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

IB's Human Rule

I've always disliked it, but I feel like bringing it up for the sake of discussion.  I like everything about this site except for this one thing.

So human content can exist here, but not in a sexual manner.  Why does this rule exist?  I'd really like to know its purpose.  If the site was exclaiming that this is a community focused solely on non-human content, it makes sense not to allow human-only sexual images, but doesn't make sense that it should still allow human content at all - this disparity contradicts the originally assumed directive.

The way I see it, I don't know what's so wrong in allowing human sexual content so long as something inhuman or anthropomorphic is involved.  That content still adheres to the messaged themes of the site.
Viewed: 74 times
Added: 5 years, 3 months ago
 
PURRfect93
5 years, 3 months ago
Ive always wondered about it. And you make good points :0
peanuts
5 years, 3 months ago
It might not be the perfect rule, but I think it still serves its purpose. I would hate it if, besides all the brony stuff that's already out there, the furry websites get flooded with human content
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
But the flawed part is that it still can, so long as it's not anything of a sexual nature.
Salacious
5 years, 3 months ago
It's actually to avoid the legal grey area when it comes to loli/shota stuff vs child porn. It's annoying and frustrating [my actual fursona is a demi-human, and thus can't be posted here without censorship], but apparantly paypal (For the IB user donations and such) or whoever will just drop you like a hot potato if you even come close to something they consider inappropriate.
HaruTotetsu
5 years, 3 months ago
I think the rule hinders an artists ability to grow. And the stupidest thing to say is "Go somewhere else" because that loses the site business and thus money, which also loses artists business and money.
Though Salacious' point
" Salacious wrote:
It's actually to avoid the legal grey area when it comes to loli/shota stuff vs child porn. It's annoying and frustrating [my actual fursona is a demi-human, and thus can't be posted here without censorship], but apparantly paypal (For the IB user donations and such) or whoever will just drop you like a hot potato if you even come close to something they consider inappropriate.
makes me understand why they've implemented it.

This leads me to believe that its either cub porn or human porn...we can't have both.
Salacious
5 years, 3 months ago
Unfortunate but true. I may have to start doing the hotlinking thing at some point, but I am dreadfully lazy XD
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
I guess I also view this site in a different light than most.  I see a lot of people labeling Inkbunny as a cub site, which it honestly isn't.  It's an art site that just happens to not restrict cub content - the same as FurAffinity used to be, but nobody called that a cub site.

Still, on the point, maybe it's just easier for them to deny all sexual human content rather than moderating underage human depictions.  I'd rather have it done as the latter, though.
HaruTotetsu
5 years, 3 months ago
While I think most would agree with you, Ink Bunny would need wealth to rival Microsoft to be able to pull that off effectively since some perverts would just incorrectly tag it, so their human child drawing that have them in sexual positions are harder to find. Its because of those people that either forget to tag things properly or those that refuse to do so that we can't actually allow it.
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
That's why you have a report function for user moderation.  One interesting thing is that Paheal seems to get this message across fine and well, in a big bold front page message telling you "Don't upload anything with underage kids, you idiots" - not literally, of course, haha.
HaruTotetsu
5 years, 3 months ago
It more about the risk, because you see everyone who uses this site would instantly be labelled a pedophile, and with the right legal sway they can actually find us, so part of it is to protect us.
Charliemon
5 years, 3 months ago
i'd personally prefer it to not have any humans but that is just ,e
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
Hey, I've got some pretty hot human-on-anthro porn commissions, buddy =P
XRoshTeMaky
5 years, 3 months ago
Ruler are meant to protect...  never to punish or pursuer... I guess there is some sort of legal issues on this...  also something that have monetary implications...

