Furry Fandom and Drama General

Minors definitely shouldn't belong in the greater "fandom", sites and chats that make it easy for them to get into degenerate roleplay or look at unprotected pornographic content. But it'd also be kinda sad to take what is just "funny animal characters" to a lot of kids and teens away from them because of some shady people. It's on us, the elders, to give them spaces where they can still be creative and form relationships, but also know that they have someone they can turn to when someone's making weird advances at them. And also how to spot such advances. In the end, seeing that this concept of "furries" is so broad, and so ingrained into our culture (fairy tales, pagan gods, folklore, animation, comics...), I just don't think it's possible to keep them away entirely.
Anthro =/= furry just as being gay =/= supporting LGBT community. Anthros are a type of character. Furry is a community, a lifestyle choice, etc. Being gay is something you're born as, the LGBT community is something you can choose to not participate and support, regardless of being gay. Anthros like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are things children/teens can enjoy (and if they get thirsty for said characters, they can find porn, fine), but adults who groom children/teens expose them to porn that's either 1. Not related to those characters or 2. Are related to those characters but the minor never asked to see porn in the first place (showing them porn is illegal in some states regardless, and it becomes a felony the more you send because it's considered grooming/trying to desensitize a minor).
 
If they're going to develop fetishes from some childhood media, that's going to happen on its own, but it's absolutely unacceptable to let adults recruit kids into this lifestyle. And that's almost invariably what happens because there is absolutely nothing resembling self-policing in these groups.
Oh but they'll sure cancel any "transphobe" or "nazi" they come across while letting the legit kid diddlers and pink pillers get away scot free having groomed another generation of degenerates. It's gross how messed up their priorities are.
 
Anthro =/= furry just as being gay =/= supporting LGBT community. Anthros are a type of character. Furry is a community, a lifestyle choice, etc. Being gay is something you're born as, the LGBT community is something you can choose to not participate and support, regardless of being gay. Anthros like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are things children/teens can enjoy (and if they get thirsty for said characters, they can find porn, fine), but adults who groom children/teens expose them to porn that's either 1. Not related to those characters or 2. Are related to those characters but the minor never asked to see porn in the first place (showing them porn is illegal in some states regardless, and it becomes a felony the more you send because it's considered grooming/trying to desensitize a minor).
I meant it like, due to being exposed to such characters they might find a liking to them and get into furries later one way or another. It's not like they are an entire different thing. At least I think that the media I consumed when I was younger influenced me to a certain degree that I ended up here, currently on a furry board.

And when that happens they need a safe place. Which is hard to achieve, like Ominous said, we are still talking about furries, but you can at least try. It's better than letting them run into groomers head on.

Also, I'm sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread too much if I did.
 
If they're going to develop fetishes from some childhood media, that's going to happen on its own, but it's absolutely unacceptable to let adults recruit kids into this lifestyle. And that's almost invariably what happens because there is absolutely nothing resembling self-policing in these groups.
Are they actively trying to recruit kids into the fandom though? That's kind of the disconnect I have with all this, since it seems like most minors who wander in are already kinda screwed up.
 
Are they actively trying to recruit kids into the fandom though? That's kind of the disconnect I have with all this, since it seems like most minors who wander in are already kinda screwed up.
Some of them absolutely are. Most of the fursuiters I've had contact with were all about dazzling kids. A few of them seemed pretty innocent about it (I'll call them "mascots") and genuinely wanted to spread some joy in public events. Usually at zoos or birthday parties, and very specifically mentioning adults being around. Most of them, though? They used very similar words but they always had that whiff of liking kids a bit too much.
 
