I've been thinking lately about how e621 remains as one of the last mainstream furry webpages that permits cub content.

Over the past decade, the number of places on the internet that cub content is able to be posted has dwindled.

Fur Affinity was one of the first to ban cub, over ten years ago now, after being shut out by payment processors.
Other furry gallery sites that were founded after FA's purge banned cub content right from day one.

Even some non-furry social media have cracked down on cub, notably including Reddit and Discord.
Tumblr banned all porn, including cub, and is now deserted.

As far as large furry sites that allow cub, it has essentially come down to e621 and Inkbunny (and Twitter as far as general social media, ironically)

Inkbunny will likely never ban cub for as long as it remains solvent, due to the majority of users there being cub creators and consumers.

e621, however, seems to have more exposure to external pressure on this issue.

e6 has significant user overlap with internet spaces actively seek out 'problematic' fictional content to shun, and insist that any such fictional content must be censored.

As the anti-cub segment of the furry community grows in size and influence, it seems a reasonable question to pose of how much longer e6 can withstand the financial and reputational risk that comes with this content.

I think it's worth noting however that the fact that e6 has made it this far without succumbing to external pressure is mostly attributable to the steadfast philosophical stance of site administration and active contributors, something I doubt will change much anytime soon.

NotMeNotYou said:
And yes, Varka has literally stated that we (e621) will stay the black sheep of his furry empire until we're forced to change by actual laws.

Gonna take more than pressure for anything on this site to change.

Most websites had to fold because they relied on supporters (such as people who throw ads their way) that refused to support if you hosted such content. E621 is owned by Dragonfruit, who sells Bad Dragon dildos, so they won't have to worry about suddenly losing that financial support.

acidph said:
As far as large furry sites that allow cub, it has essentially come down to e621 and Inkbunny (and Twitter as far as general social media, ironically)

Don't forget about Pixiv.

e6 has significant user overlap with internet spaces actively seek out 'problematic' fictional content to shun, and insist that any such fictional content must be censored.

As the anti-cub segment of the furry community grows in size and influence, it seems a reasonable question to pose of how much longer e6 can withstand the financial and reputational risk that comes with this content.

I think it's worth noting however that the fact that e6 has made it this far without succumbing to external pressure is mostly attributable to the steadfast philosophical stance of site administration and active contributors, something I doubt will change much anytime soon.

The most we have done in terms of appeasement is by enforcing a mandatory blacklist for all guests visiting the site.
If they were to complain more about it after making an account, then we would shove the blacklist into their faces once more.

Since e621 is being hosted by Dragonfruit LLC (a subsidiary of Bad Dragon), most of the financing comes in the form of ad revenue (so turn off your AdBlock, people).
Varka has remained steadfast about maintaining such content as long as the law allows it and that the community does not make it a liability to host the website, unlike the case with Herpy.net (see topic #24548).

Nods. Unless Arizona changes against their stance against cub porn, then we'll have to blacklist it.

Interesting, a fun read

alexyorim said:
Nods. Unless Arizona changes against their stance against cub porn, then we'll have to blacklist it.

It would have to be a federal law. State law won't cut it.

lonelylupine said:
It would have to be a federal law. State law won't cut it.

Virtual child pornography was deemed protected under the First Amendment by Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

However, under the PROTECT Act of 2003 & 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, it reaffirms that it is "illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene."

Expanding on the previous ruling that while the law does not make virtual porn illegal, it can be considered illegal under the United States obscenity law (which determines when free speech is no longer protected by the First Amendment) as tested by the Miller standard, which in on itself has been challenged for being pretty vague and becoming a giant grey area when applied to the Internet (e.g., What constitutes as an "average person" on the Internet?).

In conclusion though, it mostly doesn't matter anyway in the context of cub since the law only concerns that of sexual depictions involving human minors.
There is virtually no law in regards to "cub pornography", but it may still fall under general obscenity law for any kind of porn.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Virtual child pornography was deemed protected under the First Amendment by Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

However, under the PROTECT Act of 2003 & 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, it reaffirms that it is "illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene."

