(NSFW) Underage characters in Zaush's latest adult comic

[Spot]

Oh look, more cub porn, just what the fandom needs.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

[Endless/Nameless]

11 minutes ago, Saxon said:

If your opinions are self-evident why do you need to justify them to others? :V

Why do you think I've stayed unusually silent for much of the past couple discussions? 

11 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I would have thought this would have been quite clear to furries, who are routinely accused of being sexually infatuated with real animals. 

I was waiting for someone to exploit this loophole. 

Now this is a parallel that I find to to be incomparable, and I could debate the inherent differences at length. But I am not interested.

And hey, maybe we're more fucked up than we realize. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by Endless/Nameless

[root]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

Here is an example I trawled up. (NSFW)

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/12978808/

'I would not do this in real life; it's just a fantasy'.

Kill me.

[Guest]

Hmmm, I'm starting to wonder whether making this thread was a good idea

Either way, it's sparked interesting arguments and points

[Zaraphayx]

Daily reminder that normies think that looking at porn of cartoon dogs makes you an irl dog molester

Hypocrisy never looked so good on you, furnerds. :^)

[Feelwell]

So here's a question to take us off the endless circle of cub porn, and hopefully let it rest in peace at the bottom or the ocean. Far far away.

What are the opinions on the "close in age" rule in some countries? 

Feel free to burn me as a witch if this isn't a good question, Mods. 

[Spot]

42 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

Daily reminder that normies think that looking at porn of cartoon dogs makes you an irl dog molester

But what if you're already an irl dog molester hmmmm? :^0.

[root]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

But what if you're already an irl dog molester hmmmm? :^0.

Quiet you fox molester.

[Butters]

Oh the shock! The Bill Cosby of the fandom who regularly draws child-like "women" otters getting fucked by otherwise adult looking males draws...FURRY CHILD PORN!! 

Will wonders never cease? 

[Vae]

Pedophilia is, literally, by dictionary definition, a sexual attraction towards children.

Whether or not you act upon that (in which case, it becomes rape / molestation) is besides the point.
It's literally pedophilia.
That is what it is.
Stop trying to avoid that fact.

You can call a turd a "cavity expulsion" all you want, to try to soften the idea that surrounds it.
But you're fully delusional if you can't see that it's still a turd.

[Falaffel]

I do not get the comparison of otters to children. They look exactly like otters. 

Do otters look like children to you? 

[Butters]

12 minutes ago, Falaffel said:

I do not get the comparison of otters to children. They look exactly like otters. 

Do otters look like children to you? 

The way Zaush draws otters is child-like. Especially in comparison to the buff, clearly post-puberty animal men they engage in sexual intercourse with. 

It's been suggested for quite a while that Zaush was a covert cub artist. So this thread is just more of the same really. 

Edit: Or maybe he just has a Gary Coleman fetish. That would be a nice plot twist. 

[Falaffel]

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 

From an ethical standpoint, being attracted to an otter is only marginally better. 

 

Well, I mean.. 

... Fair. 

8 minutes ago, Butters said:

The way Zaush draws otters is child-like. Especially in comparison to the buff, clearly post-puberty animal men they engage in sexual intercourse with. 

It's been suggested for quite a while that Zaush was a covert cub artist. So this thread is just more of the same really. 

Edit: Or maybe he just has a Gary Coleman fetish. That would be a nice plot twist. 

I dunno, I don't see it. Doesn't really matter, though. Carry on

[Tsuujou]

48 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 

From an ethical standpoint, being attracted to an otter is only marginally better. 

Of course, we should note that, if we take moral stances on drawings (which I generally don't, unless they're propaganda designed to inspire harmful actions), then drawing people having sex with wild animals isn't exactly morally excusable any which way.

 

 

 

I saw a post elsewhere detailing how drawn child porn as well as legitimate child pornography can be used to condition children into believing sex with minors is actually ok which is what makes it particularly heinous. They continued explaining you can't really condition an animal, an adult rape victim, or other potential abuse victims with the corresponding fetish art. But children are highly impressionable.

