Skip to Content

Tag: Rule 34


[Edit: Wrote this answer this morning and queued it. The blog in question is now flagged, but putting this post out there so as to explain my perspective.]

Let me quickly unload that question first by saying I’m not out to get the blog deleted, I’m out to get it flagged.

If the mod refuses to do it, I’ll ask Tumblr Staff to do it through their reporting system.

Past that, let’s recap on this, since I haven’t added much context in my previous posts…

An unflagged blog is posting clop in the brony tag. And I don’t mean suggestive poses and bedroom eyes here, I’m talking full detail front and rear, animated, the works.

Tumblr has a system for controlling this – flagging and the padlock in the top right of searches:


That little closed padlock means “I don’t want to see at porn at the moment because of reasons” and Tumblr will hide that NSFW content.

Then if you want to see adult content, you can unlock that lil’ dude and Tumblr will show all content from all blogs.

The way Tumblr knows what to block is via the Adult Content setting. Responsible moderators can mark their blogs as NSFW so people are about to CHOOSE if they see them or not when browsing the public spaces.

I have spent literally a week sending asks and reblogging to a (flagged) side blog with messages saying “Please flag your blog so it doesn’t appear in SFW searches. Here’s how to do it…”

The mod did put out a message saying that he’d been receiving complaints from people asking him to flag the blog, to which I replied saying words to the effect of; This isn’t personal, I’m not angry, I don’t have a problem with what you’re doing, I just don’t want to see it when my dash is in SFW mode.

I am not being unreasonable. I have repeatedly politely asked the mod to take responsible action and he is failing to do so.

It will take the mod literally ten seconds to flag the entire blog, past, present, and future – and then it’s content will not appear in SFW searches for both tumblr and other search engines.

Need I remind you all that we bronies take flak every day for R34 in public spaces – and people like this mod are not helping us fix this problem.

Once again, I do not mind R34 content – but we want to choose where and when we see it.

Hey, I'm not alone on the asks!

As a reference, I’ll try to summarize each of my posts on this issue in one or two sentences. These summaries are necessarily simplified, so please read the actual posts and reblog them if you have a response.




Never forget; you may have been wrong about something in your lifetime, but you’ll never be as wrong as this guy.


Funny, the first My Little Pony Rule 34 I ever found (back before I got into “Friendship is Magic” but still after it got a sizable fanbase) wasn’t from FiM. XD

In reply to this post:

I’m pretty sure you already know my stance on the subject.

Like I said, it’s for anyone to answer. (I was really hoping for some people other than those who already participated before.) But leaving that aside, I honestly don’t know your answers to the questions. I’ll explain, but I’m not going to force you to respond. (You know, maybe I should start a separate blog for these discussions.)

  1. Are sexual/”Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? Why or why not?
    Okay, I know your answer to this, anyway.
  2. What right to people have to create “fan work” with characters created by others? How does this apply to sexual depictions (“Rule 34”)?
    I ask this because practically all fan work of “Friendship is Magic” (sexual or not) is based on characters created by Lauren Faust. I think a lot of people don’t have a problem with this. Why not? What about other types of OCs, such as furry characters that aren’t fursonas. That leads me to the third question…
  3. Are there special considerations for avatars (such as fursonas and pony “OCs”) as opposed to other fictional characters? Why or why not?
    Again, the characters in FiM (or the main six, at the very least) are essentially Faust’s OCs. So, is there some special consideration for her avatar, an alternative representation of herself, as well as other people’s avatars? It seems that the answer for you is yes. Why?
  4. What about creating and sharing a drawn depiction of the sort [a nude person such as a celebrity], or any other depiction that doesn’t involve a breach of privacy?
    This one’s really for notaclopbanana, but I was hoping for your opinion on this.

(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.

  1. The cardinal question: Are sexual/“Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? Why or why not?
  2. What right to people have to create “fan work” with characters created by others? How does this apply to sexual depictions (“Rule 34”)?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.)





