Can we get a little lienient in the Adult Fursuit Section?

[net-cat]

Is that really an allowable course though, since Journals are viewable by any and all people visiting the site, regardless of filters or if they are even a member of this site? Anyone could just come to the site and click on the links in journals, let alone a child who might not even know what a [nsfw] tag next to a link means.

For adults, [nsfw] or similar is enough. If they don't get it the first time, they'll learn. (And NSFW is fairly standard at this point.)

For minors, I don't actually care. We don't host the content so the responsibility doesn't fall on our shoulders. If their parents don't want their kids accessing that content, they are free to install any of a number of commercially available or free content filters.

Wouldn't that just fall under "mature"? I always thought mature entitled tasteful/artistic nudity with no explicit sexual content, whereas adult was just good old fashioned sex (or raunchy, kinky sex, whatever have you).

Technically, yes. But the line between "art" and "porn" is ill-defined and it's much easier to just say no to all of it.

Hmm, good to know. Can they wear a strap on and eff each other?

I'm going with "no" on that one.

Also, might I ask why you do not want to see humans?

Because once it involves real people, it's governed by a whole new set of laws we don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

So... As long as a peen isn't shown (on any pics hosted by you) you're OK with it?

I believe the rules say no nudity at all. This is largely an ass-covering move.

Can we allow Sexual photographs within the Fursuit Section (as long as human penzor isn't shown) and include links within submissions (that are tagged as adult) to other sites that show everything?

I'll defer to an actual admin on that one...

 

[Quiet269]

It seems redundant since the AUP says no adult or adult themed fursuit photos yet we have a "Fursuit - Adult" catagory. Contridict much?

My thoughts exactly

Shouting BS and putting words into large, bold font does not make these things true. People have taken the time to write poetry, compose music and write and edit prose submissions. You probably shelled out several hundred dollars and are fighting for the right to proudly defile a suit that you, yourself have not made. They have no more right to be there than Spore creations. These submissions you're comparing your argument to take more effort than a naked MySpace photo. Whether you like to admit it or not, your penis is not art.
I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny. As for you second comment, why not just remove ALL commissioned work unless the original artist posts it? Why not remove all fursuits unless you built it?

That's the gist of it. -I- personally don't want to see your (or anyone's) penis on this site.
But a horse/dog/fox penis is fine... ^_^ Gotcha.

There are plenty more places to host it than FA. I don't want to think about the number of people that would be posting inappropriate photos of themselves if this was allowed.

Not too many actually. I mean when you think about it maybe 10% of the furries are suiters, then what % of that are adult suiters, then what % of that would post pics of themselves?

Because once it involves real people, it's governed by a whole new set of laws we don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.
I did not know this. I can understand your reluctance then.

I believe the rules say no nudity at all. This is largely an ass-covering move. Right, I guess I should have been clearer.

I'll defer to an actual admin on that one...

Thanks
I mean if suggestive stuff is allowed (no bits showing) with links to the "Real" stuff, then that would satisfy my request.

But as the rules stand now, if it has a sheath it seems people are afraid their stuff is going to get deleted because the whole situation is quite confusing.

 

[Emil]

But as the rules stand now, if it has a sheath it seems people are afraid their stuff is going to get deleted because the whole situation is quite confusing.

So basically, youre saying you want to waste the resources of this site, posting things this site isnt meant for, so you can post links to outsides sources of pornography?

I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny.

Please point out how my comment was funny, given how this is an art site, and not a porn site. And if you say anything about fursuits (which are art) being art, you dont want to post fursuits, you want to post fursuit porn (which isnt art)

 

[Roland]

I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny.

Claiming sarcasm seems to be a bad excuse for a cop-out these days when one doesn't want to admit how daft they're really being. This is the Internet. If you don't make it glaringly obvious that you're not being serious, people are not going to realize you're joking.

Why don't you just host pictures and videos of your fursuit on XTube or something and post the link in your journal/profile? Posting fursuit (porn) pictures is just like posting commisions. It's really only done because the person wants attention. The fact that you want to post sexual fursuits and then links to your fursuit partaking in sexual acts implies that the only reason you want this rule passed is because you just want attention.

