# Regarding AUP and photos of "adult toys."



## The Foil (Jan 21, 2009)

Good evening,

I was curious if there is a change log for the policies on FA. About a year ago I started posting photos of sculptures I had made. In the description I explained that they where planned for casting into another material for the use as an adult toy. I see now that this is prohibited. I was curious if this has always been the case, of if this is a recent alteration.

Secondly, I was curious if it could be looked into to be reworded that if the said item in the photograph is a 100% creation of the poster, it would be allowed.

And finally, if this is prohibited, why is Bad Dragon so prominently advertised on the site. I understand that they pay for advertising space, but the sole purpose of the company is in contradiction with the AUP.

By all means I do not intend for my post to sound offensive or to have a sarcastic tone. Just questions I have after my gallery being mostly removed.

Thanks,
Foil


----------



## X (Jan 21, 2009)

The Foil said:


> And finally, if this is prohibited, why is Bad Dragon so prominently advertised on the site. I understand that they pay for advertising space, but the sole purpose of the company is in contradiction with the AUP.



I'm fairly sure that its not a violation of the aup unless Bad dragon is posting pictures of their "toys" in an fa gallery, otherwise its just an advertisement.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 22, 2009)

i feel its note fare if its something 100% created by the poster. they allow sculptures of furs that have dicks on them. why not a sculpture of a dick? i mean people post DRAWINGS of JUST a dick.

ALSO. you guys ALLOW CUB PORN so whats so bad about a dick???? i want a good answer, in defense of The Foil


----------



## Console (Jan 22, 2009)

TheFabFurry said:


> i feel its note fare if its something 100% created by the poster. they allow sculptures of furs that have dicks on them. why not a sculpture of a dick? i mean people post DRAWINGS of JUST a dick.
> 
> ALSO. you guys ALLOW CUB PORN so whats so bad about a dick???? i want a good answer, in defense of The Foil




trudat, to a degree. I can just imagine the uproar if they banned cub porn/babyfur despite it being creepy and gross.


----------



## michael_retriever (Jan 22, 2009)

Cub porn really has nothing to do with this discussion on accepting, or rejecting, REAL imagery of sexual toys. I think this case is included in the more general question of, whether or not to depict real sexual scenes.

A drawing of a cock, unless hyperrealist, can be distinguished well enough from the real world, can be easily abstracted from physical sexual reality; unlike a photograph of a dildo. Although anthropomorphism, or furry, can also be present in the real physical sexual every day life (dog dilgo e.g.), I think FA owners (or moderators) have an interest in not letting this kind of content appear in their network, keeping sex stuff within the bounds of a fantasy environment. Bad Dragon keeps it within those bounds, as it shows pictures of dragons rather than photographs of sexual toys.

The Foil, I humbly believe there would be no problem in showing photographs of things that might be used as sexual toys as long as the depiction is not blatantly clear at glance (it stays within the bounds of speculation or fantasy.)


----------



## The Foil (Jan 22, 2009)

I had not realised that this was a point already brought up in the UAP discussion forum. Dragoneer has stated in the past that creating sculptures or models of said nature and posting under that prefix was acceptable. But with the changes to the UAP Bad Dragon's FA account has also been cleared out all their sculptures they made of this nature.

As for the differentiation between fantasy and reality. There are image on FA of non-anthro animals and humans. With recent trial rulings saying images that depict "young persons" can be considered pedophilia, I beleive that these images can be in danger of being classified as beastiality.

I commend FA for providing this service and having to face the dilema of what is to be allowed and what is not to be. There will be many grey lines, and personally I would rather FA side to the strict side and never see any legal problems rather then be more lax and get issues.

That being said though, it just seems that there are images that would be more prone to legal issue then images of home-made fantasy or anthro dildos.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 23, 2009)

michael_retriever said:


> Cub porn really has nothing to do with this discussion on accepting, or rejecting, REAL imagery of sexual toys. I think this case is included in the more general question of, whether or not to depict real sexual scenes.



a sexual toy is not a sexual scene. and the cub porn relates because it shows how LAX the AUP is. they allow blatant pedophilia and also bestiality but not a photo of a sculpture of a penis they sculpted.. not a real penis. or a photo of someone using it . just a sculpture of a fantasy penis.

I bet if you made a sculpture of a dog fucking alittle cub boy it would be aok. lmao. this place is gettin sad.

or hey. take that dildo that you made and make alittle fur to go on the end. then its classified has hyper and will get around the aup no? turns into a sculpture rather then a useable object.

what about fuckable plushies? those should be banned as well then. becuase they are blatant sex toys.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 23, 2009)

Console said:


> trudat, to a degree. I can just imagine the uproar if they banned cub porn/babyfur despite it being creepy and gross.



how about for being illegal?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

You misread the AUP

Dildos and Sculptures of penises are fine to upload as long as the photograph does not also include exposed human genitalia, buttox, or breasts.

I've been asking dragoneer to remove that whole extra line of text as all it is doing is causing confusion like in this thread


----------



## The Foil (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> You misread the AUP
> 
> Dildos and Sculptures of penises are fine to upload as long as the photograph does not also include exposed human genitalia, buttox, or breasts.




Then explain this:



> *Submission removal: Tentacle Twister*
> Sent By: Ahkahna On: January 21st, 2009 08:13
> 
> As per the AUP:
> ...



Tentacle Twister was an image of molded clay. The molded clay was the only thing in the image.

