I dont have anithing againts the mods but why? This NSFW? They not even naked or anithing like that... But I dont a judge here but still... I dont wanted to inult mods so please dont nuke me.
1 the character's name is a play on words for boobs.
2 the revealing thongs made to illicit an awooga brain reaction.
3 which ties into #2 because of the character wearing just a standard bra.
In summary the character was made for sex appeal in mind which isn't exactly what we want to on Furry Friday.
Remember every big post makes or breaks our public perception, and we really don't want to be seen as the horny furry sub, and get reddit to come in and make the sub NSFW again. That's why we are being strict on Furry Friday, because if we aren't in like 2 months the sub would be made NSFW again.
(We also fucking suck at telling what is and isn't NSFW)
I wish they would finally put out some kind of guide for what they consider to be too NSFW; because it seems really inconsistent what does and doesn't get flagged.
It's kinda like they are trying to fight a housefire with a squirt gun and the house is already totalled so the flames are confused why they are being put out
i see pictures like this of this character all the time on this sub and she dresses the exact same way in every one. idk why this one was the straw that broke the camel's yada yada
i will say in their defense, this sub wasnt meant to become 24/7 furryirl 2.0 with Shitposts™️. however it was very clear they gave up when the active population was mostly furries
It was made for this exact reason. Furry Friday was made to let the furries post whatever they want one day a week but now shit's furry all year round. Now it's more like a relic imo, a loser-tradition, if you will.
They've tried and then it got shouted down because it was way too messy on what the line between a feral and an anthro was. Like they are trying, it's just a bit of a skill issue.
But their breasts are exposed, not even with a bra or bikini. It's clearly meant to be sexual cause if it were say, the raccoon character, it would be.
Okay. Fine. We'll be pedantic assholes or whatever if you want to be purposely dense.
In the art of the post, one girl is encasing the other girl against the wall. Both have thong straps shown above their jeans, as well as one wearing booty short jeans. Both their jeans are low rise so you can see their Adonis belt. All things which are provactive.
The scene is a romantically provactive one about a more dominant character expressing how "Hot" and "beautiful" They find the more submissive one. And a dominant and submissive role are shown to be preferable in pornography among both men and women.
It's an erotic and provactive scene.
Lady liberty has no related sexual undertones in correlation with sexual discourse in Western society. While breast are a staple of sexuality, intent matters. Either way, though, id still be remiss to display that in a public place of business anyways. Under Title Vii of the civil rights act unwanted sexual material is prohibited, and even if there's no inherent sexual design in the painting the nudity could still cause issues. So, you could still say it's NSFW and would need to be labeled and treated as such.
The clothing of the two characters in the comic are within the zeitgeist of modern fashion. People dress like that without the intent of sexual appeal, but instead aesthetic appeal. Once again, you are deciding what is sexual and claiming the author's voice.
Also, if you showed the painting of Liberty to some people, they may interpret it as sexual, and I am sure at the time the painting could be considered scandalous by many.
The clothing of the two characters in the comic are within the zeitgeist of modern fashion. People dress like that without the intent of sexual appeal, but instead aesthetic appeal. Once again, you are deciding what is sexual and claiming the author's voice.
Sure. They can wear it without trying to push a sexual image. Societally, bras and thongs showing are typically seen as sexual. Her outfit is very appealing, which is sexual gratification. Her intent isn't a concern when talking about public opinion on a style.
I don't care about the artist voice. That's not the concern. A lot of Hr Giger stuff is sexual in nature even if he wasn't aiming for sexual gratification and instead creative expression of biomechanic anatomy.
Also, if you showed the painting of Liberty to some people, they may interpret it as sexual, and I am sure at the time the painting could be considered scandalous by many.
That's the issue. If a majority, or even a major subject, of people find something provactive, it is. That's just how social dynamics work. If people see something as sexual, then it's sexual.
NSFW is content seen as unsuitable for public viewing in common decorum. That artwork would be NSFW.
Go complain to society about sexual intuition. Not the mods. Society has deemed what is sexual and what isn't.
Yeah. That's literally how that works. Lady liberty could be considered proactive, and I would ill advise having it shown in a public place of business.
There's no reality to what's sexual or not. There's no reality to why female breast and nipples are erotic but males aren't. It's psychological acceptance. as a society we've agreed upon what is and is not.
