nsfw So apparantly all you need to do in order to post underaged anime characters to FA is to paint them blue.

[Rassah]

@Saxon The sources question was about the Harmful to Minors book. It pissed off a lot of conservatives and abstinence only types when it came out.

[Sar]

They aren't underaged, they are happy-happiest followers.

 

[Vallium]

some people did make a good point that its not so much the naked image being sexual but more that in the context of being on a furry fetish site which people will likely attract to it that makes it sexual, so trying to play it off as people who are offended for seeing an image of a naked girl and deeming it 'sexual' are closet pedos is wrong.

 

its all about the context

[evan]

4 hours ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

Not a lot of research but enough

How much is "enough" for me to actually take it or you seriously?

 

Ok, I get you have a strong stance on this topic, but you can't seriously default to ignoring evidence on the grounds that you disagree with it or find it to not be enough to disprove you entirely. Especially considering you haven't substantiated your claims; they are empirical conclusions, as far as I can tell. If you're going to be serious about behaving as though what you're saying has any logical merit, you have, on some level, an implicity duty to accept that there is information proving you wrong (potentially) out there, and you have to review what you have claimed against it.

How much research have you done, if "enough" is a problem?

Edited January 19, 2016 by evan

[Von Krieger]

8 hours ago, Saxon said:

I viewed the image. It's a naked sprite sitting on a bed and smoking something from a pipe.

I don't know why Von Krieger assumed this was underaged porn, since the character has breasts. Frankly I don't think the image is even very pornographic, because it's just a naked body, which isn't exactly porn

...because puberty kicks in at ages 10-14? Tits are not granted to young ladies by the boob fairy on their 18th birthday.

 

And because it's Toph from fucking Avatar, who is draw pretty much on model with a few smurfy alterations and colored blue.

 

Gojiro7 has commissioned art of Lilo, from Lilo and Stitch, on model with a three foot long, one inch thick cock several times. This sort of art subject is pretty common for him, underaged cartoon characters in sexual TF situations. I've reported like 6 or 7 of them, which were taken down.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Von Krieger

[Crazy Lee]

17 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

This reminds me that the other week I saw some fur art that was reposted without linking to the artist, but thankfully they had a watermark on it. I found the artist's FA... which was completely empty because he had ragequit and deleted his artwork. His complaint was there was too much cub porn on FA that he was reporting and the mods weren't doing anything about it.

So I look up his art on e621. Guess what I found?

 

Yea, so anyhow, the guy deleted his FA galleries because there was cub porn on FA the staff was not dealing with, but when I found his art on other sites it was mostly cub porn... about 80-90% of it was. So yea. Complains about cub porn on FA.... draws cub porn.
Not that anyone cares .-.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Crazy Lee said:

 

Yea, so anyhow, the guy deleted his FA galleries because there was cub porn on FA the staff was not dealing with, but when I found his art on other sites it was mostly cub porn... about 80-90% of it was. So yea. Complains about cub porn on FA.... draws cub porn.
Not that anyone cares .-.

Why are you looking for cub porn artists?

[PastryOfApathy]

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Why are you looking for cub porn artists?

You don't? Pfftt...casual.

[Vallium]

I'd also like to add you really have to remove your anger from the situation when taking a stance on this. Blind fury over someone who committed bad actions (or you would think they would) is understandable and justifiable, but have you stopped to think about the person?

on a different note, I'll think of school shooters an serial killers. Part of me seriously empathizes with the trauma, the social isolation, and the abuse they've gone through to commit such actions. These past personal problems dont make the actions commited OK, they just give a reason to what the person is and how they feel. The person is still despicable and deserves the punishment they receive.

Pedophiles, not child molestors, are people. They have the rights and responsibilities as everyone else and it they break the border to commited actions in real life that makes them a despicable person.

But should we accept their attraction as natural, allow scientists and psychologists to further research the issue, and offer aids and help resources...as well as alternatives to child molestation? I think so...

 

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by WolfNightV4X1

[Crazy Lee]

13 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Why are you looking for cub porn artists?

