404OilDrum said:
So your saying FA is innocent because it was a financial decision? Even when that ban was just one of a MILLION fuck ups, screw ups, and bad decisions they made over the years?

I don't know enough about FA's history to say they're "innocent". I avoid the site because I don't like it; it's uglier, harder to search, and has worse content than e621 or Inkbunny, so I'm not really paying much attention to what the staff does. But I am saying that they didn't make the decision as a moral stand, which you were implying by saying you wished they'd listen to these arguments.

404OilDrum said:
If furry sites are at financial risk of hosting cub, why do some sites ban it and some don't?

Different sites are hosted in different countries, which affects how hostile the business environment is to this kind of content. They also have different economic strategies, relying on different companies in turn, which affects how much risk they're in. For example, the company I mentioned before, AlertPay, made the decision they did purely because they decided it wasn't worth the risk rather than because they legally needed to. Other payment providers may be bolder than that, more willing to deal with questionable territory.


OT: idc if it's artistic and not-human or what, if it's supposed to be under twenty that's weird and gross. underage is just fucked, major btfo with that shit


Violet_Rose said:
I don't know enough about FA's history to say they're "innocent". I avoid the site because I don't like it; it's uglier, harder to search, and has worse content than e621 or Inkbunny, so I'm not really paying much attention to what the staff does. But I am saying that they didn't make the decision as a moral stand, which you were implying by saying you wished they'd listen to these arguments.
Different sites are hosted in different countries, which affects how hostile the business environment is to this kind of content. They also have different economic strategies, relying on different companies in turn, which affects how much risk they're in. For example, the company I mentioned before, AlertPay, made the decision they did purely because they decided it wasn't worth the risk rather than because they legally needed to. Other payment providers may be bolder than that, more willing to deal with questionable territory.

So you admit that FA is trash but the one thing you're willing to defend them on is the cub ban? Hmmm...

If they're banning cub because their financers are being threaten, then WHO'S threatning them? I highly doubt any court would try to take on "yiff sites", so some certain group of people must be sueing them. Are THEY innocent too?


404OilDrum said:
So you admit that FA is trash but the one thing you're willing to defend them on is the cub ban? Hmmm...

If they're banning cub because their financers are being threaten, then WHO'S threatning them? I highly doubt any court would try to take on "yiff sites", so some certain group of people must be sueing them. Are THEY innocent too?

I care about the factual correctness of accusations, regardless of who's being accused or why. I have no reason to care what happens to FA, but as far as I'm concerned, society as a whole has an interest in the truth being known. As for the second question, if you read what I said, nobody was even threatening them yet. They decided threats might come in the future, probably based on the ever-more-repressive trends surrounding this kind of thing in a lot of countries, and FA's business wasn't good enough to be worth the risk.

So basically, if you're asking who's responsible for this, I'd say it's probably the governments of countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia, since they're pushing so hard for more legislation against thoughtcrime.


404OilDrum said:
So you admit that FA is trash but the one thing you're willing to defend them on is the cub ban? Hmmm..

If they're banning cub because their financers are being threaten,

There's no reason to assume their financiers are being threatened rather than proactively mitigating risk.

There's no reason to assume that Violet_Rose is defending FA in this case, rather than clarifying that their motives are not moralistic. They can have legal motivations that are still bad. People can behave shittily without it being a conspiracy.

There's no reason to assume that Violet_Rose is secretly visiting FA because cub, and thus chooses to make said clarification. They could, for example, just have felt that your comically low-resolution presentation of the situation was offensive and needed to be rectified.

I certainly do.


savageorange said:
There's no reason to assume that Violet_Rose is secretly visiting FA because cub, and thus chooses to make said clarification.

Just for the sake of accuracy, I actually do have a FA account, which has, like, two favorites on it. Both of them are images that aren't present on e621, and that's the only reason I ever go there - if somebody I know sends me a link or if an image deleted by artist request has a FA source. I don't actively boycott FA - I just think it's a lot less appealing than its competitors. Compare that to my 1091 favorites here, and it should be pretty clear where I spend my time.


