My last journal was a plea to anyone reading to be retrospective in their life and to understand how their life affects and harms others. Looks like Inkbunny has taken that to heart.
Many of you know I've been fighting for this for years, I've been threatened, "canceled", harassed and more over my stance on PRO-C MAP and pedophilia. Which is shocking because I take the stance of "Touching children is bad keep it in fantasy only."
This site quickly became a place I was uncomfortable because it seemed having that stance got me attacked here more than anywhere else. Hell I've been blacklisted from a surprising number of prominent artist accounts for that stance.
It... is nice to be validated. To know the work I put in to calling these people out on their behavior wasn't in vain.
I'll leave this off with just a link to my last journal, I honestly think it's one of my best works of writing recently. A plea for anyone reading to do better by themselves and those around them:
Edit: I might just start to upload all the work I've gotten over these last 8 years that I've just... not posted due to being uncomfortable with the community in general. We shall see. Hell maybe I'll write something.
I wonder where you find those people. All I saw is extremely aggressive "MAP bad no matter what even if you are not pro-c", which BTW was and still is against IB rules.
I wonder where you find those people. All I saw is extremely aggressive "MAP bad no matter what even
They were everywhere? Like literally. You could not search "cub" without finding SOMETHING from them. Being an active story reader was worse when you find people writing stories with descriptions about how much they wish they could find IRL "Diapered R**ard kids to fuck." Or the series of accounts posting to the site with "pedo" or "map" in their name who have page descriptions talking about how proud they are to be map/zoo or how they are advocates for legalizing child sexual abuse. Hell most of them proudly watched and expressed themselves on a pride page on this very site.
Hell one of the biggest artists here was open and aggressively pro contact to the point that he named the child he was grooming in his profile. Like you had to be blind to miss this stuff.
They were everywhere? Like literally. You could not search "cub" without finding SOMETHING from them
I don't know what to tell you. It was there, it was obviously there, to the point that as you see admins had to step in and do something. You not seeing it is the weird thing.
I don't know what to tell you. It was there, it was obviously there, to the point that as you see ad
Well, it is hard to believe when I saw nothing like that, and everyone around is just angrily ranting about it. So from my PoV is looks like a pure witch hunt.
Well, it is hard to believe when I saw nothing like that, and everyone around is just angrily rantin
How the heck is it any kind of witch hunt? No one is attacking people for no reason there is a set of rules to follow now saying:
"Hey don't advertise to everyone or post publicly about being a MAP who wants to touch children. That isn't okay."
Like, seriously? And I'm telling you flat out, I have first hand experience with these people. I've been harassed, I've been attacked and blocked and accused of all sorts of things by them. I gave you examples of the stuff I saw. But yeah "I haven't seen them so nope, doesn't exist". I haven't personally seen Africa, guess it doesn't exist, anyone talking about going to Africa is lying.
How the heck is it any kind of witch hunt? No one is attacking people for no reason there is a set o
Dude, I lived this first hand. I've been dead center of this the whole time for the last 6/7 years that it's been building up. I've been harassed, attacked, attempted doxing, "debated". Literally major artists have left this site to get away from the association. There is/was a well known account literally named "Pedocoon" who advocates for this stuff openly and aggressively. Tay Ferret literally had posts about meeting kids at cons and had a special spot in his profile to name the child he was currently grooming. Every time I used the search feature 1 out of 20 or so pics would be posted from an account with "Pedo/zoo pride" in their profile.
You have a really fucking bad case of observer's bias my friend. That or willful ignorance.
Dude, I lived this first hand. I've been dead center of this the whole time for the last 6/7 years t
It is way more common than you think, and this was a necessary move. You're lucky if you didn't see it, but just because you didn't see it or experience it, doesn't mean it wasn't happening. We got driven off the site a few years ago because of pro-c's harassing us, and only recently came back. It was a PROBLEM.
