Re: Could I Borrow CP for a Story? < Private Message | Inkbunny, the Furry Art Community

05 Jul 2020 17:21 PDT

Could I Borrow CP for a Story?

Hello,

I am a fellow author, and would like to borrow one of your characters for a story.

Lil CP seems quite cute, and the main subject matter of my story (cub potty time) matches pretty well with what is in your image gallery. CP himself is also a good match for the underage fursona of an adult who I was writing it for, but gave up on me. (I let it sit for far too long in my virtual desk drawer, which is my bad.)

Basically, this story is my attempt to do what I and many other authors do: explore complicated feelings about difficult subjects. It is a story I need to write, one way or another, and your profile spurred this PM.

It is all about pedophilia, handled with subtlety and nuance (at least, if the rhetoric of the internet is any guide), with many playful and exciting scenes along the way. They push a number of my buttons (I'm Ace, by the way), and I imagine they will push yours.

However, its ending is prescribed by the Hayes Code (no crime goes unpunished), and makes clear my opinions. I personally agree with around 20% of what you have written on the topic over the years, and very, very much disagree with about 5%. I simply and sincerely hope that all the enticing and enjoyable scenes along the way -- raunchy and harmless fiction, protected by the 1st Amendment -- will make it worth your while.

What do you think?

Thanks,
--
J Henry Waugh, aka "Henry"

jhwgh1968

CompliantCoon

05 Jul 2020 17:57 PDT

Re: Could I Borrow CP for a Story?

Hmm that's all very interesting, but I admit the last paragraph kinda ruins it for me. I do not want my characters to be used in anything where the ending will be unhappy (by my estimation), and the talk about the Hayes Code almost guarantees that such would be the case. I'm more than ope to more discussion though.

Also for full disclosure, even though I often forget to put it, my stories are creative commons, so I could not stop you if you did choose to use him anyway. Though I would appreciate in that case at least an acknowledgement that it's not "PedoCoon approved.

05 Jul 2020 19:10 PDT

Thanks for you answer. I quite understand it, and I will find someone else.

If you would humor me, however, allow me to elaborate on what the "moral of the story" will be, which is how I think about this.

I focus on a very intentional gap between the law and morality. Allow me a neutral analogy -- flawed, but I think illustrative.

I grew up in a part of the US where probably 20% of the adults I knew could drive a car by age 14. When they got tall enough to have their feet on the floor and see out the window, their father, uncle, or grandpa took them out to the overgrown, fallow back acreage in the truck. "How about you try driving it?" they said, and gave the kid lessons.

That was completely illegal. "They shouldn't have done that," a city slicker like me would say. "It was incredibly stupid and reckless. They could have killed someone, maybe themselves! We have laws against this stuff for a reason!"

That's a phrase you hear a lot, right? Usually applied to our original subject, but it applies equally here. So, let's see: was it "wrong" for Dad to teach his 14-year-old daughter how to drive?

In my opinion, it's a risk, but I couldn't categorically say it was "wrong". There are 14 year olds who could handle a car. The kid might've even helped out from time to time, doing errands on the back roads where the neighbors didn't care and the cops didn't patrol. However, when you get into public roadways, especially of a major city, the risk changes.

In other words, according to my secular consequentialist morality, "was that bad" is a matter of circumstances and judgement. All those adults, who taught all those people I knew, exercised judgement. Kids who were deemed trustworthy were taught, the reckless ones weren't and got to learn how to drive along with everyone else from the city when they were legally entitled to do so.

So, drawing the analogy back, here we have the 20% of your statements I agree with. Though it's not as common or openly discussed, there are people who started dating at age 14 (by lying about their age) and nothing bad happened to them.

There are also cases where a 19 year old dated someone who he couldn't tell was 14, was stung due to something else he did, the cops found out, and sexual acts with a minor was added to his charges. Neither the girl nor her mother said a bad word about him, and he apologized and pled guilty. Never the less, the judge was so upset at the very idea dick pics (!!) that the guy was put on the sex offender registry.

You and I agree that was a total miscarriage of justice, basically destroying the guy's life for no reason.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pause a moment to savor our agreement, before I wreck it.

....

Okay, now: all that said, just because it's not immoral to me doesn't mean I think underage driving (or sexting) shouldn't be illegal. Here's why.

Having studied law in college (but not nearly enough to take the bar exam), I have come to a view not shared by many people: the criminal law is not a matter of morality, but social responsibility. Or as I like to say, it is the list of things that can cause you to be brought before a judge, and a list of defenses you cannot use to be absolved of bad consequences you caused.