I write about characters getting psychologically tortured, including my own fursona, and in cases with fictional characters I know about, or my own fursona, tailoring it to be specifically what would be horrible for that character. Some were...very creative. It's not pornographic but I'm sure someone will inevitably use it that way. If I can write that without remorse (me of all people doing something without remorse), then why would I feel guilty about stories with cub, even if it's nsfw? FFX wasn't a snuff film. Madworld isn't a training video. Hitman isn't a tutorial on how to cleanly kill. Fiction is fiction. Take away the outlet and you only have the real thing to use. And that's a shame because there's a reason I include my own fursona as the victim so much.


Violet_Rose said:
I care about the factual correctness of accusations, regardless of who's being accused or why. I have no reason to care what happens to FA, but as far as I'm concerned, society as a whole has an interest in the truth being known. As for the second question, if you read what I said, nobody was even threatening them yet. They decided threats might come in the future, probably based on the ever-more-repressive trends surrounding this kind of thing in a lot of countries, and FA's business wasn't good enough to be worth the risk.

So basically, if you're asking who's responsible for this, I'd say it's probably the governments of countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia, since they're pushing so hard for more legislation against thoughtcrime.

"They're pushing hard for more legislation against thoughtcrime."

That's exactly the "certain group" i was hinting before. That's our problem nowadays... *sigh*


In order to get off on something I have to have an empathetic connection with at least one of the characters. In any situation where a young character is involved usually makes it impossible to empathize with anything. It's bonerdeath often enough that I've BL'd young. That's my experience, so if I enjoyed a piece of art that had underage scenarios in it, I would probably be concerned.


from my experience, this is what I have to say. their are several artist that have a taste for something that I may not be particularly fond of,but they make extraordinary artwork that I can't help but view. after being expose to some things over time I grown less and less bias against it, and eventually I began to enjoy it. for example I use to be homophobic:but now I'm attracted to men and women. at that point. I began to notice other kinks I wasn't proud of and tried to replace them. a couple of them was I used to like incest and loli even though I find the thought disgusting in real life, but nevertheless I rarely look it up these days. because this officially became a battle against your morality vs a stimuli that was reinforced daily.

what I'm getting at is all this is fictional pixels on a screen, I get it.but whatever it is their away a concept you must either accept or get rid of, and their a old saying: "everyone is shaped by their past decisions". my advice to everyone is to each their own, but be careful what you introduce yourself to. otherwise the beauty of it may turn you into a beast.


For me I only feel this attraction in cubs (I dispice human porn at all; dunno why. I just feel it), even so I think it's wrong child porn. I dispice it because you are harming someone, a perso who would become someone one day, or have a family who are missing the child dearly.

I have a code that even if a cub just poof in front on me, begging me to fuck him, I still won't do it because I don't see problem when it's just a fetish, where you do it only in your head, without doing harm to anyone. Seeing a cub in real life would only lead me think "this not a fantasy anymore. It's now real.".

I see my facination about cubs as a fetish, a fantasy where you just "create" randomly, use it and then forgets about it. If it turns out real, it would put a lot of things to consider, like, "this cub will grow up, being adult and not being the cute cub I adore anymore", and many others.

So I think it's fine to just fantasy about it because it's not a real thing. Even if turns out real, I would feel it's wrong.

SnowWolf
Contributor
12 days ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 20
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

I don't think anyone in this thread is into 'real' cubs.

Even if they were, I don't think they would admit it. That's the sort of thing that gets you slapped with Jail time so hard and fast you don't even want to know.

Art is one thing. real photos? real people? Oh hell no.


SnowWolf said:
I don't think anyone in this thread is into 'real' cubs.