It is way more common than you think, and this was a necessary move. You're lucky if you didn't see
What Edis said was what I've seen on this whole debacle. This is an art site, not twitter. Its absolutely ridiculous anyone has to point this out at all, REGARDLESS of stance. Not the legality, or discrimination, or harassment...thats the internet. Simply the fact that people have to get so gung-ho over such topics that things need be specifically stated as off-limits.
Its with this kinda thinking that virtually anything can, and does, come under fire nowadays. It needs be said that views differ, and the further into the technology era we go, the more differing views will appear. Hate is wrong, in ANY form. On the flipside, Love comes in a full rainbow of flavors. That being said, there is a difference between Love and Abuse; namely: harm, intent, and consent. (Note: that is NOT "Informed" consent. Just -consent-.)
Again, not twitter, so will leave it at that.
What Edis said was what I've seen on this whole debacle. This is an art site, not twitter. Its absol
I do not hate. If you are thinking anything I am saying or doing is hate then you have the wrong idea about me. I've posted journals about this in the past, I want these people to seek help, their views, urges and "needs" inherently cause harm.
You can NOT make sexual contact with a child without causing them harm. I am sorry. That is a fact that has been studied over, and over, and over. Even in adults unbalanced power dynamics like that are harmful.
I understand that views differ but when your view is "I should be able to harm another at my whims." That is a view that should be stood up against. It doesn't matter HOW that harm comes about, rape, murder, molestation, bestiality. When your "view" is that you should be able to do what you want despite what the people you physically harm want or what is best for them your view should be pushed back against.
Weather it is "incels" "rapists" or "pro-c" the points made are the same, their sexuality comes first over the safety and well being of others. You can argue till you are blue in the face that kids CAN "consent" but they CAN'T. I'm sorry but they are physically, hormonaly, and mentally unable to properly decide what is best for them sexually and to understand the repercussions of their actions to the rest of their lives.
Informed consent = consent. There is no other kind of consent. If you do not know the situation around what you are agreeing to or how it will affect you you are not giving consent. That is why consent under extreme intoxication is considered to not be proper consent. Animals can not consent, kids can not consent, drugged or drunk people can not consent, people under duress can not consent.
People are "gung-ho" over this because it has been a PROBLEM. It isn't just "these people have a different opinion." it is "These people are advertising that they want to contact off site and share illicit materials." People were sharing links, telegrams, encrypted message service IDs and such with specific messages saying they had "no limits ;3", dog whistles for child pornography, or even explicitly saying they wanted to share illicit content in private. The site WAS being used as a "safe space" for people wanting to share in illegal abusive content to find each other.
I do not hate. If you are thinking anything I am saying or doing is hate then you have the wrong ide
My specific disagreement is the animal part. There is a difference between zoophilia and bestiality, first of all. There is also plenty of research of what constitutes informed consent. Not to mention, homo sapiens are a classification of animalia under the genus mamalia; ie humans are not *above* animal kind, but equivilent.
My arguement specifically is upon the nature of consent; and i've personally argued that till the cows came home and left again. I find it extremely offensive to lump Zoophilia and Pedophilia in the same boat, as they are no where close and it shows the severe lack of research into the subject one has in doing so. I shall point to Rakuen's flayrah article 'Can Animals Consent?' as they have several scholarly refrences there, and a large article on the subject.
Lastly, returning to the specific point: uninformed people use 'bestiality' and 'zoophilia' interchangeably; they're not the same. Its been shown time and again Zoophiles, ie, those who show the zoo flag, are significantly more compassionate and treat their companions far better then any 'pet parent' does. Pets aren't children. Just because you don't speak the same language doesn't mean you're any less capable.
Specifically, lumping things together like this IS hate.
My specific disagreement is the animal part. There is a difference between zoophilia and bestiality,
First, I did not use zoo and bestiality interchangeably, I used them in two very different contexts in different posts with different intent behind the use. Do not put words in my mouth.
Second, I "lumped" together things that have a clear through line and shared commonality, which I stated and expressed what that shared commonality was, and by your very own message you seem to share the view I expressed on it or at the very least distance yourself from the term I used when "lumping" the things together.
