But there actually is precedent for this: If you sign a contract with a business that obligates them to deliver something, that contract will usually include a so-called "morality clause." The idea is, if it turns out that you're a pedophile or something and it's bad publicity to be associated with you, they have the right to cut all ties and not give you jack shit. This means they can screw
[...]
did, like your family or friends. Except of course Patreon isn't banning people for being pedophiles (or second cousins to pedophiles), it's banning creators for daring to draw genderbender stuff.
Genderbending! Truly, the height of depravity and immorality! *blech*
I see what you mean, I do know about the "morality clause" (not sure if it is always called like that), though for me it is a very USA thing, when someone is contracted as the "image" for products, like athletes and their sponsors. Not that in other countries may not be able to put something similar, but I think the strongest (and cheaper, for the companies) form is more easily applicable in USA.
The most famous example that comes to mind immediately, is Disney, with the people doing their TV serials for (young) teens and adolescents.
But I never could shake the strong belief that there is a direct connection between those kind of clauses and the related supposed strict control, and the fact there is a long line of ex-Disney singer and actresses that as soon as they got out of those clauses, got hyper-sexualised (in most cases being anyway still young) even to a level worth of some of the games on F95, if not even more
.
Still remember some ex colleague bringing already some years ago their 12-13 (at the time) or so years old girls to a concert by Miley Cirus (sorry, maybe the name is written wrong, the one that made the video with the wall breaking ball) thinking it was going to be "safe" because she used to sing in Disney tv shows (and I think she had left the Disney stuff only from a couple of years then, must have been 20 or so), and then telling me how shocked they were by the twerking, "transparent" visuals and stuff like that
(though luckily for them, apparently their 12-13 did not like it, rather than picking up the model to replicate immediately).
Or that other, I think the name is Bella Thorne, that as soon as she was free from those clauses, got on a small rampage (but no, no porn, at least that I know of) and even posted (I think on twitter) something like "I fucked all of them while I was under Disney's contract" - where the "all", was apparently a list going from director to carpenters on the set, all while, if I remember well, she had to be something like 16 at the time when she started fucking anything moving.
Basically, they put those clauses and a strict control, but is all façade, what goes on is really the opposite, and I cannot shake the belief those constraints instead of limiting/avoiding some behaviour, provoke it.
About genderbending, well, I admit I dislike "futa" (though a woman depicted as using some kind of strap, double dildo, or kind of sci-fi addiction like "impregnator" for Daz, it's ok, or depending on the situation, may even be enjoyable), but does not mean others cannot enjoy it in games.
Plus, I suspect my definition of genderbending is narrower than the one used by Patreon, e.g. for me homosexual, lesbians, people who do operations to change sex, are not "genderbending", while my guess is that Patreon would define them in that way - though I admit I dislike, for a number of reasons, someone who changed sex and wants to retroactively have any and all references to their previous existence with a different name and different sex be eliminated and/or changed, but the disliking is not about the change of sex.
