I take exception to the no foalcon rule that implies that even if a foalcon fic is mostly sensual and non-clop it should be disqualified as 'sensual' for this group's purposes.

There are 3 common reasons I've seen for discrimination against otherwise good foalcon fiction:

1. The squick factor -
I feel that to say it shouldn't be permitted because it's gross is unfair since many non-foalcon fics gross readers out in other ways yet may be entirely sensual. For example, see: Fluttershy's Secret Kissing Story by Ara. Gross at parts? Yes. But it's by far one of the most sensual pieces of literature I've ever read (and not foalcon).

2. Foalcon is immoral or propagates pedophilia. -
If you're really just concerned about it being too graphic, why allow anything marked mature at all, foalcon or otherwise? Not all foalcon is purely, or even partly, clop.

Adult/prepubescent sexual relationships may be frowned upon in a work of fiction, a point of debate, or openly accepted. If this group has a moral bone to pick with foalcon, shouldn't its leaders be willing to at least accept fics that question it? Are you afraid that it might convince you or others that you're right?

You may say the mere description of adult/foal relationship is "wrong." Why? If the description is deliberately meant to propagate misdeeds in real life, that's one thing. But to say that a thoughtful piece that, itself, questions the morality of such a relationship in the hypothetical world of fiction is still wrong makes reason pause.

This is all assuming that the leaders of the group have some sort of agenda against the messages contained in pro-foalcon fiction. This is understandable, but what if they were to give authors a chance to provide intelligent neutral counter-opinions? Is their cause so weak that it can't stand against the slightest inquiry?

Why feel threatened by exploration if you're really secure in your own morality? Are you afraid of what others will think? If so, see my next point.

3. Foalcon is too controversial. -
We're all members of one of the most controversial fandoms already, so why discriminate based on controversy? In any case, your grandmother isn't going to watch over your shoulder while you're looking at story descriptions on this site and approve each one until suddenly she sees a foalcon story and then say that the group that led you to it is sick, is she? If you're reading things appropriate for your age, then this shouldn't be an issue in the slightest. She's far more likely to just be concerned that you escape regularly to fiction about cartoon horses in general, I imagine.

This [the fimfiction] community, more than others, must realize the value of being open to different perspectives, of course, as long as those perspectives are expressed respectfully.

Please note, I'm genuinely interested in understanding why discrimination persists against all foalcon fiction, not just trying to be contrary. This isn't my group, and, as such, I'll leave quietly if nopony is interested in discussing the issue or if asked by a mod.

I wouldn't have posted if I didn't appreciate what the group offers in spite of the rule in question, but I'm still deciding whether I want to remain a member or not.
If the group prefers to be biased without justification, then che sera sera. I'll consider it a loss for its members and be on my way.

3125383
Well, you can write underage relationships. It just has to be in certain nonexplicit categories. So, like, adorable, d'aww-rich schoolyard romance stuff is kosher. At least that's my understanding.

Really though, I'm less worried about groups that start out with that sort of rule in place. The stories just aren't allowed. Fine. There are other places. If people were being banned for being in Foalcon groups or something, or if fics had always been allowed, but admins decided to punish I'd be up in arms.

For my part, I could care less what happens to fictional characters in a fictional setting.

But I'm not most people. And you can't really ignore the squickitude most people feel for underage relationships. It's not something most people want to stumble upon, or find sensual or appealing at all.

It would be like a scat fetishy fic appearing here. I'm sure there's some people who would totally be into it, and find it all squirmifying. But a vast majority of people (like moi, ick) would be totally grossed out. So it's the sort of thing that would be better left for more specialized groups.

3125430

So, like, adorable, d'aww-rich schoolyard romance stuff is kosher.

If this were an exclusively d'aww-focused group then that would make sense to me and would feel like fair treatment.

it's the sort of thing that would be better left for more specialized groups.