Even if they were, I don't think they would admit it. That's the sort of thing that gets you slapped with Jail time so hard and fast you don't even want to know.

Art is one thing. real photos? real people? Oh hell no.

Exactly.

I just appreciate this kind of art.


404OilDrum said:

That still doesn't explained why Weasyl and Furry Network banned cub and Inkbunny, Sofurry, and E621 didn't. If furry sites are at financial risk of hosting cub, why do some sites ban it and some don't?

Because it's disgusting, morally questionable, possibly illegal, and they're privately owned so they can ban what they want?


Zoness said:
Because it's disgusting, morally questionable, possibly illegal, and they're privately owned so they can ban what they want?


ABrokenEyePatch said:
Before anyone tries to give me legal or psychology lesson, I am not making any implications that cub yiff is synonymous with child porn because it isn't.

That said, I would like your thoughts on artists deliberately putting characters who are too young for sexual interactions (compared to their real life contemporaries, whether they be human or animal) in pictures and comics. I personally am having a moral dilemma, in that I have enjoyed artwork by artists like Hamartist, Aogami and Swizzlestix, to name a few, but feel there is something wrong in doing so. The younger characters depicted by these artists aren't Rule 34, which I see as parody anyway, so the artists themselves created the characters specifically for pornographic works. I feel wrong for liking them so much and getting off to such images. The artwork is often so well done and creative,sometimes hilarious and sometimes innovative, but the idea of putting children of any species (real or fictional) in sexual situations that would be rough for adults is morally debilitating. Worse yet, it makes me upset with the artists for making them to begin with when they could have easily used adult characters instead. It makes me wonder if they might be up to some shady shit in their spare time, if you catch my drift. Of course, I admit it's unfair to assume such things, but it's not without merit. [EDIT] I suppose merit is a poor word choice. Perhaps rationale or understanding fits better. I am only human and apologize for giving credence to the idea of accusing artists of wrong doing. When I feel worried or distraught, I guess I try connecting dots that likely aren't there. I mean no disrespect to artists just trying to make a living.

I know I'm looking too much into it, but I guess I just want reassurance that it's not so unusual or bizarre and that I am not a special brand of fucked in the head.

Just to reiterate, I am not seeking out cub work. It just so happens that I enjoy some art involving cub material due to the art style or subject matter on display. I would enjoy said works if they didn't involve cub, maybe more so.

Your thoughts?

For some, I can make an exception. Like minors with Lucario or Charizard? That’s pretty damn hot. What bothers me is if they’re so young that they’re babies or something... That just becomes straight-up cringe. I make even greater exceptions when the underage creatures are feral Dragons, Foxes, Felines, Canines, Equines, etc. In another way of saying it... I hate humanoid baby porn & humanoid pedophilia. I love ferals no matter how young, and there is no guilt with me on that part. I suggest if you feel insecure about any kind of furry porn you watch (besides the cringe), then really try to understand that your conscience is just being an illogical dick, and needs to shut up & stop shaming you. Enslave your annoying conscience with logic! That’s what I did.


Heteroxon said:
if you feel insecure about any kind of furry porn you watch (besides the cringe), then really try to understand that your conscience is just being an illogical dick, and needs to shut up & stop shaming you.

i love how you place cringe above one's moral compass.

also no, desire does not automatically stem from more logic than one's moral sway. one might find their truth lying on either side. keeping the mind on is always preferable, it's the crowning product of billions of years of trial and error after all


notawerewolf said:
moral compass

Let's be clear, as disturbing and disgusting as furry art can be, there is absolutely no need for a "moral compass" when browsing e621. You are not on an expedition in a dangerous new world of ethical dilemmas, you are viewing a representation of the imaginings on the inside of an artist's head.


Zoness said:
Disgusting, morally questionable, possibly illegal

Wat, I think they are cute.

Illegal pixels?
Are they any more illegal the the ones which decapitate people, spill their guts, stab, blow up, make full of holes with bullets, drown, run over...etc?


