Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
RoareyRaccoon

Thoughts on Zaush Drama

Recently there's been some new shit on twitter relating to Zaush, wherein he shared clothed images of kids (like you'd see in a catalogue) alongside porn of adults who deliberately make themselves look as young as possible, for the purposes of reference material for a potential cub art commission. I think the reaction to this leaked telegram conversation raises some interesting things to think about, so it's a good excuse for some thinking and talking. Anyway, the images Zaush shared in the conversation were not illegal, so that lie going around ought to be nipped in the bud before going further. The rest is about ones personal values.

First thing I'd like to make note of is that I can't see any objection to being disgusted by this conversation, since disgust is a personal, emotional response, it isn't something you can control and it isn't right or wrong in itself. So it is naturally understandable for people reading the conversation to be revolted by it. Personally, I'm rather puritanical for a furry and find most porn to be rather nasty to look at. As a result, along with drawing porn for furries for years, of things I'm not into, I have cultivated an attitude to facilitate my doing that. I may not be into something, but that doesn't make me "good" for not being into it, nor does it make those who are "bad" for liking it. We all know that our sexual interests are not a switch or series of switches that we can flip on and off; what we find attractive is something we are stuck with, hence the amazingly bizarre variety of furry artwork out there, haha.

Following on directly from this fact, it is therefore to be logically concluded that being disgusted by the sexual fantasies of another person is not a reason to think of that person as being evil for those fantasies. It is really important to see people as people first, with their sexual interests just being a part of who they are that they didn't choose. Next, I would say that fantasy is not reality. I'm sure we can all agree on this. Because sexual fantasies are not by necessity sexual realities, it is wrong to treat the former with the same moral weight as the latter, for the former doesn't physically exist, it doesn't act in the real world. Do you think it would be a good idea to behave as though people's fantasies, people's fiction, constitute immoral acts just as actual immoral acts are? Something for you to decide I guess, but I don't think a society built upon such a foundation as that would be one in which living is desirable.

So, after those broader principles, let's get more specific. Paedophilia and cub porn. We all know that cub stuff is very controversial in the fandom, as is Paedophilia. I think this is for good reason; it is, of course, morally right and even a moral duty to find child abuse to be evil, even among the most evil things human beings are capable of. So a natural disgust for fiction depicting things that are paedophilic in nature is a healthy and understandable reaction to have. However, I also believe that the head must rule the heart in the end, hence the necessity of having a justice system that is as impartial regarding emotions as possible. Justice must be blind to such things. So with this, with fantasy that repulses and revolts us, the head must prevail. People who like and draw cub porn, shota, loli, whatever are not abusing children. Drawings and stories are not abuse, they are fiction. So no matter how much one may be disgusted by such material, fiction is all that it is. Non-furries for years have justified their painting us as deviant scum on the basis that our sexual interests are repulsive, this same faulty principle is applied by us to fans of cub art. Tragically amusing.

Just as a short personal aside, regarding Zaush's artwork: Daddy's Little Secrets. I found the characters to be either sociopathic predators or empty vessels, receptacles for cum. I found the comic utterly disgusting. However, as it is a work of fiction and I am not the intended audience for it, there's nothing in the comic or my reaction to it that has anything to do with morality. Zaush has not committed a crime by producing the comic and I am not some moral saint for being revolted by it. Morality has fuck all to do with it.

I think it is really important generally, not just in a fandom where art is so inseparable from everything within it, to keep ones moral judgements in check. A moral reaction to art is part of what makes art as effective as it is in the first place, but it is so bloody important to not extend ones moral reaction to fiction to the authors of it. So, to conclude this, people's fantasies may well disgust and delight, but for the authors of fantasy to be immoral they have to DO immoral things in the real world. If we do not believe this, if we make exceptions for things that bother us the most, we're up shit creek sans paddles. We will not have the furry fandom as a place where free artistic expression exists. If a principle does not protect what we object to as individuals, then neither are the things we like protected from those who object to our own tastes.
Viewed: 634 times
Added: 6 years ago
 
ZeloxQuo
6 years ago
Very well said indeed.

