Petition: Right to Dictate Your Own Species

[Chomp]

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I never called you anything.

I said there was no need to be passive aggressive and that you are being defensive, in response to the bolded and all caps words, as well as the exasperated/overbearing tone in which you replied with. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but its clear to me that this, as well as jumping the gun, is something you are just as guilty of. Thank you for your time and input.

[Tricey]

I have to agree with your argument. The excuse of "we can not enforce a rule, therefore it should not exists" seems particularly foolish to me. How would a country fare if it went by that reasoning?
I remember when the Jingle's thread was locked because the owner didn't comply with a mod's demand. I admit I was furious at the time and promptly PMed the species owner my full support. The LGBT community is very large on CS, and that's why I believe the thread was locked. This may or may not be true, yet it's what I assumed.
You should have every right (in my opinion) to control your species in anyway you want. If someone can tell you it's forbidden to do one thing, what prevents them from forbidding everything unique or possibly iffy?

A while ago I had a semi known species. I did not want this species to have sexual orientations because the only purpose of attraction for them is so they would breed so that the species would continue. I'm always confused by species where male/male and female/female couples can have children. I'm unsure whether I'm making a clear point or not since I can barely read what I'm writing on this iPod, so I'll wrap it up with a bow.
" Different strokes for different folks " - a phrase my Oklahoman relatives would say. Species are basically always excluding someone. A contest means only one person wins the character. Has anyone thought that contest are unfair? I don't
Believe so. Yet each individual has to find where they fit in, and if they don't, they leave.
I'm not good with entering contest, and I get discouraged whenever I try my hardest and am not noticed by the judge. Someone will typically feel like this, but it just ensures that they'll look for a place where they mesh better in.
These are just some of the things I've been thinking.
Chomp, I adore this species. If you decide to pack up and move to dA, I'm coming with. Or even better, start your own website. I would rather CS lose a fabulous specie than for everyone to lose it c: .

[DrinaLestrange]

One thing I'd like to point out is that, biologically, animals are almost guaranteed to be of a straight sexual orientation for strict survival of their species.

Actually, over 250 species of animals practice same-sex couplings! There's a species of monkey called the bonobo that is entirely bisexual.

[mars]

One thing I'd like to point out is that, biologically, animals are almost guaranteed to be of a straight sexual orientation for strict survival of their species.

Actually, over 250 species of animals practice same-sex couplings! There's a species of monkey called the bonobo that is entirely bisexual.

"Almost guaranteed" is the key here. Same-sex couples do exist in the animal world. However, they do not continue the species on into next generations, in which most animals have instincts to do. For a species to survive, there have to be couples with opposite genders or the animals die out. The only exception to this is animals who are asexual, or reproduce on their own.

And that's only about 250 or so out of the of 8.74 million species discovered on our planet. Who's to say that an artist cannot make their species like one who does not have same-sex couples? Nothing is saying they can't still create ones that allow various sexualities, but they should be allowed to create one with only specific sexualities in mind.

[muteani]

this is gonna be a large text wall of things; I apologize in advance for length

1;; I personally don't believe that the "rules" of the animal kingdom as perceived by humans should have an effect on whether or not the sexuality of species can be queer

• there are species such as bees where there are 3 more defined "sexes" of sorts
  
• there are polyandrous species where females have multiple mates
• there are there are species of spiders that will become "active" with any member of its' species, regardless of gender

2;; the animal kingdom isn't divided into straight and self-reproducing;

• the gender and sexuality spectrum isn't definite for every species
• there is no "universal" gender/sexual/romantic spectrum for all animals
• instincts are not the be all end all for determining what an animal/person/anything is romantically or sexually attracted to

3;; this is, of course, offensive to lgbtqia+ folks, such as myself

• I personally would be extremely offended if someone told me that a character that I wanted, especially if it were to be my fursona or my fursona's mate, had to fit into a specific subset of sexuality/romantic orientation/gender
as I see it, there are some things that should be able to be limited because they affect the species design itself

• color schemes
  
• accessories
• anatomical things
• other design related things
and others that shouldn't be limited

• sexual/romantic orientations
• personality traits
• interests {{ anything not appropriate for children can be limited due to the sights rules, such as violent actions or criminal actions }}
because it should at the discretion of the owner of the adopt, and personality traits aren't universal, they are diverse

