Softpaw publishers close after five year run
Dream Field Comics, creators of Softpaw Magazine, spin-off Finding Avalon, and Ulster, have closed. The publisher was notorious for their popular pornographic magazines depicting young furry characters.
Softpaw's US$20-$25 issues consisted of 64-96 full-colour glossy pages containing a mixture of comics, pin-ups and stories.
Their work was barred from sale at Eurofurence and Further Confusion, but subsequently nominated for the 2008 Ursa Majors – only to be banned the next year.
At press time, most Dream Field titles were in stock at Rabbit Valley.
Update (19 Jun): Dream Field co-founder Jery Softpaw provided an explanation for closing:
A few people have asked for more details about Softpaw/Dream Field closing, and perhaps the public announcement didn't explain things fully. I don't have the time or money to keep doing it. It's pretty much that simple! I'm just one person helping artists where I can. But my situation has changed and I can't devote those resources to Dream Field or Softpaw any more.
For 5 years we all worked hard to produce that huge series. Just like any serial magazine, there was no "finish" planned. If we published another dozen it'd still end at some point in the same way. But the good news is none of the stories need to end there.
It's up to the artists to get them published on their own now. None of them rely on me to publish! Some are working on continuing their stories, to release in hardcopy or digital. Inkbunny.net is the best way I can continue to help all furry artists publish and sell, and it doesn't take the same personal financial resources that our comics did.
Thanks everyone for your support. We never expected so much acceptance, popularity and help. I hope you continue to show the same support to your favorite artists and encourage them to create comics and publish their work!
Editor's note: Comments to this article are now closed due to the increasing ratio of noise to content.
About the author
GreenReaper (Laurence Parry) — read stories — contact (login required)a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers
Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.
Comments
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're not speaking right now, are you? Written communication has rules. Please utilize them.
I'm absolutely enthralled at this news. One less thing to worry about in regards to a topic which is often a facet to the furry fandom.
I agree to quote Huey Freeman "What ever happened to standards? Heck, What ever happened to bare minimums?"
Good riddance.
I'm not saying I'm happy about a furry project closing, but I am concerned about the image of the furry fandom, and not having softpaw around might make things easier for all of us who work for the fandom. Softpaw was bad for all of us.
I suspect it was rather good for Rabbit Valley.
WikiFur, too; Softpaw vies with Furry for the #3 spot on pageviews after the front page and High Tail Hall.
Excellent news. Good riddance to that crap.
Holy cow, look at all the hateful comments. Classy, guys, classy.
yes its totally trashy to not like something and to be happy its gone.
Stick, ass, lets play a game.
and nothing of value was lost.
good riddance.
finally -.-
My bet is they closed it to focus on running Inkbunny and because of what Inkbunny does, they didn't want to put themselves in positions of liability for what Dreamfield did.
I don't think has nothing to do with liability, if they were worried about liability they would have restricted cub art on the new site.
No, my bet is that they didn't want to compete with themselves. They wanted to use their new site as a medium to sell works. Why get all these artists to coordinate content, publish, pack, ship, advertise when on their site the artist can just post their comic for digital download?
Think about it, why are many of those involved in that comic the first users on board?
"Softpaw" is over, but this isn't some 'victory' for the anti-cubbers. It's simply a change in their distribution model.
"Softpaw" is over, but this isn't some 'victory' for the anti-cubbers. It's simply a change in their distribution model.
Pretty much this... What we need is legislation to update the PROTECT Act of 2003 making cub porn unlawful for there to be a victory.
I don't see how censorship of art could be called a victory - especially on the web. The justification for obscenity laws seems flawed when you can avoid the places you'd see something you object to.
If you don't like cub porn, clown porn, furry porn, or human porn, the best solution is not to go looking for it.
Not all pornography has artistic value. The community standards in which the interest of the work must be examined. New York v. Ferber made it very clear obscenity and child pornography was not protected by the first amendment.
But what community? Why should people who have never been to (say) Clown Affinity - and would never want to - have a say over what's posted there? It's not like they have to look at it every time they walk down the street, browse through the library, or open their web browser.
I can understand the issue when someone emails you furry porn, but I have a real hard time seeing the harm if you have to surf to it yourself.
Child pornography affects real children. There's a real justification there. But "virtual child pornography" does not - and "cub porn" doesn't even affect real animals.
Outlawing it says "you can't express thoughts like this, or you go to jail". That might be justified when someone takes what you say as an incitement to violence. Otherwise, I don't see the public good.
Laws are a tool for government to place offenders behind bars. Just because someone is caught with specific porn doesn't mean they'll be charged or the charges pleaded down.
Being said, making obscene cub porn unlawful will give law enforcement the tools to obtain warrants, which in turn will allow them to search for other materials as well. Attorneys and law enforcement have discretionary powers, they don't have to charge people.
Amending Title 18 § 1466A would provide a useful tool to law enforcement.
Because all laws that make a cop's job easier is awesome, like the patriot act.
Not to nay-say but, that's what I do, should we just repeal the fourth amendment as well? I guess while we are making a warrants so easy to obtain these days for littlest of things might as well just cut the middleman all together?
You think we should let Blago walk?
So you endorse witch hunts?
So all of the thousands of people that look at shotacon and lolicon but hate real kids deserve to have their houses ransacked in hopes of finding some hidden child porn?
You're the one with sick and repugnant ideas here.
Being said, making obscene cub porn unlawful will give law enforcement the tools to obtain warrants, which in turn will allow them to search for other materials as well. Attorneys and law enforcement have discretionary powers, they don't have to charge people.
Wait...
You want to give cops more power.
You want to give cops more power.
, of all the people in the entire furry community, who has seen FIRST FRACKING HAND what happens when you give cops more power; YOU want to give cops more power????????YOU
You do realize, that in all of human history, from Oog the Caveman to Barack Obama, anyone who is given power never gives it up? And they never stop taking more than they were originally given? Do you suppose you have your pet congresscritter on a leash or something? Do you think that you, simply by force of will or charisma, can keep them from going after "the good guys"?
You do realize, that once something like this is a law, you no longer have any control, right?
Oh, wait! There doesn't even NEED to be a law! If you irritate/disgust/annoy/frighten or otherwise irk an officer of the law, they can do pretty much whatever they want to you. Then it's up to YOU to prove they were wrong, although sometimes that can be difficult if you're trying to do it from a jail cell.
Not that YOU have ANY EXPERIENCE with being abused by law enforcement, right? I'm sure you're just a total neophyte in that regard, and have NEVER had an incident with cops who've got more testicles than brains. Nope, you've never had THAT problem, nuh-uh.
Pardon the sarcasm, but my WTF gland has squelched out my right ear and splattered upon the wall. It'll take a while to regrow.
That post in my journal about Don Quixote?
In case you haven't figured it out, it was about YOU.
Don't be calling for legislation against people in your OWN HOUSE. The Inquisitors won't stop at the obvious witches, they'll go for the tattletales next. I mean, if you seem to know these "cub pornographers" so well, you're obviously one of them.
The furry community is doing VERY WELL at eliminating cub porn. More and more people are speaking their mind and saying, "We don't want this here, so please go away." And LOOK! They are leaving! They're going to find their own corner of the world. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than what you're proposing.
So chill. Relax. Dial back the rhetoric and the froth. Back away from that congressperson you're mucking with and never talk to them again.
You don't want that kind of pain.
"He who brings trouble on his house will inherit only wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise." - Prov 11:29
=======O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]
Making cub porn on the federal level wouldn't make mere possession of cub porn unlawful. Such laws require an act of interstate commerce(going from a website out of state, aim, other means of commerce) for an investigation to take place.
I should also note law enforcement were not the ones who made the decision to enforce the now invalid ordinance, the fault was in the DA's office. Do you think an officer would want to lose his job over an order to enforce said ordinance, no.
Also, you do realize what I'm going to be doing after I make my move out of Alaska, right? :)
Such laws require an act of interstate commerce(going from a website out of state, aim, other means of commerce) for an investigation to take place.
Dude, the simple fact that you are even considering such a thing, trying to draw law enforcement into the furry community, for WHATEVER reason, tells me you aren't thinking of the consequences.
And if YOU are going to become a law enforcement officer, and intend to go on some kind of personal crusade using that power, you are going to find yourself without supporters or friends of any kind within this community.
I don't give a crap about interstate commerce or whatever other semantics you care to conjure up. Politicians don't care, cops don't care, they only want successful prosecutions and will do anything in their power to get them.
Cops and the law should only be brought in when all other measures have failed to correct the problem, and then, only when lives or property are threatened. Nobody is threatened by fictional porn.
=======O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]
Who are you to judge what is artistic and what isn't? :/
Who do any of us HAVE to be?
Here's a legal definition of Art as opposed to Pornography, as determined in the case of City of Youngstown v. DeLoreto (USA, 1969):
"Art and pornography are distinguished as follows: True art conveys a thought, a speculation, or a perception about the human condition. Pornography is the pictures of sex organs and their usage devoid of all other meaning-the personality having no place. They bear in upon one a sense of increasing ugliness and degradation of the human being."
Wait..wait. So sex is now considered ugly and the act of enjoying oneself sexually is degrading?
You know we've moved leaps and bounds away from that horrible closed minded idea now right?
You're referencing a trial from THE SIXTIES, when sex was still something they were trying to suppress. We know now days that sexual desire is nothing to be ashamed of and not something dirty.
How about next time you don't be a dumb ass and actual reference something relevant, not a document from an era now past.
Also, STILL who are they to tell someone whether the picture they drew has meaning or not?
The 60's was the era of sexual revolution, which was where a lot of public exhibitionism and sexual acceptance really began. And the definition was a legal one, and a pretty reasonable one at that, regardless of what decade it came out of. I doubt legal opinions of pornography have varied very much. Note that the term used is 'pornographic' and not 'erotic', which would put it in a different category altogether. ("Pornography is about dominance and often pain. Erotica is about mutuality and always pleasure." --Gloria Steinem)
At any rate, you asked who the previous poster was to determine what is artistic and what isn't. My response is still the same: who does he HAVE to be? We all make those determinations, regardless of whether or not we have any artistic training (and you didn't bother to ask if that poster was, in fact, an artist or not). Who, then, are YOU to tell him that his judgment is faulty, or that your own determination is somehow superior to his?
Well, I would agree with your sentiment that people can't tell other people what ISN'T not art. Just because a law was passed in a certain era doesn't necessarily mean it is the voice of that generation. I mean I don't agree with warrentless wire tapping, yet that's what my generation got.
Lol. Yes. Let's ban entartete Kunst again.
Furry.fr
Good.
Fantastic news! :] Stopping anything involving infants in pornography seems like a good move to me.
Tell me, what issue and which page were infants on? I must have missed that.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Cub Porn, is pornography of pre pubescent characters. The focus of pornography, are the explicit details, such as genitalia. Which in cub porn, is drawn exactly the same as that of a human child, give or take a little fur. Need I say more?
Ah, you obviously haven't actually read Softpaw then. And you're still glossing over your obvious confusion over the use of the word "infant" versus "drawing of a fictional nonhuman character apparently younger than a teenager but obviously older than a toddler".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
"drawing of a fictional nonhuman character apparently younger than a teenager but obviously older than a toddler"
That right there, to me, is irrelevant. Open your eye's pedo, its still got the same bits as little Timmy round the corner. The psychology of it is, because you are familiar with looking at images of prepubescent genitalia, and gaining arousal from it, the same area of your brain will become active when looking at that of a human child. Mirror neurons were such a brilliant discovery.
"Note that I, in fact, have zero interest in actual human children. Shows how logically invalid your statement is." Well I certainly wouldn't want to test that one out...
"its still got the same bits as little Timmy round the corner."
A drawing of genitalia is not the same as genitalia. Did you even follow the link I posted?
"Well I certainly wouldn't want to test that one out..."
Neither would I. Which is EXACTLY MY POINT.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Well actually, a study showed that the more experience/knowledge you have of something,in this case that's you getting aroused over prepubescent genitals or accustomed to looking at them and gaining pleasure, the more active your brain when looking at something similar, for example, that of a human child.
Honestly, at least have the dignity to admit your a pedophile and that you need help.