Expanding on the previous ruling that while the law does not make virtual porn illegal, it can be considered illegal under the United States obscenity law (which determines when free speech is no longer protected by the First Amendment) as tested by the Miller standard, which in on itself has been challenged for being pretty vague and becoming a giant grey area when applied to the Internet (e.g., What constitutes as an "average person" on the Internet?).

In conclusion though, it mostly doesn't matter anyway in the context of cub since the law only concerns that of sexual depictions involving human minors.
There is virtually no law in regards to "cub pornography", but it may still fall under general obscenity law for any kind of porn.

I doubt the states is going to do crap about cub content considering they still let you fuck your dog in to many states. There is a list of priorities, and if they're going to bane drawings of cubs they need to deal with Cletus fucking his farm in Wyoming first.

Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

It may seem morally wrong to a lot of people, but legally it is not unless someone's actions have resulted in the harming or exploitation of real people.
The logic you have given can be equally applied to people who like violence, vore, gore, forced/rape, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.

Taking interest in artworks of them is not a crime, committing the act itself in real life is. Know the difference.

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

I always find it weird that folks say this; folks would get pics of their character, often anthro, boning some dog or some such. Never really hear folks go on about bestiality. But I guess folks will go the Tumbler route and try to get things they don't like removed because they want it gone.

acidph said:
Tumblr banned all porn, including cub, and is now deserted.

Lolno, people still use Tumblr.

Also this site will be fine, you always have those preturds saying that the stuff shouldn't be allowed because it's "gross" to them even though it hurts nobody.

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

People with paraphillias (the shit like MAPs/pedos and open Zoos that are proud of their phillias instead of being stressed by them and getting the help they need, that is) who proclaim they love having a paraphillia and/or go hurting kids/animals have had problems from the start, they aren't influenced by art. The people that insist that is the case are loons, since as far as I know of myself, I don't have zoo/pedophillia, and drawing a single thing doesn't mean you have or will do the thing. The one instance of me drawing cub doesn't mean I wanna screw a minor irl. Fiction does not equal reality and it's up to yourself to keep it that way.
I've had tumblrtards come after me for drawing feral and (one pic of so far) cub art and stalked me for a year to the point they damaged my mental health, and I took refuge in IB where I'll be fine there, never backed down, so I don't see why E6 should bend over backwards for you sorts of people either, it's just annoying and stressful. You have a blacklist on the site, use it, or go away. :U

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

Obviously not to the people who like cub porn.

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

Hopefully this place succumbs to outside pressures and bans it too. :)

zoness said:
Hopefully this place succumbs to outside pressures and bans it too. :)

please use your blacklist

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

Imagining sex is somehow worse than imagining murder or watching pretend murder?
If it were real, would you rather be raped or killed?

zoness said:
Hopefully this place succumbs to outside pressures and bans it too. :)

🎶🎵Blacklist is the best friend that will ever be🎵🎶
🎶🎵He'll keep you from seeing things that you don't want to see🎵🎶
🎶🎵When there's stuff that makes you frown🎵🎶
🎶🎵Blacklist won't let you down!🎵🎶
🎶🎵Just tell him the tags you hate and you'll be freeeeeeee🎵🎶

He doesn't forgive, he does not forget. His group has over 9000 penises.

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

There are so many disgusting things that are represented in fiction, but everyone focuses on this one, and the most strenuous objectors always turn out to be the ones who are actually screwing the minors.

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

There are several assumptions made with this post. And you know what they say about assumptions....

The world would be very different place if people applied this logic to everything and not just when something was particularly offensive or disgusting to them personally.

lonelylupine said:
There are so many disgusting things that are represented in fiction, but everyone focuses on this one, and the most strenuous objectors always turn out to be the ones who are actually screwing the minors.

