Question for the fellow nsfw artist (Cancel Culture?)

[TheKawaiiCommie]

Know I'm late to the party, but I don't think you have much to worry about. As others have said, you have no smoking guns for anyone to latch onto, and your page isn't linked to any socials or fundraising, so nobody from outside Aryion would even be able to contact you unless they came here to troll. Still, your page is mostly fluff so there's nothing really to latch onto. I can't see what someone would object to or how they'd convince others to brigade you. You'll be fine.

[DreamyGalaxy]

I'm generally of the opinion that if you don't warn people what they are getting into, you deserve...well no, you don't deserve to be canceled. But you are somewhat inviting the ire you recieve. If you've done your best to warn people what kind of content you deliver? Then I'd say it's their fault for seeking it out because if you've done the hard yards to worn people and label everything correcting and age appropriately then them even seeing it is a result of their own morbid curiosity. However if you've labelled your content incorrectly?

Well, I've been known to report Vore content to YouTube if it's in the Kids Section when it should not be. Because despite what some people might think stuff designed to give people a boner still gives off the vibe of stuff designed to give people a boner even if it's weird and has no overt sexual content. People can sense that shit and it makes them uncomfortable even if they don't know why.

TLDR; if you've labelled and age restricted everything correctly. You should not pay the normies any mind they are consenting to gawking just by dint of ignoring the warnings you put up. If you have not put up any warnings and are just letting anyone stumble across your fetish like some kind of nonconsent seeking exhibitionist then you probably should heed their disgust because you did essentially shove an obscure, weird and oftentimes grotesque fetish directly into their retinas without warning.

In my opinion you only need to fear public opinion if they have a point and they only have a point if your not respecting their boundaries. If your respecting their boundaries, then the fact they are trying to cancel you is a result of them willingly crossing the lines you've drawn just to drag you out of your niche internet haunt so they can make fun of you. The correct response to this is to ignore them. Also separating your fetish art from your ordinary art might also help to prevent getting cancelled people use pseudonyms for a reason we are not all Quentin Tarantino who can display his foot fetish to the world in Dusk till Dawn and only get giggled at for it.

Oh yes I believe that, honestly thanks to YouTube and DA as a child I was exposed to vore wayyyyy to young and look at me now. But, the fact that people on there was so uncaring and just exposed their fetish shit with out warning or age restrictions on there or on youtube is just disgusting to me. You can at least age restrict your stuff especially if what it involves has characters in shows/games that are made for more underaged audiences. But yeah, I guess I shouldn't fear much on my part as I keep everything separate from my mains and you can't even look at my stuff without an account.

[DreamyGalaxy]

Know I'm late to the party, but I don't think you have much to worry about. As others have said, you have no smoking guns for anyone to latch onto, and your page isn't linked to any socials or fundraising, so nobody from outside Aryion would even be able to contact you unless they came here to troll. Still, your page is mostly fluff so there's nothing really to latch onto. I can't see what someone would object to or how they'd convince others to brigade you. You'll be fine.

Thankiessss ;w; I just worry a lot, maybe I'm too baby for the internet sometimes lol

[Ixtili]

A ban is what a boycott wants to be when it grows up.

That's simply not true. A boycott is "I refuse to give this creator my money". A ban is "Legal action is taken to prevent someone from sharing something.

For instance, LOADS of us are boycotting anything financially tied to JK Rowling, because we don't want our money being used by a person who wants to hurt us. But none of us can imagine anything good coming from her books being banned by law.

While I get what you are saying, I will say for every person I've seen saying they are simply choosing what to do with their money. There are generally about 3 more people baying for the books to be removed from shelves and the woman herself to be spontaneously cut down in a vague but explicitly fatal incident. I'll concede to the concept you can choose not to support something without going out of your way to actively ban that thing. But I do think that where there is smoke there is fire and when gathering a mob the likelihood of that mob keeping their worst aspects in their pants is directly proportional to the size of the mob and the discretion of it's least discrete members. Sure stopping boycotting entirely isn't a good solution either and boycotting itself won't always escalate to banning in all circumstances. But I reserve the right to be somewhat wary of the practice when the line between boycotting and banning seems to get blurry once you get enough angry people in one place.

[Doku]

Alright, so I was debating if I wanted to even make a forum post, but honestly it bothers me that I see no one else talk about it.