I'd almost agree, but there's really a very broad range of fiction here. This is hardly a picky group for genre except, rather exclusively I might add, for the one genre we're talking about. Not even scat appears to be forbidden absolutely. I can't say I've ever come across a scat fimfic that wasn't gratuitously clop-y, so none would fit here that I know of so far, yet they could hypothetically, unlike foalcon as long as the rule exists.

3125559

I'll consider it a loss for its members and be on my way.

If you feel like you have to leave a group for such things, then you gotta do what you gotta do. I've left places (Like Fillyfoolers) before when they set out to begin a one-person moralistic thought-policey crusade, and began banning people for liking a particular fetish.

But... that isn't really what's happening here. The group is disallowing a broadly objectionable fetish that freaks a majority of people out. And that's all. And it presumably has since the beginning, or at least for a long time. And it's open about it.

A group about Sensual Fiction asking people not to post up what amounts to a giant mood-killer for most of its users doesn't seem odd to me. Even if foalcon just makes me shrug, for a lot of people it's a glass of cold water in the lap. Rather the opposite of the intent of things here. And that's something to be considered.

You spoke in your post about fics that thoughtfully raise the point to create moralistic discussion. But that isn't at all what this group is about. It's not a forum for discussions on political and social morality. There are groups for that. This group is for fiction that makes people ask if it's totally warm in here, or if it's just them.

3125605 You raise a good point about the group not being intended for stories that discuss morality, yet that is exactly what what the group does itself if the reason it forbids foalcon is for moral reasons. Therefore, stories that do so would fit well here since morals is something the leader(s) might value.

That said, I don't know the reason they don't allow foalcon, which is why I addressed the main reasons.

The group already allows controversial or broadly objectionable, mood-killing content of other varieties. So I mean to ask, why not foalcon?

3125628

The group already allows controversial or broadly objectionable, mood-killing content of other varieties.

Does it? I wouldn't know. I rarely browse folders or pay terribly much attention to the content therein.

But it bans clopfics too. Because it isn't what this group is about. But I don't see you demanding that those be allowed in.

yet that is exactly what what the group does if the reason it forbids foalcon is for moral reasons.

Even if it was incidentally taking a moral stance (one which, I'll mention, I don't believe in. As I find there to be no moral value in protecting fictional characters), it doesn't suddenly mean that the group is about the discussion of said moral stance.

Nor is there any inherent right to force the issue. Free speech is an issue of governance. Not about private clubs or groups. Not every single viewpoint, clique or fetish needs to be accommodated in every group.

3125655
It's like real life. But without the illusion of democracy.

~Twi

3125687

3125655

Does it?

Aye. Though I admit I didn't so much as verify before making that claim, after a brief visit to the Woah! folder I found fetishistic things that would definitely be considered objectionable to the general public, not to mention borderline foalcon and clop stories. Apparently they're pretty lax about rule enforcement or they define foalcon and clop more narrowly than I do.

But I don't see you demanding that those be allowed in.

That can be somepony else's worry. I don't value clopfics (including the one I've published) the same way I value passionate non-clop (or minimally clop-y) tales that happen to focus on an adult/foal relationship or two. For what it's worth, though, I understand why they restrict clop since it distracts from and/or overpowers nuanced sensuality unless handled very carefully. I don't see that being the case with foalcon by itself though. Maybe that's just not true for every reader and foalcon does quickly overpower the sensuality, but there are other fetishes as well as those borderline cases allowed here that certainly might do the same thing for some readers.

it doesn't suddenly mean that the group is about the discussion of said moral stance.

Not about, no. I'd hope that taking a moral stance at least means that it's something they value, though, and therefore wouldn't have any objection to seeing the matter addressed in some way they deem favorable or intelligent in featured stories so long as the story still meets their main requirements.

Not every single viewpoint, ... needs to be accommodated

True, and so the group may not be for every individual and/or fic, though driving them away or excluding them might mean the group misses out on something truly extraordinary and otherwise fitting for their theme.

