Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That article is written by Ian Miles Cheong and shouldn't really be given any credence on that alone.

Also its blown out of proportion

Also Discord allowing cub is a good thing. Though I guess its fair to say that its hypocritical that they outright callout loli/shota but allow cub, though with their explanation I can kinda see where they're coming from. Seems like they're taking the Inkbunny approach of looking at things (not human = less bad).

As for just illegal activity going on, its just part of any social media/group messaging service. Its difficult to catch, difficult to confirm, and reading that article I don't really see Discord doing anything wrong? Its looking like some of the stuff reported wound up getting deleted before Discord could get to it and it makes sense that they wouldn't ban something without the ability to verify it on their own servers themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Battlechili said:

Also Discord allowing cub is a good thing

Except that it isn't.
Pedophile shit is pedophile shit.

It's not surprising Discord is now being investigated by the FBI for hosting servers where predators are connecting with minors.
So uh, good for them and their indiscretion I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vae said:

It's not surprising Discord is now being investigated by the FBI for hosting servers where predators are connecting with minors.

Specific Discord servers are being investigated by the FBI, not Discord itself

The idea that it was Discord itself was the result of a misleading title on a Forbes article iirc. It was later corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Battlechili said:

Specific Discord servers are being investigated by the FBI, not Discord itself

The idea that it was Discord itself was the result of a misleading title on a Forbes article iirc. It was later corrected.

The fact that Discord servers have to be investigated is indicative of the problem that happens when you allow pedophiles to feel welcome on your platform to begin with, which they should not be.
Rules will not followed by everyone, for obvious reasons, but throwing out the goddamn red carpet for them and letting them indulge their bullshit is asking for stuff like this on the platform. It's why most places ban this kind of shit outright, aside from being grossed out by the content. They don't want to attract child-molesters to their platforms.

There's also the information in the Twitter thread I linked earlier where the allthefoxes person, one of Discord's trust and safety staff, is supposedly letting offending child predators back onto the platform. (I say supposedly, because this is all stuff that was said in Twitter screencaps.)

So I mean...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit

This was the opposite direction I wanted them to take this. Though I can't fault anyone for wanting to protect children and all just...I don't want people's freedoms to be limited in order to do so. Its not like such art is intended to be viewed by children. Its not like such art isn't age-gated. Discord already requires people to be 18+ to view porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Battlechili said:

Dammit

This was the opposite direction I wanted them to take this. Though I can't fault anyone for wanting to protect children and all just...I don't want people's freedoms to be limited in order to do so. Its not like such art is intended to be viewed by children. Its not like such art isn't age-gated. Discord already requires people to be 18+ to view porn.

Letting children access it isn't the problem.

It's encouraging people to sexualize children.
People should not be doing that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vae said:

Letting children access it isn't the problem.

It's encouraging people to sexualize children.
People should not be doing that.

As someone who works in mental health, dear gods yes, this type of thing leads to real-world consequences, children getting hurt, adults normalizing sexual feelings towards minors and immense intergenerational suffering...

 

I'm all for freedoms, but the sexualization of minors is never appropriate or acceptable.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 2:16 AM, Rhíulchabán said:

As someone who works in mental health, dear gods yes, this type of thing leads to real-world consequences, children getting hurt, adults normalizing sexual feelings towards minors and immense intergenerational suffering...

I'd like to see some sources for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Socketosis said:

I'd like to see some sources for that.

Wouldn't the source be firsthand experience in this instance?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the pedophiles are on Discord and the animalrapists are on telegram

 

is there anywhere I can go where I can share bad memes without being tangled up in this

 

can I post them here???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vae said:

Wouldn't the source be firsthand experience in this instance?

Anecdotal evidence is usually worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Socketosis said:

Anecdotal evidence is usually worthless.

I thought we were talking on a largely defunct, isolated-ass furry forum, and not in a college setting.

Silly me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 2:20 PM, Socketosis said:

I'd like to see some sources for that.

