How to handle questionable artwork (Warning: serious subject matter)

[CutieProtector]

Warning: The subject matter of this post is very serious and dark. Read at your own discretion.

I don't know how to make this any easier, so I'll just get right to it. In case you haven't heard, there's a huge controversy going around about the babyfur artist tato. This is because it was recently pointed out that they have an alternate account on pixiv.net drawing shota (sexualizing/sex with young boys). As I'm still relatively new to getting involved in the ABDL community, I'm not well-educated in issues like this. I actually had to Google the terms "shotacon" and "lolicon" because I didn't know the meaning or implication of these words. While I am aware Japan has lots of weird sex things, I am very naïve about lots of sex things in general, and tend to forget them even if I've searched in the past. I want to understand how I should handle learning about this, so I have some questions later in this post. Just to make it clear, I've never commissioned this artist, but I have viewed their acceptable art on Fur Affinity.

I know there's lots of sexualized art in the babyfur/diaperfur community, but I'm not sure where to draw the line between simply being questionable art and being bad, particularly something that would be illegal under child pornography laws. I only did some brief internet searches, and one thing that stood out is that somehow non-realistic images such as drawings are legally protected unless found to be obscene. But I'm not a legal expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong! Though I have noticed in babyfur chat groups in Telegram that some stickers in the sticker packs used by members show babyfurs doing questionable things (using sex toys, putting their noses to wet/messy diapers, etc.). I wonder if the reason these haven't been reported is because they technically get away with it because they aren't "obscene". But also to my knowledge, members never use those questionable stickers, only the acceptable ones.

So here are my questions:

1. What kinds of activities should not be depicted by babyfurs in artwork? I'm afraid to even list examples, but I have seen bad stickers in Telegram ranging from kids putting faces to wet/messy diapers, to using sex toys, to even a few with male private parts on younger furs.
2. If I discover an artist does controversial art that somehow isn't considered illegal, should I no longer support them doing good artwork? My opinion at this time is that I should not, but I wanted to put it out there for discussion.
3. If I discover an artist does controversial art, does that mean I should no longer even view their good art? Basically, should I un-favorite all their art in Fur Affinity and never view it again, and make sure others never view it either?
4. Is it bad for Telegram users to use acceptable stickers from a sticker pack that includes questionable art? Do you think users should face consequences for this, or that such sticker packs should be banned (or simply modified to remove the bad stickers)? Personally, I'll make sure to never use such sticker packs unless someone gives a good reason for why it's okay to use good stickers from a bad sticker pack (if this Telegram stuff is confusing, feel free to ask).

I hope I addressed this issue in a mature way. Please let me know if I did anything wrong with this post, and let me know if there are similar posts that address these issues in a good way. Thank you for reading.

 

[SpankyUnicorn]

If I had my way, all fictionalized depictions of minors engaged in such acts would be outlawed. I have found that being in the furry fandom is a bit like walking a tightrope: there are decent people in the fandom, and I do enjoy anthro characters. However, there is also no shortage of rotten people in the fandom as well (Neo-Nazis/Alt-Furs, pedophiles, drama whores, etc.), and I work my best to avoid them. One can try to be selective and only look at the non-pedophile stuff posted by certain furry pedophile artists, but at the same time, one does risk inadvertently seeing the disgusting stuff while browsing their artwork as a whole. I wish that pedophiles could simply be blacklisted from the fandom as a whole, but there is a powerful groupthink dynamic in the fandom that tends to prevent that.

 

[Traemo]

At the risk of getting mischaracterized: there's a difference between pedophilia (mostly a mental health thing) and actual abuse (actively doing things). And I don't think we do anyone any good by conflating the two or insisting the former inevitably leads to the later.
And any attempt to restrict/ban potentially sensual/sexual art is going to meet one of a few fate: not broad enough, bans all art, or massively inconsistent across the board. The issue here lies with the fact that interests, tastes, and interpretations vary wildly from person to person: what one person sees as an innocent changing scene another sees as the immediate prelude to a small orgy. Or the perennial argument that anything ABDL is inherently sexual regardless of context or intent.
This is why it's so hard to set a legal standard for obscene.