Agreed.

lonelylupine said:
There are so many disgusting things that are represented in fiction, but everyone focuses on this one, and the most strenuous objectors always turn out to be the ones who are actually screwing the minors.

Yup, happened more times than I could count in fact.

alexyorim said:
Nods. Unless Arizona changes against their stance against cub porn, then we'll have to blacklist it.

Geoblock them? The way nexus is starting to work now, people make jokes about insulting Kim and getting dragged off to a North Korea court. Hyperbole but such a law might not even be allowed, anyways.

"insist that any such fictional content must be censored." Hand-holding (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hand-holding LOL), no black bars over (parts of) genitals in JP, nipples in US, flat chests/small breasts in AU, furry in general, non-fanon pairings (Anticrack/B*d aka Be Sure to Actual Read), I see you!), take your pick of Things Someone Hates.

The thing about cub not being human, anyways is funny. There's a reason that many sites blocked photo-realistic 3D stuff.

Tumblr is like Myspace, now. That hilarious story where they sold it for fractions of a cent (on the dollar).

I think trying to ban it from e621 would go... poorly. It would basically be the beginning of the end. Discord has kind of always sucked, but is popular enough so they went all Soccor Mom.

lonelylupine said:
There are so many disgusting things that are represented in fiction, but everyone focuses on this one, and the most strenuous objectors always turn out to be the ones who are actually screwing the minors.

Haha, yeah, the real criminals like to project that everyone else is doing what they would do if they could/are getting away with it. I don't even have to mention a certain island resort, to get that point across. See also, the cold war. TBF, both sides had legitimate concerns that were largely mirrored.

acidph said:
I've been thinking lately about how e621 remains as one of the last mainstream furry webpages that permits cub content.

Over the past decade, the number of places on the internet that cub content is able to be posted has dwindled.

Fur Affinity was one of the first to ban cub, over ten years ago now, after being shut out by payment processors.
Other furry gallery sites that were founded after FA's purge banned cub content right from day one.

Even some non-furry social media have cracked down on cub, notably including Reddit and Discord.
Tumblr banned all porn, including cub, and is now deserted.

As far as large furry sites that allow cub, it has essentially come down to e621 and Inkbunny (and Twitter as far as general social media, ironically)

Inkbunny will likely never ban cub for as long as it remains solvent, due to the majority of users there being cub creators and consumers.

e621, however, seems to have more exposure to external pressure on this issue.

e6 has significant user overlap with internet spaces actively seek out 'problematic' fictional content to shun, and insist that any such fictional content must be censored.

As the anti-cub segment of the furry community grows in size and influence, it seems a reasonable question to pose of how much longer e6 can withstand the financial and reputational risk that comes with this content.

I think it's worth noting however that the fact that e6 has made it this far without succumbing to external pressure is mostly attributable to the steadfast philosophical stance of site administration and active contributors, something I doubt will change much anytime soon.

Hell yeah I support removing all child porn and anything that supports a pedophile's fantasies

scalielover21 said:
Hell yeah I support removing all child porn and anything that supports a pedophile's fantasies

Then you must also support the removal of anything featuring violence, injuries, or death. Same argument holds.
Fiction is fiction. If you don't like it, blacklist it and ignore it, nothing here supports the actual occurrence in reality, and any users voicing their support will be dealt with.

scalielover21 said:
Hell yeah I support removing all child porn and anything that supports a pedophile's fantasies

Hell yeah I support removing all furry porn and anything that supports a zoophile's fantasies

Note: Sarcasm

scalielover21 said:
Hell yeah I support removing all child porn and anything that supports a pedophile's fantasies

Hell yeah I support removing all violent games and anything that supports a serial killer's fantasies.

scalielover21 said:
Hell yeah I support removing all child porn and anything that supports a pedophile's fantasies

Good idea.

Make him take it out on real kids.

That makes you the real hero.

furrin_gok said:
If you don't like it, blacklist it and ignore it

"ignore pedophillia"

lonelylupine said:
Good idea.