3125655 edited the post above just now.

3125748

I don't see that being the case with foalcon by itself though.

Because it's an incredibly controversial topic that freaks people out. Far, far worse and more frequently than clopfics. So if clop can be distracting enough to be an issue, why wouldn't a giant taboo minefield?

Your OP point about FiM being controversial is moot. Because FiM isn't controversial here. Being a FiM fansite. Just because people are affectionados of one thing doesn't make everything else in the entire world appreciated acceptable or noncontroversial.

I'd hope that taking a moral stance at least means that it's something they value, though, and therefore wouldn't have any objection to seeing the matter addressed in some way they deem favorable or intelligent

I don't get that logic.

If you really hate gorey stories, say, does that mean you want to be bombarded with favorable, intelligent gorn? Of course not.

might mean the group misses out on something truly extraordinary and otherwise fitting for their theme.

Yup. And the Clopfics group probably misses out on something totally awesome and amazing every day by not allowing noncloppy stories. HiE probably misses out on some amazing stories without humans. I doubt anyone loses much sleep over it. Because other groups cater to those interests, and groups on FiMFiction usually tend to be ones that cater to particular niches.

Like the Foalcon group.

And they don't feel the need to accomodate all the others. 'Cause that would be a bit silly.

3125829 What I see when people avoid difficult topics like foalcon is fear. Fear propagates nothing positive. This is the main reason I'm concerned. Gore, incest, and scat alike are ignored by the rules, yet mature foalcon appears to be expressly forbidden. Yes. it's a minefield, but avoiding it, unlike an actual minefield, only makes the matter worse in the long run.

If the group intends to make things worse by perpetuating fears then that's a loss truly worth grieving in my honest opinion. I prefer not to think of my argument here as a demand, but rather an appeal to the decency in people to put a stop to fear and the pain it causes one small step at a time.

Again, this group is broad in what it accepts. You're right that it doesn't have to accept everything though. It's still my opinion that, however scary the topic might be, this group shouldn't go out of its way to exclude foalcon. It's not as though anybody will be forced to read it. The group would be better off as a sensuality group than a sensuality-minus-mature-foalcon group.

To some this might seem like a minor issue, but to me it's certainly not. Again, it's not my group. All I can do is make myself heard and leave quietly if it continues not to meet my standards.

3125829 if I hated gore and saw a fic that criticizes it by using gore itself to intelligently, not gratuitously, make a point, then I'd love to read such a story.

3125829 Maybe you're right that clop and foalcon aren't so dissimilar. Maybe I shouldn't label all heavy clop as too distracting to be considered sensual for some readers. Maybe clop is unfairly stereotyped just like foalcon. Still, I'm not as concerned about clop since there's not really the same atmosphere of avoidance about it.

3125887

To some this might seem like a minor issue

Yeah. Kinda.

Sorry, blunt opinion ahead. Apologies.

When people start using language like this:

Fear propagates nothing positive. This is the main reason I'm concerned

Yes. it's a minefield, but avoiding it, unlike an actual minefield, only makes the matter worse in the long run.

If the group intends to make things worse by perpetuating fears then that's a loss truly worth grieving in my honest opinion

...about not getting to advertise one's story about adults having dubious relationships with little cartoon horse children in every group, my eyes glaze right over.

This is not the civil rights issue of our time. It's for the right to promote a very squickable interest.

Society will not unravel if you have to post foalcon in the Foalcon group. Social injustice will not reign. Cats will not marry (possibly underage) dogs.

It also won't do that if foalcon is allowed, obviously. But it's such a universally unimportant issue that it might not be worth the potential squickitude or discomfort to the admins of the group.

All I can do is make myself heard and leave quietly if it continues not to meet my standards.

Quite right, and I shall leave you to it. The broken notification system might mean you get less readership or admin attention than you'd like. But you certainly deserve a chance to be heard.

