out if I'm wrong but if I had it wasn't my intent.)



Having an attraction to children doesn't mean you have the_ urge to molest_ children.  Those are different things.

Just because a guy gets a boner doesn't mean he has an urge to rape someone, not consciously at least.

Unconsciously is a different issue but as far as I'm concerned pedophiles aren't consciously having an urge to molest children always on their mind.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> There's a difference between being indifferent and turning a blind eye.
> We shouldn't be turning blind eyes to things we haven't discussed the ethics of.  And I don't think we've maturely discussed it in the fandom.



Not being impassioned about this issue does not mean I'm turning a blind eye.  It means I am well capable of telling people that child abuse is bad without trying to murder them


----------



## Cawdabra (Mar 13, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> If someone wants to fuck kids, the only thing they need is a permanent jail sentence; and death if they have actually assaulted a child.


You want to permanently lock up someone who hasn't even done anything? That's dangerous territory.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 13, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Having an attraction to children doesn't mean you have the_ urge to molest_ children.  Those are different things.
> 
> Just because a guy gets a boner doesn't mean he has an urge to rape someone, not consciously at least.
> 
> Unconsciously is a different issue but as far as I'm concerned pedophiles aren't consciously having an urge to molest children always on their mind.


I'm not sure what sort of attraction you think they have toward the children in question then. Pedophilia is pretty black and white.

Any sort of relationship a pedophile wants to have with a child, the child is most likely not physically or emotionally equipped to deal with. If it has nothing to do with sexual urges that a child couldn't possibly adequately reciprocate, then it isn't even pedophilia.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 14, 2018)

Dongding said:


> I'm not sure what sort of attraction you think they have toward the children in question then. Pedophilia is pretty black and white.
> 
> Any sort of relationship a pedophile wants to have with a child, the child is most likely not physically or emotionally equipped to deal with. If it has nothing to do with sexual urges that a child couldn't possibly adequately reciprocate, then it isn't even pedophilia.


I would object to the "urge/desire to molest children" wording on the same grounds I would object to someone defining heterosexual men as men with an urge/desire to rape women; "molest" has similar connotations far as the consensuality/ethicality of the behavior goes. In the case of pedophilia there _isn't_ a way of living out the attraction/urges without molestation becoming involved, but the base desire isn't necessarily to do a harmful thing, which is a distinction I think pedophiles who do not act on their attraction due to realizing doing so would harm the children deserve.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 14, 2018)

I just meant it as a pedophile wants a complete package relationship that the child can't possibly hold up the other end of; Which would make it molestation.

Maybe a pedophile doesn't intend/see things that way, but there will probably never be a situation where I wouldn't consider a physical relationship between an adult and a child to not be rape/molestation.

Essentially you agree it can't possibly be anything more than the desire to do anything other than _what would be considered_ molestation, but you want me to use different words to describe it.

At least with 2 adults there's a possibility that the physical attraction which if not irreciprocal wouldn't be considered rape because it's possible for the other party to actually give consent amd make it _not molestation_. Pedophiles don't have that option so what they want will always be molestation, regardless of how we sugarcoat it.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 14, 2018)

Dongding said:


> I just meant it as a pedophile wants a complete package relationship that the child can't possibly hold up the other end of; Which would make it molestation.
> 
> Maybe a pedophile doesn't intend/see things that way, but there will probably never be a situation where I wouldn't consider a physical relationship between an adult and a child to not be rape/molestation.
> 
> ...


See, if it's worded as fantasizing about what _would if acted on be_ molestation, no issue. The issue I take is with saying they fantasize about molesting a child - that implies that the fact that it is not and cannot be a functioning and reciprocal relationship is actually part of the fantasy. I guess a closer parallel might be saying people with a vore fetish fantasize about cannibalism - their desire cannot be realized without delving into cannibalism (with all of its negative connotations), but the fantasy has idealized the exchange/interaction in such a way that the fantasy act excludes many of the problematic aspects. 

The fantasy is for something that cannot be realized without crossing over into molestation, but the fantasy itself doesn't by necessity include those elements. The desire isn't to molest, it's to have a _relationship_, albeit a sexual one. That's one of the things that make the condition so tragic. (Obviously this doesn't apply to all pedophiles; I'm talking about distilling it down to its base, which is sexual attraction to children. That doesn't mean there aren't preferential offenders who get off on the violation aspects, or that there aren't child molesters out there who aren't pedophiles. I'm just not keen on ascribing any more stigma than necessary to people for something they didn't and wouldn't choose if they had a say.)

The TL;DR is basically that language is a wriggly beast and word choice communicates more than we sometimmes intend for it to.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 14, 2018)

I understand what you're saying and from what I can tell you agree with precisely what I said the way I wrote it.

We're eating the exact same pizza, you just want me to cut it up differently.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Mar 14, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> You want to permanently lock up someone who hasn't even done anything? That's dangerous territory.



Hasn't done anything _yet_, but they will.
Pedophiles are time bombs. We can't afford to take risks because you never know when they'll go off.

Besides.
People that depraved deserve no sympathy.
Kill them all. The world's disgustingly overpopulated anyway, it's not just the children that would benefit from them being eradicated.


----------



## Gryffe (Mar 18, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Kill them all. The world's disgustingly overpopulated anyway, it's not just the children that would benefit from them being eradicated.



I don't think I need to explain why defending the systematic genocide of populations based solely on what they think or like is a bad idea. You might think you're justified by your moral high ground right now, but once you've set a precedent and said that genocide is acceptable under certain circumstances, other people with different notions of good and evil will use your example to enforce their own policy. It's a Pandora's box you don't want to open. Especially when experiences from other fields show the clear advantages of prevention and treatment compared to iron-fisted repression *cough*warondrugs*cough*

At any rate, I'm surprised to see that most (every?) people in this thread work on the assumption that a kink equates an actual sexual interest in the topic. I, for example, am mostly interested in feral (but not underaged ;p ) porn, yet I wouldn't even live with a pet if it wasn't for my kin owning the darn things (pets require way too much maintenance IMO). There's, not a gap, but a chasm between liking a picture of dogs banging and actually wanting to screw your dog. A fact every study I've heard of on the subject confirm (though I don't know if any meta-analysis was done, so take these with a pinch of salt).

There's undoubtedly a % of the cub porn audience that's pedophile - after all, statistically speaking, no matter what population you're looking at, you're bound to find a bunch of pedophiles on average. And we can assume that this % is _probably_ higher than in the general population simply due to the subject matter. But leaping to the conclusion that every single person interested in cub porn is an actual pedophile, or that you can only produce that kind of art out of the repressed desire to commit pedophile acts, is blowing things way, WAY out of proportion. It's less precautionary principle and more red fear at that point.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 19, 2018)

Gryffe said:


> At any rate, I'm surprised to see that most (every?) people in this thread work on the assumption that a kink equates an actual sexual interest in the topic.


