Falcon at 23 Nov 2008: 14:00
The administrators have asked me to make a post to clarify something.
Images depicting incest are welcome on Fchan providing the following guidelines are met:
1) The image is posted in one of the main boards (/f, /h, /m, /s)
2) The image is posted in a thread to which it is relevant.
3) The image contains no characters that could be viewed as underage (This is at administrative/Moderator discretion).
We feel this is the best way to address all concerns that have arisen over this matter. Although incest may be viewed as a fetish, the qualities of it in an image aren't tangible enough to warrant making /a their home. (notwithstanding the depictions of underage characters, which are not welcome here)
Finally, any incest-specific threads will most likely be deleted, as they have a track record for generating the posting of cub material. This doesn't mean depictions of incest aren't allowed, we're just asking it not be the focus of a thread. For example, a picture of wolven sisters is a welcome addition to a wolf thread in /f.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this.
at 23 Nov 2008: 15:22
I guess that was all people were waiting for was the answer to all of this XD
Good to know :3
at 24 Nov 2008: 09:11
>>1 oh great that means i actually have to look for it through the tons of pages.
at 24 Nov 2008: 09:28
In other words....no actual "incest" threads. There is no way of knowing if it's incest or not because it will basically be a regular ol picture posted in other topics such as "anal sex", "blowjobs", "paws" etc etc.
Yeah. So in other words incest IS banned because unless someone specifically mentions it's an incest picture there is no way people are going to know.
Sen at 24 Nov 2008: 10:07
I wonder if this is some new fetish, getting aroused by never being satisfied by anything.
LLz at 24 Nov 2008: 10:10
Does it make a difference (in terms of recognition) if one posts in an incest thread, or if one mentions in a topic in m/f/s/h? How does posting in an "incest thread" make a picture depict incest?
at 24 Nov 2008: 14:34
Dude, if incest is your fetish, just take any old thread with your favourite combination and pretend it's all brother/sister or whatever. It won't make any difference no matter whether you claim to yourself that some fictional characters are related by blood or whether some artist says some fictional characters are related by blood.
at 26 Nov 2008: 00:23
I don't even like incest but people who do won't know what images are incest now and thus it's effectively been banned from the site.
Doesn't work that way brah
Sen at 26 Nov 2008: 01:27
"I don't even like incest" but it "doesn't work that way brah"
at 26 Nov 2008: 05:37
I'd think situation and image titles (assuming the artist bothered with one) is more capable of properly denoting incest images than a clump of images in a thread named incest. (which may as well be simply images of critters with similar colouring)
Examples include Skunkwork sisters, "family" comics, and similar.
Quantum at 28 Nov 2008: 07:31
Oftentimes the appeal in incest is very specific. It may be the taboo familial relationship (obviously) and it may be the draw of genetic familiarity. The concept of just pretending they're all related is like watching straight porn and pretending they all actually have penises because you like gay porn. The idea is that you induce situational euphoria from explicit relations between intended figures. This is similar to those (like myself) who gain intense satisfaction from seeing familiar figures from my youth exploited sexually in these forums, like in the Sonic threads which run rampant over the internet like weeds. The appeal is in the specific and in the intent and in the revel of actually indulging your taboo kinks. Neutralizing specific threads dedicated to 'incest' by saying they need to be submerged into other things and can't be standalone effectively makes it difficult to look for that specific angle in your browsing. Think of how much fun it would be if you did the same thing to Herm?
at 29 Nov 2008: 06:42
from what I'm interpreting, not fun at all.
at 29 Nov 2008: 11:35
You're completely overlooking that herms have a really fucking obvious and unavoidable VISUAL quality.
Incest is severely lacking in that.
As we are on an IMAGE board here and not on a story board where your complaint would be valid, your whole reason is just plain broken.
Quantum at 29 Nov 2008: 15:55
And context is not important on image boards? It's all about context. In tiered layers. "Furry" probably being the top and branching out from there. The fact that "Incest" is a branch that has a mental appeal rather than a direct visual stimulus doesn't make it any less of a contextual thing than Anal, Vore, or, lemme think, choking furs. I guess I could pretend they're all choking....
Xiekaru at 29 Nov 2008: 23:10
Sen at 29 Nov 2008: 23:58
What I find funny is that, after this has been posted, after these rules have been modified into their current status, there have only been, what, 2 people complaining about it?
As opposed to the consistent reposting of bitching threads and the torrent of people crying foul over the deletion of incest threads last time?
Odds are, you're one of the only people who's making this into too big a deal. By your logic of "pretending they're all choking" you can also pretend they're all related. Simple enough, sexual stimulation from an image stems from the imagination in some form anyway.
Quantum at 30 Nov 2008: 05:49
lol Read back, interpret sarcasm.
Also, I'm not bitching. I'm discussing. I find these forums to be quite interesting.
at 30 Nov 2008: 09:43
Yeah! How dare he "complain" about it right? Excellent popular opinion thinking from a group that's been ostracized by popular opinion.
at 30 Nov 2008: 10:06
Try asking the mods. They've ALWAYS had the stance of "what we do not see, that isn't".
This PERFECTLY applies here. You cannot see incest, period. At best you can GUESS at it from lines the characters say, but even then it could be roleplay.
at 30 Nov 2008: 11:18
You can't tell by looking if someone is related or not? And if we can't see it, then it must be restricted? Hey, if they can't see incest, then wtf is the problem eh? If "it isn't", then you shouldn't be retricted, because there is nothing to restrict, apparently.
at 30 Nov 2008: 11:19
*then IT shouldn't be restricted, not you
Quantum at 30 Nov 2008: 16:30
What if you have two established characters from some source of popular media, who are related, and banging? You can see that, and it's incest.
at 2 Dec 2008: 02:41
not unless you've never heard of em.
at 4 Dec 2008: 07:20
"lol". The only proper response is this rule.
at 4 Dec 2008: 07:35
'response TO this rule', my mistake and typo.
at 6 Dec 2008: 18:15
The context of an image -is- important. (Think of all those "anal" pictures where you never actually -see- which hole the cock is in)
Therefore, context is very important to the incest fetish. Banning incest is not the goal of The Powers That Be in this case, but is unfortunately a side-effect of incest threads. However, as was explained, it is intended to be a solution to child/cub, which -is- intended to be banned.