 

[buridan]

I only did some brief internet searches, and one thing that stood out is that somehow non-realistic images such as drawings are legally protected unless found to be obscene. But I'm not a legal expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong!

I am not a lawyer, but I believe this statement may be incorrect in the United States. Under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(2), certain cartoons depicting fictional minors can be illegal despite not being obscene. Based on the Wikipedia article (not an entirely reliable source), the constitutionality of this statute is not settled.

18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

www.law.cornell.edu

Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[caitianx]

I find the Diapered Furry Cartoons questionable and problematic.
Too easy to find and access.

 

[lukethefur]

I've always had the opinion that drawings are drawings and don't actually harm anyone... Especially of completely fictional, made up characters.

I understand why people would feel uncomfortable about cubs being sexualised. But think about it logically. Every day, films, movies and pictures glorify rape, murder, abuse, even in furry art: vore, feral, gore, etc. All of those things are illegal or immoral, so why people set the bar against sexual morality for art I presume is just their gut reaction that says "I don't like this" - the same gut reaction that causes plenty of other judgement problems in life.

EDIT: To actually answer your question, I come across artwork I don't like all the time. I just think it's the grown-up thing to just look past and move on.

 

[winterheart01]

As a hobbyist artist (who went to art school) I was taught that art is a form of expression and should not be restricted by boundaries.
That being you can draw whatever you want or like.
However when customers commission you or when you publish / sell art in public you must comply with certain "rules" (i don't say laws because I do not know if everywhere the same laws would apply) such as not to promote obscene art such as child abuse or pedophilia etc.

Yet there re plenty of drawings where the parent spanks the baby, which are tolerated. So in art the line can get really vague.

Bottom line: it still is our form of expression, but when commercializing certain boundaries apply. Mainly "common sense" as in not to draw stuff that would get you arrested.
That aside, a famous artist here in my country made a piece of art with raw ham, was pretty gruelish to look at but people loved it nonetheless..

 

[TadpoleHunter]

I had a similar conversation with a friend recently but the topic was a different kind of "obscene" kink art and we came to the conclusion that the best option for a the artist would be a private account and/or physical sketchbook, as that'd keep them safe from harassment or possible legal trouble, so I think the same concept could be said for a nsfw cub/loli/shota artist.

I'm not really for censorship of cub art because the line gets blurry as to what is a sexual act when it comes to ABDL, and that line is different for each ABDL. I think mass censorship of it could end up washing up perfectly innocent babyfur art.

Like example, if a said ban was against any art where a cub is in a situation that would be abusive to them. That could encompass anything from the obvious sex acts, to people eventually arguing that cubs being drawn in a dirty diaper is obscene as leaving a real life child in a soiled diaper isn't something you should do

All that said though, nsfw cub/lolisho art isnt for me. So for myself, I just put tags like "young" "cub" "loli" and "shota" in my blacklists when I look for nsfw diaper content.

I do love the sfw babyfur content though, and because of my blacklists I don't know if artists I end up enjoying do that stuff or not. Which is fine, because if they do they're tagging it in a way so people can opt-out of seeing it

 

[perlFerret]

All that said though, nsfw cub/lolisho art isnt for me. So for myself, I just put tags like "young" "cub" "loli" and "shota" in my blacklists when I look for nsfw diaper content.

I do love the sfw babyfur content though, and because of my blacklists I don't know if artists I end up enjoying do that stuff or not. Which is fine, because if they do they're tagging it in a way so people can opt-out of seeing it

Same! I leave "cub" in mine but filter out "Adult" and "Extreme" ratings. That way I can get cute cubs playing "jungle cats" in the back yard on a rainy day and not... other stuff I don't want to see.

 

[PurplePup89]

1. As a babyfur myself, I cannot stress enough how much the sexualization of children is absolutely reprehensible and should be stopped and controlled at every available opportunity. Now, as someone else mentioned, "pornography" is subjective: you could draw the most innocent, non-sexualized art possible - take, for random example, CutieProtector's Marci Badge avatar - yet there will still be people who are aroused by the mere concept of babyfurs, and as such, there will also be people who will misconstrue something completely innocent as pornographic. It's a double-edged sword, and while I'll admit sometimes the lines can blur, that's definitely not the case for more overtly sexualized content involving nudity and sex toys with minor-presenting characters, human or otherwise. For me, that's inexcusable and, honestly, should warrant a ban from whichever site it's posted on. I shouldn't have to defend that viewpoint: drawing minors - human or furry - in sexually explicit scenarios is never acceptable.