For artist outside of Eka's who want to do more or less safe for work art/ non-vore related content, what are your worries about being found outside of Eka's? It honestly feels like on the art community outside of "normal" NSFW you could get "cancelled" or what not especially for this kink in particular. I often think back on what had happed to the artist Chammy almost about a year ago where someone who was harassing her made her Eka's public to her outside audience and friends/family. I feel so subconscious to even be on this site because of something like that happening to me later on in life (even though its mainly an irrational fear.). I want to do more stuff outside of Eka's not related to vore or anything, but I fear the moment I start to pick up traction outside is when people will snoop because thats the sort of culture we live in where people use anything to cancel someone. I guess it mainly just because out of all the other NSFW art that gets popular no problem on twitter or something is because its not vore related. Vore honestly has one of the worst raps out there on the "weird" scale right next I guess furries, even though they do get treated better now because its not all NSFW, but vore sorta can't be pulled away from it not being NSFW.

If your a open NSFW twitter artist it seems like thats the only way people seem chill, and you can have a SFW audience too, but you have to be straight up open about it first. I just don't want to be an open NSFW artist outside of here, and yet it sorta feels criminal? Does anyone else feel like this or am I just freaking out?

I have little interest in getting into what I personally do. But I do think it would be wise not to use the phrasing "Cancel Culture" here. As a general rule, if you are an artist who does not go to great lengths to separate your online persona between SFW and NSFW material, there is always a possibility of being seen by people who have viewed both of your art sets. This is all the more likely if you are utilizing the same identity as an artist online, making it easy enough to follow. That isn't cancel culture. That's simply viewing the artist's material in all its varieties and determining whether or not they are still an artist you wish to continue to indulge and view the material of.

To take a completely unrelated example: If you were to hear Garth Brooks' performances as "Chris Gaines" during his short-lived stint in the late 90s as an alternative rock artist, and have an immediate aversion to it, you might actually view the rest of Garth Brooks' wealth of work in Country Music with a negative light. I know quite a few people who threw Beck to the curb with the sheer number of experimentations and differences of styles he had in each of his albums. Sometimes, a subsequent album of work is considered offensive enough to turn a person off on an artist they once loved. Sometimes, an actor loses appeal with the broader audience because they did a sex scene in a movie, and had never done so before, or it comes out that their early career included pornography, or B-rated action flicks of little skill.

It is not precisely cancel culture for fans of an artist to view the totality of their art portfolio as important to appreciate their work. Some are content to travel the breadth of the experience of an artist's growth over decades, some only like certain periods of that artist's work, and some find one particular of their works offensive or distasteful enough to choose to forsake them entirely. Some people truly do judge Masamune Shirow, creator of the Ghost in the Shell franchise, with great derision over the extremely racey pin-up art he's been known to do from time to time. Others? Don't give a fig. Still others? Collect the entirety of his work.

The upshot is that, if you are deeply concerned with "What will people think about me drawing a Vore art?" Then you need to ask yourself if you want two separate identities on, or off Eka's. If you have separate identities, there are a string of steps to take to ensure that you are viewed as separate artists (VPNs, different personal details, removing identifying information in art, stylistic differences, etc...). Take them, and go the extra mile to carefully and assiduously never associate your work. Otherwise? It's pretty much what KnightleyPaine says. If you're an artist who's known to have drawn vore art, then that's what you are, and some folks aren't going to take kindly to that. If you started out principally and mostly as a vore artist, like Strega, then that's your identity and it comes with whatever stigmas it does. Nothing's been canceled. Nothing was hidden under the sun. The internet is a very visible, public space unless you're quite thorough in keeping your tracks covered.

Embrace who and what you are, acknowledging what that may mean later in life, and accept that with information access in the modern world, who you are is a thing that can be seen. So don't say and do things you are not prepared to be associated with you.

2.) How did you code your spice?

A lot of people know Shadman by now, though I haven't paid attention so if he personally became problematic at some point I'm sorry, but generally spoken his content has some very spicy stuff. An example being things like labeling a woman's knees with "break for longterm relationship". But everything he makes has this over the top tone, it's very clearly coded as base and mush-brained porn attitude, not as actual life advice. The understanding that porn is porn is usually pretty basic, and you can absolutely code it as porn. If you're instead coding it as something you seem to want to normalize, now you have to contend with the Overton Window of what is appropriate sexuality.