And there are still people that say minors should be allowed in the fandom. I've seen too many people comment saying they experienced some form of grooming in the fandom during their minor years. The furry fandom is inherently sexual, and grows more aggressively sexual with each year. The furry fandom is no place for any minor, especially when adults have the opportunity to push their sexual preferences onto said impressionable minors.
Lol. No minors should be allowed in this fetish. its not a fandom.. it is a fetish.. of pedophiles (sangie and numerous others) all this ”fandom” does is attract kids as bait for pedophiles.. lol but there are some great lolcows that come out of this. So 😑

Some of them absolutely are. Most of the fursuiters I've had contact with were all about dazzling kids. A few of them seemed pretty innocent about it (I'll call them "mascots") and genuinely wanted to spread some joy in public events. Usually at zoos or birthday parties, and very specifically mentioning adults being around. Most of them, though? They used very similar words but they always had that whiff of liking kids a bit too much.
This fetish baits Kids for pedophiles. I mean come on it’s all so evident. zoos birthday party’s, fursuiting (side hustle) sooo independent contractor so no background check or anything. i would take a bet and say most of these fursuiting side hustle birthday party throwers are convicted pedos.
 
Are they actively trying to recruit kids into the fandom though? That's kind of the disconnect I have with all this, since it seems like most minors who wander in are already kinda screwed up.
Yes, just because a kid joins a Zootopia Discord doesn't mean they're looking to get hit on by some fat 30 year old neckbeard pretending to be Judy Hopps.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, a new bill is going to make furry art sites ban pornography.

Though I wan this bill to pass, I doub that due to the 'free speech' clause in the United States Constitution.
Then again, in addition to Tumblr banning pornography, there is precedent:
On the one hand, that bill looks iffy and my misgivings about it aside I'm pretty sure it will get shitcanned on First Amendment grounds. Besides, politicians and lobbyists like their porn.

On the other hand, I would just love to see the mass panic if furries lost their beloved dens of public degeneracy. As for the artists? Their fault for building their entire business around dog dicks in the first place. Learn to draw characters with clothes on and try again.
 
Apparently, a new bill is going to make furry art sites ban pornography.

Though I wan this bill to pass, I doub that due to the 'free speech' clause in the United States Constitution.
Then again, in addition to Tumblr banning pornography, there is precedent:
Oh great, the last thing I want is something to make furries free speech heroes because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
 
Oh great, the last thing I want is something to make furries free speech heroes because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
It won't make anyone a free speech hero. The bill is in response, in part, to pornhub hosting a video of a 14 year old being raped for six months while she begged and pleaded with them to take it down, until she ultimately had to pretend to be a fucking lawyer to get them to remove it.

Pornhub hosted child porn, knowingly. Rather than have this bill, I'd prefer if the entire board of executives for MindGeek was executed. But apparently hosting child porn on the world's largest service to distribute free porn doesn't get a death-penalty. That'd be preferable. But making it easier, by law, to force platforms to remove videos of child rape when their moderators are too fucking retarded to listen to the fucking victim herself? I prefer that to the current hellscape.

Of course, "PROHIBITION ON DOWNLOADS.—On and after the 7 date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of this 8 Act, a covered platform may not permit the download to a retrievable data file of any pornographic image from the platform." is beyond fucking retarded because it's not possible at all.


Section 5, private right of action, is just good, period. In fact, most of this bill is good. It closes a lot of holes that have allowed revenge porn and the like to proliferate on the internet. It makes it easier for victims to get their stuff removed from websites.

This isn't a FOSTA/CESTA situation where it's just chasing the child-sellers underground and making it harder for LEA to track it. This shit gives MORE power to the camwhores. Now they can prevent the reuploading of their work. They can control the spread, and force people to come to them to see it.

This bill, I shit you not, should do more good for camwhores than bad. Not only that, it opens up a new niche-industry. A camwhore version of the RIAA/MPAA. A CWAA,if you will, or SWAA if you want to use the nice terms instead. 10% income to the SWAA and they scour all the websites for your content to get it pulled. 10% cost gets a bigger boost of income. Don't listen to the twitter idiots. Don't even listen to the retarded libertarians whining about "muh free speech". Unless I'm reading the bill completely wrong, the worst thing this bill does is identify drawn works as well... and that still gives copyright-holders of an OC(donut steel) to get work they didn't approve taken down.

Edit: Here's the actual bill. Someone who reads legalese and does more than just skim it can check my work.

 

Attachments

It won't make anyone a free speech hero. The bill is in response, in part, to pornhub hosting a video of a 14 year old being raped for six months while she begged and pleaded with them to take it down, until she ultimately had to pretend to be a fucking lawyer to get them to remove it.
And banning furry porn and nearly every other kind is a response to that how? It's more of an excuse. That shit is already illegal. Just enforce the laws that already exist instead of punishing the entire fucking world and raping the First Amendment.
 
