Right now there is no tag to describe that a feral is a terrestrial animal. That means the bestiality and all other feral tags are applied to fantasy ferals as well as real ones, despite those being very different fetishes. There should be some sort of tag that I could use to blacklist bestiality when it specifically refers to interactions between humanoids and realistic earth animals, but right now there isn't one, and there isn't even a good combination of tags to blacklist that sort of thing. Bestiality is used in real life to refer to that exact thing, so I propose it be used for that, instead of just "feral on (anthro or human)" no matter what kind of feral it is.

So if you glue a horn on a horse's forehead it's suddenly no longer bestiality? Sounds like a quick way to get 1000s of comment sections full of blacklist failure complaints

I think it would be good to have a tag for ferals that look like actual animals. No reason to change the definition of bestiality, though.

scth said:
I think it would be good to have a tag for ferals that look like actual animals. No reason to change the definition of bestiality, though.

realistic feral

I think the real issue is that bestiality is implied by anthro_on_feral making it difficult to specifically blacklist true bestiality (human_on_anthro or human_on_feral), which is a horrible definition, especially when the feral animal is talking or otherwise shown to have normal human intelligence. The whole thing just seems ridiculous when I'm viewing a horse with another horse and it's "bestiality".

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I think the real issue is that bestiality is implied by anthro_on_feral making it difficult to specifically blacklist true bestiality (human_on_anthro or human_on_feral), which is a horrible definition, especially when the feral animal is talking or otherwise shown to have normal human intelligence. The whole thing just seems ridiculous when I'm viewing a horse with another horse and it's "bestiality".

I don't think I've ever heard anyone else say that hu/an is bestiality. also you can literally just blacklist human_on_anthro.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I think the real issue is that bestiality is implied by anthro_on_feral making it difficult to specifically blacklist true bestiality (human_on_anthro or human_on_feral), which is a horrible definition, especially when the feral animal is talking or otherwise shown to have normal human intelligence. The whole thing just seems ridiculous when I'm viewing a horse with another horse and it's "bestiality".

talking_feral, intraspecies_bestiality

shiitake said:
There should be some sort of tag that I could use to blacklist bestiality when it specifically refers to interactions between humanoids and realistic earth animals, but right now there isn't one...

Define what do you mean by "realistic" here.

If you want to separate ferals based on whether they exist in real life or not, that would be kinda hard and pointless.
We cannot blanket-tag an entire species with a supposed terrestrial_animal tag, when there exists stuff like pony, hybrid, or any bodily modifications that people can think of for their feral OCs (e.g., extra limbs/wings/tails) that would render the tag pointless.

If you want a feral to be behaving realistically and akin to real-life, then there is realistic_feral.

If you want a feral to not be talking or acting like a human, then the best we can do is blacklisting talking_feral since we don't tag sapience/sentience by principle.

Bestiality is used in real life to refer to that exact thing, so I propose it be used for that, instead of just "feral on (anthro or human)" no matter what kind of feral it is.

Yet artworks can be depicting things very far from real-life now, can't it?

Locking bestiality to human_on_feral (but only for terrestrial ferals) is an even worse idea and would make people complain more when that breaks their blacklist.

sipothac said:
I don't think I've ever heard anyone else say that hu/an is bestiality. also you can literally just blacklist human_on_anthro.

human on anthro is bestiality because anthro is animal.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
human on anthro is bestiality because anthro is animal.

When does a non-human character stop being an animal? Is "human/animal humanoid" bestiality? Is "human/vaguely human-shaped robot" bestiality? Is "human/shapeless blob of goo" bestiality?

Seems like the best solution would be to add a anthro_on_realistic_feral and humanoid_on_realistic_feral tag and leave everything else be.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
human on anthro is bestiality because anthro is animal.

humans are animals too, though.

lafcadio said:
When does a non-human character stop being an animal? Is "human/animal humanoid" bestiality? Is "human/vaguely human-shaped robot" bestiality? Is "human/shapeless blob of goo" bestiality?

wouldn't that have something to to with sentience or the ability to consent. i tHiNk ThErE aRe LaWs In rEgArDs tO tHaT

fliphook said:
wouldn't that have something to to with sentience or the ability to consent. i think there are laws in regards to that

None of the characters depicted on this site are sentient, they're (mostly) drawings.

lafcadio said:
None of the characters depicted on this site are sentient, they're (mostly) drawings.

