Would it be a crime to suggest that body fetishes be moved to nsfw?

[Punkedsolar]

Dear God do I wish it was tagged.

And if the whole rating issue is too much, maybe check boxes for:
Weight gain / Inflation / Diaper / Blood and Gore etc

Then they can auto-exclude those from General programmatically.

Ideally, there should be a report system that signals mods if someone hasn't appropriately tagged their work. And the mod can just automatically flag the entire account Mature until the artist uses the appropriate tags themselves and gets a review done.

I cannot freaking understand why people don't tag their kink art as mature. Things like this split entire communities iRL.

 

[TyraWadman]

Unfortunately for you children join both websites as young as thirteen, and so whether you'd let one on or not doesn't effect much unless FA raises its age limit to adults only.



Yeah, but again, most of the time scrolling past that is one out of one hundred images on Google unless you type in more than just "Pokemon Greninja Art" whereas with FA it's basically one out of five images or less ninety percent of the time. The difference is astonishing!



I genuinely hope more is done. We shall see ~

I'm well aware of these things as Google is a search engine and not an art site. I'm also aware that I have no control of kids accessing these sites, nor do I have the ability to slap the parents dumb enough to let them on there in the first place.

 

[Raever]

I'm well aware of these things as Google is a search engine and not an art site. I'm also aware that I have no control of kids accessing these sites, nor do I have the ability to slap the parents dumb enough to let them on there in the first place.

Fair point on that last one, I'll give you that friend.

 

[Raever]

Dear God do I wish it was tagged.

And if the whole rating issue is too much, maybe check boxes for:
Weight gain / Inflation / Diaper / Blood and Gore etc

Then they can auto-exclude those from General programmatically.

Ideally, there should be a report system that signals mods if someone hasn't appropriately tagged their work. And the mod can just automatically flag the entire account Mature until the artist uses the appropriate tags themselves and gets a review done.

I cannot freaking understand why people don't tag their kink art as mature. Things like this split entire communities iRL.

Agreed, once again, 110%.

Gotta say I sort of expected more backlash for this opinion due to how...unchanged everything has been for 10+ years.

 

[oappo]

an it just be considered NSFW or at the very least not General and SFW?

Yes please. In most instances, fetishes are still NSFW, even if they don't involve nudity or gore.

Then they can auto-exclude those from General programmatically.

That reminds me. E621 recently added a bunch of features and did something like this. Auto-blacklists a couple tags for non-users. Great stuff.

I think a tagging or checkbox system would really be best. Nothing super elaborate like many boorus and such have. Just rudimentary stuff that's mandatory, like if it's a fetish, the general rating, ect. Other tags can be there, but be optional. Perhaps something sort of like HF. I rarely see something I don't want to there.

 

[quoting_mungo]

Or something like this (www.furaffinity.net: YCH REMINDER by Xlebcheg) where, it is censored, but still belongs in mature since it's not exactly SFW even with the censors.

That’s against site rules already; not FA’s fault when people break the rules. Reminders may not be rated lower than the sale they’re advertising. Period.

If it's kinky, if it's, tickling or light bondage, it still should be labeled as mature or adult content NSFW, not general SFW.

Light bondage I can see the reasoning for, though I can also see a case for some of it being fine in General. Tickling is a complicated subject, though; it’s something people (and particularly kids) do in legitimate play. If you’re asking for all of it to go in Mature, you’re also sending art with no intended kinky implications there. If you ask for the stuff that’s drawn with kink in mind to go in Mature+ you’re asking site staff to read minds. Which would lead to so much drama.

- www.furaffinity.net: [Collab]: Peaceful by SuburbanWilderness

What makes you feel that’s too fetishy to be considered SFW? It’s a character sucking on a pacifier and drinking from a baby bottle. There’s no major exaggeration of features, no soiled diapers or illustrated body odor.

Even if you argue that the character has adult(ish) proportions, mature characters in baby clothing, drinking from bottles or with pacifiers are things you see in kids’ cartoons. Off the top of my head I know I’ve seen Tom (Tom & Jerry) in diapers/baby bonnet with a bottle, and I’m pretty sure Bugs Bunny in a basket with a baby bonnet.