I'd like to read more into this, personally. It sounds fairly plausible.

[TrishaCat]

59 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I have repeatedly described people who like cub porn as paedophiles. I didn't think that this had been contested. Perhaps some other poster on a previous page did?

I did

Well, not contested it. Just stated that I don't see the two as necessarily having something to do with each other

13 hours ago, Battlechili said:

imply that cub porn and pedophilia have something to do with each other.

I believe this was the line where I implied such.

I guess to be more outright about it, I'm saying that I do not believe liking cub porn means a sexual attraction to children (among the other things I said).

[Vallium]

9 hours ago, willow said:

 very seldom do writers go into graphic detail about the subject. they usually just imply it happened and then move on. also good to note that those characters are usually around 17

 

5 hours ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

So here's a question to take us off the endless circle of cub porn, and hopefully let it rest in peace at the bottom or the ocean. Far far away.

What are the opinions on the "close in age" rule in some countries? 

Feel free to burn me as a witch if this isn't a good question, Mods. 

No, no, I find it a good question, actually.

 

Apparently the limit for porn is 18+, a rule I understand in live action porn because it involves live actors performing sexual acts, and using teenagers (even consenting, sexually mature ones) is illegal, because the 18 cap is absolutely necessary in setting the bar as an adult only activity

 

This doesnt stop young adults in high school who are sexually mature from fantasizing about porn (or even acting it out, seeing as many high schools encourage safe sex practices to avoid situations like 16 and pregnant). A lot of teenagers  disregard porn and favor something more cultivating to their age group, which is why fanfiction and fanart exists depicting younger characters in that age group of any type of media doing these acts (often written and/or drawn by underage people themselves)

Willow was also correct in stating that plenty of YA fiction shows teens  (typically they fall into the teen/young adult cap, where the characters are in high school or college, drive cars, can handle adult responsibility, and can be in relationships), and it certainly isnt uncommon for the genre to feature (predominantly censored) sex acts between two of said characters.

This doesnt stop these kids from going online and finding porn, either. 

 

So where is the moral ground in this situation? Is it the parents fault for letting kids free access under 18 to porn? Or should we consider it morally wrong for people with budding sex drives to have them and shame the content they view with 16 year olds drawn and depicted in sex acts as bad, something 16 year olds may sometimes fantasize about and/or do already?

 Maybe it is creepy that 40+  year olds view under 18 porn, but that doesnt change the fact that the age range of porn viewers is as wide as it is, and do we honestly expect a 17 year old to always be aroused at the idea of a 30 year old when theyre attracted to their own age group?

 

Dont quote me on that, feel free to call me out on any of this as feelwell says

53 minutes ago, Falaffel said:

I do not get the comparison of otters to children. They look exactly like otters. 

Do otters look like children to you? 

Theyre pretty much anthropomorphic otters but more anthropomorphized in its sentience than its body type, whereas the wolf had been given a more humanized form

Its pretty much bestiality besides the sentience part, assuming the feelings of a cartoon were transferable to feelings of an actual otter

[Deskai]

Did someone really bring up the point of "kids having sex in literature all the time"

Idola would like to remind you: its not the main focus, a story that had sex in it is quite different from something about sex and trying to shoehorn in a story.
also its often with someone their same age area (remember that 3-4 year gap)...
Idola clan would also like to say: Teens having sex, ok, a teen having sex with a much older guy, well we naturally start cringing at that point so please don't try to tie two things that dont work as an counter example. 

[Ricky]

Oh, no! Some imaginary animal people are in statutory trouble!

Let's go everybody. DRAMA FURRIES TO THE RESCUE

 

6 hours ago, Deskai said:

Did someone really bring up the point of "kids having sex in literature all the time"

Idola would like to remind you: its not the main focus, a story that had sex in it is quite different from something about sex and trying to shoehorn in a story.
also its often with someone their same age area (remember that 3-4 year gap)...
Idola clan would also like to say: Teens having sex, ok, a teen having sex with a much older guy, well we naturally start cringing at that point so please don't try to tie two things that dont work as an counter example. 