LOL

_{wait mostly?}

fliphook said:
_{wait mostly?}

post #472380

faucet said:
post #472380

and i'm hit with a left hook

mythological creature currently exists as a fairly decent method of separating fantasy creatures from "real" animals.

scaliespe said:
mythological creature currently exists as a fairly decent method of separating fantasy creatures from "real" animals.

I was going to suggest blacklisting that, but I think their issue also involves fictional feral species that don't fall into any mythologies (e.g., felkin).

thegreatwolfgang said:
I was going to suggest blacklisting that, but I think their issue also involves fictional feral species that don't fall into any mythologies (e.g., felkin).

Given how loose mythology is tagged nowadays, it actually would apply to felkin.

They are a species of wingless, quadrupedal, mammalian, dragon-like creatures

It wouldn't be incorrect to tag them as dragon (similar to pokemon like reshiram or flygon), which implies mythological_scalie, which implies mythological_creature.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I was going to suggest blacklisting that, but I think their issue also involves fictional feral species that don't fall into any mythologies (e.g., felkin).

It could arguably (as Watsit pointed out) be considered a dragon hybrid at the very least, qualifying it for the tag. And even so, if you don’t want to go that route, there aren’t very many species like this, so the few that exist can fairly easily be included or filtered out alongside mythological_creature. As it turns out, most non-mythical fictional species popular within the furry fandom tend to be anthro by default (think kobold, sergal, avali, etc.), making them irrelevant for searching or filtering out feral content. The amount of non-mythical fictional feral species here is very low in comparison, especially since most of the ones that do exist tend to be directly based on dragons and are usually tagged as such (ie. dutch angel dragon for an example)

watsit said:
Given how loose mythology is tagged nowadays, it actually would apply to felkin.
It wouldn't be incorrect to tag them as dragon (similar to pokemon like reshiram or flygon), which implies mythological_scalie, which implies mythological_creature.

scaliespe said:
It could arguably (as Watsit pointed out) be considered a dragon hybrid at the very least, qualifying it for the tag. And even so, if you don’t want to go that route, there aren’t very many species like this, so the few that exist can fairly easily be included or filtered out alongside mythological_creature. As it turns out, most non-mythical fictional species popular within the furry fandom tend to be anthro by default (think kobold, sergal, avali, etc.), making them irrelevant for searching or filtering out feral content. The amount of non-mythical fictional feral species here is very low in comparison, especially since most of the ones that do exist tend to be directly based on dragons and are usually tagged as such (ie. dutch angel dragon for an example)

It seems like the point I was trying to get across has been completely ignored. I was just using felkin as an example, albeit a bad one since it is related to dragons.

Not all fictional/fantasy/fan-made feral species are going to fit neatly into existing mythologies, even though they are few in comparison to anthro-based fictional species.
Hopefully better examples I could think of are (non-dragon based) kaiju, tyranid, zerg, scp-939, any feral monster/cryptid really, red_xiii, sky_bison, etc.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
human on anthro is bestiality because anthro is animal.

Elves aren't human. Ergo, fucking an elf is bestiality.

TIL pool #25563 is not bestiality because the wolf has spikes in its neck.

Where do extinct animals (eg. dinosaurs or dodos) fall in this suggestion?

votp said:
Elves aren't human. Ergo, fucking an elf is bestiality.

um no. depends on who's fucking the elf. Humanoid on human is not bestiality. humanoid on anthro is. So if an anthro is fucking an elf then yes is bestiality.

Humanoid x Anthro = bestiality
Human x anthro = bestiality
Human x humanoid =/= bestiality
Anthro x feral =/= bestiality
human x feral = bestiality
humanoid x feral = bestiality

sipothac said:
humans are animals too, though.

Not in the eyes of the law. Specific laws, morals, and religions indicate a clean separation of humans from other animals. Humans are clearly viewed as different than other animals by humans themselves.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It seems like the point I was trying to get across has been completely ignored. I was just using felkin as an example, albeit a bad one since it is related to dragons.

Not all fictional/fantasy/fan-made feral species are going to fit neatly into existing mythologies, even though they are few in comparison to anthro-based fictional species.
Hopefully better examples I could think of are (non-dragon based) kaiju, tyranid, zerg, scp-939, any feral monster/cryptid really, red_xiii, sky_bison, etc.

Admittedly I got sidetracked by the dragon thing, but my point was more that these exceptions that you list can be included or filtered out manually for the purposes of finding or excluding fictional feral species. mythological_creature already captures the bulk of them, and most of the rest can be included via the tilde search modifier.

