FurrynetworkBeta

[Mapa]

2 minutes ago, FenrirDarkWolf said:

frankentwitterfa

[FenrirDarkWolf]

Just now, pothocket said:

Just the site design on it reminds me of twitter 

[Mapa]

Just now, FenrirDarkWolf said:

Just the site design on it reminds me of twitter 

Oh, well I'm an uncultured swine who doesn't use twitter so I wouldn't know.

[Hewge]

So it's just another website where everyone "migrates" to, then stop using it and go back to FA anyways?

Meh

[TrishaCat]

10 hours ago, 6tails said:

There's a petition to remove cub from FN.

This is freakin' Varka we're talking about. Fat chance.

I would hope that such a petition is ignored or rejected, or that there's just as large an outcry against the banning of such content. To use an extreme, and forgive me for this: I don't care if someone is drawing art of a dog having sex with the corpse of a dead baby as it eats its head; it should be allowed as long as it is tagged appropriately (in my opinion). An artistic work may be obscene and disgusting, but at the end of the day its artwork, a piece of fiction. Drawings are EXTREMELY different from real life in almost any instance, unless someone is such an incredible artist that its difficult to discern from a photograph, which is very rare. You know how someone could look at two pornographic images that are similar and find one attractive while the other not? Well imagine that but with a much bigger jump, as 3D is VERY different from 2D. As such, I believe the fears presented that such is a sign of danger towards actual children to be highly unlikely. 

Not to mention there are issues of artistic censorship that can come into play, which I think the importance of can better be expressed by those much more articulate than myself:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

Neil Gaiman in particular expresses the issue of banning drawn imagery and he even goes into details surrounding a case where a man was sentenced to 6 months in prison for having lolicon and bestiality manga, although his writings are more directed at the law rather than art sites. I still feel that the points made are important though, and I feel as if its limiting to artists and harmful to an art community to set guidelines beyond the confines of the law. Cub porn is not something explicitly banned in most places (excepting Canada and the UK). To ban such artwork hinders some levels of creativity and prevents people from exploring some darker subjects in the world. One might say that most of this art will just be mindless porn of no artistic value, but I would argue that simply by being a drawing such content has artistic merit that could be appreciated. Can't one look at artwork of even porn and appreciate the effort that went into it and quality of the artwork such as by detail, shading, lighting, etc.? If such is possible, wouldn't that mean that such content has some level of artistic merit for it to be appreciated by? Why prevent an artist from depicting such taboo works?

5 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Regardless of whether that's true or not in regards to cub porn (the argument can be made either way), it should be kept off a general-art site. 

It's a little beyond your average fetish. 

I don't really see how its all that much more different; perhaps I'm desensitized to it since I spend a lot of time on Japanese art sites and anime communities where such content is more prevalent and generally accepted, but in my eyes its just more fetish art, almost on par with many other fetishes that could be considered disgusting and/or dangerous. General art sites that allow for porn will allow for some fetishistic artwork, right? Where does one draw the line? Guro is an existing fetish involving the dismemberment and death of others where gore is prevalent. Rape is another somewhat prevalent fetish, and I'm sure I don't need to explain what that is or why its wrong. Vore is another that people seem very lenient on, when the reality of it is that it is a depiction of one person eating another, and if that were enacted in real life....Well, all of these things, if enacted in real life, would be horrific crimes, would they not? So where do you draw the line, and why?

Forgive me if I'm starting an argument where its not appropriate; but I have very strong feelings regarding censorship and the value of art and genuinely believe that most of those who would like such depraved porn would not actually act on such in real life. I find it difficult to believe that people in general don't have a level of self control and understanding of what is real and what is not and find it devaluing to suspect such a possibility of individuals without reason to believe it would be applied to real life. 

Its artwork; Why shouldn't all artwork be allowed, especially if tags can be used to avoid artwork that one doesn't want to see?

EDIT: I wish I could express my feelings there, but at the moment it appears the thread where such was suggested currently has commenting disabled. x_x

[LadyRadarEars]

One of the issues though is that people aren't tagging appropriately, which can cause lots of trouble for those who have/want it blacklisted already. I already made my opinion known in the vote though, so w/e. Much smarter people than I have argued the case.