Would anyone really care about such a story?

If it has artistic value, it should be covered under the first amendment and not under the obscenity laws.

You can't objectively define artistic value by using the subjective quality of the work.

Even porn and stripping can be considered art.

I remember some 17 year old stripper who got around the law by claiming it was art.

(I think she was from Idaho or something?)

[Ricky]

1 hour ago, XoPachi said:

I saw a post elsewhere detailing how drawn child porn as well as legitimate child pornography can be used to condition children into believing sex with minors is actually ok which is what makes it particularly heinous. They continued explaining you can't really condition an animal, an adult rape victim, or other potential abuse victims with the corresponding fetish art. But children are highly impressionable.

I'd like to read more into this, personally. It sounds fairly plausible.

It actually makes sense, such sexual desires are inhibited in the frontal lobe as a product of conditioning.

The aesthetic quality of youth might be an artifact of the care taking nature of adults.

There have been plenty of examples of a lack of inhibition in society leading to these acts anyway, such as the commonplace boy fucking by older men rituals in ancient Greece that everyone here has probably heard about, and the children who were forced to drink the semen of the older tribesmen in Papua New Guinea, which most people here probably have not. There are others sure, but that last one has the most comedic value of any that I've heard.

Then again, this is assuming young children are looking at depictions of adults and children in sexual situations.

By the time it's been implanted in their head it isn't very likely to go away, usually max age ~ 7.

[Rassah]

11 hours ago, willow said:

 very seldom do writers go into graphic detail about the subject. they usually just imply it happened and then move on. also good to note that those characters are usually around 17

The ones I'm thinking of, that kids read about sleeping together are 13 for the girl and 14-16 for the boy.

I know a furry artist, adult now, who started drawing furry porn when she was 13 or 14. I guess that's kinda backwards, with an underage kid drawing adults, instead of adults drawing underage kids?

Very few people are pedophiles, and those typically labeled "pedophiles" are actually ephebophiles, i.e. having attraction to someone in their teens. So being attracted to a 14yo is still ephebo, not pedo, and I suspect majority of people, guys at least, are ephebophiles.

Obscenity laws are retarded. If it's not having anyone, who cares what someone does in the privacy of their own home.

What I'm wondering is, the time will absolutely come when we can modify or choose our bodies. There will definitely be people who choose to look like kids or teens all their life (I wouldn't mind looking like I did at 16-18). So what will all these views change to then?

[Tsuujou]

22 minutes ago, Saxon said:

And Arshes Nei once ticked me off for enjoying rule34 of Bugs-the-fucking-bunny, because apparently paedophiles use it to groom children (or do they? She could have pulled it straight out of her ass).

So this is a pretty convoluted point.

Thanks for explaining why.

[Ricky]

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Weird isolated tribes can be disgusting.

Well, they also had a virtually non-existent crime rate since everyone was co-dependent on one another.

They also had a lower incidence of many psychological disorders caused by a lack of good parenting.

Many people helped take care of the children, so things like APD associated with the father figure are moot.

Maybe inbreeding contributed to these weird and disgusting events?

I'm not sure I'd go so far with the tribes in general by calling them disgusting.

They had some admirable qualities that society today tends to lack, boyfucking and cannibalism maybe not included.

[Vallium]

40 minutes ago, Deskai said:

Did someone really bring up the point of "kids having sex in literature all the time"

Idola would like to remind you: its not the main focus, a story that had sex in it is quite different from something about sex and trying to shoehorn in a story.
also its often with someone their same age area (remember that 3-4 year gap)...
Idola clan would also like to say: Teens having sex, ok, a teen having sex with a much older guy, well we naturally start cringing at that point so please don't try to tie two things that dont work as an counter example. 

