FurAffinity Officially Unwelcomes Babyfurs/ABDLs

I’m not sure they fully understand the implications of what they’ve done, but the leadership of FurAffinity, the self-described “world’s largest furry website” (though it may not be the largest for much longer), has just made a change to their art upload policy that is already driving members of the babyfur/ABDL community to close their accounts and leave. FurAffinity, or FA for short, is mainly an art website that allows furry artists of all kinds to find an audience and, more importantly, to sell commissions, which are the only way some artists are making a living.

From what I understand, it started months ago, when a specific anti-ABDL user began a campaign of mass-reporting every ABDL post and user they could find. Artists found their art taken down and sometimes their accounts locked without warning or explanation. This troublemaker kept this up for months. They seem to have a personal belief that all ABDLs are somehow predators and must be driven off the site, or preferably, off the Internet entirely.

FA’s moderators have been reviewing many of these decisions and reversing some of them, but some art remained down, and some artists remained blocked. Questions remained, until yesterday, when FA released a sweeping revision of their upload policy.

The Previous Policy

The policy was already a bit restrictive, but those artists who remained had been living with it. It basically stated that, within posted artwork or stories:

• Minor characters couldn’t be in the presence of sexual activity, sexual objects, or nudity, with possible exceptions for “non-sexual depictions of childbirth and breastfeeding”
• Minor characters couldn’t be depicted with visible genital bulges or “hyper genitalia” (a subgenre of furry art involving exaggeratedly large genitalia), no matter whether it was directly visible or visible only as an outline under clothing
• Minor characters could not be “fetishized” (this was left vague and not defined)
• Minor characters could not be depicted as pregnant

But more importantly, and this is what drove a lot of people off the site, a “minor” was defined as a character depicted with a body under 18 years of age, no matter whether they were a humanoid, animal, or some fantasy creature. This meant that a character who had previously been in an adult body but had been transformed (or body-swapped, etc.) into a child via some magic, technology, etc. was considered a “minor” for the purposes of these rules. This combined with the undefined term “fetishized” left many uncomfortable, because a lot of people have a fetish for being transformed into a baby or child, and then there are the depictions of wet and messy diapers that a lot of ABDLs want to see. So an adult character turned into an incontinent baby/cub in diapers probably (if “fetishized” was interpreted a certain way) couldn’t be shown doing the inevitable, even if they still had their adult mind and were essentially still just the adult character in a different body and an embarrassing/humiliating situation.

They pointed to what they called “dictionary definitions” of “fetish” and “kink,” but that noticeably doesn’t define “fetishize,” and the term “kink” doesn’t appear in the policy, so why they invoked that definition is unclear.

Well, a lot of people were unsatisfied with this policy, and for some time FA’s leadership has been saying they were working on a new revision of the policy. Babyfur artists and users were hoping they’d make the policy work for them, not against them. But instead this is what they came up with:

The New Policy

• Minor characters can’t be shown to be in the presence of:
  • Sexual activity
  • Sexual objects
  • Sexual language
  • Adult themes
  • Nudity
  • Fetish or kink content
  • The ever-popular “other prohibited content”
• Minor characters can’t be depicted:
  • With visible genital bulges or hyper-genitalia, clothed or not
  • As pregnant
  • Wearing wet or messy diapers
  • Performing “restroom activity,” meaning relieving themselves or in “content focused on them using the restroom”
  • With an emphasis on a body part, clothed or not – and specific body parts are listed as examples: feet, groin, or butt, though not limited to those (and what’s more, they add vague language about this not applying to situations where the emphasis is “coincidental,” whatever that means)
• A possible exception still exists for non-sexual depictions of childbirth or breastfeeding
• Specific mention is made of regression – physical or mental (however mental regression would be determined; see below) – stating that any regressed character cannot be depicted breastfeeding, born or unbirthed (another sub-genre of art involving re-entry into the womb) or having their diapers changed

A minor is still defined as a humanoid, animal, or fantasy creature whose body appears to be under the age of 18, which still applies to an adult character affected by age regression, body-swapping, or what have you. However, they’ve also managed to shoehorn a phrase about having “the consciousness of a child” into the definition now. This means that they can now judge via some means that an adult has been hypnotized, drugged, mind-controlled, etc. via some means to be mentally age-regressed, and that now counts as a minor – even if they have an obviously adult body.