"Effects of Child Pornography Effects on the Children Portrayed

The vast majority of children who appear in child pornography have not been abducted or physically forced to participate. In most cases they know the producer—it may even be their father—and are manipulated into taking part by more subtle means. Nevertheless, to be the subject of child pornography can have devastating physical, social, and psychological effects on children. The children portrayed in child pornography are first victimized when their abuse is perpetrated and recorded. They are further victimized each time that record is accessed. In one study, 100 victims of child pornography were interviewed about the effects of their exploitation—at the time it occurred and in later years. Referring to when the abuse was taking place, victims described the physical pain (e.g., around the genitals), accompanying somatic symptoms (such as headaches, loss of appetite, and sleeplessness), and feelings of psychological distress (emotional isolation, anxiety, and fear). However, most also felt a pressure to cooperate with the offender and not to disclose the offense, both out of loyalty to the offender and a sense of shame about their own behavior. Only five cases were ultimately reported to authorities. In later years, the victims reported that initial feelings of shame and anxiety did not fade but intensified to feelings of deep despair, worthlessness, and hopelessness. Their experience had provided them with a distorted model of sexuality, and many had particular difficulties in establishing and maintaining healthy emotional and sexual relationships.

 

Child Pornography on the Internet Effects on Users The effects of pornography on users have been extensively researched but results are contentious. There are at least five possible relationships between pornography use and the sexual abuse of children:

• Pornography use is an expression of existing sexual interests. An individual who sexually abuses children seeks out child pornography as part of his/her pattern of sexual gratification. The offender’s sexual interests cause his/her pornography use rather than the other way around.

• Pornography is used to prime the individual to offend. An individual deliberately views child pornography immediately prior to offending. Pornography is used in the short term to sexually stimulate the offender in preparation for offending. 

• Pornography has a corrosive effect. An individual becomes increasingly interested in child pornography, is attracted to images of increasing severity, and becomes desensitized to the harm victims experience. Use of pornography in the long term may also increase the risk that the person will sexually abuse a child.

• Pornography has a cathartic effect. Viewing child pornography is the sole outlet for an individual’s sexual attraction to children. Pornography use may substitute for, or even help the individual resist, engaging in hands-on offending.

• Pornography is a by-product of pedophilia.

 

Pornography is created in the process of carrying out sexual abuse or is used to groom potential victims and prepare them for abuse.39 Pornography is incidental to the abuse suffered by the victim. In all likelihood, the effects of child pornography vary among users, and all of the above relationships may apply depending upon the individual in question."

~https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn36074-eng.pdf

 

If you want more, by all means, take a look at the research within the reference section of the linked article. 

 

Although this references video/photography and not drawings, the basic psychological premises are the same. At "best" the catharsis provided prevents active offending, but at worst the continued cycle of fueling the mind's pathways with dopamine and enforcing these fetishes through repeated use makes it all corruptive.  Use primes seeking more and more intense "product" and the viewing of the more intense "product" primes the individual to then act physically on their urges, which plays into the porn/human trafficking industry's massive money-making endeavors. They want to prime people towards more and more depraved content to better groom consumers of their physical, real-world "product" either children or adults. People put through human trafficking, those subjected to working in the sex industry (either by carrot or stick, usually both) are the victims of this underground economy. The concept of sex work as empowering is a myth perpetuated by the industry itself to desensitize us to the harm it does.

The seemingly innocuous viewing of porn without considering what it is doing to your neural pathways or keeping yourself in check can lead down a path which fuels an industry which harms countless lives and families. Porn is much like the "jerky chew cans and candy cigarettes" which lead children to eventually start actually smoking or chewing. What we put into our mind eventually filters out into your real-world behavior, and the more we are primed the more likely we are to act.

Porn itself isn't bad, but porn sexualizing minors and priming people to accept what they are viewing in said pornography as "normal" is not ok. It might feel like there are no victims here, but there are and the consequences on a large scale are deadly.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rhíulchabán said:

Although this references video/photography and not drawings, the basic psychological premises are the same. At "best" the catharsis provided prevents active offending, but at worst the continued cycle of fueling the mind's pathways with dopamine and enforcing these fetishes through repeated use makes it all corruptive.  Use primes seeking more and more intense "product" and the viewing of the more intense "product" primes the individual to then act physically on their urges, which plays into the porn/human trafficking industry's massive money-making endeavors. They want to prime people towards more and more depraved content to better groom consumers of their physical, real-world "product" either children or adults. People put through human trafficking, those subjected to working in the sex industry (either by carrot or stick, usually both) are the victims of this underground economy. The concept of sex work as empowering is a myth perpetuated by the industry itself to desensitize us to the harm it does.

The seemingly innocuous viewing of porn without considering what it is doing to your neural pathways or keeping yourself in check can lead down a path which fuels an industry which harms countless lives and families. Porn is much like the "jerky chew cans and candy cigarettes" which lead children to eventually start actually smoking or chewing. What we put into our mind eventually filters out into your real-world behavior, and the more we are primed the more likely we are to act.