 

[Quiet269]

So basically, youre saying you want to waste the resources of this site, posting things this site isnt meant for, so you can post links to outsides sources of pornography?
Nice jump in logic, buddy. If the site was not meant for such things, why is there a category created specifically for that purpose? Up until the change in the AUP in regards to Photography I can only assume that section was used for what I am requesting.

Please point out how my comment was funny, given how this is an art site, and not a porn site. And if you say anything about fursuits (which are art) being art, you dont want to post fursuits, you want to post fursuit porn (which isnt art)

The fact that you felt it necessary to use Bold over sized text was humorous.

Maybe we just have different senses of humor.

Claiming sarcasm seems to be a bad excuse for a cop-out these days when one doesn't want to admit how daft they're really being. This is the Internet. If you don't make it glaringly obvious that you're not being serious, people are not going to realize you're joking.

Sorry, I figured the overuse of the "ART" made it obvious I was not being serious in my comment.

Why don't you just host pictures and videos of your fursuit on XTube or something and post the link in your journal/profile? Posting fursuit (porn) pictures is just like posting commisions. It's really only done because the person wants attention. The fact that you want to post sexual fursuits and then links to your fursuit partaking in sexual acts implies that the only reason you want this rule passed is because you just want attention.

Until just recently it was unknown that someone could do such things. It would seem from my interpretation of the AUP that such links were not allowed. Also, I do not have a Fursuit. So no I am not doing this because I want to post pictures of myself getting effed in suit. If you read my recent post you would realize that I altered my request to see if links to outside sources would be OK, along with Suggestive Adult work in fursuits.

 

[Roland]

The fact that you felt it necessary to use Bold over sized text was humorous.

Maybe we just have different senses of humor.

Probably.

Until just recently it was unknown that someone could do such things. It would seem from my interpretation of the AUP that such links were not allowed. Also, I do not have a Fursuit. So no I am not doing this because I want to post pictures of myself getting effed in suit. If you read my recent post you would realize that I altered my request to see if links to outside sources would be OK, along with Suggestive Adult work in fursuits.

I'm in agreement with fursuits with the fake sheath things, because that pretty much falls under the category of fictional porn. Though I'm curious as to what your motives are if you don't even have a fursuit as to which this argument applies?

 

[Emil]

The fact that you felt it necessary to use Bold over sized text was humorous.

Maybe we just have different senses of humor.

Why, because I felt I needed to reiterate the point to you in a completely clear way that this site is about art, and not porn? Im sorry that I feel the need to vocally defend the idea that this community should be about what it was founded for more than it should be about anything else.

Nice jump in logic, buddy. If the site was not meant for such things, why is there a category created specifically for that purpose? Up until the change in the AUP in regards to Photography I can only assume that section was used for what I am requesting.

Because there are other ways to showcase "adult" fursuits without making porn of them, which is something you dont seem to understand. Also, Im unaware the AUP has ever been changed regarding photography. But Im sure an administrator could clear that up.

Until just recently it was unknown that someone could do such things. It would seem from my interpretation of the AUP that such links were not allowed.

It has always been allowed. You saying you didnt know is no excuse. There is nothing in the rules governing the use of links in submissions or the journal. It is already standard practice to post links to things outside of what may be uploaded to FA in the form of a journal link. This is a course often suggested by moderation and the administrative staff themselves.

Also, I do not have a Fursuit. So no I am not doing this because I want to post pictures of myself getting effed in suit. If you read my recent post you would realize that I altered my request to see if links to outside sources would be OK, along with Suggestive Adult work in fursuits.

No, but you do seem to have an interest in using this site to obtain free human fursuit porn. This site is for posting art. It is about free art for the masses, not free pornography for the masses. This idea is only reinforced by how I already gave suggestions that would allow for the showing of "adult" suits on this site as submissions and as art, and your refusal to accept them, instead wanting use of dildos and sexual situations.