Definitely not all. I know myself and @BahgDaddy have explicitly mentioned that there's a disparity there, possibly more people as well. I have _also_ discussed pedophilia as a related issue, but I agree that enjoying/creating the artwork doesn't make someone a pedophile. There are so many reasons people could be drawn to a particular kink or subject matter in art, and not all of them are necessarily even sexual.


----------



## Dongding (Mar 20, 2018)

The stuff I like would horrify me IRL. The things I find attractive about all the unattractive things I choose to look at are the underlying concepts and emotions uniquely attached to the situations. Cartoons r hawt.


----------



## RinjiPantera (Mar 20, 2018)

Here's a radical idea: Why don't we stop policing/dictating what artists can and cannot draw (and post). As long as it's being tagged properly and isn't outright breaking any American laws (since FA is based in the US), just don't view cub art, porn or otherwise.

Cub art is pretty easy to avoid. Most artists I know tend to adhere to specific fetishes. In the case of cub, an artist either draws it or they don't. In most cases, they don't. You would literally have to explicitly search for cub art to see it.

Regarding those on this thread, who have had knee jerk reactions to the morality of cub art; until such art is made unequivocally illegal in the US, it's going to be part of FA. Trying to dictate to cub artists that they shouldn't or can't draw/post cub art is only going to fall on deaf ears.

I myself particularly loathe scat art, but I don't go around crying "ban scat!" as a knee-jerk reaction. I simply avoid it. Is there a chance I might still accidentally stumble upon an unfiltered thumbnail of a drawing with scat in it? Yeah. But then I avoid that artist in the future.

Maybe FA can make warning thumbnails for more morally questionable (but not illegal) content be placed behind warning thumbnails. On the other hand, some would say that would open up a big can of worms since it would then be a matter of deciding what is morally questionable.

My point in all this is FA is by and large, a porn art website with filters for art that would be acceptable for all ages. But FA is still an adult website. If you're under 18 or 21, you assume that risk by browsing it. Even if you have your SFW filter on, there's still a slim chance you could bump into something adult.

FA is full of fetishes that some might consider morally questionable...right down to vanilla gay art itself. But we, as predominantly adults, should be allowed to decide for ourselves which content (such as cub art) that we actively wish to avoid, not get authoritarian on what others should get to post or see. As long as it doesn't violate any actual established laws, then let sleeping dogs lie.

If you don't like a certain fetish, then don't click to it. Thumbnails at least give you some warning to not view something you don't like up close.

Don't like it? Don't look at it.

PS: I seldom hang around the forums, so don't expect me to go back and forth about any of what I said. You'll be wasting your time otherwise. I'm just putting my two cents in.


----------



## Gryffe (Mar 20, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Even if you have your SFW filter on, there's still a slim chance you could bump into something adult.



What always makes me cackle is the irony of "clean" transformation art. You have a completely A-OK artwork tagged as "General Audience" (as it should be !) and then you scroll down and discover through the description and the hundred of comments that everyone collectively busted a nut. Sometime I like to imagine the reactions of normies stumbling on those pieces.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Mar 20, 2018)

Gryffe said:


> There's, not a gap, but a chasm between liking a picture of dogs banging and actually wanting to screw your dog. A fact every study I've heard of on the subject confirm (though I don't know if any meta-analysis was done, so take these with a pinch of salt).



Never seen the study but Kill Bill didn't make me want to screw a woman in a coma in a coma or brutally murder or maim 88 crazy people

if people were /educated/ there's youtubes and stuff I'm sure on how movie directors draw a THICC line between fantasy and reality

Edit: I did see one artwork I was pretty legitimately sure was pedophilia because the 'line' didn't seem to be there. The rest I can't confirm though

Edit: there was Fara Phoenix 3d artwork on paheal and it gave me the vibe


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 20, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Here's a radical idea: Why don't we stop policing/dictating what artists can and cannot draw (and post). As long as it's being tagged properly and isn't outright breaking any American laws (since FA is based in the US), just don't view cub art, porn or otherwise.
> 
> Cub art is pretty easy to avoid. Most artists I know tend to adhere to specific fetishes. In the case of cub, an artist either draws it or they don't. In most cases, they don't. You would literally have to explicitly search for cub art to see it.
> 
> ...



Wow!  You're such a radical thinker!  Original ethical thinking right there!

Give me a break.

- What's legal isn't always what is right or wrong so the justification that it "does break US Laws" doesn't mean jack.  It's not illegal for billionaires to give millions to candidates they favor, and that's basically a legal form of bribery.  Yet it's still legal.  So I don't see how that argument holds any water, as though legality is the ultimate ethical decider.

- You give no example as to why putting restrictions on what people can depict is a bad thing.  You use negative connotations like "authoritarian" and "policing/dictating" but those are reasons that's just, as you said, knee-jerk reactions because "Restricting things r BAD, Jus like hitler did!" I mean you're talking to me about knee jerk reactions (despite the argument of the ethics of cub existing since the damn thing was conceived) when you're doing the exact same thing with the same anarcho-egalitarian talking points; restricting ANYTHING should be met with skepticism, or the Slippery Slope argument, even if its_ restricting the depictions of minors and children in sexual acts for the entertainment and pleasure of adults_.  Of all the hills to die on....

- You compare Cub, which in any real life context is DEPLORABLE and ILLEGAL, to Scat, which is the opposite; it is not Illegal and Deplorable; it's unorthodox, for sure, but the depiction of it is as ethically questionable as the act itself.  And the act of scat, although likely unsanitary, is not a matter of ethics.  It's just a manner of preference.  Cub, however, outside of the fantasy context, is illegal and ethically reprehensible and agreed to be by the sane population of the world.  So that's a False Equivalency from a mile away.

- Cub goes beyond being a fetish.  There is Infantilism that isn't really Pedophilia, but that doesn't mean the result of depicting these images isn't the same whether it was drawn for Infantilism or Pedophiliac purposes, and overwhelmingly offensive to anyone who has experienced actual molestation.

- If your only ethical defense for cub is to just "not look at it" then you're not arguing for the defense of cub.  You're just saying we should turn a blind eye to the fact that it exists despite it being ethically reprehensible.  Not an argument, it's just an excuse.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 20, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Regarding those on this thread, who have had knee jerk reactions to the morality of cub art; until such art is made unequivocally illegal in the US, it's going to be part of FA. Trying to dictate to cub artists that they shouldn't or can't draw/post cub art is only going to fall on deaf ears.


(Sexual) cub art is not permitted on FA, though, as per site rules. So while there will likely continue to be some posted from time to time (because an alarming number of people don't read the rules), I would argue the fact that it is against the rules makes it _not_ "part of FA".



Gryffe said:


> What always makes me cackle is the irony of "clean" transformation art. You have a completely A-OK artwork tagged as "General Audience" (as it should be !) and then you scroll down and discover through the description and the hundred of comments that everyone collectively busted a nut. Sometime I like to imagine the reactions of normies stumbling on those pieces.