Porn itself isn't bad, but porn sexualizing minors and priming people to accept what they are viewing in said pornography as "normal" is not ok. It might feel like there are no victims here, but there are and the consequences on a large scale are deadly.

I don't wanna be rude, but almost none of what you posted is applicable to what is being discussed. The entire first paragraph was dedicated to talking about the effects the creation of pornography has on those involved; to which there is no actual person involved in the creation of loli/shota/cub art. Then the points you posted afterwards were self admitted to be contentious and all different possibilities with usage of words like "at least", implying there could be more.

Then here in this quoted text you're focusing more on the effects of pornography on those involved in its creation (sex workers for example) which once again isn't really relevant to this sort of art. The mention of "they want to prime people towards more depraved content to groom consumers" also makes an extremely stark assumption about *why* people make such art in the first place, and does so to such a degree that could be deemed offensive to art creators. There's no reason to assume most artists have some dark intentions with regards to the content they create.

Its also frustrating that the concept of "child pornography" is even being brought up because you're implying people even see the characters in such artwork as they would a child; as if there is no dissonance, no nuanced distinction between content in such artwork and real human beings. It makes the implication that there's a relationship between the things people look at in art and their real world desires, which is far too easy, especially in a world where people lust over fictional creatures like various different kinds of made up monsters and lust over concepts that aren't even possible to recreate. 

I stand by what I've said on this forum in the past; the idea that lolicon/shotacon/cub art implies pedophilia is in itself a stark jump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Battlechili said:

I don't wanna be rude, but almost none of what you posted is applicable to what is being discussed. The entire first paragraph was dedicated to talking about the effects the creation of pornography has on those involved; to which there is no actual person involved in the creation of loli/shota/cub art. Then the points you posted afterwards were self admitted to be contentious and all different possibilities with usage of words like "at least", implying there could be more.

Then here in this quoted text you're focusing more on the effects of pornography on those involved in its creation (sex workers for example) which once again isn't really relevant to this sort of art. The mention of "they want to prime people towards more depraved content to groom consumers" also makes and extremely stark assumption about *why* people make such art in the first place. 

Its also frustrating that the concept of "child pornography" is even being brought up because you're implying people even see the characters in such artwork as they would a child; as if there is no dissonance, no nuanced distinction between content in such artwork and real human beings. It makes the implication that there's a relationship between the things people look at in art and their real world desires, which is far too easy, especially in a world where people lust over fictional creatures like various different kinds of made up monsters. 

The base argument is that people being desensitized to the concept of sexualizing children eventually leads to people offending.

If sexualizing children wasn't the appealing aspect to these people, they wouldn't be focused on child characters. They would just, you know, sexualize adult characters with adult characteristics. Instead of adamantly defending this shit or risking being labeled a pedophile.

You can't really make the "but they're fantasy creatures" excuse, when the entire appeal for these people is sexualizing childlike aspects.
Which makes them pedophiles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vae said:

when the entire appeal for these people is the aspect of sexualizing childlike aspects.
Which makes them pedophiles.

I know this doesn't apply to everything, but does it not seem suspect to you that a large majority of "loli/shota" artwork is anime-styled in nature?

Why have these features? Why do so many artists draw these characters without noses, with discolored hair, textureless skin, big eyes, and just general odd proportions? What's the point of having such features if the appeal alone is that these characters are childlike? Why is it not common for such art to be hyper-realistic? If these people were attracted to children, wouldn't they want such art to look as much like an actual child as possible? I would also apply this to cub art; why make the characters furry?

You already called me out on it in that Zaush thread a while back so I'm not going to pretend I don't have stake in this; if you're willing to listen to anecdotes: I myself find this sort of artwork appealing because I fetishize "cuteness" in anime art. The kind of cuteness that resulted from Japanese kawaii culture. I like those traits, that textureless skin, big eyes, brightly colored hair. The exaggeration its...its as if the art is trying its best to maximize cuteness. Its partially why I like furry art even; I like that furry art has the capability of exaggerating certain traits. People can find cats adorable. But cats aren't sexy. Give them human traits and bam, now I can find something cute *and* sexy. I realize this distinction could still be worrying and be seen as dangerous, like straddling a line, I won't deny that. But that distinction is important to me. I grew up on an anime forum as my first online community. People talked about loli art casually there and I for a time didn't even know it was something that made people uncomfortable, let alone something associated with pedophillia (that was something I discovered after coming here). The idea of seeing such characters as children was odd to me; they're characters, ideas, concepts. They have traits not representative of people in the real world, traits that don't resemble actual children, and they have a dissonance being fiction that makes them hard to take seriously. I saw them and still see such characters as their own thing, separate from what one would consider an actual child. Hell, I think this dissonance is partly why its hard for some people to take animation seriously or why people put live-action on a pedestal to the point of wanting to remake animated works in live action.