[Endless/Nameless]

2 hours ago, Battlechili said:

whoa

You make good points. I find it hard to disagree. 

In this specific case however, my biggest objection—aside from any moral quandaries—is that it's cutting far too close to actual child porn. Artistic liberty or not, that's not a line you want to rub up against.

That's why is said it's a little beyond your normal fetish. 

Aren't you glad I'm not an artsite mod? 

EDIT: I'm really not making myself clear. I don't condone banning things for simply being distasteful. That behavior is an incredibly slippery slope; ban one word, fetish, etc, and you'll have to ban 100 more. Plus, it makes for a limited worldview. 

But this isn't just another grossout, nsfl fetish; these are depictions that are outright illegal in some parts of the world. It ventures far too close to the edge of criminal activity.

Is that a line you really want to toe on a general artsite?? 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Endless/Nameless

[FlynnCoyote]

1 hour ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Aren't you glad I'm not an artsite mod? 

More than you know.

Battlechili has said it perfectly.

[Endless/Nameless]

5 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

More than you know.

Thank you for being honest. 

[Deskai]

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

Hopefully FN will get some balls and start prohibiting people from posting if they don't properly tag their artwork. Any decent artist should be able to put at LEAST eight to ten tags on their art.

the problem is folks are from FA, a site that doesnt enforce tagging, I'm use to tagging cause I main on SoFurry which enforces tagging.

It's also why we having a problem about cub porn on FN cause it was a problem on FA cause "theres no blacklist feature" thus folks moving from FA to FN do not actually figure out you can black list. 
Then again Inkbunny I use to get into arguments with folks when I would tag their cub porn as cub using the excuse the site is for cub porn...then I cut IB off of being able to commission me, then fully left when someone drew one of my chars getting raped cause I refused service to them.

 

 

yea the point:
Folks need to learn how to tag...just on FA since it doesnt enforce a tagging system nor do they have a black list system I dont tag on FA

[Endless/Nameless]

Notice I updated my post. 

[willow]

I honestly get both sides of the argument. personally I don't care for cub porn and the people who draw it/like it tend to be really creepy, so I tend to stay away from them and I would most certainly not be upset in the slightest if FN decides to get rid of it completely if blacklisting it doesn't work. it's also illegal in several countries so it could hypothetically get someone in trouble (though let's be honest, SoFurry and Inkbunny host it too and I've yet to hear about them getting sued over it). and well..let's be honest, people have legitimate reasons to not want to see it or want it gone. shit like this can be pretty triggering to someone who has been sexually abused and it's not exactly something you can just get over completely.

but at the same time I guess I'm kind of in the same boat as Chili. personal feelings aside, I acknowledge that it's just art. that's it's purely fictional. and that the majority of people who enjoy it probably don't condone the real thing. and I guess I'm a bit desensitized to these things now because that's just a side effect of being on the internet. I watched the entirety Boku no Pico and thought it was just hilariously bad albeit slightly squicky. even though it's one of those things you link to people for ultimate shock value and lulz. I play a shit ton of violent video games. watch violent shows. etc. but I'm also an adult with a healthy dissociation between reality and fiction and realize that murder is bad.

that being said, I still don't think things like "it's fiction" and "art isn't hurting anybody so this should be allowed" are really good arguments for why cub porn should be allowed. they're both true statements yes, but that doesn't make the subject matter any less disturbing to the average viewer. fiction should not be an excuse to make people legitimately uncomfortable. if you can reasonably accommodate people, you need to do it; so there needs to be, at the very least, some very good policies on tagging so people who don't want to see it can blacklist it and run less of a risk of seeing it and the people who want to see it can still do so. the ideal situation would be to just get rid of it

[Vae]

The way I see cub porn (or any underage anything of that nature) is that it "normalizes" a fetish for children.

I'm not beyond having horrible intrusive thoughts (albeit none related to this subject), but I don't try to "solidify" them and seek approval on the internet by posting them to the public.
I know that they're fucked up. I acknowledge it. I disregard it. I move on.

I do not pity people with a pedophilia fetish, especially one that they try to express. You can be self-aware enough to understand that certain things just aren't okay.
Fetishes and sexual attractions are not something you have to indulge in, or even entertain, to live.
Fetishes are not something you have to accept within yourself.