I haven't spoken with Shadman in sell over a decade, and our interactions were terse and brief (one of the biggest regrets I've ever had artistically is ever conversing with them. They are a genuinely unpleasant person to deal with.). My impression would be that Shadman generally codes their material as being "Performative for Shock Value." They expressly attempt to draw their work to get a reaction, and so their work is beyond simply coded as 'base and mush-brained porn.' They are a shock-gaining artist drawing for the sheer sake of breaking taboos. The art piece for them is as much the horrified reactions of others as it is their own interest in seeing the shocking art.

They are, in essence, a troll as well as an artist. But I'll yield that I have a very poor opinion of them as an artist, so my bias is pretty apparent there.

[hernextmeal]

So don't say and do things you are not prepared to be associated with you.

I'm sorry, but "don't be yourself because you'll get blacklisted by the mob" is 1000% "cancel culture".

Unless what you are taking issue with is the term itself, which has become loaded by the culture war. Sorry, but there's no better term for the phenomenon - even if it might be politically inconvenient for you if you are of the political bent that tends to benefit more than lose from angry mobs looking for people to destroy. If allowing the destruction of discourse for political gain is the gambit you're willing to make, then do remember that the mob will come for you and yours too, even if they come for your opponents more often. The right learned this the hard way too with McCarthy in the 50s, though they too seem to be forgetting it.

But hey, who can blame them? Getting together as a group and looking for sinners to purge is fun for the lizard brain, even if it's the kind of behaviour that puts your civilisation in a death spiral.

[KnightleyPaine]

Also half this thread can't agree on what cancel culture even is at this point.

[Ixtili]

So don't say and do things you are not prepared to be associated with you.

I'm sorry, but "don't be yourself because you'll get blacklisted by the mob" is 1000% "cancel culture".

Unless what you are taking issue with is the term itself, which has become loaded by the culture war. Sorry, but there's no better term for the phenomenon - even if it might be politically inconvenient for you if you are of the political bent that tends to benefit more than lose from angry mobs looking for people to destroy. If allowing the destruction of discourse for political gain is the gambit you're willing to make, then do remember that the mob will come for you and yours too, even if they come for your opponents more often. The right learned this the hard way too with McCarthy in the 50s, though they too seem to be forgetting it.

But hey, who can blame them? Getting together as a group and looking for sinners to purge is fun for the lizard brain, even if it's the kind of behaviour that puts your civilisation in a death spiral.

Honestly I would sincerely recommend anyone considering using a mob for political gain just commit arson instead. Flames are not only easier to control and predict, they'll probably kill less people and damage less property. I'm not even joking. Arson is neater than an Angry Mob. You could also set a legion of starving rabies infected cats on your political enemies...this would also have a significantly easier clean up period and less long term consequences. The only thing worse than people is angry outraged people given the go ahead to tear into someone or something. People who don't get that are either addicted to the "purging" that takes place when your a member of a mob, or just sincerely don't understand that the court of public opinion is callous, fickle, arbitrary, dangerous and beyond the ken of mortals.

[empatheticapathy]

Honestly, you should just go as anonymous as possible unless you're deliberately building some kind of portfolio for professional purposes.
No matter what you say or do, some number of people are going to dislike it, and every one of those people could potentially decide to harass you or otherwise make you 'pay' for whatever they're mad about. It's not even about being PC or sensitive to issues or whatever else; I've seen people get victimized by long-term harassment campaigns for liking Character X when they 'should' like Character Y, and even once over a *typo* (and no, it wasn't a typo that turned an innocent sentence into an offensive one; it was literally 'you made a spelling mistake, so I'm going to mock you for it across multiple websites for months').
Wall off your online personas from each other, and from your irl self. The more of you that a harasser has access to, the more they can and will attack.

[Achenar]

Also half this thread can't agree on what cancel culture even is at this point.

That's because it's a largely meaningless phrase, kind of like CRT, almost solely deployed by people annoyed by the idea that people might be upset with them for acting in a shitty way and deciding to advocate for people to stop giving them money and a place to be shitty. The obvious giveaway is the part where they compare "people want Netflix to drop Dave Chapelle for saying objectively terrible and hostile things about trans people" to "literally arresting someone on the unfounded suspicion that they might believe communism to be a better form of government".