Like I know its suspect but the comparison to pedophiles takes the traits that make these characters similar to children and ignores traits that make these characters different from children. 

And even the people that do, it can oftentimes be mistaken that people are even sexualizing children; I know some people who moreso want to roleplay and self insert as children themselves, however they're looking at these ideas with their own adult minds, so its a perverted sort of outlook. They want to re-experience the comfort of a less scary youth and escape the troubles of adulthood, and they do this through roleplay and such artwork. Its just, they're also adults, so they pervert these desires and it terms into a fetish. Hence babyfurs and people who refer to themselves as "littles". Its more of a fetishization of one's desire to relive their youth in those cases.

That said

24 minutes ago, Vae said:

The base argument is that people being desensitized to the concept of sexualizing children eventually leads to people offending.

Fair enough on an argument in this regards though. I don't think I was being fair to Rhi since this was more of what they were getting at.

The idea that such art could normalize this concept isn't something I think is contestable either. Its just important to understand that adults do have some capability of differentiating fiction from reality, and that capability is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Battlechili  So if I, say, draw some animu schoolgirl being decapitated, I am completely justified in posting that without a gore warning? Or on a site that doesn't allow gore? Because it's anime?
That's how things work?

You can say "it's not photorealistic" until you can't breathe, but that does not negate the fact that these kinds of depictions have some roots in reality. If they didn't, it would be beyond description.
I wouldn't even be able to say "sexual depictions of children" and you wouldn't be able to defend it, because if it was so detached from the base concept, we wouldn't be referring to it as such.

I don't know why this is a difficult concept for you.

If I draw a neon green penis, it's still a penis and I still have to mark it nsfw.
If I draw a purple tree, it's still a tree.
If I draw a cartoon man, it's still a man.

You are essentially saying that categories, descriptions, and ratings systems are useless because stylization completely overrides subject.
And that's not... how things work.
Sexualizing kids in artwork has some basis in reality, the same as everything else does. And it's still pedophilia.
 

2 hours ago, Battlechili said:

You already called me out on it in that Zaush thread a while back so I'm not going to pretend I don't have stake in this; if you're willing to listen to anecdotes: I myself find this sort of artwork appealing because I fetishize "cuteness" in anime art.

You do realize that "cute" adults exist too, right? Why do they have to look like children? Why is this the subject that's specifically being defended?

I've seen plenty of adults that are "cute", but don't look or act like children.

Quote

And even the people that do, it can oftentimes be mistaken that people are even sexualizing children; I know some people who moreso want to roleplay and self insert as children themselves, however they're looking at these ideas with their own adult minds, so its a perverted sort of outlook. They want to re-experience the comfort of a less scary youth and escape the troubles of adulthood, and they do this through roleplay and such artwork. Its just, they're also adults, so they pervert these desires and it terms into a fetish. Hence babyfurs and people who refer to themselves as "littles". Its more of a fetishization of one's desire to relive their youth in those cases.

1. Being an adult does not excuse you from your perversions.

2. Pretending you're the child in the situation doesn't make it any less of a pedophilia fetish. You're still getting off on the idea of a child (as yourself) being taken advantage of by their parent or caretaker. You're still exercising sexuality directed at children through fantasy.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever this topic is brought up, I've yet to hear a decent argument against the same comparison of furry/feral art equaling bestiality. "You're still sexualizing aspects of an animal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Socketosis said:

Whenever this topic is brought up, I've yet to hear a decent argument against the same comparison of furry/feral art equaling bestiality. "You're still sexualizing aspects of an animal."

Feral porn I would say is indicative of zoophilia.
Considering they are shaped and look like an actual animal. Albeit one that can talk or whatever.