Not that that’s a flawless solution, but it’s probably adequate for the OP’s needs.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Not in the eyes of the law. Specific laws, morals, and religions indicate a clean separation of humans from other animals. Humans are clearly viewed as different than other animals by humans themselves.

But what if a robot fucks a feral or a human fucks a feral robot, then legally you can't call it bestiality right?
What about taurs and lamias? What does the law, morals, and religions say about them?

pleaseletmein said:
realistic feral

Huh, how come I never noticed this tag before? Very useful.
edit: oh dammit, this is one of those tags that's not used half the time, and has a gotcha on top of that- anything vaguely cartoony can't get tagged with it. I'd like to blacklist something like scooby doo fucking one of the mystery crew, too.

For the definition of this site, bestiality is just any feral on any non-feral.

hjfduitloxtrds, my dude, anthros are people

they're perfectly bipedal like people
they have complex thought like people
even in settings when they're meant to be more animalistic in lifestyle and aren't literally living in human settlements, they still behave closer to tribal or primitive humans rather than whatever species they're meant to be derive from

more than they are animals morphed into a humanistic shape: they are humans morphed into a vaguely animalistic face and color

human x anthro is not, and never will be, considered bestiality

These are not real animals, so I guess they can't be bestiality.

post #827116 post #1209226 post #4432499

The idea needs research and refinement to include such obvious posts.

Really, OP probably wants a ginormous fantasy_creature tag with hundreds of implications. This kind of tag is meant to include game monsters and "sci-fi creatures" (aliens) too. It's just a lazy name for non-reals. Unfortunately, hybrid makes implications impossible for a real_creature counterpart tag except for humans, because a fantasy + real hybrid is always a fantasy creature. fantasy_creature should work as a tag, but I won't spend any more time hammering out details in idle chatter. I think all concerns can be addressed. I don't even want the tag.

I'm surprised the OP didn't complain about on-model, anthro x feral pokemon, which will probably always be the biggest cognitively dissonant consequence of how we define bestiality.

abadbird said:
I'm surprised the OP didn't complain about on-model, anthro x feral pokemon, which will probably always be the biggest cognitively dissonant consequence of how we define bestiality.

i'd blame game freak for that

humanoid style pokemon like the machamp and gardevoir evolution line have always bothered me because those are just dead-ass people. i refuse to believe those guys are on the same level of sentience as a ratata

INCINEROAR RIGHTS, DAMNIT!

These threads are always just this image, acted out in real time:

post #3410899

Everyone has their own personal line in the sand they want everyone else to respect and consider the true moral line (which incidentally is pretty much always right after wherever they personally stand), on a beach covered in lines that other people have drawn. No one wants to be on the "bad" side of the "true totally real trust me guys" line, but everyone loves having that line there so they can point to others and say "look everybody, it's the bad people, who do the bad art!" and so get to feel good about themselves.

It is very, very possible to portray fucking feral dragons or pokemon (normally the things people who try to make this distinction are talking about) that act and think like non-human animals.

It's ALSO very possible to portray a feral that acts and thinks like a human. Sometimes they even ARE a human that's shapeshifted.

Most feral, be it fantasy creatures or real animal species, tends to fall somewhere in-between these two. There isn't a good practical difference between a drawing of someone fucking a pink cat and a drawing of someone fucking an espeon.

Blacklist bestiality -dragon -pokemon or do some introspection on why you're uncomfortable someone getting railed by a dog unless the dog has stripes and breathes fire.

I'd be happy if something got worked out. I always wanted to blacklist it but then you have a fuck ton of great porn with, for instance, a clearly sentient dragon fucking someone, that always ends up tagged with it. I'd rather not miss posts and just add artists to my blacklist.

Seriously, just a quick search brings up
post #4536162 post #2605448 post #1054735

I don't know who's idea of animal sex is a fantasy creature that doesn't look like an animal saying "he friend lemme get that dick" and then screwing. It seems like by current site standards wouldn't monsters, aliens, robots etc. all fall under that tag? I don't know what should be done all I'm saying is I feel if it was figured out it'd be welcome.

I have exactly 30 favorites with that tag... out of 5250+. And only 8 would be arguable as actual sex with animals, not werewolves or bowser or whatnot (yes, really ). Meanwhile, my extensive blacklist is comprised largely of just artists that post bestiality. It would sure save me a lot of time, to be honest.

dripen_arn said:
i'd blame game freak for that

humanoid style pokemon like the machamp and gardevoir evolution line have always bothered me because those are just dead-ass people. i refuse to believe those guys are on the same level of sentience as a ratata

INCINEROAR RIGHTS, DAMNIT!