4;; nurseries aren't actually that big of a problem with a few rule changes

• first off, some people aren't going to want to use nurseries and reproduce with their characters
• if queer couples of a species want to reproduce {{ and you don't want them to}}, that could be a clause where you could say "queer couples are not able to reproduce"; any queer couples who do reproduce without permission would be breaking copyright law by illegally using the designs
• this is also a transphobic point of view that only heterosexual couples can reproduce, since trans/intersex/nonbinary animals can theoretically exist {{ but that's not the point I'm making right now }}

5;; Tawny said, there is no true legal reasoning for repossessing a character simply because they don't have your preferred gender/sexual/romantic orientation

• they aren't reselling it without your permission
• they aren't posting it where you haven't given permission
therefore they aren't breaking copyright law

this is just my input on some of this; in summary, 0 support.

[Koiley]

hi i just wanted to put a little more of a personal/emotional aspect to this other than just rules and regulations. im not looking to go back and forth about it or anything just a little insight.

personally, in this great big world of ours where lgbtq+ relationships/people are often put aside and looked down upon, i know myself and many others come to the internet as a safe place. living in a world like that is a heavy burden and so i like to surround myself with positive people and a safe environment. chicken smoothie was that environment for me, for a while.

being able to create characters that could live the life i am not always able to made me feel good, made me feel valid. it was an outlet to put my creativity into but also bits and pieces of myself that i wouldn't ordinarily be able to share in the real world.

i know one of your biggest points was, if there is a species that does not align with your ideals, then you could just pass over them and move on to the next. but some people aren't interested in doing that, and i think you should take that as a compliment. they like your art so much they want to put a piece of themselves into it that means a whole awful lot to them.

i understand where you're coming from biologically because obviously f/f m/m cannot technically reproduce offspring together. and that is fine, i could understand if you didn't want to have wonky genetics/made up means of reproduction.

but i think this gets into a whole new can of beans as well - romantic attraction and gender identity.
like i said, i understand if you would not allow f/f m/m pairings to produce offspring because you want to have a realistic species that doesn't have made up means of reproduction.
you could also make the case that most wild animals do not partake in "romantic" relationships/pairings that do not produce offspring - because most animals are not sentient as human beings are. they cannot speak, think, make decisions outside of survival, etc. but in making a species, usually aspects like that are applied.
a lot of "human" aspects are given to made up species that wild animals wouldn't have which is where i think gender identity and romantic attraction come in.
would you not allow someone to have their character view themselves as another gender? then the lines of relationships via your species get kind of messy.

it's all very hazy, honestly, throughout rules of any site. chicken smoothie is only trying to remain neutral in the matter, i believe. they would not allow someone to enforce f/f m/m pairings in a species either: i believe the goal is to just live and let live. people adopt their characters from you. the characters do have a personal aspect and there is a lot i believe should be up to the discretion of the adoptee. gender identity, romantic attraction, etc. are all things that species creators should not regulate. it just limits creativity, expression, and representation.

it does not affect you, the creator, if someone makes their personal character anything other than straight. it just provides someone with a unique aspect to their personal character and possibly a way to express themselves, as i mentioned i have through my characters.

there are plenty of arguments for both sides, but i'd think since you want to have a successful species you wouldn't want to limit your users. as you said, it would turn away plenty of people knowing that they would not be able to have representation within the species. just as they do not have representation in real life. where's the fun in that?

for what reasons (that i haven't covered) other than your uncomfortableness with lgbtq+ would you disallow those kinds of relationships within your species?

[foreign-potato]

Gonna have to pop in here and say that I agree with Koiley and muteani strongly

I am pretty much straight as far as I know, but I still have to say it would be unfair and disrespectful for any and all sexually identifying people. I myself love characters of different sexualities and that freedom. And isn't the aspect freedom and customization that creates a powerful and well liked species? I feel like the dictating of a characters identity, no matter what the species is or who owns it, is wrong. The only part where I get that it might not be allowed is in nurseries because physically it may not be possible like it is for many species in real life, but going farther to stopping relationships/personality/sexuality/etc is too far.