Judging by the pictures actually in Softpaw (you still haven't actually seen any of the pictures you're judging, have you?), I'd say I'm safe since no real human child has, say, a SHEATH, or a KNOT.
At least have the dignity to admit you know nothing of what you're talking about.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Are you telling me softpaw is the only child, I mean, cub pornography you look at?
Righttttttttttttttt
Some people's fursonas have the genitalia of the animal, does that mean they will have sex with said animal?
I'd say they are probably more likely to desire it, yes.
Way to prove to the fandom that everything you say is probably crap.
Thanks for playing, here's a copy of our home game.
Note that half the people saying "good riddance" are anonymous. Shows how cowardly they are.
Myself, I don't honestly think this will be the end of Softpaw since the creators are now over at Inkbunny helping ALL furry artists to publish and sell their work.
Not just the artists who got in to Softpaw.
In fact, not just cub artists.
Not just porn artists.
The only "not just" that isn't in effect is furry artists, because in fact that IS just what they're doing. All furry artists can benefit from Inkbunny's sales model.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Until they close THAT down.
Face it. There seems to be a history of cutting and running going on here.
If they'd taken pre-orders and then just left without giving the money back, that'd be cutting and running. But no customers got screwed. Arguably moving away from paper publishing is just good business.
Softpaw had a high price, but from what I know of publishing I doubt it made much profit after paying the artists and printers, let alone the inevitable hefty discount for distributors.
Doesn't seem like they are running to me, just changing venues. You think it's coincidence they shut down Softpaw right after getting a new site where they can make money off of other's work?
All they did was just streamline the process they were using to make money before.
Note that ALL the people who jerk off to cub porn are paedophiles hiding behind furry masks. Show's how disturbed they are.
Inkbunny, not that I have much knowledge of it, does allow you to tag and filter out content you don't want to see. So I think that's very agreeable. Allows us normal furs to distance ourselves from being associated with it.
Note that I, in fact, have zero interest in actual human children. Shows how logically invalid your statement is.
Good that you noted Inkbunny's filtering system, which FurAffinity still lacks. Perhaps this will finally keep people from commenting so much with "You made me click on this and now I don't like your art therefore you are a bad person!" because they can filter it out and therefore have no excuse.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
A filtering system doesn't alter the fact that the material is still there, regardless of whether or not the regular patron can see it or not, nor is it invisible to the casual visitor who is unfamiliar with the site's filters, and probably doesn't care if they're there or not. The material is there, and its presence taints by association all others who patronize the site, whether they approve of it or not. Blinders are not a solution.
The material is ALWAYS going to exist, you need to get over that.
A LOT of unpleasant things are going to continue to exist. That's no excuse that we should accept ANY of them.
Just because you find a particular piece of artwork unpleasant does not mean it has no right to continue to exist.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
And because a person is titillated by the depiction of an action that he dare not perform lest he be arrested for it does not mean that it has a right to exist either.
Both of these statements are rather silly arguments, even as they both touch upon a truth. The greater truth, however, is that the particular work in question isn't merely unpleasant, it is downright sleazy and repugnant. The site may have the right to post whatever it wants, however questionable that material, but that doesn't make the work or the site that carries it any less sleazy. Quite frankly, we could all do with a bit less sleaze.
"And because a person is titillated by the depiction of an action that he dare not perform lest he be arrested for it does not mean that it has a right to exist either."
So you're saying we should ban every movie that has depicted a murder, a bank robbery, or an assault? Gee, doesn't leave us with much, does it?
"The greater truth, however, is that the particular work in question isn't merely unpleasant, it is downright sleazy and repugnant."
Those words are all speaking to the same concept--a SUBJECTIVE judgement on how a particular artwork makes YOU feel. A work of art should not be LEGALLY censored simply because it makes YOU feel icky. JUST DON'T LOOK AT IT YOURSELF. Is that really so hard? Do you live in constant feelings of creepiness knowing that, somewhere in the world, somebody is looking at cub porn? If so, maybe you have bigger issues than you're willing to admit.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
"So you're saying we should ban every movie that has depicted a murder, a bank robbery, or an assault? Gee, doesn't leave us with much, does it?"
That's a foolish and common argument to this topic. The difference is that every murder, assault or bank robbery depicted in a film is followed up by the repercussions of such acts, and usually has a resolution. Pornography (and I'm using the term in general here) has no follow up, depicts no repercussions and no resolution. The criminal act in a movie serves the purpose of driving the story to a further point, to reveal those repercussions and consequences.
Pornography has no purpose other than to titillate. (Not to be confused with erotica, which is at least an attempt to find the art and beauty in sex and sexual attraction.) And cub porn, which is nothing more than thinly disguised pedophilia, does so by appealing to the most disturbing of base impulses: an unnatural attraction to immature children.
"Those words are all speaking to the same concept--a SUBJECTIVE judgement on how a particular artwork makes YOU feel."
Those words reflect the subjective judgment and common sensibilities of society in general; hence the existence of the taboos and pedophile laws. I know of few parents -- well, actually, I don't know of ANY parents off the top of my head -- who would ever agree that any form of child pornography -- photos or drawings of any children, real or fantasy -- was something they could sympathize with or be comfortable with.
"well, actually, I don't know of ANY parents off the top of my head -- who would ever agree that any form of child pornography -- photos or drawings of any children, real or fantasy -- was something they could sympathize with or be comfortable with."
Sadly, I would bet there are some 'parents' who would, because it's pretty common knowledge that sexual abuse of children can come from their own parents/step-parents.
You're absolutely right. Actually, according to FBI statistics, parents are THE most likely group to commit sexual child-abuse. Next comes priests, teachers, and other authority figures. The random stranger on the street is actually the LEAST likely group to abuse a child.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Well lets hope and prey then that you, and any other 'furry' who enjoys looking at cub porn, NEVER becomes a parent, NEVER becomes a teacher, or any other authority figure that has contact with children. How many cases are there we DON'T know about? As far as i'm concerned you are dangerous and should be kept well away from children.
Awesome, children annoy me and try to be around them as little as possible. It will all work out you smart ass.
gonna keep fapping to that cub though :D
Hey well at least that's one pedophile children are safe from...
As far as I'm concerned, YOU are dangerous and should be kept well away from children. Good thing neither of our opinions carries any actual legal weight, eh?
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
As a 17 year old girl, I think if I started pointing the finger at you, my statement would have a lot more legal weight actually ;) Not that I would ever do such a thing, but still, it counts that as someone with pornographic content of prepubescent characters on your computer, coupled with a close call you may have one day, you could end up getting sent down.
I'm a 18 year old girl :/
I don't plan on having any of that happen, thanks for being a prick though..
My comment was directed at Alfador. I don't understand the relevancy of your comment in any case though... O_o
You called her a pedo?
Ever seen the lobby scene of The Matrix? The HEROES of the film walk in to a secure facility and gun down several guards who had no knowledge of the Agents who used the building, and were just there to do their jobs and keep the building safe.
The crew of Serenity in Firefly are smugglers, committing many crimes in the course of their work. They too are counted as heroes and escape punishment for their actions. In the movie they commit a literal bank robbery and get away with it, pursued not by the forces of law and order but by the "Reavers" who have nothing to do with the bank robbery but exist only as part of the larger plot.
You state broadly that porn has no follow up, no repercussions, no resolution. There's a rather famous furry comic called Associated Student Bodies that contains a lot of graphic, explicit sex, many scenes which could only be called pornographic. Yet the plot deals with little else BUT the consequences of these actions, including the reactions of family members to the revelation that their son is gay.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
You're grasping at straws. Your first two examples do not just happen in a vacuum; they are not inserted there for their own sakes. Neo and Trinity tear through the lobby as part of a mission to rescue Morpheus, therefore their actions are actually the repercussions of somebody else's actions, that of Agent Smith. (There's also the fact that it's not very likely that they actually killed anyone at all, given that they were in a computer simulation; the minds of those 'killed' were likely 'shut off' while their real selves continued to sleep.) The crew of the Serenity were outlaw heroes who had robbed the bank as part of their rebellion activities. In fact, their action did have an immediate repercussion, as they had to take the money to a fence in a bar, and their being their caused River's hidden personality to be triggered by a subliminal ad, and she immediately trashed the bar. Their activities and presence in both locations alerted the Operative, who had been hunting them for some time, to their immediate whereabouts.
I've never read ASB, so I can't comment directly upon it. I will say that Phil Foglio's XXXENOPHILE was very much pornographic and/or erotic, and while I'm not personally sanguine with all of the choices he made in his stories, they do indeed deal with repercussions in his stories, whether they be light or heavy ones. Of course, the fact that he does address them raises the subject matter, if slightly, from outright pornography to a more erudite erotica. (I also note that Phil had stayed far away from the subject of pedophilia in his books.)
Let's review some sweeping statements you've made.
"And because a person is titillated by the depiction of an action that he dare not perform lest he be arrested for it does not mean that it has a right to exist either."
"The difference is that every murder, assault or bank robbery depicted in a film is followed up by the repercussions of such acts, and usually has a resolution. Pornography (and I'm using the term in general here) has no follow up, depicts no repercussions and no resolution."
First off, please do try to say that the lobby scene was NOT intended to titillate action-movie fans... with a straight face. (And for the record? It's established very definitely in the movie that if you die in the Matrix, you die in real life. If you even get UNPLUGGED without proper extraction of your mind, you die in real life. The people they killed were real, living people in the context of the movie, and they really did die.)
Second, you bring up XXXENOPHILE and say that, because the issues you say pornography doesn't address were, indeed, addressed, then it "wasn't really outright pornography." So I'm curious... just how ARE you defining pornography? The definition I've been assuming up to this point is explicit depictions of sexual activity with an adult target audience. You, on the other hand, seem to be defining it as "whatever makes my previous statement that pornography has no follow up, depicts no repercussions and no resolution, to be true." If that's your definition, then I cannot argue further with you.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
I'm not denying at all that the scene was there to titillate. I'm saying that this was not it's entire, sole purpose, as would be the case with pornography. The lobby scene was a rescue, necessitated by the capture of Morpheus. It was designed with an incredible amount of overkill, and yes I don't doubt in the least it was there to excite the action movie fans, but it was also designed to demonstrate that Neo and Trinity were capable (as Morpheus had been telling him from the beginning) that he was capable of beating overwhelming odds if he wanted to. In short, there was a purpose beyond the titillation.
Frankly, you've had less of an argument than you seem to have a NEED to argue for the sake of cub porn, which is disturbing in its own right. I posted a pretty good legal definition of pornography earlier, which seems to work rather well. Saying that pornography is simply sexually explicit material is too broad and too simple, and ignores that not all such material has the same intent. A crude scrawl of a man and women screwing does not carry the same emotional tone as a nude painting by Olivia, or Rodin's sculpture of The Kiss.
My DESIRE to argue stems from the fact that I like cub art, so it affects me personally.
My NEED to argue is because I believe that ALL art has a right to exist as long as its existence does not harm actual people. A drawing does not involve ANY actual people aside from the artist. I am VEHEMENTLY against censorship of such artwork simply on the grounds that it depicts an event considered to be repugnant to the "moral majority", and because you personally can't think of any other use it has. Who decides what meaning a piece of artwork has? What is "obvious" to one person may be completely unrelated to actual artistic intent.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
You may believe it, but the fact is that it is debatable that any art has a RIGHT to exist. See the posts elsewhere on this page about Mike Diana; the courts decided that his art does NOT have a right to exist. Who decides what meaning an artwork has? We all do, and when that happens, it eventually comes down to numbers.
"My DESIRE to argue stems from the fact that I like cub art, so it affects me personally."
And I think that effectively sums things up right there.
"You may believe it, but the fact is that it is debatable that any art has a RIGHT to exist."
And there we have it, I think I can argue no further on this, because we disagree on the fundamental issue of free speech. There is no point in either of us using logical arguments when we disagree on the starting axioms. Neither of us is going to convince the other.
"And I think that effectively sums things up right there."
And thank you very much for cherry-picking the introduction of my statement and calling it the conclusion.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
"I can argue no further on this, because we disagree on the fundamental issue of free speech."
Here is the fundamental right of free speech, a legal definition courtesy of uslegal.com. The italics are mine.