I’m not saying you don’t have a right to find it uncomfortable; I’m genuinely asking what your reasoning is.

Define "mature themes" or "geared towards adult audiences." Given that we could sit and argue examples for days, these seem too general.

Which is why the AUP is more exhaustive on what exactly goes in each category. Having all that text on the submission form isn’t really feasible from a usability standpoint. Anyone that’s posting content should be familiar with the AUP, anyway - the submission form is not a full policy document.

Blood and Gore

Blood/gore is already Mature+, with the possible exception of, like, super minor injuries. (I genuinely can’t remember how the conversation on things like a single-drop nosebleed or a scraped knee went, back when I was on staff.) I know I have reported a ton of candy gore and had it moved to Mature, though it might have been a year or so ago since I last did.

——-

The main thing I think we need to stop and consider is how much of the stuff that’s being objected to is actually part of mainstream children’s media. The original Shrek is rated what, PG? It includes a frog and a snake being inflated into balloons. Pinocchio gets eaten by a whale in the Disney movie, IIRC.

I’m not saying that the lines drawn on FA right now are necessarily all in the right places. But I also think that there’s a number of people (not only on this forum; I’m not singling anyone out here) who are, consciously or subconsciously, conflating “this makes me uncomfortable” with “this was drawn as wank material.” Ironically, they are in some cases the people sexualizing content that was never meant to be sexual.

I have genuinely been told to that a piece of art I drew must have been drawn for nefarious, pedophilic self-satisfaction purposes, and no other possible explanation existed. In actuality it was a silly (and 100% non-sexual) joke between myself and a friend. Sometimes people do get a bit overzealous and see the worst in things.

Like... for an example that’s hopefully less contentious than the one I’m talking about above, I could feasibly see someone else drawing something like this submission as wank material. I certainly didn’t, and I don’t think it would be very fair to assume I did just because fatty fatty bunny is, well, ludicrously fat.

If it’s acceptable in a PG-13 movie or cartoon, I don’t see much of an argument for “it shouldn’t be permitted in General,” to be perfectly honest.

 

[Fallowfox]

As other users have pointed out, the rules already cover this because general content is meant to be suitable for all.

But realistically, if you eat tuna you're going to get bones, so...don't make a habit of showing your furaffinity searches to your family, coworkers and friends. Like..why would you do that?

 

[oappo]

The main thing I think we need to stop and consider is how much of the stuff that’s being objected to is actually part of mainstream children’s media.

I can't agree with this. We need to consider art within the context of FA and the internet in general. Besides, you can get away with things in children's media that you might not be able to in others.

But I also think that there’s a number of people (not only on this forum; I’m not singling anyone out here) who are, consciously or subconsciously, conflating “this makes me uncomfortable” with “this was drawn as wank material.” Ironically, they are in some cases the people sexualizing content that was never meant to be sexual.

I don't think the amount of "innocent drawing" stuff compared to "meant to titilate to some degree" stuff is very high. Using that example you linked, I've seen far more instances of art of that type in a sexual/NSFW context than not.

That’s against site rules already; not FA’s fault when people break the rules.

I’m not saying that the lines drawn on FA right now are necessarily all in the right places.

This is true, but site design can certainly change how often rules are broken or what things are issues to begin with.
How would you change things? As fallow said, some site rules are not abided by very well.

something worth noting(just in general, not at anyone in particular) is there are two issues in the OP; what is NSFW and what users don't want to see. There's certainly overlap between the two, but not too much.

 

[Deleted member 132067]

As other users have pointed out, the rules already cover this because general content is meant to be suitable for all.

But realistically, if you eat tuna you're going to get bones, so...don't make a habit of showing your furaffinity searches to your family, coworkers and friends. Like..why would you do that?

Screw the family, what if I want to browse furaffinity without being disturbed by all these fetishes? Throw a fetish art tag/subcategory in so people can tag their art with it, nsfw or not, and then make it so others can hide it.