Also, the use of FA resources you are proposing, for the express purpose of providing links to outside sources of pornography that would otherwise violate FA rules, could very well be considered a violation of part 3 of Spamming section of the FA AUP

Also, using animal dildos violates "By you" "For you" in the FA AUP. Unless you either made the dildo yourself, or the dildo was hand crafted for you specifically, and not manufactured and sold to other people as well, it is a violation. Precedent supports this.

 

[Rilvor]

Did this complete moron just say Music and writing aren't an art form?


WOW.

Just wow.


Please stand still so we can all get in a line and slap the shit out of you until the stupid that's clogging your brain canals is flushed out. You deserve the image in my signature.

On a side note, if you people start allowing costumes with penises attached to them, I really hope you get your legal just desserts for lack of foresight.

 

[Quiet269]

Though I'm curious as to what your motives are if you don't even have a fursuit as to which this argument applies?

My motives are clarification, the site in regards to such things is quite confusing. There is an Adult Category and it doesn't allow it's own artwork.

Why, because I felt I needed to reiterate the point to you in a completely clear way that this site is about art, and not porn? Im sorry that I feel the need to vocally defend the idea that this community should be about what it was founded for more than it should be about anything else. Ok, whatever. I thought you were funny when you were being serious, drama drama drama.

It has always been allowed. You saying you didnt know is no excuse. There is nothing in the rules governing the use of links in submissions or the journal. It is already standard practice to post links to things outside of what may be uploaded to FA in the form of a journal link. This is a course often suggested by moderation and the administrative staff themselves.
Are you attempting to chastise me because I did not know about a unwritten exception to the rule? I mean when it says "NO!" I do not think "NO! Except if it is a link".

No, but you do seem to have an interest in using this site to obtain free human fursuit porn. This site is for posting art. It is about free art for the masses, not free pornography for the masses. This idea is only reinforced by how I already gave suggestions that would allow for the showing of "adult" suits on this site as submissions and as art, and your refusal to accept them, instead wanting use of dildos and sexual situations.
Umm, what? I only made that suggestion as I am trying to figure out what Dragoneers thinking/reasoning/logic is. If he had allowed Dildo's but not Human Peen, then I would know that he simply doesn't like human nudity. Because he doesn't want either I know that he doesn't want sex if it involves humans. There is a difference, and it affects how my next question will be asked. If you cannot see that it is not my fault. I DID accept the use of outside links, I am ASKING for clarification on this unwritten rule, and you keep BITCHING at me for no good reason.

Also, the use of FA resources you are proposing, for the express purpose of providing links to outside sources of pornography that would otherwise violate FA rules, could very well be considered a violation of part 3 of Spamming section of the FA AUP Holy hypocracy batman, didn't you JUST TELL ME that doing THIS VERY THING was OK? Wait, let me check:
It has always been allowed. You saying you didnt know is no excuse. There is nothing in the rules governing the use of links in submissions or the journal. It is already standard practice to post links to things outside of what may be uploaded to FA in the form of a journal link. This is a course often suggested by moderation and the administrative staff themselves.
Yup, whoa. That's kind of weird isn't it? Do you understand why there might be some confusion of on this matter, and why I might ask for clarification?

Also, using animal dildos violates "By you" "For you" in the FA AUP. Unless you either made the dildo yourself, or the dildo was hand crafted for you specifically, and not manufactured and sold to other people as well, it is a violation. Precedent supports this.

Wait, how much does this "By you" "For you" AUP cover? What if I post a picture of myself in a suit and there is a garbage can next to me, do I have to digitally remove it? What if I am sitting on a bull, or playing Mini-Golf? Do those things have to be removed as well?

Did this complete moron just say Music and writing aren't an art form?

Sarcasm, my friend, Sarcasm.

 

[Emil]

Can we allow Sexual photographs within the Fursuit Section (as long as human penzor isn't shown) and include links within submissions (that are tagged as adult) to other sites that show everything?

