• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

FA Policy Notice - "Cub" Art

Status
Not open for further replies.

cesarin

Famous Huggable Dragon
neowolf said:
Why is it no one seems to realize that taking either stance to the extreme is stepping up on a moral high horse. Whether you're against the decision or even for it. The admins made a decision on a close call. With how the vote went arguably they could've gone either way and been respecting the opinions of the site to the best of their ability. Either way being a cry baby about not getting your way or an ass to those that just don't like the decision is just mindless trolling. If people don't like the decision it's certainly their right to leave. (Freedom of expression and all entails choosing where you want to after all.) Not everyone that's doing it's making a hissy fit of it. (And in that vein, if you're not the person leaving don't bring them into it unless they've at least asked you to whine for them.)

Arshes Nei said:
Summercat said:
Beyond that, I think Arshes Nei has (her? his? Arshes, which is it?) the best put arguement.

I'm female. Take it for what you will. Most people who didn't know my gender assumed I was a guy "because you argue like one".


aaand, because you have not gone for the boob atack combo yet? XD
 

tacticalsnake

Porno Cowboy
Vekke said:
I wonder, why is FA not limited to furry art anyway? o_O I mean, it is FUR affinity, and there are other general-art places. Off-topic. Sorry. I just wonder what made the admins come to that decision.

Because it's supposed to be an open site...?
Beyond that-- where else is there for 'general' art? Because if we're talking about porn, uh... FA is pretty much the only place I have to post a good portion of my work-- which further, does contain a lot of humans (usually fan art). I mean, sure some stuff I can put on DA, but I can put furry stuff there too, and as far as porn goes... Yeah, this is pretty much the only place I got.

Besides, it's not like the community is inundated with non-furs, in so far as I've seen (or maybe I assume too often that it's just others like my self that do fan art or occasionally play non-beast races in RPGs, etc. :p).

Anyway, there's VCL if you want fur only, :p
 
Well that's a good question
one would assume that the vast majority of material here on FA is furry or related. One would also assume, however, that the majority of material is also porn of some kind...but apparently the admins say that it's only about 15% of the overall material here, at least that was what I heard about a week ago now. With all the people bailing I'm sure that percentage has shifted.
 

SokiTwopaw

New Member
Now that I have calmed down on the matter here is a summary of what I have learned and feel on the subject:

-I would be happy if it was gone and done with for good.
-But we have to respect the few that like the stuff, like we have to respect the minority in the country that speaks Spanish. So we spend billions typing things in Spanish.

-I left.
-Why? Not because it’s some moral thing, morals are taught to you. And if you feel it is morally wrong, you will feel it in the frontal lobe of your brain. I feel this in the center near the main survival glands which says it’s not immoral; it’s beyond words to describe.

-Will I come back?
-Dunno. I would like to, but something clicks and burns that says I shouldn't be on here un-till a certain date.

-Do I think you should care that I left?
-Naw, my art was just halfway good jerk material any who.

-Should other art be considered banned as well?
-No. This I feel goes back to the grade school idea of "If one person messes up, the rest pay." Inflation, Rape, Drug, Speeding Cars, and such should not be accused of the same things as cub porn. They are a completely different animal. They are still Sharpies' but none the less they are still dogs. Just because one is considored bad, doesn’t mean the rest are as well.

-Does artist merit count towards’ anything?
No. Artist merit was taken away with the patriot act back in 02'. But that is political merit. Artist merit is the ability to express, convey, tell a story. Not get some one off. Now is there no merit in well done porn art? Yes there is merit, but that merit is of a completely different species all together. One of which, the general public does not like.
  
-Is FA "basically" a porn site?
Yes. In my opinion. From what I have seen "500 artist or so that are 1/2 way good" their art is of an adult genre'.

-Is Cub Art a legitimate type of art?
-Yes it is.

-Is Cub Art a public "out side of artist and fandom" welcome art style?
-No it is not. Most people that I have talked to informed of the laws or not, found it heinous.

-Freedom of speech shield or truth?
-YES Freedom of speech to convey worthful helpful information without being imprisoned. Not freedom of speech to scare, hinder or falter others or others family's' freedom of feeling safe.

-Is it illegal?
-Touchy subject. It's illegal from Britannica to Canada to America to have computer generated images of child porn, or humanoid-ish porn. It is also illegal to have written stories that posses minors in a sexual situation. Beastiality is also illegal in these countries and certain US states. Is it 100% illegal to have furry child porn? I don’t know, but I will know this Monday when I get to talk to a high ranking federal agent that I know. Odds are its best to hear it from the horse’s mouth, especially if he is high in the ranks he would have to know.