I had found one of his non-cub pieces. And went looking for more.

I am so sorry I did.

[DevilishlyHandsome49]

4 minutes ago, evan said:

Ok, I get you have a strong stance on this topic, but you can't seriously default to ignoring evidence on the grounds that you disagree with it or find it to not be enough to disprove you entirely. Especially considering you haven't substantiated your claims; they are empirical conclusions, as far as I can tell. If you're going to be serious about behaving as though what you're saying has any logical merit, you have, on some level, an implicity duty to accept that there is information proving you wrong (potentially) out there, and you have to review what you have claimed against it.

How much research have you done, if "enough" is a problem?

There's research for just about everything, even for the most fucked or weird viewpoints so that people like Rassah can back up their claims. He's only mentioned what, one book?  And the book itself boiling down to humans having a natural attraction to teens and that because of our societal standards, its caused a lot of people to be closet pedos? The West is prude about nudity and so forth? Funny that there are also people in this world who grow out of that stage of being sexually attracted to people their age and end older and more mature and don't feel this raw human need to bang a teen.

The whole point of this thread being made was to discuss a picture posted on FA that clearly is a nude underaged girl, and a sexual image cause the guy had to justify in his head that the picture was of an appropriately aged female by changing her species and her color, THEN posts it on FA knowing stuff like that has been banned. There was some sexual meaning behind that picture. We could go on for days about whether its clearly sexual or not. The problem is SOMEBODY will see it as sexual and thats the big issue, cause we all know what kind of freaky people are in this fandom. We've all heard the stories of cub artists who were left to their own for too long and ended up doing some foul shit and got their ass caught. Or we could use Flynn's brother (since he put that information out there) and the person could end up having a mental breakdown cause they know in their conscious something is wrong with them and end up depressed and suicidal.

But its fine cause its an image and its a "safe" outlet. Ever since the first page I've been seeing people say that and all it sounds like to me is failure to addressing the negative impact of just letting that person enjoy something that everyone knows is fucked. It'll only lead to what I have just stated in the prior paragraph

And back to what I just said at the beginning of this post, you can find research to back up anything. I could find research to defend someone for killing a bunch of people cause of something in their brain that caused them to go off. Doesn't change the fact that its wrong and they need mental help or get locked up in extreme cases. Not every issue has to be solved with a research paper. Sometimes its raw common sense and basic logic to see that something's wrong. Looking back at the fandom's reputation of horrible people to see what can go wrong.

Even though I'm quoting you evan, i'm only responding to why I don't take Rassah's evidence seriously. Not even mad at you but mad at people who can't boil it down to one simple fact:

FA banned underaged porn, therefore it should not be on the site. The picture is clearly of an underaged girl. Ephebophile, pedophile, whatever. Its underaged. @Vae said that, @Calemeyr said that. I said that. 

You give pedos that kind of talk about it being researched and that its considered natural, one of two things will happen: They may realize they need to get help or they may take that as an excuse to continue their behavior. I'm putting money on them taking advantage and not getting the help they need to sort that shit out. 

That's all I'm gonna say on this subject. I'm not getting in a debate with Rassah cause there's no point in trying to get through that thick skull of his. Not wasting my time cause it will just go in circles, like every debate with Rassah goes. I'm done with this thread.

 

 

[Barnectomy]

17 hours ago, axelthefox said:

Pedos Furries are sick and they all need to be locked up. That is all.

 

[Vallium]

I dont want to callout in case people really are done with discussion, but Im wondering how people feel about feral smut and if the reaction is as strongly to cub in how they feel these people will translate these actions to real life scenarios.

Should other forms of unacceptable material be banned, such as rape and incest? Given it could be possible breeding ground for people to want to live these kinks in real life?

 

[TrishaCat]

22 hours ago, MuttButt said:

Pretty much this. People can't really help what they're attracted to, so better they get it out of their system with drawing instead of real kids. Also this topic has been discussed before, and a lot of people agree that oftentimes their more "extreme" fantasies don't really translate to real life. Kinda like how a lot of people into feral porn probably don't wanna fuck real animals, people into castration/neutering aren't gonna really go and get their balls chopped off, people into cub porn usually won't go out and molest a real child, etc etc. If this were the case I feel like this sort of thing would be a whole lot more pervasive. 