Within this view, I see a very strong need for a sort of "gray area". Conduct where the law is clear and rather sweeping to cut certain defenses off; but at the same time, under-enforced if nothing bad happens. Almost all age laws -- underage drinking, underage driving, underage M-rated video game purchases and movie rentals -- I think fall into this area. They want to be able to say, without having to prove negligence, "you shouldn't have let that kid who got traumatized into that R rated movie in the first place. You're fined." Even if other kids got in and could handle it, and their parents didn't complain.

I think the focus on statutory rape is overblown, and sex offender registries are terrible. In fact, I believe some states' versions of them might be unconstitutional under the 8th amendment. But any "pro-contact" reform would bring that into line with current sexual crimes -- where "what was she wearing" posed to a cis white male jury gets offenders off well over 80%, and most cases don't even get that far.

This is especially terrible when, based on the psychology I've read, the number of kids who can handle a relationship at age 14 is much, much lower than those who can handle a car. Exactly why that is, by the way, is what most of the story will consist of: why things seem fine, even by the kid's own admission, but really aren't.

So, that's my view of it. I wasn't meaning to argue, and I hope you understand. I won't be using your characters, out of respect.

Thanks for reading anyway,
--
J H

jhwgh1968

3 hidden messages

CompliantCoon

05 Jul 2020 19:43 PDT

Inkbunny PMs are the same kind of long-form communication as email, so nah, this is preferable, unless the need to send files becomes apparent, then email would be better.

It's not like Iming is new at all, I mean AIM MSN messnger, and even irc all fit very well under that category. But yeah this is fine for discussing really, just the long-form nature means it's easier to go off on tangents that further information might make unnecessary.

05 Jul 2020 19:48 PDT

Well, long story short, I dropped all my IM clients a while ago for various reasons, some personal some technical. So I guess it's this.

Please go on.
--
J H

jhwgh1968

11 Jul 2020 07:51 PDT

Uh, did you have more you wanted to say/ask? Just checking.
--
J H

jhwgh1968

6 hidden messages

CompliantCoon

28 Sep 2020 12:07 PDT

So, I think I'm finally ready to take a crack at replying.

First off, I guess the problem is that with your view that things should be underenforced if nothing 'bad' happens, you're putting the onus of determining harm on the police, which is even less reliable than the courts. Also, it's a perversion of the burden of proof.

Additionally, the harm caused by the laws being as they are isn't merely the sex offender registry. This isn't a game, Anyone going to prison for likely years, and themselves likely ending up irreversibly psychologically effected isn't to be taken lightly.

And much more importantly, the kid themselves /will/ be harmed from losting somemone they presumably love or at least rather like.

Yes, these scenarios presume no actual harm happened as a result of the adult's actions, which defintitly isn;t always the case, but is a situation worth considering. The fact is, if the justice system is unable to prosocute sex crimes if there needs to be actual evidence that harm happened, then that's a problem with a deeply broken justice system. This idea of selective enforcement , is impractical. It can't really be legislated, so you have to rely oon individual plice departments to do the right thing. Fat chance.

Also I should note that looking at things like 'is he ready for a relationship" kinda incorrectly assumes that these types of relationships are trying to be the same thing as those between adutls.

Basically I think that age itself should never be the sole critera when it comes to laws about sex. That abusing kids can be illegal while pleasurble mutual sexual interaction isn't.

Also one last thing, if it wasn't categotically illegal, then non-abusive pedos could report abusive ones without fear of getting totally screwed

28 Sep 2020 16:07 PDT

To be honest, I had forgotten about this. A lot has been going on in my life lately (and yours too, I'm sure). I'm also short on sleep at the moment, so this may end up more rambling than I intend.

I read through what you said. I understand it, and I don't plan to argue with it. I'm in a different mood now, and can see that our argument would end up in epistemology rather than facts, and then create more heat than light. While I don't retract my statement, I would withdraw it.

If you would pardon the shift, I'd like to refocus on my original question. Here's the thing: I wouldn't have PM'd you were I not thinking about this subject quite a bit. I still think you'd like that story (until the end) quite a bit. There's a lot of affection, and a lot of peeing, heh.

However, the ending is the ending for two reasons. First because I wanted to make my subtle point which I made to you in prose, but by example. Second, I felt like I had to put it in, because the characters dictated it. I felt limited into it, because it was hard to conceive of cubs in a sexual context any other way.

That second one, really, is what motivated me to reach out to you. You seemed like a good person to talk to about this, as a "pro contact" pedo who is not completely divorced from reality like others I've encountered (not on IB). However, it was hard for me to articulate a question that didn't sound like it was trying to provoke an argument -- or made me want to provoke one.

