DANGER!

4 min read

Deviation Actions

7 Favourites
1K Comments
7K Views


You best not read this journal. Clearly I am a bad influence on you all and you should stay away.

I know the world has really been spun around and damaged by over zealous members of the nanny state when Staff & volunteers are being threatened with witchhunts and accusations of being protectors of pedophiles (not to mention our parenting skills being questioned)

But what caused this? Oh just a few lines on paper.

Mature Content

SPCherub by Mathewlove


That's right people. Hardcore child porn. Go burn your hard drives and clear Pete Townsend from your playlist.

NOTE: Yes this journal is full of sarcasm, but it's also full of TRUTH. Currently a certain group of deviants are hellbent on causing an uproar over images of cherubs. Can you believe it? Apparantly those images contain child porn.

Just for the record, when it comes to computer generated or drawn cartoons of individuals, we follow the line that if something is drawn to incite a sexual arousal in a reasonable adult then it is considered to be worthy of Mature Content and possibly even pornographic.

We reserve the right as a private website to apply MC filters and to review deviations regularly. I've asked a number of Staff and deviants about these images and nobody tells me that they found them arousing in the slightest.  

It's this type of idiocy that causes backlog in the reporting system, dArama in the community and ultimately distressed and defamed artists to deactivate their accounts. Pointless, isn't it.

Published:
© 2010 - 2021 fourteenthstar
Comments1772
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Silerna's avatar
Even over the years. Absolutely nothing changed. The staff even became more perverted actually and more ignoring towards us.
KaizenKitty's avatar
The TOS say that any child depicted nude is against the rules. This deviant produces many pictures of nude little boys, with their genitals visible in poses that can only be interpreted as sexual -- fav.me/d29a1re -- especially in this image, great emphasis is placed on the penis and the behind. Aside from that, this cherub/little boy looks high. His facial expression leads us to believe that either he is drunk, on drugs, or has recently been sexually stimulated (the latter seems the most likely). Many people have agreed on this point (please look at the comment section under said deviation). And the artist, Mathewlove goes on to say he will make "even creepier cherub art in due time." mathewlove.deviantart.com/jour…

Why is this behavior tolerated? Why is this child-pornographer's account still active? How do you explain this, fourteenthstar?
RepeatingDigits's avatar
I really couldnt tell if this sarcasm or not even after reading.
But seriously, real children posing for sexytimes is child porn, however a virtual child is not.
lightning-Darui's avatar
if i post hentai i censor it i mean major censoring 
lightning-Darui's avatar
i do major censoring if i post really hentai 
Khomaa's avatar
"Just for the record, when it comes to computer generated or drawn cartoons of individuals, we follow the line that if something is drawn to incite a sexual arousal in a reasonable adult then it is considered to be worthy of Mature Content and possibly even pornographic."
I find Androids to be sexy, so if somebody were to draw, say, a robot from the 2012 remake of Total Recall in a sexy pose and it turns me on, it'll get a mature filter?
Total logic.

" I've asked a number of Staff and deviants about these images and nobody tells me that they found them arousing in the slightest." Well congrats, the ones you asked are pedos but you guys =/= the rest of the internets users. There ARE perverts who like that shit drawn by that sickfuck and we don't have to be perverts to recognize pervert material.

The particular image provided doesn't even have wings. It's a toddler in a sexual pose but MathewSickfuck saaaays it's a cherub so we'll just all take his word on it even though any person looking at the image without the artists description WILL mistake it for a toddler.

They're just babies with wings. So by DA's logic, draw any minor..any at all, and stick wings on it and voila! CP accepted! Wonderful loophole DA.

I love how DA will remove images of InuYasha and Kagome snuggling but toddlers with wings in alluring poses? A-OK!
A minor drawn with some belly hairs? OH NONO! You stick to toddlers with wings in alluring poses, you hear?

Since Omega-wolf has been stalking this journal and waiting for every possible chance to defend CP, I expect them to respond to this with "Cherubs aren't humans, gawsh"
endler's avatar
I know this is extremely old, but...oh God I'm sorry but so many of the arguments on both sides are just awful! Many people who had placed the actual rules of the site you appeared to completely ignore - along with those who were actually giving some rather good points.

Myself, I thought it was cute until I saw that wink. :<
CoffeeSorbet's avatar
"Oh just a few lines on paper."

So anything is a-ok for dA, since drawings are 'just a few lines on paper,' including blatant child porn (winking and showing off privates)?
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
It's not child porn if the topic of the art is not a child.

Cherubs, cupids, and angels are not human, therefor not children.
When you grow up and are smart enough you'll understand that specifics and details do matter in the adult world.
CoffeeSorbet's avatar
It looks like a baby. It's child porn. Simple as that.

Aaand of course you have to throw an insult in there as well. Really makes you look intelligent c: Judging by your avatar I have a hard time believing you are not a troll.
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
Looks are deceiving
blessedarrow's avatar
This has got to be a joke. You can't be admin of an Art site and call it "just a few lines on paper" Aren't then all lines on papers? then if they are, they don't need any kind of regulations! Even if this is a cherub, or a patti, or a 40yr old man that's looks like a baby because of an evil magic spell, it looks just like a baby posing in a suggestive way. And dA's rules say Nothing that looks like a minor can be shown that way, not even if they're "just lines on paper" as you say.
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
Cherubs are not human.
blessedarrow's avatar
doesnt matter, the rules say its not ok even if it looks human.
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
Admin say it's okay, it's okay
deaddoll00's avatar
Hey :iconaquarior:? No, you really didn't. What you did was reveal a subjective point of view based on your own assumptions. Kind of like a petulant kid stamping his foot and demanding that his reality be met. All the while claiming you're "evolved". Come on now, you seriously believe that? By the way, nice way to "win" what should have been a logical argument by going the 10-year old "block me" route. Pussy. :D
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
There are no intelligent people on the side of the 'cherubs is peoples 2!" argument.
mishihime's avatar
Clearly a pedophile wouldn't attempt to get around the rules. They have such high moral standing after all.
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
Dunno, never met one.
deaddoll00's avatar
We could start a cherub rights group :D Pfft, they're still obviously up for the kiddie-porn lulz.
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
I think that would be awesome
deaddoll00's avatar
deaddoll00's avatar
By the way? Where in my original most was I immature or a cry baby? I cited original links and definitions and put out a logical argument for both the original images and this journal in question. And you want me to cite rules to you? Since you're too lazy to do it yourself, here:

"• Works depicting the likenesses of real children, whether painting, sketch, or otherwise, will be held to the same standards established for photographs of underage models."

It's interesting how you chose to focus your attacks on me, considering the many, many oppositions also posted on this journal, many of which come across far more hostile than my own. But yeah. You blocked me, buddy. You "win". :iconeyerollplz:
BronyPonyIam's avatar
"• Works depicting the likenesses of real children, whether painting, sketch, or otherwise, will be held to the same standards established for photographs of underage models."

I know this is old but what does that even mean... Real childern as in Shirely Temple or real children as in looks like a real child and is that law or the DA policy?
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In