's commentary on why she does what she does, (re:Rule 34), I made my own reply in support. Feeling that it might be missed by many I decided to repost an edited version here as a journal entry for any who might be interested but missed the original. Here's what I had to say:
Many of our "sainted" cartoons were in fact drawn for fillers between more adult movies while they changed the film reels, so they had to have some adult appeal. And the cartoonists in the days of cell animation were just as likely to draw those "precious characters" involved in sexual activity as anyone here. Betty Boop, one of the oldest cartoons in the industry, is a prime example of implied sexuality. In fact, she may be the first furry character because she was originally drawn as a dog. The cartoonists changed her to look more human, and her long ears to earrings. That's why she has a dog boyfriend named Bosko. They changed her but not her boyfriend because she was more popular and had more commercial appeal, (read made more money). Some of you FA members I'm sure can see that FA is falling under the influence of commercial interests who are financially afraid of boycotts and lawsuits from the public. Why else would they change their policies or enforce those they may have implicitly chose but never really followed. Its because somebody doesn't want their "precious memories" sullied by "such sick filth. There otter be a law!!" SO they lobby against the commercial endorsers of the websites, the website owners drop the project because they can't afford it on their own and can't charge enough for membership, so "that sick, perverted website" disappears and the world is now back to the sweet, innocent little fairyland that god intended. Now we can all sleep safe tonight. Fah!
I didn't want to get too long winded in a comment so I saved the rest for here. I noticed that many people revealed their arousal by cartoons and have channeled that pleasure into their art. I don't personally see anything wrong with that, and I don't think that anyone should if they were being truly honest with themselves and others. There's an old "joke" about sexual honesty that goes something like this: "Ninety percent of ALL people have enjoyed "fapping", the other ten percent... ARE LIARS!" Anyone who says children cannot or don't also has no concept of human reality. I know that I personally could feel sexual pleasure from the tender, innocent age of three, because I remember it. I also remember that Penelope Pitstop of Hanna-Barbera cartoons looked VERY appealing all tied up with her buxom chest bulging from her bonds. I don't know why, I just know that I liked it. I was not an adult at the time and barely even knew the technique of sexual activity, but I knew what turned me on and THAT did. For those who have never heard of her, you can find a reasonable description of her here: http://www.toonopedia.com/pitstop.htm. A scan of my favs, as with anyone here, can show what kind of art I find interesting to look at. In fact, I found some art that I like because some of you liked too, and when I viewed your favs there were some samples I wanted to see also that I included in my list as well.
Something else that I suspect influences naysayers to deride various art forms, (whether fully human, fully animal or somewhere in between), can in fact be the result of some tragic experience that they are aware of, either personally or by association. Some may have been victimized as a child or adult, or are the parent of a victimized child and so depictions of such art affect them very deeply in a personal way. Those people will never be able to view such art in a fun or unbiased way and would no doubt regard fans as sick or evil. Its not their fault they feel that way, its the abusers, and likely that will never change for them. Those of us who find such art appealing either as a producer or viewer need only realize that such a possibility may exist for any particular negative viewer and should remember not to take such negative opinions personally but regard them as an expression of the rage and frustration over the memory that such art may recall. I read some time ago a comment in an internet post that the reason that child porn is prosecuted so vigorously in the US is not because the sexuality of it is so vile, but because there have been cases where children have been raped and murdered. Also the sexuality of Americans is so shamefully repressed by such a large portion of the country that they have no ability to relate to a nude beach with any degree of comfort and the idea that children have sexual feelings equally as strong as adults is repugnant to them. The mothers of sons know this only too well. They have seen for themselves their sons erections, and no doubt the mothers' reaction to it directly influences the son's subsequent sexual behavior in some way. I'm no psychologist so I can't say how, but I am sure it does, because I am sure it did me.