"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Although adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, most First Amendment doctrine is a result of twenty-century litigation. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. It wasn't until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the Supreme Court extended the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
The government may regulate obscenity. Speech defined as obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment Obscenity is speech that
1. the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interest;
2. depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner specifically defined sexual conduct; and
3. lacks as a whole serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Nor is speech likely to incite violence, lawless action, or danger to the nation's security protected. Commercial speech is protected under an intermediate level of scrutiny and the government can ban deceptive or illegal commercial speech."
I hate laws that use weasel words such as "average person" or "contemporary community standards"
Which group of people, which community?
To me that means that if the "Community" of "Average" people didn't like my art for reasons other then it is pornography, like it had a political message mocking the "average" person that the "average" person would call it pornographic.
The legal definition would have been just fine with points 2 and 3, #1 just seems like kissing the ass of the public.
It's blatantly unconstitutional. Freedom of speech is worthless unless it protects speech people find objectionable--politically, sexually, or otherwise--and that is exactly the loophole obscenity laws provide for.
"Beware he who would seek to deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
"It's blatantly unconstitutional."
The US Supreme Court apparently begs to differ.
"I hate laws that use weasel words such as "average person" or "contemporary community standards"
Which group of people, which community?"
You can blame the Supreme Court for that. When in the late 60's and early 70's they were faced with the question of determining universal standards for determining what was and what wasn't obscene, all that they could agree on was that such standards were necessary and constitutional. What they couldn't agree on was what exactly defined obscenity (which gave birth to Justice Stewart Potter's oft-quoted phrase, "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it"). They ultimately decided that it was a community issue and therefore the standards for pornography and obscenity needed to be determined at a community level. That generally means at a local or regional level.
Yeah the material is there, but you can't see it if you block it, so really this moves onto the issue of dictating what can and cannot exist for others to see. Self-censorship is good enough for me personally as it's my choice if I decide to avoid certain pieces of artwork rather than my choice in asserting my values.
It largely reminds me of what we use to be taught in Media Studies about film censorship in Britain but the BBFC. The whole melarky of the 70s and 80s media moral panic on violent films and video nasties. In the end my tutor made the point that it's better for those who object to violence in fictious films to simply not watch them than make everyone else not watch them. I'm certainly no fan of horror films but I would not go to the lengths Mary Whitehouse did to tell people what was morially acceptable to watch, nor do I believe the BBFC should have had the power to ban so many films and have so much legislating power.
As the issue stands, InkBunny seems able to host questionable content, so the matter is simple, people either use the service it provides and block what they don't want to see, or they refuse to sign up at all. Self-censorship is accomplished either way.
... except, of course, the artists like me who can't use Inkbunny to sell our totally SFW art just because it has humans in it. >:(
What kind of fandom is it when art that has humans alongside furries is unacceptable, even when those works are 100% clean, but cub art is somehow A-OK?
And nothing of value was lost.
Now if we can dump it off FA, we'll be good.
Well thank fuckin god I bought and downloaded them all first, jesus, thanks for the warning guys :/
Are they still buyable at Rabbit Valley till their stock runs out? I want to warn people.
All Dream Field titles appear to be available at Rabbit Valley as of right now. Of course, stock is limited.
Thanks for the info. :)
Best thing to happen to the fandom. What happened writers and editors are facing child porn charges in real life? Good bye, good riddance and rot in hell.
You can't face charges for crimes that are imaginary. Otherwise, every fiction author that kills a character would be under charges. Your avatar is standing in front of an American flag. Act like it. You're advocating for the government prosecuting people for what's in their thoughts, not what they do.
Now, I can see not liking it, and the solution to that is not to buy it, and the company will go under.. but wondering about child porn charges in real life for fictional pieces of work? Really?
NO don't make make up straw men fallacies about my post. I said nothing about imaginary characters but I suspect may writers and customers are real life child predators. Like Lolicon cub porn is a loop hole.
Then they need to go to jail, if they are doing it in real life. My argument is NOT a straw man, there are plenty who believe that people who draw sexual furry art are secretly beastialists. Should anyone who has a sexual furry drawing go to jail for beastiality , too?
That's what you're talking about. Only you're substituting "genres."
I'm for the most part against the cub stuff, but I'm FAR MORE against governments running around telling people what to think and punishing those that have thoughts but don't act. VERY against thought crime.
Agreed, but I'm not one for slippery slopes. Just because gays want to get married doesn't mean they want to make marrying animals to be legal.
Just because children porn is illegal doesn't mean they are going to make Warner Brother's guilty of animal cruelty for what they did to Willie Coyote in their cartoons.
If they do then that person will have more to worry about then furry wrath.
Yeah, and its horrible people like you that start witch hunts over people who like cub porn because your so god damned paranoid that they look at real child porn. You could inspect my computer from top to bottom and the only real porn you'd find is sexy college boys and shirtless rugby players.
Its people like you that cause all this fear mongering. I'm going to go on loving cub art and your just going to have to suck it up deal with the fact that it exists.
How about you spend your time going after REAL pedophiles, not us harmless furfag basement fappers.
Actually, you can. In the US under Title 18 § 1466A, you can be charged for creating works depicting minors(currently humans only) engaged in obscene acts.
read: United States v. Whorley http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/064288p.pdf
The case clearly outlines works may be pictorial or words(referencing another case).
Is there thought crime? Yes, when it's being transported via interstate commerce.
Fair enough, but I still think it's a horrible precedent.
I'm an american. I'm for the rights of the person. I'm not for people getting in trouble because people THINK they're doing bad things. I'm for people getting in trouble if they DO bad things.
I'd think you'd be along with me in that one, IK, given your history of people judging you for exercising your rights based on what they THINK about guns, versus what you actually do.
Let me state, in very, very clear terms:
I think child molesters should go to jail and stay there. Or worse.
I do not think people should go to jail based on ONLY what they draw or write.
-----
EDITED TO ADD:
I read that entire PDF. Wow. But it is noted repeatedly that much of this was based off the belief and knowledge that there were real life victims involved, and that the defendant had previously molested children (in the real life) , and was on post-trial recommendation/orders. He basically violated parole.
But that said, yes, I'm all for him getting in trouble, because there were REAL VICTIMS. Proven in court.
That man is a lot more disturbed than the press initially made him out to be, too.
He was appealing many charges, not just the real pornography charges. Search for "fict" for the fictional references. He stated in the works, the minors don't need to really exist.
Thats seriously fucked up.
If I were in court for that thing I'd walk right up to the judge and draw a baby being raped on his desk.
OH GODS, GONNA SHIP ME OFF TO JAIL BECAUSE I DREW SOMETHING WEIRD, OH GODS.
like, i wonder if people see how terribly idiotic it sounds. You can't JUST give cartoon children rights. If your doing that, then I don't want any drawn characters ever killed again dammit! BECAUSE BOO HOO, THAT MUST MEAN YOU'RE AN IRL MURDERER.
Mere possession of the material isn't justified in a charge. One must transport the work over interstate commerce like AIM, use a commercial facility to transport/download the work, etc.
So me just having cub porn, not sharing it and only just having my own personal collection isn't illegal. Oh, well shit, nm then. I thought just having it was grounds for search and shit. If we are still allowed to fap alone to whatever tickles (drawn things anyway) our fancy then I don't see a problem.
I do think that the guy who got caught with lolicon was asking for it though. Like, he was looking at it at an INTERNET CAFE D:
I have tons of lolicon but I'm not gonna friggen share it with other people. D:
The person was using an employment center to look at pornography and obscene stories depicting children(which is also unlawful) when he was caught.
"Thats seriously fucked up.
If I were in court for that thing I'd walk right up to the judge and draw a baby being raped on his desk.
OH GODS, GONNA SHIP ME OFF TO JAIL BECAUSE I DREW SOMETHING WEIRD, OH GODS."
It can and has happened. http://schulzlibrary.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-trial-of-mike-diana/
The artist wasn't specifically involved in drawing pedophilia, but did in fact engage in drawing weird shit, disturbing enough to get him arrested and legally forbidden to draw anything thereafter.
This is the most terrifying shit I've ever read. I would have bashed the judges head in for being such a moronic waste of space and contested that thing into the fuckin ground.
Thats so crazy shit dude. It shows how horrible our government and morals system is.
Well, that's one opinion. Obviously there's another.
My point wasn't that this was correct or incorrect, only that it has happened and that there's no reason to believe that it couldn't again.
"In Diana’s artwork, no actual person is being abused or murdered. It does not matter if Diana’s comics are offensive, grotesque and offers no moral to the topics he writes about. What matters is the fact that Diana’s work needs to exist as an example that the First Amendment is in effect. If someone is prohibited from creating his or her own personal art, then no one is truly free."
THIS, FUCKING THIS, FUCKING THISSSSS
furries, pull your heads from your asses please. :/
Jesus christ, there's a difference between drawing something personal and distributing it.
You're being a reactionary idiot.
DIAF
The PROTECT Act, which was signed into law by George W Bush in 2003, includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. This is distinctly different from the previous Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which had been struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002 as unconstitutional. The PROTECT Act is still in effect, was used to convict Whorley, and subsequently upheld in Appeals. But this was in apparent contradiction to the Supreme Court's decision that virtual child pornography was Free Speech, so it's a good bet the legal argument isn't over yet.
But until someone else takes it through the Courts and forces a new challenge, the precedent stands: virtual child pornography is illegal. The question for furries is whether cub porn would be LEGALLY considered child pornography, and would they want to risk the consequences of finding out.
fyi, SCOTUS rejected the petition from Whorley in June of 09. I doubt they'll take up any cases regarding such rulings.
It only means that, for whatever reason, they've decided that HIS case wasn't deserving of their scrutiny and that they allowed the Appeals Court decision to stand. That doesn't mean that the overall issue has been settled. But if it comes up again, it has to be made on merits other than what were presented in Whorley's case to attain cert in the Supreme Court.
They just didn't find his case worthy of review. There can be other cases out there that are worthy of review, and they happen all the time. It's why many death penalty cases get appealed up... even though they don't hear other cases.
And something to remember, a denial of cert by the Supreme Court is NOT precedence and cannot be held with the same weight as a decision by them. The precedence right now is VCP is free speech, because they said so.
That point is still up in the air. That decision was made in 2002, in reference to the Child Pornography Protection Act. The PROTECT Act was signed into law in 2003 and was written to avoid the pitfalls of the previous act; its provisions have NOT yet been struck down by the Court. It's constitutionality may still be challenged and eventually meet the same fate, but thus far it is still the law. That precedence doesn't mean much until it gets back into the court.
Good. Fucking. Riddance.
It's about time. Good riddance.
It appears the only three words most furries know are "good" "fucking" and "riddance".
Hate all you want, I suppose. Plenty of people still bought or downloaded this comic; pedos and non-pedos alike. Despite what Softpaw depicted, it still is better quality than pretty much any other furry comic out there. Full color, glossy pages, over 50 pages? Pfft, haven't seen anything even approaching that sort of quality.
We know return to your regularly broadcasted, dictionally challenged hate speech.
If the creators of Softpaw magazine would've created a works which didn't attract pedophiles like Crassus, the public view would've been different. However this was not the case, parties were also organized with the assistance of such individuals, and even works contributed to softpaw.
Make no mistake, Softpaw did attract quite a bunch of pedophiles who were revealing and hidden.
:P
I'm too lazy to relogin.
I'm Graemelion.
You have one problem to your argument, Ik. Softpaw didn't attract these people to furry. They were already here. They have been here for over a decade, at least. We've been VERY open as a fandom, to the point that we let anyone in. Why do you think Frank Gembeck got nailed with kiddie porn? You think no one knew about that?
All Softpaw did was provide a bunch of furries that were already there with a market that appealed to their particular kink. Nothing more.
And you name dropped Crassus. Crassus was in furry and talking about his "interests" long before Softpaw.
http://telepromptedanthems.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/u-mad1.jpg
@ Lingo
I deserve to get shot for this, but they're just drawings and stories. While I don't endorse Softpaw or cub art, they're not physically hurting anyone, or depicting real children, hell, not even human children for that matter. You can gloss over it like the reason pedos exist is stuff like this, and that stuff like Softpaw will result in half of the child population getting raped or something along those lines, but that's, quite frankly, not the case. Pedophiles exist and have existed since as long as the human race, it's just that now it's been getting all the media attention. And yeah, it's good for the fandom's image and all that Softpaw is probably going to be discontinued now, but seriously? Cub art is still going to be here, and even it we do get rid of it, there's always something equally 'effed up that the media can focus on.
