Friend confessed cub porn past. Conflicted.

[FlooferWoofer]

Here's my take. Your friend hasn't acted on their feelings. Further, they clearly feel bad about it, and a bad person would likely give zero effs and go about their business. Lastly, your friend can't help what they are attracted to. No one can. But they can and ARE choosing not to act upon them and be better.

Literally the only real thing that separates us from other animals is the ability to resist our baser instincts. On the other hand, if you castigate and shun them now, you are punishing them for being open about their problems and they may as well do what they are being punished for. Simply put, your friend hasn't committed the act, and feels bad so treating them as a monster now will give them a "damned if i do, damned if i don't" mentality and make them feel they have to keep it hidden from everyone and let it fester.

Chances are, they confided in you because: HOW DO YOU SEEK HELP FOR YOUR ISSUES IF YOU CAN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THEY EXIST TO THOSE YOU LOVE/TRUST!? Be a positive influence.

 

[NuclearSlayer52]

anthropomorphic child pornography

i dont think cub porn by itself should be referred to as CSEM

 

[ConorHyena]

i dont think cub porn by itself should be referred to as CSEM

It's analog to virtual child pornography and can be referred as such. The only difference to actual child pornography is that no children are being harmed in the creation of it - It's still morally problematic and viewing it can be considered analog to viewing child pornography.

 

[Troj]

Arguably, cub is less harmful because it depicts people and scenarios that don't exist, so no real people are being exploited or abused. That's definitely preferable to the alternative!

I'd still consider it a red flag or a "canary in the coal mine," and a potential first step on a downward slippery slope.

Granted, there are people who like cub because they like to imagine themselves as child characters, and I don't inherently have an issue with that, as long as no non-consenting parties are involved or harmed.

 

[ConorHyena]

I'd still consider it a red flag or a "canary in the coal mine," and a potential first step on a downward slippery slope.

There is proof that this is indeed the case, that there's a progression from virtual to actual child porn - after that, it's often only a question of time until people become offenders, unfortunately.

 

[TrishaCat]

analog to virtual child pornography and can be referred as such. The only difference to actual child pornography

this implies people use cub content as a replacement for real children, which is a hell of a leap and disregards all the things that make cub art distinct and unique as a form of artistic identification. It disregards texture, coloring, lighting, shading, proportions, character interaction, style, individual sections of the art, context for the art, and so on that can all have an affect on how someone views it. It also disregards how interpretation plays a part in how people view art, something unique that isn't the same as real world content because real world content is objective and, well, real. As opposed to something that can be interpretted.
...really I just take offense to this statement because cub art is so far removed from anything in the real world in my mind that the implication that its appeal is the same as how a pedophile views little Timmy down the street is really, really insulting and assumes so much more of consumers of such art than is fair.

.....but if people wanna view it as at least something to be concerned about I won't fight that. I don't think there's anything wrong with being suspicious of people who like certain kinds of content, I just don't like the comparison.
Not like I haven't said most of this before though, I'm just cranky. Feel free to ignore me if you so wish. These threads tire me, this statement in particular just irked me so.

 

[ConorHyena]

this implies people use cub content as a replacement for real children, which is a hell of a leap and disregards all the things that make cub art distinct and unique as a form of artistic identification. It disregards texture, coloring, lighting, shading, proportions, character interaction, style, individual sections of the art, context for the art, and so on that can all have an affect on how someone views it. It also disregards how interpretation plays a part in how people view art, something unique that isn't the same as real world content because real world content is objective and, well, real

Keep in mind I have not compared cub porn to child porn - but rather to virtual child porn. It falls under the same category as computer-generated content - the distinction between this and child porn is that in the virtual case, no children were harmed. If someone draws or computer-generates imagery, there's no immediate victim of abuse - which is why it is differentiated in law - it is a lesser evil. The artistic qualification is another thing, if we're considering pornographic content then it doesn't matter if it's well made porn or badly made porn, it remains porn. This doesn't cover cub art in general, this primarily covers cub porn.

...really I just take offense to this statement because cub art is so far removed from anything in the real world in my mind that the implication that its appeal is the same as how a pedophile views little Timmy down the street is really, really insulting and assumes so much more of consumers of such art than is fair.

the entire point of cub porn however is that it looks like anthro kids - e.g. human children's bodies with a more-or-less humanified head of an animal in perhaps a different colour. There's a similarity to how actual kids' bodies look, and this is the problem. People jacking off and specifically seeking out material that depicts essentially kid bodies in sexual position (there's art on inkbunny that essentially glorifies child molestation) are most definitly in a problematic spot, and it's safe to assume that there's going to be a large amount of pedophiles among these people.

I would not level this at the entire ABDL and babyfur scene and whatnot, but when it comes to people consuming cub porn - that's not just on thin ice, that's on no ice anymore. There's a reason this is banned in a multitude of states and countries.