EDIT: And following that train of logic, wouldn't that make cub art both pedophilia and zoophilia at the same time?
That doesn't exactly help in the defense of cub. Lmao.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIP most of the Japanese artists I follow

Thank goodness for Pixiv and Pawoo

And also thank goodness for real life. I just got back from ANE (my first con!) and saw a bunch of babyfur art and some cub art magazines being sold (specifically Softpaw Magazine volumes 1 and 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Battlechili said:

RIP most of the Japanese artists I follow

Thank goodness for Pixiv and Pawoo

There's nothing RIP about them.

They can just
you know
not draw and post cartoon child porn.

Nothing stops them from not doing that.

140.gif.521f0ba357c2c3affb9f514ace0fa523.gif
 

Quote

And also thank goodness for real life. I just got back from ANE (my first con!) and saw a bunch of babyfur art and some cub art magazines being sold (specifically Softpaw Magazine volumes 1 and 2)

Also I don't know why you're insistent on coming in here and other places and flaunting that you have pedophilic interests.

Isn't that how you got doxed and chased of KF? You think you'd learn to keep it to yourself a little better.
Not that I'm threatening to do that. Just noting an observation in self-destructive behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"don't do this thing because people think its gross and creepy"

"no its not and nah"

"leave this place"

"okay"

And thus the Japanese art twitter plummeted in size, leaving me without my high quality art and forcing me to go to a social media website I can't read

trending.thumb.jpg.58f0f76e7808741d24fb8fe550083290.jpg

EDIT:

Also I know I'm being obnoxious as hell so I'll stop for a moment but legitimately, how much would this actually affect?

I noticed the word "realistic" in the TOS however its placement is a bit peculiar making me unsure if its actually banning loli/shota/cub or just "realistic" art of such. And if it isn't, how far does that go exactly? Its says sexually explicit, not necessarily pornographic. Is Senran Kagura sexually explicit? Do I need to worry about Takaki being banned from Twitter? If someone is thirsting over characters from games like Senran Kagura or Criminal Girls or Moero Chronicle or Dungeon Travelers and so on, or if someone is thirsting over characters from anime like Valkyrie Drive or Highschool DxD or Highschool of the Dead, is that a bannable offense? What of the creator of Made in Abyss Akuhito Tsukushi? Will he be pushed off of Twitter for how he treats his manga's/anime's characters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat myself.

I don't know why you insist on going into places and defending this kind of thing to your last breath when it has gotten you in shit before.
I don't get the self-destructiveness of it. You know people don't like it, and you're not gonna make them "see the error of their ways" in judging people who have a fetish for children.

You need a therapist, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can actually follow Japanese artists now. Because Twitter had a BAD filtering problem. While Japan is scared of dick glans and vaginas, pedo drawings on the other hand were a-ok. It was so rampant it was in my feed *daily* if I followed like 3 Japanese artists because they like and retweet that shit like cat videos. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 9:30 PM, Vae said:

Feral porn I would say is indicative of zoophilia.
Considering they are shaped and look like an actual animal. Albeit one that can talk or whatever.

I've heard similar arguments coming from non-furries about non-feral art too. "You're still sexualizing aspects of an animal" is a literal quote from one of them.

EDIT: And following that train of logic, wouldn't that make cub art both pedophilia and zoophilia at the same time?


That doesn't exactly help in the defense of cub. Lmao.

That's the point. Not everyone who looks at naked animal people is into real life animals. I don't know why cub is exclusive to this mindset.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanna say, this thread did my favorite thing when this topic crops up...

Someone in the field of psychological study correctly states pedo art is bad.
They're then demanded of evidence to their claims as if them studying the concepts professionally and/or firsthand experience working with violent abusers is not enough.
They confidently provide verified, peer reviewed, scholarly articles detailing the topic and summarize the works proving they understood the content enough to present it.

"You're wrong"

lmao
/'ləm, ou/
*verb*
1 : to contract one's diaphragm in response to humor so violently, the posterior evacuates itself from the person (typically into the exosphere of the planet).
synonyms: lol, lmfao, lolol, wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tsuujou said:

I just wanna say, this thread did my favorite thing when this topic crops up...

Someone in the field of psychological study correctly states pedo art is bad.
They're then demanded of evidence to their claims as if them studying the concepts professionally and/or firsthand experience working with violent abusers is not enough.
They confidently provide verified, peer reviewed, scholarly articles detailing the topic and summarize the works proving they understood the content enough to present it.