Make him take it out on real kids.

That makes you the real hero.

1. so only men can be pedos?
2. sex doesn't just magically appear in the abscence of masturbation, if that's the case then you should delete your own account so it will magically make you get laid.

votp said:
Hell yeah I support removing all violent games and anything that supports a serial killer's fantasies.

not everyone who plays video games is a serial killer, but anyone who masturbates to child porn of any kind is a pedophile. Also, video games are not equal to pedophillia.

alphamule said:
Hell yeah I support removing all furry porn and anything that supports a zoophile's fantasies

Note: Sarcasm

Hell yeah, if it can't consent don't take out your dicc!

furrin_gok said:
Then you must also support the removal of anything featuring violence, injuries, or death. Same argument holds.
Fiction is fiction. If you don't like it, blacklist it and ignore it, nothing here supports the actual occurrence in reality, and any users voicing their support will be dealt with.

giving a space for pedophiles is okay because there are also other bad people here? TIL

pheagleadler said:
Quite frankly I don't know why anyone supports this stuff, it's disgusting to even imagine yourself screwing a minor.

A healthy way to think!

thegreatwolfgang said:
It may seem morally wrong to a lot of people, but legally it is not unless someone's actions have resulted in the harming or exploitation of real people.
The logic you have given can be equally applied to people who like violence, vore, gore, forced/rape, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.

Taking interest in artworks of them is not a crime, committing the act itself in real life is. Know the difference.

"guys guys guys anything that's legal is okay to do, like child porn or conversion therapy, because they are not illegal! it isn't wrong to tell people they are demons for being gay because the law allows it! I just appreciate the art of it!"

jayfiregrowlithe said:
I've had tumblrtards come after me for drawing feral and (one pic of so far) cub art and stalked me for a year to the point they damaged my mental health, and I took refuge in IB where I'll be fine there, never backed down, so I don't see why E6 should bend over backwards for you sorts of people either, it's just annoying and stressful. You have a blacklist on the site, use it, or go away. :U

*makes art sexualizing children*
"why do people not like me"
Seriously, stalking people is bad, sexualizing kids is bad. Both are bad. One does not make the other okay. Also "um just ignore it" moment

strikerman said:
please use your blacklist

"just ignore it bro" yeah bro it's not immoral or wrong just ignore it

aobird said:
Imagining sex is somehow worse than imagining murder or watching pretend murder?
If it were real, would you rather be raped or killed?

"RAPE ISN'T BAD BECAUSE [other thing] WORSE??!?!?! SO SHUT UP AND IGNORE?!??!"
They are both bad. :)

uwuthewolf said:
🎶🎵Blacklist is the best friend that will ever be🎵🎶
🎶🎵He'll keep you from seeing things that you don't want to see🎵🎶
🎶🎵When there's stuff that makes you frown🎵🎶
🎶🎵Blacklist won't let you down!🎵🎶
🎶🎵Just tell him the tags you hate and you'll be freeeeeeee🎵🎶

"just ignore it bro there is nothing wrong with me getting off to touching kiddos"

popoto said:
There are several assumptions made with this post. And you know what they say about assumptions....

The world would be very different place if people applied this logic to everything and not just when something was particularly offensive or disgusting to them personally.
Agreed.

not just disgusting to me, but to any human with a healthy brain. :)

OK, which one of you linked this thread on Twitter?

wat8548 said:
OK, which one of you linked this thread on Twitter?

