According to Merriam Webster, bestiality is defined as follows:
"Sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal"

I find the phrasing "lower animal" to clearly imply that intelligence is a factor in the matter. For example, a human and a human-intelligence feral dragon should be marked anthro_on_feral (or vice versa), but not as bestiality, because the dragon is in this case not a "lower" animal.
Bestiality should be a tag reserved for cases in which the feral animal is not clearly a sentient and intelligent agent.

Your suggestion will just break everybody's blacklist.
Bestiality just means sexual relations between a non-feral (e.g., human/anthro) and a feral. Period.

Sentience, or more accurately sapience, was never included in the equation.
A feral character is defined here on e6 as a "character that is depicted in its natural (real) form."
That is anything that is not humanoid or anthropomorphic, and mostly relates to naturally quadruped characters (or biped/limbless/multi-limbed for certain animals such as birds, snakes, insects, etc.). This does not include taur characters.

it seems that merriam webster believes in the harkness test

"Lower" doesn't strictly mean "less intelligence", but rather "species that are beneath us" (according to society). Don't forget humans are animals, and there's no problem with a college undergrad having sex with an astrophysics prodigy.

There are some animals that are as intelligent as some humans, but it would still be bestiality because they aren't human. In either case, in art it's very often (if not most often) difficult or impossible to determine a character's intelligence. post #3954977 and post #3956001 have no indication of the feral character's intelligence, for example. It could be human-like or not, there's no way to tell. post #3298623 also has no indication of intelligence either, even though the feral character is literally a god.

On a practical level, these are the kinds of things people tend to want to find when searching bestiality, a feral character having sex with a human(oid) or anthro character. Some people consider human_on_anthro to be bestiality because it's a human with a non-human animal, but it's not for this site because that's not the kind of thing people here generally want to see caught up in the tag.

This is another one of those problematictags which's local definition doesn't match reality. This, along with Cub, Loli andShota generatea ton of arguments here.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Your suggestion will just break everybody's blacklist.

Why donm't they blacklist anthro_on_feral then? Is there even a smidge of difference between these 2 in how they are used?

wolfmanfur said:
This is another one of those problematictags which's local definition doesn't match reality.

i'm sorry, but are there any other people who have a problem with this tag other than nile and you i guess? like even if we get visited by and break the communication barrier with another sapient alien species, i don't see how the way we currently use the bestiality tag doesn't match reality or why it's a problem that we lump sapient-on-sapient art into it

Your suggestion will just break everybody's blacklist.

Why donm't they blacklist anthro_on_feral then? Is there even a smidge of difference between these 2 in how they are used?

honestly given the presence of other *_on_feral tags (e.g. human_on_feral, taur_on_feral, ect.) i could see bestiality going the way of video_games tag as i guess we got a vendetta for umbrella tags (which i don't got, for the record. i like having an umbrella tag around because it makes for a slight protection against mistags, like if someone forgot to tag taur_on_feral to art that has a horse fucking a centaur)

dripen_arn said:
i'm sorry, but are there any other people who have a problem with this tag other than nile and you i guess? like even if we get visited by and break the communication barrier with another sapient alien species, i don't see how the way we currently use the bestiality tag doesn't match reality or why it's a problem that we lump sapient-on-sapient art into it

Not trying to argue against the current definitions and applications of the tags here, but I wish it were easier to separate sapient and non sapient ferals while browsing this site. I like both, yes, but I get different things out of them.

Sapient ferals are just normal characters with exotic body plans to me. Besides that exoticness, they're appeal is the same to me as anthro or human characters, and the line between anthros and ferals in particular has always been blurry anyways. (taurs, semi anthros, character designs with really vague anatomy, anthros with animal genitalia, etc)

Non sapient ferals on the other hand have a distinct taboo thrill about them. In porn that features them, I'm usually less interested in them than I am in the human/anthro who is taking advantage of them and their moral depravity.

So they're two different things for me that I need to be in very different moods for. My normal, morally neutral, horny mood vs my deviant, morbidly curious, horny mood. I suspect a lot of feral fans view this similarly to how I do, but have a strong morally bolstered preference for sapient ferals.

thelibertineyeen said:
Not trying to argue against the current definitions and applications of the tags here, but I wish it were easier to separate sapient and non sapient ferals while browsing this site.