Definitely agree with your perspective on this matter.

[You can do cross posting on various sites, so can others  ; p  ]
PyristheHedgehog
6 years ago
agreed, I watch zaush and I didn't know this was happening but after recent events to one of my close friends I don't really like cub stuff but I don't think people who draw cub stuff are pedos because as you said its just fiction, we all have our own tastes but lets just make sure we don't harm others
PyristheHedgehog
6 years ago
oh dear my apologizes I meant to say "aren't pedos" I just now saw the mistake, sometimes I type too quickly and forgot a few letters or misspell some thing but yea people need to use their brains before ruining someone's life just because of something they draw. its not like Zaush is really harming children or acting like a pedo. but again I didn't know about this until this journal
west415bill
6 years ago
Yeah, that's the biggest part there, these individuals scream and holler for some type of action or what have you when there's no crime. At best it was images and information taken out of context and twisted to fit an accusation (according to Zaush's twitter post at least), but it reminds me of how there were accusations of artists and authors essentially being guilty of rape or of condoning rape because of content they've made.

This whole thing kind of comes across to me as another scenario where certain folks want to push the "laws for thee, not for me" type set up. I wonder if those accusing creators like Zaush aren't guilty of making some content like this themselves, wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I wonder if they'll make this into some huge witch hunt... and how long they'll take to do it.
PyristheHedgehog
6 years ago
well lets hope that doesn't happen, because they're just ruining lives of innocent people.
west415bill
6 years ago
Agreed...
KevinSnowpaw
6 years ago
this is the first im hereing of this and to my knowledge I though he diddent DO cub work.

that being said.. if he was useing perfectly legal imagines of kids for proportions and shit.... I really dont see an issue with it.. it's no different from useing like a artists pose doll...


now if he was Drawing imagines OF THOSE KIDS in sexual situations..and not just useing the body shape as a referance....thats...well thats wrong i think.

but if he was just useing it as ref material for body type ect....well... WTF ELSE was he suposed to use? CP I should fucking hope not.
SpoonFox
6 years ago
He doesn't do it on Furaffinity because there's some 'clause' that he's using that the characters in the pictures are adults when posted to FA because it's a different 'universe'. >_> even though the same pictures have the Cub tag on Inkbunny and e621... So yeah... He draws cub porn.
ScottySkunk
6 years ago
People over reacting and being over dramatic. I guess they arent happy unless they are trying to destroy someones life
TheAtomicDog
6 years ago
"Zaush Drama": But, Our Host repeats himself.
'Daddy's Little Secrets': Kinks. The very definition of a niche industry.
Everything else I see here is full ticks.
Carry on.
Auzzie
6 years ago
This is the most sane response I have seen on the matter thus far. Someone finally used their brain and basic logic to discuss the issues that have been brought up over this whole Zaush debacle.
IGAKattack
6 years ago
They say art is subjective, but for some things there IS a correct emotional response, but that is NOT meant to be directed towards the picture NOR the artist themselves. Not even at the commissioner.

If one is to draw a candle, with a single flame... does it make one more or less of an arsonist than if one were to instead draw a tower, ablaze, with "stick figures" tumbling from the windows, screaming silently in outrage at how this was allowed to happen, as angry gouts of fire belch forth smoke to a soot-blackened sky above...?

There. Art. The canvas, your own mind.

Painted before the event... a premonition? Painted after...? A reminder that evil comes in many forms.

See no evil? Hear no evil? Speak no evil? And what then? How then can one possibly know evil at all to recognise it when it comes knocking?