If they are going into any kind of explicit detail of their nut-busting, that violates Code of Conduct (no explicit content in General areas), and you can go ahead and report the comments in question.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 20, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> (Sexual) cub art is not permitted on FA, though, as per site rules. So while there will likely continue to be some posted from time to time (because an alarming number of people don't read the rules), I would argue the fact that it is against the rules makes it _not_ "part of FA".
> 
> 
> If they are going into any kind of explicit detail of their nut-busting, that violates Code of Conduct (no explicit content in General areas), and you can go ahead and report the comments in question.



Okay but how are people like Zaush slipping around FA's rules against cub porn? The characters are very obviously VERY YOUNG.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 20, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Wow! It's like you knew I was looking at you when I typed all that! XD
> 
> Also, clearly you are a liberal. I don't pay attention to cub art around FA, so if sexual porn of it is not permitted on FA, then I missed that memo. Just goes to show that cub art is already pretty isolated from the rest of the FA community. Also, more proof that you're a liberal is that people have already tried pointing out to you that just because something is depicted in art doesn't mean the persons viewing it are automatically going to be like, "Oh, cool! Feral buttsex! I'ma go find me a dog and try that out!". Clearly, you totally ignored them and pressed on with your OWN viewpoint without even taking one second to consider someone else's.
> 
> ...



You say I'm a liberal but I'm a Moderate Conservative.  Multiple political tests over the course of the year have placed me either as Centrist or Moderately Conservative.  Good assumption though; I'm not sure what me being a liberal would do anything to move the discussion forward anyhoo.  Again, saying things in a negative connotation with nothing to back it up.

I didn't ignore people who said that people don't go out looking to screw children after viewing cub.  I don't think we fully understand what pornography like this does to the human mind, perhaps it's just a fucked up human curiosity.  But I don't know why I have to go around and say "Don't sexualize children pls" to adults... as though it needs to be said.  You keep saying they're adults but I don't think an adult would actually consider this seriously.  Again, as stated in this thread, a portion of those who make cub porn are infant roleplayers who enjoy roleplaying as an infant more than actually screwing infants.  That doesn't mean the result of the porn isn't the same tasteless and offensive material that disrespect the nature of the issue surrounding it.

Isolation doesn't mean anything.  Most reprehensible acts aren't in the open.  Doesn't mean anything.  You're not making arguments here, you're stating things and expecting me to accept them as arguments, but there's nothing to argue here.

Except we do censor and restrain acts that few people actually commit.  That's why we have LAWS.  You keep talking about how "we're adults we can make rational choices" and yet the rational choices these people make is to create, view, and distribute art that sexualizes children... and I'm not talking 15 or 16 year olds either, at least that can make SENSE to some people, these are presumed to be four, five, six year olds, still wearing diapers.  I don't care what your fetish is, there's no excuse to express that grotesque fetish in a visual form.  Again, I don't know why I have to go around saying "please don't sexualize children".  You also assume that the many would even view cub porn beyond neutrality or downright disgust.

You're making more false equivalencies.  First of all, nobody is talking about banning art.  We're talking about banning the sexualization of children in art.  That is HARDLY the same as banning television because bad guys can use it.... that's kinda the opposite.  You're just sputtering nonsense here.

I never said we are incapable of distinguishing the two.  It's harder for some than it is for others, but I never made the argument.  Stop bringing up arguments I've never made.

You're also making more false equivalencies.  Macros, Muscles, and Inflation don't deal with the sexualization of children.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 20, 2018)

I was a bit confused about the liberal part as well. I'm a liberal, over here if you wanna bash heads or something! XD


----------



## Katook (Mar 21, 2018)

I can tell the difference between fiction and reality and that's the most important tool one can have when it comes to making calls with art. Anyway, I'm sure the morality of art has been widely discussed over a variety of topics and subjects for ages.
I'm a person who cannot understand how people think sex is worse than violence though. 
Like that I'll never ever comprehend. Art of decapitation, fucking paraplegics and amputees, disembowelment, skull fucking, violent deaths, all of that I think is unnecessary. 

Violence is never necessary imo. 

A drawing however, is not violent. Sexual assault and rape is violent. Any type of (sexual) relationship between a child and an adult is statutory rape at the very least. A depiction of rape is not rape, and does not encourage rape. It's okay to not like it, but it's going to be very hard to understand why people do like it. 

Like I don't like poop kink, but I like watersports, and sometimes people tAG THINGS IN THE SAME PLACE and it makes me angry. And I could argue with someone about it if I don't already accept everyone has different likes and dislikes, and also human brains are erratic and confusing, and it's hard to know why it behaves how it does.

It really should all come down to reality vs fiction and the mental stability/intentions of the creator. How consumers use the creators' work is not the fault of the creator.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 21, 2018)

Katook said:


> I can tell the difference between fiction and reality and that's the most important tool one can have when it comes to making calls with art. Anyway, I'm sure the morality of art has been widely discussed over a variety of topics and subjects for ages.
> I'm a person who cannot understand how people think sex is worse than violence though.
> Like that I'll never ever comprehend. Art of decapitation, fucking paraplegics and amputees, disembowelment, skull fucking, violent deaths, all of that I think is unnecessary.
> 
> ...



Yep, and for some reason a drawing of someone fucking someone's eye out of their socket isn't controversial, but some cute cubs is WAY too much! Not that I consume either, but I rather browse cub than gore, that's for sure.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 21, 2018)

Katook said:


> I can tell the difference between fiction and reality and that's the most important tool one can have when it comes to making calls with art. Anyway, I'm sure the morality of art has been widely discussed over a variety of topics and subjects for ages.
> I'm a person who cannot understand how people think sex is worse than violence though.
> Like that I'll never ever comprehend. Art of decapitation, fucking paraplegics and amputees, disembowelment, skull fucking, violent deaths, all of that I think is unnecessary.
> 
> ...



Child sex IS a violent act.

It's manipulative and malicious in nature.

Thus the depiction of such acts is reprehensible because it is, again, disrespectful to the act of it by glorifying it.

I would also point out that the beheading of innocent people as a form of fetish art is rather disturbing as well.


----------



## RinjiPantera (Mar 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I was a bit confused about the liberal part as well. I'm a liberal, over here if you wanna bash heads or something! XD



Yeah, I got a bit off topic there. Hindsight is 20/20, so I just deleted my reply there. Simply put, cub art can simply be avoided/ignored if someone doesn't like it. I come here to enjoy art and stories, not police the website like some people feel they have to do.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Child sex IS a violent act.
> 
> It's manipulative and malicious in nature.
> 
> ...



Except these "children" are anthropomorphic animals, not humans. But hey, enjoy your tirade there! Feels good to let out all that rage!


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 21, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Except these "children" are anthropomorphic animals, not humans. But hey, enjoy your tirade there! Feels good to let out all that rage!