2 and 3. Those are questions for your own conscience and how you feel about it. I know SFW artists who also do a lot of kinky NSFW art on the side, and that's fine with me; if it's something that I don't like or am not into, I just ignore it. I would not, however, ignore sexual art involving children. Nobody draws that stuff "just because" or "for the lulz", if somebody draws pedophilic art, that tells me they're into - or at the very least, support - pedophilia, and obviously that's not somebody I want to be giving any kind of support.

 

[babydino26]

I think this is a wider problem than just babyfur art. I’ve seen a lot of debates on fetlife about this in regards to abdl/sissy erotica. For me it’s not okay to write underaged characters into such stories. I get that writers are trying to capture the fendom/mommydom relationship, but it’s still really gross.

 

[perlFerret]

1. As a babyfur myself, I cannot stress enough how much the sexualization of children is absolutely reprehensible and should be stopped and controlled at every available opportunity. Now, as someone else mentioned, "pornography" is subjective: you could draw the most innocent, non-sexualized art possible - take, for random example, CutieProtector's Marci Badge avatar - yet there will still be people who are aroused by the mere concept of babyfurs, and as such, there will also be people who will misconstrue something completely innocent as pornographic. It's a double-edged sword, and while I'll admit sometimes the lines can blur, that's definitely not the case for more overtly sexualized content involving nudity and sex toys with minor-presenting characters, human or otherwise. For me, that's inexcusable and, honestly, should warrant a ban from whichever site it's posted on. I shouldn't have to defend that viewpoint: drawing minors - human or furry - in sexually explicit scenarios is never acceptable.

And the line blurs further across media: describing a caring, tender diaper change moment between a CG and a babyfur in a nice, fluffy, non-sexual story is very different from drawing the same scene, especially with visible genitalia.

Now, I can't speak about anyone else, but I'm neither excited nor overly bothered by the hypothetical aforementioned art, but I can see how someone would be as it shows underage characters in partial states of undress. Is that pornography? I don't know. That's been a debate since Lewis Carroll's infamous photography projects.

 

[PurplePup89]

And the line blurs further across media: describing a caring, tender diaper change moment between a CG and a babyfur in a nice, fluffy, non-sexual story is very different from drawing the same scene, especially with visible genitalia.

Now, I can't speak about anyone else, but I'm neither excited nor overly bothered by the hypothetical aforementioned art, but I can see how someone would be as it shows underage characters in partial states of undress. Is that pornography? I don't know. That's been a debate since Lewis Carroll's infamous photography projects.

Well, culture has definitely changed since the 19th century, and nowadays nude depictions of minors is a pretty hard "no". As it simply pertains to something like furry art, though, I just don't see any viable defense for depicting explicit nudity or awkward undress on underage characters, and knowing how often people accuse AB/DL or babyfur as being "pedophilic", I'm surprised that's not an area artists want to stay as far away from as possible.

Child nudity and sexuality is really the only hard line I can draw in this topic, because everything else is arguably up for debate depending on context. For example, take art depicting babyfurs wearing only diapers; I've seen many pieces like that which I consider completely harmless and innocent, but I've also seen a few pieces which are a little..."awkward", so I can't definitively say something like diaper-only babyfur art is crossing a line or not. Same with something like a diaper change in a babyfur story: is it just a harmless sentence or two matter-of-factly establishing the act, or is it going into unnecessary fetishistic detail? Diaper usage in babyfur media is a very shaky ground for me: again, I've seen cartoons where it's just a stink line and played for comedy, but I've also come across cartoons where the messing detail is excessively gross and obviously fetishistic.

The OP mentioned the controversy surrounding Tato, which, frankly, doesn't come as surprising news to me. If you browse through their FurAffinity account, there's indeed a lot of totally innocent super-cute art, but there's also a LOT of art which really makes me uncomfortable. Personally, I think their gallery alone is a pretty solid illustration of "you'll know it when you see it" when it comes to drawing the line between innocent and questionable AB/DL and babyfur art.