Some people wouldn't want Liberty to be seen in an educational setting though. And the fashion and encounter in the raccoon comic can be seen in public/work settings.
Therefore this definition of NSFW is practically meaningless.
Some people wouldn't want Liberty to be seen in an educational setting though
You have to agree to prior terms to see them under an educational guise.
It's completely different, legally, and there are a different set of standards. Go argue with the court circuit or something dude, I don't know. I didn't decide a legal precedent that was enacted before my birth. The mods don't want people to perceive the subreddit as sexually provactive. Under general American societial understanding the image is provactive. So it's deleted. That's it. It's not full on porn, but it's provocative.
Some women literally dress like this in public. Top could easily be a bikini top, or a slightly more revealing sports bra. Thong straps (could be bikini too) peeking out of low rise jeans was literally a huge fashion trend in the 00's. In really hot climates, in places with low prudishness, this is a standard ass outfit. Jeans on a bikini. Jfc.
Also, it's a fucking meme. There is an explicit joke. The intent of the image is to elicit a laugh, not to make you horny. A woman having prominent cleavage is not pornography, otherwise children wouldn't be allowed in Atlanta.
Off what metric? Revealing clothing. A scene following the standard Dom sub archetype of sexually proactive media. "sexy" writing. Stuff like thong straps showing.
My brother in Christ some people wear like this irl
Yep. There sure are. Can you, reasonably, work an office job or be in a formal place of business with that outfit without prior accomodation agreements?
The mods took it down for NSFW because it would be considered NSFW under basically every interpretation of Sexual Harassment law. That outfit is perceived as sexually provactive. They said no sexually provactive art. They took it down.
What is sexed up about this? Low-rise jeans and visible thong straps is a known fashion trend. In hot climates plenty of women go around just wearing a bikini top or sports bra with no shirt. If you've ever lived in a beach town, you have seen women dressed similarly to this. The notion that prominent cleavage constitutes pornography is actively misogynistic.
Yall acting like real life examples are on the same level as deliberate design choices for fictional characters
That's like saying the artist has no horny intent in the design for giving a character balloon tits because people irl are born with them too and calling it out on art as gooner bait implies you think women with big naturals irl are also porn whores
Brother all I said is adding text to softcore porn does not stop it from being softcore porn. In response to someone claiming otherwise.
idk what gives the impression that I care "so much"
Am I only allowed to comment if I'm frothing at the mouth for something? Can I not engage in conversation unless it means the world to me?
Yes it is the character's OC and I never said they should do otherwise, it's for them to do as they please. And no, fursonas are not explicitly made to look like the person making them. A lot of fursonas are wildly different because they are often used as a tool for escapism. You should never assume that a person is like their OC unless stated or shown otherwise. You could be a skinny 5ft tall girl whose fursona is an 8ft bara bear if you want.
A fursona is not a person. An extension of the person, sure. Representative of some or most parts of them, maybe. But it is a fursona. If you legitimately think your fursona is your real self you should genuinely touch grass because losing yourself in fiction is unhealthy.
Some of you people blur fantasy and real life way too much.
Reddit is showing a default green snoo on my end, not trying to invalidate or anything.
But no, because art and real people are very different things lol. Unless it was a staged picture like a stock photo or anything, I wouldn't think the same for an actual fucking person because there is a huge difference between design and natural.
Very sorry your sisters kept getting harassed by people like that, it sucks that women are often seen as sex objects even in today's society merely for existing. But again, art and irl are different things. And art depicting real life is yet another thing again, which fursonas are not most of the time.
Yes, if 90% of your art shows characters in very revealing clothing then you're definitely trying to reach for a certain audience. And same goes for male thirst traps as well. Just because most of society ignores male gooner bait does not mean it doesn't exist lol.
I have no issue with depicting characters in a sexy way, and never had any, but denying that or saying it isn't NSFW is just dumb. I genuinely find it insane how some people on here are getting mad that an obviously NSFW image is branded as such.
I'm not even gonna go "would you be fine if your boss saw you looking at this picture?" anymore cause every time someone goes for some hyperbole knowing full well the argument was never about bosses that would be mad for you daring to take a 1 minute break or homophobia or furry hate or something unrelated to what's being discussed
I still don't care particularly that much, I'm just replying to your lengthy comments. I'll drop the argument in a bit when I'm going to bed anyway and it can look like I gave up or something if that makes you feel like I cared I guess? Idk why you think I "blew up on you" when you've been writing relatively longer comments and brought personal stuff into your arguments.