The problem is it's impossible to distinguish the two visually in most cases. At best you can have the feral talking (which there is the (underutilized) talking_feral tag), but not talking doesn't mean they're not sapient just as showing emotion doesn't mean they are sapient. Different people will have different lines, so it ultimately comes down to "what makes me comfortable" or "what fits my mood". And if you're going to distinguish sapient and non-sapient ferals, you'd probably also want to distinguish sapient and non-sapient anthros. Werewolves and other werebeasts can be depicted in a way that's not very different from what may be considered a "non-sapient feral" just with a more human-like body shape (e.g. post #3666350 or post #3139520 ).

wolfmanfur said:
Why donm't they blacklist anthro_on_feral then? Is there even a smidge of difference between these 2 in how they are used?

Then they will have to contend to having human_on_feral, humanoid_on_feral, and feral_on_taur appear on their feed because people want to have a different definition for "bestiality".

thelibertineyeen said:
Not trying to argue against the current definitions and applications of the tags here, but I wish it were easier to separate sapient and non sapient ferals while browsing this site. I like both, yes, but I get different things out of them.

Sapient ferals are just normal characters with exotic body plans to me. Besides that exoticness, they're appeal is the same to me as anthro or human characters, and the line between anthros and ferals in particular has always been blurry anyways. (taurs, semi anthros, character designs with really vague anatomy, anthros with animal genitalia, etc)

Non sapient ferals on the other hand have a distinct taboo thrill about them. In porn that features them, I'm usually less interested in them than I am in the human/anthro who is taking advantage of them and their moral depravity.

So they're two different things for me that I need to be in very different moods for. My normal, morally neutral, horny mood vs my deviant, morbidly curious, horny mood. I suspect a lot of feral fans view this similarly to how I do, but have a strong morally bolstered preference for sapient ferals.

Like what @Watsit has already explained before, it would be near impossible to determine and tag which feral character are sapient and which are not due to TWYS.
About the majority of bestiality post features ambiguous or non-sapient ferals, bar from the few that appear as if they have the ability to speak (though sapience here is not always the case).

Isn't this precisely what lore tags are for? Things you can't tell from an image, or that seem to contradict an image, that nevertheless are relevant information? Was there a discussion/decision/consensus/staff ruling about this beyond the early posts in the topic I link below? With lore tags, people could blacklist bestiality while allowing an exception for a hypothetical tag that indicates all participants are sapient. And, while not my cup of tea, people could search for things like sapient feral on non-sapient feral.

This is one case where TWYS is a best case, but quite imperfect, guess to help people blacklist something they may not want to see. But lore tags seem an obvious solution to me, with a standardized syntax.

This is especially true for quite a bit of rule 34. Tenebrae (Tales of Symphonia 2), numerous animated sapient characters like Simba, Red XIII/Nanaki (Final Fantasy VII), and Hanpan (Wild ARMs) are all examples off the top of my head.

I really wish I saved the link, but I remember someone posting a conversation with Patreon moderation staff and, according to that conversation, Patreon does not care what the characters look like and defines bestiality as sapient characters having sex with non-sapient characters. It's one of several examples where e621 definitions must be very specific to what you see, but elsewhere the words may not be.

There are plenty of other examples, such as humanoid which outside of this site I've never seen be mutually exclusive with bipedal anthropmorphic animals. But the narrower definition helps tagging and so is essential here.

I searched for discussion on this and I think this is the most recent example I could find with discussion on this particular subject, so I replied here rather than:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/23515

Perhaps that's a bit of a long-winded response to an old topic, but I think there's an extremely strong case for lore tags here.

zeorp said:
Isn't this precisely what lore tags are for? Things you can't tell from an image, or that seem to contradict an image, that nevertheless are relevant information? Was there a discussion/decision/consensus/staff ruling about this beyond the early posts in the topic I link below? With lore tags, people could blacklist bestiality while allowing an exception for a hypothetical tag that indicates all participants are sapient. And, while not my cup of tea, people could search for things like sapient feral on non-sapient feral.

This is one case where TWYS is a best case, but quite imperfect, guess to help people blacklist something they may not want to see. But lore tags seem an obvious solution to me, with a standardized syntax.

This is especially true for quite a bit of rule 34. Tenebrae (Tales of Symphonia 2), numerous animated sapient characters like Simba, Red XIII/Nanaki (Final Fantasy VII), and Hanpan (Wild ARMs) are all examples off the top of my head.

I really wish I saved the link, but I remember someone posting a conversation with Patreon moderation staff and, according to that conversation, Patreon does not care what the characters look like and defines bestiality as sapient characters having sex with non-sapient characters. It's one of several examples where e621 definitions must be very specific to what you see, but elsewhere the words may not be.

There are plenty of other examples, such as humanoid which outside of this site I've never seen be mutually exclusive with bipedal anthropmorphic animals. But the narrower definition helps tagging and so is essential here.

