"I suppose seeing it in artwork could potentially lessen the shock value of child porn and normalize the association of sex and children. That is the main way in which I could see cub porn as being harmful."
Really? Here I was thinking that it's somewhat odd that you'd come across something like cub porn by accident. It's a pretty specific kink, and is usually very clearly marked (and filtered). In most cases one would really have to be looking for it, which would imply that those desires were already present.
"I'd much rather someone get their jollies jerking off to cub porn."
Some people do say that drawn porn actually helps protect children, since it gives people with those desires a way to satisfy them that doesn't involve real kids. I don't know, personally. I doubt anybody would ever dare to do a survey on the subject.
To me cub porn is about as threatening as age play. Is it disturbing? Probably. Is it pervy? Sure. Should cops be busting down peoples' doors because they're pretending to be underage individuals having sex? Definitely not.
Anyways, it's their website. If the folks at FA think they'll be able to better support their website and those who use it by getting rid of cub porn, then more power to 'em. I'm a little disappointed, but how exactly would they be able to stand up for philosophic niceties like free speech if FA itself is being deprived of the funds it needs just to exist?
"I suppose seeing it in artwork could potentially lessen the shock value of child porn and normalize the association of sex and children. That is the main way in which I could see cub porn as being harmful."
Really? Here I was thinking that it's somewhat odd that you'd come across something like cub porn by accident. It's a pretty specific kink, and is usually very clearly marked (and filtered). In most cases one would really have to be looking for it, which would imply that those desires were already present.
"I'd much rather someone get their jollies jerking off to cub porn."
Some people do say that drawn porn actually helps protect children, since it gives people with those desires a way to satisfy them that doesn't involve real kids. I don't know, personally. I doubt anybody would ever dare to do a survey on the subject.
To me cub porn is about as threatening as age play. Is it disturbing? Probably. Is it pervy? Sure. Should cops be busting down peoples' doors because they're pretending to be underage individuals having sex? Definitely not.
Anyways, it's their website. If the folks at FA think they'll be able to better support their website and those who use it by getting rid of cub porn, then more power to 'em. I'm a little disappointed, but how exactly would they be able to stand up for philosophic niceties like free speech if FA itself is being deprived of the funds it needs just to exist?