This was inspired by something that recently happened to a friend. Might considering posting my source of inspiration for B if they still do not see the error of their ways after being informed by various people including the artist themselves. People. OTL

If anyone identifies with B please understand and change? I’m sure you’re not a jerk inside but just behaving so due to ignorance/convenience/pride/whatever. Do you really want to continue?

Relevant to the Fausticorn OC debate I was having here earlier.

((Oh my god yes. I had this same talk on Twitter not long ago about some girl stealing someone’s fursona but feeling OK about it because she “gave credit” to the maker.

My example “So if I go and steal your car, it’s OK and not stealing so long as, when stopped by the police, I tell them it belongs to you and give you full credit for paying for it?” ))

(For the record.)


Drawing or posting Fausticorn in rule 34 is terrible and I can prove it.

All I have to do is lie about what she said(to myself), ignore that it’s harmless, assume that some arbitrary hierarchy of rights to a character is what defines right and wrong instead of harm and situational awareness, ignore that the same statement that it “kind of gives [faust] the creeps,” that I’m twisting into “I can’t stand these disturbing images and it needs to stop,” and that she’d rather not have it pointed out to her was said about all clop in general, that all the main characters are her ocs, and make accusations about anyone who thinks that disrespectful actions do not equal malevolent, evil, or punishable ones.

((Reminder that you do not know me. You do not know that I rescued a stray dog a few months ago and found him a home, you do not know that I volunteered at a hospital, you do not see it everytime I sign a petition, every time I give to charity. You want to imagine that person on the other side of the screen has no empathy or compassion so you don’t have to think. Go ahead. But don’t fucking pat yourself on the back for it, and mistake that for a virtue.))

Actually, there is a thing called personality rights, though its legal applicability is doubtful. More information.




A similar question could be asked of clop: I wonder if Hasbro/DHX will appreciate this…

Rule 34 almost always implies disrespect for a character’s creator, because most of the time they don’t appreciate pornographic depictions of them. Of course, Lauren Faust and other creators definitely shouldn’t be harassed with it, but beyond that it isn’t really that simple. But that doesn’t mean we don’t take these sorts of things into consideration.

If you didn’t see my other post, there are personality rights to consider when it comes to real people (but I’m not sure if this goes for alternative personas). So that would make the case for real people (and potentially alternative personas, at least morally, if not legally). But I just took issue with the statement: You do not do things that could creep out, upset or otherwise harm another human being without asking them first. This, I think, is overly broad, which is why I originally said the issue was oversimplified.

((You just equated Hasbro to a human being. Your argument is invalid and I’m ignoring future replies.))

I’d like to point out that I basically agreed with you in the end, because of a legal (and probably moral) consideration called personality rights. Please read my entire previous response (and the link) for details.

I’m using the comparison because, while Hasbro and DHX are not people themselves, the creators are in fact people. Lauren Faust created the characters in “Friendship is Magic.” While the discussion so far has been surrounding her avatar, there is still the question of porn of FiM in general. I don’t think Faust would appreciate this, either.

This brings up another issue: Rule 34 of fictional characters vs. avatars. Pony OCs that bronies create can be avatars, that is, representations of themselves, but they don’t have to be. I’d like to ask what people here think of Rule 34 of OCs that are not avatars. (A very popular character that fits this description is Nightmare Rarity.) Personality rights are nonexistent, so do these characters have the same level of ownership/protection?

(Also, just because I’ve been giving logic lessons in these discussions: My argument cannot be “invalid” in the strict sense of the term. “Invalid” means that it doesn’t prove what it claims to prove. It applies only to deductive arguments, those that are intended to prove something with certainty, like a mathematical proof. All our arguments are inductive, which means they try to support instead of prove. You could say my argument is “weak.” Plus, refusual to consider arguments from a particular source just because one of its arguments is bad may be an argumentum ad hominem [discrediting a person making an argument instead of the argument itself] or invincible ignorance [refusing to consider evidence].)