 

[Skittles]

Screw the family, what if I want to browse furaffinity without being disturbed by all these fetishes? Throw a fetish art tag/subcategory in so people can tag their art with it, nsfw or not, and then make it so others can hide it.

That isn't a bad idea actually.

 

[Fallowfox]

Screw the family, what if I want to browse furaffinity without being disturbed by all these fetishes? Throw a fetish art tag/subcategory in so people can tag their art with it, nsfw or not, and then make it so others can hide it.

Most people tag their fetish content as mature already. Whatever you do though there's going to continue to be a large legacy of untagged material on the site, and you're still going to get people who don't think that their foot-tickling or transformation art counts as fetishistic.

Like Mungo's fat rabbit sitting on a rock hard carrot. I thought that was pornography when I clicked it.

 

[BrightEyedDeviants]

As someone who draws NSFW and fetish art, I think there should be more filters too. Not to mention that not only it is against the rules, but highly disrespectful, to not tag properly. It is not just a matter of taste, but of tolerance levels. To us fetishists some things might feel as mild or normal, but that does not mean that these things are normal at all nor that it can't affect negatively other people who can be disturbed by it.

 

[Deleted member 132067]

[...]and you're still going to get people who don't think that their foot-tickling or transformation art counts as fetishistic.

That would be a problem, although I like to belief that a harsher report system in the likes of "It's tagged wrongly, it will be taken down until the tag is edited" could help.
Although that wasn't the core of my point. Yes, it's a problem that is hard to fix, but arguing over the pros and cons of possible solutions shouldn't steer the attention away from the actual problem, which is fetish art among "normal" sfw art bothering people.

 

[Aurora the Penguin]

I fully agree with you. I've had this complaint since I've made an account on FA. I don't care what fetishes people are into, I just don't want to see them. I want to see the clean, sfw furry art. Also, Ziggy Schlcht has a good idea, adding a 4th category. I really hope they add that in the future.

 

[Raever]

That’s against site rules already; not FA’s fault when people break the rules. Reminders may not be rated lower than the sale they’re advertising. Period.


Light bondage I can see the reasoning for, though I can also see a case for some of it being fine in General. Tickling is a complicated subject, though; it’s something people (and particularly kids) do in legitimate play. If you’re asking for all of it to go in Mature, you’re also sending art with no intended kinky implications there. If you ask for the stuff that’s drawn with kink in mind to go in Mature+ you’re asking site staff to read minds. Which would lead to so much drama.


What makes you feel that’s too fetishy to be considered SFW? It’s a character sucking on a pacifier and drinking from a baby bottle. There’s no major exaggeration of features, no soiled diapers or illustrated body odor.

Even if you argue that the character has adult(ish) proportions, mature characters in baby clothing, drinking from bottles or with pacifiers are things you see in kids’ cartoons. Off the top of my head I know I’ve seen Tom (Tom & Jerry) in diapers/baby bonnet with a bottle, and I’m pretty sure Bugs Bunny in a basket with a baby bonnet.

I’m not saying you don’t have a right to find it uncomfortable; I’m genuinely asking what your reasoning is.


Which is why the AUP is more exhaustive on what exactly goes in each category. Having all that text on the submission form isn’t really feasible from a usability standpoint. Anyone that’s posting content should be familiar with the AUP, anyway - the submission form is not a full policy document.


Blood/gore is already Mature+, with the possible exception of, like, super minor injuries. (I genuinely can’t remember how the conversation on things like a single-drop nosebleed or a scraped knee went, back when I was on staff.) I know I have reported a ton of candy gore and had it moved to Mature, though it might have been a year or so ago since I last did.

——-

The main thing I think we need to stop and consider is how much of the stuff that’s being objected to is actually part of mainstream children’s media. The original Shrek is rated what, PG? It includes a frog and a snake being inflated into balloons. Pinocchio gets eaten by a whale in the Disney movie, IIRC.

I’m not saying that the lines drawn on FA right now are necessarily all in the right places. But I also think that there’s a number of people (not only on this forum; I’m not singling anyone out here) who are, consciously or subconsciously, conflating “this makes me uncomfortable” with “this was drawn as wank material.” Ironically, they are in some cases the people sexualizing content that was never meant to be sexual.

