You know, something I see constantly talked about in the furry world is how we'll "never accept zoophiles into the fandom" and that they're a "distinct and separate thing."

And all they need to do to prove that they're basically indistinguishable at this point is log into this site (basically THE furry porn site) and see that bestiality isn't on the default blacklist.

Thoughts?

Put simply, bestiality art doesn't generate nearly as much bitching as cub and scat. Some furries just like to emphasize "anthro porn is not bestiality!" as a form of damage control so they don't get called dog-fuckers.

Also, keep in mind that even something like this post #2889298 counts as "bestiality" here (because Lucario = anthro, buizel = feral), and I'm not sure that's something a lot of users would want to blacklist? (Or maybe it is? I dunno.) The actual tag for humans having sex with animals is human_on_feral.

crocogator said:
Put simply, bestiality art doesn't generate nearly as much bitching as cub and scat. Some furries just like to emphasize "anthro porn is not bestiality!" as a form of damage control so they don't get called dog-fuckers.

Also, keep in mind that even something like this post #2889298 counts as "bestiality" here (because Lucario = anthro, buizel = feral), and I'm not sure that's something a lot of users would want to blacklist? (Or maybe it is? I dunno.) The actual tag for humans having sex with animals is human_on_feral.

I thought the global blacklist was less of a bitching thing and more of a we-don't-want-legal-trouble thing. Well, guess it could be both.

strikerman said:
I thought the global blacklist was less of a bitching thing and more of a we-don't-want-legal-trouble thing. Well, guess it could be both.

There are two "global blacklists". The bitching one contains things like gore, scat, etc. and can be turned off without logging in. The other one I believe only contains "young -rating:s" and requires you to log in to turn it off.

crocogator said:
Put simply, bestiality art doesn't generate nearly as much bitching as cub and scat. Some furries just like to emphasize "anthro porn is not bestiality!" as a form of damage control so they don't get called dog-fuckers.

Also, keep in mind that even something like this post #2889298 counts as "bestiality" here (because Lucario = anthro, buizel = feral), and I'm not sure that's something a lot of users would want to blacklist? (Or maybe it is? I dunno.) The actual tag for humans having sex with animals is human_on_feral.

That is incorrect. Buizel is also anthro as the definition for anthropomorphic giving human qualities to non-human objects. All Pokemon have human level intellect and emotions and understand perfectly what is expected of them. All Pokemon are considered anthro. Lucario is considered humanoid, which isnt the same thing as anthro. You can have humanoids that arent anthro and you can have feral humans.

thecapedmanlloyd said:
That is incorrect. Buizel is also anthro as the definition for anthropomorphic giving human qualities to non-human objects. All Pokemon have human level intellect and emotions and understand perfectly what is expected of them. All Pokemon are considered anthro. Lucario is considered humanoid, which isnt the same thing as anthro. You can have humanoids that arent anthro and you can have feral humans.

This is not true.

E621 is concerned with the physical shape, not with intellect. Tag What You See.
Lucario in that image is anthro, buizel is feral. Humanoid is something else entirely.

thecapedmanlloyd said:
Lucario is considered humanoid

If you take away anything, let it be that Lucario (at the very least in that post) is 100% not humanoid.

bitwolfy said:
This is not true.

E621 is concerned with the physical shape, not with intellect. Tag What You See.
Lucario in that image is anthro, buizel is feral. Humanoid is something else entirely.

Right, cause furry.

strikerman said:
If you take away anything, let it be that Lucario (at the very least in that post) is 100% not humanoid.

what?

thecapedmanlloyd said:
what?

On e6, humanoid refers to things like kemomimis:
post #2997191

or elves:
post #2997529

or non-human, non-animal-based but human-like creatures:
post #2996950 post #2997024

watsit said:
On e6, humanoid refers to things like kemomimis:
post #2997191

or elves:
post #2997529

or non-human, non-animal-based but human-like creatures:
post #2996950 post #2997024

Lucario is literally in the human-like egg group, just like Gardevoir. You dont get to redefine words or terms because furry.

thecapedmanlloyd said:
Lucario is literally in the human-like egg group, just like Gardevoir. You dont get to redefine words or terms because furry.

Being in the same egg group has nothing to do with how a pokemon looks. Not sure what you mean by "because furry", but words can have slightly different meanings in different contexts. For the purposes of e6 tagging, humanoid, anthro, and feral are distinct body types.

thecapedmanlloyd said:
Lucario is literally in the human-like egg group, just like Gardevoir. You dont get to redefine words or terms because furry.

Aside from all the other ways in which you're wrong, where can you see the Lucario's egg group in that image?

At this point I'd like to tangent my way into mentioning the criminally underused talking_feral tag which might be useful for people who don't like just plain animals

thecapedmanlloyd said:
Lucario is literally in the human-like egg group, just like Gardevoir. You dont get to redefine words or terms because furry.