Also I think your title is really misleading propaganda, you're not really asking for a right to dictate your species but a right to single out a group of people / type of person that you feel is immoral/unjust and portraying that on your species

[Chomp]

Why would you try for a character that you plan to be your fursona when it doesn't adhere completely to your thoughts/feelings/perceptions about yourself? How can you be offended, when this is simply what the artist had in mind? You can make a special request or comission someone to give you a certain character, but otherwise you simply can't automatically expect all of the aspects of a character to be perfect for a fursona. Especially with fursonas, which for some people can take years to develop.

There will always be things you don't like, but then on the other hand, artists are not entitled to obey every qualm and unspoken desire of their followers or those simply interested in their designs. If you were paying someone for a character, and then they turned around after they made the character, and you paid, then listed a bunch of rules about what you can and cannot do with the character, that would be one thing. But pre made characters simply can't be complained about.

As I see it, artists can technically choose every aspect of the character right down to whether or not they snore at night or eat cereal for breakfast every day. It's theirs, and otherwise they don't have to give it up to anybody. Going into a free adoption, you have the priveledge of adopting a character. If the character doesn't make you happy, there's nothing exluding you from adopting it - just your own personal opinion saying, "I don't want this character but I would if it was this way". When again, the artist doesn't need to bend to every whim of all of the adopters because that would be insanity to keep up with.

Species owners preset gender for their adoptables all of the time. Some even preset interests and certain personality traits/quirks, and this has never been targeted. And especially if the purpose of sexuality in the species is for breeding (as it is in the vast majority of animals, and then in consquence, a good lot of species), then it factors into "anatomical" as it's a biological aspect of the species. And as much as species can be free from the laws of nature, so long as the artists wills it, they should be able to align with the laws of nature.

It's up to the artist alone how much freedom the adopter gets when making the character. And up to the adopter alone whether or not the character is right for them. There are plenty of fish in the sea, and even more species to adopt from on CS (slight exageration). Surely not every adopter is going to get their way with every species.

I have never complained because I'm offended at how many species are restricted depending on how active you are with them. Or how many species can only produce one offspring in their lifetime. And a lot of species can only be married once - all things that have perhaps been complained about on a small scale, but never outright banned. And for a good reason - that's up to the artist!

And there are plenty of rules, plenty of them that do not infringe on copyright that are still upheld by the artist and species containing them have continued to run perfectly. Only being married once in a species is not a rule applicable to copyright laws, but it is still a rule that is well upheld. It does not have to infringe on copyrights to become a legitimate artists rule, regardless of how CS can or cannot handle the situation.

You're making this about being opressed or singled out. What about the artists? Where are their rights? Are they not being singled out, opressed? If someone in the LGBTQ+ community wanted to make a bisexual or homosexual only species, where are their rights? This infringes on their ability to control their species as they want just as well as anyone elses, not just users wanting heterosexual strict species. I personally want all artists to have the right, as artists, to control their species - this should be basic. Sure there are restrictions on CS already but most of them have never caused a problem with species in the past, and they obviously only serve to keep things child friendly. Ultimately, until recently, people have been able to do everything they want with their species, just in a way that is open to all age groups.

It is a possiblity for someone who is LGBTQ+ to make a straight character, and vice versa, so nobody is being exlcuded but exluding themselves. If you can't compromise, find another species that works better for you. And if it is so hard for you to compromise and make a straight character, it makes you so uncomfortable, then how then can you expect an artist who wants only straight characters to feel comfortable making a whole species that goes against their own comfort zone? Why try to make life hard for the artist and other adopters of the species by pressing to have things your way? One of two things will most likely happen:

1) The artist, given that they don't want the change (obviously because it wasn't that way in the first place) will begrudgingly accept to the change, and you can join a community where your ideals on character traits are frowned upon, which to me is not an ideal setting. Again I would want a communtiy where I am readily accepted.

2) Or otherwise, the artist will be forced to close the species or limit it to very few people, such as relatives and close friends. Therefore, far more people are actually excluded, when before, only a few people were excluding themselves. Everybody, including the ones who were complaining, are now exlcuded.

What does that gain? How can you feel good about yourself knowing that you've supported a rule that has led many species to close, in consquence excluding many people who had invested in them. If you can't have it your way (when in fact you can, but won't), then nobody can have it at all? Is that the mentality there is? Because that is an absolutely shameful mindset, speaking volumes about the spoiled generation we're raising. Will you really feel good about adopting a species in a community where an artist has only accepted your character preferences not openly but because they simply had to?