For once again, violence, or rather gunplay in video games has fallen into the firing line of blame for a school shooting in the home of school shootings where guns run wild and free? What argument then, if every game was all knights and wizards, with narry a gun in sight, and only swords and sorcery? Right, that's all witchcraft and devil worship, isn't it. What argument when every game is reformed of violence and replaced by sunshine, lollipops and rainbows through candy-cane clouds, and still violence runs rampant, the pavements bathed with blood because they still will not do what they know is right? Sometimes, sacrifices must be made.
To be clear, the problem there, from an outside perspective, is not stepping on their toes about the availability of firearms, but rather the fact that they don't seem concerned  AT ALL about who the fuck actually feels the need to defend themselves with a deadly weapon, and from whom?!

Fantasy is not reality, no matter how much any form of art may imitate life.

I'm not an artist that uses any sort of reference material, and maybe that influences my own paltry anatomy drawing skills for better or worse, but I understand the need for it. I never really try to make something too realistic anyway, because there is always a certain amount of "suspension of disbelief" when looking at any drawing or painting. We blur the lines ourselves when we look at a picture, but should never take a picture at face value. Like the justice system you mention, we are SUPPOSED to ask the difficult questions, and NOT jump to conclusions, and not just with pictures; words. Out of context, and through miscommunication as something is always, ALWAYS garbled in translation from one individual to another.

For if I ask you to think of a colour... you think of a different colour than the next person.

If I asked what the first thing you thought of was when I said red, it would be different to someone else. And each successive, iterative thought conjures the next and turns from one thing to another, not just through the words but the meaning itself, through words AND images, shapes and colours and sounds.

We are supposed to ask questions, to check and double check. Triple check. Never assume anything to be true without proof and proper evidence. We've been down this road before, and we all know where it leads. Right back to this same spot another day, when everyone seems to have forgotten the most important thing of all...

... that sometimes the majority are wrong, and they must concede, yet again, and hang their heads in shame at the consequences of jumping to conclusions and grabbing their torches and pitchforks. >=\

Sorry for taking up so much time, and space. I do hope you had a nice day, in spite of any drama.
Kavukamari
6 years ago
it kills me every time somethign like this comes up cause people get REALLY up in arms about underage stuff such that it seems if you draw a little peen on an underage character it's instantly as bad as if you plucked a kid from preschool and fucked them in the street or something (exaggerating, but still, it almost seems like that's the argument going around)

I may not give even half a crap about what zaush does or does not do, but i just dont think furry cub art is as bad as people demonize it to be
AphroditeDraco
6 years ago
Personally, I think the biggest reason for this thing being so huge right now is that Zaush is a big name artist and he's been involved in controversy before.  And he's been drawing cub porn for years, so naturally the professionally offended blow everything he does completely out of proportion.  

I had read some of the comments about the conversation in question (not the conversation itself, I couldn't find the thing, just the commentary on it), and there were comments saying that cub porn is illegal (which it isn't), that drawing cub porn is the same as molesting children (I really shouldn't have to explain why that is complete BS), and perhaps most disturbingly, that the child images he had were actual CP (which, based on what little I've been able to find such as your journal here is simply NOT true).  Total exaggerations, outright lies, people distancing themselves from Zaush because of the ick factor and a complete lack of proper information... you know, it isn't the cub porn artists who are causing the biggest problems in the furry community, it's these professionally offended assholes who deliberately lie, deliberately omit important information, blow things so ridiculously out of proportion that a molehill is presented as if it was Mount Fucking Everest.  They scream "PEDDOOOPHIILLLIIAAAA" over and over again, and when anyone calls them out as the liars that they are, they scream even louder.

Meanwhile, a cub porn artist draws a picture, shows it to some folks, someone maybe faps to it, and that's pretty much all that happens... and yet they get treated like they're the problem by loudmouth dumbasses who absolutely refuse to acknowledge that fantasy and reality are not the same thing because they are offended and they want the whole wide world to know it.  The "I'm offended" brigade is to blame, not the artist who draws underage anthropomorphic characters in sexual situations.

And I'm ranting again.  Sorry.
TheRealMedley
6 years ago
" and there were comments saying that cub porn is illegal


... Acktshually it really depends on where you are depends on if it is illegal or not. In my state, in the United States Of America, it is anywhere from a class one to a class three felony to posses, produce, or otherwise be involved in any form of "child pornography", including drawn.

