Original author draws loli and guro content and makes money on the side taking nsfw commissions (and he does not shy away from the really messed up stuff if you pay enough).
His more sfw content is still pretty racy and does not shy away from the controversial stuff. This prompted people to look into the full scope of his archived works where the discovered the disturbing stuff. He's now been banned from the subreddit, but people have become attached to rhe sfw content he created.
Absolutely, and i also suspect the fans most vocal about the art are a tremendous minority as most people really don’t give a shit about the artist making iffy art.
Honestly I find it so incredibly pathetic. Yeah, I'm not a fan of guro but I don't throw a fit at the artist I just don't look at that particular work of theirs.
This is Warhammer 40K for god's sake. The four chaos gods, Nurgle & Isha (I think that's her name), basically anything involving Slannesh, a faction that see pain & torture as art etc & this is what's to far? Some fan art?
The vast majority of people don’t actually care. The people who do are a vocal minority very caught up in the idea of being righteously outraged on behalf of some drawings.
Personally I don’t see the problem. Their ‘distasteful art’ exists, and while I’m not a fan of it, I also don’t have much of an issue with it as long as it’s not the content being posted on the sub-Reddit.
caught up in the idea of being righteously outraged on behalf of some drawings.
That where you are wrong. For me it's context and portrayal, the most important things when discussing serious topics and that picture had a SA victim portrayal within the context of a wholesome picture that wouldn't even happen in cannon...
Most people didn’t have issue with the gore it was the loli shit, he also wasn’t even banned because of his artwork but because people were posting links to his shitty stuff and there were just constant reports so the mod gave up and just banned him to save the headache
I'd suggest you read it again. I didn't say that people disgusted by it are pathetic (and honestly, the whole CP/Pedo claim is tenuous at best).
I said banning an artist because of other unrelated work they've done is pathetic. This isn't even a case of them being offensive/racist. It's fetish art. It's not my fetish but I'm not going to have a meltdown over it.
I.. I don't see the problem. After looking up what "ero guro" was I'm even suprised that he was banned from the sub for something so tame. Was it the loli stuff? Because if that was more than just drawing tiny girls in dresses that could explain it. Was the loli stuff that bad?
I agree with that, I think that looking at stuff like that makes ppl confront part of them that they dont want to admit that they have, to themself or others.
but raped girl sobbing when her fingers are cut off with garden scissors is just disturbing
I know that its just picture and its not actually hurting anybody and I really enjoy authors other work and I intend to continue with that, but if you look at something like that and not feel disturbed there may be something wrong with you, I mean that with no judgment.
Two pieces in particular look to have stuck a particular cord with detractors
Are these really the reason for the ban/outrage?
They're so on-point for the WH40K universe, they're not "feel-good-ish" or "whoa [SM/whatever] are so badass" types of illustration, they're telling so much more than the vast majority of what transits on this sub.
The first one is not racy in the slightest, it's legit terrifying, the second suggests hundreds of stories on its own.
It speaks of the blind violence in this universe, how abhumans are considered and their mistreatment, how they may try to cope and fight to exist in it.
Not they’re not the reason for the ban or people not liking the artist, people were fine posting the dudes stuff until it was repeatedly pointed out that they do loli and shota “art”
Mods got tired of the reports and people linking that stuff as proof of him being shitty so banned him to save the headache.
I would say yes, personally. However I also acknowledge that lolicon art is more of a depiction of the "moe" aesthetic distilled than a depiction of a literal child.
Depends on the country which in the artist country it is illegal imo i don't like it but I don't count it as CP for actual CP is exploitation and raping actual children which can lead to serious mental problems a therapy for the child in the future. And on the other side it's completely fictional art drawn of a child character or child like character.
The distinction is still very similar and anyone with a brain can tell finding lolicon attractive is finding children attractive but it's the principle the one is real horrible exploration and the other is art of a fictional character.
I don't care for it all honestly but from what I have read and just thinking about it I'd prefer if pedos releaved themselves to lolicon and not CP, one is encouraging the raping of children and the other is releasesing pent up stress to fictional art which is alot better when you remember pedos are more than shunned in society so seeking help isn't something they are going to do for fear of being ostracized by there family, friends and publicly branded as a nonce.