I've always found it frustrating and strange that people often compare 2D things to real life when even small changes can have a radical effect on whether or not something is appealing to a person. And I consider the translation from 2D artwork to real life imagery to be a really huge change. There are so many things in art that can't be replicated in real life and so on. 

On another note, while I don't agree with the rule, if FA has a rule they really should enforce their rules. Or remove them. What's the point of a defined guideline if you don't enforce it?

Edited January 19, 2016 by Battlechili

[Crazy Lee]

*grabs bucket of popcorn*
 

15 hours ago, Calemeyr said:

Uh...that's not helping your image here, m8. You kinda just implied you draw cub or are into it. Might want to rephrase that.

The funny thing was, I got what he was trying to say... strange others did not.

 

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

@Saxon The sources question was about the Harmful to Minors book. It pissed off a lot of conservatives and abstinence only types when it came out.

*has an opinion, quotes ONE BOOK to back up his opinion*

Ever consider that one book may be wrong?

[Barnectomy]

I keep seeing the word "normal" thrown about. What is "normal"?

Some food for thought: the age of consent in Japan is 13. "Oh fuck Japan is full of pedos!"

[Reska]

Japan kind of is full of pedos.

[PastryOfApathy]

8 minutes ago, Barnectomy said:

I keep seeing the word "normal" thrown about. What is "normal"?

Some food for thought: the age of consent in Japan is 13. "Oh fuck Japan is full of pedos!"

Just because something is legal another country doesn't make it not creepy as shit.

Of course in the case of Japan, it's merely a symptom of much larger societal issues people other than me are way more qualified to talk about.

1 hour ago, Battlechili said:

On another note, while I don't agree with the rule, if FA has a rule they really should enforce their rules. Or remove them. What's the point of a defined guideline if you don't enforce it?

Ha ha! Good one!

[VulpineTaco]

Tfw FA needs a good culling.

[Zeke]

4 hours ago, Barnectomy said:

I keep seeing the word "normal" thrown about. What is "normal"?

Some food for thought: the age of consent in Japan is 13. "Oh fuck Japan is full of pedos!"

it's only legal for another 13 year old to sleep with another 13 year olds to 17 year olds. An adult cannot have sex with underage, however groping, handjobs, and BJs are perfectly fine.(Skip to 10:28 if it doesn't start there)

 

Japan's laws are weird, and it's more sexual exploitation with a cup of sexual repression (Japanese jokes are based on perversion). 

[Vaer]

11 minutes ago, Zeke said:

-stuff-

 

[axelthefox]

5 hours ago, Barnectomy said:

 

Wat

Edited January 20, 2016 by axelthefox

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

There's research for just about everything, even for the most fucked or weird viewpoints

That is absolutely true. There is research for just about everything. What there isn't is evidence go conclusively support just about everything. Research only supports a hypothesis, or rejects it. You won't find much research about your side of the argument that actually concludes by supporting your side of the argument. At best, at present it's still "inconclusive."

6 hours ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

He's only mentioned what, one book?

I mentioned that one book because it boils down dozens of research papers into an easy to read format, and has pages of citations for research supporting it. So, technically, I mentioned pages of citations.

6 hours ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

And the book itself boiling down to humans having a natural attraction to teens and that because of our societal standards, its caused a lot of people to be closet pedos? The West is prude about nudity and so forth?

Actually, the book's overall premise, supported by actual research mind you, is that children are MUCH more hurt by society's view on sexuality, and specifically its attempt at "protecting the children" from it, than from sexuality itself. Even to the point of having real world examples where two underage children were playing together sexually (playing doctor or whatever), and haven't really been hurt by it (as many kids do and aren't), but in their case when their parents found out, one of them was absolutely convinced by their family and surrounding society that what happened to them was shameful, tragic, abusive, etc, to the point that the kid grew up feeling like a rape victim.