Its hardly the main focus, but the point is it does happen in literature, and its there to serve the purpose of illustrating it does happen between two people culutrally, even two minors under 18. 

Age gaps do typically play a role in how perverted and creepy it is as well

2 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 

What I'm wondering is, the time will absolutely come when we can modify or choose our bodies. There will definitely be people who choose to look like kids or teens all their life (I wouldn't mind looking like I did at 16-18). So what will all these views change to then?

Sorry Rassah, but thats fucked up

"Your honor, I thought she was SIXTY, not SIX!"

If that was remotely a thing people choosing to appear under 18 when they are far above that is pretty much pedophilia and should be a bannable offense.

If it was a thing the age cap for what age to appear as is obviously young adult 20-30. 

And at that point youd have to have people showing ID's if theyre not going to be honest about their true ages

[Ricky]

6 minutes ago, Rassah said:

The ones I'm thinking of, that kids read about sleeping together are 13 for the girl and 14-16 for the boy.

I know a furry artist, adult now, who started drawing furry porn when she was 13 or 14. I guess that's kinda backwards, with an underage kid drawing adults, instead of adults drawing underage kids?

Very few people are pedophiles, and those typically labeled "pedophiles" are actually ephebophiles, i.e. having attraction to someone in their teens. So being attracted to a 14yo is still ephebo, not pedo, and I suspect majority of people, guys at least, are ephebophiles.

Obscenity laws are retarded. If it's not having anyone, who cares what someone does in the privacy of their own home.

What I'm wondering is, the time will absolutely come when we can modify or choose our bodies. There will definitely be people who choose to look like kids or teens all their life (I wouldn't mind looking like I did at 16-18). So what will all these views change to then?

It's interesting you say this, since it refers to the aesthetics and not the other qualities associated with youth. People tend to take the moral high ground on the subject and imply there is some abstract metamorphosis at whatever arbitrary age that's assigned. That isn't true, people are often attracted to whatever they find to be aesthetically pleasing, and it has been shown in studies that the only reason most people aren't attracted to kids is inhibition by the frontal lobe, a product of conditioning. This is why it's funny that all the people watching barely legal porn are so adamant about these things they really want but can't have.

That said, many younger people are into older people anyway. It's not always a creepy act of predation and could be seen as mutually beneficial. Mind you, I'm not referring to pedophilia and rather ephebophilia, even though I use the former more frequently as an umbrella term since people are familiar with it. People categorize everything though in order to save space, so it's no surprised everyone gets lumped together as such.

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I would be careful to idealise isolated tribes as having low crime rates; as you point out the Torres strait islanders and Maori people spent their days eating other people until Europeans arrived.

Yeah, I was mostly referring to the cum guzzling, not the prion-spreading people eaters :V

7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I agree that tribes aren't necessarily going to develop gross traditions and that many have admirable qualities...I do think that when a small group of people gets isolated from everyone else they have a tendency to become extremely weird, though. Maybe this results from inbreeding, or maybe it results from the 'suspicious pigeons' mechanism.

Yeah, again that comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. There are actually genetics that are responsible for the way that societies evolve, since society itself provides a means of protection and therefore benefits the individuals who are part of it. Societies have long fought with one another too, which is another cause of survival of the fittest. Secluded societies are much more likely to dive off the norm, since there are less people averaging these things out.

[Ricky]

10 minutes ago, Saxon said:

There is a group of Polynesian islanders who bungee jump above their fields, in order to ensure a good crop. I suppose some enthusiastic bungee jumper must have coincidentally had a good crop one time.

True, or perhaps it really works

[Victor-933]

On 6/8/2016 at 1:50 PM, Käpt'n said:

Can we also talk about how awful this comic is please? The story, if you can call it that, is just flat out disgusting. A community of people who don't wear pants and everyone is banging each other. Only a furry can come up with shit like this.