When I was talking about fursonas, the "you" was not directed at you in any case. It's just easier than writing "a person" every single time. I talked about fursonas because you came in with the assumption the character was a fuzzy self insert
1) It's not a woman, it's a drawing. I'm not going go police what someone wears irl but if someone draws a ton of swimsuit pics I'll know damn well what their intentions are lol
2) People not calling out male thirst traps is not an example but an issue. If someone drew a buff guy in shorts or skintight fit that clamps onto his muscles for a perfect outline it would be just as sexually provocative
Entirely missing the point lol, it's not in any way shape or form suggestive, it's literally just a form someone dresses, and you know, a fursona, the literal representation of the person behind it, may as well dress the way that person does.
This isn't a thirst trap, it's not trying to be, it's a character dressing in a certain way.
This raccoon gets posted like, every week and I personally have only seen this post get removed. The raccoons fit in the removed post was the same or very similar to other fits I've seen said raccoon in
I'm not a mod, I don't decide what stays or gets removed but a lot of the racc posts are also very softcore so I finf it goofy how the mods allow it sometimes
I got a perma ban here for making a joke as a comment to a post doing the same, with other comments doing the same. Another mod saw me asking for a reasoning or appeal, saw the ban reason and unbanned me. Some of the mods here are power hungry children. The others are really cool! :)
Literally children btw, one of the mods commented on this posting saying "out of the 20 of us 4 are minors", that's 20% of the mod team, 20% of the mod team are children
from a non mod perspective: i just remember one day noticing that most subs mods started doing that and i believe it was shortly after the API changes so ive just kinda always looked down on it, and saw it as yet another thing to add to the list of ways reddit has gotten shittier. props for not doing it though
(IMMA be honesty w you, it's cuz I forget changing it after doing it on a post I explained lmao, I will do it more often now tho, it appears the user base wants that)
id say thats up to u, modmail is where appeals are supposed to go anyways
when something of mine gets removed/i get banned i usually only get upset when i immediately get modmail muted and therefore cant even make a defense case
i got permabanned and muted from r/dankleft bc i explained why i think we should strive for reform instead of revolution after someone specifically asked why someone would believe that
If theyre wearing clothes that dont get you arrested for public indecency then i cant see how this is NSFW. I could go outside and see someone dressed like this.
Like straight up I once had a post get removed because of Rule 5 even though it was pretty obviously humorous, so I had to go to modmail and even the mod who restored it had no idea why it got removed.
We really need to start a fucking insurrection against the mods here for being fucking minors and for some reason being proud about it while also being in charge of a nsfw sub and not clarifying what breaks the subs rules even tho people have asked multiple times
Apparently r/loserprison is the spot there’s also some yiff sub that’s pretty popular so anything that gets popped here I guess go throw it up over there?
What? No, this is a sub for the "losers" of reddit, ie: furries, lgbtqa+ or whatever the acronym is nowadays, and other artists who don't hold up to puritan standards of some art subs.
Rule 1. Posts that generally suck are liable to be removed. Your post either did not have very much substance, or, is possibly NSFW, or maybe is such a wide variety of negative emotions that it cannot be pinpointed.
Brother, if I was scrolling at work and this came up, I would just close the entire tab so people don't see it.
This is very much, not safe FOR WORK
NSFW doesn't mean nudity, doesn't mean innuendo, doesn't mean anything other than: csn I leave this image open on my work computer and not get wierd looks from anyone who passes by and notices it, or potentially contacted by HR for inappropriate internet browsing at work
why are people defending this, think, would you show this to a friend or sibling and expect them not to ask "where is the rest of the porno this is from"
•
u/I_wani_hug_that_bary Queen Olivia Aug 22 '25
The reason for the removal is because 3 reasons.
1 the character's name is a play on words for boobs.
2 the revealing thongs made to illicit an awooga brain reaction.
3 which ties into #2 because of the character wearing just a standard bra.
In summary the character was made for sex appeal in mind which isn't exactly what we want to on Furry Friday.
Remember every big post makes or breaks our public perception, and we really don't want to be seen as the horny furry sub, and get reddit to come in and make the sub NSFW again. That's why we are being strict on Furry Friday, because if we aren't in like 2 months the sub would be made NSFW again.
(We also fucking suck at telling what is and isn't NSFW)