"You're wrong"

An article with almost no relevance to the topic with effort put into discussing the victims of real child pornography as well as general discussion on the effects of porngraphy on users. This is about cartoon porn that has no direct victims. Cartoon porn that I've been arguing for ages has little relevancy to peoples real world sexual interests to begin with.

None of which the article discusses. Like someone linking a professional article on something doesnt in itself mean anything; it has to be relevant to the topic at hand and discuss the actual topics being discussed. You understand that I wouldnt even agree that this content is "child porn", right? The article is several layers away from what is actually being discussed. The original argument was , "this type of thing leads to real-world consequences, children getting hurt, adults normalizing sexual feelings towards minors and immense intergenerational suffering..."

The article did not address any of this with regards to loli/shota/cub art

If it bugs you so much, I can go looking for research and essays actually relevant that support my own argument; I know they're out there (just lost track of them).

For the moment, I DO have research comparing the rate of child sexual crimes between countries which shows that Japan's rate is significantly lower than a good portion of the Western world (warning: This is a download of an Excel document compiled by UNODC Statics Online with statistics of child sexual abuse by country), which is notable with regards to the argument that this content leads to real world harm considering this content is most accepted and created there, and an article written by a famous comic author about why limiting "icky" artwork is bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 2:13 AM, Vae said:

@Battlechili  So if I, say, draw some animu schoolgirl being decapitated, I am completely justified in posting that without a gore warning? Or on a site that doesn't allow gore? Because it's anime?
That's how things work?

You are not. However I have to answer this question with a question: Which would you be more upset with someone posting here: pictures of real humans being murdered and decapitated, or anime art of such? Is the former even allowed to be posted even in Red Lantern?

If the dissonance and distance from reality does not matter, why even make the distinction between severity? I'd almost feel the need to point out the French art piece "The Treachery of Images" which argued that drawings are not the same thing as the actual things and should not be treated as such. As he put it, a drawing of a pipe is not a pipe as it cannot function as a pipe nor was it ever functional as a pipe (not a photo). That its just a representation.

Or do you believe people sexually interested in guro artwork are sexually attracted to pictures of real people being murdered? Or at risk of normalizing such behavior in their minds?

On 2/21/2019 at 2:13 AM, Vae said:

You can say "it's not photorealistic" until you can't breathe, but that does not negate the fact that these kinds of depictions have some roots in reality. If they didn't, it would be beyond description.
I wouldn't even be able to say "sexual depictions of children" and you wouldn't be able to defend it, because if it was so detached from the base concept, we wouldn't be referring to it as such.

I don't know why this is a difficult concept for you.

If I draw a neon green penis, it's still a penis and I still have to mark it nsfw.
If I draw a purple tree, it's still a tree.
If I draw a cartoon man, it's still a man.

You are essentially saying that categories, descriptions, and ratings systems are useless because stylization completely overrides subject.
And that's not... how things work.
Sexualizing kids in artwork has some basis in reality, the same as everything else does. And it's still pedophilia.

There's a basis in reality, but only in that they have character traits that they represent in the real world. There are traits that let you recognize these things as being representations of trees, of men, etc.

But those aren't the only traits there, and the traits that aren't there are just as important.

Do you not think there are people out there that maybe dislike penises unless they have those weird neon colors people put in such as you described? If so, why? If something's a penis, that would be enough right? After all, its a representation of one. Why focus on the specifics?

I've seen people argue that these characters aren't even really "children" but just "characters". I'm not entirely sure I believe that because I do understand what you're saying that these drawings are tagged because they have some basis in reality. But at the same time, I legitimately would argue that people attracted to say, loli/shota/cub art, are not viewing this art in the same way they would view an actual child. They are very much seeing them more as "characters" in the sense that they can't take them seriously and view them as children.

On 2/21/2019 at 2:13 AM, Vae said:

You do realize that "cute" adults exist too, right? Why do they have to look like children? Why is this the subject that's specifically being defended?

I've seen plenty of adults that are "cute", but don't look or act like children.

Because the characters with childlike traits are "cute" too. Just a kind of cuteness that doesn't exist in the real world (once again, I'd reference Japanese kawaii culture). 

I like cute anything. Cute adult characters are great.