You can always dig out for the details... and ask the administrators for some light on this doubts...   but the fact is we have to follow the rules even if we don´t like or we don´t understand them... at least until the rule get useless for his primordial duty... Protect

think about it ^^
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
Doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
XRoshTeMaky
5 years, 3 months ago
we are actually talking about it...    maybe even we can change it...  

personally i prefer to keep cub art and shota art separated...    as same as human pic and furry pic away each other despiting the content...   i don´t have anything agains humas nor furs...  but somehow i guess it would be better and with a lot less drama if it get keep in that way
Soggy2002
5 years, 3 months ago
You could have humans in a picture where furry sex is going on, but they'd have to be standing by with no visible arousal. I don't see the sense in having something like that here with the rules as they are.
RollerCoasterViper59
5 years, 3 months ago
Well due to the fact that I had a pic blocked because Billy Hatcher is a Human and not a Chicken I must agree with you on that...
Lumi
5 years, 3 months ago
To keep loli/shota material off the site.
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
All right.  Then to that I ask: why isn't the rule simply "do not post art depicting underage human characters in sexual situations"?
Lumi
5 years, 3 months ago
I honestly have no idea about any of the human related rules there.
LegendaryKay
5 years, 3 months ago
I'm not exactly up to date on the legality of drawn children and porn or whatever, but if that's the reason why humans are banned why not just specifically disallow human children. I agree with you, ShagsterP and I've seen many artists have to upload to SoFurry or Hentai-Foundry just for a human picture. It's not at a big deal, but it's always seemed silly to me.
KazaOokami
5 years, 3 months ago
Its to keep the site focused and legally see the porn as furry porn only, its a legal issue mainly. By eliminating all human porn it keeps the site from giving furries human sexual characteristics thus keeps the normal legal issues with child porn away from cub porn

I know its kinda hard to understand but its how the legal world and site hosting works
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
No, it's actually pretty easy to understand, but I hadn't factored in legality with money handling clients with my original thought on the subject.  I didn't think of it as a worry that people might flood the place with sexual depictions of underage humans.  I just want to share my standard, non-cub, human-on-anthro porn, haha.

I took it more as "Humans drool and furries rule!" rather than "Shit guys, people are gonna draw human kids having sex; let's BAN IT ALL".  Still, I think that's somewhat of a lazy choice rather than doing actual moderating of content.
InannaWDraco
5 years, 3 months ago
I don't think it's only to deal with the legal grey areas concerning loli/shota and child porn, I think there's also the issue of bestiality to be taken into consideration.  Some folks would see a human in a sexual situation with an anthropomorphic animal as bestiality, which is illegal much like child porn is.  Like loli and shota, it's a legal grey area, very hard to define.
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
Mm, maybe.  But if that's the definition, FurAffinity sure has a lot of bestiality.
InannaWDraco
5 years, 3 months ago
We're not talking about FurAffinity, we're talking about Inkbunny.  They're two totally different websites.
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
Yea, and...?  I can't make a comparison between two sites with similar purposes that fall under the same legal scrutinization?  What I'm saying is that if this definition of "bestiality" is so dangerous, FA has been doing it for a long time without ramifications.  Therefore, I don't see how that specific concern would be an issue for this site, either.
InannaWDraco
5 years, 3 months ago
You're forgetting two things: the first is that the two sites have two sets of admins, and the second is that the admins of each site base their rules off their own personal views and interpretations of applicable laws, as well as circumstances under which they operate.  You can't just take legal scrutinization into account without also taking the individual admins and owners of each site into account as well.
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
Admins and owners?  Personal views and interpretation?  Who cares about that noise?  The base topic here is simple: Does human-on-anthro pornography constitute a definition of bestiality to the uninformed third party money handlers, and does allowing such content put the site at risk with said third parties?  This IS what you just brought up, right?

Both sites deal with these third parties.  FurAffinity DOES allow and has plenty of human-on-anthro sexual content, but doesn't face any issues - hasn't for years.  Ironically, FA banned all cub content because of these same risky ramifications, whereas Inkbunny hasn't and currently doesn't seem to be having any major issues.  Which is funny, because it seems to me that IB deals with money transactions more than FA does.

Since one site is littered with the content in question -FurAffinity- and doesn't have any problems, logically a similar site dealing with the exact same third parties should have the exact same conclusion, right?  I don't really care to discuss what admins and owners all personally feel and how they should run their sites.  I'm only dealing with the legal side of things and what all these third parties will and will not allow.  So honestly, I don't think the faux "bestiality" thing is really an issue.
InannaWDraco
5 years, 3 months ago
" ShagsterP wrote:
Admins and owners?  Personal views and interpretation?  Who cares about that noise?


