Discussion: Fausticorn Rule 34 (Just Asking?)
(This is for a “general” audience, so I’ll give some background information.) A few days ago I got into a debate over the question: Are sexual/“Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? It resulted in way too much flak that I’m just recovering from.
It’s mostly died down, but recently I came across another post relevant to this issue.
It raises more questions than it answers, and I think the questions are the same ones that I tried raising earlier in the debate. These seem to have gone unanswered, so I’ll ask them again. I invite anyone who’s interested to respond.
I’d like to make it clear that I don’t have a firm stance on this issue. I’ve tried to respond to all sides as neutrally (reasonably) as possible, and I hope that by starting off with these questions I’ll be able to do that better.
- The cardinal question: Are sexual/“Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? Why or why not?
- What right to people have to create “fan work” with characters created by others? How does this apply to sexual depictions (“Rule 34”)?
- Storytellers create characters that may rightfully be called “OCs” (original characters), but often they are not alternative representations of themselves (“avatars,” as I like to call them). Are there special considerations for avatars (such as fursonas and pony “OCs”) as opposed to other fictional characters? Why or why not?
- It is clear that taking nude pictures of a person (such as a celebrity) is an invasion of privacy, and therefore wrong. What about creating and sharing a drawn depiction of the sort, or any other depiction that doesn’t involve a breach of privacy?
(If you decide to use the Tumblr answer feature as opposed to reblogging, I will respond with a post tagged with your blog name [as it appears in your blog URL]. Please check the tag if you’re interested in seeing my response.)