-Does computer generated child porn fuel desires, anthro or not?
-Yes. In cases in 88’, 96’ and 2001 offenders in Canada admitted that their online obsessions helped fueled their fires to rape and kill a 14 year old BC resident, 10 year old girl, and an 8 year old boy. Others have admitted that their on line addictions fueled their desires and actions to molest any where from 8 month olds to 16 year old teenagers.

-Does Cub Art constitute a revision of TOS under the examples given by the mods and or loop holes in state laws IMO?
-No. Loop holes are good for one time jumps. After that they snag and strangulate all that try them. This was a case back in 96' with a man who wrote kiddie porn stories. Also with all the laws that it could be associated with, it could land people in massive trouble and long jail terms. The data shown by the mods did not also show how the law was revised, nor did they give sources for their law’s’ that they found.

-Is a Filter an answer or a band aide?
-Band aide. Even though one will be in place, the fact that a justification, if the law comes in to play, as to why it is there will cause more issues. It does not make it go away, nor does it actually fix the problem. It makes the problem invisible to other FA goers.

-Is the Filter a good choice when regarding possible new subscribers?
-No. This filter may spark new fires about why it is there. It may also, in the event the site is scanned, and shut down, that the causal FA goers that click and forget may be in harms way for something they have nothing to do with.

-Was it truly the Fur Affinity Moderators choice to change the TOS and put themselves in possible legal harm and do we have anything that we can honestly say about it?
-Yes it was their choice to change the TOS, was it a good one? That is left up to the viewer. I say no from a legal background. Yes it is their right to put them selves in the path of harm even if we try to save them. No, we cannot say anything about changing it back, for it is not our computer to change

So over all, it’s past it’s done, every one drop it. If the site gets shut down, it gets shut down. If furs get burned “literally” for being associated with this years from now, so be it. There is nothing you can do about it. People will leave; people will jerk or rub off to this type of art. There is really nothing we can do about it or how people will interpret this type of art. That is left up to the federal government and the Supreme Court no geniuses like us.

Sources for info:
www.wikipedia.com
Microsoft Encarta
Webster
www.cbc.com
www.cnn.com
www.copa.com
www.nbc.com
www.fbi.gov
Free the Net.com
Spokane Police Department
Ellensburg Police Department
CWU Law School Students and Teachers
“when asked the morality vs artistc merit of child porn art”
 

uncia2000

Member
I'm very tempted to say 'no ripping that to shreds' to the usual suspects, but instead I'll just wait for you to report back on Monday, Soki.
I trust you know what question you're actually asking of that "high ranking federal agent"?
Thanks.
 

Kathalla

New Member
SynjoDeonecros said:
... but since FA is open to both art AND stories, the decision for one form of media should have some impact on the other, correct?

My opinion has always been that 'art' doesn't refer to a specific media-type. I've got a number of stories that, while young characters are almost never the core focus of the tale, I've avoided posting here while cub art was against the TOS because some of the characters are either children or just a bit younger than is considered adult. I'll be posting them soon enough, with the change, but I'm sad to say that anyone looking for pedophilic wankbait will have to look elsewhere. Character-age aside, I write things with (ewww!) plots, for the most part.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
You actually mentioned a good point, because one could be writing about young children in sexual situations would would have fallen against the TOS at the time. However, the story or even art piece that's involved could be the viewpoint of how wrong it is as well. Just like people who make rape stories to show brutal the attack is, not as a glorification, but to say how horrible it is. One who did a story featuring a child, no matter how graphic it is, could also be doing the same message.
 

Kathalla

New Member
I wasn't out to make any sort of point in the story in question (which I did post in the interim, same FA username as here). I'm not out to portray underaged sex in any light whatsoever, good or bad. The younger characters I used were simply appropriate to the plot-line at the time. Even if a psychologist tried to analyze the tale and assign some deeper motivation to the events depicted, they'd get both the good and the bad of things, with some enjoying it and others coming to a horrifying end. This sort of interpretation, though, is completely secondary; I'm just glad that, with the policy change, I could post the story... It's a full-sized novel, and very little of it has to do with cub or teen-furry sex; it was just the incidental inclusion of such that kept it off FA for as long as it did.
 

ediskrad

New Member
Awesome post, SokiTwopaw. I'm just gonna skip all the things I considered it's your personal point of view, or that have already been discussed a gillion times, and poke at one thing that sort of bothers me a bit, because it's a flawed truth.