LOL, wat. (Not a typo, obviously but already had some major swooshing going on in this thread)

A person with Scaly in their name... Wall-o-text replies. And mad because I pointed out that they're barking up the wrong tree. Yes, I'd say someone's Karen too much about fictional characters. For lulz, here's link, but beware: I felt like I lost 20 IQ points for a week, just seeing it. https://web.archive.org/web/20200705234207/http://besuretoactuallyread.tumblr.com/ And yes, it reads mostly the same, with the same kind of reasoning in same type of wording and walls of text. https://art-theft.tumblr.com/post/138684431313/tumblr-user-stealing-pmmm-fanart-from-pixiv An infamous post to another infamous post, in the #e-hentai channel on Rizon IRC.

furrin_gok said:
Most websites had to fold because they relied on supporters (such as people who throw ads their way) that refused to support if you hosted such content. E621 is owned by Dragonfruit, who sells Bad Dragon dildos, so they won't have to worry about suddenly losing that financial support.

Makes you wonder why they folded when it came to a certain Zootopia image that ruffled some feathers a few years ago, though. I dunno how you can have been around for that and not think anything is possible. I think everyone here grossly underestimates just how much e621 has trended towards a more family friendly dumpster fire of a porn site. There are all these new rules being crafted at the drop of a hat over any hot-button issue that people are shouting about. The lines used to be clear when it came to what was allowed and what is not, but now it's pretty arbitrary.

Of course, this was for something much less endemic to e621 than the subject of this thread. But you gotta start somewhere. Don't mistake my intent though. All of that is just an observation, not an argument for or against it. Removal of cub stuff is the last hill I'd ever be willing to die on.

Everyone saying it isn't worth any further thought than video games should reevaluate their stances or at least use better comparisons. Consider how many people maintain that furries "made them gay (or bi)"- whether that means changing their sexuality or if it actually just awakened something already within them, the fact remains that they likely would not have consciously been into dudes otherwise. And to cover all my bases- No, I do not consider it a bad thing that furries had that effect on people when it comes to gay or bisexual awakenings or whatever you wish to call them, nor am I equating liking cub to being gay, or anything like that. Disclaimer added in case someone on twitter is actually here. I am just comparing it because it's a widely known phenomenon that many of us *cough* have firsthand appearance with: someone goes from not being attracted to their own gender at all, to saying they're gay for furries, to becoming openly gay or bi in real life.

Just think. If art can have such a profound effect on the development of someone's sexual interests... well, I'm not making any claim with absolute self-certainty, I just think it's silly how easily that stance was brushed aside. I do not think it's such a laughable, outlandish concept that a similar effect could appear with cub art.

fenrick said:
Just think. If art can have such a profound effect on the development of someone's sexual interests... well, I'm not making any claim with absolute self-certainty, I just think it's silly how easily that stance was brushed aside. I do not think it's such a laughable, outlandish concept that a similar effect could appear with cub art.

Ugg...no it isn't? It's a horrible line of thinking and acting like this some magical thing to change someone's mindset is such a stretch that Mr. Fantastic will be jealous of this. It's akin to folks in the '80s and '90s saying video games will make kids numb to violence and shoot up schools because of them. Folks was/were hiding the fact they liked the same gender, looking at art didn't magically make some straight guy gay or bi. The feelings was there, they'd ware using art to get used to and come to terms with themselves. Not sure why you'd think the two is linked in anyway.

It's akin to folks in the '80s and '90s saying video games will make kids numb to violence and shoot up schools because of them.

Here's why I say that comparison misses the mark. People do not shoot people in video games for the same reason they shoot people in real life. The impulse is not even remotely similar. By contrast, if someone jerks off to something... odds are they're attracted to what it represents. The same impulse is there.

When someone looks at porn of a sexy anthro fox girl, it is a safe assumption that they'd be down to fuck a sexy anthro fox girl (if they were real). They're probably thinking about how much they actually want to fuck her, what that would feel like, etc.
Is it guaranteed that people project themselves onto this scenario or have such fantasies? No, but it is pretty common.

When someone kills a sexy anthro fox girl in a video game, it is a safe assumption that they would not be down to kill a sexy anthro fox girl (if they were real). They're probably not thinking about how much they actually want to kill her, what that would feel like, etc.
Is it guaranteed that people don't project themselves onto this scenario or have such fantasies? No, but it is pretty rare. Much less likely than the other scenario. There are definitely weirdos out there who play video games for the sake of their weird fantasies, look at the Wehraboo takeover of RTS games. But I would say it is so much less common that this comparison is barking up the wrong tree.