So yeah it really isn't a blanket acceptance that drawn "isn't real CP" by law standards, I personally don't condemn or condone it, but I won't be drawing it or asking for it to be drawn because I don't want to serve up to 20 years in the pen with a $200,000 fine just because someone wants to fap to some badly drawn cubby porns. So yeah I'm legally against it but morally I don't give a fuck.
AphroditeDraco
6 years ago
" MedleyChimera wrote:
In my state, in the United States Of America, it is anywhere from a class one to a class three felony to posses, produce, or otherwise be involved in any form of "child pornography", including drawn.


No, it is not.

Your state's laws are subject to the law of the nation, as in the Constitution of the United States of America.  And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_por... , "drawn cp" is fully legal.

What is not legal is obscenity.  And obscenity hasn't been legal in the United States for over a hundred and fifty years thanks mainly to the Comstock Act.  Obscenity laws in the USA are vaguely worded so they can be interpreted on an individual level however an activist judge or jury wants to interpret it.  This is how people like Christopher Handley and other people that the media has claimed are guilty of possessing loli/shotacon are convicted.  It is not (I repeat, NOT) because they have drawn CP that they are convicted.  It is because the materials they have in their possession have been deemed obscene by the local courts.  Granted, the reason it was considered obscene most likely was that it depicted minor characters in sexual situations, but I promise you that it was not against the law in your state to possess images of cub porn or lolicon unless those images are deemed obscene by the court.

If such a law exists on the books in your state, it is null and void because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and according to the SCOTUS, the folks charged with interpreting the Constitution, "In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California."  States do NOT have the right to pass laws that contradict this.
TheRealMedley
6 years ago
Texas prohibits the promotion, use, or exploitation of children under the age of 18 for performance or employment or conduct of sexual acts or depictions of acts of a sexual nature. Texas law defines "sexual conduct" as sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. It is against the law to promote, create, or disseminate materials depicting any such sexual conduct by any means of visual representation, including plays, motion picture, photographs, and dance.

It is also a crime to possess child pornography. A prosecutor must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed materials depicting a child under the age of 18 years at the time the material was created, engaging in sexual conduct, and the defendant knows this material depicts the child as such. Under Texas child pornography laws, if six or more identical visual depictions of a child engaging in sexual conduct are found, then there will be a presumption that the defendant had intent to promote the materials.
AphroditeDraco
6 years ago
Provide me with a link to this law, please, as well as highlighting where exactly it defines "child under 18" as a 2 dimensional drawing of a cartoon character.

The first part I know you can provide, because I live in Texas and I've read the law in question.  The second part I know you cannot provide, because again, I live in Texas and I've read the law in question.  A cub porn cartoon character =/= a "child under 18" according to Texas law.

But even if Texas law did define a cub porn cartoon character as "a child under the age of 18 years," the fact remains that such language would render that law null and void because State law is subject to National Law.  And National Law says that a child is a real human being and not a drawing, that drawn art is protected speech under the First Amendment.  Therefore, drawn cub porn is NOT illegal in the state of Texas... or any other US state for that matter.
KevinSnowpaw
6 years ago
the importent part is the wording here.


the legality of something like lolicon and shotacon is suspect is some states becouse they out right ban DEPICTIONS of children so long as that depiction is lewd and has no artistic value though one could ARGUE anything drawn by hand or rendered in photophop HAS artistic marit... so it would have to be decided by the crouts on a case by case wich is why you dont see prosacutions for it.