And banning furry porn and nearly every other kind is a response to that how? It's more of an excuse. That shit is already illegal. Just enforce the laws that already exist instead of punishing the entire fucking world and raping the First Amendment.
For how I read it, it forces websites to set up a system that actually makes it possible for victims to get their stuff pulled or else they face punishment for it.

It doesn't say shit about furry porn, it just allows drawn stuff to count as well in terms of websites hosting pornographic works.

1608535641006.png


Assuming you give a retard's interpretation to this paragraph. Or a lawyer's.

In actuality, "computer-generated" means a rendered work, not some furry fucking around on photoshop. This is intended to cover photorealistic renderings. If they added "photorealistic" in front of "computer-generated" it should only account for about 0.01% of porn-art, at most, and at that point it'd be a cake-walk to just ban it entirely.

SISEA has only minor issues within it based on my reading, whereas the benefits within far outweigh the issues. "Sex Workers" alone will benefit from it. Which makes it laughable that they're being told to hate it. Unlike the RIAA and MPAA fucking everyone over and becoming a monopoly, Sex Workers could make a voluntary SWAA instead of being forced into it by shitty labels, as happens with the RIAA.

Still, it would force Null to not host any nudes idiots have posted online.
 
Still, it would force Null to not host any nudes idiots have posted online.
This isn't a porn site and material isn't posted here for pornographic purposes. To the extent the law considers us a "covered platform" anyway, it's unconstitutional.

I just read through the entire thing though and you're right, furries need not worry about this. It says nothing about drawn shit so I don't know where that's coming from. At least, it doesn't do so explicitly and I doubt it could be interpreted that way. Shadman might be in a world of shit, though.
 
This isn't a porn site and material isn't posted here for pornographic purposes. To the extent the law considers us a "covered platform" anyway, it's unconstitutional.

I just read through the entire thing though and you're right, furries need not worry about this. It says nothing about drawn shit so I don't know where that's coming from. At least, it doesn't do so explicitly and I doubt it could be interpreted that way. Shadman might be in a world of shit, though.
Sorry for making it seem like I was ranting at you, you were just the most recent comment on the subject.

Unless I've missed something in this bill, I genuinely hope it or something likely but without the retarded requirements like "2 hours to comply", passes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnOminous
Unless I've missed something in this bill, I genuinely hope it or something likely but without the retarded requirements like "2 hours to comply", passes.
Or if they keep that, it's literally for dedicated porn sites of a certain size only. I think something like PornHub (or any MindGeek site) should be able to have someone working 24/7 and be able to remove CP nearly instantly. Fucking 4chan manages to do that.
 
This isn't a porn site and material isn't posted here for pornographic purposes. To the extent the law considers us a "covered platform" anyway, it's unconstitutional.

I just read through the entire thing though and you're right, furries need not worry about this. It says nothing about drawn shit so I don't know where that's coming from. At least, it doesn't do so explicitly and I doubt it could be interpreted that way. Shadman might be in a world of shit, though.
1608538459684.png


The way I'm reading it, anything pornographic is covered under this bill, including computer generated....which may be interpreted as digitally drawn porn.
 
Last edited:
The bill has been rushed through without much thought and is going to be unworkable for non dedicated porn websites, assuming it applies to all websites that host pornographic content.

In general. A covered platform shall operate a 24-hour telephone hotline that an individual or an authorized representative of an individual, or a law enforcement officer, can contact to request removal of a pornographic image from the platform if the individual appears in the pornographic image and has no consented to the pornographic image being uploaded to the platform.
Imagine if Null had to open a KiwiFarms hotline? I don't think that would happen, he'd close down KiwiFarms.
 
The bill has been rushed through without much thought and is going to be unworkable for non dedicated porn websites, assuming it applies to all websites that host pornographic content.
It's only just been introduced. I don't think it's even before a committee yet.

ETA: It's been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. From there it will probably be sent to a subcommittee.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Rozzy
Back