SokiTwopaw said:
-Does computer generated child porn fuel desires, anthro or not?
-Yes. In cases in 88’, 96’ and 2001 offenders in Canada admitted that their online obsessions helped fueled their fires to rape and kill a 14 year old BC resident, 10 year old girl, and an 8 year old boy. Others have admitted that their on line addictions fueled their desires and actions to molest any where from 8 month olds to 16 year old teenagers.

A couple of cases does not set a rule. Truth is, there is no formal research on the effects of fake cub porn on people. I might as well say that, for each person that gets fueled, 250 thousand actually relieve their fantasies through pictures, instead of committing the act. But since there is no study on the topic, both arguments are invalid.

There, that's off my chest now :)
 

SokiTwopaw

New Member
uncia2000 said:
I'm very tempted to say 'no ripping that to shreds' to the usual suspects, but instead I'll just wait for you to report back on Monday, Soki.
I trust you know what question you're actually asking of that "high ranking federal agent"?
Thanks.

Yes I know exactly what I'm going to ask. Do I hear a bit of cynisysm in that comment? Im not being a douche, I wont say something that I dont mean. This person is I belive #3 or #4 in over all rank at this current time. So I feel that asking a higher up person then the average joe cop, would know the law and would be less open to interpritation.
 
Arshes Nei said:
You actually mentioned a good point, because one could be writing about young children in sexual situations would would have fallen against the TOS at the time. However, the story or even art piece that's involved could be the viewpoint of how wrong it is as well. Just like people who make rape stories to show brutal the attack is, not as a glorification, but to say how horrible it is. One who did a story featuring a child, no matter how graphic it is, could also be doing the same message.
That is a good point, and I'm sure one could write songs about it, and I know of at least 1 performance piece put on by a professional artist about rape, I mentioned it earlier but I can't remember on which thread.
 

SokiTwopaw

New Member
ediskrad said:
Awesome post, SokiTwopaw. I'm just gonna skip all the things I considered it's your personal point of view, or that have already been discussed a gillion times, and poke at one thing that sort of bothers me a bit, because it's a flawed truth.

SokiTwopaw said:
-Does computer generated child porn fuel desires, anthro or not?
-Yes. In cases in 88’, 96’ and 2001 offenders in Canada admitted that their online obsessions helped fueled their fires to rape and kill a 14 year old BC resident, 10 year old girl, and an 8 year old boy. Others have admitted that their on line addictions fueled their desires and actions to molest any where from 8 month olds to 16 year old teenagers.

A couple of cases does not set a rule. Truth is, there is no formal research on the effects of fake cub porn on people. I might as well say that, for each person that gets fueled, 250 thousand actually relieve their fantasies through pictures, instead of committing the act. But since there is no study on the topic, both arguments are invalid.

There, that's off my chest now :)


First off, thank you for your response! And I whole heartedly respect your opinion and disigreeance with me. Its well thought out and not offenseive! n_n

Yes that is also true, but none the less those where the ones that I found on the first two hits for stats. I do not know the actual % in the entire US for sex offenders allthough I do know there where 12 of them registered within a 10 block radius of my parents house in spokane wa. which is kind of scary; And also, we have to think about the kids that are still molested and sadly some times killed because of fueled desires no matter how few it is. Here are some interesting, yet older, stats that I did find after your response though!

# On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
# The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
# An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
# Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
# Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.

-http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex
(first hit on yahoo)

Obviously this does not state thier justifaction of thier crimes, nor thier motives behind the crimes. Yet something had to trigger it? Was is actual child porn, or could it have been art? We can only speculate.
I do feel though that this is how stuff needs to be gone about. I would still like to know where Dragoneer got his information though.
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
Soki; are you adjusting for the fact that in some jurisdictions you have to be signed up as a "registered sex offender" simply for having relations with a person who is only one or two years younger than you (like a 19-year-old with a 17-year-old girlfriend)?
 

uncia2000

Member
Ain't got a clue why this is relevant; but in passing on the way out of the door... may I say 'nice selective quoting'?
SokiTwopaw said:
Here are some interesting, yet older, stats that I did find after your response though!
...
# Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
# Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
-http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
Recidivism
# Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

- same link.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
I believe I also posted facts that a majority of sexual molestations were not done by strangers. They were done by family members and/or people the person trusted/knew.
 

shinmew

New Member
Online obsessions could be anything from child porn pics to downloading movies, to chatting with kids on myspace.
 

ediskrad

New Member
SokiTwopaw said:
Yet something had to trigger it? Was is actual child porn, or could it have been art? We can only speculate.