_{man, imagine thinking that a ratata lacks sapience just because it's quadrupedal.}

the games and anime both imply that all or most pokémon have some level of sapience or at least the potential for it, with the anime's Team Rocket's Meowth being the most obvious example of a pokémon who is literally just a guy, but also him being able to communicate directly with other mons.

in the mainline titles there are only a few examples of pokémon with the explicit ability to fully communicate in a way the player, in the spinoff games there are several examples although the canonicity of these are kind of ambiguous at best. in Detective Pikachu the titular character has essentially the same deal as Meowth, being able to communicate with both pokémon and human. in Hey You, Pikachu! while none of the pokémon audibly communicate with the player, most of them are shown to have pretty complex lives, with a bulbasaur who is able to cook and an abra who runs a shop, among others. the pokémon in the PMD games are shown to be roughly equally intelligent with them forming a human-like society.

wwwwwwwww said:
I'd be happy if something got worked out. I always wanted to blacklist it but then you have a fuck ton of great porn with, for instance, a clearly sentient dragon fucking someone, that always ends up tagged with it. I'd rather not miss posts and just add artists to my blacklist.

Would blacklisting bestiality -dragon not be enough here? Since feral dragons are such a broad category that covers everything from things that look/act like animals to what you're looking for and everything in between it's just splitting hairs.

I think there is/was a sapient_feral lore tag but idk how often it's used.

my friend, that why I made the realistic feral tag, Its for content that is close to real life zoophilia.

waller said:
my friend, that why I made the realistic feral tag, Its for content that is close to real life zoophilia.

Suggestion: could we remove the "for sexual artwork and animations" from the wiki and use this tag for any realistic ferals, not just explicit images? People can still blacklist realistic_feral -rating:s

regsmutt said:
I think there is/was a sapient_feral lore tag but idk how often it's used.

Some people tried to make a tag, but it wasn't a lore tag and was aliased away because it's not TWYS. A lore tag wouldn't work very well since often it's some kind of generic feral that isn't specified to be sapient or non-sapient.

watsit said:
Some people tried to make a tag, but it wasn't a lore tag and was aliased away because it's not TWYS. A lore tag wouldn't work very well since often it's some kind of generic feral that isn't specified to be sapient or non-sapient.

It'd be kind of tricky. There's definite risk of it being used as an ass-covering tag, though this risk also exists for the adult_(lore) tag. A pretty decent guideline could be the presence of speech/thought bubbles or if the characters come from a piece of media where they talk/show sapience.

cloudpie said:
Suggestion: could we remove the "for sexual artwork and animations" from the wiki and use this tag for any realistic ferals, not just explicit images? People can still blacklist realistic_feral -rating:s

I did make a tag call feral art for realistic ferals but it was consider too not-specific and has since been aliased to feral

waller said:
I did make a tag call feral art for realistic ferals but it was consider too not-specific and has since been aliased to feral

A tag name like feral_art doesn't really indicate it's for realistic ferals, people can reasonably assume it's meant for any art with ferals, or at best feral_focus art. Realistic feral is a better tag name for that kind of thing (though it still seems rather subjective; post #4527829 is fairly stylized and expressive IMO, post #4656852 is just an equine_penis (can't even tell it's feral), and many just show part of a feral's underside or backside without the head or face visible).

watsit said:
A tag name like feral_art doesn't really indicate it's for realistic ferals, people can reasonably assume it's meant for any art with ferals, or at best feral_focus art. Realistic feral is a better tag name for that kind of thing (though it still seems rather subjective; post #4527829 is fairly stylized and expressive IMO, post #4656852 is just an equine_penis (can't even tell it's feral), and many just show part of a feral's underside or backside without the head or face visible).

I see your point but for what cloudpie suggesting, couldn't we just use the "realistic" + the feral tag and save realistic_feral tag this specific fetish? sure the realistic tag is currently a mess and needs work but I think it could work for non-sexual content.

Imo the realistic_feral tag should be renamed because currently it looks like it's more about style than anatomy.
Realistically_shaped/proportioned_feral is kind of a mouthful but more accurately describes what's going on.

regsmutt said:
Imo the realistic_feral tag should be renamed because currently it looks like it's more about style than anatomy.