[/rant]
Don't know why all the votes down. I think some people are so trying to clean up the image of the fandom that they don't realize that people will look bad on us no matter what we do. As long as you're a minority you're a freak.
The causality is interesting, because some have argued that cub porn turns people into pedos, however, drawing cub porn to them means you were a pedo to begin with, or had that kink within yourself. It's really the only kink the fandom seems to have an, excuse the pun, hard-on for because it's the symbolic of something that is very terrible when it occurs in the real world.
Ironically, the some of the people who attack cub furs because they tie their fantasy into the reality of the world who also mock a misanthropic fur who believed they really were their character.
If someone RPed a character in a non-consensual scene with another character, does that mean they want to be actually raped in real life? Of course not, rape is terrible to have happen to you.
I am more on the keep an eye on those that seem attracted to fictional depictions of children, and maybe if you treat those that keep it to fantasy as non-monsters, they may be more apt to rat out one of their peers to you that they think are taking their fantasies into reality. We should be working with the fantasy only cub furs to make sure those that could become real child molesters are caught before they can do real harm, not treating them all like that as default.
To me people are evil for the actions that they do, not the thoughts in their head. If sexual fantasy correlated to the real world, I wouldn't be a virgin still.
But in this kind of situations, words are useless, people are set in their ways, and they will draw lines, and they will do what they do. So I'll do what I always do and just watch and comment as it unfolds. I just hope that things come out for the better.
"It's really the only kink [...] symbolic of something that is very terrible when it occurs in the real world."
Vore? Snuff? Rape? Need I say more?
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
And I'm sure if the cubs didn't exist people would start going after that too. For some reason I'm still trying to comprehend 'cub' is seen as different from other kinks for some reason. Part of me understands that it's because people think of the actual crime behind it. But then why do we not call people who participate in vore Hannibal? Or believe those that commit rape as actual rapists?
Do we see those as a kink and the latter as something more grounded? That it is not just an amplifyer of fantasy but an actual requirement? Since we protray our human selves in fursonas are all fursonas an extention of something human? If someone were to believe that then this would be why.
Replace all the furries in our porn with humans. There are several accepted communities and kinks in the human world. Some revolving around rape RP, some revolving around snuff RP, and yes, some around pedophilia. Given these three on equal footing guess which ones people focus more in as the most detrimental?
Furry is odd in that way, many believe that we are more accepting and more 'sexually expressive' then the humans. But the fact is it seems that the patterns one can find in human sexuality and acceptances can be found in the fandom. The difference is humanity has been 'doing it' for thousands of years, and the definition of acceptable changes over time, I haven't seen anything in the fandom change those definitions, just put them in a different form.
Exactly!
Agreed!
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
OK why I say good riddance;
try to justfy this
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Softpaw [NOT Safe for Work and illgal in some countries, depiction of child molestation]
Can one justify the rabbit session.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Furry
Now try and justify this! Seriously, those furries sure are sick people~
lolol. win.
It's sad when I forum for the expression of art disappears. I mean no one's art, personal taste aside, should be stifled. Nor do I believe that any individual's pursuit of gratification should be repressed except in the case that it directly prevents someone else's (or in doing so, causing real grief to another)That having been said, I am sure the (very talented)artists involved with SoftPaw mag will be able to continue their work unhindered, as there is no major lack of galleries, magazines, or forums wherein they can distribute their work.
Wish I had saved my earlier post, only clicked preview and thought I was done. It was better articulated, and a little less dramatic.
exactly. The idea of stopping any harmless creativity is what is disgusting to me.
Ok, I finally have some brief internet access AND I read that softpaws is gone, deceased, history, discontinued?!
Best.
Day.
EVAR.
Thank Cthulu its finally gone. This is really the best news I have read all day.
Well, waddya' know - enough BAWWWWWWing furries, and something gets banned from the fandom.
And you guys still make drama of it, even after it gets banned by posting hateful messages.
ITT: I honestly don't care about it. Maybe it's a good thing it got banned - it makes the furry fandom look slightly less perverse (Of which I am thankful for, since I am, surprisingly, a furry).
And anonymous people will still be void of facts, Pool was never closed, there was no AIDs. They left on their own two legs because they found another pool with less people pissing in it...
Oh look, a fur who thinks he's being clever by hitting upon the "Anonymous" nametag.
Didn't I already state that I was a fur? Therefore, I could not be a partaker of 4chan stupidity? Read more carefully next time, dimwit.
In before: OH BUT YOU USED BAWWWW, AND THAT'S A 4CHAN MEME - No it isn't. The image came from a furry comic.
I know LOTS of furs who are 4chan groupies, try again :/
Well fine, you know 4chan tards, but I am not one of them - I'm simply using this "name" because it's the default that came up on my screen and I'm too lazy to do anything about it.
Yes, we 4chan groupies do exist, and while the temptation is great, some of us have reserved to not troll this thread.
I think we should've, considering how the people who post here like to crai about it and talk shit about other fetishes.
That's what gets me though - you get vore kink supporters, hypertrophilia, even gore supporters that will gladly say that cub is a bad thing and should be banned from the internet. The irony of calling another fetish worse is hilarious.
It makes sense in the context of human sociology. Two different religions will not have nearly as much hatred for each other as they do for other sects within themselves--compare the violence between Christians and Muslims throughout history to the violence between a) Protestants and Catholics and b) Sunnis and Shi'ites.
Sad, but that's the way we are. Even sadder because we furries like to think we can rise above the social failings of humanity... while we continue to prove we cannot escape them.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
It's unfortunate though - Because you'd think that due to our branding of being "furry" we would recognize each other as someone who enjoys the same thing the next furry does. Sadly it's much more of a severely fractured internet society than thought at first glance.
"Because you'd think that due to our branding of being "furry" we would recognize each other as someone who enjoys the same thing the next furry does."
Uh, no.
Because the 'next furry' does not enjoy pedophillia. The 'next furry' does not participate in it or condone it, not even in the thinly-disguised clothing of 'cub porn'. The 'next furry' resents it even being mentioned in the same breath as 'furry', as if it were somehow a part of the whole, as if it were somehow always meant to be, when it was nothing more than an excuse for its patrons to legitimize themselves by mingling with a larger crowd. The 'next furry' doesn't consider cub porn or its acolytes to be furry.
When the skunk associates with the lion, only the skunk benefits.
The 'next furry' should realize that despite what they see as good intentions they should take a breath and take a step back. Because they are using the term furry to mean their own personal ideals and not just about anthropomorphism.
Read #2 here: http://sonious.livejournal.com/77854.html#cutid1
I don't think because one is a member of a group means that they should be completely accepting of the actions of everyone in that group.
Are you saying that all Baptists should be accepting of Fred Phelps because he calls himself a baptist?
sayonara.
You will not be missed. C:
You haven't read the previous posts, have you? :b
I'll miss the fuck out of it
Like, that shit was revolutionary. There were a lot of underground cub comics I knew about this was the first one to go main stream and actually do it right!
I was so excited when they continued after the first year and I would have enjoyed a lot more god damn years to come. But its people lik you, the ingrates who suppress creativity into the little fucked up box you call morels when in reality no ones getting hurt when a piece of art is drawn, you've just got the butthurt stick shoved so far up your ass you can't see straight
Speaking of can't see straight, you replied to the wrong thread...
I think cub porn/art should just stay on the internet. It wasn't meant to be printed. That's how I feel.
-Alfador
Good. Riddance. -Silver
Though I have a feeling that a few of you are right. All they really did was take down the mag in order to spend more time running the website.
Good riddance to bad rubbish
tl;dr. I only really have one opinion: everyone who's ever looked at porn has had a unique sexual interest. Some like one thing, and some like another. But I think that when it comes to fantasy and art, themes in drawings are not a guaranteed correlation to the viewer's real life interest.
Example, some people like rape fantasy scenarios, but are all of said group seriously considerate of rape. I think the example works well with cub and any other pornographic art scenarions. Fantasies are not guaranteed motives.
I do agree that the interest of cub art can perpetuate a negative image, but it we as a fandom really want a clean image, then we'd have to eliminate a whole lot more than just cubs. And I for one, while not particularly "into" cub, am not going to compromise on any level any part of our fandom.
This post is a whole bunch of U MAD?
I'm usually open minded, but how obnoxious the cub-supporters are acting is making me agree with the "good riddance" posts.
The creators of Inkbunny are hypocritical. They claim in their "philosophy" that theyre pro artistic freedom and anti censorship. And yet, you cant post anything to do with humans on the site. Except in written from. But not if its erotic. We dont want no humans in our smut. But we're pro artistic freedom. Riiiiiiight. They say theyre pro artistic freedom, but what they mean is, "freedom to fap to pedaphillic pornography"
You can blame the lawmakers for this one. As stated in the appropriate section of the acceptable content policy:
Combining humans, pornography and money results in legal issues that Inkbunny is not able to deal with at this time. FA has less of an issue, since they don't sell their users' work; yet even they restrict humans.
FA doesn't prevent me from uploading work that happens to contain humans, like my otherwise-very-furry webcomic.
If it's such an issue, why doesn't Inkbunny make a SFW variant where humans are okay AND I can take advantage of their digital sales system?
Again, FA doesn't sell the work. Preserving the relationship with our payment processor is vital, as without it we have no easy way to get money out to people. We have to tread carefully.
I would like to see your artwork on Inkbunny, and I think the rules will ultimately be changed so as to allow it, whether it be on the same site or an affiliated one.
Right now, though, we're less than a month old and have 300+ other feature requests to deal with, so please understand that it might take some time to figure out a way to do this that we're comfortable with. :-)
wow many great comments here but what i have to say is the world needs to fucking learn when u want u only get if its earned or personally bought or gained. stop asking and thinking that when u speak u are automatically right and that u know what the terms mean and such, if u are gonna speak be sure to find out what each words used really means cub is just furry or anthropomorphic beings portrayed in an artistic view same goes for porn - artistic view is something the creator sees in his or her piece or asks people what they see - all the haters views is them being hypocritical about their beliefs if u need reference to the don't want to see don't look , i find that comes in handy but no u intentionally come and look just cause u feel the need to procrastinate ur beliefs and orgasm them everywhere cause u think its the only one out there. congrats furrys we know know that singular thoughts are allways gonna be the most important. ill admit i like cub in any shape or form im not afraid to spread my beliefs i find people either need to learn by personal choice or be then have it bashed into their skulls that personal belief is just that personal not the truth.
...could we get that WITH grammar AND punctuation...?
Would make it easier to decipher.
ah sorry in a rush and forgot to use many forms of such umm give me tomorrow and ill rewrite that better in a reply ok.
*facepalm* I have to agree with you here; it's not helping our position any when supporters type like they ARE cubs.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
please read my reply to him/her idk, and u will find tomorrow will yield better results ok.
long awaited reply sorry been really busy.
wow many great comments here, but what i have to say is the world needs to fucking learn when you want, "you" only get if its earned or personally bought or gained.
stop asking and thinking that when u speak u are automatically right and that u know what the terms mean and such, if u are gonna speak be sure to find out what each words used really means cub is just furry or anthropomorphic beings portrayed in an artistic view and near child like look, more so teens. same goes for porn.
artistic view is something the creator sees in his or her piece or asks people what they see.
all the haters views is them being hypocritical about their beliefs if u need reference, the don't want to see don't look works best, i find that comes in handy, but no u intentionally come and look just cause u feel the need to procrastinate ur beliefs and orgasm them everywhere cause u think its the only one out there. congrats furrys we know know that singular thoughts are allways gonna be the most important.
ill admit i like cub in any shape or form im not afraid to spread my beliefs i find people either need to learn by personal choice or be then have it bashed into their skulls that personal belief is just that personal not the truth.
is that better? and its not pointed at much, but the veiws and for clearing up some stuff.
...I'm still having trouble sorting this out, between the misspellings, the rambling, disjointed sentences, grammatical errors, lack of caps and the persistent use of 'texting' shortcuts... not to mention using a few words that I don't really think you meant to use where you used them. Your statement is an incomprehensible jumble that hurts when I try to understand it.