Umm, what? I only made that suggestion as I am trying to figure out what Dragoneers thinking/reasoning/logic is. If he had allowed Dildo's but not Human Peen, then I would know that he simply doesn't like human nudity. Because he doesn't want either I know that he doesn't want sex if it involves humans. There is a difference, and it affects how my next question will be asked. If you cannot see that it is not my fault. I DID accept the use of outside links, I am ASKING for clarification on this unwritten rule, and you keep BITCHING at me for no good reason.

Nice try at backpedaling. But the statement above this clearly shows you were asking for a change of the rules in light of Dragoneers statement he would not allow human wang, not clarification. Also, the title of this thread seems to suggest otherwise as well.

Are you attempting to chastise me because I did not know about a unwritten exception to the rule? I mean when it says "NO!" I do not think "NO! Except if it is a link".

Yes I am. Pay attention to your surroundings. And the place that says "NO!" also only says no in regards to submissions. A link is not a submission. Nor should a submission be created to justify a link to an outside source

Holy hypocracy batman, didn't you JUST TELL ME that doing THIS VERY THING was OK? Wait, let me check:
It has always been allowed. You saying you didnt know is no excuse. Yup, whoa. That's kind of weird isn't it?

No, because I am speaking of the use of links in journals, not the use of a whole submission that takes up more space than a few lines of text in a journal, which is what you are advocating.

My motives are clarification, the site in regards to such things is quite confusing. There is an Adult Category and it doesn't allow it's own artwork.
Wait, how much does this "By you" "For you" AUP cover? What if I post a picture of myself in a suit and there is a garbage can next to me, do I have to digitally remove it? What if I am sitting on a bull, or playing Mini-Golf? Do those things have to be removed as well?

It covers the subject of the submission, which the dildos are clearly part of, since you feel the need to use them to justify an adult sumbission.

 

[Arshes Nei]

It seems redundant since the AUP says no adult or adult themed fursuit photos yet we have a "Fursuit - Adult" catagory. Contridict much?

Legacy Code before the photography laws went into effect.

 

[Emil]

Legacy Code before the photography laws went into effect.

Ah, so the AUP was changed. I wasnt aware of that. When was the change made?

 

[Quiet269]

Nice try at backpedaling. But the statement above this clearly shows you were asking for a change of the rules in light of Dragoneers statement he would not allow human wang, not clarification. Also, the title of this thread seems to suggest otherwise as well.
Look, I don't care what you think I said. You obviously are not following my train of thought and as such have come to a conclusion by forcing your own thoughts onto another. I am telling you what I said, if you disagree with that then hold your tongue.

Yes I am. Pay attention to your surroundings. And the place that says "NO!" also only says no in regards to submissions. A link is not a submission. Nor should a submission be created to justify a link to an outside source

No, because I am speaking of the use of links in journals, not the use of a whole submission that takes up more space than a few lines of text in a journal, which is what you are advocating.

Legacy Code before the photography laws went into effect.

Maybe something like that should be fixed when a change is made...

 

[Emil]

Look, I don't care what you think I said. You obviously are not following my train of thought and as such have come to a conclusion by forcing your own thoughts onto another. I am telling you what I said, if you disagree with that then hold your tongue.

If that was your train of thought, which I think the statements you have posted seem to suggest otherwise, I wasnt the only one here that came to the conclusion that I did about what you were saying. So maybe you need to practice being more clear.

 

[Dragoneer]

Ah, so the AUP was changed. I wasnt aware of that. When was the change made?

The AUP hasn't officially changed since it went up. November will see a new AUP posted, possibly as soon as next week.

Now, as a note... and this is not directed at you, Emil, but if people would calmly state their reasons I will be willing to listen and consider them, but I'd like to see pros/cons. Bickering will not sway my opinion, not will endlessly bolding issues, getting huffy.

Peepees will not be allowed images. If you'd like to sway our opinion of having "anatomically correct suits" be a viable topic, let us know why. Wangs, starfish and milkbags (professional terminology at its best) can not, will not be permitted due to legal reasons that I am not going to go into for the Nth time. However, as far as "sheathed suits" I'd be willing to consider reversing our stance if you can provide a solid reason as to why.