So no, I don't agree with it being posted, or even drawn.
Because it promotes and normalizes something that simply shouldn't be accepted.

[FlynnCoyote]

Quick question, is there any recorded correlation between Cub porn and actual child molestation? Because every time I hear about a child molester being convicted, it's always associated with some kind of mental illness, the catholic church or a hard drive full of photos of abused children.

I don't think I've ever read an article or heard a broadcast where it was found that the perpetrator had loads of furry cub porn on his computer. And I've never come across an furry artist who draws cub porn that has advocated for the right to molest children. Or cubs.

Until you can give me a tangible link between the art and the crime, all I can see is that your argument seems to stem from personal distaste, prejudice and ignorance.

 

For the record, and let me be absolutely clear on this, I do not support the freedom to engage in illegal child pornography, I do not have a pedophilia fetish myself, I simply oppose the censorship of any kind of fictional artwork for unjust reasons. Saying an art form that harms nobody simply shouldn't be accepted is nothing more than an opinion until you can prove to me that it causes actual harm. I approve of IB's choice to continue allowing it and I hope that FN will take the rational course as well.

[willow]

17 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

 

Until you can give me a tangible link between the art and the crime, all I can see is that your argument seems to stem from personal distaste, prejudice and ignorance.

LORD 

it's 2016 and apparently disliking cub porn and not wanting to see it counts as prejudice and ignorance. what a time to be alive. amen! 

anyway....

saying this is totally unjust is pretty silly. the reasons against it are pretty well justified. whether it's harmful or not is a bit subjective, buuuut I also think anything that has the potential to give someone a panic attack or bad anxiety is most certainly not harmless and the site has more of a responsibility to protect the safety and wellbeing of its users than it does to protect the integrity of your porn

 

 

[FlynnCoyote]

1 minute ago, willow said:

saying this is totally unjust is pretty silly. the reasons against it are pretty well justified. whether it's harmful or not is a bit subjective, buuuut I also think anything that has the potential to give someone a panic attack or bad anxiety is most certainly not harmless and the site has more of a responsibility to protect the safety and wellbeing of its users than it does to protect the integrity of your porn

So, are we also going to ban gore? Or anyhting with anti religious or political connotations? Or art depicting things like murder or tragic death? You know, to prevent people from being triggered or succumbing to anxiety? It would only be fair.

[Vae]

52 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Quick question, is there any recorded correlation between Cub porn and actual child molestation? Because every time I hear about a child molester being convicted, it's always associated with some kind of mental illness, the catholic church or a hard drive full of photos of abused children.

I don't think I've ever read an article or heard a broadcast where it was found that the perpetrator had loads of furry cub porn on his computer. And I've never come across an furry artist who draws cub porn that has advocated for the right to molest children. Or cubs.

Until you can give me a tangible link between the art and the crime, all I can see is that your argument seems to stem from personal distaste, prejudice and ignorance.

 

For the record, and let me be absolutely clear on this, I do not support the freedom to engage in illegal child pornography, I do not have a pedophilia fetish myself, I simply oppose the censorship of any kind of fictional artwork for unjust reasons. Saying an art form that harms nobody simply shouldn't be accepted is nothing more than an opinion until you can prove to me that it causes actual harm. I approve of IB's choice to continue allowing it and I hope that FN will take the rational course as well.

Regardless of whether or not it correlates directly with crime levels (and it's not going to, anyway, because society reaches far beyond the limits of nerd culture, and child molestation has existed much longer than graphic media), it's still something that should not be encouraged.

If you wanna call that "prejudice," that's fine by me.
I will gladly be prejudiced against people who are sexually attracted to children. Idgaf.

Also, I don't know why people treat artwork like it's this "sacred" thing that's untouchable by any standards of decency, especially when publicly expressed.
You put things out to the public, and you have to deal with the public's response to it.
That's your own responsibility.
Tough shit.

And yes, that will include scrutiny and banning it in certain places.

9 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

So, are we also going to ban gore? Or anyhting with anti religious or political connotations? Or art depicting things like murder or tragic death? You know, to prevent people from being triggered or succumbing to anxiety? It would only be fair.