As near as I can manage to make out, you're trying to defend cub art on some basis of artistic integrity. I reject that notion. The purpose of cub art has little to do with either Art or Integrity. It is a means of indulging in and propogating child pornography by disguising it under cute furry cherubic forms and offering the thin evasion that it is about something else altogether. How that works, I don't know, given that it is still obviously about underage children having sex with one another and with adults. The fact that it is fictional and 'only drawings' is less of a fact than an evasion of the truth. It is a means of indulging in an abhorrent (and illegal) practice without actually indulging in it. Furry fandom would only be doing itself a favor by distancing itself as far from this unfortunate practice as it can manage.
Sorry, but I reject the notion that child abuse does not have, as a minimum prerequisite, an actual child being harmed. It sounds like you have difficulty distinguishing between fiction and reality--how old are you, again?
Do you likewise tirade against violent video games as a means of indulging in and propogating murder and violence by disguising it under poorly-controlled actions in a virtual world and offering the thin evasion that it is about something else altogether? How that works, I don't know, given that it is still obviously about intelligent, thinking beings killing one another. It is a means of indulging in an abhorrent and illegal practice without actually indulging in it.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
I'm old enough to read and understand a clinical report, such as this profile from the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full
Note that it's definition of a pedophile does not hinge solely upon the actual physical act but extends to voyeurism (watching the act performed by others) or just imply fantasizing about it. Which, in a nutshell, sums up the very essence of 'cub art': it is a pedophile fantasy with a layer of fur on top.
Note that it is impossible to accurately estimate the true prevalence of pedophilia because records are based solely upon those who wind up caught in the legal system; experts estimate that 1 in 20 of actual child abuse cases are actually reported.
Note the following quote from the article: "A US Department of Justice manual for law enforcement officers identifies 5 common psychological defense patterns in pedophiles: (1) denial (eg, “Is it wrong to give a child a hug?”), (2) minimization (“It only happened once”), (3) justification (eg, “I am a boy lover, not a child molester”), (4) fabrication (activities were research for a scholarly project), and (5) attack (character attacks on child, prosecutors, or police, as well as potential for physical violence)."
This law enforcement training manual (http://www.twlk.com/Law/tests/LETN1640102ct.pdf) expresses the connections between child pornography and child molesters. I'll state it a little plainer: not every person who indulges in child pornography (and that includes 'cub art') is a molester, but every molester is someone who has indulged in child pornography.
Do we know if any afficiandos of 'cub art' are molesters? I don't know; I certainly can't name any off hand. But given the aforementioned ratio that only 1 in 20 such crimes are actually reported, and that child pornography, whether it be photos or drawings, are the 'drug of choice' for molesters, I'd say there's a good chance there are a few. And whether or not there are, 'cub art' is still an act of pedophilia (as per the definitions above).
This is not something we want associated with Furry Fandom, in any shape or form.
This is not something I want associated with Furry Fandom, in any shape or form.
there fixed that for u.
really its only u and the small countless numbers who don't have all the knowledge behind things that speaks out of turn thinking they understand on a complete level.
if thats cruel then srsly don't start conversations thats are more biased than the zits or a teen face.
There was nothing inaccurate about the way I stated it.
Your 'fixing' it implies that you DO want it to be associated with Furry, that you are in favor of promoting pedo material through the fandom. You sure that's what you want to say?
pedo related material is something which ive seen online and hassn't been made illegal and still exists to this day btw, which idk how to ban it and have it removed but i somehow came across it while surfing and it popped up.
so do not think that ur accusations are legit to make someone even something u would call cause ur like the people outside the fandom thinking furrys are animal fuckers or pedos or whatever form of idiocy u are coming up with.
I'm starting to lose you in all the text-speak...
Child porn is indeed illegal in the US and several other countries, and there are crackdowns here and there on child porn rings on and off the internet. Here's a post about several internet services exploring ways to disrupt the presence of pedo material on the web: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6088259.html
well im not gonna get into the deal of such as im one not into it and two nave no time to personally report some i found while looking for other types of porn and they came up.
Uhhh... yeah, right. Whatever.
1: u don't know me and 2: something like that should only be said after 1 is done, so kinda backfired on ya sorry.
> I'll state it a little plainer: not every person who indulges in child pornography (and that includes 'cub art') is a molester, but every molester is someone who has indulged in child pornography.
Hmmm... Not everybody who breathes oxygen is a terrorist, but every mass-murdering fanatic is someone who has breathed oxygen all their life, so to eliminate the threat of terrorism from the world, we should burn off the atmosphere! That'll show 'em!
And did you know? A huge amount of this child pornography comes from the Internet! Sure, the Internet is used for lots of other things, but we should get rid of it anyway, it's the only way to be sure!
> Do we know if any afficiandos of 'cub art' are molesters? I don't know; I certainly can't name any off hand.
Gee, do you think that might be, I don't know, statistical evidence for something?
> This is not something we want associated with Furry Fandom, in any shape or form.
As Anon already corrected you, this is YOUR wants, not ours. You do NOT speak for the entire fandom... as the great deal of discussion and disagreement on this topic SHOULD already prove to anybody who is not blinded by self-importance and the conviction that their opinion MUST be true.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
I don't see why people get so freaked out about cub art/porn ruining the furry image at the moment anyway. Only a small fraction of furries like it, and as far as "Furries are pedos!" idea goes, the outsiders who do think that way mainly think it because of fursuiters entertaining kids for the fun of it. Not because they happened to stumble on "Softpaw" while surfing the web :/
Truth is, there aren't that many pedos within the cub part of the fandom anyway. Nobody can seem to bring up any numbers. Or names. And when they do have names, they find out that those people were turned IN by the cub art / porn communities.
Where were the furs who knew about what Frank Gembeck, Jr was doing, and who didn't say a word?
Where were the ones who knew what Blazger was doing?
Or any of the other child molesters who've been caught in this fandom?
I think you'll find that the ones that do it for real get reported by the cub art /porn people.. and get covered up by the remainder of the fandom.
"Truth is, there aren't that many pedos within the cub part of the fandom anyway."
If they're buying or participating in 'cub porn' then they're pedophiles. As per the definition given in the Mayo Clinic report I linked to elsewhere. I don't know what could be more clearer than an interest in pedophile material.
"Where were the furs who knew about what Frank Gembeck, Jr was doing, and who didn't say a word?
Where were the ones who knew what Blazger was doing?
Or any of the other child molesters who've been caught in this fandom?"
I don't know. Where were they? I certainly didn't know anything about it until well after the fact -- heck, I don't even know who Blazger is, let alone what he was doing. I'm not excusing anybody for not standing up and doing the right thing. Maybe those who knew and didn't report anything were caught up in the philosophy of 'Don't Snitch', which is a whole other societal can of worms.
And, frankly, I don't see why people WOULDN'T get freaked out about it. Regardless of how many or how few participate, why should any of us legitimize the interest simply because it couches itself in a furry aspect and pretend to be a part of us? Furry fandom has had problems enough over the years imagewise without having a pedophile wing attached to it.
I wasn't trying to legitimize it by saying "oh, well only a small fraction of furries like it," (Though I am okay with it existing, because I'm one of those "I don't care what weird fetish you have so long as you don't end up hurting anyone in real life," weirdos) I was stating that I highly doubt that cub art will ruin the image of the furry fandom to outsiders, whether or not one views it as okay, because in all honesty, it's highly unlikely that the average non-internet-savvy person won't end up seeing it. As also stated, the pedo wing does exist as far as image seen by nonfurs go, because most people don't understand why people would dress up as animals for fun, not as a career, and entertaining people such as children without having an ulterior motive.
And please don't bother responding to why I shouldn't be okay with cub existing, because I've kind of already heard it a thousand times, and I highly doubt anyone will be able to add a new reason that will actually affect my opinion. Sorry.
"And please don't bother responding to why I shouldn't be okay with cub existing, because I've kind of already heard it a thousand times, and I highly doubt anyone will be able to add a new reason that will actually affect my opinion. Sorry."
And I'm sorry, but you're in a public forum now and it DOES bear saying. Regardless of whether or not it affects your opinion (though I would certainly hope it does for the better).
"I wasn't trying to legitimize it by saying "oh, well only a small fraction of furries like it," (Though I am okay with it existing, because I'm one of those "I don't care what weird fetish you have so long as you don't end up hurting anyone in real life," weirdos)"
And yet, with that statement, you do indeed legitimize it.
"I was stating that I highly doubt that cub art will ruin the image of the furry fandom to outsiders, whether or not one views it as okay, because in all honesty, it's highly unlikely that the average non-internet-savvy person won't end up seeing it. As also stated, the pedo wing does exist as far as image seen by nonfurs go, because most people don't understand why people would dress up as animals for fun, not as a career, and entertaining people such as children without having an ulterior motive."
And, therefore, if that image does exist, why give it any credence with the proliferation of 'cub porn'? I'm sure there are those who perform in fursuits who would not like to have that association made with them. (In fact, I do know at least one who works as a professional Mascot who definitely does not what that association.)
No, once again, I am stating from the IMAGE stand point cub won't really change what nonfurs think about us BECAUSE NORMAL PEOPLE DON'T SEE IT OR KNOW IT EXISTS. If you are all gung-ho dead set against cub, fine, I don't agree with you, but I'm stating that GETTING RID OF IT WILL NOT MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ON OUR IMAGE TO OUTSIDERS. I'm talking about our image here, NOT whether it is right or wrong. I think theres already been enough debate on that already @_@
As far as the suiting part goes, well, "haters gonna hate." People are going to think ill of furs, especially of fursuiters, no matter how hard we try. And I doubt that association it going to go anywhere, as in, connecting cub porn to the image that some outsiders have about fursuiters being pedos. Because most of those that have that idea are generally the internet illiterate overly protective soccer mom, anyway.
"...I'm stating that GETTING RID OF IT WILL NOT MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ON OUR IMAGE TO OUTSIDERS..."
As the Jewish philosopher sagely observed, "It couldn't hoit."
Is that supposed to be comeback? That's exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time, I'm sorry it had to be said in such a simplistic way :/
Er... no, I don't think you and I are saying the same thing at all, and I'm sorry if my comment somehow went over your head.
You said that getting rid of anything that hurts our image would make no difference at all to outsiders.
I was saying that any effort at all couldn't hurt our chances at improvement. Maybe it won't mean anything to outsiders, and maybe it would. But it doesn't hurt to try.
*Facepalm*
Oh...kay then.
That's NOT what I'm saying either. I'm saying the getting rid of something that would hurt our image if anyone aside from us and the 4channers, etc. knew about, won't make any difference. Please don't tell me that's hard to understand. I'm saying no outsiders, who would likely really think furries are effed up if they knew about cub, know about it anyway. Do I need to rephrase this even more?
Wait, wait. Just in case though. Ever hear of the law of Modus Tollens.
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P
If average people hate furries for cub porn, then average people know about cub porn
Average people do not know about cub porn
Therefore, average people do not hate furries for cub porn.
Simple logic.
But not wholly applicable. It assumes that average people do not know about 'cub porn'. Average people who come to furry cons -- and they do, by my experience -- encounter 'cub porn' if it's present. Average people scanning the internet come across it unintentionally. It only takes a few encounters, but they tend to be the most indelible and most impressionable one. A furry artist of my acquaintance posted in her log about sitting for coffee at a coffee shop. While sitting there reading, a few young people sat in the booth behind her and fell into a conversation among themselves about furries, not knowing a furry artist was in the next booth. She was able to hear them clearly, and the first thing they got into was fursuit sex followed by how furries were into bestiality. She didn't mention whether or not the conversation had gotten around to 'cub porn', but you can see right there where the common outsider opinion is fixated.
You can do a hundred things right and no one will say a word. Do one thing wrong, and the entire world will know.
I see that our "average person" definition is different, I'm referring to non-furs, those who do not go on the internet much more than to check email or facebook if they have it. Further, many non-furs only know about us in such fetishy ways, which is not what I'm speaking of, just cub in specific.
What's the difference? A non-fur is a non-fur. That would seem to be all the differentation needed for the sake of the argument without getting into endless hairsplitting.
why the fuck are we so fixated on people like us???
seriously, thats what I never understood.