You're just lazy if you can't come up with better arguments.

Do I seriously have to explain what the fuck an anthropomorphic animal represents?

They're basically humans in every respect except for aesthetics.  And I wouldn't think it's much better if it were a feral pup instead.  So again, trying to see where you're seeing this justification.

The only way I could see you defend it so adamantly is if you view it yourself.


----------



## Katook (Mar 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You're just lazy if you can't come up with better arguments.
> 
> Do I seriously have to explain what the fuck an anthropomorphic animal represents?
> 
> ...




I hate seeing adult/kid pairings whether they're animals or people or in between or aliens, it just is a gross abuse of power on the adults' side;;

The cub (And anime shota) art that I do find cute though is when it's two young characters exploring each other and generally just being hormone-driven confused and curious kids. I think storylines with that are cute. Even if they end up containing sexual content in them, it's not something I seek out more than I'll read if I come across it, and while it's still in that moral grey area(considering it's two underage kids doing sexual acts together typically in shota doujinshi or fanfiction or the like), it doesn't sit as uneasily, probably because it lacks the abusive adult aspect(and all sexual relations of an adult with a kid is abuse). 

And I think most can agree that fictional interests =/= IRL interests, yes??(as in, just because one likes to watch xyz doesn't mean one wants to do xyz)


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 21, 2018)

Katook said:


> I hate seeing adult/kid pairings whether they're animals or people or in between or aliens, it just is a gross abuse of power on the adults' side;;
> 
> The cub (And anime shota) art that I do find cute though is when it's two young characters exploring each other and generally just being hormone-driven confused and curious kids. I think storylines with that are cute. Even if they end up containing sexual content in them, it's not something I seek out more than I'll read if I come across it, and while it's still in that moral grey area(considering it's two underage kids doing sexual acts together typically in shota doujinshi or fanfiction or the like), it doesn't sit as uneasily, probably because it lacks the abusive adult aspect(and all sexual relations of an adult with a kid is abuse).
> 
> And I think most can agree that fictional interests =/= IRL interests, yes??(as in, just because one likes to watch xyz doesn't mean one wants to do xyz)



Right but that doesn't make it any less disrespectful when the depiction is made.

Plus we have to take into account how old someone has to be in order for it to be considered molestation.  I was molested by a fourteen year old out of his own curiosity.  I was ten and I didn't know better.

Children exploring each other... I guess in a weird way it's "cute" but it's not something we should consider "no big deal" I mean it's not cute when two kids are touching each other in ways they don't understand.  That's why they need to be taught boundaries.  Children are always looking for the boundaries and testing them, and trying new things.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right but that doesn't make it any less disrespectful when the depiction is made.
> 
> Plus we have to take into account how old someone has to be in order for it to be considered molestation.  I was molested by a fourteen year old out of his own curiosity.  I was ten and I didn't know better.
> 
> Children exploring each other... I guess in a weird way it's "cute" but it's not something we should consider "no big deal" I mean it's not cute when two kids are touching each other in ways they don't understand.  That's why they need to be taught boundaries.  Children are always looking for the boundaries and testing them, and trying new things.



Usually when people say kids need to be taught "boundaries" they're saying "don't explore any sexual topics, don't have underaged sexual experimentations with other people your age, etc." I'll be frank - that's a load of BS that is very damaging to children's psyche. Most likely that 14 year old had not been taught how to handle sexual encounters. What he did wasn't right of course, but maybe if people had communicated with him about sex in an open, rational, and ethical format, he would have channeled that energy more responsibly.

So yes, it actually is cute if kids explore each other that way. Eh, that sounds creepy, but read any number of children and YA fiction to find examples of exactly that described, in abundance even, much of it so awkward and embarrassing I wouldn't even read it, haha!


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Usually when people say kids need to be taught "boundaries" they're saying "don't explore any sexual topics, don't have underaged sexual experimentations with other people your age, etc." I'll be frank - that's a load of BS that is very damaging to children's psyche. Most likely that 14 year old had not been taught how to handle sexual encounters. What he did wasn't right of course, but maybe if people had communicated with him about sex in an open, rational, and ethical format, he would have channeled that energy more responsibly.
> 
> So yes, it actually is cute if kids explore each other that way. Eh, that sounds creepy, but read any number of children and YA fiction to find examples of exactly that described, in abundance even, much of it so awkward and embarrassing I wouldn't even read it, haha!



That's exactly what I meant; kids need to be taught how to control themselves.  It's not cute to sit back and watch kids do it.  You're not teaching them anything.  They need a guiding force.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's exactly what I meant; kids need to be taught how to control themselves.  It's not cute to sit back and watch kids do it.  You're not teaching them anything.  They need a guiding force.



All right, but I don't know why we're talking about this now. We've gone from talking about the ethics of drawing cub porn to how to raise sexually responsible citizens.


----------



## Katook (Mar 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right but that doesn't make it any less disrespectful when the depiction is made.
> 
> Plus we have to take into account how old someone has to be in order for it to be considered molestation.  I was molested by a fourteen year old out of his own curiosity.  I was ten and I didn't know better.
> 
> Children exploring each other... I guess in a weird way it's "cute" but it's not something we should consider "no big deal" I mean it's not cute when two kids are touching each other in ways they don't understand.  That's why they need to be taught boundaries.  Children are always looking for the boundaries and testing them, and trying new things.




Well I was talking about fictional people with more mental capacity than real children since they're written by adults / teens(who vary insanely in mental capacity), sticking to the topic of drawings and not real children.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 21, 2018)

Katook said:


> Well I was talking about fictional people with more mental capacity than real children since they're written by adults / teens(who vary insanely in mental capacity), sticking to the topic of drawings and not real children.



Thing is, children are capable of consenting and it's still illegal.

You can't just say, "Oh the child has adult intelligence" Because there's no way to prove that, and it's pretty much just a poor excuse to draw cub or loli.


----------



## Katook (Mar 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Thing is, children are capable of consenting and it's still illegal.
> 
> You can't just say, "Oh the child has adult intelligence" Because there's no way to prove that, and it's pretty much just a poor excuse to draw cub or loli.




You just seem incapable of processing the difference between fictional expression or self expression and real life actions and consequences, so I'll stop now. The last 6 pages are you just ignoring obvious points and reiterating the same tired things you keep saying. No one's supporting sexual abuse here  
Good night~


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Thing is, children are capable of consenting and it's still illegal.
> 
> You can't just say, "Oh the child has adult intelligence" Because there's no way to prove that, and it's pretty much just a poor excuse to draw cub or loli.



They're probably capable of rational consent around age 15 or 16, but we set the age limit at 18 because they're more mature then. It could probably be 17, or maybe 19, it's a tad arbitrary, and really depends on the person. One thing I like to see is making it so it's not a crime that gets you on a sex offender list if a 19 year old has sex with a 17 year old. Like really? Ya'll dumb shits.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Okay but how are people like Zaush slipping around FA's rules against cub porn? The characters are very obviously VERY YOUNG.