Live and let live. You have your options and opinions and they have theirs. In this situation, your toes are only stepped on so long as you force them under someones foot.

Koiley.. if you really can't pass a species up, then you should be all the more willing to compromise to adopt one fo the characters. The more I want something, the more I'm willing to sacrifice to get it. I mean, I've had braces, and it might not have been something I completely wanted to do - pulling out some of my molars to get a better smile - but it was something I was willing to compromise on for the sake of a better smile. Kind of a weird analogy but the same can be said about a lot of th ings in life.


And no, I don't want my species to be popular if it means putting my feelings second. I'm an artist, not a factory, not some piece of clay to be sculpted by the wants and needs of those around me. I am one to do what makes me happy and I feel comfortable doing, and if other people decide to follow me, then that's great. If people want me to change my ways for them with the mere threat of not coming along, then why shouldn't I leave them behind? Certainly I don't have this mindset about everything in life, and I know where I need to apply more care and concern, but, just as you say the the internet is a safe place for you, my little adoptable species are a safe place for me. They're my little bubble, a world that I can control as please, or rather, should be able to.

Why not have limits on sexualities? Maybe I want my species to be more realistic in that aspect. Maybe I'm thinking ahead as an artist. Or maybe, in the same way that other users absolutely won't make a straight character, I won't make a species with same sex attractions. If I'm going into a species as an adopter, I'm going to be willing to compromise. As an artist, I'm going to expect others to be the ones compromising.

Also, I know it's the norm for people to give some users full rights over their character or species, but I am very possessive over my species in that so long as I made them, I designed them, I put my work and effort into them, they belong to me nearly as much as the one who adopts them. Not that I'll be the one roleplaying them or creating their likes and dislikes.. but, I can pretty much claim them just as much as the person who has adopted them. Why then would I allow the adopter to make them go against what I believe, when they're a part of me as well?

As an artist and the owner of the species, the adopters only have as much freedom with their adopted characters as you want. I give my adopters a lot of freedom, this is one aspect of it that I simply wouldn't. As an artist, MY freedoms come first, and if their freedoms limit mine, why should I be forced to allow it?

You can say users who have adoption centers where you have to be active so many hours a week are going to far. Something my cousin brought up.. if I wanted to adopt a same sex only species, I could, even if I may not agree with this, and then simply not have the character get involved in relationships. In an adoption center where you're forced to be active, I can't even find a workaround for that, I simply could not join. THIS is being exclusive. And still, I can respect the artists rights to put that rule in place, even if I don't completely agree with it. Some species have item exclusions. Appearance exclusions. Even personality exclusions (they're always happy, never sad and such). This has never been a problem in the past. This is one aspect of their biology and mentality, and if people can't work around that then they just don't want to adopt very badly.

No, the title isn't misleading. I'm asking for the right to dictate my species. I'm sorry if you see it otherwise but that doesn't change what it actually is. In consquence, some people might CHOOSE to opt out of a species but I am absolutely not saying that peoples of certains lifestyle choices, orientations or otherwise cannot be a part of my community or adopt my species. If I were, then the title would be, "Petition for the Right to Exclude Certain Users from Species".

[fugitive]

I agree with Chomp 100%.

As Chomp as stated in the opening post, this isn't a homophobic/gay right/anything else that falls under this debate, it is simply giving the artist complete rights over a species that they are generously allowing other users to adopt and use. I understand that this is a touchy subject, and I deeply apologize if you are hurt by this, I can reassure you that this wasn't posted with that intention in mind.

[Koiley]

i frankly will sleep perfectly well supporting a rule that "forces" close-minded adoptables to shut down.

i think on a kids site like chicken smoothie, they should keep a policy of neutrality which is what it seems that they're doing. obviously, if they do not allow species owners to make those kinds of decisions/rules because they've had enough people upset about it in the past. obviously people are continuously hurt and offended by this. it works both ways.

just as there are other species, im sure there are plenty of other sites where you can dictate whatever rules you want onto your adoptees.

this topic has everything to do with lgbtq+ rights, its obvious what chomp wants to accomplish with their "artist rights".

and on the topic of "artist oppression" - most people who make these kinds of rules are straight and will have no problem whatsoever going about their daily lives with those that they love. they do not know the meaning of oppression in this regard. straight privilege must be nice, yeah?