I'm going to say this one more time; cub art is unacceptable due to the content of it. Its more than just a drawing; there is content in them and that content is as bad as child porn. I saw a journal from a British furry about some drama involving an artist liking cub art or something like that. I can see why people are upset at it; especially those who have been abused as minors. I work in healthcare and part of being in healthcare is accepting the fact that we will have minors as patients in the ER due to sexual abuse and it happens. To justify cub art as a work of fantasy doesn't help it because the content involves sexual acts with a minor. FA already has a policy explicitly stating that cub art will not be allowed. Dragoneer said that if any works involves sexual acts with a minor, regardless of reason, it will be removed and the person will be banned for posting this. Sometimes, even reported to local authorities.
One guy who claimed to be a fur bitched about my affinity for having a fursona who carries military weaponry and depicting other furries with weapons. There's a reason why its acceptable to have fictional characters with weaponry than it is having a minor fictional character engaging in sexual acts; an armed character could be seen as a hero who inspires the hero in others. Cub art is porn and perpetuates the idea that it is okay for minors to engage in sexual acts in a fantasy setting which is no different from a real setting. And besides, why are some people arguing over this? Like many furs, I will continue to depict and sometimes draw furries with weapons.
Countries like Germany, last time I checked, can check into people's electronics for any reason and if they see something, that person gets pulled over. Do you honestly think freedom of expression allows this degeneracy? Think again!
People have judgement of what is acceptable and what is not. The people who draw yiff are aware of the risks and are careful about it. And besides, if the drawing looks suspicious and it may be interpreted as wrong, why produce it?
What I learned in America is that even though the country is free, is is also a nation of laws. Self-expression is okay as long they pose no harm or threat to themselves or anyone. Also note that Donald Trump has signed an executive order allowing the federal government to shut down websites that contribute to online human trafficking. I wouldn't be surprised if sites like InkBunny (KILL THAT WEBSITE AND ARREST THEIR PAEDOS) gets shut down and Trumped to stop this.
Again, there is no justification to cub art. They should never exist and what the furry fandom needs more of is awareness of law and order not more "love and tolerance". We are already "tolerant" enough as it is; its time we start being aware of common laws and order more often. And if you like traveling like I do, you'll never know when you enter a country where there's virtually no internet privacy from the government.
Use common sense, pay attention to the laws, and analyze the potential consequences of your choices before proceeding.
To be fair there should be a clear distinction between cub "art" and cub "porn". But I stay away from anything cub related in general for my own reasons. Mainly the babyfur community tends to act like a bunch of pricks, and a lot of them are autistic as hell.
Regarding furries with weapons; I chose Blackjack from Fallout Equestria as my avatar because she loves guns and looks cool with a shotty, and I love guns as well so I like the character. Plus theres a sentiment in there of how Anti-PC I am. I'd brandish a gun anytime if it meant triggering a snowflake.
Oh me too! I can't wait to buy up more airsoft guns after I get my fursuit and airsoft clothing with armour! Next year hopefully, I'm going to get my fursuit and my gear and I'm going all out! Why? Because I can!
I'm honestly not going to be too surprised if InkBunny gets the same treatment that Backpage.com was just recently dealt. I decided to give the site one chance, and I highly regret it. What really pisses me off about IB is that you can upload cub porn freely, but they'll tear you a new asshole if you upload human characters in sexual situations.
The hypocrisy is abysmally strong, with this site.
the government won't have a legal case to stand on supreme court weighed in on the matter and found art of this sort legal. also I do agree with the hypocrisy on human characters
I really don't understand how or why they would let this type of art be legal. It's depicting child characters in sexual situations--it should fall under the same grounds as actual pedophilia. It just makes no sense, to me.
it's honestly a matter of consent and harm done. drawings of cubs are just that drawings they're not real. child porn involves real children who can't consent.
the bigger problem I have is that banning cub art introduces the dangerous notion that you can place art in arbitrary categories for judging their merits ever heard of a man named andrei zhadonov
I see no logic in your argument. You're hiding behind the first amendment to defend something that has been and always will be clearly wrong. Just because something like cub porn is "legal" through the eyes of the supreme court doesn't make it alright.
