Cub = furry. Not human. This is FURaffinity, after all, not "SKIN"affinity. :P

Mmmmmmm, so fur makes it okay to fuck.

Sure, as long as it's only art, IMO. Personally, I like cub smut stuff, but I'm not about to go out and fuck a baby, child, adolescent, or teenager. LOL

So, since its just art, loli and shota is a okay to you.

Yep, since it's just art, they are. But, as I said, this is a fur site, not a skin site, so I personally am for none of the following:

~Anything depicting human (skin covered) "people". That includes manly "lumberjack" men in comics, and even female and male adult artwork that is non-furry. That stuff can be posted on DA, as long as it's /tasteful/.
~Anything such as a photo of faces (photo memes, for example).
~Anything depicting collections of any sort (be them games, movies, plushies, etc) because they are spam material.

I think you're missing the point here. Fur or not. It's still a representation of a child.

Why does there need to be sexual art of a child?

Why do babyfurs exist? Why do cub furs exist? These are questions I still ask myself. I dont get how someone needs to be an "adult baby" (unless they're "special" in one way or another), but...its art, art is art, I dont argue. :3

I'd rather fap than try to reason something. :3

Uh huh.

I like how you once AGAIN avoided my question.

WHY does there need to be SEXUAL art of CHILDREN?

I dont look at sexual art of children. Furry creatures, sure, but children have been banned by the TOS, because it's too realistic.

So the very concept of symbolism of a furry child getting pounded fourways is totally innocent. Nothing relating to pedophilia AT ALL

Fictional Character with Ugly Mo-Fo behind it = OK, as long as I dont see the Ug Mug behind the "cute little character".

Okay, so you support pedophilia in art, cuz its furry and cute

I mean, the very idea of something representing a child getting fucked is OKAY as long as you put a mask on it. Because a thin layer of fiction makes it a completely INNOCENT image of a child being fucked. Fur makes it okay.

So what I'm getting here is that Furry art is devoid of wrong is devoid of cruel and is devoid of sexual deviance, SIMPLY because it has fur on it. So if Anime art did the same thing its MORE wrong, cuz it's closer to life.

Last i checked, anime has big bulbous eyes and deformed bodies. BUT because it's not FURRY art, which you're into, Its MORE wrong when they do the exact same thing a furry artist does, because FURtolerance is where its at. Right?

I love the LOL that this thread is getting. I just keep going on to have you respond to it, you know. :P

uh huh. If you had an actual defense, you'd have given it.

I'm just here for the lulz and seeing how adamant you are about your point of view. :)

A blind man will never see what he wears.

Good thing I see what I am putting on every morning. :D

I figure since youre fapping instead of reasoning, youd also have trouble putting on clothes. I mean, you have to THINK about what you want to wear.... well... no... furries tend not to do they.

I'd rather fap than try to reason something. :3

Some dont. I do though. :3 At least I'm not one of those guys who goes around wearing girl clothing denying the fact I have a penis, or one of those others who wear diapers (bleck! :X) beneath their clothes due to self-diagnosed "medical" reasons, which they claim to have. :P

You're responses are getting more convoluted... please stop. It's awful in every respect.

it's an art man

a sick, twisted art

>>I'd rather fap than try to reason something. :3


THIS IS WHY NO ONE LIKES YOU GUYS

Yep, I know nobody likes someone who masturbates, but that's why I tend to not notice them. :3 I'm more involved in cumming than caring. *giggles*

Another reason- I don't want to know that.
I don't like furries because of the porn or the fetishes; everyone has one, so whatever.
It's just sad the way you present yourself on the Internet is based AROUND that.

This goes for anyone who does this, really, but furries do it way more.

I love the lulz here. :3

Another thing I dislike is the originality of it all.
I looked through your gallery.

A white haired gay orange fox?
Come on, man.

White hair? Fox? :P Silver mane, Leofox. You should get your eyes checked, man. :3 Or...learn to read from time to time other than lulzy posts.

Take care, ya'll! :3

Sorry I can't tell the difference between white and slightly grey white

and a fox from a generic hybrid


My reaction to this = my icon

nowhere does it disallow human art, anywhere. FA was never meant as a furry exclusive community, just a furry centric community
anyways cub art and loli and shota is more or less the same thing. doesn't bother me

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showt.....ad.php?t=64333

Loli/Shota

Fur Affinity does not permit illustrated images of human/proto-human minors in mature situations (aka "loli" and "shota") to be uploaded to the site. "Proto-human" is defined as elves, dwarves or neko-style characters (otherwise fully human characters with the addition of ears, tails or paws).


Thats the thing, they are the same, so why are they making one worse than the other. It feels like a double standard to me. I personally am not all for it, but if youre going to keep it, keep it, if youre gunna ban it, ban it all.

Loli and shota are BANNED because it's wrong to fuck little kids. >:C

However it's okay to fuck little kid animals because they are so murry and hawt :p






Fucking A.

MURRRR U GOT IT! FURRY MURR

MURRYIFFPILE

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/886869/

I imagine, that banning shota affects little to no one on this site, but if they banned cub, there would be a big uproar from the paedophiles who can't get their "fix". A fix which is essentially almost the same as saying, a child in a fursuit is fair game, as long as they are a pretending to be a "fictional character"?

They can try to justify it as much as they want. Their arguments are as flawed as those who believe bestiality is acceptable.

Ban both IMO.

Lawl. Troll orgy. >:V