People are emotionally affected by gore, religion, and death. These subjects reach far deeper, and touch a number of more personal notes than child porn.

Cub, and underage porn, by extension, exist solely for some creep to get off to.

[willow]

1 minute ago, FlynnCoyote said:

So, are we also going to ban gore? Or anyhting with anti religious or political connotations? Or art depicting things like murder or tragic death? You know, to prevent people from being triggered or succumbing to anxiety? It would only be fair.

this is what we would call a weak analogy. these are all things that can trigger someone yes, but they're triggering for different reasons. nevermind all of those things except for gore are so uncommon that the likelihood you'll see art depicting it is pretty rare, and most stories will tell you upfront what the subject matter is. and art targeting a specific religion probably isn't even allowed already 

but cub porn (really any kind of depictions of that nature) can force someone to relive some really awful trauma. 

I'm sorry if that part seems unclear. 

[FlynnCoyote]

4 minutes ago, Vae said:

People are emotionally affected by gore, religion, and death. These subjects reach far deeper, and touch a number of more personal notes than child porn.

Cub, and underage porn, by extension, exist solely for some creep to get off to.

I'm sorry, it sounds like the creep getting off in his bedroom is a lot less harmful than the emotional scarring being torn open by depictions of murder and mutilation. What was the point you were angling for again?

An enforce on proper tagging and harsher rules for violations is a fairer compromise than just banning one specific topic altogether. Site functions that allow tags to be blacklisted are also a good idea and imo a preferable alternative.

3 minutes ago, willow said:

this is what we would call a weak analogy. these are all things that can trigger someone yes, but they're triggering for different reasons. nevermind all of those things except for gore are so uncommon that the likelihood you'll see art depicting it is pretty rare, and most stories will tell you upfront what the subject matter is. and art targeting a specific religion probably isn't even allowed already 

Why? Why is some triggering "okay" and other triggering is not? Why is it okay for someone to be reminded of a murder or a suicide close to them but not what Father O'Reilley did to them when they were an altar boy?

I'm just gonna add here, that these people will find a way to ply their art one way or another. It might as well be on a site or sites that cater for almost literally every other fetish on the planet anyway, with appropriate rating and tag systems in place.

[Endless/Nameless]

5 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

It might as well be on a site or sites that cater for almost literally every other fetish on the planet anyway

OR they could go do it somewhere else in privacy. 

[Guest]

Friendly reminder porn involving minors is illegal :)

Further comment to say that cub porn is disgusting, and if FN allows it I'll just be sticking my sorry ass with weasyl and tumblr. 

[Vae]

10 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I'm sorry, it sounds like the creep getting off in his bedroom is a lot less harmful than the emotional scarring being torn open by depictions of murder and mutilation. What was the point you were angling for again?

An enforce on proper tagging and harsher rules for violations is a fairer compromise than just banning one specific topic altogether. Site functions that allow tags to be blacklisted are also a good idea and imo a preferable alternative.

Why? Why is some triggering "okay" and other triggering is not? Why is it okay for someone to be reminded of a murder or a suicide close to them but not what Father O'Reilley did to them when they were an altar boy?

I'm just gonna add here, that these people will find a way to ply their art one way or another. It might as well be on a site or sites that cater for almost literally every other fetish on the planet anyway, with appropriate rating and tag systems in place.

"People have emotional connections and expressions through things like death and violence because it affects all of us, and we can relate to it. Man, this is totally of the same virtue and validity as someone getting off to kids, or drawing themselves lynching black people. Stop oppressing muh artist freedoms."

Yes, these are totally the same level of appropriateness.
Surely. Clearly.

Because "there are limits" exists in nothing, ever.

[FlynnCoyote]

Well this is a pointless battle.

I don't agree with censorship in regards to fictitious artworks. Period. If you disagree with that, good for you. If a site has its own policies, so be it. Regardless, I hope FN turns into a positive and prosperous community that can move forward whatever policies it settles on.

Back on topic ya?

[Endless/Nameless]

7 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Well this is a pointless battle.

I don't agree with censorship in regards to fictitious artworks. Period. If you disagree with that, good for you. If a site has its own policies, so be it. Regardless, I hope FN turns into a positive and prosperous community that can move forward whatever policies it settles on.