I searched for discussion on this and I think this is the most recent example I could find with discussion on this particular subject, so I replied here rather than:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/23515

Perhaps that's a bit of a long-winded response to an old topic, but I think there's an extremely strong case for lore tags here.

You can pitch your case on the thread you had linked and hope it gets implemented.

In my view though, if your plan is to get character tags to imply a hypothetical sapience tag (e.g., imply tenebrae --> sapient_feral_(lore)), it will not work.
Lore tags can work in several layers, such as lore of the official franchise canon versus lore of the fan's headcanon, so if they had designed the character to be non-sapient then we will follow their canon instead.
For example, I have a "normal" non-sapient black dog character but I want to cosplay it as Tenebrae, thus making a costume or makeup for my character. In effect, it gets tagged with tenebrae but not with sapient_feral_(lore).

thegreatwolfgang said:
You can pitch your case on the thread you had linked and hope it gets implemented.

In my view though, if your plan is to get character tags to imply a hypothetical sapience tag (e.g., imply tenebrae --> sapient_feral_(lore)), it will not work.
Lore tags can work in several layers, such as lore of the official franchise canon versus lore of the fan's headcanon, so if they had designed the character to be non-sapient then we will follow their canon instead.
For example, I have a "normal" non-sapient black dog character but I want to cosplay it as Tenebrae, thus making a costume or makeup for my character. In effect, it gets tagged with tenebrae but not with sapient_feral_(lore).

I'll have to give it a lot of thought, but I might just do that. Thanks. I was only listing hypothetical examples of characters for which it could potentially apply and not suggesting implications.

The site's current definition of bestiality is problematic. Bestiality means sex between humans and animals. period.

zeorp said:
I'll have to give it a lot of thought, but I might just do that. Thanks. I was only listing hypothetical examples of characters for which it could potentially apply and not suggesting implications.

Be aware that literally anything can be made a lore tag. Just because something doesn't work as TWYS doesn't mean a lore tag is the answer, lore tags are a relatively small set of carefully selected tags that, either, have been non-TWYS tags from before lore tags existed that people deem too useful to ignore (e.g. incest), or which the admins have decided have enough utility for the site despite being non-TWYS (e.g. male_(lore), trans_(lore)). The case needs to be made why this specifically should be a lore tag, beyond it not working as TWYS.

In a case like this when wanting to delineate "sapient" ferals for non-sapient, you first have the task of defining what exactly that means. The dictionary gives for sapient: "Having great wisdom and discernment. ; Wise; sage; discerning ; Possessing wisdom and discernment", which are pretty vague and subjective terms. But even if you work that out, the idea can easily backfire as any artist can claim the ferals in their art are sapient regardless of how it looks. Since lore tags ultimately rest upon what the artist says, the artist can claim this dog is just as sapient as this dragon, and they'd both equally be tagged "sapient_feral_(lore)" if such a tag existed, which seems to go against the spirit of the idea.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
The site's current definition of bestiality is problematic. Bestiality means sex between humans and animals. period.

Less "problematic" and more "having to deal with fictional creatures and characters". If bestiality is kept strictly to human and non-human animal, that would include human_on_anthro, and even some instances of human_on_humanoid, while humanoid_on_feral then wouldn't count. Link having sex with Wolf Link wouldn't count, since Link is a humanoid/elf and not a human, while a human and Krystal having sex would count, since Krystal is a non-human animal. I doubt that's what most people who are into it or want to blacklist it are wanting the tag to handle.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
The site's current definition of bestiality is problematic. Bestiality means sex between humans and animals. period.

are you saying we should tag every instance of human_on_anthro as bestiality? what constitutes as an animal on this site is much more nuanced than it is in reality (i.e. everything that isn't human)

dripen_arn said:
are you saying we should tag every instance of human_on_anthro as bestiality? what constitutes as an animal on this site is much more nuanced than it is in reality (i.e. everything that isn't human)

Yes however, I'm mainly saying that anthro_on_feral is not bestiality. I don't consider humanoid (mostly human) creatures to be animals.

watsit said:
Be aware that literally anything can be made a lore tag. Just because something doesn't work as TWYS doesn't mean a lore tag is the answer, lore tags are a relatively small set of carefully selected tags that, either, have been non-TWYS tags from before lore tags existed that people deem too useful to ignore (e.g. incest), or which the admins have decided have enough utility for the site despite being non-TWYS (e.g. male_(lore), trans_(lore)). The case needs to be made why this specifically should be a lore tag, beyond it not working as TWYS.