Not a question I can answer (NDA) but I do know more about the circumstances of those decisions than the public does. Rules are same for everyone, though.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Mar 21, 2018)

Katook said:


> You just seem incapable of processing the difference between fictional expression or self expression and real life actions and consequences, so I'll stop now. The last 6 pages are you just ignoring obvious points and reiterating the same tired things you keep saying. No one's supporting sexual abuse here
> Good night~



I am differentiating the two.

I'm saying it doesn't matter.


----------



## Katook (Mar 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I am differentiating the two.
> 
> I'm saying it doesn't matter.


There's a huge difference between drawing something and committing the action IRL shown in the drawing but okay


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 21, 2018)

I guess this means I will soon gain the desire to actually do feral fox on wolf water sports vore. Wish me luck!


----------



## Katook (Mar 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I guess this means I will soon gain the desire to actually do feral fox on wolf water sports vore. Wish me luck!





Time for me to go piss on a mouse since that's what my last commission entailed and it must mean, because I drew it, that I want to go piss on tiny animals now!


----------



## BahgDaddy (Mar 21, 2018)

Katook said:


> Time for me to go piss on a mouse since that's what my last commission entailed and it must mean, because I drew it, that I want to go piss on tiny animals now!



OMG you cruel animal abuser! Imma start huge threads about how mean you are now.


----------



## Uluri (Mar 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I guess this means I will soon gain the desire to actually do feral fox on wolf water sports vore. Wish me luck!





Katook said:


> Time for me to go piss on a mouse since that's what my last commission entailed and it must mean, because I drew it, that I want to go piss on tiny animals now!



X'D Omigosh. You guys are killing me right now.

I'm on the side of fiction _does not_ equal reality.


----------



## Boured (Mar 21, 2018)

Cub is such a gray area and is like walking on broken glass barefoot, as saying something wrong could label you as a certain meme-centered bear.


But I agree, real child porn needs to die and those who like it I wish did not exist on this planet. But Cub is a drawing, nobody is getting hurt, and hell, I'd rather a pedo or someone who just likes it be doing something lewd with a cub picture than an actual CP picture or god forbid actually with a child.

Though if Cub is against the rules on FA, then I agree that it should be more enforced, as this "aged up" loophole could be exploited quite horribly if people wanted to do so.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's the thing:
> 
> _Children don't and shouldn't be depicted having adult sex drives.  Sex drive has nothing to do with the depiction of the child themselves.
> _
> ...


I totally agree with you and I feel this something a lot of people miss when defending or excusing this kind of thing. There are age of consent laws precisely because a child cannot reasonably give consent for sexual activity and such activity could permanently harm their development. 

I heard FA used to be pretty decent about cracking down on this stuff, but now it is seems like too many are taking the path of least resistance.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

Erethzium said:


> So that's where the comparison is made? To the artist's other work, instead of the character itself?
> 
> That's a really weird way of banning underaged porn. But whatever.
> 
> ...


At least, you did your due diligence.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Oh, you've _got _to be kidding.
> It's not about people's feelings. It's about upholding morals and the law.
> 
> Child porn is illegal and immoral.
> ...


Exactly. These people always go on a journal rant when their child porn gets removed by the mods. One of friends showed me a whole multi-year chain journal rants where one babyfur cub porn artist slowly had a legit mental breakdown to the point of posting about committing suicide because he wasn't allowed to post his "art". I'm not exaggerating. I can prove this. I asked my friend why the admins didn't ban him the first year at least before he reached that point. Maybe the artist would've realized he had problem and needing to seek treatment after he got cut off from FA, instead gradually melting down for all to see. 

Sometimes the hard way saves everybody a lot of trouble.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> It still doesn't make it normal, though. Being attracted to children is something that should ideally be fixed - we're just not quite there due to the sole fact of being a pedophile resulting in a heavy stigma. Though it also should be noted that said stigma was "achieved" by many pedophiles who actually gave up to their urges and went into child molestation, which is something to consider when discussing the topic.
> 
> But yet again, cub pornography is a substitute, not a solution. Also, a good argument is that in a way, cub artwork also normalizes and glorifies pedophilia, which is not really something that should be normalized. On one side, cub artwork can keep existing pedos under control (which is a really dubious advantage that speaks of problems with actually finding a solution), but on the other, it can result in more potential pedos who'll find graphic depictions of molestation and underage sex attractive on some level or another (which is not unrealistic, considering how sugar-coated it is in cub/lolicon pornography).
> 
> ...


Online platforms should take responsibility for their services affect their communities, not just their users. The enabling effect of leaving this kind of "art" up for public viewing shouldn't be downplayed just convenience. And as you just said, often the fantasy is not enough for these users and look for actual physical contact with children. This will come back to bite the platform (FA) because the investigation for the subsequent crime could very lead back to art on FA that was cub porn and we all KNOW how the media portrays furries in general.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

Ciderfine said:


> Many artists do this on here, making 5-9 YO characters with abs, or adult looking anatomy but with creepy as fuck baby faces and soft child like features in the blended mix. You did good by reporting it, but keep reporting it.
> 
> Artists on here are the biggest rule breakers because many of them only exist in wanting to have their work remain up and infect the system. Hell I've had artists attack me in every way possible for reporting them for breaking the rules of many kinds. Artists sadly who do this have a cult of delusion that what they do is art and we all have to beat them down again and again until they are bloody broken and understand the rules.
> 
> ...


Yes! This is the kind positive encouragement we need to give each other to make this community better. When people feel they are alone in reporting, they'll stop reporting because they feel it won't make difference. But if enough people do this regularly then we'll finally drive home the message this isn't acceptable.

Also, I am sorry you had those experiences.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right but that outlet doesn't necessarily need to be a thing of similar concept.  An outlet for a pedophile doesn't need to be pedo-like porn.
> 
> It can be a hobby, anything which allows you to put energy to something else.


Here I disagree. Outlets are half-measures. Pedophiles need to seek treatments for themselves, not try to distract themselves from their urges. Even committing themselves to the care of the proper authorities provide more assurances than just trusting their hobby will keep them preoccupied.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

Dongding said:


> You're too certain.


Sometimes things are just right or wrong, white or black with no grey area. This is one of them.


----------



## Dongding (Apr 2, 2018)

You are as well. Maim suggested there would be no pedophiles if there was no pedophile porn. You agree with him then or did you not read what my response was a response to?


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

Dongding said:


> You are as well. Maim suggested there would be no pedophiles if there was no pedophile porn. You agree with him then or did you not read what my response was a response to?