FURRY however does not even depict "children" in the law the world "children" refers to Humans.. furrys are entirely fictional.. you would have even more problems trying to get a conviction in court.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years ago
You're apologising to ME for ranting? Haha, as a fellow ranty person, you have nothing to apologise for XP.
AphroditeDraco
6 years ago
Hehehe, this is true.  Thank you.
Beowuffle
6 years ago
Im going to start taking your posts and convert them into text to speech mp3s and post it under them. :P we can maybe get you a deal with audible
PupZephyr
6 years ago
I definitely agree; fantasy is all it will ever be for me. I just wish my friends weren't so disgusted by the general issue. I have to keep my FA completely separate from my IB.

I'm completely different from my IB persona when around real kids. Even growing up I always felt like a guardian angel around younger kids, like they are something I have to protect. That will always be my instinct, to protect.
TheRealMedley
6 years ago
" Zaush has not committed a crime by producing the comic


" ... Acktshually it really depends on where you are depends on if it is illegal or not. In my state, in the United States Of America, it is anywhere from a class one to a class three felony to posses, produce, or otherwise be involved in any form of "child pornography", including drawn.

So yeah it really isn't a blanket acceptance that drawn "isn't real CP" by law standards, I personally don't condemn or condone it, but I won't be drawing it or asking for it to be drawn because I don't want to serve up to 20 years in the pen with a $200,000 fine just because someone wants to fap to some badly drawn cubby porns. So yeah I'm legally against it but morally I don't give a fuck.


In short you can't really say what is and isn't illegal, in fact the main reason Inkbunny turned into basically a furry cub pornography site (that literally attacks artist if they are against cub porn to the point of making call out journals and having people go harass the artist) is because Furaffinity banned it because it became illegal in the UK.

So it really does depend on your geographical location, depends on if it is legal. Please don't spread falsehood blankets such as "its drawn therefore not illegal" since for some people it is illegal and it will get them in trouble if they are caught with it, usually flagged by sites that actually share CP unbeknownst to the people just collecting their loli and shota stuff. While yes the argument that "animals aren't real children" exists, it doesn't matter to a jurry trying you under the clause that you're a pedophile for even having any form or depictions of underage characters, and no trial witha jurry will be fair or listen to anyone caught as a pedophile acting or not.

Also lets not forget the actual definition of pedophile;
"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child"

So there is active pedophilia, as in engaging in sexual acts with a child, and passive pedophilia where someone is just attracted too but never would hurt a child. So please pedo furries who only beat it to cub porn, put down your pitch forks, I'm not calling y'all actual rapists, you gotta leave your mom's basements to actually see real children... For real though sexual preference is something we can't control and as long as you haven't touched or hurt anyone in real life then I don't give a fuck about what you do online as long as no real child was hurt to make your fantasy pictures.

Closing note. People can hate what they want and accuse people of what ever they want but in the end Zaush is a popfur by his art, his first controversy as a rapist, and now by his cub stuff and using IRL catalogue images as reference for drawing. He won't lose popularity, he will instead gain it. Look at DangerDoberman he literally raped his dog, got discharged from the military, isn't allowed to own another pet, and paid a hefty fine while also being in either jail or prison for a bit, and people still flock to him and love him, hell he is the biggest hater of CP on IB and bans/blocks people for drawinf SFW cub, yet people here still love him. Just goes to show no matter how truely evil you are people will still love you. (Its evil that he anally raped and sodomized his animal). *Edit* Oh and it seems he went to prison again for attempted murder for shooting someone. So yeah no matter how bad you are you will still have your following.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years ago
Yes, different places have different laws, but where Zaush is cub smut isn't illegal, as far as I'm aware. Anyway, cub fans arent necessarily paedophiles, because there is a big difference between a furry cub and a human child. I find some cubs attractive, like Tails for example, but never actual children. It depends on the individual, sexual attraction can be very specific or very broad and an interest in cubs does not require an interest in kids. It doesn't prevent one either, so one can find people who are paedophiles among those who are into cub stuff.
TheRealMedley
6 years ago
Techincally his cub pornography is illegal, it is for me and other Texans, it is illegal for those in Utah, Arizona, the UK, Japan (shocking I know but they actually have anti cp laws), and other places, by actual definition it is still illegal, but he himself drawing, owning and distributing it could be legal for him where he is at which would technically be legal. So no its not legal or illegal, its all region based. You're not wrong but you're wrong at the same time.