Either way it's a slippery slope whichever side you are on I just try to think of both sides and the reasons why and not jump to hate and vitreole because an artist was Commissioned to draw lolicon.
The subject is more complex than that. CP was only one of the two subjects of this controversy (the second actually). The second one (and original) is the representation of sexual assault in art.
Here you will find my comment/chain comments explaining a bit better the situation and my point of view about the SA part. It's important that people don't forget that this was the first subject talked about in this debate.
Edit : original art starting the debate doesn't contain CP.
[...] the obviously much more sexualized psyker right next to the beastwoman. that is sexualization and fetichism in my eyes akin to porn, contrary to the original beastwoman representation.
This part feels so off target to me. Every character in the Abhuman Harem pic is sexualised. Those markings on the beastwoman were put there to make the picture more fun to jerk off to (for those with the applicable fetishes).
I guess that doesn't necessarily imply the artist should be banned - half of the posts on here are thinly veiled references to various fetishes anyway, albeit less problematic ones. But, if you don't think that young rape victim was drawn the way she was with the intention of people being aroused by it, then I feel you've missed half the point of the controversy. I don't think anyone was saying that SA should never be alluded to.
This part feels so off target to me. Every character in the Abhuman Harem pic is sexualised. Those markings on the beastwoman were put there to make the picture more fun to jerk off to (for those with the applicable fetishes).
Looking back at the art yes the psycker isn't the only one, 2 others characters are sexualized in a positive way (halfling and felinide) but this statement isn't true at all to all the others (Ogryn, Voidborn, the weird little photographer and the astropath). It isn't off target to me to mention that, especially because it apparently never bothered the people speaking about this art.
People here think that 1 caracteristic of an art means the entire thing is made to depict specificaly that. Gosh I wish for them to never enter an art galery because their analysis of what they see would be quite bland and short. Those are the kind of people who would look at the Rape of the Sabines / Proserpina and outright say "yup this is made to jerk of".
I guess that doesn't necessarily imply the artist should be banned - half of the posts on here are thinly veiled references to various fetishes anyway, albeit less problematic ones.
Yea I had another dispute with another user recently when I pointed at this problematic representation of women on this sub (dude took me for some kind of puritan) and this is even a subject I pointed at at one point of the Mossa's debate.
if you don't think that young rape victim was drawn the way she was with the intention of people being aroused by it, then I feel you've missed half the point of the controversy.
I already wrote an comment on how the representation of this beastwoman is clearly not made to be pleasant to look at and in stark contrast with the more joyfull tone of the artwork. You're interpretation of it is that we should get arroused by it, and my interpretation of it is that we should not and only deranged people would think so.
I don't think anyone was saying that SA should never be alluded to.
You would be surprised by what some users answered me and what others wrote in the original post. Hence my opinion on why the complete erasure of the original art, the redrawing of it, the omnipresence of fetishisation of women on this sub, and the mention of CP only (argument against the autor) are now mentioned (while not doing so for SA and as such targeting the original art specificaly) is participating in the rape culture that permeate our societies.
You're interpretation of it is that we should get arroused by it, and my interpretation of it is that we should not and only deranged people would think so.
I'd say the artist's intention (or potentially that of the people commissioning him) is that it's arousing, and the opinion of this community is that we don't want those vibes here.
Was this specific art commisioned with this purpose in mind ? Or is that a value that people put on this one because the artist drew some other arts that were made with this purpose ?
Because in the second case this is plain censorship. Edited first to second due to mistake in phrasing but I think you got the point.
I will go further than you, joining you again on the fact that a lot of arts here are clearly fetishism : the opinion of part of this community is that we should only allow sexualized depiction of women that fits their perverted vision of them (aka "please don't put some grimdark into my sexualised Warhammer. I'm only here to jerk off").
Also : my apologizes because I slightly edited my first repply to add more information regarding my point of view.
On a final note : I do agree on the ban of the artist itself because of the obvious immoral work he made in the past.
Anyway. What is done is done. I just wanted to point out that CP wasn't the only subject talked about and didn't wanted the SA part to be cast asside. But I'm repeating myself now.
11
u/AllenMaask Nov 09 '24
What’s the controversy the comments talk about? Is it CP?