3125899
Kudos to your personal quest to expand your horizons. Most would just read something they're far more likely to enjoy instead.

For my part, despite my shruggy arguments on the topic, I'd probably totally read the sort of story you're suggesting. If it was actually something that thoughtfully addressed a very taboo topic in an intelligent matter, that sounds interesting to me. That sort of exploration of controversy is fun.

I just don't see why it necessarily needs to be hosted in this group in particular, considering FiMFiction groups are so discretely separated by niche already.

3125914 No offense taken. I can respect that you don't take the matter as seriously as I do (yet you argue persistently about it for some reason). I've met none or few who do really, but that's just more reason for me to be vocal. It's not one of the issues of our time, but it has to start to be an issue somewhere. Small and simple things ultimately make great things come about when they're worthwhile and diligently sought after. If I ever finish my fic you'll have an example of what I feel explores some of the emotional, moral, and social concerns of adult/child relationships.

As for the gore fic example, I doubt I'd hate it if the gore weren't gratuitous, even if I normally hated gore. Intelligent exploration of anything that I feel strongly about intrigues me, whether I like or hate it.

I go to the trouble of arguing for change in this group because, while it may seem like little or completely insignificant progress, I believe it still counts for something. Perhaps this conversation, read by a mod or by lurkers, will have an impact even more important than an actual rule change.

3125955

(yet you argue persistently about it for some reason)

No mystery there. I'm bored.
Knighty has group notifications disabled. And I'm incredibly exhausted and having trouble focusing on my pre-reading tasks.

Small and simple things ultimately make great things come about when they're worthwhile and diligently sought after.

...And what is this grand political statement that you're trying to make?

That the CMC need love too? There's plenty of groups directly dealing with, or allowing, foalcon. It's not against the site rules. Some groups just restrict it like they restrict a plethora of other things.

That child/adult relationships should be a thing outside of fantasies? I'll most vehemently disagree with you on that one. In full knowledge that even though I was a smart kid, there was no way I could have ever given properly informed consent to a romantic relationship with an adult. And that I was in no way in any psychological position not to feel incredibly pressured by their position of authority.

3125912
3125914

For me personally, it would depend heavily upon an individual's tastes, their interaction in the world at large with others, and other ethical sensibilities to consider when it comes to matters such as these.
I've seen at least a few foalcon fics which have been done professionally in a manner that carefully addresses the issue, though always it comes with at least some degrees of controversy.

If the love between two individuals are completely consensual, with both participants with full knowledge of the weight that goes into these kinds of things and how they will affect both themselves and those around them, then I see no problem it being put into a folder here.

Your mileage may vary with the culture you grow up in however.

3126000 Aw, and I got stuck entertaining you. Welp, at least the conversation was interesting.

My political statement, you ask? It's more of a purpose, that is to say, I aim to dispel fear and make the world less lonely for folks who struggle with an attraction to kids. You already got my spiel on fear, but one of the things fear does specifically is isolates those who are feared. It has the power to turn them into real life monsters rather than just somepony who has an odd arousal template that they can never safely act on.

It's already lonely enough to be attracted to a type that one can never have. It's outright cruel to hate somebody because they're open about such an attraction without acting it out or giving lewd looks to kids. It's not much better to specifically discriminate against well intending non-gratuitous exploration of the attraction. Hating a work for valid reasons, like that it might condone acting out such a fantasy IRL, or simply avoiding it without malice because perhaps the content is triggering to you, is fine in my opinion.

3126025 Thanks for your comment. Well said.

I'd say that the harsh (hypothetical) reality, however, is that usually (according to real life law, always) a target child can't give informed consent, and the best that a pedofilly/foalcon/foalphile can hope for is trusting willingness and the chance that the relationship and possible aftermath won't scar the foal. A story that treats the topic realistically this way should also be allowed in my opinion.

