A clarification...

[wolfwings]

...my previous entry was badly worded in the last paragraph. I did not mean to imply that if you disagreed with me, I wanted to remove you as a friend. I respect differences of opinion with my friends, but I also understand that this type of issue may be sensitive enough that my viewpoints may make some people (for whatever reasons of their own) distrust me as a friend. Honestly, I don't believe I've changed any from what they knew of me before, to now, but I've simply clarified my stance on something.

I would also like to point out, that while all the art being discussed is something I have pretty much no desire to see (it's hard to accept such an arbitrary line like '18 years old' as a demarcation between old enough and too young, considering when I lost my virginity by choice, but as most 'cub' art is well under 12, I have absolutely no desire at all to see anything approaching PG-13, let along X-rated, involving 'cub' personas at all) but I do not believe trying to ban something vague like 'cub porn' is actually feasable in the first place. Just because something disgusts me, doesn't mean it's possible to word a fair and abuse-proof rule to prevent it's inclusion in an art archive. Note the 'fair' and 'abuse proof' requirements for such rules.

As an experiment, try to word a rule (as long and complicated as you want) that will ban all 'cub porn' from a furry art gallery, regardless of wildly varying style, skill level, and levels of anthropomorphization, without catching any art by mistake. At what level of anthro do you have to assume a creature abides by their 'basis critter' lifespan and development cycle, versus a more human one? In many cases, that would make any erotica featuring numerous species completely impossible under some arbitrary 'age limit' able to be reasonably argued (in some people's minds) as falling under that category. The wearing of 'baby fur' garb? There's people well into their 30's in real life that do that, so, again, that's not a valid seperator either. Let the admins pick and choose 'based on their feelings' perhaps? That causes nothing but claims of random censorship, and a chaotic mess of claims of abuse of both users reporting 'questionable' artwork, and admins that watch for those specific reports because they have a personal agenda. Even if some of the ideas above sound crazy to you, I've seen all of the above approaches argued before at least once for ways to 'ban' cub art, or other similair things.

Comments

[shabm.livejournal.com]

"As an experiment, try to word a rule (as long and complicated as you want) that will ban all 'cub porn' from a furry art gallery, regardless of wildly varying style, skill level, and levels of anthropomorphization, without catching any art by mistake."

This is the problem our legislators face every time they write a child pornography law. I don't envy anyone who has to vote on those laws, much less write them; even one iota in the wrong direction will ruin someone's life -- of the children or the artists -- and with three hundred million (and rising) people to legislate over, it's likely going to affect far more than one innocent if you get it wrong. And in the meantime, your caution is going to be used by your opposition to make you seem like you're 'soft on child abuse' or an 'enemy of free speech'...

I used to want to be a politician so I could save the world. Now I want to be a superhero so I could fly in, save the kids, and end the episode with a moral of the story and a happy ending wherever I go. =p

[ruggels.livejournal.com]

I'd just go ahead and say no depiction of underaged characters angaed in Sexual activities, and the decisions of the moderators to pull the art can be for any reason or no reason. Decisions being final and without recourse to appeal (do not try to push the boundaries!) So what if some of the art gets banned? but then you knew that.

Scott

And there's certainly a place for a gallery like that.

[wolfwings.livejournal.com]

Hell, SCFA/Yerf was a wonderful gallery and had simple enough rules that there was very little discussion needed on if something was allowed or not. No high-rating art primarilly, which automatically avoids most of the darker areas high-rating stuff shines a light on.

I vehemently disagree with 'silent' decisions from above, but that's one of the few core disagreements you and I have is utter transparency in administration versus (possibly silent) moderation out of sight. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages, to be honest, and is truly a personal choice in how much you want to know about the running of places you frequent. Many people don't, some people do, which is the squeaky wheel and which is the actual majority? It depents on the site and circumstances.

[otana.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, if a piece of art is close enough to cub porn that it could be construed as such, then it should be removed under rules against such. The artist knows what they are doing when producing a possibly controversial piece, and if it is rejected from sites that have rules against it, then surely they should have been expecting such a response.

Personally I think cub porn is nothing more than pedophilia, and I'd like to see it all banned. Yes, that's censorship, but personally I find it disgusting. At the same time, I don't give people a hard time about it, it's not my place to tell them not to draw it, y'know? I avoid it, and if someone shows some to me I politely tell them it's not my thing. Hell, with manawolf's position on shôta, we've had discussions for hours about how we differ on our feelings on the subject.

Still, I'm glad you rephrased and won't be unfriending for a difference of opinion! It's certainly not a big enough issue for me to be bothered by us having different feelings on the matter, if indeed they are different. I haven't quite figured out my stance on the matter, though I think I probably do lean somewhat towards censorship for certain issues.

Re: And there's certainly a place for a gallery like that.

[aerowolf.livejournal.com]

*sighs* The problem is that when you /do/ provide an appeal process, and the appeal verdict stands, people start bitching that you didn't actually examine their appeal.

Like, say, Zinn and SPR. When I was a headwiz. Which drove Natasha away.

[aerowolf.livejournal.com]

My reaction is mixed, but it's based on my studies of psychology and the studies of several of my friends. Basically: if a given desire doesn't have an outlet, it becomes more and more focused and eventually slips into the realm of possibility. If the desire /does/ have an outlet, even if it's through porn, then it doesn't become as haunting, and thus stays in the realm of "nice to think about, but my ethics say no".

If the porn is of fantastic creatures, that's one more layer of abstraction, which moves it further from the realm of "possible" and into the realm of "fantasy".

Actual sex with human children is /bad/. Depictions of sex with human children are /not good/. Depictions of sex with fantastic creatures that appear to be young are /marginally okay/. Depictions of sex with older fantastic creatures are /okay/. Depicitions of sex with older humans are /okay/. Actual sex between adults can be /okay/, but can be /not okay/. Actual sex between consenting adults is /good/.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone. This is part of my own set of ethics, and one that I think is fairly well-reasoned. This is a topic on which I have two very strong opposing ideals and ideas -- but my ethics preclude me from applying my own morals to any other person.

I certainly wouldn't create cub porn or cub art.

[otana.livejournal.com]

You seem to have about the same ideas about it as I do. While I'd rather not see any cub porn / cartoon kiddie porn at all, it is marginally more acceptable to me than real life kiddie porn. I am still working out exactly what I think about it and where I draw the line at it being Not Okay, but that sounds similar to what I had figured out.

[manawolf.livejournal.com]

my ethics preclude me from applying my own morals to any other person

I can appreciate that. Lots. :)

I have - not without some moral wrangling on my part - found myself liking (and eventually collecting) some items from the underage genres. The funny thing is, as I explained to otana the other night, the more realistic the material is, the less I like it. I much prefer when the characters are clearly fantastical, whether they're full anthro or just sporting a cute pair of wings and a tail.

There is even some stuff I have where the characters are technically human - but they're *anime* human. You start getting photorealistic with that stuff, and I am outta there so fast my tail catches fire. ;P

Anyway, I very much appreciate and like a lot of the points I've seen you bring up (particularly the observation about psychology), and I wanted to say so. :)