I am a furry, I will always be a hige fucking nerd in the eyes of a good part of the world.
I do not seek validation, I do not want everyone to be okay with furries. I'm okay being an outcast because I know I have friends here.
Your so fixated on what everyone else thinks of us.
I see that happening a lot, furries trying to make it look normal or accepted. sorry, not gonna happen bud.
we might as well accept that we are weird and freaky and go along with it.
cub porn, who cares? we can't "get rid of it" just like we can't get rid of rape fantasy stories, all we can do is not let other peoples opinions of us get us so gosh darn high strung.
who cares what dick or jane thinks of you.
the people who actually know you aren't involved in the cub porn side of things are your real friends.
It's not so much a fixation on wanting people to like us as it's a concern over being smeared with other people's crap. You may relish being a nerd, but I do socialize and I don't need to hear 'You're a furry? I didn't know you were into animal-fucking," or some other such misinformed statement. Especially if I'm looking for work in an art field. Ever wonder why some artists so quickly disavow any connection or interest in Furry when they go professional?
I wonder more why people aren't more concerned about their appearance.
Getting rid of it makes all of the difference in the world. New blood comes to a furry con, someone not previously experienced with Furry. What opinion does he take away from a con that does not permit furry porn' as opposed to a con that does? He might think the former was about anthropomorphics, but all he'll remember of the latter is that there was pedophilia and that is the story that he'll pass on to his friends.
Whether it seems to make any difference or not, I stand by the previous quote: it couldn't hurt.
I'll add to it: We have everything to gain.
Once again, not the point I'm trying make.
Then your point isn't as clear as you think it is.
actually the point is clear you just cant see it as your so high on your high and might chair to even notice the point.
i wont tell you that's the thing you are gonna have to learn for yourself.
The point is that I was just trying to state an opinion, not start yet another huge debate here. Have a debate with someone else, I've heard it enough already.
you keep going on about cub porn at conventions...
what conventions are these hmm? Softpaw is already banned from most conventions, so really, what examples are you talking about?
Sounds to me like your pulling it out of your ass hun.
he really is, so wouldn't worry about it he has already showed he is a moron.
I know, he keeps trying to push reality into a fantasy situation and its getting really ridiculous.
well ill be here standing up for the truth and knowledge and defending the truth not the object they point out im against pedo's material and have come across some onlien and droped off the whole page alltogether losing web content from replies i was gonna make on such arguments and these came up.
wtf are you talking about dude...?
To my knowledge, Softpaw was banned from only three cons, one of which was in Europe. And Softpaw isn't the only representative of 'cub porn' as there are a few artists who indulge.
again not a real argument. if you have one use every ounce of intelligence you may have to reply with something justifiable to your claims if not your in here to bash something due to your inability to let well enough be.
its actually people like you who give the fandom a bad name by pointing fingers at things, not to mention judging everything you DON'T like. here is something for you........ don't like don't look plain and simple.
also if you don't like something why look? is it cause when u think yourself better when looking in the mirror, i see someone who is so mentally weak very mentally immature not to mention someone who has the inability to reach higher heights mentally
if your interested in something make sure you know the knowledge behind it before you open your mouth otherwise you will really get a mouthful of bile you cannot purge.
"again not a real argument. if you have one use every ounce of intelligence you may have to reply with something justifiable to your claims if not your in here to bash something due to your inability to let well enough be."
I've already posted a couple of links that pretty well justify my claims.
"its actually people like you who give the fandom a bad name by pointing fingers at things, not to mention judging everything you DON'T like. here is something for you........ don't like don't look plain and simple."
This is something more than just 'something I don't like'... it's something that promotes and attempts to legitimize a very sleazy practice that is reprehensible and illegal. Why in God's name would anyone, outside of a pedophile, even want to defend that? The argument that 'this is just a fetish' is weak and erroneous -- and, ultimately, is just a case of fooling one's self.
"also if you don't like something why look? is it cause when u think yourself better when looking in the mirror, i see someone who is so mentally weak very mentally immature not to mention someone who has the inability to reach higher heights mentally"
Ignoring the insult for the moment, the idea of 'don't look if you don't like it' doesn't work. First off, it's an abhorrence that taints the rest of the fandom whether we look at it or not. The point is that everyone else looks at it and takes it as a 'bona fide' example of furry interests, whether it be true or not. How does it serve any of us to be tainted with that association? Secondly, as I've already explained, it promotes behavior that is illegal: sex with underage minors. How can you condone that with simply 'not looking at it'? Pretending that it's not there doesn't make it so. Pretending that there's nothing wrong with it doesn't make it so. Pretending that this is part of furry interests doesn't make it so.
"if your interested in something make sure you know the knowledge behind it before you open your mouth otherwise you will really get a mouthful of bile you cannot purge."
Good advice. I sincerely hope you take it.
if its supposed to be a comeback your gonna be sore in the morning.
I do take the words I use, I also know damn well you cannot come up with a good enough reason to even have many people turn from their beliefs and or like/dislikes.
its from here on logical vs illogical take your pick what side will u be on.
If, in this argument, I am unable to turn people from their beliefs, then they are already well-mired in their pursuits. Which is unfortunate, but not really unexpected. One of the signs of a pedophile (as documented in the Mayo Clinic report I'd linked to) is a stark denial that there is anything at all wrong with what they're doing.
can u prove it in a non abusive biased form no so therfore there is nothing wrong with cub im not talking about rl pics of kids or children only cub so u bringing it up proves naught the reality of the topic just what u personally believe continue and ur advice of sad unfortunate and not unexpected will actually be something u will understand as a label for yourself.
There is no significant difference between 'cub porn' and child pornography, apart from the fact that one involves photos of real children and the other is drawings of fictional furry children. Both are pedophilia material. That is the only point of significance.
And while drawings aren't included in general child pornography laws here in the US, they ARE included in such laws in other countries -- and CAN be included in specific regional or local child pornography laws. (Here's a link for a man convicted in Canada for importing Loli-based manga: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2005-03-04/canadian-arrested-for-importing-... ,,,and another link where Phillipine law, to use an example, specifies even artwork of child porn to be sufficient for legal action: http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2009/ra_9775_2009.html ...for that matter, here's a link to a Philadelphia law blog, where it quotes Federal Law as including drawings in its definition of child pornography: http://www.philadelphiacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/child_pornography/)
Whether those laws apply in any way to Furry 'cub porn' or not has yet to be determined, as it hasn't yet come up.
>>Whether those laws apply in any way to Furry 'cub porn' or not has yet to be determined, as it hasn't yet come up.<<
second guessing yourself is verifying your just retarded nice try though. as you very well said here its not even this so why u continue is why your being called an idiot stop pushing what you believe and start realizing your stupid go back and learn what things really mean before you open your mouth to reply.
This isn't second guessing -- it's the truth. It simply hasn't come up yet. I would think there's plenty of photos and drawings of human children to take the foreground for the time being so that 'cub porn' hasn't yet caught anyone's attention. And I expect that their interests will likely always default to the human material first. When it does get their interest, there will no doubt be argument in legal quarters over whether or not it would be applicable. If they decide that it is, then all hell will break out. At the moment, it's uncertain what will happen, but I wouldn't yet count on the authorities overlooking 'cub porn' when they come to it.
also i hope you understand this, the way u speak is like this (i hate cub and cub porn you must follow my beliefs or you should die) that's really how you sound and what you think in some small variance of what reality isn't.
Understand that the way you defend yourself comes off as "There is absolutely nothing wrong with 'cub porn' and I am perfectly okay with pedophilia being a part of my fandom!" That's reality for you.
no ur again pushing what u see things as from what it really is its as titled an anthropomorphic animal/teen at the age of 13 by age of puberty taking hold really above the age of pedophilia the falsified age of the animals is different to humans so we label such as different therefore your understanding is different its like trying to call the young lizards in scailies which irl has a species that is bipedal as well so your gonna try justifying that even which we all know u really cant. now stop going all religious on us and get with the program.
I can't even parse the main of this post, except for the last sentence. And, being agnostic, I haven't even brought religion into this conversation.
no but ur doing exactly what religion now does best trying to push beliefs onto others.
This has nothing to do with religious beliefs, nor does it have to do with pushing beliefs on anyone else. It does have to do with recognizing pedophilia for what it is and not wanting it to be associated with furry fandom. That's just a common understanding of right and wrong, something that doesn't require a religious education to comprehend.
Unless you're trying to state that pedophilia is something that SHOULD be a part of furry?
pedophillia defined as containing child and nude pics of children is not legal and should never be but what ur doing is trying to think something that isnt = is, sorry but that's one fucked up world u live in and backwards to boot.
Pedophilia is touching a child sexually. I have never touched a child sexually nor want to, therefore I am not a pedophile.
Now I do find small young fantasy characters in sexual situations hot, but if you were to replace those characters with real children I wouldn't like it anymore.
Seriously, someone needs to take your soap box away, you're an idiot.
there is a bigger difference than that here let me show u.
since its too deep into the interwebs to find the proper definition due to people trying to change things. here it is written
pedophilia- a picture or story containing real life children.
pedophile- a person who commited/commits sexual acts on children below the age of 13.
pedophilisim9improper spelling but u get it)- the act and compilation of pedophile and pedophilia.all pertaining to the acts commited and content used/seen or determined as human children in real life.
for ur understanding.
The Medical Dictionary defines Pedophilia as "a paraphilia in which an adult has recurrent, intense sexual urges or sexually arousing fantasies of engaging or repeatedly engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child"; the Legal Dictionary defines it as "an obsession with children as sex objects". Meaning that just looking or watching children with a sexual interest is enough to qualify you as a pedophile.
That they are furry doesn't mean a thing; they're still children. It is, as I've said, simply a way for the participant to fool himself by saying, "yeah, but these aren't really children, so I'm not doing anything wrong".
Trying to twist my point with an exhibition of sophist logic neither proves anything nor invalidates my point.
"> Do we know if any afficiandos of 'cub art' are molesters? I don't know; I certainly can't name any off hand."
"Gee, do you think that might be, I don't know, statistical evidence for something?"
No, it only means that I don't travel in those circles and am not personally familiar with anyone who does. Therefore, I don't know names.
"As Anon already corrected you, this is YOUR wants, not ours. You do NOT speak for the entire fandom..."
I am no official spokesman, to be sure, but I think for a good many more than you might think. I know of quite a few others who do feel this way -- I'm just more outspoken than most. And not everybody reads this forum.
As for it not being YOUR wants -- using the word 'yours' in the general rather than the specific sense -- well, it's obvious what 'your' wants are.
Chuck, you can't name ANY of them? Not one? Not a single one?
There are furs who have tried to kill people. They were named. There's no outcry of "anti snuff" drawings, is there? Or anti-snuff stories?
There are furs who have been arrested for forced sexual assault, and rape, and who have faced restraining order after restraining order. There's no drive to elminiate that, is there?
I know you don't like this stuff. I'm up in the air about it myself, because I HIGHLY dislike thought crime. But until you have evidence that in Furry it's DIRECTLY causing harm, then I don't think you have a case here. As for your claim, every child molester has engaged in child pornography, that's nice, but that's dealing with real victims. This has no real victims. It's like people who read and write about murder. Those are not real victims either.
Are you up for locking up people like Stephen King? I mean, let's draw an analogy here.. if sick images lead to sick behavior, shouldn't sick writing do the same? Shouldn't we be locking up Mr. King because we never know when he might kill everyone in a small Maine town?
This whole argument is repetative, and takes place over and over and over. In the end it comes down to this. You don't like something, and you want it to go away. But it's not going to, sir. It's just not something you can control like that. Furry has NO central core. You're not going to ban it, you're not going to remove it, you're not going to stop it. There is no "we" , there is no "fandom proper."
You need to come to grips with the fact that this isn't going to go away, and you need to accept the fact that what Furry fandom there is belongs to everyone, not just a bunch of people who've been in it the longest.
I respect you. I admire what you've done for the fandom. But at the same time, this IS here. It's going to stay. And fighting it with the vigor you have fought it some weeks later will only burn you out.
"Chuck, you can't name ANY of them? Not one? Not a single one?"
See my response elsewhere -- I don't hang in those circles, so I don't know them.