Keep invalidating yourself. ^_^ Also, have a look at The Theory of Moral Sentiments, by Adam Smith. One cannot have liberty without morals. Those of which you clearly lack. It's not even a question of religion, either. Even devout atheists can have morals.
the bulk of sites like this are based in america, and the supreme court has made itself pretty clear on the matter. cub art is protected by the first amendment.
But the content is the same and most people will continue to treat them as if they're actual child porn. Not to mention, cub art can be distributed and there's been cases of this where they've been distributed at furcons. These days, customs are going to look more into what people bring and sometimes pull them over for questioning. On FA, Dragoneer has made it clear that cub art will not be tolerated here. Clean art of furry children is okay.
Also, people don't just suddenly wake up and go "You know what? I'm gonna draw cub yiff and get off on that!" out of the blue. Cub art does not prevent pedophiles from committing crimes; it only makes their psyches worse since they provide them their sick desires they search for. Even if the US Supreme Court declares this to be legal, people will continue to treat them as if they're illegal.
and those people will be in violation of the first amendment. there's a huge difference between fantasy and reality, it's pretty much the same argument feminists use against pictures of scantily clad ladies. not to mention that what is considers cub art is entirely up to the subjective judgement of the observer. would a picture of a semi feral anthro girl that's 300 years old be considered cub art because somebody looked at it and decided that this girl looked like an 8 year old. not to mention that I've seen artists who draw no cub art get banned from FA because they drew a feral lion and the age was maliciously assumed
Well these days, most people would rather play it safe. Its about using proper judgement. Drawing yiff is quite risky as there can be many assumptions hence some artists opt out from drawing yiff. Yes its nice we have the First Amendment but at the same time, there's a time and place where people need to play it safe just in case. Most people just don't want to take the risk out of their own safety. To me personally, I just go by this rule; if it looks suspicious one way or another, do not proceed.
you make it seem like there's a vengeful god that will smite anyone that draws cub art. or are you just talking about a collective excommunicating someone from their own. I have decided to remove myself from every collective which is why I'm not a communist, a nazi, an evangelical christian or, a progressive.
No. Like most people, I don't want to take the risk of being accused of drawing something that could be interpreted as something that is illegal. Even most atheists know their lines.
and you're just insulting me because you have nothing but sophistic arguments care to produce anything real anything that isn't just winging about muh children
feel free to limit your own liberty to appease the collective but I refuse to allow anyone to use nonsensical sophistry to limit the liberty of other people. and when it comes to the argument I'm just getting warmed up
Just getting warmed up, are you? You accuse me of being ad hominem, yet you seem to have no problem with straw man, yourself.
Please. I've better things to do with my time than argue with a dim-wit like you. If you don't make yourself look like a pedophile, then you make yourself look like a clueless nihilist.
I'm sure you know what a pervert is why ask me to define it? And besides, are you implying that people should have the right to sexually express, even the most demented fetish, openly on the internet? There's a reason why there are filters in the media to separate what they deem as adult material from mainstream material. And I'm sure you know why people under the age of 18 are not allowed to view porn.
you're sure are you? you're expecting me to instinctively know an entirely subjective standard ask the right person and anyone on this website is a pervert even if they just view photos of foxes. also I'm not going to waste my time answering a series of loaded questions.
Good move, man. Don't let these people get you down, we know it's not illegal, and they can stomp and scream and throw temper tantrums, it's still legal in good ol' America (Unless you live in Cali but nobody wants to live there)
For the record: Inkbunny uses the RTA label to indicate to such filters that the content is unsuitable for minors, and forbids those under 18 to join or enable viewing of adult content. We disable the accounts of any who we find sneaking on, and typically block their IP addresses, too.