Isn't it about style? It depends on a feral being depicted with a more realistic style that some people are uncomfortable with, as it makes it look too close to "real life", compared to something more expressive or stylized. I wouldn't call it about anatomy since ferals tend to be more anatomically accurate (canines having canine penises and sheaths, horses having equine pussies and anuses, etc) compared to anthros of the same species, and it can apply to fantasy species where anatomical accuracy doesn't apply.

regsmutt said:
Realistically_shaped/proportioned_feral is kind of a mouthful but more accurately describes what's going on.

That would have problems with fictional species. Fictional species aren't eligible for tags based on what's real or accurate to the species; realistically_shaped/proportioned_feral can't really apply to, say, midday_lycanroc since there's nothing to say what "realistically_shaped/proportioned" is for the species, but they can still be depicted in a more realistic style that people find too close for comfort, despite being a fantasy species. Even dragons can be a problem for people if it looks too "real". Extinct species like dinosaurs also have room for interpretation over what exactly they looked like, with it changing over time given new findings and theories.

watsit said:
Isn't it about style? It depends on a feral being depicted with a more realistic style that some people are uncomfortable with, as it makes it look too close to "real life", compared to something more expressive or stylized. I wouldn't call it about anatomy since ferals tend to be more anatomically accurate (canines having canine penises and sheaths, horses having equine pussies and anuses, etc) compared to anthros of the same species, and it can apply to fantasy species where anatomical accuracy doesn't apply.

That would have problems with fictional species. Fictional species aren't eligible for tags based on what's real or accurate to the species; realistically_shaped/proportioned_feral can't really apply to, say, midday_lycanroc since there's nothing to say what "realistically_shaped/proportioned" is for the species, but they can still be depicted in a more realistic style that people find too close for comfort, despite being a fantasy species. Even dragons can be a problem for people if it looks too "real". Extinct species like dinosaurs also have room for interpretation over what exactly they looked like, with it changing over time given new findings and theories.

It sounds like the tag would be better served by renaming it as realistically_styled_feral

watsit said:
Isn't it about style? It depends on a feral being depicted with a more realistic style that some people are uncomfortable with, as it makes it look too close to "real life", compared to something more expressive or stylized. I wouldn't call it about anatomy since ferals tend to be more anatomically accurate (canines having canine penises and sheaths, horses having equine pussies and anuses, etc) compared to anthros of the same species, and it can apply to fantasy species where anatomical accuracy doesn't apply.

That would have problems with fictional species. Fictional species aren't eligible for tags based on what's real or accurate to the species; realistically_shaped/proportioned_feral can't really apply to, say, midday_lycanroc since there's nothing to say what "realistically_shaped/proportioned" is for the species, but they can still be depicted in a more realistic style that people find too close for comfort, despite being a fantasy species. Even dragons can be a problem for people if it looks too "real". Extinct species like dinosaurs also have room for interpretation over what exactly they looked like, with it changing over time given new findings and theories.

If it was JUST about style/realism then the tag is pointless because it can be served by just realistic+feral. It also does include varying degrees of stylization and anthropomorphization.
Here's some that don't really fall under 'realism' but are probably not what people trying to avoid animal-shaped animals want to see.
post #4527829 post #3098729 post #4245716

I do think fictional species are a problem with "realistically_proportioned" so maybe "naturalistically_proportioned/shaped" would work better. Casually I say things like "dog-shaped dogs" and as jokey as it sounds "animal_shaped_feral" might get the point across.

regsmutt said:
Here's some that don't really fall under 'realism' but are probably not what people trying to avoid animal-shaped animals want to see.
post #4527829 post #3098729 post #4245716

Honestly, that makes me wonder what the point of the tag is, then. They look like ordinary plain jane feral characters to me, with typical human-like facial expressions you find in art (with eyebrows in the latter two; ironically, I remember when y!gallery started taking issue with furry art, the stipulations for acceptability were that they had to have eyebrows and human-like expressions). There's nothing particularly special that makes those examples stand out. If stuff like that bothers someone, I think they should consider blacklisting feral, rather than claim they're "realistic" or "naturalistically proportioned/shaped" (which I wouldn't say the first and third one are; those genitals look quite off and unnatural) and somehow different from the norm. If that's the standard for the tag, IMO it should be aliased away.