Games are played to have fun, to overcome a challenge, and so on.
Actual, real-life killing is to eliminate them from existence, spread terror, and so on.
Porn is viewed for sexual gratification.
Actual, real-life sex has the exact same incentive for most people.
You look at sexual images of something, you're probably at least somewhat attracted to the prospect of banging it. You kill something in a game, you're probably not actually attracted to the prospect of killing it. That's what I assume for most people, at least.

the_shinx said:
Folks was/were hiding the fact they liked the same gender, looking at art didn't magically make some straight guy gay or bi.

That's quite an assumption. Why would they lie about that? It makes absolutely no sense. They're already admitting to being gay. What do they have to gain by twisting it like that? Staying in Schrodinger's closet?

scalielover21 said:
2. sex doesn't just magically appear in the abscence of masturbation, if that's the case then you should delete your own account so it will magically make you get laid.

not everyone who plays video games is a serial killer, but anyone who masturbates to child porn of any kind is a pedophile. Also, video games are not equal to pedophillia.

That's hypocritical. Either everybody who kills in video games is a murderer, or people who enjoy cub art are not criminals. You can't say fictional artwork is reality and not reality in the same sentence.

fenrick said:
Just think. If art can have such a profound effect on the development of someone's sexual interests... well, I'm not making any claim with absolute self-certainty, I just think it's silly how easily that stance was brushed aside. I do not think it's such a laughable, outlandish concept that a similar effect could appear with cub art.

For development of sexual orientation, the "sexual pleasure from the use of sexual toys, homoerotic images, or kinky fetishes does not necessarily correspond to a specific orientation, sexual label, or mean someone’s desire will alter or convert to another type because of the activity" (Kottak & Kozaitis, 2012, as cited by Payne, 2020 ).

For the development of sexual interest, that depends on what you believe cub art to be and their implications. Is cub/loli/young art akin to virtual child porn? Does engaging in such content lead to real-life sexual offences?
A study looking into lolis states that "there is no evidence to support the claim that the existence of lolicon, or engagement with such content, encourages “cognitive distortions” or criminal acts" (Gilbraith, 2011 ).
In addition, when looking at sexual fantasies and sexual offending, "the relationship between sexual fantasizing and sexual offending is not direct but rather moderated by three facilitatory factors: (1) physiological reaction, (2) personality profile, and (3) offense-supportive beliefs" (Rossegger et al., 2021 ).

thegreatwolfgang said:
For development of sexual orientation, the "sexual pleasure from the use of sexual toys, homoerotic images, or kinky fetishes does not necessarily correspond to a specific orientation, sexual label, or mean someone’s desire will alter or convert to another type because of the activity." (Kottak & Kozaitis, 2012, as cited by Payne, 2020 ).

For the development of sexual interest, that depends on what you believe cub art to be and their implications. Is cub/loli/young art akin to virtual child porn? Does engaging in such content lead to real-life sexual offences?
A study looking into lolis states that "there is no evidence to support the claim that the existence of lolicon, or engagement with such content, encourages “cognitive distortions” or criminal acts" (Gilbraith, 2011 ).
In addition, when looking at sexual fantasies and sexual offending, "the relationship between sexual fantasizing and sexual offending is not direct but rather moderated by three facilitatory factors: (1) physiological reaction, (2) personality profile, and (3) offense-supportive beliefs." (Rossegger et al., 2021 ).

I'll just be upfront and say that I don't think my mind is going to be changed as far as whether it's right or wrong. But this is at least a better case than a dubious comparison.