As for your moral position: I do think people should be able to express themselves, as long as it doesn't harm others. This would cover real-life child abuse imagery, because it involves real people who cannot consent. Conversely, most furry cub porn uses fictional characters created either by consenting adults, or by corporations which don't compete in that area (and so tend not to lose any money by it, which is their equivalent of "harm").
I understand why some people do not like it; but if they want to make a case for censorship, the onus is on them to prove through research that it causes actual harm sufficient to justify quashing freedom of expression. All the legislation I'm aware of in this area is based on statements along the line of "it might lead to people doing bad things in real life" - i.e. they didn't do the research - and to me, that's just not good enough.
Of course people should be able to express themselves but there's a reason why most sites and places have a ban on cub porn. A lot of people just simply don't want to take the risk. Also, many countries have freedom of speech but they also tend to treat cub porn as illegal content. Last time I checked, in Germany, if someone has say a magazine full of cub porn inside their luggage, customs can take a look into it and pull the person over. Hence in America, I don't want to take freedom of speech for granted. Understand that I am originally from Vietnam and I have traveled a bit before so I have to be extremely cautious of things as I may never know when customs may search into my stuff by hand.
I like to attend conventions and all but have yet to attend a furry convention. Last time I checked, furry conventions ban cub art from being displayed or in many cases, even brought in to the artist booths. Even in the adult section, they wouldn't allow cub porn in them. I don't even understand why some people want to argue that cub porn should be treated the same way as other adult works. It can't even be compared to my dislike of furry vore art because as weird as vore may be to some people like myself, the content is very different from cub porn.
I'm glad you're here to state your view and not act like a dick so I appreciate that and more importantly, you stated that you do understand why people don't like cub porn. So that, it tells me you are aware of how others may feel about the subject matter and why sites like FA and many places ban it from their adult sections.
As much as its okay for people to express themselves, its also okay for people to have their own moral objections and even avoid risks. Me, I avoid drawing yiff because yiff can be controversial. As stated earlier, most people just don't want to take risks. Many of us tend to be risk avoidance in many situations.
Fear can be a tool to encourage caution; but fear of punishment is a poor basis for ethical decisions (actions are not bad simply because someone in power says they'll do something bad to you if you do it), so we shouldn't let it control us entirely… nor wield fear in an attempt to control others.
Recently, I've seen moral crusaders on Twitter rubbing cub art and artists into their followers' faces, intending to rile them up and start a witch-hunt, even if the artist or commissioner concerned hasn't sought to promote their interest beyond those who already share it. The goal seems to be to exclude those with interests they dislike from the fandom, and content with it, even if they themselves don't spend much time in the places where it is common.
This won't succeed; cub art and stories have been around for decades, before some who now count themselves as furries were even born. Until recently, it even had a dedicated site, Cub Central, launched at the turn of the century (it only closed because it was outdated, and its primary maintainer had passed away). But it might just cause further splintering of the furry community.
I have little sympathy for those who deliberately post stuff on FA against FA's policies, even if I disagree with some of them; and likewise, for IB. There are better ways to protest, like starting your own site. But those who mind their own business according to a site's rules should be left to do so. Likewise, those who don't like such work should be left to avoid it through keyword blocks and the like, and not have campaigners pushing it to their attention and demanding action - with the threat of punishment for not acting. People should be able to control what they see, and who they associate with; not what everyone else sees or associates with.
--
I've been to over fifty instances of furry conventions, divided between both the USA and Europe. Some allowed cub porn freely (to the extent that they allowed any adult content), while others restricted it to various degrees. Many European conventions are 18+ venues, like Inkbunny, and I prefer that approach; it avoids many potential issues. In the USA it's more common to allow minors, with parental consent or accompaniment, so you see more of an attempt to protect children (who perhaps shouldn't really be there to begin with).
Given the number of events, there's a variety of approaches. I have some sympathy for those managing events, who face many external pressures. However, these would be less of an issue if there weren't so many people within the fandom seemingly willing to destroy a convention (or, say, websites hosting thousands of artists) for a higher cause. It's that attitude - that furry fandom is merely another battleground, where the destruction of communities and unrelated artists' livelihoods are acceptable losses - which is at the root of many issues in recent years.