In a case like this when wanting to delineate "sapient" ferals for non-sapient, you first have the task of defining what exactly that means. The dictionary gives for sapient: "Having great wisdom and discernment. ; Wise; sage; discerning ; Possessing wisdom and discernment", which are pretty vague and subjective terms. But even if you work that out, the idea can easily backfire as any artist can claim the ferals in their art are sapient regardless of how it looks. Since lore tags ultimately rest upon what the artist says, the artist can claim this dog is just as sapient as this dragon, and they'd both equally be tagged "sapient_feral_(lore)" if such a tag existed, which seems to go against the spirit of the idea.

I really hate giving up on this, but I think you convinced me to. It's just a real shame. There are very obvious clear cut examples. Characters like Simba (Lion King), Red XIII (Final Fantasy), Tenebrae (Tales of Symphonia's sequel), and other examples are clearly on par if not superior to humans in lore in intelligence. What sounded obvious to me with those examples is way more complicated, as you pointed out.

But then there are cases like Toothless from How to Train your Dragon. And someone could make the claim that just because he doesn't talk doesn't mean he lacks intelligence. And my entire justification evaporates because then you have to decide on a character by character basis.

Before Patreon's recent decent into vague stupidity, I remember reading a post from someone that got clarification that Patreon does not (or did not) consider things as simple as biped on quadruped bestiality. Lore mattered when they made that determination in taking action on a creator. Which to me seemed obvious... and is for some characters, but not all.

Bestiality is kind of a loaded term in that sense, because it's such an intrinsically TWYS thing to label all biped on quadruped as bestiality regardless of context. But of course "biped on quadruped" doesn't work as a replacement because animals have more forms than just quadruped. I'm not saying it's a bad decision; it just only works in the context of TWYS.

Sorry for the late reply here. I saved this to come back to when things were less busy for me. I fully intended on putting a lot of thought into it, like "all_characters_sapient_(lore)" or "all_characters_equally_intelligent_(lore)" or something. And for some I do feel that works... but some isn't enough I suppose. I know that's a lot of words for "I give up" but I feel it's a very important distinction, that perhaps doesn't have a good solution.

zeorp said:
I really hate giving up on this, but I think you convinced me to. It's just a real shame. There are very obvious clear cut examples. Characters like Simba (Lion King), Red XIII (Final Fantasy), Tenebrae (Tales of Symphonia's sequel), and other examples are clearly on par if not superior to humans in lore in intelligence. What sounded obvious to me with those examples is way more complicated, as you pointed out.

But then there are cases like Toothless from How to Train your Dragon. And someone could make the claim that just because he doesn't talk doesn't mean he lacks intelligence. And my entire justification evaporates because then you have to decide on a character by character basis.

Before Patreon's recent decent into vague stupidity, I remember reading a post from someone that got clarification that Patreon does not (or did not) consider things as simple as biped on quadruped bestiality. Lore mattered when they made that determination in taking action on a creator. Which to me seemed obvious... and is for some characters, but not all.

Bestiality is kind of a loaded term in that sense, because it's such an intrinsically TWYS thing to label all biped on quadruped as bestiality regardless of context. But of course "biped on quadruped" doesn't work as a replacement because animals have more forms than just quadruped. I'm not saying it's a bad decision; it just only works in the context of TWYS.

Sorry for the late reply here. I saved this to come back to when things were less busy for me. I fully intended on putting a lot of thought into it, like "all_characters_sapient_(lore)" or "all_characters_equally_intelligent_(lore)" or something. And for some I do feel that works... but some isn't enough I suppose. I know that's a lot of words for "I give up" but I feel it's a very important distinction, that perhaps doesn't have a good solution.

I understand this completely, There is a difference between Scooby-DooxHuman and SpiritxHuman than Great DanexHuman and Kiger MustangxHuman, maybe we need a Sapient_Feral_(lore) for Feral who can talk whether its OC or R34 and Semi-Sapient_Feral_(lore) for characters like Toothless that can understand humans but not speak that way when you use the main tag you can add the additional Sapient_Feral_(lore) tag so you get stuff you are more comfortable with sapient creatures over mindless creatures

fuyu_graycen said:
...maybe we need a Sapient_Feral_(lore) for Feral who can talk whether its OC or R34...

We already have talking_feral.

And no, we don't imply *_(lore) tags to characters by default. Lore is a convoluted idea since it can involve both actual lore and individual headcanons.
I could make Red_XIII as "dumb" as a common dog and that would supersede the actual Final Fantasy lore.