Consider the incest fetish as collateral damage in the witch-hunt for underaged characters.
Now either propose an alternative method of extracting cub from incest threads, accept that it is the best solution, or have a go at getting cub back altogether. Also, I have no idea why I ended up ranting about this. The discussions here are always pretty civil.
Kamper at 9 Dec 2008: 08:35
oh yes and all the sonic threads? Blaze, Amy and the rest are well under age yet they can thrive yet a little Incest thread is to be damned because it may later contain some cub?
Quantum at 9 Dec 2008: 08:43
The legal issue is comprehensible. The most sensible response is active moderation. People going "Oh this image is unsuitable for a legally operating Fchan. It appears to convey clearly underaged individuals for the sexual gratification of those who find appeal in children." and flag it for a mod to deal with.
Cub porn doesn't need to hang out at Incest's house, but that's where it keeps its stash.
Kamper at 9 Dec 2008: 09:08
And how many of the ah zoos are "Legal" I mean in many states you can go to jail for having that stuff on you computer. many Aeris and Leo pix are under age but they get to stay.
Falcon at 9 Dec 2008: 11:47
Before getting all outraged, please read the posts regarding /toon in /faq. To summarize, a character's storyline age is rarely taken into consideration when deciding if an image depicts a character as underage. All the Sonic characters are three apples high. If one looks more childlike than the others and stands 1/2 that size, you probably have a case.
Also see Quantum's suggestion in #28. If you think something looks underage, report it.
Lastly, I do not believe there are any laws concerning drawn depictions of 'zoo'; however, if you know otherwise please enlighten us.
Kamper at 10 Dec 2008: 07:07
If you guys really want to count hairs here...
Sonic the Hedgehog a blue-furred 15-year-old anthropomorphic African pygmy hedgehog,
The name "Miles Prower" is a pun on "miles per hour", a reference to the famed speed of the Sonic the Hedgehog series. He is a 8-year-old orange-golden yellow, anthropomorphic fox with two tails
Knuckles is a red 16-year-old anthropomorphic echidna,
this means that any and all sonic and sonic friends are thus underage... Waht now?
second, are you really going to ban people that ask you questions? seriously, thouse of us capable of arguing like this are the only reason you have that many visits... the rest are under the age of 16 and violate many more laws than a few younger looking furs.
If They Ban me just google my name.
Kamper at 10 Dec 2008: 07:31
31= A precedent has recently been set in Canadian common law that lets the crown treat underage manga as child porn; by logical extension this also applies to illustrated bestiality. Regardless of the implications of posession, the law against importation bans even bestialist ideas; this encompasses written and illustrated works.
Americans should also note that to the best of my knowledge there are anti-bestiality laws in over 20 states.
at 10 Dec 2008: 09:58
Even though the imagery's based on said characters it doesn't necessitate them to be equilivant. Not to mention that Sonic as a character has been in more than 10 years, and there's future-existances of Sonic (and relevant characters) from the Archie comic line (Mobius: 25 Years Later).
at 10 Dec 2008: 10:00
No it doesn't. Child porn is an exception to the rule in many cases, and the law generally specifically mentions child porn directly
Sen at 10 Dec 2008: 10:53
"logical extension" doesn't mean anything unless there's a precedent set specifically for illustrated depictions of bestiality.
Falcon at 10 Dec 2008: 12:19
My intention wasn't to open a discussion regarding the law, it was to ask people to take the time to read through /faq before making any assumptions. The threads there pertain directly to the rules of the site and the laws to which we try our best to abide.
Having said that, the warning at the top of this board still applies. Let's not discuss the legal status of cub here. If you have some well-researched knowledge of a specific statute, please send an email to one of the moderators or stop by the IRC channel (the link is on the home page near the bottom left). There is almost always somebody on who can address your concerns.
Quantum at 10 Dec 2008: 15:32
Why not? What's wrong with the discussion aspect of this thread, out of honest and legitimate curiosity? To the best of my knowledge parsing the whole descent of this conversation is undertaken on a voluntary basis, and so there's really no harm in having a topical discourse on your posting. And anyways, it keeps your post relevant and on the charts.
Falcon at 10 Dec 2008: 23:51
Mainly because there isn't anything left to discuss that hasn't already been discussed. Cub has been banned for a long while now. If you list all threads, you'll find the one that climbed to 380+ posts before it was stopped (it's there, among several other threads on the topic).
Why do we ask that people not discuss this policy? If we didn't, there would be an endless regurgitation of the same conjectures, assumptions, accusations, etc. etc. etc.
There is a post in /faq titled Final Word on Cub Images. It is the end-all reference to the reasons behind the rule and is factual, accurate, and as the title implies the final word on cub images.
at 11 Dec 2008: 12:02
"If we didn't, there would be an endless regurgitation of the same conjectures, assumptions, accusations, etc. etc. etc"
So -the fuck- what? Is it just so horrible for a thread to be repeated that it needs to be set into rules that it can't be asked about again? Do you really need to cause MORE drama by demanding that people not discuss a topic? You don't see the pattern? You make a rule, people bitch about it. If you make a rule telling them not to bitch about that topic, they'll bitch about THAT rule.
||This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.|