I'm saying that "cuteness" is attractive. What traits the characters in art have don't matter so much as that they're "cute", with a kind of overexaggerated perfect cuteness that doesn't exist in the real world (aforementioned explanations on how this art is typically drawn differently from realistic characters is what I'm referring to here)

On 2/21/2019 at 2:13 AM, Vae said:

2. Pretending you're the child in the situation doesn't make it any less of a pedophilia fetish. You're still getting off on the idea of a child (as yourself) being taken advantage of by their parent or caretaker. You're still exercising sexuality directed at children through fantasy.

Sexually directed at themselves with traits of a child, not at children themselves. The idea isn't that children are attractive, its that the idea of being treated as a child and reminiscing about what its like to be a child is attractive. Which is still conceptually different ideas that don't imply a sexual attraction to children (or rather, there's no evidence to suggest from such an attraction that said people could look at an actual child and find them attractive as what is being fetishized is not children".

11 hours ago, Vae said:

Isn't that how you got doxed and chased of KF? You think you'd learn to keep it to yourself a little better.

Not exactly; I realize it looks like this, but I actually left for entirely different reasons. I had gotten banned on another site because I had an account on KF, with them saying that by going there I was encouraging and supporting a culture of harassment and doxxing. Since I didn't want to be viewed in that manner, I left, and in the end I came to agree. I don't know how I didn't see it in the beginning, but I don't wanna be associated with harassment and KF is basically a harassment forum that hides under the guise that they're the good guys or are just getting a laugh.

I keep to myself in only that I don't talk about my fetishes everywhere and only save them for relevant topics; I'm open and non-secretive in that respect because I legitimately do not view this as having pedophillic interests. Because of this, I see no reason to "hide" myself, as to hide one's self would to imply they believe they're doing something wrong or are into something shady.

Because I'm passionate about it

10 hours ago, Vae said:

I don't know why you insist on going into places and defending this kind of thing to your last breath when it has gotten you in shit before.

Do you know how frustrating it is to frequently be accused of being a pedophile, of people suspecting I might be a danger to children? Or to see people you look up to and admire be ostracized and harassed for ages putting them into constant emotional turmoil when you see them as innocent? To know that people want to and are trying to get rid of the things that bring you comfort and joy?

Its tiring and continuously frustrating seeing people refer to or look at this kind of thing the way they do, as if they understand what's going on in my mind and making assumptions about how I view the world. I'm tired of seeing artists I like in the West being ostracized and harassed endlessly for something that, in other fandoms, is outright celebrated. I don't want to see artists getting hurt. I want to see them create to their hearts content, to support their work and see what other wonderful things they draw.

But these wonderful things, these things that make me go "d'aww" or "Wow!" are the same things that make other people go "what the fuck?" or "this shit's disgusting ban this". And I hate this. Seeing artist's hard work and creaitivity being thrown away as immoral garbage is simultaneously depressing and infuriaiting, and I hate the idea of standing idly by and letting it happen. That's why its so hard for me to shut up whenever this topic comes up. 

I'm tired of seeing real people get hurt over content that isn't. I'm tired of seeing people making assumptions about me without taking the time to actually understand my thought process and how I view the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conked out of this thread because separating myself from the topic made me realize that it's really fucking stupid that I even have to explain why sexualizing children is bad.

Like it's just mind-blowingly fucking stupid.
It's like I'm trying to explain to people why drawing porn of their relatives is messed up.
It's like I'm trying to explain why you shouldn't post art of jews being gassed and going "THAT'S SO HOT OMFGXpL."

I really hope you realize that personal trauma isn't an excuse to fetishize shit like child abuse.
And I really hope a child does not have to get hurt, emotionally or physically, before that realization sets in.

I'm still gonna laugh at pedophiles getting pushed off of sites in this thread though, because good fucking riddance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7OvPTmhtiY

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vae said:

Conked out of this thread because separating myself from the topic made me realize that it's really fucking stupid that I even have to explain why sexualizing children is bad.

Like it's just mind-blowingly fucking stupid.
It's like I'm trying to explain to people why drawing porn of their relatives is messed up.
It's like I'm trying to explain why you shouldn't post art of jews being gassed and going "THAT'S SO HOT OMFGXpL."

I really hope you realize that personal trauma isn't an excuse to fetishize shit like child abuse.
And I really hope a child does not have to get hurt, emotionally or physically, before that realization sets in.

I'm still gonna laugh at pedophiles getting pushed off of sites in this thread though, because good fucking riddance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7OvPTmhtiY

 

That's kind of the internet in a nutshell for any of us who even approximate normalcy.