I believe its prevalence would be greatly curtailed, not completely eradicated. Part of the problem is that pedophiles are not just created by environmental factors, but also certain neurological defects. But we need to use every tool at our disposal as a society to combat this problem. And not let pedophile indulge those urges. Here, that probably means cracking down on cub porn and establishing clear, reasonable guidelines for babyfur artists.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 2, 2018)

Boured said:


> Cub is such a gray area and is like walking on broken glass barefoot, as saying something wrong could label you as a certain meme-centered bear.
> 
> 
> But I agree, real child porn needs to die and those who like it I wish did not exist on this planet. But Cub is a drawing, nobody is getting hurt, and hell, I'd rather a pedo or someone who just likes it be doing something lewd with a cub picture than an actual CP picture or god forbid actually with a child.
> ...



Part of problem here is that cubfur artists often exploit those loopholes and when people in the community call them out for drawing cub porn, they often gather other cubfurs and claim their being persecuted. When this happens, the admins bow to their demands. Now, I'm not saying every cubfur is a pedophile, but they have a tendency to provide cover for pedophiles who happen to be popular artists. This is happened multiple times on FA. I could show you. 

Some of my friends on FA have been temporarily banned for criticizing babyfurs and cubfurs on their own pages or among themselves, all because those babyfurs and cubfurs got their friends together said to admins my friends were being negative towards them. So maybe a little harshness is warranted.


----------



## Dongding (Apr 2, 2018)

Orthogonal said:


> I believe its prevalence would be greatly curtailed, not completely eradicated. Part of the problem is that pedophiles are not just created by environmental factors, but also certain neurological defects. But we need to use every tool at our disposal as a society to combat this problem. And not let pedophile indulge those urges. Here, that probably means cracking down on cub porn and establishing clear, reasonable guidelines for babyfur artists.


Well at least you're being reasonable and not pretending what you say is law. I still think not having an outlet would feel like being trapped. I know everything I'm secretly into does. I could never reasonably explain to anybody about my being a furry or into other NSFW interests I have without some sort of negative impact; and I'm not even into cub porn. I'm into wholesome things compared to that and I can still see things from their perspective. It's important to be able to see the other side of the argument when making one of your own or you just come off as intolerant and ignorant.

As long as they aren't acting out on those urges I feel it's fine to let them do what they want online where it remains make-believe.


----------



## Dongding (Apr 2, 2018)

I mentioned it earlier in the topic if you read back that far before throwing comment sucker punches on this new account of yours. Sometimes the concepts behind the fetish or in this case possibly a sexuality(?) are what's attractive, and not the acts themselves. The things I _beat it_ to would actually horrify me in real life. I enjoy the emotional result of the action; which is intangible. I could only get that online, so that's where my fetishes stay. In no way possible would I ever act out any of those interests. They're purely fantasy.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Well at least you're being reasonable and not pretending what you say is law. I still think not having an outlet would feel like being trapped. I know everything I'm secretly into does. I could never reasonably explain to anybody about my being a furry or into other NSFW interests I have without some sort of negative impact; and I'm not even into cub porn. I'm into wholesome things compared to that and I can still see things from their perspective. It's important to be able to see the other side of the argument when making one of your own or you just come off as intolerant and ignorant.
> 
> As long as they aren't acting out on those urges I feel it's fine to let them do what they want online where it remains make-believe.


I try to be reasonable. It makes life easier.

There is also a risk of winding up acting foolishly when you're trying to be reasonable. There is such a thing as being too accommodating and understanding in regard to those involved in criminal behavior, in this case pedophiles. The authorities' responsibility isn't to worry about whether sex offenders feel trapped or they have an outlet to vent. Their responsibility is to ensure the safety of the public. Encouraging pedophiles to enter treatment is the least disruptive way to do this, but not every pedophile will go willingly. This is why we have law enforcement regularly stage stings to root these individuals out before they can become a threat and rely on anonymous tips from citizens.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

Dongding said:


> I mentioned it earlier in the topic if you read back that far before throwing comment sucker punches on this new account of yours. Sometimes the concepts behind the fetish or in this case possibly a sexuality(?) are what's attractive, and not the acts themselves. The things I _beat it_ to would actually horrify me in real life. I enjoy the emotional result of the action; which is intangible. I could only get that online, so that's where my fetishes stay. In no way possible would I ever act out any of those interests. They're purely fantasy.


I always read the thread before I comment. That way, you avoid rehashing the same argument. I'm 90% with Blaze on this. I came to this thread because some of my friends were given a hard time by the babyfur mafia over last two days and one just joined today with me.


----------



## Dongding (Apr 3, 2018)

Pictures don't hurt people. If they don't make the leap to criminal behavior then there isn't actually a problem. Innocent until proven guilty in civilized places.

I feel if drawing those pictures stopped a single child from being molested, then they can draw billions of them for all I care. The people that draw those pictures *that happen to also be pedophiles* (which I'm positive due to my own current experience in this _sort _of thing isn't every single one of them) are venting their sexual frustrations which I feel is healthy given the other option. I don't see it as reinforcement because I know there's lots or reasons to be compelled to enjoy something and none of them are conscious decisions made by the person interested. You're stupid if you think they'll just turn their life upside down to seek help regardless of how it would benefit other people long term. There isn't reasonably another option to stop this and there will always be some sort of place online for them to take out their frustrations, FurAffinity or not. They were born with bad brains and they're fucked for life essentially until they take some sort of drastic essentially life ruining decision to seek professional help.

Unfortunately for everyone who isn't into those things due to FA in general becoming a hub for deviant interests and strange fetishes and the accepting nature that comes with a community accepting others who are in similar circumstances to each other and simply moving on with their lives, the content will always be there.

I understand the frustration seeing cub art featuring sexual content, but I don't look at those sorts of things. I don't understand how it's a problem for anyone. The amount of _*extremely *_weird shit that I'm completely not interested in that I don't look at that's archived on FA is god damn astounding.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Pictures don't hurt people. If they don't make the leap to criminal behavior then there isn't actually a problem. Innocent until proven guilty in civilized places.
> 
> I feel if drawing those pictures stopped a single child from being molested, then they can draw billions of them for all I care. The people that draw those pictures *that happen to also be pedophiles* (which I'm positive due to my own current experience in this _sort _of thing isn't every single one of them) are venting their sexual frustrations which I feel is healthy given the other option. I don't see it as reinforcement because I know there's lots or reasons to be compelled to enjoy something and none of them are conscious decisions made by the person interested. You're stupid if you think they'll just turn their life upside down to seek help regardless of how it would benefit other people long term. There isn't reasonably another option to stop this and there will always be some sort of place online for them to take out their frustrations, FurAffinity or not. They were born with bad brains and they're fucked for life essentially until they take some sort of drastic essentially life ruining decision to seek professional help.
> 
> ...



I understand your argument that not every pedophile is going come forward for treatment and maybe babyfur art may serve as an outlet, but I can't agree with it because trusting the art will curtail some their more harmful behaviors while _pedophilia depictions are floating around on the internet for children and vulnerable young adults to be influenced_ _by_ is too great risk and price. 