 

[Punji]

There is proof that this is indeed the case, that there's a progression from virtual to actual child porn - after that, it's often only a question of time until people become offenders, unfortunately.

Do you have a source for this by chance?

The idea seems strange to me. The lot of us as furries don't progress from looking at anthros in adult situations to real life animals. Not quite the same thing but a similar concept.

 

[ConorHyena]

Do you have a source for this by chance?

The idea seems strange to me. The lot of us as furries don't progress from looking at anthros in adult situations to real life animals. Not quite the same thing but a similar concept.

I've provided the legal angle on a study that was done on this a few years ago while I was at law school, however I'd have to find my old research notes and translate them. I have been planning on doing that for a bit so once I have my stuff together for this, I'll most definitly post it on here.

Adressing your example, this is actually been observed within the feral community, especially when it comes to anthro/feral art.

 

[Ziv]

I honestly think it's kind of hurtful and to me, shameful, that this is how some people in the discussion would legitimately view and regard someone just because they have OCD. I mean, we're talking about a textbook case here. It's kind of interesting, but to me it's really sad.

 

[Raever]

Granted, there are people who like cub because they like to imagine themselves as child characters, and I don't inherently have an issue with that, as long as no non-consenting parties are involved or harmed.

This is actually a really good point that I hadn't thought of. I know that, and apologies if this rubs people the wrong way, R*** victims will write/draw/depict R*** scenarios featuring some very grotesque elements as ways of coping. Some even find fetishes in that scenario, even though the initial vile act was damaging, so long as it's "controlled" by them or their trusted SO - they find it very empowering. I'd imagine that, for few viewers who happen to be in the context of what Troj said, imagining themselves as a child in such a controlled scenario might offer similar freedoms from such an awful experience. At least, that's a theory that came to mind when reading what you mention, Troj.

I technically see little wrong with that by itself...but when publicized...it can unfortunately lead the mentally unwell to feel normalized and empowered as well. Which, as one might imagine, is it's own can of worms. While we can't possibly take responsibility for every predator in the world, I'm sure we can all agree that such art can and does cause issues for them - and the children they could potentially prey upon. That in and of itself is a negative that should be avoided as much as possible on general websites.

Thankfully, it sounds like this content might have been viewed on very specific cub-centric websites...which...well, I'm not sure what we could do for that other than just avoid those websites entirely and encourage people with mental issues to get help, and then block those websites from themselves to further avoid said content. I'm going off an a tangent though.

Point being, you make a good point.
Doesn't prevent the bad, but does provide an interesting alternative view.

 

[Raever]

I honestly think it's kind of hurtful and to me, shameful, that this is how some people in the discussion would legitimately view and regard someone just because they have OCD. I mean, we're talking about a textbook case here. It's kind of interesting, but to me it's really sad.

Well, we don't know what this person's problem is and we can't assume a diagnosis - even if things line up. That's how a lot of misdiagnosis occur, even amongst professional psychologists and psychiatrists. It also - to my knowledge, - hasn't been stated that this person was officially diagnosed with OCD (unless I missed it somewhere?). It was said by a member of the forum - which, while it's a good theory, I have yet to see much proof or backup from the OP on the case.

 

[Ziv]

Well, we don't know what this person's problem is and we can't assume a diagnosis - even if things line up. That's how a lot of misdiagnosis occur, even amongst professional psychologists and psychiatrists. It also - to my knowledge, - hasn't been stated that this person was officially diagnosed with OCD (unless I missed it somewhere?). It was said by a member of the forum - which, while it's a good theory, I have yet to see much proof or backup from the OP on the case.

Personally, I see enough in OP's post to make a diagnosis. And I am someone who does that thing. Of course, I can't "prove" it without physically seeing the person myself... but you don't think it's maybe possible that if this person APPEARS to have textbook OCD, the reaction is maybe applicable to people with the official diagnosis? :/

So I guess what I'm saying is it really does not matter. If you don't tolerate the symptoms, you're still ableist even if they didn't tape a sign with their diagnosis to their forehead

 

[Raever]

Personally, I see enough in OP's post to make a diagnosis. And I am someone who does that thing. Of course, I can't "prove" it without physically seeing the person myself... but you don't think it's maybe possible that if this person APPEARS to have textbook OCD, the reaction is maybe applicable to people with the official diagnosis? :/

So I guess what I'm saying is it really does not matter. If you don't tolerate the symptoms, you're still ableist even if they didn't tape a sign with their diagnosis to their forehead

I think you took what I said a bit too close to home, my only point was that making a diagnosis without the proper process wasn't a smart move. This, of course, includes seeing and having several sessions with the person. I'll ignore the rest of what was said, as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.