I've been seeing a lot of sfm art recently and also for a while that feature realistic looking horses and dogs. And it pushes me over a line.

I don't get grossed out too bad to the point of blocking by feral fantasy animals(e.g dragons) , or cartoony feral animals (like the funny cartoon horses[mlp]). But when it just straight up looks like they took a dog from call of duty or gta V or a horse from skyrim and made it look like it's just fucking a person it's too much.

I assume since this type of content is out there that people are searching for it too since it's a fetish.

So my tag proposal
realistic_feral. Non cartoony, real animal. (Could be better defined)

Tag implications
Realistic_feral -> feral

So basically, you want a tag for "feral -toony".

BlueDingo said:
So basically, you want a tag for "feral -toony".

I want a tag for when a dog looks like this
post #1327707
But not like this
post #1325229

Which is similar to what you said I guess

Lol, the purpose of using sfm is so that you can have the close-to-exact game character models without having to create your own, which includes the feral animals.

Why not just blacklist "sfm 3d_(artwork) feral" or the specific artists themselves?

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Lol, the purpose of using sfm is so that you can have the close-to-exact game character models without having to create your own, which includes the feral animals.

Why not just blacklist "sfm 3d_(artwork) feral" or the specific artists themselves?

I think they're talking ALL such posts, Not just SFM which is only a tiny portion of them by comparison.

FoxFourOhFour said:
I think they're talking ALL such posts, Not just SFM which is only a tiny portion of them by comparison.

Yeah, there's drawn art with realistic feral animals too

yeah it would be nice if there was actually convenient way to separate "feral ferals" and ferals with human traits mixed in

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Why not just blacklist "sfm 3d_(artwork) feral" or the specific artists themselves?

Is SFM ever not 3D?

memeboy said:
So my tag proposal
realistic_feral. Non cartoony, real animal. (Could be better defined)

Tag implications
Realistic_feral -> feral

"non_sentient", "non-sentient_character" or "non-sentient_animal" would probably be more apt, ferals as it is used here and in the community still tend to have human qualities as opposed to actual real animals. realistic_feral is also likely to be equaled to realism rather then real life animals.

Darou said:
"non_sentient", "non-sentient_character" or "non-sentient_animal" would probably be more apt, ferals as it is used here and in the community still tend to have human qualities as opposed to actual real animals. realistic_feral is also likely to be equaled to realism rather then real life animals.

That would be almost impossible to follow under twys. You can have characters with no visual anthropomorphism at all who are given human dialogue (Homeward Bound for instance) and then you can have visually heavily anthropomorphic/stylized animals who just act like their own species except they have eyebrows and smile.

If the toony tag wasn't so underused, this would be much less of a problem. The majority of MLP images are toony yet mlp feral -toony gives me over 750 pages of results when it should be somewhere under 50 pages. Same deal with Pokémon, over 750 pages when it should be much less.

Darou said:
"non_sentient", "non-sentient_character" or "non-sentient_animal" would probably be more apt, ferals as it is used here and in the community still tend to have human qualities as opposed to actual real animals. realistic_feral is also likely to be equaled to realism rather then real life animals.

You mean sapient. Everyone and their dog is sentient.

BlueDingo said:
If the toony tag wasn't so underused, this would be much less of a problem. The majority of MLP images are toony yet mlp feral -toony gives me over 750 pages of results when it should be somewhere under 50 pages. Same deal with Pokémon, over 750 pages when it should be much less.

the toony tag is not the answer here. you can draw dog realistically but still add anthropomorphic traits such as human eyes and human-like facial expressions. also toony tag does not cover semi realistic content (which is massive part of this site's content) at all since toony is meant for the exageratedly toony stuff

Copytags:>0 feral can usually find the "toonier" feral species like pokemon/digimon/mlp/etc., but obviously it's not super reliable and has significant limitations.

cfgv said:
You mean sapient. Everyone and their dog is sentient.

ah ya, right on that but given thou the 2 do tend to be treated interchangeably outside of a scientific discussion to mean conscious thought, intelligence and decision making/reason akin to a human...

regsmutt said:
That would be almost impossible to follow under twys. You can have characters with no visual anthropomorphism at all who are given human dialogue (Homeward Bound for instance) and then you can have visually heavily anthropomorphic/stylized animals who just act like their own species except they have eyebrows and smile.

Dialog would make them sapient, humanoid eyebrows and smile are also a sign of human sapience, i dont see how this tag would be impossible under twys>>>

Darou said:
Dialog would make them sapient, humanoid eyebrows and smile are also a sign of human sapience, i dont see how this tag would be impossible under twys>>>

eyebrows and facial expressions are not signs of sapience. you can paint eyebrows on pig and teach a dog to smile but it wont make them any more sapient. and also the tag would not function for separating the realistic looking animals since you can draw a comic of a dog that is perfectly realistic normal dog but they speak at some point

Darou said:
Dialog would make them sapient, humanoid eyebrows and smile are also a sign of human sapience, i dont see how this tag would be impossible under twys>>>

Dialogue/ability to speak isn't always visible and being stylized or toony don't mean the character is able to think/act like a human- Winona in MLP is drawn with eyelashes and a smile but (at least up to the point I stopped watching) never really shows human behaviour. Most feral art also ends up being pretty ambiguous.

post #1294658post #1297331post #1294075post #1325127

This also doesn't really address OP's issue which is not liking ferals with more realistic body styles. Tooniness on its own isn't really a good way to gauge anthro traits, visible or invisible.

pardon me i thought you meant written text/dialog/text bubbles in the image, sence we are talking about the posting of images on e621, not videos on youtube are we?