As for treatment, you'd be surprised by the strides people can make with therapy and chemical castration.

And for FA, it is a site with sexual content. Fine. And as much as I hate to admit it, we'll never push all the babyfurs off the site. It just isn't happening right now. But the babyfurs don't even tolerate any negative criticism about themselves that is being discussed in conversations and venues excluding them. Look what they put up on one profile:

"well FA doesn't allow groups that create negativity on any kind of furry including babyfurs and diaperfurs. there's many diaper lovers here so if you don't like it then leave FA."

They don't even allow anti-babyfur groups to exist because mob the admins to get any group banned. It's ridiculous. What happened to free speech?


----------



## Dongding (Apr 3, 2018)

Ignore them like an adult. There's injustice in the world and you've already agreed it isn't going to go away and they aren't going to fix the problem themselves. Pedophiles make the choice alone to act upon their secret unknown urges. Providing a low risk alternative that they will I'm sure go for 99% of the time seems like the best pseudo-solution; or at least the one most likely to prevent children from actually being molested.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

It's not just ignoring them, though. Babyfurs notoriously gang up on people to get them banned if they don't care for something someone said about them, then act victims when they get criticized about their borderline pedo art. Ignoring I can do. I'm a Zen master when it comes to ignoring. But looking over my shoulder because of a ban threat is bullshit.


----------



## Dongding (Apr 3, 2018)

If you ignored them you wouldn't have gotten that ban threat.

Edit: Misinterpreted your post but my point stands. Don't engage with something that would have nothing to do with you and it won't affect you.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

Oh no, not from the mod or admins. From them.


----------



## Astus (Apr 3, 2018)

Alright, let me finally put in my two cents about the topic (being part of the whole babyfur thing for over 4 years now). To answer the question originally posed, now I can’t speak for everyone of course, however; the majority of people whom I have talked with, be it about cub related stuff or babyfur stuff, mostly tend to think its an adult mind in a little persons body. This of course is why some of the people get annoyed that they can’t post their lewd pictures because they say it’s them as an adult... but they have the body of a kid.... I mean personally the stuff really irks me, seeing as I use my “little side” as more of a stress reliever but that’s going off topic. 

In my opinion, FA does right in keeping lewd pictures of what would be minors off of the site. Firstly because it of course  it depicts possibly illegal activities, and secondly because it improves the quality of the babyfur community on the site. Going on sites like Inkbunny, as a babyfur, you’ll find some of the people there (based on being messaged by random people about things) could quite possibly have pedophilic desires. I actually surprisingly (upon associating with the fandom) met two actual pedophiles on Xbox live, who admitted their desires to me. Anyways, I can better discuss things and sort of assume people on FA aren’t so much into cub type artwork. 

So people don’t get confused, with my association in the babyfur subculture, babyfur tends to mean it’s “clean” artwork, and cub tends to mean it’s sexualized. People don’t always use those identifiers like that, but when I refer to “cub” people tend to understand what I mean. 


So to reiterate, babyfur type artwork is usually assumed to be mentally an adult, while looking and acting like a child. It’s a good thing FA blocks cub type artwork, it makes the subculture a little nicer for others. If you’re concerned that Pedos can’t get their fix and will go out and get real kids, don’t worry because inkbunny has you covered. 

Also it is important to remember (in what is likely most cases) it’s all about the action being done to the individual, to themselves. It’s not a feeling of doing it to others, rather they want it done to themselves; so most aren’t going to go around in the first place and do it to children. The only issue there is people who are sociopathic and think that kids also want what they want.... which is a whole other issue but is somewhat relevant. I’ve had so many discussions about this with others in the babyfur subculture that like I almost don’t even know what information is relevant or not... so yeah


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 3, 2018)

Orthogonal said:


> It's not just ignoring them, though. Babyfurs notoriously gang up on people to get them banned if they don't care for something someone said about them, then act victims when they get criticized about their borderline pedo art. Ignoring I can do. I'm a Zen master when it comes to ignoring. But looking over my shoulder because of a ban threat is bullshit.


You don't quite seem to understand how site rules work. If you post "quoting_mungo is a pervert" to your own profile/content, or on a third party's profile/content, that qualifies as harassment under site rules. It doesn't matter whether I alone report you or if I get a posse of ten people to report you. It's not the number of reports that is evaluated, but whether the thing you said violates rules, and whether me blocking you would have prevented you from posting it. 

You obviously realize that "pedophile" is something associated with enormous social stigma; if you say to someone that the art they draw is "borderline pedo", it's understandable if they find it insulting/offensive.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 3, 2018)

Something I want to bring up in this forum but don't know if making thread would ban me.
The Zaush controversy where he used underage children (SFW) as reference and is about to use it for a NSFW piece


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> You don't quite seem to understand how site rules work. If you post "quoting_mungo is a pervert" to your own profile/content, or on a third party's profile/content, that qualifies as harassment under site rules. It doesn't matter whether I alone report you or if I get a posse of ten people to report you. It's not the number of reports that is evaluated, but whether the thing you said violates rules, and whether me blocking you would have prevented you from posting it.
> 
> You obviously realize that "pedophile" is something associated with enormous social stigma; if you say to someone that the art they draw is "borderline pedo", it's understandable if they find it insulting/offensive.



Maybe I should be willing to accept responsibility for my actions. As you did when stepped down as a moderator amid that manufactured controversy for greater good. I admired that.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 3, 2018)

Orthogonal said:


> Maybe I should be willing to accept responsibility for my actions. As you did when stepped down as a moderator amid that manufactured controversy for greater good. I admired that.


Thank you.

Accepting responsibility for your actions is always a good standard to hold yourself to. It's also the #1 thing I would appreciate in users I had to send citations to when I was staff.

Though to be fair my stepping down was more about my own health; the lies and threats were having a detrimental effect on my well-being. The dark side of that decision is that many people seem to have taken it as an admission of guilt on my part.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

I am saddened to hear that. That sort of thing always happens with departures. But a few of my associates were under the impression you were still here in an understated capacity to help out with things. That shows true dedication.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 3, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Something I want to bring up in this forum but don't know if making thread would ban me.
> The Zaush controversy where he used underage children (SFW) as reference and is about to use it for a NSFW piece



We don't even have to go that far. Much of his art is downright worrisome. It's only allowed because it's not _actually_ labeled cub.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Apr 3, 2018)

I'll start off by saying that I'm not a judgmental person. I don't look down on people for having interests, fetishes, hobbies, etc that are out of the ordinary. I firmly believe that so long as everyone is being safe, responsible, consensual and rational, I don't care what they do behind closed doors. If no one is getting hurt or being abused, it's not my business and I won't make it so. That said..