When I think of the kind of feral art that people would prefer not to see for being too close to "real" for comfort, it's things like
post #4437567 post #3153275 post #4640106

Lumping your three examples with these ones I think does a heavy disservice to the tag, with yours being closer to the kind of things you'll typically find under feral:
post #4670413 post #4670360 post #4670355
Yours may have slightly better anatomy, sure, and slightly less "anime eyes", but still farther from the "too close for comfort" examples than the more typical examples.

dripen_arn said:
hjfduitloxtrds, my dude, anthros are people

they're perfectly bipedal like people
they have complex thought like people
even in settings when they're meant to be more animalistic in lifestyle and aren't literally living in human settlements, they still behave closer to tribal or primitive humans rather than whatever species they're meant to be derive from

more than they are animals morphed into a humanistic shape: they are humans morphed into a vaguely animalistic face and color

human x anthro is not, and never will be, considered bestiality

Um no. Anthros are not and have never been human. They often have animalistic tendencies, activities, or instincts. They are simply animals which are most often bipedal and share some subtle other similarities with humans, but not nearly enough to call them human. Therefore human x anthro should be considered bestiality. Really what frustrates me the most is that all anthro x feral is considered bestiality, regardless if the feral shows any signs of sapience (talking like anthro, thinking like anthro, anthro- like activities or mannerisms) thus causing for example a picture of 2 horses being "bestiality" despite the fact they are the exact same species.

thegreatwolfgang said:
But what if a robot fucks a feral or a human fucks a feral robot, then legally you can't call it bestiality right?
What about taurs and lamias? What does the law, morals, and religions say about them?

Um no. A robot is a machine, not an animal. Human x robot would be some other weird thing, not bestiality.
The law, morals, and religions likely won't say anything about creatures which haven't been discovered or proven to exist, or at least believed to exist IRL. Humanoid taur on non-humanoid (anthro or feral) is bestiality. Anthro taur on feral is not.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Um no. Anthros are not and have never been human. They often have animalistic tendencies, activities, or instincts. They are simply animals which are most often bipedal and share some subtle other similarities with humans, but not nearly enough to call them human. Therefore human x anthro should be considered bestiality. Really what frustrates me the most is that all anthro x feral is considered bestiality, regardless if the feral shows any signs of sapience (talking like anthro, thinking like anthro, anthro- like activities or mannerisms) thus causing for example a picture of 2 horses being "bestiality" despite the fact they are the exact same species.

most anthros depicted on here live in a society that is pretty much indistinguishable from that of humans, excluding them having fur and, occasionally, more fun genitals. like, how are the casts of stuff like Sonic, or Star Fox, or Animal Crossing, or Aggretsuko any different from the casts of similar settings with just humans/humanoids, beyond the superficial?

Legal definition means literally nothing for e6. Bestiality is very simply the sexual activity between any feral creature, and any non-feral creature, which, yes, includes robot bestiality duo.

The wiki for feral explicitly states:

robot, robots modeled after animals are also feral

and has done so for 8 years.

That's just the way the site handles the tag. If you really care, same-species_bestiality exists

definitelynotafurry4 said:
Bestiality is very simply the sexual intercourse between any feral creature, and any non-feral creature

actually, would sexual interaction between a character of feral form and a character with an unclassified form (like a piranha_plant, slime, or dire_machine) be bestiality? I don't think we've actually defined it past the, well, defined forms.

watsit said:
Honestly, that makes me wonder what the point of the tag is, then. They look like ordinary plain jane feral characters to me, with typical human-like facial expressions you find in art (with eyebrows in the latter two; ironically, I remember when y!gallery started taking issue with furry art, the stipulations for acceptability were that they had to have eyebrows and human-like expressions). There's nothing particularly special that makes those examples stand out. If stuff like that bothers someone, I think they should consider blacklisting feral, rather than claim they're "realistic" or "naturalistically proportioned/shaped" (which I wouldn't say the first and third one are; those genitals look quite off and unnatural) and somehow different from the norm. If that's the standard for the tag, IMO it should be aliased away.

When I think of the kind of feral art that people would prefer not to see for being too close to "real" for comfort, it's things like
post #4437567 post #3153275 post #4640106

Lumping your three examples with these ones I think does a heavy disservice to the tag, with yours being closer to the kind of things you'll typically find under feral:
post #4670413 post #4670360 post #4670355
Yours may have slightly better anatomy, sure, and slightly less "anime eyes", but still farther from the "too close for comfort" examples than the more typical examples.