Back on topic ya?

[FlynnCoyote]

4 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

[root]

4 hours ago, Vae said:

Also, I don't know why people treat artwork like it's this "sacred" thing that's untouchable by any standards of decency, especially when publicly expressed.
You put things out to the public, and you have to deal with the public's response to it.
That's your own responsibility.
Tough shit.

It boils down to "quit getting mad at ink on paper".

4 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Why? Why is some triggering "okay" and other triggering is not? Why is it okay for someone to be reminded of a murder or a suicide close to them but not what Father O'Reilley did to them when they were an altar boy?

The triggering argument seems weak to me as well. Why does being mentally scarred only matter when it involves being sexually molested as a child? I guess it's because society views pedophilia as the worst possible thing to ever exist and tends to have a lot of knee jerk reactions towards it. I agree that it's up there with some of the worst, but it's absolutely not the only thing.

5 hours ago, Vae said:

Cub, and underage porn, by extension, exist solely for some creep to get off to.

Or it's this reason. But I don't really give a shit about what someone jerks off to if they aren't actively harming anyone. In the case of cub art: if you and I find it gross as fuck, then okay but I don't think it should be outlawed.

[TrishaCat]

I agree with FlynnCoyote and Endless/Nameless that we should probably just get back on topic.

There's stuff I want to say too, especially regarding Lemon's link, but its probably best to just drop it for now and let this thread get back on track since its not explicitly about Furry Network itself as a conversation, at least not beyond "should this be allowed there or not", which is probably more relevant there than here.

I realize I'm the one who really started pushing the topic, but I do agree with Flynn Coyote and Endless/Nameless that it should probably be dropped for now. I've said my main piece.

[Deskai]

Well I'm just gonna wait for it to decide if it wants to be a Social network site or an art site cause "yea sure you could combine the two" but something gotta be the main driving force in the given direction.

[TrishaCat]

10 minutes ago, 6tails said:

But this is wrong if you'd have read the entirety of your link.

 

To quote: "By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value."

Don't forget the part where the Protect Act was deemed unconstitutional, so it as a law is moot anyways. The only other cases brought up all involved people having actual real photos, so none of those cases can be used either.

The whole link basically boils down to "Its not explicitely illegal"

[Xaende]

On 5/23/2016 at 0:50 AM, Toshabi said:

VCL was cancer.

At least with VCL, artists could (and still can) organize their uploads in a meaningful way. FA's limited gallery vs. scraps layout is horrible, which is why I removed most most of my old stuff from FA, but still use VCL for archives. If I want my old comics to be with my old comics, color work to be with color work, pencils to be with pencils etc. it's not only possible but easy to do.

I'm tempted to wax nostalgic for the days when the fandom was more about sharing and generating unique content than becoming popufur by commissioning others to draw one's own fursona, but I'll leave it at that. There's also a reason why the VCL Horrors LiveJournal was created, which focused on some of the most cringe-worthy material I've ever wished I could unsee.

But yeah, VCL was cancer. So was Yerf, Furnation, and a bunch of other big sites. YNA was pretty awesome though. It was based around critique, leading to a commenting system which was pretty neat for its time. And it had journals among other things. Anybody else here remember Ask Arty?

[PastryOfApathy]

Personally I don't give a fuck about cub shit unless it goes like FULL inkbunny.

Seriously why?

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

i don't give a shit what people draw as long as you tag it properly so I don't have to see it

[Spot]

FN does seem enticing but due to their affiliation with Beastiality they won't be getting my support. Other than FA, Weasyl is still the better of the lot...

[Data]

-basically it goes this way for me, three rules, dont force it on me >or others for that matter, if they are not interested, they're just not<, dont touch my family, dont touch my dog >other animals as well, but just for reference<. im personally rivaled to it, but i have ran into people who are into it, as well as many other things i dont exactly agree with, but its really the choice of the person, i cant change there choices, they want to take the risk and step out of....whatever guideline of normality furries have, then sure, thats there thing. i dont want to see it, and like every other fetish, i dont want to discuss it with others, what they do is there thing and what i do is mine. but i do have to agree, tagging does seem to be an issue, i am quite tired of having cub, snuff, and vore or nightmarish images pop up and not leave my head, and maybe there should be >more<  requirements enforced, and not just on the sight discussed.