3126000 edited the above

3125430
As they said you can write underage stories just don't take them too far into the dark.

3128923 Thanks for the clarification!

3125383

The immediate answer that comes to mind is that groups here are personally managed, and thus in a sense the rules can be as arbitrary as the owner wishes and they really need no reasons at all if they feel so.

However.

That would be sort of leaving points unanswered.

The first point I think may be fair. That there are stories and there are stories has always been a truth. With this particular topic, I think perhaps that line is less of a line and more of a gorge, but I will get to that later. Be that as it may, the principle behind this point may indeed be valid.

The second point, I think, is where we must pause. The "its just a story" argument is as much an esthetic one as an ethical one. It is under-girded by two guided principles, I believe, and so I'll engage them separately. The first is the aesthetic, the art as play formulation. Writing is a kind of play, and should not be taken seriously in some ways... yeah, I buy that. Any writer who has had any experience writing for an audience of any size will tell you that writing is a play and that you should not be assuming too much about the writer of it. I do not read The Scarlet Letter and come away thinking that Hawthorne is a philanderer, after all. He is certainly not his characters. That seems valid to me. There is and must be an assumed separation between the character and the writer. But creator and created are not completely separated.

I believe that the best way to say this is that fiction is life and death, in that it is important, and in that it shapes us. If you don't believe it, I am happy to provide you three examples. Uncle Tom's Cabin is one of the direct causes of the surge in Abolitionist sentiment (it was a huge best seller) in the North that triggered the Republican party's rise and the subsequent civil war, and I would even lay upon it the blame of Sherman's March and Grant's genocidal fury in the rape of my own state. Paradise Lost is responsible for the way that 300 or so years of Americans and Europeans imagine various biblical elements and stories, and they don't even realize it because the force of Milton's fictional dream is so overpowering that it has basically hardwired their minds. People who ain't even read Milton have his conception of time and space and diviinty. Plays written on the eve of revolution helped unite and embitter an already irritable French populace against their addled king and his infamous leading lady.

The point is that literature is not simply an aesthetic flash in the pan. The long-surviving view of it as a sort of fading lily of entertainment or brief personal expression is a gross oversimplification and its common.

The implications of this leads us into a second point. We're basically almost down to pure syllogism at this point. It would follow that the writing of unlawful things is bad, right? To an extent, this is true. The distinction lies in the purpose and in the writing itself. I have read Dominant Ideal. It was fascinating. Should it have been written, and am I implicit in something vile by virtue of having read it? I'm not sure, but I think it's highly possible. What perhaps saves that story from consignment to the reject heap of moral failure is that part of the entire point is the horrific consequence of awakening sexual desire before one is ready, namely at such an early age. Spoilers, but it ends horribly.

I think the distinction here is that a stories must be true. They must ring true, in harmony with that human spirit. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. I believe it. A story that affirms that basic spirit, when the author has indeed found the heart of it, we can accept his work. And so we can salvage Dominant Ideal exactly because Isseus was good enough and honest enough to admit that the impulse is counter to something else in the human heart, a law perhaps deeper than carnal desire. He went with his gut. A story in which the author affirms a child relationship? I'm... to be honest, and I am trying to be honest here, a story that affirms a pre-adolescent sexual relationship, no matter how much finery it wears, no matter the layers of purple, no matter how genteel it acts, can never be anything but vulgar. Lolita is not a book about the purity of a man's love. We are repulsed ourselves, not because Nabokov relates to us his message, but because the human heart will not endure a man who has a somewhat consensual relationship with a twelve year old.

Finally, I think, the second and third points are tied together. A rejection of a type of story because of its subject manner may be more of a preference, but I believe in this case its due to a deep-seated cultural or ethical reaction, which seems arbitrary, but in reality is not. In a Pauline sense, if they accept what they think is wrong, even if it were not wrong, they are doing wrong. If I violate my own conscience I am sinning. Likewise, if the moderators here violate their own consciences then it is not ideal, and if they cause others to feel uncomfortable without real cause then they do those people a disservice. Controversy is one thing, but pandering to a behavior or aesthetic category one feels is wrong on moral, ethical, or cultural grounds? That's pretty excusable. We are what we write, though we are also not what we write.