As for your love of Tails and your desire to not be called a Pedophile, since Tails is depicted to be an 8 year old anthropomorphic mobian fox character in an imaginary world, I'll grant you what ever you want to call yourself on that since arguing that "species" doesnt mean shit and its legit just age we are talking about, you're not attracted to his childlike attitude or the fact that he is a child, only that he is an anthro fox, then by all accounts the proper term is Zoophile, "a person who is sexually attracted to animals", which as said before when it comes to pedophiles, as long as you don't hurt others or yourself for your fantasies, then by all means let your fetish flag fly, but the moment you take it the step further and actually procure images or videos or try it yourself of in real life abuse, then you're going to be judged harshly for your crimes.

There is no "gray area" for flat definitions, only different words for different things, a person attracted to a postpubescent teenager is an "Ephebophile" a person attatcted to a tree is a "Dendrophile", a person attracted to an animal (mind you attracted to, not someone having sex with a real life dog or cat) is a Zoophile, there is nothing wrong with being any of these, As long as you don't engage in acts of abuse on anyone/thing. Being sexually attracted to an imaginary anthropomorphic eight year old prepubescent two tailed fox does not make you a bad person, it just makes you a person with a very specific fetish that can't be acted out in real life.

So I'm not using these terms to "attack" or in their "derogatory" way, I'm using them for their literal definitions, if people don't want to be called these things maybe they should keep their personal fetishes and such to themselves.

Furries who enjoy anthropomorphic pornography are by all accounts Zoophiles, furries who enjoy anthropomorphic pornography of prepubescent characters are Zoophile Pedophiles, are they actually going put and having sex with children in animal costumes? NO! But are they still what they are based solely off of these definitions in pure black and white? Yes.

No shame in being who you are, there isn't anything anyone can do past castration (please don't castrate yourselves unless medically necessary) to control their sexual preferences, but we as society have yet to realize that and put all of our negative stigmas behind words and give them extra and false definitions.

Being a Zoophile doesn't mean you have engaged or plan to engage in sexual acts with an animal, same for being a Pedophile, it doesn't mean you have engaged or are going to engage in sexual acts with prepubescent persons.

Take this with the grain of salt I know you will, but I'm being literal here black and white no gray areas, eso es que es. And I will say for the umpteenth time, sexual preference does not make you a bad person or a predator, its just who you are.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years ago
Lol. The proper term isn't zoophile, actually, that's for people sexually attracted to animals. I'm attracted to anthropomorphic furries, they must have humanoid bodies. The closer to actual animals they are, the less I'm attracted. I don't want to have sex with foxes. Cub porn also isn't illegal in the UK, the law against drawings is about trying to get people who circumvent having child porn by having drawings of the real thing. So if you draw a human child that is based on cp then that is illegal, furry stuff isn't. There are many potential reasons for people to like cub art, some love the cute aspect of it, the size and proportions etc. So liking cub does not mean you must be paedophilic or whatever and liking furries doesn't make one a zoophile.
Heuvadoches
6 years ago
" RoareyRaccoon wrote:
... The proper term isn't zoophile ...


Let me pick this one out.  The name "zoophile" comes from the Greeks.  Let's split it up into its base forms.  "zoo" and "phile".

"Zoo" means "animal" ... that's it.

"Phile" means "love" ... that's it.

so we have "animal love" ... nothing about sex in it.  Now the communities have redefined what it means with the other word, right?  

The community definitions:  "Zoophilia" is the 'consensual' sex with animals where "bestiality" is the 'rape' of an animal.