In my experience, anthro is when people add too much anthropomorphism added to the pokemon to make it look like your default furry, like the lucario in that pic, where feral is used with pokemon when they actually look like their default form, like Buizel.

And I hope that does not change, because lopunnys and gardevoirs that just look like people is just boring :P

For pokemon anyways.

thecapedmanlloyd said:
Lucario is literally in the human-like egg group, just like Gardevoir. You dont get to redefine words or terms because furry.

"Because furry" isn't why e621 tags body types. E621 categorizes body types according to their appearance in the picture, not according to their own in-universe definitions or level of sapience. This is to provide consistency in tagging as in-universe definitions and sapience levels can vary all over the place between franchises and even within a franchise itself. One franchise's anthro could be another's humanoid and yet a third's feral. E621 needs an overall standard that fits with Tag What You See.

On e621, feral refers to body types that are reminiscent of a real-life animal. For example, the body type of the ponies of "My Little Pony" resemble real-life horses despite the characters themselves being intelligent civilization-building sapients, and are thus categorized as feral. Humanoids include kemonomimi and "bumpy-headed aliens" of Star Trek, being basically human with a number of non-human aspects added on. To a degree, humanoids could pass for humans wearing makeup and prosthetics. Anthros are the middle ground between the two, too humanoid in shape to be feral, but too feral in appearance to be humanoid – "beastmen" in essence. Their in-universe intelligence is immaterial for these tags.

In the supplied LucarioxBuizel example, Buizel counts as feral because its physical body type is closest to that of real life mustelids. On the other hand, Lucario has a body type that's anthro – half-human, half-canid in appearance. Were Lucario to count as humanoid, it would have to be far more human in appearance, more like the Gardevoir of Watsit's example, which could pass for human wearing a few added funky body extensions. I daresay Lucario is categorized as being in the human-like egg group in-universe because of its anthro appearance. Its appearance is more human-like than the vast majority of Pokémon even though it looks more beastman than humanoid.

ijerk said:
At this point I'd like to tangent my way into mentioning the criminally underused talking_feral tag which might be useful for people who don't like just plain animals

I'm not sure that would really solve the issue for people that don't like "plain animals". Most pictures of ferals don't have them talking, regardless of how much it looks like they may be able to speak and understand human speech. post #2997544 and post #2996633 are both non-talking ferals, but the former would be a lot less contentious than the latter for people who don't like plain animals. Meanwhile, I doubt that post #2597054 or post #2616354 technically being talking_ferals makes it much better for people who don't like plain animals.

camkitty said:
In my experience, anthro is when people add too much anthropomorphism added to the pokemon to make it look like your default furry, like the lucario in that pic

No, some pokemon can be anthro normally without added anthropomorphism. Blaziken, lopunny, lucario, zoroark, midnight lycanroc, zeraora, cinderace, and pretty much all of the other fur-bait mons would be classified as anthro here even in official art:
post #1571907

on_model is used when a character or species is (or is nearly indistinguishable from) official material:
post #1422776

While anthrofied can be applied to already-anthro characters if they look significantly more human-like but still anthro:
post #2799334
(where it basically ignores everything about the species' design and just slaps its coloration onto a generic humanoid body + dog head).

If it has neither on_model or anthrofied, it's somewhere in between, decently close but there are artistic liberties:
post #2968721

The aforementioned Lucario x Buizel pic would have lucario fall under this middle ground. Enough liberties taken to not be on_model, but not significantly more human-like to be anthrofied.

isn't the standard blacklist simply the content that is most likely to be blacklisted once a user gets access to it

watsit said:
I'm not sure that would really solve the issue for people that don't like "plain animals". /snip

Maybe I could have expanded on that a bit more;
"for people who don't want simply 'fucking the dog', but are hesitant to blacklist bestiality as a whole, because of how e6's current twys policy works"
As an anecdote, I've seen people who blacklist animals being use as sex-objects (which is understandable), but... when the animal displays human-level intelligence it immediately blunts that feeling, giving it more presence as an equal character rather than a prop (even if per rules it still required a bestiality tag).

Personally I could cite something like post #1018353 or post #1185763; to me both would be "eh, whatever" without the text, but become more appealing when the animal is obviously intelligent and able to enjoy it with you.

(and yes I said it was "criminally underused" because I've seen *so many* images with talking ferals before I knew it was a tag, probably only 1 in 10 are tagged at most)

What is the standard blacklist anyway?

ijerk said:
Maybe I could have expanded on that a bit more;
"for people who don't want simply 'fucking the dog', but are hesitant to blacklist bestiality as a whole, because of how e6's current twys policy works"
As an anecdote, I've seen people who blacklist animals being use as sex-objects (which is understandable), but... when the animal displays human-level intelligence it immediately blunts that feeling, giving it more presence as an equal character rather than a prop (even if per rules it still required a bestiality tag).