--
I think I understand the reasons that people dislike cub, but that's not to say that I agree with them. As mentioned earlier, fear of punishment is not a satisfactory reason, in and of itself. I don't think there's anything special about it as a kink; but people often have strong feelings about it, especially if they have children. This can cause them to act irrationally.
For example: cub art can involve depicting actions which would be illegal if they involved humans in real life - but we don't assume other fiction has such a risk of causing people to do what's depicted in it, so why do so in this case?
If we're talking risk, we'd have to consider that - lacking fiction - people may seek to satisfy their desires in other, more harmful ways. If some of those into cub porn are paedophiles (a few openly state this), then time spent pawing off at home to cub porn might be time not spent hanging around outside a school, putting themselves at risk of committing a crime. Removing the content won't remove the interest, any more than it would for other forms of sexual orientation. It may not feel nice telling people they can have their porn, but it may prevent something worse.
In practice... as you say, some furries are into vore, yet somehow this has resulted in very few crimes. The closest I know of is when it indirectly influenced an attempted murder (even then, it seems to have been inspired by the prospect of real-life consensual vore, plus background resentment of the parents). If fiction truly had such power over our actions, surely furry cannibalism would be widespread? (Though who knows; maybe it is, but they consumed the evidence! ^_^;)
Given the number of events, there's a variety of approaches. I have some sympathy for those managing events, who face many external pressures. However, these would be less of an issue if there weren't so many people within the fandom seemingly willing to destroy a convention (or, say, websites hosting thousands of artists) for a higher cause. It's that attitude - that furry fandom is merely another battleground, where the destruction of communities and unrelated artists' livelihoods are acceptable losses - which is at the root of many issues in recent years.
Uhm, the problem is that most conventions tend to be hosted in hotels where there are families as customers. If the hotels want to make money, they have to remind people that adult material must either be restricted or eliminated. Not to mention, furry conventions tend to draw minors in you know and furries in general must act proper when minors are nearby. That one furcon with the nappy incident could traumatize minors and families. There's a reason why its common for conventions to comply with censorship policies or outright remove adult material. Where I live at the moment, where the conventions are held at, there's a high traffic of families with children.
Understand that there are furcons in countries like Russia and even China where that kind of stuff is technically not allowed due to censorship laws. We have to respect these laws or else we get in trouble. Not many countries are going to accept your definition of freedom of expression. Also, like many conventions, furry conventions should be for everybody not just adults and we want to show the world how awesome furry really is without the smut you know. In the end, conventions will still practice a degree of self-censorship to comply with the policy of their event hosting business or else they won't be allowed to hold anymore conventions which will ruin the fun for everybody.
While I appreciate your wish to spread furry, I don't think that should mean compromising what we are in an attempt to grow. You're basically saying "furry could be huge if we just cut out a lot of the stuff which made it what it is". Well, yeah, it could be . . . but a) so what, and b) this market is already served by Disney which create theme parks (Disneyland) and movies (Zootopia) filled with animal characters who totally don't have sex, even though there are a bunch of little bunny rabbits hopping about on screen.
I get the impression that you're willing to sell a false image of what furry is. In reality, furry is a community created largely by adults, and for adults. The majority of furries do think furry porn is awesome, and it's a big part of why they're here. Sites which don't support it have not been as successful as those which do. And I think that's true of conventions, too - where there is any possibility of adult content being allowed at all. Certainly it would impact which ones I went to.
I'm not sure which types of conventions you've been to, or how they were run. However, at furry conventions in the EU and the USA, dealers are typically in dedicated rooms, restricted to members of the convention - usually with badge checks, at least at larger events. So having families at a hotel doesn't matter if they can't come into the area that art is being sold or created.
Smaller events may be more "mixed", and I could see this leading to some restrictions - but of course, if you are at a smaller event, you're probably in a smaller hotel; and even then there are usually certain rooms reserved for members.