God.. reminds me of that "The Sprawl" comic I was seeing in the FA ads. I was really interested in the sci-fi aspect but it was painfully obvious how forced all the porn was. It's not as if I'm some boring puritan, it's just that forcing porn into a story just for the sake of having porn is lame and reeks of shit characterization.

 

As for the rest of this debacle,

[Jerry]

If my understanding is correct, Zaush is by facts an underage porn artist and is backed up by FA as a whole in his artistic activities?

I had to create my own GIF to reflect my exact thoughts about this one LOL.

[Deskai]

2 hours ago, Ricky said:

Would anyone really care about such a story?

If it has artistic value, it should be covered under the first amendment and not under the obscenity laws.

You can't objectively define artistic value by using the subjective quality of the work.

Even porn and stripping can be considered art.

I remember some 17 year old stripper who got around the law by claiming it was art.

(I think she was from Idaho or something?)

OK

dont go there

DONT FUCKING GO TO "FIRST AMENDMENT"

THAT ONLY FUCKING APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT TO WHICH THE SAME DAMN FUCKING GOVERNMENT HAVE LAWS IN PLACE THAT INCLUDED FUCKING DRAWINGS OF UNDERAGE KIDS BEING LISTED AS OBSCENE

 

 

 

[Hux]

When will the oppression of poor pedosexuals end?

[Ricky]

34 minutes ago, Jerry said:

There's art I don't like, I'm leaving :V

See YA! Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

No seriously, this is a moral outrage! Fictional animal characters that may or may not be underage in people years having sex!

I was told this is wrong, and if I can't have it, nobody can!

17 minutes ago, Deskai said:

OK

dont go there

DONT FUCKING GO TO "FIRST AMENDMENT"

THAT ONLY FUCKING APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT TO WHICH THE SAME DAMN FUCKING GOVERNMENT HAVE LAWS IN PLACE THAT INCLUDED FUCKING DRAWINGS OF UNDERAGE KIDS BEING LISTED AS OBSCENE

Let me point out all the ways you are wrong, since I seem to have an abundance of free time at my disposal :V

The first amendment doesn't "ONLY FUCKING APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT" and was specifically created with the media in mind. It applies to every entity (person or corporation) as a precedent allowing freedom of expression that doesn't fall under a more specific law. There are no laws at all about drawings of animal people, that is ridiculous, and any laws referring to drawings of children have been repeatedly shot down. The first amendment was the exact reason parts of CPPA and the PROTECT act were shot down, yet you say it's not applicable. Yeah, sure.

15 minutes ago, Hux said:

When will the oppression of poor pedosexuals end?

Pedo isn't a sexuality but to answer the question, once another letter is added to LGBTQQAFFFFuckWHATEVER or once people realize that calling all these things a sexuality, subculture and a way of life is pretty fucking ridiculous, whichever comes first. Rainbows seem to be here to stay, so I don't see rationality kicking in any time soon. :V

[Wax]

The argument of legality is dumb.

This thing that I know is incredibly problematic for so many people because of the very real experiences people have had with such a thing? Well up yours, it's legal! I'm gonna make said thing very public, even when it's against a site's TOS and if you don't like it, get off the internet!

[Jerry]

2 minutes ago, Ricky said:

See YA! Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

No seriously, this is a moral outrage! Fictional animal characters that may or may not be underage in people years having sex!

I was told this is wrong, and if I can't have it, nobody can!

Let me get this straight:

A) I never said anything about what should be done about it. This is not my problem and I'm not going to start a war against everything closely or remotely related to cub porn and the people who are into it. That being said, I don't want to be involved or exposed to it.

B) The Criminal Code in Canada is clear about it. Pornography depicting characters that are or appear to be less than 18 years of age is considered child porn. Access, possession, production and distribution of child porn is ILLEGAL. It's even been made clear that purely fictional material is included in the definition of child porn. Accessing pornography material with characters that are not clearly 18+ is not a risk I want to take.

So please, no more of that "I can't have it, so nobody can" BS. I'm not declaring a war. It's just my personal decision about it. Others can do whatever the fuck they want.

