People are going to say t-shirts but don't believe them. T-shirts are one of the lowest selling items at any con and also the most expensive to produce.

Go away kid fucker. I'm not speaking with you. You belong on a government list, not spouting your insane rhetoric on Bluesky.

Anyway, you and thekiddie porn defenders are missing my point, which is that regardless of what pay sites and hosting platforms are doing, we have a responsibility to set standards for our own community. We can fight against censorship of conseual kink without defending unlawful or harmful content.

Careers get ruined by false accusations in every industry. That is an entirely separate issue from taking a stance against depictions of children in porn. But honestly, most of the people drawing characters that "only *look* underage" know exactly what they're trying to pull *cough Zaush cough*

Incest porn is a grey area which I'm not going to debate. But there is absolutely no sane argument for claiming "we can't defend depictions of consensual kink unless we also defend child porn."

As for your other point, name one artist who has died because they had to stop drawing cub porn

Holy shit are you still going? You're spinning out, touch grass.

So then why are you arguing it? No one is forcing you to participate in this discussion.

No offense, but I really couldn't give a shit what you like. You're random person on bluesky trying to defend pedophilia. Fuck off out of my mentions.

Your argument equates to the arguments that Christians were using to try and ban gays from getting marriage rights, claiming that if gays were allowed to be married that the next thing we would have to do is allow people to marry pigs etc. There has to be a line determined by consent and context.

Your referencing a cartoon and a slippery slope fallacy. Banning art depicting consensual adults is obviously wrong, and we can push back on that without having to throw open the doors to pedophilia.

Liking pornography of children literally makes you a pedophile, by definition.
"pedophile
/ˈpedəˌfīl/
A pedophile is an adult or older adolescent who experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (generally age 13 or younger)."

You're desperately trying to shift the goal post by debating what is or is not a priority concern. This isn't a fucking hospital, we don't need to triage what we're concerned about. We can be concerned about several things at once, and choose not to invite child pornography into our fandom.

This was already addressed in previous posts, the argument is specious and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Cultural context, broad entertainment value, and intent all factor into whether a form of media is acceptable. Child pornography has no purpose except to promote sexualization of minors.

Intent and context matters in any media form. Now go away kiddie fucker.

It's depressing to see how many pedophiles have infiltrated the furry fandom and are trying to pass off their reprehensible urge to sexually objectify children as "harmless kink." They're trying to co-opt our community in defense of their own utterly indefensible desires.

And your slippery slope argument of "oh no, if they ban one thing they'll ban all the things!" is asinine. Some (not all) platforms have overreached to appease payment processors--but you can push back on that without condoning pedophilia.

I'm perfectly content to give people the power to say depictions of children in sexual situations should be unilaterally banned from any and all platforms. If you can't see the difference between depictions of consenting adults vs depictions of vulnerable children, get the fuck outta here.

It's not one or the other. Both can be addressed.

Except we're not depicting real animals, we're depicting anthropomorphic adult characters that are clearly intelligent and capable of consent. Nice try, now take your high school debate tactics and go home.

Violence in media depicts conflict, stakes, and moral dilemmas, and is often portrayed to criticize RL violence. Sexualization of minors doesn’t serve a comparably defensible narrative function. It relies on an exploitative premise that serves no purpose outside of sexually objectifying children.

Speaking as a porn artist myself, art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It shapes culture, signals what is acceptable, and can normalize exploitation. When minors are portrayed for the sole purpose of sexual gratification, that content risks reinforcing and validating predatory interests.

I'm sorry that taking 30 seconds to check the replies was too difficult for you. Here you go:

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I explicitly pointed out that violence in media exists for a variety of narrative and social reasons, whereas sexual depiction of minors explicitly only has one purpose and has never served any other in pornography.

It's literally not and this has already been addressed in other posts on this thread. Fuck off out of my timeline, pedophile.

There is literally no argument for that. People who experience a sexual desire for children possess a deeply dangerous and harmful urge. They need therapy and firm boundaries, not encouragement and normalization.

I've already addressed that lazy argument.

Depictions of violence in media do not unilaterally exist to express or encourage a desire to commit violence. Conversely, child porn exists soley to evince a sense of personal gratification from sexual acts on minors. So kindly fuck off with your disgusting false equivalency.

No, it's not the same argument at all. The explicit purpose of sexualization of minors in pornography is to express a desire to have sex with minors. It serves no secondary purpose, unlike depictions of violence in media which serve as generalized, non-goal oriented entertainment.

They don't use the same line of logic at all. But I'm not going to get into an extended debate with pedophilia defenders on Bluesky.

Depiction of minors in sexually compromising positions in fiction encourages the normalization of sexualization of minors (and in a not insignificant number of cases these depictions reflect real-world acts that committed by the artist or writer). Some ethical boundaries exist for good reason.