I have genuinely been told to that a piece of art I drew must have been drawn for nefarious, pedophilic self-satisfaction purposes, and no other possible explanation existed. In actuality it was a silly (and 100% non-sexual) joke between myself and a friend. Sometimes people do get a bit overzealous and see the worst in things.

Like... for an example that’s hopefully less contentious than the one I’m talking about above, I could feasibly see someone else drawing something like this submission as wank material. I certainly didn’t, and I don’t think it would be very fair to assume I did just because fatty fatty bunny is, well, ludicrously fat.

If it’s acceptable in a PG-13 movie or cartoon, I don’t see much of an argument for “it shouldn’t be permitted in General,” to be perfectly honest.

I can't agree with this. We need to consider art within the context of FA and the internet in general. Besides, you can get away with things in children's media that you might not be able to in others.


I don't think the amount of "innocent drawing" stuff compared to "meant to titilate to some degree" stuff is very high. Using that example you linked, I've seen far more instances of art of that type in a sexual/NSFW context than not.


This is true, but site design can certainly change how often rules are broken or what things are issues to begin with.
How would you change things? As fallow said, some site rules are not abided by very well.

something worth noting(just in general, not at anyone in particular) is there are two issues in the OP; what is NSFW and what users don't want to see. There's certainly overlap between the two, but not too much.

Oappo basically said everything I would have so I won't bother repeating them.

so...don't make a habit of showing your furaffinity searches to your family, coworkers and friends. Like..why would you do that?

Think you're missing the point.
I never said I was outright showing, I just vocalized/think that I shouldn't have to look at FA as a whole as a porn website instead of an art website.

That would be a problem, although I like to belief that a harsher report system in the likes of "It's tagged wrongly, it will be taken down until the tag is edited" could help.
Although that wasn't the core of my point. Yes, it's a problem that is hard to fix, but arguing over the pros and cons of possible solutions shouldn't steer the attention away from the actual problem, which is fetish art among "normal" sfw art bothering people.

Basically this.

As someone who draws NSFW and fetish art, I think there should be more filters too. Not to mention that not only it is against the rules, but highly disrespectful, to not tag properly. It is not just a matter of taste, but of tolerance levels. To us fetishists some things might feel as mild or normal, but that does not mean that these things are normal at all nor that it can't affect negatively other people who can be disturbed by it.

Also this.
I'd like to point out for clarity sake that I'm a huge BDSM fan (amongst some other things relative) and even in that light, I need a break sometimes.
Sometimes I just wanna curl up with a good wholesome vanilla romance and put a pause on all the whips and chains stuff. We should be able to do that on FA, imo.

Like Mungo's fat rabbit sitting on a rock hard carrot.

But-...but steamed carrot's are so much better!
I'm joking, but yeah pretty sure anyone would think something similar would be at least strongly suggesting pornographic content.

Screw the family, what if I want to browse furaffinity without being disturbed by all these fetishes? Throw a fetish art tag/subcategory in so people can tag their art with it, nsfw or not, and then make it so others can hide it.

That isn't a bad idea actually.

I third this!

 

[Valryth]

I think that it's common sense that fetish work should all go to adult. Of course that there are different fetishes that may evoke different arguments, but if it is being posted as fetish work then it should always be marked as adult!

If you are into paws and you're posting paws for people who are into paws, then adult-tag the paws! Even if they're clean and SFW and whatnot.

This should really be a universal rule though, not just with FA. I remember that as a child I would search up artwork of my favourite videogame characters and more often than not I would be quite disturbed by all the pornography/fetishistic approaches that open sources such as Google Images display.

Even as someone who has their own bundle of "different" interests, I strongly dislike coming across that type of artwork unprompted. If I search for it, sure! If I'm hoping to find cute things while on SFW mode, not as much.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

If you ask for the stuff that’s drawn with kink in mind to go in Mature+ you’re asking site staff to read minds. Which would lead to so much drama.