If people can not discuss it in a civil manner without turning things personal the thread will be locked and we'll all move on our merry way, status quo.

 

[Quiet269]

Peepees will not be allowed images. If you'd like to sway our opinion of having "anatomically correct suits" be a viable topic, let us know why. Wangs, starfish and milkbags (professional terminology at its best) can not, will not be permitted due to legal reasons that I am not going to go into for the Nth time. However, as far as "sheathed suits" I'd be willing to consider reversing our stance if you can provide a solid reason as to why.

Dragoneer, I'm a little in the dark here, as I thought "Sheathed Suits" were allowed unless they were sexually suggestive. If that is not the case then I will need to revise my reasoning.

Can you please clarify as to what actually is currently allowed within that section, as it could simply be that I am thinking something is / isn't allowed when it really isn't / is allowed.

Thank-you

 

[Dragoneer]

Dragoneer, I'm a little in the dark here, as I thought "Sheathed Suits" were allowed unless they were sexually suggestive. If that is not the case then I will need to revise my reasoning.

Can you please clarify as to what actually is currently allowed within that section, as it could simply be that I am thinking something is / isn't allowed when it really isn't / is allowed.

Thank-you

Fursuit Adult is more of a legacy category. The category systems in FA could do with a major revision. "Sheathed" suits were originally permitted, but we kept running into issues with people posting... images... that were far, far more risque than were intended.

Right now Fursuit Adult is something of a misnomer. The categories need to be revised, but it would take a lot more work in the current system to revamp all of them than time/resources permit.

 

[Ratte]

Fursuits are art. Or do you want to remove them completely from the site? What about Music, and Poetry, and Writing? This is an ART community after all, and Music, Poetry, and Writing have nothing to do with ART.

Music, poetry, and writing are considered forms of art, so yes, it does have something to do with it and it would have reason to be here.

Ever notice that on WMP it says "artist" when you play a tune?

 

[x_panther]

i know im getting into the game way late but i have been trying to read up as much as possible and i feel i have sort of come to a consinsis about what the overall argument. i had asked a simple question to dragoneer earlier through furnet and it led me to reading as much on this threat as posible... i have a feeling i know the true intent of the AUP revision is. it has led me to write an 'intent' REALIZE THAT THIS IS JUST THE ARGUMENT IM HEARING this is not and am i in no way setting policy before reading this. http://pantherpouch.com/reference/prop_aup_fa.html

if you have a problem with what i have wrote, respond with dignaty. i dont want to be part of a shout fest just part of a community where we can communicat without having to resort to verbal or textual insults

 

[Emil]

The AUP hasn't officially changed since it went up. November will see a new AUP posted, possibly as soon as next week.

Now, as a note... and this is not directed at you, Emil, but if people would calmly state their reasons I will be willing to listen and consider them, but I'd like to see pros/cons. Bickering will not sway my opinion, not will endlessly bolding issues, getting huffy.

Peepees will not be allowed images. If you'd like to sway our opinion of having "anatomically correct suits" be a viable topic, let us know why. Wangs, starfish and milkbags (professional terminology at its best) can not, will not be permitted due to legal reasons that I am not going to go into for the Nth time. However, as far as "sheathed suits" I'd be willing to consider reversing our stance if you can provide a solid reason as to why.

If people can not discuss it in a civil manner without turning things personal the thread will be locked and we'll all move on our merry way, status quo.

Ive never considered things in this thread personal. In fact, I actually support that sheathed suits should be permitted same as any other fursuit. In my previous post (post 12 in this thread) however, I feel that I spelled out what is (at least imo) the proper, and most dignified way that they can be represented on Furaffinity. And that is in a way that does not allow to be used in a sexual way in the submission itself. An adult fursuit is perfectly capable of being displayed without a wearer. It is my opinion that the nature of an "adult" fursuit makes it essentially a sex toy. While the owner is wearing it uncensored, it is performing its intended function. It then cannot be anything but sexual in meaning.