I appreciate there are big differences in various parts of the world. Inkbunny is blocked in Russia and Saudi Arabia (I think FA has been at times, too - certainly for Russia), and I wouldn't be surprised if organizers there were not very careful about the artwork they allowed - even gay content, for example. And one Chinese event I heard of was in a couple of large rooms, which didn't allow much separation.
However, this is not the way things work everywhere. And it's not how I'd want it to work, so I do my part to encourage not to replicate those societies elsewhere if it can be avoided. :)
As Obama said in 'A More Perfect Union', our world is not static; it can be changed by our actions, for the better. We shouldn't settle for what we think will be accepted by society - we'll only get what we want if we push for it. And where freedom of expression matters is at the boundaries - otherwise, we only have "freedom" to express what's already approved, which isn't really freedom at all.
While I appreciate your wish to spread furry, I don't think that should mean compromising what we are in an attempt to grow. You're basically saying "furry could be huge if we just cut out a lot of the stuff which made it what it is".
What are we compromising really? I'm pretty sure I never said ban all forms of yiff. If people want to produce yiff, they can do so in closed channels or by marking them as adult material.
I get the impression that you're willing to sell a false image of what furry is. In reality, furry is a community created largely by adults, and for adults.
Says who? I became a furry in my teens and last time I checked, furry isn't just for adults. A lot of minors are furries too you know and we do want to do more than just yiff. Well me, I'm not much into that but you get the idea.
The majority of furries do think furry porn is awesome, and it's a big part of why they're here.
Okay fair enough but the majority of furries also know that furry porn should stay within closed channels or be marked as adult material. Again, I never said ditch the yiff. There's a lot more to furry than just yiff. If they want to look at the yiff and furry porn, hey that's fine but that's within closed channels and all.
I'm not sure which types of conventions you've been to, or how they were run. However, at furry conventions in the EU and the USA, dealers are typically in dedicated rooms, restricted to members of the convention - usually with badge checks, at least at larger events. So having families at a hotel doesn't matter if they can't come into the area that art is being sold or created.
Anime conventions for now but the anime conventions I go to do not allow hentai art. However, jokes about hentai and clothing poking fun at them is okay. If the furry conventions were held there, they wouldn't be allowed yiff art but yiffy jokes are okay. Adult jokes are different from porn though since the earlier can come in the form of innuendos. Of course, common sense dictates that when children are nearby, one must be very careful.
However, this is not the way things work everywhere. And it's not how I'd want it to work, so I do my part to encourage not to replicate those societies elsewhere if it can be avoided. :)
Well depends but that Chinese furry event sounds quite restricted but to me, maybe fun. As for being concerned with anonymity, its the same with Japan hence a lot of Japanese internet users who dance or fursuit tend to avoid revealing their faces. I'm concerned with anonymity to a degree myself since I want to be seen as someone who's a regular person who studies and works hard to be the best in society but also someone who wants to have fun. Then again in situations like this, in the end, people have their own choices and so do the people who lead these furry events whether we like it or not I guess.
As Obama said in 'A More Perfect Union', our world is not static; it can be changed by our actions, for the better. We shouldn't settle for what we think will be accepted by society - we'll only get what we want if we push for it. And where freedom of expression matters is at the boundaries - otherwise, we only have "freedom" to express what's already approved, which isn't really freedom at all.
What does Obama have to do with the content of furry porn in general? I said people can still view them but in closed channels or in restricted areas. I never said destroy and ban all forms of yiff. Plenty of furries who produce yiff would agree that such material should be restricted to adults.
Those people who are calling anyone who draws cub porn "a monster" are clinging to the belief that, "someone who can not differentiate fantasy from reality might see a cub porn drawing, then act on it by sexually attacking a child"...Censoring what can be drawn as artwork as a solution for those who can not differentiate fantasy from reality is like grabbing a venomous snake by the tail.
Mental health professionals have a name for that condition in which a person can not differentiate fantasy from reality...It's called "Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis".