I hoped that, when I put my offer forward, you would be okay in a wink-wink-nod-nod sort of way, or would sort of answer it for me with other questions. But I read you wrong, and you said no. I understand that, and in retrospect, should have been more direct and thoughtful like I'm doing now.

So now, I'm trying to figure out what to actually ask. I suppose I'll start with this:

Even though I'm not attracted to anyone IRL, I find a lot of your art cute -- more than cute, in fact. But cub stories aren't my thing (including yours), and about 5-10% of cub art really rubs me the wrong way.

I only partially understand why. The part I do understand is how the underage characters are presented. In your art, your cubs are "themselves". They are neither more sexually mature than their age, nor sexlessly manipulative and naiive. ("I don't know why, but I touch an adult this way and get candy for it!")

Every cub story I've read which didn't involve age regression, the cubs seem to slide into one of those two tropes whenever the sex comes up. As a result, it's difficult for me to have any different view of them (other than the puritan view, of course).

For my own story, I wrote a cub on the sexualized end, and added other factors so it would "make sense". He is not only past puberty, but enjoys the intense attention and affection because he is infatuated with the adult narrator.

Because of this dynamic, basically everything the narrator does is emotional manipulation. Even when he doesn't meant to, that's the effect. Based on what you've said, I presume you would argue such a one-sided thing is not a good basis for a relationship at any age. But... I'm not sure quite what else I can do that makes equal sense.

So, tell me what CP gets out of the relationship with his adult. You implied above it's not the same thing as an adult would get from an adult romantic relationship. What is it? Even if it's very different, I think your answer will help.

--
J H

jhwgh1968

CompliantCoon

28 Sep 2020 16:26 PDT

I guess I don't understand quite how it is munipluaton when both parties are enjoying eachothers affection and intimacy, physical and otherwise. I'm not denying that there is a power diffential there that /could/ be abused, but that doesn't mean it automatically is. The way I see it sex physically feels good, and intimacy feels good emotionally, so both of those things are inherently mutually benificially unless one of the parties is doing something wrong to break and pervert that trust.

I guess what you may not be considering is that even very young kids can and do get erections and orgasm. The sexuality is not for merely the adult. So with that in mind it seems a bit unfair to paint the adult as inherently manipulative unless he completely ignores the fact that the child can himself feel pleasure and doesn't even let the kid himself know. Unforunately this is surprisingly common in cub art and stories.

As for the types of dynamics I imagine, well in CP's case because I usually imagine him with his dad (my sona) it's basically a parent/child relationship + sexual intimacy. Sp.both parties would get what they normally get out of such relationships as well as what they get from sexual intimacy. Though also keep in mind, me view of parenting is very gentle and not based on authoritarianism and punishment.

Also, another story that might give a better idea of something that doesn't quite fit either of your preconcieved views is https://inkbunny.net/s/99614 this one which was written by a good friend of mine

Also, I always enjoy debate, and discussion of any kind, so no worries about any of that :3

29 Sep 2020 20:58 PDT

I'll read the story before I comment too much. But I wanted to say two brief things.

I am indeed aware that sexual feelings (and sometimes responses) occur much younger than our culture recognizes. I saw a paper not too long ago suggesting that they start at a pre-pubescent shift in hormones occurring between ages 9 and 11, rather than other, more obvious developments at puberty.

CP and other characters of yours would be in the range where that has already happened. That's why I like the solo art of them so much. Their actions, words, and interests "make sense", while avoiding and other behavior I consider to be more questionable by adults.

I have read parental guidance that I think strikes the right balance: kids that age should be allowed to explore and play with themselves, but only in private. No adults or other kids should be involved. Because they can't judge those others' trustworthiness, or what is going on in their head, and they could be badly hurt.

That blanket assertion I see as based on two parts. The first part, which you wouldn't argue with, is that kids don't have the best judgement of people, period. What might an adult or older kid who doesn't spend a lot of time with them might do in that situation? It's is a big question, and it's pretty easy for a predator to groom someone if they are too open with them. We seem to agree that grooming and "unwanted touching" bad.

The second part is the assumption that you clearly disagree with: any adult who is asking, at all, ever, has predatory or grooming intentions and plans to trick the kid into staying quiet.

I have more I plan to say later about the motivations of "non-predatory" adults in that situation after I read that story, because I hope it will be a good example of a subtle point. But that is what I will focus on in next, unless you want to add something else.

--
J H

jhwgh1968

30 Sep 2020 19:21 PDT

I read the story, and it helped a lot as a detailed example in line drawing. It reminds me of who sex advice columnist Dan Savage calls "Gold Star Pedophiles," that were the subject of another story I tried to write.