God, I want coffee now. I'm sure the approval queue is full.

3131708 I'm truly grateful for such an eloquent and thoughtful response. In the interest of brevity (since I'm on a phone), I'll cut to the chase.

I'm unconvinced on one point and take issue with one other. In particular, I haven't decided whether any story that affirms a sexual relationship with a prepubescent character is invariably vulgar. Also, I believe ignorance doesn't justify wrongdoing, and this includes rejecting what might be good simply because stereotypes and culture say it's bad.

I've also read Dominant Ideal. It's ending is far more satisfying than any other foalcon I've read, but, regardless of the author's intent (which I don't know exactly), I don't interpret it as commenting on the inappropriateness of the characters' ages, only their lack of preparation. I could agree with you if you'd said that any story that affirms a relationship with somebody both unprepared and universally unsupported by society is vulgar. I'm not certain that a prepubescent person cannot be adequately prepared and supported against difficult odds so that a relationship might be something beautiful and wholesome. Prepubescence is usually a solid indicator that someone isn't ready, but maybe not always, or I've yet to see it proven. The heart is influenced by the mind and vice versa. If you'll share the source for what leads you to believe a child can't be prepared I'll be grateful.

This is undoubtedly uncomfortable territory, but exploring good is often at first uncomfortable. In contrast, what's bad is very often quite comfortable, not to mention familiar. I feel that a culture that silences uncomfortable things ceases to enlighten itself, falls into ignorance and complacency, and therefore may become another tool to perpetuate fear. I see no ideal in cowardice masked as conscience. True conscience spurs learning the truth, not following culture without question.

In any case, it sounds like you concede that Dominant Ideal and stories that similarly condemn that type of relationship are alright to be posted. I find that much encouraging at least, but still feel that the rule is prejudiced as is.

3125383 You forgot reason number 4.

Foalcon implicates using, and only ever using, an individual lacking the physical and mental maturity to safely and consensually engage in sexual activities with another individual.

Given that this group is called the "Sensual Fiction" the implication is of the act being arroused by physical stimulation that is of sexual nature and by extension pleasurable.

Foalcon, because it by definition involves exploitation, cannot thereby be described as pleasurable as it leads to mental and physical trauma, questioning of self-worth, mental disabilities and other aspects which by their own definitions cannot be deemed "pleasurable" in any way.

It therefore follows that, given that foalcon cannot be pleasurable, it cannot be sensual, and therefore should not be on this group by a failure of definition.

A group about Sensual Fiction asking people not to post up what amounts to a giant mood-killer for most of its users doesn't seem odd to me. Even if foalcon just makes me shrug, for a lot of people it's a glass of cold water in the lap. Rather the opposite of the intent of things here. And that's something to be considered.

This was said. Why is this still a discussion?

If there remains content that is broadly objectionable within the folders of this group, they too should be removed as not being sensual either.

Foalcon stories may have artistic merit, but so do horror slasher films. Neither are fitting for this group. This isn't a group for general admittance of everything loosely related to the name. It is a fairly narrow subsection, and intentionally so.

3125383
You have an agenda. I've spoken with you after reading one of your stories, and I have noticed the content of your forums posts seem to always be in advocation for foalcon.

I don't particularly care how polite or eloquently you make your arguments to support your agenda, but you are going to fly directly into the face of a solid wall of no on this topic. Even if you for some reason succeed in your endeavor in this group and sway the mods, you'll simply cause a lot of butthurt and complaints from those masses Lumi mentioned. Just to add your stories to one more group? To get more exposure for your particular fetish?

Sorry, not interested. Plenty of groups you can find more accepting folks and fans in.