Those who have Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis are a danger to themselves and others, and will eventually hurt someone or themselves regardless of what fantasy you shield them from, be it cub porn or otherwise. And as we all know, the normal procedure for those who are a danger to themselves and others is an ambulance ride in a straight jacket to a mental hospital where the disorder can be addressed by medical professionals.
Censoring artwork as a solution to those who have Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis is the same as slapping a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound...Those with that dangerous of a condition need to be in a mental hospital where they can receive the treatment and therapy they so desperately need.
Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis is some real heavy tinfoil hat shit...The kind of stuff Charles Manson may have been hatched from.
And if new laws are thrown at it like throwing shit on a wall, those with Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis who are not getting treatment for it will only move on to some other artwork fantasy such as; decapitations, gutting, castration and other forms of blood and gore, and eventually act those out in real life.
Are you willing to ban decapitations, gutting, castration and other forms of blood and gore? There is beastality on this site too you know.
You can censor artwork to the point where it is down to "Twinkle toes, buttercups and lollypops, and someone with untreated Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis will still eventually act out a violent fantasy on someone else in real life.
There is an old movie I saw about 15 years ago about a bizarre case of someone with Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis. It is a murder case and has nothing to do with children being molested, however it paints a good picture of an extreme case of Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis.
I can not find the movie on the internet, but I have given a brief description of it in a journal I've posted; https://inkbunny.net/j/314959-moyom.....of-this-movie-
Are you saying that Dragoneer has Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis when he banned cub art from FA? Fantasy or not, this is the kind of stuff that shouldn't be compared as regular fantasy adult art.
Being one who is originally from Vietnam, sometimes, risk avoidance is a good thing. In America, in many colleges, I was shocked that its okay for feminists to scream in public about their vaginas but men cannot even talk about their genitals in real life. I just don't understand the justification for cub porn as something that should be treated like any other adult fantasy art.
In the end, there's a reason why we tend to censor certain things out.
What I said was;
Many of those who condemn cub porn based on people getting fantasy confused with reality think they are talking about "run of the mill" everyday folks. They somehow think people getting fantasy confused with reality is halfway normal...It's far from normal.
They are not aware that when they claim that, they are actually referring to people with Chronic Hallucinatory Psychosis when they rant, "Oh. Someone might see that and act it out on a real child".
That condition is real "tinfoil hat" stuff. Kind of like Norman Bates in the movie Psycho. That's not just the everyday folks out there like the anti-cub bunch seem to think.
Misconstruing words is how Chinese telephones get started.
Well me personally, I just don't want to be anything near that kind of stuff you know. All I said was that I hate cub art and I want to avoid it as much as possible. And the opinion I stated was something along the lines of "That shouldn't exist in the first place since I don't see why anyone would wake up and go 'Man I feel like drawing some yiffy cub porn today!' out of the blue like that." Really, it just doesn't make sense to me.
There are always reasons. But they are not always very good reasons. ;-p
Dragoneer's decision was, at best, a compromise - "I can't run a site without money, so I have to throw cubs under the bus".
It wasn't presented as what he would do if he had complete freedom, but as a necessary business decision. Perhaps it was.
The trouble comes when people take this decision and say "cub must be morally bad, because otherwise he wouldn't have done it".
Actually, the opposite appears to be true - he tried to follow his principles, but was eventually forced to compromise to gain funding.
She blocked me and also I'm surprised that InkBunny has servers around the world not just in America. Looks like a porn ring in operation to me and yes governments do work together to stop this. One of the servers is sponsored by Bad Dragon so this looks like a recipe for disaster. Look under hardware in this article.
Japan's porn laws are very prone to ambiguity so they have a server there but still this is unacceptable. And UK's censorship laws do not address cub yiff yet they are censoring what they deem as "hate speech" (holding far right political views, etc.). Of course there's a lot of development and change going on in the UK against the establishment so things are going to turn around.
Comment hidden by the page owner
Comment hidden by the page owner
This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. Learn More
neofox7
farmwolf13
mabiki
izaak
rukrio
ryan-the-fox
oliver
azurathefox
ZeoGreyFox
ashfan1