An article written by a fur with an agenda and bias who cherry pics articles for their own argument is not a valid scholarly source on the matter. Me, I'm not claiming to know everything or know the 100% truth or to be any kind of expert.
With animals it comes down to the power dynamic. A pet, no matter how well treated, is always under you in power and control. They are trained to be obedient, bred to be obedient and/or docile. They are dependent on you for their very life, you are their only secure source of food and shelter. In the case of dogs they are bred to do tricks and listen to commands when those actions are returned with praise or food. There is no situation, in the slightest, where a sexual relationship with such an animal is consensual, they can be the most intelligent creature with human speech and all and I will still tell you that that situation is wrong. Humans being in that same situation is just as wrong.
First, I did not use zoo and bestiality interchangeably, I used them in two very different contexts
And that is where the opinions differ. I don't follow the line of thinking that so many pet owners have of "fur babies"; because that concept in and of itself is wrong. Canines especially become fully mature at an age where human individuals do not even have the mental capacity for an intellectual thought (contrary to animated media.)
Secondly, the 'cherry picking' comment shows you haven't read it; I cited the specific example i did because i actually *know* the author, and how well-researched their papers are; even fact-checked that particular article myself, INCLUDING every refrence, in its entirety (fascinating stuff).
Third, I never mentioned a power dynamic; I have no need to, as I do not currently posess a pet, as finances just arent there. I just don't see the point how anyone can claim something as inherently wrong as a group-sum. EVERYTHING is a per-individual basis, as context is essential to every major arguement. Remove the context, one could make any arguement valid; The sky is violet, the grass is yellow, old people shrink, etc.
Fourth, back to specifics: My arguement is, specifically, against pedophilia and zoophilia being considered a "clear thought line" to lump together. They're not. If you wanna make it such, define first at what age a "child" is no longer considered a "child". Based on my local laws, that age is defined as exactly 6,575 days following their exit of their mother's womb (for those bad at math, that's the day after their 18th birthday; allowing for the exact time of birth). That being said, I know 32 year olds woth less emotional and mental maturity then even my youngest brother (who outpaced ME six years back). I know others personally active since well before that legal age, on both sides of the equipment.
My *point* there: Age is just a number. You can't define maturity based on numbers. Ergo, laws aren't specifically about when abuse may occur, but instead when it needs be defined as something else.
My issue with the arguement as a whole: People trying to force definitions, and decisions, in broad-reaching spans which should instead be restricted and resigned to individual or per-case basis; especially upon a site which prides itself on idividuality and freedom of expression.
In the fandom alone, there will ALWAYS be comments on art of any form of 'Wish that were me irl'. It happens. Furry is a VERY inclusive thing, and always should be. That means we must take the sugar, the salt, and everything in-between, and be HAPPY about it; or break away, and try out how it goes recruiting for our own special little clubs. Do I think, personally, anyone should engage in illicit contact with young ones? No. But I also believe modern society is going WAY too far into defining what is or isn't appropriate, and with whom or what. Where does it end? Its one thing to define abuse based on ACTUAL harm...but another entirely to define something as abuse over NUMBERS. Getting any deeper into that, here, would fall under the AUPs.
What any idividual does to any other individual is not the responsibility of inkbunny to define or refute/endorse. If individuals use the platform for purposes the platform is not meant for, ban them for THAT. Dont try to sugar coat it under moral arguements or soft gloves. There's too much of that in all modern legal systems today, and it doesn't bode well for society in the future. (afterall...how will we ever colonize Mars if humanity continues to bicker amonst itself?) If there are problems, that's why admins and mods exist. What some person does in their own home, has no business being discussed *here*, regardless of what ANYONE opinions over it.
I'm sorry you were "targeted". But trolls actively hunt for anyone with expressed opinions, *purely because they can*. That's the internet; always has been, always will be. Keep the debates over it to twitter and social media. All i got to say on the matter.