Actually, you are another example that would fit into that book quite well. Nudity, even underage, doesn't bother me. I grew up around it (I was nude, underage, and we had mirrors), it was somewhat common on the beaches (little kids in USSR and in Europe sometimes went without bathing suits), and sexuality was never a big deal in my family (plus spending a year in Italy, naked people were EVERYWHERE! in art). So, things like this don't bother me and I don't care.

You, on the other hand, seem quite emotionally disturbed and upset by this image and the subject of underage nudes. I'm sure you tell yourself "But normal people...!" Well, normal people knew that masturbation was a horrible thing to do, and homosexuality wasn't even something to speak of.

6 hours ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

The problem is SOMEBODY will see it as sexual

That somebody is not you, right? (Right???) So why is it any of your business? Seriously, the thing that bugs me the most about these types of topics is that some obnoxious busybody always feels like it's their business to insert their morality into other people's business. If it's not hurting you or anyone you know, leave it the fuck alone. Authoritarians piss me off (and they comprise 100% of Trump voters apparently).

6 hours ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

Sometimes its raw common sense...

Don't know how old you are, but it's about time you learn that common sense is just common, not sensical. How many people here have for YEARS dealt with "It's just common sense that men only sleep with women" or that "people should only be attracted to humans?" FFS...

5 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

*has an opinion, quotes ONE BOOK to back up his opinion*

Ever consider that one book may be wrong?

Yes. But, besides that one book being a convenient source for a lot of research, it's not the only thing that got me to my position. It was just easiest to suggest. Before getting into IT and Fiance I wanted to be a psychiatrist (after being an "arm chair" one for years, with hurt and abused kids coming to me to talk to and a shoulder to cry on), and was working on a degree in psychology. That included Child Development, Child Psychology, and Psychology of Human Sexuality. Things kept going from there even after I changed my degrees a few times, since I find the topic fascinating.

[Saxon]

8 hours ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

There's research for just about everything, even for the most fucked or weird viewpoints so that people like Rassah can back up their claims. He's only mentioned what, one book?  And the book itself boiling down to humans having a natural attraction to teens and that because of our societal standards, its caused a lot of people to be closet pedos? The West is prude about nudity and so forth? Funny that there are also people in this world who grow out of that stage of being sexually attracted to people their age and end older and more mature and don't feel this raw human need to bang a teen.

The whole point of this thread being made was to discuss a picture posted on FA that clearly is a nude underaged girl, and a sexual image cause the guy had to justify in his head that the picture was of an appropriately aged female by changing her species and her color, THEN posts it on FA knowing stuff like that has been banned. There was some sexual meaning behind that picture. We could go on for days about whether its clearly sexual or not. The problem is SOMEBODY will see it as sexual and thats the big issue, cause we all know what kind of freaky people are in this fandom. We've all heard the stories of cub artists who were left to their own for too long and ended up doing some foul shit and got their ass caught. Or we could use Flynn's brother (since he put that information out there) and the person could end up having a mental breakdown cause they know in their conscious something is wrong with them and end up depressed and suicidal.

But its fine cause its an image and its a "safe" outlet. Ever since the first page I've been seeing people say that and all it sounds like to me is failure to addressing the negative impact of just letting that person enjoy something that everyone knows is fucked. It'll only lead to what I have just stated in the prior paragraph

And back to what I just said at the beginning of this post, you can find research to back up anything. I could find research to defend someone for killing a bunch of people cause of something in their brain that caused them to go off. Doesn't change the fact that its wrong and they need mental help or get locked up in extreme cases. Not every issue has to be solved with a research paper. Sometimes its raw common sense and basic logic to see that something's wrong. Looking back at the fandom's reputation of horrible people to see what can go wrong.

Even though I'm quoting you evan, i'm only responding to why I don't take Rassah's evidence seriously. Not even mad at you but mad at people who can't boil it down to one simple fact:

FA banned underaged porn, therefore it should not be on the site. The picture is clearly of an underaged girl. Ephebophile, pedophile, whatever. Its underaged. @Vae said that, @Calemeyr said that. I said that. 