In my experience, the more focus is put on "realistic" details and body shapes around the genitals, the more people get bothered by it being feral regardless of whether they also have a face that is displaying awareness and intelligence or not, since the face and dialog is less the focus of the image. While the more "unrealistic" a feral gets, the less of an issue it is even if their intelligence level is more ambiguous. Dragons and other fantasy monsters get much more leeway here since their body style and genitals aren't really comparable to animals people typically deal with, even when their intelligence and awareness level can appear closer to real-life ferals. Something like this would be less contentious than this, for instance, even though the latter appears to have more human-like intelligence and awareness. The latter has focus on a realistically drawn horse ass similar to what people could find IRL, despite her face showing clear expressive language, while the former is a completely fictional creature with humanoid junk, despite the lack of any apparent human-level intelligence.

Also I find animal pussies tend to get more ire than animal dicks.

Obviously different people will have different thresholds. For some, the ability to speak may be enough, for others the genitals can't look too realistic, and for others it can't be too close to a real species. But speech capabilities and apparent intelligence aren't often the baseline when it comes to something like ferals. IIRC, Furry Life Online explicitly exempts fantasy animals like dragons and pokemon from its feral ban, while real species are banned regardless of any displayed intelligence or communication ability. And complaints seem to arise more around realistically structured genitals and hindquarters. So while it may help some, I don't suspect talking_feral will be what most people are looking for to block "plain animals".

ijerk said:
(and yes I said it was "criminally underused" because I've seen *so many* images with talking ferals before I knew it was a tag, probably only 1 in 10 are tagged at most)

I didn't even know it was a tag, to be honest. Though now that I know, I'll try to remember to tag it when I see it missing.

watsit said:
[big convo]

Yeah unfortunately... finding a consensus on this is the crux of the issue which might never be resolved, since I'm sure we both have our own furry cliques and prefs which will have different priorities for judgement.

Personally I also give a huge amount of leeway to fantasy stuff like dragons (even if non-speaking) because I can project my own preferred personality onto them easier than something like a dog or horse. I also "get it" with 100% realistic depictions of irl feral genitalia, since, for example dogs aren't really that... nice looking... compared to furry art

I've only heard about FLO before, it seems like they kinda blew off their own foot off with that decision, I'm not really sure what's become of the site since then but maybe you know better than me.

(...But yes my comment was mainly highlighting the "talking feral" tag... something that seemed useful to me, as someone who doesn't care much for bestiality but might want to see an artist's attempt to make a feral more generally appealing without any anthro cheats. There's just too much work for me to go back tag everything myself now; it's a years-long backlog at this point.)

This is a month old I know, but it seems obvious to me in that it's not on the default blacklist specifically because the e621 rule for what the bestiality tag means does not mean the same thing as it would otherwise mean.

It makes me wish there was a way, now that there are lore tags, to have a sapient_quadruped_(lore) tag or something, or even worse sapient_feral_(lore), but then you run into a problem of when those are mixed with non-sapient quadrupeds at the same time, making it normal bestiality again.

It seems pretty obvious to me characters like Red XIII/Nanaki and Simba and such mixed with bipedal characters isn't bestiality, but that's not an argument for the tagging rule since it's tag what you see exclusively. The same goes for the feral tag, which based on lore is not really accurate much of the time, but again tag what you see.

When the character is clearly displaying intelligence equal to a human in the image that's where things get messy, but I understand why the rules are what they are.

And yes creatures like dragons are another can of worms entirely as well. Much of the time they are downright superior to humans in intelligence, yet sometimes they are also not sapient. Then you get into things like anthropomorphized Monster Hunter creatures that retain their original form. I agree those should still be tagged bestiality, but it's an interesting can of worms.

None of that touches on the "is clearly an animal but is anthromorphized more than a normal animal would be" phenomenon often seen in cartoons. For those purposes, I'd still consider them feral but I could understand someone arguing it's a grey area even if that's cut and dry to me.

It all comes back to tag what you see and four legged equals feral thing though. There is no one good solution, but the one chosen is likely the one least likely to squick people out, tagging wise. I think all of those ambiguities make it difficult to advocate putting it on the global blacklist, though. With sapient characters being tagged feral as per the rules, the choice is either to globally blacklist a bunch of stuff that isn't really bestiality at all, or to let stuff that is slip through as is currently the case.

I'd say a lore tag specifying all parties involved in an image are sapient would be useful, but I don't know if any broad tag like that is currently in use and that's admittedly a messy way of going about it. Hypothetically if everything was tagged accurately, a default blacklist of "bestiality -all_characters_sapient_(lore)" would make sense.