"There are furs who have tried to kill people. They were named. There's no outcry of "anti snuff" drawings, is there? Or anti-snuff stories?"
I have spoken out against these in the past, though it's been quite a long while since. I feel that these, and several other types of negative art are examples of Nietzsche's 'staring into the void'. But I think these are less prevalent and have less impact than the pedophile material.
"There are furs who have been arrested for forced sexual assault, and rape, and who have faced restraining order after restraining order. There's no drive to elminiate that, is there?"
You tell me, since you bring it up and seem to have more info than I -- are you doing something to eliminate it?
"I know you don't like this stuff. I'm up in the air about it myself, because I HIGHLY dislike thought crime. But until you have evidence that in Furry it's DIRECTLY causing harm, then I don't think you have a case here. As for your claim, every child molester has engaged in child pornography, that's nice, but that's dealing with real victims. This has no real victims. It's like people who read and write about murder. Those are not real victims either."
First off, it's not a thought crime. Child pornography is illegal; 'cub porn' gets away with it by the technicality of it being art rather than photos, and by depicting furry characters rather than humans. But the intent and the purpose is still the same: getting off over visuals of underage children having sex with other children or with adults. Given that, why allow it? There's nothing to be legally done to prevent their publication or participation in the production of said work -- so far as I know -- but why allow any connection with the rest of us to remain? Don't promote the works of any publisher, website or artist who produces 'cub porn'. Don't acknowledge them as a part of the fandom. Don't allow them participation at conventions. I think that last is especially important as more of the firmly established cons are struggling to become all-ages, and the presence of cub porn' works contrary to that image -- which is one reason (not the only one) why a couple of them went so far as to ban Softpaw's presence.
"Are you up for locking up people like Stephen King? I mean, let's draw an analogy here.. if sick images lead to sick behavior, shouldn't sick writing do the same? Shouldn't we be locking up Mr. King because we never know when he might kill everyone in a small Maine town?"
This argument, which was already made earlier, is spurious. The horror created by King -- and other writers -- have repercussions within the stories. 'Cub porn', like all forms of pornography, has no repercussions within its material. Nothing shows the horror of what happens to the child as a result of his sexual encounters. The one is not equal to the other.
This whole argument is repetative, and takes place over and over and over. In the end it comes down to this. You don't like something, and you want it to go away. But it's not going to, sir. It's just not something you can control like that. Furry has NO central core. You're not going to ban it, you're not going to remove it, you're not going to stop it. There is no "we" , there is no "fandom proper."
Nevertheless, the worst possible thing I or anyone else can do is to say nothing at all.
The argument that 'it will never change' is the single worst argument I have ever heard for not taking opposition to offensible behaviors. Murder will never go away; yet police continue to enforce the laws. Graft will never vanish; yet legislation against it continues to be formed. Bad behavior in general, at whatever level, from political tyranny on down to illegal parking, is always going to happen... but to do nothing at all to oppose them is to allow inertia, entropy and cynicism to have their way.
"You need to come to grips with the fact that this isn't going to go away, and you need to accept the fact that what Furry fandom there is belongs to everyone, not just a bunch of people who've been in it the longest."
I don't see what that has to do with allowing the presence of illegal or reprehensible material. Because there are newer fans coming in all the time, it is somehow more acceptable to create and publish material that would be considered illegal if not for a technicality? I don't see the logic to that.
"I respect you. I admire what you've done for the fandom. But at the same time, this IS here. It's going to stay. And fighting it with the vigor you have fought it some weeks later will only burn you out."
Probably. But better that than to stand by and say nothing at all.
What am I doing to change those other art forms?
Nothing. Because I know full well that there is no grand "Furry council" , there is not even a static definition of furry. All I can be is a consumer of what I like, and not a consumer of what I don't like, and hopefully if enough agree with me, then the market will sort itself out.
Though, before the cub stuff, there were the plushie fuckers. Before that, there were dog fuckers. And before that, we were just exceptionally gay. There will always be a whale for Ahab to kill in Furry.
As for the outside world, they already consider us , and have considered us, wannabe beastialists (Which, by the way, is also illegal all over, and does that mean any furry artwork that is suggestive in nature mask beastialists waiting to strike? Food for thought.)
I try to be a good guy. I lead by example, and let others follow me as they may. You've gone on for nearly a month and a week here, and you've gotten what from it? Really? Nobody has altered position one iota. You've just been repeating the same things over and over.
So I would argue that whatever you're doing, it's not leading anywhere NEAR removing this stuff from Furry.
"What am I doing to change those other art forms?
"Nothing. Because I know full well that there is no grand "Furry council" , there is not even a static definition of furry. All I can be is a consumer of what I like, and not a consumer of what I don't like, and hopefully if enough agree with me, then the market will sort itself out."
Really? We're allowing the Market to be the arbiter of Right and Wrong!? I'd like to think that I've a better developed quality of morality than the Marketplace which is swayed only by interest and the exchange of money.
There doesn't need to be a 'furry council' to elicit change; just individuals willing to do the right thing.
And I strongly disagree that there is no static definition of 'furry'.
"Though, before the cub stuff, there were the plushie fuckers. Before that, there were dog fuckers. And before that, we were just exceptionally gay. There will always be a whale for Ahab to kill in Furry."
Undoubtedly. The bestiality corner is the only other one that I've put in the same bucket as the 'cub porn', and have posted heavily against it in the past.
"As for the outside world, they already consider us , and have considered us, wannabe beastialists (Which, by the way, is also illegal all over, and does that mean any furry artwork that is suggestive in nature mask beastialists waiting to strike? Food for thought.)"
Been all over those arguments years ago. My opinions haven't changed any since.
"I try to be a good guy. I lead by example, and let others follow me as they may. You've gone on for nearly a month and a week here, and you've gotten what from it? Really? Nobody has altered position one iota. You've just been repeating the same things over and over."
So have those arguing the opposition. What of it?
Has nobody altered position? I don't know that. Those actually posting are clinging to their positions, but I've no idea what those who aren't actively participating are doing. Maybe they're agreeing with me. Maybe they're not. I've no reason to accept the negative so I continue on in hopes of the positive.
"So I would argue that whatever you're doing, it's not leading anywhere NEAR removing this stuff from Furry."
One never knows.
No, I'll amend that: I know that if nothing is ever said then it's certain that nothing will ever happen.
The fact that real children are not harmed is not a technicality - it is the whole point. Real child pornography is illegal because real children are deemed to be harmed by their involvement in it. Laws forbidding it were enacted to prevent this specific harm - not to criminalize people's sexual fantasies, however perverse.
Most visual media involving killing in a positive light also does not show repercussions in the real world, except when it happens to impact the heroes. Those which do are arguably better for it; but strangely few condemn those lacking such perspective as "murder propaganda" or argue that people should be locked up for producing, distributing, possessing, or professing to enjoy them. (Of course, if a computer game is involved, it's an entirely different matter . . .)
During my travels around the web, I have seen a handful of furry pieces attempt to paint a realistic portrait of child abuse, prostitution and neglect. It would be interesting to see a full-blown comic developed along those lines, although I doubt it would sell that well, if at all. There are plenty of tales to be told by art, and not all of them are pleasant (think Maus).
"The fact that real children are not harmed is not a technicality - it is the whole point."
But this is not the technicality of which I was speaking. I was describing the fact that 'cub art' evades scrutiny as a form of child pornography by being drawings of furry children rather than photos of human children as being the technicality. Because, in spite of that technicality, it is all one and the same thing.
Drawings and photographs are not one and the same thing. They are entirely different. It is the difference between REALITY and FICTION.
...If you cannot understand this simple concept, then I stand by my earlier statement that you cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
The difference is irrelevant when the purpose is the same.
BULLSHIT. The difference between REALITY and FICTION is not irrelevant. If you cannot understand that... I have no further use for talking to you, since you obviously have an entirely different view of the world from sane, rational human beings.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Oh, I understand the difference. But that difference is irrelevant when the purpose of the work is the same whether the material be drawn fantasy or photographic fantasy. And that purpose is getting off on images of children having sex. The interest is the same, the drive is the same... Trying to pretend that there's some kind of significant difference simply because it's furry is nothing more than a petty evasion of the truth.
no its a different genre altogether, justifying that fact is well not gonna change the fact that your trying to change people like some church fanatic who takes their version of god in vain, and then says do not take his name in vain by thinking that if the being exists they know what it thinks.
rly try again.
Pedophilia is not a genre.
Boy, I can't wait to see how you defend that notion...!
same idea regardless, couldn't use a better word anyways.
or category/subcategory same idea.
No, it is NOT the same idea. Pedophilia is a psychological and sexual abnormality. A genre is a categorization of stories.
let me correct you as ive chatted with some people on the outside (who are not furries) and they agreed with me.
pedophilia- is the picture, or acts dipicted in a picture or art containing a child under the age of 13 not the way u put it i see ur form of reality of words meanings is physically warped.
there u now have a words meaning to stop using in ways that dont mean as u intend them.
yep, and cub porn is a genre of stories and art. :/
good generalization there yes as a story containing cp and stuff that i do it it is good reply.
Pedophilia is a child in a sexual situation.
Who are you to know how old every fantasy character is, especially ones that don't even look human? And it wouldn't matter if I drew a picture of a baby being fucked by a giant dildo. Would it make me a pedophile? no.
Would it make me want to go out and rape an actual baby? no.
pedophiles grow up to be what they are. No one turned around one day after looking at cub porn and decided to rape em some chilldrens.
I don't see what fantasy characters have to do with real children anyway. Real children are whiny little snots who are a bitch to take care of, cubs are furry little gobs of hotness that I'd choose anyday and forever over a stupid kid.
its what chuck melville is, i think hes hiding behind a mask any takers for removing that mask we removed the mask off the idiot, now its time to remove all of them.
"Pedophilia is a child in a sexual situation."
Incorrect. See the definitions posted elsewhere for the correct meanings.
"Who are you to know how old every fantasy character is, especially ones that don't even look human?"
Oh, come on! When a character is drawn to look like a three year old or a five year old, am I to think he's really a Teamster or a steveadore? Pull the other one.
"And it wouldn't matter if I drew a picture of a baby being fucked by a giant dildo. Would it make me a pedophile? no."
Yes.
"Would it make me want to go out and rape an actual baby? no."
Well, I would certainly hope not.
"pedophiles grow up to be what they are. No one turned around one day after looking at cub porn and decided to rape em some chilldrens."
Actually, pschologists have a different thought on that, though they admit their research is not as complete as they would like.
"I don't see what fantasy characters have to do with real children anyway. Real children are whiny little snots who are a bitch to take care of, cubs are furry little gobs of hotness that I'd choose anyday and forever over a stupid kid."
Then you've got more problems than you realize.
then they should stop producing Saw movies and horror movies because their sole purpose is to excite people with gore.
\
I'm sorry, but you want to draw reality into my fantasy and this is not a Reeses commercial, so i'm not going to fuckin have it.
If you want child porn to have real percussions then just look at all the pedos in jail. COOL.
but don't get on someones case for drawing a fucking picture.
well id say stuff that contains the real person from real life in one then it draws the line but loli is no different either but this isnt a topic of lili but it can fall into the sub-catagory of underage porn pic or such.
"then they should stop producing Saw movies and horror movies because their sole purpose is to excite people with gore."
I would agree with SAW being axed as, so far as I can tell, it has no real purpose except as you say to excite people with gore. I would disagree with horror films in general, as there's usually more to a story than just the horror or the shock.
"I'm sorry, but you want to draw reality into my fantasy and this is not a Reeses commercial, so i'm not going to fuckin have it."
And I'm sorry that your need for child pornography outweighs any common sense or decency.
"If you want child porn to have real percussions then just look at all the pedos in jail. COOL.
but don't get on someones case for drawing a fucking picture"
It's REPERCUSSIONS, not PERCUSSIONS. And I remind you that even drawing child pornography is an arrestable offense.
chuck has gained the opposite name of norris because of how he thinks XD. he is the anti chuck norris of life.
ok we offically know that you chuck melvile are stupid and cant think in terms of reality.
well now that we have summed all this up, those in favor of showing no mercy when dealing with chuck and his views on a personalized level reply with. I DO.