Honestly though I'd be in favor of e621 having all sorts of things that personally offend me unless they can be definitively linked to actual real-world danger. (I'm making a thinly-veiled reference to certain other kinds of content that got the boot for no apparent reason that I argued about back in the day).

fenrick said:
I'll just be upfront and say that I don't think my mind is going to be changed as far as whether it's right or wrong. But this is at least a better case than a dubious comparison.

Honestly though I'd be in favor of e621 having all sorts of things that personally offend me unless they can be definitively linked to actual real-world danger. (I'm making a thinly-veiled reference to certain other kinds of content that got the boot for no apparent reason that I argued about back in the day).

It is completely alright to feel morally wrong about these types of content, such as being disgusted by seeing rape, overtly gory posts, death, and even just young art in general. That feeling is natural and rightfully so because of how culture forms our values and beliefs.
Nobody is forcing you to accept their beliefs and you can always blacklist or avoid watching content you don't like to see.

However, equating interest in fictional artworks to committing real-life crimes is a bad path to go into. Just like saying violent video games would promote real-life violence, or that watching rape films would make you a real-life rapist.
I'm not saying that there is zero influence of porn on real-life behaviours (as mentioned that the effect is indirect and that personality and offense-supportive beliefs are bigger factors).
The important thing is to understand that it is fiction, and that the person consuming it knows that it is not the same as reality.

fenrick said:
I already rejected that argument so why are you still using it? I'll explain why it's bad though. The comparison misses the mark. People do not shoot people in video games for the same reason they shoot people in real life. The impulse is not even remotely similar. By contrast, if someone jerks off to something... odds are they're attracted to what it represents.

No, plenty of people jerk off to fictitious things that they would never be attracted to IRL. There are straight guys that like male furry art but aren't attracted to real-life guys, there are people who like feral art that aren't attracted to real ferals, there are people who like cub art that aren't attracted to real cubs/young people, there are people who like vore art that wouldn't want to actually eat or be eaten by someone else, there are people who like gore art that can't stand real life gore, etc. Moreover, even if a given person happens to be so attracted, jerking off to fictitious depictions doesn't inherently mean they want to do it IRL. People do actually know it's a bad thing to do because it would harm someone and they don't want to cause harm.

fenrick said:
When someone looks at porn of a sexy anthro fox girl, it is a safe assumption that they'd be down to fuck a sexy anthro fox girl (if they were real). They're probably thinking about how much they actually want to fuck her, what that would feel like, etc.
Is it guaranteed that people project themselves onto it or have such fantasies? No, but it is pretty common.

You just countered your own argument. No, not everyone projects themselves into their fantasies. Nor does everyone fantasize about what they jerk off to. Someone sees something that gets them aroused, they then take care of the arousal. Someone recognizes that a particular kind of art tends to make them aroused, they may more readily look for that kind of art in the future. That doesn't mean they start fantasizing about doing it IRL.

fenrick said:
When someone kills a sexy anthro fox girl in a video game, it is a safe assumption that they would not be down to kill a sexy anthro fox girl (if they were real).

Now you're contradicting yourself. People jerk off to fictional anthro fox girls because they want to fuck them, but people kill fictional anthro fox girls not because they want to kill them. So which is it? If someone engages with fiction, is it something they really want to do IRL or not? spoiler: no, it's more complicated and nuanced than that.

fenrick said:
That's quite an assumption. Why would they lie about that? It makes absolutely no sense. They're already admitting to being gay. What do they have to gain by twisting it like that? Staying in Schrodinger's closet?

They didn't admit to being gay. That's the point. They're talking about how people tend to claim to be straight when there's a social stigma against being not-straight, so when being not-straight becomes less stigmatized, more people will openly admit to being not-straight, which can make it seem like accepting non-heterosexual orientations "causes" more people to become non-straight.

In the same way, accepting cub art may seem like it causes more people to like cub, but that's a fallacious view; correlation is not causation. People are predisposed to liking and not liking certain things, and being exposed to those things can make them realize it (while being in a community accepting of it allows them to be more open about it), but the art itself didn't make them like it.

scalielover21 said:
not everyone who plays video games is a serial killer, but anyone who masturbates to child porn of any kind is a pedophile.