"I have spoken." (If THAT bugs you, sue Disney.)
And that is where the opinions differ. I don't follow the line of thinking that so many pet owners h
The maturity of an animal is not the point or argument I was trying to make, that was pointless to the conversation as a whole. Also because my argument for why I don't believe animals can't consent has nothing to do with their maturity and everything to do with their capability mentally, ability to communicate, understand, and the way they interpret interactions with humans. If a human was in the same position mentally, physically, or a place of power and control by another I would say it was just as bad, wrong, and that human has the inability to consent in the situation, despite age or "maturity".
You are taking my statements extremely personally when I have not a single time used "you" or implied I was talking about you. I didn't say you had any kind of dynamic with an animal or argue that you were doing anything specific or anything at all but you keep replying like I have or like I'm making personal comments directed to you, which I am not, and have not.
You very much misunderstand my dismissal of your friend's article, and you being a friend of and researcher for it furthers my point of bias. I am not trying to claim I know all, or have read all, or linking scientific papers or articles my friend's made to back me up, I'm a fox on the internet talking about something I care about.
I did not, at any point, claim there was a "clear thought line" between pedophilia and zoophilia, I said molestation and bestiality. You yourself said there is a major difference between zoophilia and bestiality so please be internally consistent with yourself and don't put words in my mouth to make it seem like I said something I did not. You seem to be the one using pedophilia/molestation and zoophilia/bestiality interchangeably not me. The closest thing I came to what you claim is earlier in a separate post me saying that I see people with ProC/Zoo in their profile a lot when looking at images, which is a factual statement on my part and not me conflating anything.
Inkbunny is in no way telling people what they can and can not do in private, they are telling people what not to do in the public of their platform. Which they have every single right on this earth to do.
I am a writer, I express myself through writing, both creative and opinionated. I created a journal to express how I felt about the recent changes, it was not here to debate. You came here, to my journal, you keep coming here to my journal, and debate me? And yet you are telling me to keep the debates to twitter? That is oxymoronic to an extreme.
The maturity of an animal is not the point or argument I was trying to make, that was pointless to t
Typo I only noticed after the edit time passed "Also because my argument for why I believe animals can't consent" double negative, my fault for typing that line while distracted.
Typo I only noticed after the edit time passed "Also because my argument for why I believe animals c
Sorry if I'm popping out of the blue here to necro-post, I don't think I've actually said anything since making my account years ago, because I never felt like there was anything worth saying... until now;
I'm extremely glad to see someone else, and going down a bunny hole on this topic over the last bit, quite a few people who are pretty level with these things. At the top I'll say I gave it a lot of thought and read a lot of opinions, and I ultimately agree with IB's decision, for what that's worth.
But if that was all I wouldn't have bothered saying anything. What really sticks out to me is that, for all the back and forth I've seen about this, you're the only one who I've seen say what I've tried desperately over the past 15 years to pound into people's heads. Both in the fandom and irl about other things; keep fantasy fantasy.
Nobody seems to understand the concept, and people even seem to violently rebel against it; good or bad, the stuff in our heads, in our art, the un-real is not only supposed to stay un-real, but it can't truly become real because reality always muddies things up and makes something new out of what we put into the world. People get "Weltschmerz" when they start to understand this stuff, but beyond that you get to see how enjoying the fantasy for what it is, a fantasy, (be it cute cubs prancing nekked through a meadow, or something dark) keeps it fun and safe.
Anyways, I didn't mean to wax soap-box-ey about it, but rather to give kudos where kudos is due. It's good to see, in both this and the last journal. It brightens my day in a weird and welcome way. ^w^
Sorry if I'm popping out of the blue here to necro-post, I don't think I've actually said anything s
Thanks a lot for the comment, no problem that it's a bit necro this info is here to share after all and nothing wrong with a little extra discussion! Always glad to see like minded peeps who can understand these concepts.
Thanks a lot for the comment, no problem that it's a bit necro this info is here to share after all
