furries sexualized thread oh my oh my

A thread to discuss the recent change made to Disturbing Content:

"Disturbing content is content that is graphic or unsettling, this includes content that sexualizes animals."

Part of this change may be attributed to the fact that in the past year, spray guidelines relaxed significantly in terms of sexual content, allowing for images like

Spoiler: american girl

Spoiler: red headed cartoon

to be used as sprays, only scratching the surface here with the level of degeneracy I've seen.

To many, staff and player alike, adding the furry clause is a welcome boon and they may accept it wholeheartedly. However, I feel like this is going to play out super inconsistently and it's just a change for a sake of a fucking change. Let me give a few examples.

Jabba was nice enough to send me a few examples he showed Highwon when this was proposed. I'd argue many of these examples (The guy sucking the cow's nipple, the multiple images where a disturbing gentalia bulge can be seen, the lizard(??) choking on a Popsicle, sexual white fluids near a dog's (???) tail, and on a limb, the textual account of what one person claims they would do to isabelle, the dog from animal crossing and I guess the wolf one? Hard to tell whats happening in that one) were already covered by either our typical pornography rules or disturbing content; one of these even had a warning given to the player in text chat under previous lack of clarification.

There's a few images I wouldn't of warned for myself in here which I'm guessing is what is guessing is what this change was intended to address;

Spoiler: descriptions of art not allowed on the forums apparently

There's a tiger humanoid in a bathtub, bent over mimicking belle delphine. There's no genitalia visible nor disturbing bulges, nor a compulsion that anything indicates it should be treated differently than a humanoid here.

There's a .... panther fursona??? in water wearing a bikini. The pictures above are more revealing, and really more sexualized too; unless an animal having tits in swimsuit is sexualizing enough to cover the gap here, I really don't know why this is included.

There's a humanoid doe in a library not wearing pants picking up a book and looking over her shoulder. The whole pants thing is the sexual part I guess. Really disagree with this one too.

I truly get how a few of the images from the former group could be promoting bestiality/animal abuse, but the ones I talked about in the spoiler really don't scream "I'm gonna go fuck my dog/tiger", especially considering the "sexualized" are very human orientated in depiction.

Like honestly, Lola Bunny in space jam was more sexualized than some of these examples.

The whole animals in bikinis being sexualized equals being disturbing content really spoke though out that gallery too. That means...

Spoiler: image comparison being anime girl i found on google search and degenerate bunny girl i found on google search

this is allowed

but this isn't

I really think this whole disturbing content overhaul is overkill for what you are trying to do; once again it feels like a change for the sake of a change. I really think you should just emphasize those completely valid images you really don't want in that gallery instead of redefine the goal posts here; it worked well enough with the spray leniency change awhile back after all without a rule change.

i am not a furry

 

Liar

 

I mean it is pretty disturbing to see a fox all sexualized, especially if animals aren't your kink. I don't think it fits our normal porn statues, as while some of these images are sexualized, they aren't necessarily ban worthy.

Personally? I think that the administration needs to really be careful what they decide to ban here. Banning someone for having a sexualized image of a fox that is no worse than a bikini pic would be a bit funny.

also god bless kent state gun girl. She can hold my glock anyday.

Spoiler: My spray, she is packing o.o

 

yeah but what about animal people

 

Spoiler: quote from art description spoiler above

Actually, for the sake of discussion, I'll link the solo image here, as it's definitely not disturbing content despite it being in a gallery used to petition the change:

Spoiler: disturbing content apparently

redacted

The gallery that led to this change I was linked had a similar image in there, hence why that particular image is used as an example about what's considered disturbing content now.

 

ight say what you want to say but

Spoiler

REDACTED

 

Also backpedaling again sorry:

"The idea behind this is that these images promote bestiality/animal abuse."

Sure, let's assume every immoral image we see has a direct influence to a promote a specific immoral behavior.

Spoiler: Let's assume every nazi spray I see invokes a carnal motive to go and join the nearest neofacism club [IMG

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...dqcRnaXLd-kNKC1vMPIhlqnk-iFwRY&usqp=CAU[/IMG]

Spoiler: Let's assume every confederate flag I see invokes a carnal motive to go and join the efforts to reinvent slavery into our modern economy

We can go on and on talking about other "popular to hate" alternative thought groups. You have to keep in mind anthropomorphic animals have already worked their way into the media pretty deeply; zootopia is a good child example with no sexuality whatsoever. Bojack Horseman is a good adult example, with the anthropomorphic animals having sexual relationships and being sexualized is a fucking commonstay in that show. Here's Sextina Aquafina.

As a dog owner, I get wanting to play moral police with a few animal related things, especially when it comes to actually depicted bestiality. A lot of these images are just anthropomorphic animals depicted in silly ways; when they get too silly, you already have the tools to handle it.

 

I suggest looking at the gallery Jabba's collected, seems like that answer has already been reached by the lead administration above you since the primary focus is anthropomorphic.