But there was nothing wrong in what MedleyChimera had said.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years ago
Yeah there is, if you define zoophilia as a sexual attraction to animals then that's what it means. Furries are not animals, they are distinct from animals. If I can find a toony furry attractive but not an animal, then they're obviously not the same thing. Being sexually attracted to an actual animal is not the same thing as finding an anthro furry attractive, it never will be either. Most furries don't see themselves wanting to fuck animals.
TheRealMedley
6 years ago
Touché, but again just going off of black and white, did my best not to trigger anyone here by the way, trying my best to be neutral and God forbid "PC" and it looks like I didn't offend anyone yet, but there are no words to define "humanized animal fetishists" so Zoophile is as close as it gets, although some ague that "furry" the word in and of itself is the word for sexual attraction to anthropomorphic characters specifically animal ones" (anthropomorphism can be used to humanize anything The Brave Little Toaster is an example of an anthro toaster), but there those of us who draw, and see animal anthro pornography daily but do not enjoy it sexually ourselves personally, yet we are all blanketed as "furry" "people who enjoy pornographic imagery of humanized animals engaging in sexual acts". Kind of hard to call yourself something when people always assume the worst, is my whole point here by the way, people don't like being called a Zoophile because they are assumed dogfuckers, people don't like being called Pedophiles because they are assumed child predators, people don't like being called furries because they are assumed to wear animal costumes while they fuck. No one wins when you let the negativity rule the world and let others define words for you rather than just using their actual definition in its purest black and white form.

Also you can have cute imagery without showing genitalia and you can have size difference without using prepubescent and postpubescent characters together, so the logic of "I like cub porn for those two reasons" is kind of bullshit, if there wasn't a market for cute cuddly critters in their cutest forms then I could half way believe the "I just like cute things" and if there wasn't already a size play market I would believe the "size difference" as well, but you don't have to have the underage characters asshole/vagina/penis showing for it to be deemed cute, it can be cute without those bits. Same for how you can like a dude or chick at 4ft and their partner at 5-6ft (or in some cases little people "dwarves/midgets") without anyone being underage.

Liking anything human or humanoid that is prepubescent in a sexual sense because it is prepubescent, makes you a pedophile, not a predator, there is a huge world of difference, if you liked something and didn't know it was prepubescent or in the range of ephebophilia, then its just a one time thing and it doesn't dictate that your whole sexual preference is that of a pedophilic or ephebophilic nature.

Dancing around the subject and creating excuses to try to remove the words isn't going to change what they mean or how they are applied, especially here, a lot of "cub artists" also draw a lot of human children characters depicted in sexual situations, which still labels the art as pedophilic in nature and the people who clamour around it to gawk and praise it on a daily basis and it is something they truly adore are what they are and they are pedophiles not child predators.

Also I enjoy thr size play stuff, but still use age appropriate for my area so I don't get into trouble, characters for my art that I do.

Once again not condemning or conding anything, but words are just words and labels are just labels, just don't let negative false connotations define them for you. Using their literal definitions is better than liberal media definitions by far.

Yeah I'm being a huge stick in the mud and I seem to be arguing a lot, but I get why people don't like things in their literal sense, I for one hate being called a furry because of what is in paragraph one of this reply, but I won't deny that I do indeed draw sexualized animals that have been humanized, I will however argue till I'm blue in the face about what "furry" actually is. Since it has no formal definition I would move to just saying that its the like (nonsexual) of humanoid animals depicted in arts. So people can like something without being a bad person.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years ago
No I'm not going off black and white, I have a more nuanced outlook on it than you do for fuck sake lol. Paedophiles are people who find children attractive due to their age and level of maturity, that is an inseparable part of it, which is why paedophiles tend to have specific ages of attraction. When it comes to cub art you can like it for a whole host of reasons that have sod all to do with age, where the age isn't even considered. I like toony, cute things sexually, for example. There is more to it than what you're saying and you're trying to pigeonhole all cub art and cub fans into one box alongside those sexually attracted to real children. This is categorically false, I don't give a toss how much you want to play games with words, if people can be attracted to cub art but not children then it physically cannot be the same thing, it is impossible. People can be both fans of cub art and paedophiles, they aren't mutually exclusive, but they aren't the bloody same either. I don't care that you're not trying to make a moral judgement, your terminology is simply incorrect.
Lcklust
6 years ago
I mean, yea you can have cute cub art without sexual imagery, but that doesn't negate the argument either. Both can still be considered cute. I can define what I consider cute as an artist and it can be wildly different from another's point of view.
Kapricus
6 years ago
Well said!