[RTDragon]

Well remember those journal links i posted yesterday it's seems those journals are gone now but the tweet still there i wonder why?

[Spot]

1 minute ago, 6tails said:

As if this fandom hasn't been associated with bestiality before?

Yeah but that's the point, the focus of the fandom is not about Beastiality and needs to be snubbed out. I figure if I don't support it I'm doing my part to help.

[RTDragon]

7 minutes ago, 6tails said:

As if this fandom hasn't been associated with bestiality before?

Probably because they forgot to cover their lying asses entirely.

Well i just found out why it seems FA deleted their journals.

And the more i read these tweets the more hypocritical they get.

There's a lot more of this considering they wanted to cause drama. There's a lot more where that came from.

 

[RTDragon]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Yeah but that's the point, the focus of the fandom is not about Beastiality and needs to be snubbed out. I figure if I don't support it I'm doing my part to help.

Then i wonder why there's bestiality pictures on FA  that is drawn considering that's quite a weak argument right there.

EDIT: Can someone please merge this to my previous post? since this could be considered double posting.

[Spot]

Just now, RTDragon said:

Then i wonder why there's bestiality pictures on FA  that is drawn considering that's quite a weak argument right there

I didn't know Beastiality and anthro porn were the same thing, just a side-effect of a culture orientating around the concept of anthropomorphic animals. No doubt it attracts that type.

[Toshabi]

It seems really random for anyone to harp on FN and actively post/Use FA for the user beastiality thing,  considering FA still has a know dog rapist on staff.

[Falaffel]

I think this place would implode if someone fucked an underage dog. 

[Deskai]

2 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

FN does seem enticing but due to their affiliation with Beastiality they won't be getting my support. Other than FA, Weasyl is still the better of the lot...

yea...but no community

[Spot]

1 minute ago, Deskai said:

yea...but no community

The lack of traffic was implied, since that's what most revert to. 

[Deskai]

Just now, Mr. Fox said:

The lack of traffic was implied, since that's what most revert to. 

they had that before hand, and may continue to have such a thing

[Deskai]

3 hours ago, Battlechili said:

Don't forget the part where the Protect Act was deemed unconstitutional, so it as a law is moot anyways. The only other cases brought up all involved people having actual real photos, so none of those cases can be used either.

The whole link basically boils down to "Its not explicitely illegal"

 

 

4 hours ago, 6tails said:

But this is wrong if you'd have read the entirety of your link.

 

To quote: "By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value."

*record scratch*
WAIT
I GOT PROOF CAUSE I'M A FUCKING ASSHOLE

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf
 

[TrishaCat]

41 minutes ago, 6tails said:

But that's in Texas, we're just assholes like that and will press on. Many other jurisdictions have outright dropped the case due to the 2008 Christopher Handley ruling.

Also note that in the case you're mentioning, there's no furry art. All drawings are of humans.

Yeah, a ruling in a state court isn't the same as a ruling for the Supreme Court. The Christopher Handley ruling is a much bigger deal. The man also didn't contest the court, entering into a plea bargain instead of arguing a case, which means that even if he could've won he didn't bother trying to fight it. There's also the fact that that man was already sentenced to prison in 2007 for the posession of actual child porn videos. 

[Deskai]

56 minutes ago, 6tails said:

But that's in Texas, we're just assholes like that and will press on. Many other jurisdictions have outright dropped the case due to the 2008 Christopher Handley ruling.

Also note that in the case you're mentioning, there's no furry art. All drawings are of humans.

The point was to show that many folks are using the excuse 'they had actual child porn" or "its the drug charges". this is a case of straight up just drawings. showing its possible to get in trouble FOR just drawings...

also equivalent levels...nothing changes if its shota/loli and furry fandoms cub...

[Toshabi]

4 hours ago, Deskai said:

yea...but no community

That and the base community they have is pretty much tumblr cancer. At least on the forums when I used to be active there.

[Catilda Lily]

I made an account there, just to save my profile name.

[Mapa]

FN has banned cub porn. Really nice response time, considering the thread was only posted yesterday.