So, this will be long. While I edited it later, I typed it as I read. Here are my thoughts:

1. For the first part of the story, until the words "Uncle Tay? Am I spending the night with you?", this is the exact kind of relationship I have considered in my other story, and am totally fine with. Attraction, but that attraction coming out as affection. I don't think anyone's sexuality should be condemned.

2. At several points after that, Tom is shown by the narrator to be in a needy state. There are comments along the lines of, "Tom didn't know why Uncle Tay was acting this way, but he needed it and liked it." This is totally normal for a kid of his age (2nd grade, which in the US, would make him 8 years old). There is even a line that he is "completely at the will of his uncle's steady affection" -- which is a moment of vulnerability. Let's see how this goes.

3. There is the small kiss by Tay, which is completely unprovoked, and Tom reads as more than just a "family kiss". I consider that a small but significant pushing of boundaries. Tom isn't sure what to do with at first. After some thought he turned on by it -- which again, I consider plausible. But, the hazy mix of romance and affection are not as distinguishable in his own mind. Uncle Tay is wrong to presume his kiss would give that result without a story narrator cheating on his behalf.

4. Up to this point -- on my screen, page 19 -- Tom has not said a word about his feelings. If Tay is getting a sense of it, it is through nonverbal body language. Given what Tom has emoted, his whines, coughs, and other small sounds, that could just be "I'm sick." It is not clear to read, and would not mean the same thing with other kids. Again, the narrator is cheating on Uncle Tay's behalf.

5. The first arguably "sure" sign of Tom's feelings -- the arm sniff -- is something Tay clearly reads, and reacts to in a much more visceral, physical way. After this, the mood carries on in Tay, who shows more physical affection during the afternoon.

However, this is an escalation in response to something small and ambiguous -- something that would not be handled well by another cub. It could be a microscopic act of grooming -- coaxing a kid to go along without feeling good about it -- did Uncle Tay not have a narrator cheating on his behalf.

6. Tom comes up with a plan to express his feelings, including "some sex stuff" -- even though "he doesn't know what to do." Maybe a year or two young in my opinion, but eh, I'll believe it. However, based on the way his emotional state is described, and how fuzzy and unclear these feelings are, Tom isn't thinking about how Uncle Tay will react to this. He is (realistically) lost in his own feelings.

Even if his body is sending other signals, his mind is not fully made up. And again, none of this is expressed to Tay -- so once again, Uncle Tay is saved from accidental abuse by the narrator cheating on his behalf.

7. Sleeping naked. "Is it okay?" Tom asks. Why would he think that is something wrong? Because his mother is sex negative? I'd like to think something more positive: his mother has taught him The Underwear Rule.

That is the sexual abuse version of Don't Cross The Street. It's not that no one can, it's that when you're a little kid, you cannot make that judgement, so an adult takes it away from you for your own protection. They have to -- and should focus on people in Uncle Tay's position, based on statistics. (I see this is mentioned later, but the lack of understanding on Tom's part reinforces my point, rather than undermines it.)

8. In response to the kiss that Tom initiates, Uncle Tay makes a very significant and domineering move: "Tay's muzzle moved forward with Tom's and kept their lips interlocked, his hand guiding the fox back into a deeper kiss that made Tom's tail wag and thump against the bed."

In Furry land, tail wagging is always presumed to be like dogs. But (a) real kids don't have tails, and (b) I could imagine it being also like a cat. Not that Tom hates it, but that he's just overwhelmed and his body does it. That word "overwhelmed" is even used when the french kiss happens. Would Uncle Tay know when to stop without a narrator cheating on his behalf?

9. Tom pulls away. Tay lets him go, rather than forcing himself like a traditional "evil" child molester. Makes sense for a story like this, and based on what you've said, you would consider this a good boundary.

Well... except that there have been quite a few missed or ambiguous cues to get here. If it were a real kid, by the time Uncle Tay pulled back, it could be the top of an escalating scale of confusion, and damage may have been done -- if there weren't a narrator cheating on Uncle Tay's behalf.

10. Tom takes the next big move, the dick grab. Again, I think a year or two young, but I'll go with it. But I have to ask: if Tom had said after the kiss, "thanks Uncle Tay. I... I want to put my clothes back on now," what would Uncle Tay do?

If the answer was, gently pat him, get out of bed, leave, jerk off, and return in a better state of mind, thumbs up from me. Literally anything else, even just staying with the kid, thumbs down. I would like your answer personally, but in this story, we don't know because there is a narrator cheating on Uncle Tay's behalf.