I am happy I haven't seen much (if any) journals of people's outright disgust over a leaked conversation here on Inkbunny, but over there on Twitter exists packs of sharks doing there absolute best to give Zaush their absolute worst.
Danjen
6 years ago
Won't matter.

Nothing will happen because he's popular. Dragoneer and other gatekeepers of the fandom will keep his image squeaky clean whether anything was actually done,  because he brings traffic to the site.
Daneasaur
6 years ago
I agree, I'm more personally offended with zaush's "characters".

Then again, he's a pop-u-fur who has legions of frothing meat shields to defend him, so it's not like we could do anything if he did do something wrong.
Heuvadoches
6 years ago
It's like it's a fantasy JRPG or something!
Daneasaur
6 years ago
I know, right?
Sleepyly
6 years ago
These are our new-age puritans who will fight against non-existent crimes and make sure no one consumes or produces content that they deem degenerate no matter if its actually harmless or not.

Every anti-Zaush argument is pure feels, the person who leaked these photos is disgusting, wanting to earn their "white knight" title for ruining an innocent person life and twisting facts to push an false accusation.

People have all the right to find his tastes creepy and it does make sense to do so,however he did not cause harm to anyone and doesnt deserve to be exposed for that.
TwitchChameleon
6 years ago
My favorite part are all the people who hate him already who were lying, claiming he had CP, and then were LINKING to it.  I got to inform that a) they were liars and b) if they weren't liars then they were actively sharing CP, which was a felony.  Because they are stupid.
smblion
6 years ago
People are angry because there are problems in their lives (WAAAAAAH! You poor babies!), and so they're constantly looking for ANYTHING to bitch and rage about.

Which is fine, but I think everyone should chill the fuck out on attacking each other because life is the same shit for everyone.
BullseyeBronco
6 years ago
Well said
Vuk91
6 years ago
First, the rape accusations, now this? It must be bad to be him.
Blazger
6 years ago
Nicely put dude.  Thus the reason why I don't have a twitter.  Now as for telegram, I think some people need to think about who to trust now a days cause there are people in groups who wanna start something.
KootieBirdo
6 years ago
I'm not one to condemn artists for drawing cub porn.
As long as these artists aren't doing any harm in RL, that's what matters most.
KNIFE
6 years ago
Wow a whole NEW shitstorm of drama I missed.
*SIGH*
Oh well..
KevinSnowpaw
6 years ago
were is this comic of his thats cuaseing so much controversy =p i wanna see it XD
RoareyRaccoon
6 years ago
The comic isnt causing this, a leaked telegram conversation is, but Zaush's Daddy's Little Secrets comic was controversial at the time too, it should be in his galleries somewhere XP.
KevinSnowpaw
6 years ago
i finaly found the conversation it was, as i expected, not a big deal...people are just looking for any excuse to judge others... gotta love the inclusive bigotry =p
Calbeck
6 years ago
Well said.
Straitfox
6 years ago
People are just morons and I feel for you and Zaush.
Folks just need to not take things out of context and just move on.

It's like those people that perform autopsies are murderers.
Daggett
6 years ago
I've always had a simple Libertarian outlook on morality. If you aren't hurting a real child, animal, or non-consenting adult, I really don't care what you do or who you do it with.
Vuk91
6 years ago
All Zaush did was arranging a commission with another furry using LEGAL images. No Child Porn was involved -aside from the drawn furry cub porn, a kind of pornography IGNORED by law at large-. Yet, people seem HAPPY to ostracize Him, even DEMAND punishment for all the NOTHING he did. It's getting on my nerves.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.