"oh the internet is screaming about nazis and pedophiles again, we're going in for a closer look. lock your doors kids"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 5:01 PM, Battlechili said:

[nearly 2.9k words]

Is there nothing more productive you could've done with your life than to spend almost 16k keystrokes arguing about your very objectionable kinks with people on the internet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fennecbyte said:

Is there nothing more productive you could've done with your life than to spend almost 16k keystrokes arguing about your very objectionable kinks with people on the internet?

I think its very productive to try and explain to people the nuance between different kinds of fetishistic content, especially when to not do so would allow the ostracization of innocent people.

16k is babby's play for me

I'd like to write an essay on this topic someday.

This is definitely not an admittance that I'm terrible at being succinct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Battlechili said:

I think its very productive to try and explain to people the nuance between different kinds of fetishistic content, especially when to not do so would allow the ostracization of innocent people.

16k is babby's play for me

I'd like to write an essay on this topic someday.

This is definitely not an admittance that I'm terrible at being succinct

I hope you grow up one day and realize that you can't talk people out of visceral disgust.

The world will never accept you for what you are, live with that or change.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

I hope you grow up one day and realize that you can't talk people out of visceral disgust.

The world will never accept you for what you are, live with that or change.

Not talk people out of disgust; just out of assuming the worst in people. To convince people that maybe someone isn't what they think they are, and that something isn't as harmful as one would first assume. That the immediate connections someone may make about a topic aren't necessarily the correct ones. Which I've already successfully done before. There's no such thing as a human that can't be reasoned with; all you need to do is explain things in a way that someone can understand. Sure, you might fail, and in fact most of the time you will. But it IS entirely possible to convince someone to reconsider their stance on something they're disgusted by, and such has happened before. I know someone from this very forum who's had a complete change of heart on such content even, so I know you're wrong. But if you don't try, if you don't even bother making an attempt, you've guaranteed failure.

The world isn't what I want it to be, and its my duty as a resident of this world to do my best to change it for my perception of what is better. I will most certainly not succeed, but if I can do even a little bit, change a couple people's minds, that is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Battlechili said:

Not talk people out of disgust; just out of assuming the worst in people. To convince people that maybe someone isn't what they think they are, and that something isn't as harmful as one would first assume. That the immediate connections someone may make about a topic aren't necessarily the correct ones. Which I've already successfully done before. There's no such thing as a human that can't be reasoned with; all you need to do is explain things in a way that someone can understand. Sure, you might fail, and in fact most of the time you will. But it IS entirely possible to convince someone to reconsider their stance on something they're disgusted by, and such has happened before. I know someone from this very forum who's had a complete change of heart on such content even, so I know you're wrong. But if you don't try, if you don't even bother making an attempt, you've guaranteed failure.

The world isn't what I want it to be, and its my duty as a resident of this world to do my best to change it for my perception of what is better. I will most certainly not succeed, but if I can do even a little bit, change a couple people's minds, that is enough.

Yeah you mistake the ability to convince an individual person you aren't a monster with the ability to convince them to endorse your views.

I'm pretty ambivalent about this subject but if I was ever asked what my opinion about it was IRL I would 100% answer "burn the sick fucks" because the social cost of arguing over this subject when I have no personal stake in it is unreasonably high.

Do you think that person would argue with their friends, family, and co-workers about it?
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Battlechili said:

The world isn't what I want it to be, and its my duty as a resident of this world to do my best to change it for my perception of what is better. I will most certainly not succeed, but if I can do even a little bit, change a couple people's minds, that is enough.

You sound like a politician.

Maybe you should start a campaign and see how far it'll go before people en masse decide to burn you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, GarthTheWereWolf said:

Man, I haven't been on Phoenixed in a while. I wonder what being discussed nowadays

...

Ah

 

 

no come back i miss u

saddog.PNG

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 3:53 AM, fennecbyte said:

You sound like a politician.

Maybe you should start a campaign and see how far it'll go before people en masse decide to burn you.

I've seen this one before

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mayor-denies-discriminating-against-furry-councilman-forced-to-resign

They found this man's Flist and it included "tolerates 'rape'"

His people burned him at the stake so to speak

The bastards

On 3/1/2019 at 7:50 PM, Zaraphayx said:

Do you think that person would argue with their friends, family, and co-workers about it?

...Fair enough.

No one would dare argue about such a thing publicly irl, lest they risk ostracization. (Unless you're speaking to the right group of people of course; I am lucky enough to have irl friends that endorse my views)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×