11. Tay asks Tom if he wants the same thing. Tom says yes, rolls onto his back, and they have touching "fun." However, there is a point where Tom is "exasperated" by Tay's playing.

While that word in adults is usually a sexy thing, I don't think the previous character shown by Tom has the emotional subtlety for the "feels bad but is good" effect that is usually developed by previous sexual exploration. I read this as the narrator cheating on Uncle Tay's behalf to make it okay, and questionable that a real kid would not be scared or upset by it, not knowing what "good" feelings come after.

12. The "pushing out thoughts of everyone but his uncle for now" -- when twisted into another context -- is also a trauma reaction. It is trying to make sense of very strong emotions.

In this story, the strong emotions are described as positive... but with words like "confused", "feeling weird, but not painful", and "staring at himself," there are a lot of negative feelings despite the narrator's editorializing. Negative feelings that Uncle Tay is causing. It's not clear Tom would have the ability to ask to stop even if he wanted to. Whereas if Tom were doing by himself, he would be in much better control.

13. Tay jerks off, hits Tom with cum by accident, and explains The Birds and the Bees two years early and before his parents get the chance. Based on a previous sexologist I read, this will likely have long-term ramifications on Tom's understanding of sex, even though it's not "child abuse". His parents may not even find out; only his partners may experience his weirdness 10 or 20 years later.

14. Tom expresses curiosity, but seems satiated. So when Tay asks about licking it off his tummy, Tom says no. Tay lets it drop... but really, that suggestion says enough about Tay's mental state for me to condemn it anyway.

Tay is very close to Tom, naked, and not primarily thinking about Tom's best interests. They are taking a back seat to Tay's dick. Sure, he didn't force Tom at all, but he's already satisfied himself, so he didn't have to. This is the inherent tension I see between family affection and sexual affection: what is guiding your actions? It makes me wonder if Tom had objected earlier what he would have done.

And that's basically the end of the story.

In summary:

1. Life has no narrator who can cheat on one's behalf. Tom sent many signals that would be very easy to misread, and one misread could be boundary pushing for the kid. The "don't assume that children X" rhetoric is a statement about the odds, but any single kid who is traumatized I think deserves jail time for the person who caused that damage. Call it emotional manslaughter: the harm is punishable, regardless of intent, and even a low risk is unacceptable.

2. The affection, the care taking, and the nuzzling? I have no problem with it. Gold Star Pedos are fine with me. All the actions I object to are where misreads or lack of reads happened -- the moments where Tay's dick took over. These are things that seem ordinary to adults, but are actually quite controlling to a kid experiencing strong and strange emotions. They would continue if the kid felt bad but couldn't say stop in the moment.

3. While all of Toms reactions I consider somewhat plausible -- more so if he were 1-2 years older -- I think the uniformity of the positivity is unrealistic. I see significant editing going on by the narrator to read these things as an adult would, rather than as a kid would experience them. In a story that's fine, but in real life, it is very different. I worry about people who don't know that, as I have seen non-pedo strains of them elsewhere on the internet.

Whenever I have written about Gold Star Pedos, they get to interact with cub because they keep their sexual desires completely contained. If they can't put the best interests of the cub first, they take a break, jerk off, and come back as their best selves. Nothing less is acceptable, because nothing less is sure to prevent harm.

Even within that rule, however, the adult causing the kid such strong emotions is off limits. It's too risky. The goal is to integrate the adults into society and make kids understand that not all adults will respect them. It is not to make sure anyone has orgasms. That's not sex negativity, but fairness and best for everyone.

So, that's where I draw the line. Thanks for reading my long thing.

--
J H

jhwgh1968

03 Oct 2020 11:46 PDT

I suppose I would also add: in response to my dichotomy of stories -- too sexual or too naiive -- this is probably a slightly too sexual kid. But it is more realistic than most I've read, and I appreciate that.

Also, I would read this less critically if Tom were 13 or 14 instead of 10, and had both the time and interest to try one or two sexual things on his own first. That is why I picked the ages I did with my driving on the farm analogy. Then it becomes a shape at least closer to the kind of romantic relationship and adult would have.

But your whole point was that the relationships in question with a 10 year old are different than I'm imagining. The story did help me understand what you are getting at, and I appreciate that.

On a more playful note, it seems from your stories that CP does not want to have to wait to pee until an adult takes him to the bathroom. Does that mean he has no shame at all?

Suppose it were acceptable for kids to pee in public (an idea I am neutral to for humans, and have some interest in for Furries). Would he have no problem at all just pulling down his pants and peeing if he was outside and needed to go?

--
J H

jhwgh1968

Inkbunny

Help

Information

Policy & Legal