 

[Quiet269]

i know im getting into the game way late but i have been trying to read up as much as possible and i feel i have sort of come to a consinsis about what the overall argument. i had asked a simple question to dragoneer earlier through furnet and it led me to reading as much on this threat as posible... i have a feeling i know the true intent of the AUP revision is. it has led me to write an 'intent' REALIZE THAT THIS IS JUST THE ARGUMENT IM HEARING this is not and am i in no way setting policy before reading this. http://pantherpouch.com/reference/prop_aup_fa.html

if you have a problem with what i have wrote, respond with dignaty. i dont want to be part of a shout fest just part of a community where we can communicat without having to resort to verbal or textual insults

might need a spell check but I can agree with what is stated in that link, assuming that off-site links are OK to post

 

[Eevee]

Fursuits are art.

this is just me but you know

creating a fursuit: art
putting on a fursuit someone else made and waving your tiny dick around in front of a $7 webcam: not art

I guess no one here sees sarcasm. I was being sarcastic as the original comment was so boldly shouting about ART that it was kind of funny. As for you second comment, why not just remove ALL commissioned work unless the original artist posts it? Why not remove all fursuits unless you built it?

HRARGH DON'T REPLY INSIDE QUOTES, VB DELETES EVERYTHING YOU WROTE WHEN I TRY TO REPLY

but uh yeah I have been arguing for this for a while

http://pantherpouch.com/reference/prop_aup_fa.html

why does everyone think the solution to every problem is to add another six paragraphs of pseudo-legalese to the AUP and make it twice as hard to read?

 

[Xipoid]

why does everyone think the solution to every problem is to add another six paragraphs of pseudo-legalese to the AUP and make it twice as hard to read?

I would suggest hiring an actual lawyer, but then it would probably be entirely unreadable, which wouldn't really help come to think of it.



Since there will be a new AUP uploaded in the near future and its creation seemingly remains independent, it would make sense to just hold off on this until the AUP updated at which point one could submit a nice little, clear-cut petition.

 

[Quiet269]

this is just me but you know
creating a fursuit: art
putting on a fursuit someone else made and waving your tiny dick around in front of a $7 webcam: not art
Art is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Are all of those photographs of people in various poses Art? To a lot of people it is. I do like how the admins just slap insults on the entire fursuiting populous so nonchalantly.

HRARGH DON'T REPLY INSIDE QUOTES, VB DELETES EVERYTHING YOU WROTE WHEN I TRY TO REPLY HRARGH use a better board system and I wont.

but uh yeah I have been arguing for this for a while
You... you took me seriously with that comment? Holy cow.

why does everyone think the solution to every problem is to add another six paragraphs of pseudo-legalese to the AUP and make it twice as hard to read?

You could easily condense it, but a little more clarification would be nice.

 

[Roland]

I'm not going to quote your posts because it would appear you don't know how to properly reply to a post, but here goes.

Fursuits fall under the same category as SL screenshots. They take no talent and their use is abused. Thank God people are only allowed three per prim, but a lot of the times that is still too much. The only time I will gladly accept an SL screenshot is when someone has made the product themselves.

Your typical MySpace photo (taken in the mirror/at arm's length) is not art. It's a horrible cry for attention most times. FA userpages really need a space that a person can upload -one- personal photo and be done with it. Now, in one case, a friend of mine was using an account to upload pictures of herself as references for other people to use so that they could look them up and use them at their will. Although the purpose was to further the evolution of art for some people, perhaps the pictures were not classified enough as art and the submissions were quickly removed for being the same person.

Building a fursuit, constructing something in SL takes time and skill. A lot more time and skill than it does to hold your camera as far away from your face as you can and take a picture of yourself in a fursuit because you're too ashamed to show your actual face. It is not your right to post someone else's work for your own personal gain.

I do like how the admins just slap insults on the entire fursuiting populous so nonchalantly.

Oh yeah, this. Eevee is not an admin.

Perhaps he should colour the bold text in bright purple and make them about six times bigger?