I don't think sexualizing young children and/or infants (fictional or real) is okay. Having an understanding that young people are, you know.. _People_, and can have relationships and sexual feelings is fine, but if you are deliberately objectifying a child for the explicit sexual enjoyment of the viewer rather than writing or drawing a slice of life, I don't think I'll ever view that as appropriate. Child abuse is all too real and frighteningly _common._ So for people to fetishize children in what would very obviously be an abusive way, were they real, treads a line I'm not comfortable with. It just seems wrong to me.. In the same way that "guro" (if you don't know what that is, do _not_ look it up if you are squeamish about extreme violence, please) seems wrong to me. I once read someone say that the "look of despair in her eyes as she realizes the end is near is so cute to me", when speaking about their guro fetish. 
That's more than a little unsettling, not only for the implication of what that person finds sexually desirable, but also that they thought it was somehow okay to say something so "delightful" in the first place- and it makes me fear that some people may use the internet's blase attitude toward fetishes to justify some really inappropriate desires.

While there is a definitive difference between fiction and reality, which is something I respect wholeheartedly, I reserve the right to harbour concern that some people may not draw the line between fiction and reality as clearly as they should. They may not be the majority, but I don't think one can be too cautious when it comes to matters of child abuse. Children are vulnerable in a lot of ways, and it's easy, far too easy, for an adult to exploit them if they should have the inclination to do so. I just don't think that's a chance we should encourage or glorify in any way.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> I'll start off by saying that I'm not a judgmental person. I don't look down on people for having interests, fetishes, hobbies, etc that are out of the ordinary. I firmly believe that so long as everyone is being safe, responsible, consensual and rational, I don't care what they do behind closed doors. If no one is getting hurt or being abused, it's not my business and I won't make it so. That said..
> 
> I don't think sexualizing young children and/or infants (fictional or real) is okay. Having an understanding that young people are, you know.. _People_, and can have relationships and sexual feelings is fine, but if you are deliberately objectifying a child for the explicit sexual enjoyment of the viewer rather than writing or drawing a slice of life, I don't think I'll ever view that as appropriate. Child abuse is all too real and frighteningly _common._ So for people to fetishize children in what would very obviously be an abusive way, were they real, treads a line I'm not comfortable with. It just seems wrong to me.. In the same way that "guro" (if you don't know what that is, do _not_ look it up if you are squeamish about extreme violence, please) seems wrong to me. I once read someone say that the "look of despair in her eyes as she realizes the end is near is so cute to me", when speaking about their guro fetish.
> That's more than a little unsettling, not only for the implication of what that person finds sexually desirable, but also that they thought it was somehow okay to say something so "delightful" in the first place- and it makes me fear that some people may use the internet's blase attitude toward fetishes to justify some really inappropriate desires.
> ...



You put this better than mind-coffee deprived brain could have and respectfully, too. Bonus points. Thank you.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 3, 2018)

What happened to woofwoofwoof's post? 

Did the admins really just censor someone exposing child porn/cub porn?

Where was that post offensive?

Could someone please explain this me?

I have a suspicion that some admins here are babyfurs...


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Apr 3, 2018)

Closing this up for review.  I've received a number of reports about posts in this thread which might go into call-out territory.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 3, 2018)

I'd be okay with censoring all cub porn. I don't think it's healthy for the fandoms image for people to be tolerate of what is basically animal pedophilia.


----------



## dogryme6 (Apr 3, 2018)

Hmm. This whole thing is a bag of worms. And I'm not sure how to feel about things.
On one hand there is no wrong way to fantasize as long as you don't act on fantasies that are illegal or hurt people. To try controlling fantasies would be a thought-crime-based police state that I'm sure no one wants to be a part of.
But on the other hand I do agree with the consensus that CP is bad, and that gore, vore, and cub art are all very distasteful. While it's pretty distinct and clear that art does not equal reality and that the people who draw it don't go out and do the things they draw, it's still troubling to think about what is implied by what they draw and post, even if there is no direct evidence that they try to reenact their art IRL in some or any fashion.
I'm of a mixed opinion when it comes down to what's right or wrong to do with fictional younger furry characters. Technically most things (except drastic cub art / yiff) are allowed, which includes the other weird stuff that can be done with them, according to the rules. I think. So I'm theoretically fine with peeps being able to do what they want when it comes to art. But there's the catch. In reality, I feel iffy about them drawing those things even if it is just art and technically allowed. I wouldn't protest or anything, and I don't actively seek that kind of stuff out just so I could be disgusted by it. But it's still something I'm not very keen on whether by morality or ethics if I'd give it a pass or not. I guess it'd depend on a case by case basis or something. I'd probably end up with more arbitrary rules to follow if it was my mindset the rules were based on, and that probably doesn't help much.
So I'm kind of happy that I'm not the one deciding what is or isn't allowed, but the way the system is there's certainly some loose parameters that could be tightened up on a little better I guess.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 4, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'd be okay with censoring all cub porn. I don't think it's healthy for the fandoms image for people to be tolerate of what is basically animal pedophilia.



I'd be ecstatic if all the energy that the you-know-whats put into getting this thread closed to cover their diapered asses was spent policing themselves for rampant cub porn. Most of the fandom, from what little I've seen, wants the admins and mods to crack down on this.

I'm sorry if I'm bitching, but this review proved my point for me.


----------



## Dongding (Apr 4, 2018)

Stuff like this is why I've just been hanging around in the art exchange drawing pictures lately lol.


----------



## shapeless0ne (Apr 4, 2018)

ugggghhh, isn't this threads very existence a reason for a block thread feature?


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 4, 2018)

Dongding said:


> Stuff like this is why I've just been hanging around in the art exchange drawing pictures lately lol.



It's probably because there's been a lot of drama with the babyfurs on the main site recently, especially tonight.

I'm not bitching, just saying.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 4, 2018)

Orthogonal said:


> I'd be ecstatic if all the energy that the you-know-whats put into getting this thread closed to cover their diapered asses was spent policing themselves for rampant cub porn. Most of the fandom, from what little I've seen, wants the admins and mods to crack down on this.
> 
> I'm sorry if I'm bitching, but this review proved my point for me.



While I agree with you, I think the message is better received if you're calmer about it. I'd like to see cub porn pushed from the fandom entirely. The rest of the way off FA (kick Zaush out, on principle), off e621, and let Inkbunny be the bastion for that shit.


----------



## Orthogonal (Apr 4, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> While I agree with you, I think the message is better received if you're calmer about it. I'd like to see cub porn pushed from the fandom entirely. The rest of the way off FA (kick Zaush out, on principle), off e621, and let Inkbunny be the bastion for that shit.



Amen.


----------



## TrishaCat (Apr 4, 2018)

I just want an art site that doesn't ban specific kinds of drawn art.
Even Inkbunny has issues when drawn humans are involved.
I often push Pixiv as it allows any and all drawn content, but it requires all porn to be censored.
Where are the free art sites? e621 may have everything but its not really a site for artists to display their work so much as it is an art compendium.

I don't buy that drawn art of any kind is harmful or bad or reflective of one's real life interests. I just want an art site that understands that.


----------