3132592 Oh my.
It appears we use different definitions of foalcon. As you probably already know, it derives from the term "lolicon."
[RISQUE CONTENT AT THE URL BELOW]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

3132643 Your input was very helpful. Thank you again for reading my fic.

they too should be removed as not being sensual either.

That sounds fair to me and I'd be satisfied if that were the case, or, even, simply changing the rule without worrying about the currently listed stories. I only object to specifically naming and disallowing foalcon by itself. (I'll also still object if gore is the only other thing listed next to foalcon.) All of this would be unnecessary if the group fairly places a blanket ban over broadly objectionable content. Foalcon is objectionable, no doubt about that, but, I think we agree, so are many things found in "sensual" literature.

I do have an agenda. I feel that every concerned person should have an agenda one way or another about the issues in our culture. I hope they're guided by a desire for the well being and peace of everybody rather than selfishness. I can understand if you feel my agenda is motivated by selfishness. If it helps at all, I'd be willing to never add my story or any other foalcon that I've read to date to any folder here. I doubt I'll find much foalcon on fimfiction that qualifies as sensual without being gratuitous in any case. Even Dominant Ideal seems a bit gratuitous to me. Heck, the kissing scenes in Fallen Angels feel gratuitous, though I don't think that should disqualify the story.

you are going to fly directly into the face of a solid wall of no on this topic

I don't mind and anticipate roadblocks. (If you knew what I've already been through..) So far, I've seen nothing but intelligent concern form mods/admins, but I know that's no sure sign that the rule will be removed or changed to include and name all broadly objectionable content. (My reaction to that possibility is, it's their group, not mine.) And again, I'm not out just to list my story here. It's probably better that I don't for now even if given the go-ahead. I wouldn't mind if somepony else listed it.

There's no forcing people to change their nature, and trying to force it will just make things worse, so in that sense I agree with you. I hope I don't come across as shrill or unpleasant. I'll keep my concerns to this thread alone within this group. I only wish to be heard. Thankfully I feel I have been heard regardless of whether others come to share my concern.

3133912 It really doesn't look like the definition differs. Lolicon involves the sexual depiction or pre- or early pubescent individuals by older individuals. The act is thereby exploitative, ultimately non-pleasurable, and therefore not sensual. It then falls to the logical conclusion that it does not belong in a group devoted to the sensual.

I only object to specifically naming and disallowing foalcon alone.

It is standard procedure that in the crafting of laws that specified terminology and definitions are included so that the law has a reduced chance of being abused. The naming of specific objectionable activities is quite plainly an absolute necessity in legal discourse. If a specific act is objected too, a law ought specifically name that act as prohibited.

Obtuse references and vague terminology are the hallmarks of oppressive regimes throughout world history, not specific and concise wording of the law.

There's no forcing people to change their nature, and trying to force it will just make things worse,

Correct, ultimately a person's behaviour--unless their faculties of reason or self-control are crippled by trauma or medical conditions--relies upon a person's choice. However, choice alone does not inherently provide correctness or rightness, or inherent sanctity of what they chose.

3134358

disallowing foalcon alone.

By this I meant "foalcon by itself" not "foalcon, and I don't care about other fetishes." [edited] I mean I agree that clarity is good in rules, I just disagree with the nature of the rule as it fails to name more than just foalcon, assuming this group doesn't want scat or gore for example. This was supposed to be clear by the fact that I said a blanket ban on all things objectionable was fine by me, but whatevs.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by agreeing with me at the end. When I mentioned changing people's nature, I was talking about changing their inclination toward fear and discrimination. It applies to others as well, of course. I meant that I'm not out to force anypony to change their mind about foalcon, only hope to persuade politely or, if that doesn't seem likely, to let them believe what they will and move on.

Many will disagree that foalcon exploits anyone, just as fics whose stories involve murder don't kill people. If it were not fiction then it could be considered exploitation.