That last one is definitely "too close for comfort" for people who want to avoid this stuff. Personally I see it more as a way to sort out stuff like these
post #4618814 post #4494222 post #4020124 post #4519095 post #4488755

There's going to be a degree of subjectivity here with unavoidable grey area. The same issues exist with weight, size, and age tags. I don't think that's an inherently bad thing as much as just a consequence of trying to categorize art in such a wide range of styles, skill levels, and aesthetic preferences.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Um no. A robot is a machine, not an animal. Human x robot would be some other weird thing, not bestiality.

So with your logic, if humans interacted with FNAF animatronics like Foxy or Chica, it's not bestiality.
When it comes to tagging, how do you suggest we go about (hypothetically) fixing that without blanket-tagging human_on_anthro with bestiality?

Humanoid taur on non-humanoid (anthro or feral) is bestiality. Anthro taur on feral is not.

So, upper-anthro-lower-taur is considered an "animal" while upper-human-lower-taur is not considered an "animal".
What about animal_head? Does simply having an animal's head on a humanoid body make them an animal?

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Um no. A robot is a machine, not an animal. Human x robot would be some other weird thing, not bestiality.

oh wait, I have something for this! I have something for this! umm... now what was it again... ah! here it is. I knew having that strong memory for media would pay off eventually.

regsmutt said:
There's going to be a degree of subjectivity here with unavoidable grey area.

I would say it's complete subjectivity. What's "too close" is going to be completely up to the individual and any line drawn is going to be arbitrary, and end up covering what some people don't want covered, and not cover what some people want covered. Weight, size, and age are attributes every character has, and they can be put into separate buckets based on relative qualities (and there are real life measurements we can use as a rough basis). But a drawn feral being "too close for comfort" is just a single arbitrary line that won't end up a good fit for anyone, some thinking it's too exclusive, others too inclusive, some wanting to include when they have x-feature, others wanting to exclude when they have y-feature.

furry_scale
am i helping here

watsit said:
I would say it's complete subjectivity. What's "too close" is going to be completely up to the individual and any line drawn is going to be arbitrary, and end up covering what some people don't want covered, and not cover what some people want covered. Weight, size, and age are attributes every character has, and they can be put into separate buckets based on relative qualities (and there are real life measurements we can use as a rough basis). But a drawn feral being "too close for comfort" is just a single arbitrary line that won't end up a good fit for anyone, some thinking it's too exclusive, others too inclusive, some wanting to include when they have x-feature, others wanting to exclude when they have y-feature.

I agree "too close for comfort" is a bad standard. That's not what I'm suggesting, in part because I like feral art and want to see more of it. My own standard is "if the face, tail, and genitals weren't visible could you identify, roughly, what kind of animal it is?" Or at the very least, could you tell that it's a horse vs a canine vs a feline vs a rodent. There are relative qualities that you can look at (the proportions and joints of the legs, the shape of the chest, the tightness of the skin, etc) and use to determine if it fits or not.

If you put a snout and floppy ears on this and called it a dog or long ears and a puffball tail and called it a rabbit nobody would question it:
post #4519095

If you tried the same with this it would look wrong:
post #4232168

The way the legs connect to the body and the way the skin and fat hang on the second are pretty true to how cats work and what makes them look different from dogs. These are qualities that are lacking in the first image.

Here's a good grey area image:
post #4073490

You can pick it out as a carnivoran body, but the shape of the legs and how they connect to the torso is closer to canines than it is to felines.

Wait until you meet a hyaenadon.

Man, I just want a way to actually use my blacklist.

Oh a bunch of people are saying I've got some kind of double standard going on. No, I'm well aware that there are edge cases and exceptions etc. Some kinds of fantasy ferals I appreciate are what most people would consider to be in the bestiality category. That's just how preferences work. What I really REALLY want to blacklist, however, is shit like literal horses or dogs fucking humans or anthros. It seems like those two species are the most popular pick for that sort of art, and it's harder to precisely blacklist than you'd think!
For example, the first thing I thought of was: "bestiality ~equine ~dog" but that catches any form of bestiality that a horse or dog anthro is participating in. There are no species-specific feral tags, like feral_horse or feral_dog, and I'm certainly not suggesting we create a bunch of those, that sounds way worse than my initial suggestion even. Though it also sounds like it might be more well received?

shiitake said:
Oh a bunch of people are saying I've got some kind of double standard going on. No, I'm well aware that there are edge cases and exceptions etc. Some kinds of fantasy ferals I appreciate are what most people would consider to be in the bestiality category. That's just how preferences work. What I really REALLY want to blacklist, however, is shit like literal horses or dogs fucking humans or anthros. 90% of the bestiality porn on the site is exactly that, and it's harder to precisely blacklist than you'd think!
For example, the first thing I thought of was: "bestiality ~equine ~dog" but that catches any form of bestiality that a horse or dog anthro is participating in. There are no species-specific feral tags, like feral_horse or feral_dog, and I'm certainly not suggesting we create a bunch of those, that sounds way worse than my initial suggestion even. Though it also sounds like it might be more well received?