Heteroxon said:
then really try to understand that your conscience is just being an illogical dick, and needs to shut up & stop shaming you. Enslave your annoying conscience with logic! That’s what I did.

A person doesn't feel arousal with their brain. It's further down.


DelurC said:Illegal pixels?

Downloading child pornographic artwork is definitely illegal. There are no laws on cub, which is why the key word is "possibly".

I would like to clarify that I do not think that people should be ashamed of their fetishes so I think the answer to the overall question in general is no. But I would say if you have an empathetic connection to a character in say a comic strip who takes advantage of a younger person, like you could really insert yourself into that character who is taking the virginity of a minor, that this is something you should probably be concerned about. If you see the younger one as the surrogate character or rather you've sexually objectified the artwork and are aroused as a bystander, I think you are in the clear.


[/thread]

BlueDingo
Privileged
11 days ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

kamimatsu said:
A person doesn't feel arousal with their brain. It's further down.

Except the arousal process start from your brain. How else would the rest of your body know to react to it if your brain doesn't tell it to?


BlueDingo said:
Except the arousal process start from your brain. How else would the rest of your body know to react to it if your brain doesn't tell it to?

Not all of the brain runs on thought and logic. And the most notable thing hormones do is overwrite thought and logic anyway. The feeling doesn't even require conscious thought from the person feeling it. Someone can feel it without knowing what it even is, or actually not want to feel it and feel it anyway.

Parts of the brain don't rely on whether something is rational. Some just tell you to do something without any indication why. A person can be hiding from someone and break down crying out of fear even though they'll be caught due to the noise. Someone can grow attached to someone who, logically, isn't of any use to them. Instinct overwrites logic at times. And with sexual things, all the logic in the world won't make someone feel something. It might give the opportunity to try, but that's about it.

BlueDingo
Privileged
10 days ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

kamimatsu said:
Not all of the brain runs on thought and logic. And the most notable thing hormones do is overwrite thought and logic anyway. The feeling doesn't even require conscious thought from the person feeling it. Someone can feel it without knowing what it even is, or actually not want to feel it and feel it anyway.

Parts of the brain don't rely on whether something is rational. Some just tell you to do something without any indication why. A person can be hiding from someone and break down crying out of fear even though they'll be caught due to the noise. Someone can grow attached to someone who, logically, isn't of any use to them. Instinct overwrites logic at times. And with sexual things, all the logic in the world won't make someone feel something. It might give the opportunity to try, but that's about it.

You know that doesn't disprove what I said, right? All you did was make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary brain activity.


crabbesfest said:
Downloading child pornographic artwork is definitely illegal. There are no laws on cub, which is why the key word is "possibly".

I would like to clarify that I do not think that people should be ashamed of their fetishes so I think the answer to the overall question in general is no. But I would say if you have an empathetic connection to a character in say a comic strip who takes advantage of a younger person, like you could really insert yourself into that character who is taking the virginity of a minor, that this is something you should probably be concerned about. If you see the younger one as the surrogate character or rather you've sexually objectified the artwork and are aroused as a bystander, I think you are in the clear.

And what if I'm the child?


BlueDingo said:
Except the arousal process start from your brain. How else would the rest of your body know to react to it if your brain doesn't tell it to?

True, but it doesn't always come from the conscious part of the brain, you never had an erection without a reason?


BlueDingo said:
You know that doesn't disprove what I said, right? All you did was make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary brain activity.

I'm saying it's irrelevant.

DelurC said:
And what if I'm the child?

Then in this example you have already been established as someone who doesn't exist.

BlueDingo
Privileged
10 days ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

DelurC said:
True, but it doesn't always come from the conscious part of the brain, you never had an erection without a reason?

There is always a reason for its occurrence.


BlueDingo said:
There is always a reason for its occurrence.

Yeah sure...
I wana fuck the clouds.