Direct insults now. Well, I'm not the one hiding behind an Anonymous tag, am I?
do i really care i am not making an account to bluntly argue with someone who is so disturbed mentally as to call things stuff using words he doesn't understand and then justify saying - im right u do not like but i dont care bullshit.
Frankly, I'm having more difficulty understanding half of your posts than with anything else.
I know exactly and precisely what I'm saying. There's no mistake being made in my choice of words.
in your sadly warped mind yes you would think that but i see the world as it is not as i want it to be even though i want a better world for my future children, is it therefore within grasp maybe maybe not ill just have to think it out. hows that for logical you may not like peoples likes and or dislikes but when you try and think something is what it isn't then you really have a problem.
...how is the world a better place for your children, with the continuance of child pornography!?
cub isn't child, child is human, cub is anthropomorphic animal, there is a major difference "you" may not see it but there is. if u don't like don't look stays the same get a life u abhorrent idiot
They aren't even an anthro animal at that point.
I personally view all "furries" as alien creations, OH GOS, BAN ALIEN PORN EVERYONE.
lol :p
good thought, that really whats the real words behind things humans just like to fuck the world up don't they. making words mean nothing then change it into something rly wtf.
are u high?
go back to bed dude. Your spouting nonsense now...
A cub is an anthropomorphic representation of a child. It's a thin veneer over the truth. When 'cub porn' is presented, we all know what it really is: a way to get off on child pornography without it looking like anyone is getting off on child pornography.
It's called, 'kidding yourself'.
> This argument, which was already made earlier, is spurious. The horror created by King -- and other writers -- have repercussions within the stories. 'Cub porn', like all forms of pornography, has no repercussions within its material. Nothing shows the horror of what happens to the child as a result of his sexual encounters. The one is not equal to the other.
Ever watched "Dexter"?
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Seriously? Dexter is going to be your defense!?
I've never watched the show -- I don't get cable.
But a quick glance through episode synopses pretty much back up what I've said about repercussions following each act of murder, even those by Dexter himself. Dexter himself hasn't been caught thus far, but if he was, that would be the end of the series, so they're not going to resolve that just yet. But I see where his existence and his 'methods' of crime-fighting seem to create an unending chain of horror entangling his friends and family.
So? Every episode where Dexter kills someone and doesn't get caught is a refutation of your proposition that ALL acts of violence in media show negative consequences for the perpetrator.
And your categorizing it as my "defense" is erroneous--I was not defending any statement that I had made, but attempting to refute YOURS.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
"Every episode where Dexter kills someone and doesn't get caught is a refutation of your proposition that ALL acts of violence in media show negative consequences for the perpetrator."
I don't see how. Getting caught isn't the only means by which he would suffer negative consequences for his actions. From what I can gleam from skimming through the synopses, several of his friends and associates have been killed by hands other than his as a result of events he had put in motion, including, apparently, his wife. Those are some pretty negative consequences.
Oh, and for the record? "I'm not going to bother to check your statement by viewing the videos to which you refer, I'm just going to say you're wrong because I believe it to be so" is a REALLY terrible attempt at logic.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
It probably would have been had I actually ever said it. I didn't.
why should he have to suffer negative consequences when its just a fantasy show? Fantasy allows us to portray things in a more entertaining light without dragging reality into the picture, why would I want to portray something JUST because its how it would ACTUALLY if its not going to do any harm if I dont??
so yeah, no more imaginations then right?
we should pollute all fantasy with real world shit right?
It's the perp or the victim in the story who suffers the consequences, not the reader. And what you're saying sounds pretty much like a declaration of "Oh, I just want to enjoy my vice without consequences!" Meaning consequences to him, not to the characters in the story or the image.
Gosh, wouldn't that just be dandy if we could live a life experiencing vicarious thrills by doing the most horrible things imaginable without having to worry about being arrested or shunned? If we could just rape, loot and murder at will?
I don't know about you, but when I read fantasies, I usually want to hang out with the heroes, not with the creepy villains.
>>The horror created by King -- and other writers -- have repercussions within the stories. 'Cub porn', like all forms of pornography, has no repercussions within its material. Nothing shows the horror of what happens to the child as a result of his sexual encounters.<<
really really ur gonna try an analogy on us read this before you reply. its fiction no matter what you say will make it real to actually have repercussions, even Stephen kings stories are the same "fake" so no repercussions either, so your argument has been voided. no matter what you think will it make a difference. you want to make it different then go appeal for it do not spout your nonsense here about how you do not like and then try and justify it.
If you're going to try arguing with me on a point, then you're going to have to do your homework. Yes, they're all fiction. That does not invalidate the point I made. Fiction is about conflict, repercussions and resolution. Nothing happens in fiction -- not even King's novels -- that doesn't have repercussions. The evil and horror in his stories do have repercussions. Read a few.
i have tons of his stories.
btw have you seen my library and its size, its most likely bigger than yours.
Then you must not have read them very comprehensively. And don't be so sure how big my library may or may not be until you've seen it. (And I see no reason to get into a pissing contest over the size of respective libraries as this is getting far afield of the topic.)
if you bring up a point be ready for a long winded explanation in full not as a partial, that's where things get physically warped (like you mind).
I don't mind you offering a long-winded explanation if you've got one -- so long as I can comprehend it when you've finished.
if u cannot read something then u shouldn't be replying even if the prson refused to write it how u want to see it or not there is such a thing as understanding things from their perspective and then understanding such if your unwilling to read as such then shut up turn off your computer watch some TV or something that isn't trying to argue with those who are able to understand the viewpoints of others and not bash, throw words that don't mean what they think it means or is just incomplete.
"Refused to write it how I want to see it"!?
All I want is to be able to comprehend it! You keep falling into text-pidgin, and dropping all caps, punctuation and intelligible sentence structure as you go! I want to see your arguments and counter-arguments, but for God's sake try writing like a high-school graduate at least! Make yourself understood! Don't be blaming me for your illiteracy!
then u really should learn to read as others would speak of such not as written text is not the voice but more so something u manualy have to do.
Believe me, if I was hearing this being spoken, I would be continually asking you to repeat yourself. Quit making excuses for bad communication.
>>The argument that 'it will never change' is the single worst argument I have ever heard for not taking opposition to offensible behaviors. Murder will never go away; yet police continue to enforce the laws. Graft will never vanish; yet legislation against it continues to be formed. Bad behavior in general, at whatever level, from political tyranny on down to illegal parking, is always going to happen... but to do nothing at all to oppose them is to allow inertia, entropy and cynicism to have their way.<<
there is a reason is hasn't disappeared, "stupid people" they keep committing these acts and thinking stupid reasons why they can and will do such. so really how can you justify a good enough reason, like some have said even you have said something that comes close to doing what we all are doing here, if your gonna agree might as well find all the facts before opening your mouth. if you can come up with a good enough argument then maybe you can make some of us think differently but till then your pointless actions will be for naught.
"Nothing shows the horror of what happens to the child as a result of his sexual encounters"
Because they are not REAL dumbass. I should have to make my FANTASY situations line up with ANYTHING have to do with the real world. You seem to want to make art more real.
If someone draws cub porn they should show how the cub went through mental horror after? I'm sorry, but now your trying to make fantasy situations seem real, and that sir, is where your fuckin up. Its a fantasy for a reason. Its the responsible thing to do.
Don't want to break the law or don't need to break the law? then we should be able to draw fucking PICTURES about it.
u sir have made a great comment here all praise be to logic and tolerance and all around knowledge on things, in an entirety anyways.
"Nothing shows the horror of what happens to the child as a result of his sexual encounters"
"Because they are not REAL dumbass."
No, because it's pornography. There's no intent to pornography beyond sexual stimulation and titillation.
"I should have to make my FANTASY situations line up with ANYTHING have to do with the real world. You seem to want to make art more real."
It doesn't matter if it's fantasy. Fantasy follows the same rules as all fiction: conflict, repercussion, resolution.
"If someone draws cub porn they should show how the cub went through mental horror after? I'm sorry, but now your trying to make fantasy situations seem real, and that sir, is where your fuckin up. Its a fantasy for a reason. Its the responsible thing to do."
There is nothing particularly responsible about pornography.
"Don't want to break the law or don't need to break the law? then we should be able to draw fucking PICTURES about it."
See my link to the Philadelphia law blog: even drawings of child pornography is illegal in the US.
Uuuh, dude, what about Saw movies then? Those have no repercussion for the main antagonist killing people and those movies were wildly popular.
BUT OH STOP THE PRESSES WE SHOULD SHOW HOW MUCH ANGUISH THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS WENT THROUGH IN A NEW SAW MOVIE OR ITS WRONG.
that is how dumb you sound.
no cause i hate the saw movies but don't go bitching about it like you are now. and truth be told thanks for verifying again that your a moron.
Please refrain from calling one another names. This isn't high school.
Can't really speak to them, as I haven't seen them, and I can't get enough of a gist of the stories from their synopses -- which is a bad sign in and of itself. On appearance, and what I can remember from the ads, they strike me as a horrid series of gore-porn and I wouldn't be the least bit affected if they were banned from public viewing. But as to their actual story content? I'm not sure there is any.
Someone finally speaks the truth!
Maybe after a few weeks , a story should go closed on commenting , or some forum or something should be used instead?
I think I'm going to have to agree here, this is starting to get ridiculous...
"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about." -- Stephen Hopkins, Rhode Island delegate to the Continental Congress (from the musical, 1776)
This issue isn't being talked about.
People on two sides of a large cliff are screaming at each other.
No one's coming to compromise. No one's building any bridges. No one's getting anywhere. As for your previous assertion that 'other people may be reading this', that's also false, because other people aren't even seeing this on Flayrah's front page anymore.
Though, Greenreaper may have more information on that.
And you're using a fictional quote to back up very real positions. Given the discussion here, I find that hilarious.
I'm not looking to build any bridges on this issue. I hold to my position.
True there might not be any new readers to this topic, but anyone who's posted previously -- and there are others who take the anti-pedo position, as can be seen by a complete read-through of the entire well of posts here -- get notified each time a new post has been entered.
As for my quote, regardless of the fact that it's source was a musical, given its historical source I don't know that the quote is fictional or not. (Historically, a lot of that musical is quite factual, right down to several of the quotes, regardless of the artifice of the story's construction for a two-hour presentation.)
u are talking to a majority who are most likely anti-pedo but just some like cub. i think that's everyone in here, until we could prove otherwise it will sound like accusatory claims on your part even.
"Anti-pedo but just like SOME 'cub'"?????
That's an awful lot like being just a 'little bit pregnant', isn't it?
Anybody who likes SOME pedo and claims to be anti-pedo is only fooling himself.
im anti pedo but am into cub porn which isnt the same thing things u think and are are really two different things stop trying to justify and come up with evidence on people who are one furries who have done the science to determine the realism to what u are trying to say.
If you're into 'cub porn', then you're not 'anti-pedo'. It's laughable that you think the two are somehow inexclusive.
u put that into itself, and your basically showing you don't know the difference, that means your stupid thanks for verifying that one.
I'm afraid that your own ignorance -- and denial -- speak for themselves.
hes into drawing or vieweing fantasy characters in sexual situations, not going out and fucking children.
How are you too dense to not be able to separate the two?
How do I know that? If he's into one, there's no reason to expect the other is not connected.
More to the point, he's a pedophile even if all he does is draw or view it. You don't have to actually molest someone in order to be a pedophile.
no stop having brain anurisims all over this thread start coming up with realistic things not what u have warped into delusional beliefs.
You, if anyone in this thread, have managed to convince me that I'm not the one being delusional.
...'anti-pedo' but likes 'cub porn' indeed...
try arguing in person if not ur trying to push while not wanting the pull but getting it and unwilling to see it from a person who knows better point of view. in person u will find that im not the kinda person u could match toes with. ur level would most likely be just that of an imbecile compared to mine so nice try but u really need to learn more before u argue like u know better.
All right, I didn't understand one word of that.
Are you trying to get me to throw in the towel by resorting to burbling so I won't understand you, get frustrated with the babble and give up!?
i am telling u too give up for now not forever and go back and school yourself on what your trying to point fingers at if yoyu didnt get the gist of what im trying to tell you then ou need to read again and again till it goes through that brain of yours that you cannot read perfectly on the understanding of others.
...hah!? What?