So an actual infant character could be shown getting a diaper changed or being born, but an age-regressed character can’t – even if their body is indistinguishable from that of a baby’s. And mental age regression is now treated the same as physical age regression for this particular exception.

So much is still left up to the judgement call of a moderator – exactly how are they meant to tell that a character in an image is mentally regressed or has the “consciousness of a child,” especially in a community of people who behave in babyish ways voluntarily for fun? Perhaps it’s clear in some cases, but then there are all the others. Exactly how are they going to establish that some body part is non-coincidentally emphasized?

What’s Happening

Showing age-regressed characters getting their diapers changed (with no visible genitalia) is an incredibly frequent scenario in both artwork and stories, and FA’s policy covers both. After all, one of the main alterations to a character’s life if they’ve been age-regressed to an infant would be the fact that they’re now in diapers and require diaper changes. Wet and messy diapers can’t be shown, period, and neither can either actual child characters or age-regressed adults be depicted wetting or messing their diapers, and there’s an unbelievable amount of art like that, enough to keep a mass reporter busy for years.

And that’s the thing – for years, decades even, artists have been posting artwork of infant characters (or physically-regressed adults) in wet or messy diapers to FA. Now all of that is apparently forbidden. This is a signal from FA for that mass-reporter to just keep on mass-reporting and getting tons of old art taken down, when it was (arguably) acceptable before.

What can still be shown? Well, adult characters who aren’t age regressed in any way could be depicted in wet or messy diapers. There are limits on what adult characters can be shown doing, but they’re not covered by this section of the policy – they’re far less restrictive, though. Minor characters (and “minor” characters who are actually age-regressed adults) can be shown doing all kinds of other activities. Just as long as the art doesn’t non-coincidentally focus on their ear.

The questions here are what the community has real problems about and why FA’s leadership decided to make this change, which they probably knew would drive people away (though perhaps not to the degree that is happening). The biggest problem the community has seems to me to be the sense of betrayal – we were promised a revisiting of the policy, actual clarification, rather than a large set of additional restrictions that outlaw a lot of content that was acceptable in the past. What’s more, coming on the heels of the mass-report abuser, this feels like letting the mass-reporter win, caving to one harasser’s demands over the needs of an entire established user community. And finally, with yet more arbitrary-feeling restrictions, in conjunction with FA’s statement, “We want to be clear. We are not pushing out or removing the babyfur or ABDL community,” we just feel as if FA isn’t being honest with us. This is awfully strange behavior for a site that doesn’t want to ban the babyfur/ABDL community.

Then there’s the matter of why FA did this. Ultimately, they make their decisions in closed (virtual) rooms with no community input. They aren’t allowing public comment on the policy change; attempts to discuss it on the FA Discord are deleted. The excuse is that underage users are allowed on the Discord, and talking about porn content policy violates their policy about discussing such topics in spaces where minors are allowed – but I notice there’s no movement toward opening an 18+ channel for such discussion. FA’s public statement doesn’t really clarify why such policy changes are needed, or why this policy is required at all in the first place, though the motive appears to be avoiding hosting depictions of minors engaged in sexual activity. In other words, they don’t want child po/rn.

That’s a noble goal. It really is. The ABDL community is under constant attack for being an alleged “haven” for pe/do/phi/les and child po/rn/ogra/phers (slashes are an attempt to prevent searches for those terms from finding this journal), and we don’t want to be a haven for predators. Who would? People who make CP are predators and cause immense and irreparable damage to their victims. But this is artwork, some might counter; the subjects aren’t real and have never existed outside the artist’s imagination. Still, it attracts elements to the babyfur community that babyfurs would rather not have within it.

Let me be absolutely clear, unlike FA. ABs want to be the baby. They don’t want to involve real babies. DLs enjoy diapers, and that may or may not have anything to do with any other fetish. In fact, DLs are probably the least affected by this change, because adults in diapers with no age-regression component have nothing to do with the depiction-of-minors policy at all. But ABs want to imagine themselves as the baby characters, or as adult characters who have been physically or mentally (or both) regressed to babies. That involves doing babylike things, such as wearing and using diapers. The viewer may ascribe a sexual meaning to a drawing of a baby wetting or messing their diapers, or throwing plushies at another baby, or any number of infantile activities that can be interpreted by the viewer in any way they like including sexual. But the image is just an image of a baby doing babyish things. Artists cannot control how viewers interpret their work. Perhaps they can be suggestive, but ultimately that’s not under their control. Art of a child character behaving in a sexually suggestive way might or might not be CP – for example, what about child beauty pageants? What about a situation where a character has been forcibly age-regressed and is desperately trying to hang onto some vestige of their now-vanished adulthood, so the creator is depicting this as pathetic play-acting that’s meant to be disturbing, not exciting (see Downtiming the Nightside by Jack L. Chalker)? If a viewer/reader finds something sexually exciting, that may or may not be the creator’s intent, and who gets to say?