As far as the images go the last 2 clearly make human based expressions and so are expected to have some form of human like sapience. The second image has humanoid eyes as well as a smile, for reference https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/img_600x400/public/migrated-images_parent/migrated-images_8/weimaraner-new_ph.jpg?itok=7bBk3h9I
This first image would be the only one that is kinda ambiguous.

And yes it does because it would only allow pure animals without sapience and that is what the OP wants to weed out.

Darou said:
pardon me i thought you meant written text/dialog/text bubbles in the image, sence we are talking about the posting of images on e621, not videos on youtube are we?

As far as the images go the last 2 clearly make human based expressions and so are expected to have some form of human like sapience. The second image has humanoid eyes as well as a smile, for reference https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/img_600x400/public/migrated-images_parent/migrated-images_8/weimaraner-new_ph.jpg?itok=7bBk3h9I
This first image would be the only one that is kinda ambiguous.

And yes it does because it would only allow pure animals without sapience and that is what the OP wants to weed out.

listen, it is literally impossible to tell with most of the feral characters if they are sapient or not without resorting to external knowledge. human expressions and facial traits are not signs of character being sapient, hell you can even have character that is non sapient and yet have humanoid body and face. character's brain functionality and brain capabilities is largely twyk information and cannot be used for getting rid of characters with specific physical traits.

because in case you didnt notice, this thread is about filtering out animals that look certain way. it would be completely senseless to base the solution around what sort of brain functionality the character expresses when its about what the character looks like.

Darou said:
pardon me i thought you meant written text/dialog/text bubbles in the image, sence we are talking about the posting of images on e621, not videos on youtube are we?

As far as the images go the last 2 clearly make human based expressions and so are expected to have some form of human like sapience. The second image has humanoid eyes as well as a smile, for reference https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/img_600x400/public/migrated-images_parent/migrated-images_8/weimaraner-new_ph.jpg?itok=7bBk3h9I
This first image would be the only one that is kinda ambiguous.

And yes it does because it would only allow pure animals without sapience and that is what the OP wants to weed out.

The second one is ambiguous because a) some dogs have more visible, whiter sclera than others and b) emphasizing the eye for clarity of expression doesn't inherently mean it's a character with anthropomorphic behaviour. You'd need outside knowledge of the character/animal being portrayed (similar eyes are common in more stylized/toony pet portraits) and the artist's style and intent to make a call.

The expressions in the last two are not outside of the realm of possibility for the animals, particularly the last one: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/allcute/pages/2855/attachments/original/1496419083/cute_puppyride3.jpg?1496419083 Even if parts of the expression are exaggerated in an anthropomorphic way, you'd again need to know the character and the artist's style to know if the character acts like a human or like a regular animal.

Here's a perfect example of the issue I'm talking about:
post #839894
The only thing remotely anthropomorphic about the donkey is that he can speak, otherwise he's physically a normal, non-anthro donkey. Someone who is grossed out by realistic, non-anthropomorphic ferals wouldn't appreciate pictures like this getting through their blacklist just because there's dialogue. On the flip side, people looking for realistic ferals would probably not care about the dialogue and not want it filtered away because of it.

i fully support this tag and anything else which allows me to blacklist blatant bestiality.

well, three weeks after the fact, i believe there is enough consensus for me to start using this tag in the same vein as regsmutt's example.

in addition, it would be nice to see a bigger use of the toony tag, even if it doesn't solve the particular bestial issues put forth in this thrad.

fewrahuxo said:
well, three weeks after the fact, i believe there is enough consensus for me to start using this tag in the same vein as regsmutt's example.

in addition, it would be nice to see a bigger use of the toony tag, even if it doesn't solve the particular bestial issues put forth in this thrad.

What are you talking about? There wasn't all that much consensus for the tag in here. In fact, there was quite a bit of arguing about various things related to this tag, with few people showing outright support.