Agreed, we Don't need more people pretending they can read people's minds and condemning them on this basis, than we already do

 

[Raever]

Agreed, we Don't need more people pretending they can read people's minds and condemning them on this basis, than we already do

It's not at all that dramatic, staff don't need to read people's minds to be able to know what is and isn't a fetish based on how something is portrayed.
It either is, or it isn't - and staff are very much aware of what is fetishized art as they are mature adults who have likely seen porn before. As are we, I would assume.
Suggesting otherwise is either ignorant or extremely naive. In either case it makes for a poor defense.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

It's not at all that dramatic, staff don't need to read people's minds to be able to know what is and isn't a fetish based on how something is portrayed.
Suggesting otherwise is either ignorant or extremely naive. In either case it makes for a poor defense.

Oh no it really depends. SOMETIMES, you could even say often, yes, but other times it's really not that obvious.

What is the mature filter meant to shield viewers from, anyway? the thing itself? or the REASON why the thing was created? I think it's the former. That's what makes more sense. And if it's the former, then if the thing itself isn't shocking, even if the intention is sexual, there's not really a Reason to shield it from view.

I'll take modern art for instance, sometimes it's meant to represent Something that honestly you wouldn't be able to determine from viewing it. What if an artist takes a random rock and says it represents an orgy? would that rock need to be 18+ only?

 

[Raever]

Oh no it really depends. SOMETIMES, you could even say often, yes, but other times it's really not that obvious.

What is the mature filter meant to shield viewers from, anyway? the thing itself? or the REASON why the thing was created? I think it's the former. That's what makes more sense. And if it's the former, then if the thing itself isn't shocking, even if the intention is sexual, there's not really a Reason to shield it from view.

I'll take modern art for instance, sometimes it's meant to represent Something that honestly you wouldn't be able to determine from viewing it. What if an artist takes a random rock and says it represents an orgy? would that rock need to be 18+ only?

No, but to be fair - and quite blunt, - you're arguing for modern art when in reality this is a website with a very active and sexualized art hub. In fact I'm willing to bet there's more sexual art on FA than non-sexual, and there is little sexual art that's representative in NSFW. In Mature, maybe - that is the tag after all - but mature art is still mature art after all, and that doesn't make it worse than general art. It's just not meant for eyes who are too young to see it or who simply don't want to. I don't see why this has to be some large debate about artistic taste when at the end of the day it's a simple: Should the untagged NSFW pieces be more controlled or shouldn't they? And most people, even NSFW lovers, would agree that they should indeed be more appropriately handled. I don't want them to not exist, I like my dragons as much as every other fluff ball, but sometimes, I just wanna see a NORMAL dragon, and not a macro or micro shit show (sometimes literally) when looking for draconic art on FA (under the SFW green button).

 

[Frank Gulotta]

No, but to be fair - and quite blunt, - you're arguing for modern art when in reality this is a website with a very active and sexualized art hub. In fact I'm willing to bet there's more sexual art on FA than non-sexual, and there is little sexual art that's representative in NSFW. In Mature, maybe - that is the tag after all - but mature art is still mature art after all, and that doesn't make it worse than general art. It's just not meant for eyes who are too young to see it or who simply don't want to. I don't see why this has to be some large debate about artistic taste when at the end of the day it's a simple: Should the untagged NSFW pieces be more controlled or shouldn't they? And most people, even NSFW lovers, would agree that they should indeed be more appropriately handled. I don't want them to not exist, I like my dragons as much as every other fluff ball, but sometimes, I just wanna see a NORMAL dragon, and not a macro or micro shit show (sometimes literally) when looking for draconic art on FA (under the SFW green button).

I get what you say, and I'm not disputing your point about stuff that's really obviously a fetish but you've not answered me : Don't you think the line is drawn really NOT at the intention of the artist, but at the perspective of the viewer? I would say the perspective of the viewer is all that matters really.