As for me, my artwork is largely about my character, who is an actual toddler, doing actual toddler things. She has the mind of a toddler in the body of a toddler, because that’s what she is. It’s unlikely that my visual art violates even this latest policy. The stories I’ve written and posted to FA aren’t as safe, as most of them involve age regression, though the risk of their being reported relies on the mass-reporter or someone else actually reading them, and the fact is that skimming through visual art is faster.

But whether or not my art will be affected isn’t the point; it’s irrelevant. The fact is that the artwork, the culture, of large portions of the ABDL/babyfur community is now unacceptable according to FA, and people are leaving. Including me. The only thing I’ve been doing on FA for a few years now is posting journals announcing my live storytime streams. I don’t think I’ve been picking up extra viewers from FA for a long time. So I’m moving that to this website and discontinuing my FA use. Once the transition’s been made, I’ll close my account to guest users, so one must be logged in to FA to see anything, and only verified 18+ users will be able to see it, because I’ve set that flag already. And I won’t be posting anything else there. Eventually I’ll probably delete everything from my account and disable it. Unless FA makes it a welcoming place for me again, which seems quite unlikely given its trend of recent years.

What Would Fix This?

How could FA fix this? Well, it’s unclear that they actually can; so many have quit in anger, recently or longer ago, that they’ll never come back. FA’s user base is going to be skewing younger, and we’ll see what kind of effect that has on the site, I suppose.

But if they were going to try to lure me back, their policy would have to be a lot clearer. Yes, rather than “clarifying” by adding more rules, they need to actually clarify. I’d be fine with “Characters who appear to be minors may not be depicted engaging in any form of sexual activity.” That doesn’t include adults dressed in babyish clothes. That doesn’t include adults who may be mentally age regressed. That doesn’t exempt adults who are physically age regressed. But it also doesn’t include diaper wetting or messing, or being shown in wet or messy diapers; those are normal things that happen to babies. It doesn’t cover minor characters being in the same room when sexual activity is going on, but we could work on simple language to cover that. Fears about whether viewers/readers might “fetishize” the content are nonsensical; they’re attempts to control how the audience behaves, which there’s no way to do. As for minors depicted as pregnant, that’s another matter; they’re talking about young adolescents who are pregnant, not pregnant babies or toddlers. That isn’t an ABDL issue.

But more than that, it would require both a full apology for how FA has treated the ABDL/babyfur community, both this time and on previous occasions (requiring an admission that they actually have been treating us quite shabbily), and a firm commitment never to change the policy back in the future. They’re never going to do any of this, or at least I’d be very surprised if they did. They’re losing people, and if they want to stop that, they’ll have to assure them that this won’t happen again. But that’s not something I think they can promise. They’re wrong, but they don’t want to admit they’ve made a mistake, so they’ve done the worst and stupidest thing one can do in such a situation: they’ve doubled down. And, like the announcement post and the Discord, comments are disabled. They don’t want to hear from anyone.

Appendix: What About Patreon?

You might suggest that some of these artists go to Patreon – some have, some of them years ago. But FA remained a key part of their network, and what’s more, Patreon recently changed their policy to disallow a significant chunk of ABDL content as well (though not as far-reaching a ban as FA’s). In November and December of 2023, many ABDL content creators found their Patreon accounts closed without warning, and Patreon announced a “clarification” of their Community Guidelines stating, “Patreon does NOT permit sexualised ‘age-play’ of adults posing as children of any sort in illustrations, photographs or audio description of any sort, including nudity, clothed crotch shots, using childhood objects as sex-toys or forms of erotica.” They additionally stated that this had somehow always been Patreon’s policy. There’s still room on Patreon for non-sexual ABDL visual/audio content and for text-only content creators, but how long until they “clarify” again that these forms of expression are also (and have somehow always been) unacceptable?