Since the admins and owners make the rules, everyone needs to care about what they think, because they, not the third-party money handlers, are the ones who make the rules for their respective sites.

" The base topic here is simple: Does human-on-anthro pornography constitute a definition of bestiality to the uninformed third party money handlers, and does allowing such content put the site at risk with said third parties?  This IS what you just brought up, right?


No, it ISN'T what I brought up, because as I already stated it is the ADMINS and SITE OWNERS who make the rules for their respective sites.  I never once mentioned money handlers; that was your doing.  Don't you ever put words in my mouth again.

" FurAffinity ... banned all cub content because of these same risky ramifications...
  

No, FurAffinity banned all cub PORN content because of pressure from its userbase and because Dragoneer overreacted to a potential threat.  

" Since one site is littered with the content in question -FurAffinity- and doesn't have any problems, logically a similar site dealing with the exact same third parties should have the exact same conclusion, right?  I don't really care to discuss what admins and owners all personally feel and how they should run their sites.  I'm only dealing with the legal side of things and what all these third parties will and will not allow.  So honestly, I don't think the faux "bestiality" thing is really an issue.


The logic you're using is based entirely on your assumptions about what I said.  Again, I NEVER MENTIONED THIRD PARTY MONEY HANDLERS.  You did that.  My point was, and still is, that the admins and owners of the individual sites base their decisions off their personal views and their particular circumstances.  This isn't about law, or third-party money handlers.  It is ENTIRELY about the admins, the owners, and their sensibilities.  
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
You must have an incredibly short term memory.  Go back to your original post and look at it; study it.  The only things mentioned there are "legal grey areas" for a strange definition of bestiality, and that's the only thing I'm discussing with you.  The legality of something has nothing to do with admin sensibilities and everything to do with the people they do business with.  You've clearly derailed this into something else.

Also, you might want to get your facts straight first before going off the deep end for a civil discussion, which you've turned into a debate instead.  Quoted directly from Dragoneer: "Firstly, let us explain the situation: AlertPay dropped us. We have been having issues accepting payment processors for some time to fund the website, as any reputable company we've contacted has given us the thumbs down when it comes to our content. Specifically, they have only ever had issue with one particular kind of content: cub art. Everything else has been fine, but companies want to distance themselves from that grey area because it makes people uncomfortable."

Cited from: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/87380-The-New-Po...

I think we should probably end our discussion now.
InannaWDraco
5 years, 3 months ago
My memory is good.  Your comprehension skills, however, need a hell of a lot of work if you think my original post here had anything at all to do with third parties.  You need to re-read it... actually, what you really need to do is go back to grade school and re-learn how to read, because I DID NOT say anything at all about third parties.  YOU are the one who added that to the conversation, and then LIED about it by claiming that I did it.  

When I made my original post, I made my thoughts on this matter abundantly clear... to anyone, that is, who is willing to read what I actually said instead of trying to insert things in that I didn't say.  
ShagsterP
5 years, 3 months ago
Jesus, settle down.  The point is, mentioning "legal grey areas" only has to do with business and legal matters.  What else does a site like this do business with besides third party money handlers?  I JUST quoted Dragoneer outright specifying one by name, for Christ's sake.  What else could you possibly be talking about after saying all that originally?

If that's not what your "legal grey areas" are about, then I have no idea what you're getting at.  Unless you were seriously talking about admin fears of Big Brother busting down their doors and hauling them off because they hosted a site with drawn porn of humans doing the deed with anthropomorphic fantasy characters.  Because if so, that's hilarious.

So please.  Since I can't comprehend it, go ahead and enlighten me as to what it is that your mentioning of legal issues has to do with, if not either of those things.
Kupok
5 years, 3 months ago
I do like humans myself. I'd like to see humans be welcomed here. As a one up on FA though, at least they don't mind censor-hotlinking.
Daneasaur
5 years, 3 months ago
It's a rule that is to prevent bestiality content from showing up, regardless if it's 'art' or not.

It's very abstract and odd, but the rule is so strict that a naked human on this site is seen as someone taking a step in that direction.
doodlebags
2 years, 6 months ago
it's really funny to me how they allow cub porn, but not anthro/human porn. like where are your priorities, man? you're okay with literal  child pornography, but not a consenting adult with a consenting adult anthro?
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.