Clawdragons said:
What are you talking about? There wasn't all that much consensus for the tag in here. In fact, there was quite a bit of arguing about various things related to this tag, with few people showing outright support.

i wonder if there's a way to rephrase this statement without having your first sentence suggest i'm an idiot for having a different interpretation of the thread than you.

i have read four statements by four different users in favor of this tag, and the rest of the posts, including OP's initial statement, admit there is a problem that may be solved through the application of the tag that OP suggested.

i'm not such what policies, if any, you're appealing to in order to state one should not use a reasonable tag to solve a reasonable problem, because it seems to me pedantic progress blocking.

fewrahuxo said:
i wonder if there's a way to rephrase this statement without having your first sentence suggest i'm an idiot for having a different interpretation of the thread than you.

i have read four statements by four different users in favor of this tag, and the rest of the posts, including OP's initial statement, admit there is a problem that may be solved through the application of the tag that OP suggested.

i'm not such what policies, if any, you're appealing to in order to state one should not use a reasonable tag to solve a reasonable problem, because it seems to me pedantic progress blocking.

When I went through, I only noticed three such statements of support for the tag, one of which is the OP and one of which is you, out of eleven total users.

To me, that doesn't indicate a high level of consensus, so generally my response would be to first ask "Hey, seems to me like there's at least an agreement that this is a problem. Does anyone mind if I start tagging this?", and then wait a little bit to see if anyone's got an objection.

To be fair, I'm probably more hesitant on these sorts of things than most.

It wasn't my intent to suggest you were an idiot or anything. I don't think you're an idiot - I think you're being perhaps a bit hasty though.

I think it's a good idea to tag realistic_feral. I think some people want to see realistic feral and the reality of the situation is that toony is not tagged at anywhere the level it needs to be for a search of "feral -toony" to solve the problem. That's just wishful thinking.

Furthermore I definitely think there is a grey area between toony and realistic. Not every image of a feral is either toony or realistic...so even if toony was tagged to its utmost the problem would still exist. So thus this tag is necessary.

the reality of the situation is that toony is not tagged at anywhere the level it needs to be for a search of "feral -toony" to solve the problem. That's just wishful thinking.

I agree with this *assessment*. It's not so obvious to me that the reason for this situation, though, isn't a problem with the definition of toony itself. I've always avoided tagging toony because the definition seemed to only work for extreme cases. -- iow if you imagine a scale 1-10 abstract->realistic, things that are 1-3 on this scale fall fairly clearly into toony, things that are 8-10 fall fairly clearly into realistic, and 4-7 are unclear. Most MLP pics are 4-5 IMO.

Unless we made the definition much clearer -- and I'm not convinced that that is actually possible -- I doubt that toony will ever be applied to a majority of the posts that qualify for it.

On the main topic, I consider realistic_feral to be a bandaid, but one that seems likely to be useful. so +1 on that.

While I agree with a way to tag more feral-y ferals, my problem with realistic_feral is kind of semantic. It might be easy to confuse with realism and I'd argue that tooniness isn't necessarily incompatible.

These are all very toony, but still fall into a more 'honest' feral body-plan:
post #1344259post #938773post #699019

These are less toony, but they don't have accurate feral anatomy:
post #1331758post #1004775post #1327475

I'm not too sure how to fix this in a way that's satisfying to everyone. Personally I find the 'thing' that tends to make-or-break feral anatomy is the rear and the legs- humanoid glutes and defined thighs and calves instead of haunches. Someone proposed a tag to distinguish the 'feral' leg style a while ago, it might be applicable here.

I realized I never gave my own opinion on the matter.

Personally I think that a tag like "realistic feral" is too subjective, and is inevitably going to cause disputes, and isn't going to be tagged by the majority of users.

I think a better suggestion would be to create a set, perhaps.

Clawdragons said:
I think a better suggestion would be to create a set, perhaps.

i'm going to write a law that states any time somebody suggests making a set to settle a tag dispute, the conversation has gotten to the point where no further arguments may be made without repeating previous ones.

the issue with making a set is fundamental: most users don't care about sets, they're substantially harder to edit and contribute to than regular posts thanks to the need to assign maintainers, a lot of people don't know you can blacklist sets (including me just recently), and the very few users who end up using the set have to trust the select group to fit a consistent tag definition, as opposed to trusting the entire userbase who tags regular posts. without the level of scrutiny and oversight that comes with editing public posts, maintainers become lazy.

no solution is going to satisfy everybody, and suggesting we should wait around until we find a miracle solution is just silly. this particular tag is a good solution, and good has already been good enough for the vast majority of tags, so i see no reason to stop being good.

not to criticize the unfailingly polite Clawdragons, of course. that would be even sillier and much more disrespectful.

Clawdragons said:
Personally I think that a tag like "realistic feral" is too subjective, and is inevitably going to cause disputes, and isn't going to be tagged by the majority of users.

Very likely, considering the usage (and misuse) of realistic.

I support this tag. At the very least it manages to separate feral dragons/pokemon and such from real animals, which isn’t subjective at all.

IanTheCorgi said:
I support this tag. At the very least it manages to separate feral dragons/pokemon and such from real animals, which isn’t subjective at all.

Well, not in all cases. These would seem to fall into the realistic_feral tag:

post #218251 post #1027597

Maybe a 'fantasy_feral' tag might be helpful? It'd also tackle aliens, monsters, and might also be applicable for non-human-based flora_fauna, mineral_fauna, and machine/inanimate based creatures.