I'm really not convinced that people who jerk off to cub porn are all pedophiles. See this quote from another forum #320077

Stellers Jay said:
I have a theory that at a young age I was exposed to the Japanese kemono aesthetic and unfortunately that has a lot of overlap with cub content. It was more about the look of it, that "cute" aesthetic, and I honest to God thought it was miniature adults. If it was explicitly or intended to be minors then all bets were off.

Yet throughout all of this, I never experienced any real-life pedophilia.

That seems to be at least one anecdotal counter-example. I'm not sure if objectively determining what percentage of cub viewers are actual pedos is possible though.

I think what really bugs me about these complaints about cub porn is the assumption that porn viewers are going to act out the porn they view IRL. I view plenty of feral porn. I don't fuck my dogs. The people viewing porn are old enough to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Especially when cub porn is SO CLEARLY marked as fantasy--cubs look and behave nothing like real children in the slightest.

scalielover21 said:
Hell yeah I support removing all child porn and anything that supports a pedophile's fantasies

Part of me has to wonder... if we made loli/shota/cub as risky to obtain as real cp, that would obviously decrease the amount of people viewing loli/shota/cub, but wouldn't a subset of those who are actual pedos just switch to real cp in response? That sounds quite bad to me.

scalielover21 said:
not just disgusting to me, but to any human with a healthy brain. :)

The sign is a subtle joke. The shop is called "Sneed's Feed & Seed", where "feed" and "seed" both end in the sound "-eed", thus rhyming with the name of the owner, Sneed. The sign says that the shop was "Formerly Chuck's", implying that the two words beginning with "F" and "S" would have ended with "-uck", rhyming with "Chuck". So, when Chuck owned the shop, it would have been called "Chuck's Feeduck and Seeduck".

"Disclaimer added in case someone on twitter is actually here." F*** Twitter. You're trying to appeal to fools and charlatans. I don't debate with our cats, either. It just confuses and frustrates everyone. (Old joke about cats?)

"You can't say fictional artwork is reality and not reality in the same sentence." Just did? :P

So, instead of wasting our time with analogies, just quote this, instead? "This is intended to reduce or eliminate the complaints that users make about seeing a certain type of content on the site. If a user chooses, or refuses, to utilize the blacklist, but continues to complain about content they find offensive or unsatisfactory, then this rule may be enforced. Additionally, if a user finds a post that is incorrectly tagged and willingly chooses to complain about seeing it instead of placing the correct tag, this rule may also be enforced then." https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1638#blacklist Seriously, isn't arguing for banning legal content similar in spirit to reasoning behind this rule? Comes a point where these threads get locked for trolling. Sigh...

scalielover21 said:
Dumb sperging

ViDeO gAmEs CaUsE vIoLeNcE.

Same argument, different subject. You remind me of those exact twitter/tumblr tards.
I'm gonna go draw some cub art now, spite is a powerful motivator, they say. :P

crocogator said:
The people viewing porn are old enough to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

You have a little too much faith in the "Are you over 18?" button.

Especially when cub porn is SO CLEARLY marked as fantasy--cubs look and behave nothing like real children in the slightest.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case with some of the art I've stumbled across on this site. Personally, I don't blacklist the cub tag, because some people apply the tag to any image with a character who's just short or flat-chested, and I'd rather just ignore art I don't like than risk missing a good pic of a smol kobold or something like that. I also don't subscribe to the idea that everyone who looks at cub art is a paedo - the front page of Pornhub is full of incest videos, but I would hope that the majority of people don't actually want to fuck their family. HOWEVER, there is definitely plenty of art on this website that does make me concerned about the person who drew it. You get images where the artist has written dialogue where the cub says disturbing things like "you made my thingy feel funny" - for me, art like that crosses the line between sexualising an underage looking character (fantasy) and sexualising children in general (reality).