[Rabbit Head]

This thread was a super entertaining read. 

My favorite part was when nobody on either side of the argument EVER brought any sources or evidence to the table to back up their claims.

The whole thread here is speculation, semantics, and jerking off to one's own superior beleifs.

which are obviously objective. because they said they are.

One user actually went all caps rage.

Oh my god.

This was great, guys.

 

 

[Ricky]

20 minutes ago, Wax said:

The argument of legality is dumb.

I hate appeals to authority too, but I'm more than happy to talk about law if it's brought up in conversation.

15 minutes ago, Jerry said:

A) I never said anything about what should be done about it. This is not my problem and I'm not going to start a war against everything closely or remotely related to cub porn and the people who are into it. That being said, I don't want to be involved or exposed to it.

I never said you did, I simply laughed about your ragequitting ultimatum.

How are you involved or exposed to it? Don't follow that artist, and don't link yourself with the material i.e. by favoriting it.

15 minutes ago, Jerry said:

B) The Criminal Code in Canada is clear about it. Pornography depicting characters that are or appear to be less than 18 years of age is considered child porn. Access, possession, production and distribution of child porn is ILLEGAL. It's even been made clear that purely fictional material is included in the definition of child porn. Accessing pornography material with characters that are not clearly 18+ is not a risk I want to take.

Not fictional cartoon animals, but PEOPLE. The law says PEOPLE.

15 minutes ago, Jerry said:

So please, no more of that "I can't have it, so nobody can" BS. I'm not declaring a war. It's just my personal decision about it. Others can do whatever the fuck they want.

I wasn't too concerned about you waging a war...

3 minutes ago, Rabbit Head said:

My favorite part was when nobody on either side of the argument EVER brought any sources or evidence to the table to back up their claims.

Do you have any sources or evidence to back up that claim? :V

[Rabbit Head]

5 minutes ago, Ricky said:

 

Do you have any sources or evidence to back up that claim? :V

I read the whole thread looking for somebody to post evidence.

Motherfucker, I'm IN the source.

[Ricky]

1 minute ago, Rabbit Head said:

I read the whole thread looking for somebody to post evidence.

Motherfucker, I'm IN the source.

Here is a HUGE source on the subject. More than you would ever want to know :V

[Rabbit Head]

1 minute ago, Ricky said:

Here is a HUGE source on the subject. More than you would ever want to know :V

Locked. Says I need permission or whatever.

[Ricky]

Just now, Rabbit Head said:

Locked. Says I need permission or whatever.

Google was being a bitch but I showed her who is boss :V

Seriously though, it should work now.

Apparently "Get shareable link" doesn't always enable link sharing for some reason.

[Rabbit Head]

1 minute ago, Ricky said:

Google was being a bitch but I showed her who is boss :V

Seriously though, it should work now.

Apparently "Get shareable link" doesn't always enable link sharing for some reason.

Thanks! 

Should be interesting!

[Ricky]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Link is not working properly, and publication is 575 pages in length. Best choice?

If it's not working then how do you know the page count?

It's a book about latent inhibition :V

[Lucyfish]

Remember when Amiir threw a bitchfit at me for not hating all cub porn?
 

That was funny

[Ricky]

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

There are 575 pages but 574 of them are grey.

It's prolly the PDF viewer plugin, you might have more luck downloading it since it's a pretty large file.

3 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

Remember when Amiir threw a bitchfit at me for not hating all cub porn?
 

That was funny

... and this is why I love you <3

[Jerry]

43 minutes ago, Ricky said:

I never said you did, I simply laughed about your ragequitting ultimatum.

At least I brightened your day :V

43 minutes ago, Ricky said:

How are you involved or exposed to it? Don't follow that artist, and don't link yourself with the material i.e. by favoriting it.

Call me paranoiac on this one, but should a server hosting child porn be taken down, authorities could pretty much track everybody who sent requests to said server and where those requests went. Even the ISP can see the content you download using their network.