Can you ask Dragoneer if I can get all my pictures of sculpted dildos put back up?


----------



## michael_retriever (Jan 23, 2009)

TheFabFurry said:


> they allow blatant pedophilia and also bestiality but not a photo of a sculpture of a penis they sculpted.. not a real penis



Calling any imagery on FA pedophilia or bestiality does not stand as true outside the suspension of disbelief of cartoons, so it is not pedophilia or bestiality. A photograph of a sex toy, on the other hand, carries no fictional connotation. It is plain sexual reality. I am sure you notice the difference between fiction and reality. Whether you consider this difference to be relevant enough or not, or choose to ignore it for flaming purposes, that is something else.

Should plushies with highly visible SPH/SPD* be removed, I think so, if the rule very politely discussed by The Foil is to be reinforced.

*Strategically Placed Holes / Strategically Placed Dildos


----------



## The Foil (Jan 24, 2009)

michael_retriever said:


> Calling any imagery on FA pedophilia or bestiality does not stand as true outside the suspension of disbelief of cartoons



Well... Tell that to Ewan McEwan...



> An internet cartoon showing characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson engaging in sex acts, is child pornography, a judge has ruled in a landmark case.
> [/qoute]
> 
> Find the article at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/08/2441023.htm
> ...


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 24, 2009)

michael_retriever said:


> Calling any imagery on FA pedophilia or bestiality does not stand as true outside the suspension of disbelief of cartoons, so it is not pedophilia or bestiality.



really? so if i drew a pic of the new presidents daughter being raped by fender it would be ok? i mean its a cartoon now even though shes a real child. just makes no sense how just cuz its drawn its ok. just as bad as a photo.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 24, 2009)

The Foil said:


> Well... Tell that to Ewan McEwan...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 24, 2009)

The Foil said:


> Then explain this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can only assume that the mod misunderstood the AUP... A lot of people have, so I think it is possible.

If you reread the AUP it states:
Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. *This includes, but not limited to;* images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.

That little note right there in bold ties in the pictures of adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc as being prohibited only if they also contain exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks.

Basically the AUP is saying that private parts are not allowed and then giving examples of possible images that would include exposed private parts...

Unfortunately it is often misunderstood (I did it myself until Dragoneer clarified it) and as such there might be a bit of a transition phase.

Please post in *this thread* and as Dragoneer to remove the confusing language as it really is not needed.

Thank-you,


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 24, 2009)

FA isn't a sex store.
Bad Dragons is alright because I think they're paying to be there, and all their products are hidden behind an adult link. :S


----------



## michael_retriever (Jan 24, 2009)

The Foil said:


> An internet cartoon showing characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson engaging in sex acts, is child pornography, a judge has ruled in a landmark case.



Justice Adams:



> He upheld the magistrate's conclusion that the figures in the cartoons were depictions of persons within the meaning of the definitions in the laws.
> 
> Justice Adams ordered each party to pay its own costs, as it was the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.



Furry characters are not persons. Unless, the copyright owner of said characters uses them as a legal person... In that case, I ammend, sexual offense laws could be applied. This danger would solely be applied to outsorced copyrighted characters though, as the interpretation of the nature of furry characters (which are clearly fictional, even more than the Simpsons) pretty much depends on the owner. Someone who draws original cub porn will deny any association of the characters with real children, thus not being pedophilia.

Then of course, it finally always depends on how closed-minded the jury and the people are in your country. Adult yiff alone can be a sexual blasphemy in several religious countries. If someone isn't open-minded enough to surf on FA, they ought not to be here.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 24, 2009)

Clayton said:


> FA isn't a sex store.
> Bad Dragons is alright because I think they're paying to be there, and all their products are hidden behind an adult link. :S


Just because they are paying for it doesn't change anything... It's not like they would allow a child porn site to advertise here or something


----------



## Ahkahna (Jan 25, 2009)

The Foil,

I must openly apologize for the removal of your submissions as there was indeed a misunderstanding between myself and Dragoneer on the AUP. I was not aware at the time that sculptures were not involved in that clause but was later corrected when Varkas also brought this same issue up with me, and I asked Dragoneer if I had misunderstood the "sex toys" removal. There was grave misunderstanding on both ends, so I have to say that I am willing to take some blame for their deletion.

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, the submissions cannot be recovered. 

:/


----------



## The Foil (Jan 25, 2009)

TheFabFurry said:


> i dont know why people try to defend pedophilia. anyone who does obviously likes little kids.



Watch the fallacies, we are not here to fight with each other, simply discuss the new AUP and see if we can get clarification.


----------



## The Foil (Jan 25, 2009)

Ahkahna said:


> The Foil,
> 
> I must openly apologize for the removal of your submissions as there was indeed a misunderstanding between myself and Dragoneer on the AUP. I was not aware at the time that sculptures were not involved in that clause but was later corrected when Varkas also brought this same issue up with me, and I asked Dragoneer if I had misunderstood the "sex toys" removal. There was grave misunderstanding on both ends, so I have to say that I am willing to take some blame for their deletion.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much for the reply. No hard feelings. I admit the initial shock can stir up emotions, but it is nothing to truly ruin a day over. Misunderstandings happen. And heck, I was at fault for not archiving my own work. I'll try and find if I can get them from somewhere... If not, JoAnn Fabric is running a sale on clay this week.

Also, any chance on getting this thread locked to prevent any more "heated" debate since the point is now mute?


----------