Sick people will be triggered by anything. If child porn (either real or fake) doesn't trigger them, anything else would. A semi naked kid on a pool, a short skirt on a girl. Anything. Or you think child rape didn't happen before the internet?

Still, I believe that having cub smut doesn't make you any more of a criminal than possessing a gun in your house. Sure, murders happen, but you can't blame the gun, now can you?. If someone has the will to kill, he will do it with or without a gun. Just as a child rapist will rape with or without porn.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Staff member
Site Director
Administrator
ediskrad said:
SokiTwopaw said:
Yet something had to trigger it? Was is actual child porn, or could it have been art? We can only speculate.

Sick people will be triggered by anything. If child porn (either real or fake) doesn't trigger them, anything else would. A semi naked kid on a pool, a short skirt on a girl. Anything. Or you think child rape didn't happen before the internet?

Still, I believe that having cub smut doesn't make you any more of a criminal than possessing a gun in your house. Sure, murders happen, but you can't blame the gun, now can you?. If someone has the will to kill, he will do it with or without a gun. Just as a child rapist will rape with or without porn.
See: Columbine.

People tried to blame Marilyn Manson and id Software's Doom for the Columbine massacre. The killers had a pre-existing condition that was triggered, and it was only a matter of time before they carried out the things that were in their head.

If somebody has the intention or motive to kill somebody it really doesn't matter if they watched Natural Born Killers moments before committing the crime. They had the intent to do so long before.
 

tigermist

Member
See this is why I don't like to get involved in discussions like this. When you open up a door like this no sooner do you open it five more open with it. Now we've gone from "cub porn" to columbine. Lets just say it peopel its human nature. We are NOTperfect we all make mistakes, a father abuses his child in anyway right of the bat this child is at a much higher risk to inflict the same abuse on his future children. Its a vicious cycle that has no end in sight. But taking this issue and applying it to other topics in esence only proves that the same outline applies to that subject as well. We're running in circles here people, don't you think its time to stop take a deep breath and just admit that in our life times this debate will never be solved. More than likely this debate will never come to a reasonable end for such is the complex duality of man that whats right today will be the horror of tomorrow.
 
Actually, depictions of underage pornography other than photos and movies are illegal under a whole different category as of I believe 2004 under illicit depictions of under aged pornography. Regardless of how you look at it, under age porn of any kind is still illegal. As for rape, murder, and such, they are allso illegal, but under different rules since fictional depictions of such are not made illegal, only doing the actual crime is illegal. Fur Affinity as a whole is burning bridges and all but asking for suits against it and those connected to it, nevermind the feds taking interest in the site as they did FChan in their hunt for pedophiles. Anyone who draws, or favorites, or even watches pedophile art will be subject to such scrutiny. And I am betting that if the admins of this site had been molested or had children of their own, they would not have allowed such art to be on FA in the first place.
 

uncia2000

Member
MistressLeathurkatt said:
Actually, depictions of underage pornography other than photos and movies are illegal under a whole different category as of I believe 2004 under illicit depictions of under aged pornography. Regardless of how you look at it, under age porn of any kind is still illegal.
Of humans? Or otherwise...

Heya there: would appreciate if you could cite precise legislation on this, if possible.
Compare with http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4283&pid=62488#pid62488 for example, where "child pornography" is associated specifically with RL human depictions.

Taking one step back, Wikipedia currently has, and has had for some time, what could be taken to be an artistic depiction of RL "child porn" save for a slight fantasy context. No action has been taken against Wikipedia.
If anything like that was posted here, it would be gone as soon as we found out about it.
*
The scope of the issue was not purely about adult depictions of fantasy or otherwise non-human(/oid) characters: that extended right down lower-end "mature" contexts (e.g. subtle breastfeeding of a cub) or where it is impossible to determine the "age" of the character (not that rough pencil strokes of a reptilian character could be said to have an "age", say) - and that is often in the eyes of the viewer as much as the artist, anyhow...

02c for ongoing discussion, anyhow (albeit somewhat repeated).
Regards,
David/u2k
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top