You give pedos that kind of talk about it being researched and that its considered natural, one of two things will happen: They may realize they need to get help or they may take that as an excuse to continue their behavior. I'm putting money on them taking advantage and not getting the help they need to sort that shit out. 

That's all I'm gonna say on this subject. I'm not getting in a debate with Rassah cause there's no point in trying to get through that thick skull of his. Not wasting my time cause it will just go in circles, like every debate with Rassah goes. I'm done with this thread.

 

 

The image clearly wasn't underaged and was, arguably, not even sexual. It was jut a nude of a blue woman. ._. Did you even look at the image?

Rassah has, thus far, been correct that nudity is often incorrectly viewed a automatically sexual and that many people are so paranoid about paedophiles that they can be persuaded that an 18 year old man being attracted to a 16 year old woman is a form of paedophilia. 

Research into many paraphilias is sparse, but even if it did reveal that paedophilia was 'natural', ( some researchers do argue that it is a 'sexual orientation' ) then this doesn't mean that it is good, or that acting upon such attractions is acceptable. Researchers mean to understand the human condition, rather than to excuse, justify or repudiate. 

[Troj]

I'm actually more angry about the artist dishonoring Toph by turning her into a Smurf.

Other than that, the image itself doesn't particularly bother me--and granted, that may be because I was expecting much worse when I clicked the link--and doesn't strike me as particularly or notably sexual. I'm someone who normally has a pretty sensitive gag reflex when it comes to this sort of thing.

 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Troj

[Zeke]

Nudity is just one of those things that people put sexual connotations on. Like breasts. 

Anyways, the picture in question? Pretty stupid and hurts me in the fan-dick since I hate spurs and I love Avatar. Could it be seen against FA rules? probably, but I wouldn't get worked up over it too much. 

[Crazy Lee]

Now, regarding that autistic comment...

I know there are plenty of normal, nice autistic people out there, who don't have too many problems functioning in society, and are smart, and not creepy.

It's just that, having actually been to many cons and fur meets, while there are lots of normal furries, there is also a huge amount of real "derp". I'm not sure if they're like that because they're somewhere on the autistic spectrum, if they just have some kind of mental or social issues, or their mothers just drank too much alcohol during pregnancy. But they are just WEIRD people. There is a lot of very creepy social awkwardness in the fandom and people, because they're non-confrontational or trying too hard to be nice, won't call people out for stupid behavior... like the fur who got us kicked out of the bowling alley for being inappropriate (although in his case I think he was either drunk or immature, not being full on mentally off). So stupid behavior is accepted.

[Onnes]

8 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

Now, regarding that autistic comment...
...

First, consider that autism is considered a permanent trait. If you're diagnosed with it then, as best we know, you were born with it and will some day die with it. 

Now, a substantial fraction of this forum are either autistic or have some other closely related developmental disorder. Obviously, they don't have this disorder by choice. What, then, is your intended meaning when you use "autistic" as a synonym for "undesirable"? Because most people would interpret that as saying autistic people, as a class, are undesirable. Given this forum's population, you're stating that a large number of users are inherently "undesirable" regardless of their actual conduct.

I know this is not your intent, but I felt it at least necessary to lay out how I view this sort of thing.

[Troj]

The best way I can figure it, there are certain autistic people who either have additional psychological issues outside of the autism, or who have inherent character flaws that are accentuated or exacerbated by the autism, or both--in any case, when left to their own devices, they act like total assholes or complete lunatics.

I know plenty of autistic people who are sometimes annoying or awkward, but they're still fundamentally nice people who want to get along with others, and have developed some sense of accountability or responsibility when it comes to how they act in the world.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Troj

[PastryOfApathy]

22 hours ago, Zeke said:

Nostalgia Critic

Can mods ban themselves? Is that a thing?

[Zeke]

48 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Can mods ban themselves? Is that a thing?

Nope

Only reason why I posted that little bit was the japanese sex shit. Whether you agree with his reviews or want to hit him with a brick is another matter.