I'll give you a better example since you didn't like my modern art analogy (I Don't blame you, it wasn't very good) :
What, from a viewer's perspective, is the difference between this piece by Koul www.furaffinity.net: Good evening! by Koul and that one

Spoiler: (I put it as spoiler for your sake and because it's tagged as mature, but if you click it you'll notice it's not much more shocking than the Koul piece)

www.furaffinity.net: Awake by sheds

besides quality? Basically none from a viewer's perspective; just, I Don't think Koul is into that sort of thing, whereas the other is. So from say, YOUR perspective why should one be tagged while the other shouldn't?​

 

[Raever]

e : Don't you think the line is drawn really NOT at the intention of the artist, but at the perspective of the viewer? I would say the perspective of the viewer is all that matters really.

If I'm being honest, I'm too sleep deprived to answer this as genuinely as I would in another situation but at the moment I think that when it comes down to the line of what is and isn't offensive, that is a lot more blurred than what is and isn't a fetish. My argument isn't at the "offensive" pieces (mostly because I'm not so much offended as I am just being eye raped by noxious gas clouds and hyper macro stuff, if we're being dramatic about it - but it does get deeper than that).

Fetishes in general are exemplified and amplified in almost all artwork, it's what an artist will focus on or put extra detail into. While not all artists will do this (and fall under the radar because of such,) I'm willing to bet ninety percent of artists who have the fetish, will sexualize said fetish since...that's what a fetish is. An attraction to something of a sexual or at the very least a sensualized allure. So, to answer your question - which I somehow overlooked and I apologize, - I think that a lot of fetish related things fall onto the artist for at least 70% or higher of what they're making. Sure, a viewer could yell "FETISH!" at anything if they wanted to, but at the end of the day, there's usually a reason behind that notion. I don't think it's just a matter of an audience being "too sensitive" as I personally do enjoy tasteful nudity or the portrayal of a fetish in a commentary fashion, the problem is, the majority of the untagged art (the main problem, imo) isn't portraying anything close to that. It's just fetish for fetish's sake, and to be really blunt, it's usually disgusting and depraved. Could a philosopher stare at it long enough and come up with a meaning? Of course they could, but that's the viewer giving the art meaning and ignoring the art as a standalone piece. Which in most cases...is just a bunch of fetish BS that I believe needs to be taken off of SFW for that very reason.

Hopefully this answers your question better, friendo.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

If I'm being honest, I'm too sleep deprived to answer this as genuinely as I would in another situation but at the moment I think that when it comes down to the line of what is and isn't offensive, that is a lot more blurred than what is and isn't a fetish. My argument isn't at the "offensive" pieces (mostly because I'm not so much offended as I am just being eye raped by noxious gas clouds and hyper macro stuff, if we're being dramatic about it - but it does get deeper than that).

Fetishes in general are exemplified and amplified in almost all artwork, it's what an artist will focus on or put extra detail into. While not all artists will do this (and fall under the radar because of such,) I'm willing to bet ninety percent of artists who have the fetish, will sexualize said fetish since...that's what a fetish is. An attraction to something of a sexual or at the very least a sensualized allure. So, to answer your question - which I somehow overlooked and I apologize, - I think that a lot of fetish related things fall onto the artist for at least 70% or higher of what they're making. Sure, a viewer could yell "FETISH!" at anything if they wanted to, but at the end of the day, there's usually a reason behind that notion. I don't think it's just a matter of an audience being "too sensitive" as I personally do enjoy tasteful nudity or the portrayal of a fetish in a commentary fashion, the problem is, the majority of the untagged art (the main problem, imo) isn't portraying anything close to that. It's just fetish for fetish's sake, and to be really blunt, it's usually disgusting and depraved. Could a philosopher stare at it long enough and come up with a meaning? Of course they could, but that's the viewer giving the art meaning and ignoring the art as a standalone piece. Which in most cases...is just a bunch of fetish BS that I believe needs to be taken off of SFW for that very reason.

Hopefully this answers your question better, friendo.

So your problem is more with quantity rather than content per se?

 

[Fallowfox]

Since it's my 20,000th post I thought I'd post some hardcore kink content.

Spoiler

From the Simpsons.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Since it's my 20,000th post I thought I'd post some hardcore kink content.

Spoiler

From the Simpsons.

To be fair, cartoon creatives… can Indeed be into weird stuff for real XP