 

I think this ban is stupid and in bad faith considering a few on the moderation team from what I had observed prior was a part of a dumb ongoing joke about a "furry purge". I don't see how this ban makes any sense considering anything that was already rulebreaking was treated as such, and this might muddy the waters further or get people to push the limits just to test the ban. Sexualizing animals and stuff, like actual zoophilia? That shit can be banned, nobody will complain about that, but anthro stuff if it doesn't already break the rules should be fine, I don't see how it's different from the playboy model sprays I see from time to time.

 

I'm gonna throw this out here even tho it might get disliked: why can't we not allow sexualized images of any kind? furry or not. there are younger kids that play on the server :/ I don't see the point in having a sexualized image on a gaming community that allows underage kids to play

 

Now speaking as a furry myself, and having personally experienced how targeting some of the players can be based on misconceptions, I can see a sort of middle ground on this and having seen some sprays that would fall under sexualized af get pretty much ignored while a good chunk of less sexualized stuff get bitched at because its furry. Having said that I have also seen pretty sexualized not so anthro pics usually featuring pokemon now while I can agree that sexualized sprays need to be in general a punishable offense I believe we need a clear cut line that is equal on all parts not just specifying one type of pics. This as I see it will lead to encouraged targeting, again having experienced this myself in it's current state and as I am sure that Pokeben remembers how they kept on and on and on despite multiple warnings. This will barely cause a dent in any actual sexualized furry images and most likely cause a spike in the targeting of players who were just playing and happen to be furry or that have a furry spray. But I am hopeful to be shown wrong by the actions of staff and other players.

 

Hiya! I am a furry (in case you couldn't tell), and not only do I have a few opinions, I also feel partially responsible for this.

I first off want to state that being a furry means you enjoy a wide range of talking, intelligent animals. This includes "The Aristo Cats" to "Zootopia." It is not a kink until it gets sexual.
Furthermore, I want to state that most furries are not animal abusers. There are unfortunately those who think that is appropriate, and are absolutely wrong.

Back to the topic at hand. I change my sprays pretty often, and when I do, I try to check with the mods. However, it has gotten to the point where they tell me that if I have to ask, I shouldn't use it. This is because the sprays I use are more or less, exclusively sexualized furries.

This is me, I have used a couple of "feral" pokemon sprays in the past. I understand how they could be considered borderline. I assumed that since sexualized anthros (meaning walks on two legs), (which includes many pokemon) is ok to spray, then so should the rest of them. However, there is the argument that the can look like cartoon animals, which portrays real animals (which is fair since several pokes are based off of real life), so I wouldn't have much issue if that got banned, SPECIFICALLY around Pokemon.
- For actual illustrations in which feral (walking on four legs) animals like dogs, horses, etc. are fetishized, ban the fuck outta them. That's not a kink, that's beastiality, disgusting and illegal. I have never used a spray like that and never will.

That's fair, and if the server decides to become child friendly, that's all cool! But that would include banning every person who curses, uses slurs, etc. I'll leave that for the mods to decide.

I do have to say that as long as sexual images are allowed on the servers, then at least sexual anthro images should also be allowed, because as wink said:

Furries are a part of many cultures now, even finding it's way into things like anime at times (not including intentionally furry things like beastars). I understand wanting to ban images that can possibly promote beastiality, but to ban all furry images not only leaves several loopholes in it's place, but also promotes targeting. God knows the number of times furries are harassed on the servers for just being openly furry, they don't even have to spray images. I too feel the frustration of the Furry Purge "Joke," probably more than anyone else because it started with me when I got Ozymendias, AidsLizard and several others banned for repeating Furry Purge, which turned into an RDM train. (The issue was not with the comments, but more with the affected gameplay.)

However, I don't think the mods are about to go on a "Furry Purge," as it were, as they have been pretty good with maintaining a civil (if not fragile) line in which furries and all other players can play in peace. I appreciate all the mod team has done to keep people like me included, while finding a way to keep others (mostly) happy.
- I do want to thank all the mods (especially Jabba) for putting up with my bullshit pestering every time I want to change my spray, and ask: "Can I use this spray? [Link]" Sorry for being a pain in the ass, but I think this is a good discussion.
I asked earlier what is the line between bannable and ok sprays, and while I was told that there is no SPECIFIC line and I need to stop looking for it, I do think that some clear rules need to be set. I have posted literal cropped porn without issue, but when posting an image of a nude, anthropomorphic Meoth with tits just hanging (no nipples) with what I consider a slightly seductive smirk, it was taken down for being too borderline. That made no sense to me, and I agree that the water gets too murky at times around this rule.

In conclusion, I think some revision would be helpful, but I do not advocate the complete removal of furry sprays.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

EDIT: Yo i'm fuckin stupid this rule has already been put into effect and I think it's complete bullshit, it's more or less excluded sexual furry sprays including anthros which is dumb because others can still post sccubi or shit like that. Oh well, time to post cropped hentai I guess?

 

There’s an example image of what’s now considered disturbing content according to the gallery I was shown in here (spoiler in a spoiler)

Do you think it’s okay to allow herd opinion to dictate thats worth the ban over some silly human drawing in the exact same pose?

 

no need to add nipples to a camel's humps. also dogs have eight tits not two. also what THE FUCK? butt plug tails?
i just don't see what all the hype is about being a humanoid alligator