Of course I don't look for nor am I exposed to cub porn, but as I said earlier, characters are often drawn with smaller bodies and bigger head. While they don't have cub proportions, it's hard to prove they're 18+.

43 minutes ago, Ricky said:

Not fictional cartoon animals, but PEOPLE. The law says PEOPLE.

I wish I could find the legal definition of a person. But even then, couldn't an anthropomorphic animal be considered a person by law, even if it's not human?

43 minutes ago, Ricky said:

I wasn't too concerned about you waging a war :V

What does that mean? :V

[Lucyfish]

It doesn't help that some cubs just look like small adults, and I enjoy size difference.

So it's like, god dammit. I've been bamboozled.

[root]

38 minutes ago, Rabbit Head said:

Motherfucker, I'm IN the source.

<strong itemprop="name">
<a href="https://phoenix.corvidae.org/profile/718-rabbit-head/" data-ipshover="" data-ipshover-target="https://phoenix.corvidae.org/profile/718-rabbit-head/?do=hovercard&amp;referrer=https%253A%252F%252Fphoenix.corvidae.org%252Ftopic%252F3525-nsfw-underage-characters-in-zaushs-latest-adult-comic%252F%253Fpage%253D4%2526csrfKey%253Dc4f116ef73191d211f3692c75c5bd701" title="Go to Rabbit Head's profile">Rabbit Head</a></strong>

...

<p>
	Motherfucker, I'm IN the source.
</p>

Shit, they're right.

[root]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

It's fucking tragic that Canadians have to worry that they're going to be accused of being paedophiles for accidentally viewing rule 34 of a cartoon squirrel.

Yeah our government is stupid sometimes.

[Ricky]

5 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Of course I don't look for nor am I exposed to cub porn, but as I said earlier, characters are often drawn with smaller bodies and bigger head. While they don't have cub proportions, it's hard to prove they're 18+.

Why do you have to prove that?

5 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I wish I could find the legal definition of a person.

Technically, it is referring to a legal entity that has [the capability to obtain] legal rights, generally a person or corporation. This is funny because not only have drawings of people been prosecuted in Canada which means the drawings should have legal rights too, but it may very well be illegal for me to draw sexual depictions of corporations less than 18 years old engaging in sexual acts. I really want to test that one out :V

16 minutes ago, Jerry said:

What does that mean? :V

It means I would win >:3

16 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

It doesn't help that some cubs just look like small adults, and I enjoy size difference.

So it's like, god dammit. I've been bamboozled.

I just laugh at all the people going apeshit while jacking off to their misery >:3

There are only three things I do with something in life: I eat it, fuck it or laugh at it.

Sometimes all three but not in that order :V

[Vallium]

23 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

It doesn't help that some cubs just look like small adults, and I enjoy size difference.

So it's like, god dammit. I've been bamboozled.

Theres a lot of art depictions of the vice versa of adult characters with more youthful attributes or body types of ambiguous interpretation between animal and human, 

Typically you can tell what age the character is by its source material, in which the age and other attributes are directly stated whereas its physical attributes are too ambiguous to tell.

 

The cub porn test is if you can find it show up on inkbunny with age tags, its pedo fodder.

 

If its a character with a ref sheet and original source material stating its age and what it is in that universe then its not much more than exaggerated artistic liberty

 

Tons of people make weird R34 of that Judy Hopps and she's not much more anthropomorphized than a rabbit, but an adult in that universe nonetheless

[Jerry]

1 minute ago, Ricky said:

Why do you have to prove that?

I wouldn't have anything to prove myself, but wouldn't it raise suspicions that the characters in some pictures I look at don't necessarily have the adult size of 7-ish heads? 

[Ricky]

41 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I wouldn't have anything to prove myself, but wouldn't it raise suspicions that the characters in some pictures I look at don't necessarily have the adult size of 7-ish heads? 

There's actually a good sized market for midget porn :V