If it helps at all, I blacklist:

bestiality human equine -my_little_pony
bestiality realistic
feral photorealism -rating:s
bestiality human domestic_dog -talking_feral
bestiality female_on_feral equine -semi-anthro
bestiality female_on_feral canine -semi-anthro
realistic_feral

Which is so convoluted but catches a good amount of it at least.

shiitake said:
Oh a bunch of people are saying I've got some kind of double standard going on. No, I'm well aware that there are edge cases and exceptions etc. Some kinds of fantasy ferals I appreciate are what most people would consider to be in the bestiality category. That's just how preferences work. What I really REALLY want to blacklist, however, is shit like literal horses or dogs fucking humans or anthros. It seems like those two species are the most popular pick for that sort of art, and it's harder to precisely blacklist than you'd think!
For example, the first thing I thought of was: "bestiality ~equine ~dog" but that catches any form of bestiality that a horse or dog anthro is participating in. There are no species-specific feral tags, like feral_horse or feral_dog, and I'm certainly not suggesting we create a bunch of those, that sounds way worse than my initial suggestion even. Though it also sounds like it might be more well received?

Then suggesting to redefine bestiality wasn't the smartest way to go. And no, we are not going to have <form>_<species> tags.
What you should really be asking is for blacklist suggestions to cover what you don't like.

You want to blacklist feral horses/dogs on humans, then just blacklist human_on_feral equine & human_on_feral canine.
Alternatively, blacklisting feral_penetrating_human equine or feral_penetrating_human canine could cover most of the humans getting penetrated by animals part. Switch to human_penetrating_feral if you don't want to see the opposite happen as well.

Anthros are a bit trickier since they can be either the anthro or the feral, so the best you can do is be more specific in what you'd like to search or just blacklist artists who make a lot of feral equine/canine art.

Of course, the above suggestions would unintentionally blacklist any feral canines or equines who may not be participating in the sex (e.g., human interacting with feral creature, but with a dog in the background) but you'd have to make do.

If the copytags: metatag worked in blacklisting feral -rating:s copytags:0 -semi-anthro -talking_feral -sparkledog -sparklecat might work decently well. Unfortunately I don't think it does.

dripen_arn said:
i'd blame game freak for that

humanoid style pokemon like the machamp and gardevoir evolution line have always bothered me because those are just dead-ass people. i refuse to believe those guys are on the same level of sentience as a ratata

INCINEROAR RIGHTS, DAMNIT!

Not GameFreak, Tajiri. Seriously, read his manga biography it explains a fair amount on the conception of Pokemon. The short of it is that Tajiri conceptualized Pokemon as creatures akin to cats and dogs in the real world and GameFreak ran with the idea so Pokemon are conceptualized as pets and animals in universe regardless of their appearance.

There's no social and mental difference between Pikachu or Mr. Mime or Rattata, the anime has shown Pokemon being treated like pets such as showing Mr. Mime eating dog food off the floor with his hands or the games programming Pokemon to behave like dogs. It's really interesting how this conceptuzlation shapes up the perception over Pokemon.

theenglishdrape said:
Not GameFreak, Tajiri. Seriously, read his manga biography it explains a fair amount on the conception of Pokemon. The short of it is that Tajiri conceptualized Pokemon as creatures akin to cats and dogs in the real world and GameFreak ran with the idea so Pokemon are conceptualized as pets and animals in universe regardless of their appearance.

There's no social and mental difference between Pikachu or Mr. Mime or Rattata, the anime has shown Pokemon being treated like pets such as showing Mr. Mime eating dog food off the floor with his hands or the games programming Pokemon to behave like dogs. It's really interesting how this conceptuzlation shapes up the perception over Pokemon.

that's definitely not the canon depiction anymore. there are quite a few pokémon in canon media that have been shown to be sapient. notably, in gen 4 darkrai communicates with the player through an illusion and in B2W2 a zoroark communicates with the player directly while disguised. and don't forget the most prevalent example: all the hudreds of thousands of rotoms carried around by nearly every single character in the world starting in gen 7.