But there are people who engage in a sort of moral panic policing, which is a lot more polit-agnostic, and this can lead to a negative view of not just your other art but of you as a person. Chiu had a lot of problems just on this site because she drew a lot of loli artwork, which gets so often conflated with CP. (Those who conflate the two are welcome to show me the actual real-life child being depicted in, say, Mikan's comics.) Generally I think it may be better to have separate online personas for fetish-related art and sfw art, or at least for the full body of your art and your other online endeavors. If nothing else, employers still hold a lot of leeway in getting rid of an employee, even for purely "moral" reasons, so depending on your state and your employer's personal positions it could cause an... awkward situation when you're called in to their office to explain why they should pay the salary of someone who draws fetish pornography.

... honestly it's best to just... never identify yourself online through any means other than making payments. And if someone's finding that PII, you've got much bigger problems than someone finding out you draw vore.

[hernextmeal]

That's because it's a largely meaningless phrase, kind of like CRT, almost solely deployed by people annoyed by the idea that people might be upset with them for acting in a shitty way and deciding to advocate for people to stop giving them money and a place to be shitty.

Oh yeah, watch that straw burn, baby.

"literally arresting someone on the unfounded suspicion that they might believe communism to be a better form of government".

That never happened, not even under McCarthy. What McCarthy did do is accuse random political opponents of being reds, but this would result in *reputational* damage and destroyed careers - yes, often completely unfounded. The only way you'd actually get arrested though is if you were in government and taking bribes from the Kremlin.

[Doku]

So don't say and do things you are not prepared to be associated with you.

I'm sorry, but "don't be yourself because you'll get blacklisted by the mob" is 1000% "cancel culture"....

I am not especially concerned with what the "Political Right and Left" do with a pejorative they created for recent national political rhetoric. I am speaking about art criticism and the decision between publicly performing art that might be construed as offensive to part of one's common viewing audience, and the consequences, with regards to the discussion of whether or not someone should utilize a pen name and separate NSFW fetish art and SFW fetish art.

Per normal engagement, the term Cancel Culture is not generally utilized to explain (taking the example again) a singular fan of Garth Brooks taking issue with his Chris Gaines album and ceasing buying their music as a result. This is not a 'blacklisting' but rather an end-consumer's decision based upon preferences in artistic representations by their preferred artists, based upon the totality of their work and portfolio. Some end users will appreciate part of an artist and ignore the rest. Some will view the entirety of a person's portfolio and judge (positively, neutrally or negatively) their art based upon their own criteria. This is inevitable. It is, quite frankly, unavoidable. When you present multiple pieces of work, people can and will judge based upon the totality of that work, and some will focus only on the pieces that interest them. Doing so is not a cancellation of dissenting or distasteful opinion so much as a simple participation in artistic media, which has not been redefined as being cancel culture, and is a practice likely as old as cave paintings. (Yes, I'm aware this is hyperbole, but I find it funny because the idea of neolithic humanity having detailed art criticism of cave portraiture just tickles me.)

To focus in on how this might impact a Vore artist: If you are a predominately SFW clean artist, whose main fanbase is not associated with the Vore fetish, and you begin drawing work that is NSFW vore erotica where it can be associated with you as an artist? There is likely to be an impact, as some of your current fanbase may not appreciate your collective choices in portrayal, and should not be expected to embrace it simply because they were at one time your fan. I have at least one artist specifically on this website who I love a great deal in terms of their older art, but whose direction in the last 5 years has taken them outside of my comfort zone and who I no longer especially patron as a result. I do respect their artistic skills, and their choice of direction, but it is also not something I want anything to do with, and I no longer consider them viable to commission for work anymore, despite being one of the most talented artists I ever commissioned in the past. I have not blacklisted them, not in the slightest. But, their art now moves in a category that I no loner wish to patron. This is how art appreciation works. I am quite literally the guy who says "I liked their older work more."

Ultimately, the OP's concern boils down to artistic response. If their concern is serious enough that they don't want their NSFW and SFW art associated, then they should separate them completely. If, like Masamune Shirow, they don't give a fig what some will say because they draw tentacle nude scenes in some of their comics? They accept the possibility of taking a hit on popularity and some judgment from those who do not appreciate the totality of their work, and go on with only one identity as an artist. That's ultimately their call, and in general that's not at all cancel culture related.

[ https://c.tenor.com/er7N9NQgGVcAAAAC/talkless-smilemore.gif ]

Also half this thread can't agree on what cancel culture even is at this point.

Largely because it's a pejorative that's been coined for political gain by various individuals in American society, which means that its meaning tends to vary depending upon who is using the term. Ultimately, Achenar is correct. The term is essentially without defined meaning.