I absolutely hate that the tag bestiality is used here at all. Let me explain:
it looks bad on e621 to have this tag at all (you all removed cub for this reason despite them clearly being cubs and not "young")
It's inaccurate. In a world of anthros and ferals, they're much similar in species and the ferals are typically santient, making them not "lower animals" per this definition:

"sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal"

It could be argued bestiality could be used if it's human/feral, but even then, it's art so it's not the act of bestiality so just use human/feral.

And yet human/anthro isn't bestiality despite if furry anthros existed, people would be shamed for being attracted to them. (just like so called furries judge other furries for liking ferals.)

kaskae said:
it looks bad on e621 to have this tag at all (you all removed cub for this reason despite them clearly being cubs and not "young")

I don't know why this misconception is so common. Cub was merged into young because it was a useless hybrid tag that nobody could agree on the definition of, not because of optics.

Its the tag for when human-shaped characters have sexual acts with otherwise "feral" appearing characters. It's a very useful tag for that while also being a good mainstay used by many. Not that it isn't a perfect tag either though but changing it would probably require a bit of work. Also a lot of what you said shows that you don't really know what the e6 definition is at all. bestiality

anthro/human/humanoid/taur_on_feral is what bestiality covers. It is not exclusively anthro/feral.

If you have a better name please suggest some

Looks like this is topic #37886 part 2, parroting the exact same Merriam Webster definition while also completely neglecting to read the actual site definition for bestiality.

In that case, I will just parrot my response here as well.

thegreatwolfgang said:
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.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Looks like this is topic #37886 part 2, parroting the exact same Merriam Webster definition while also completely neglecting to read the actual site definition for bestiality.

people are going to freak out when they realize that we're not using the dictionary definition of "feral" either.

kaskae said:
I absolutely hate that the tag bestiality is used here at all.

I can sympathise with this but a lot of tags are not used the way they are on other sites or the way people generally think they should be.
That's just how e621 operates. Best to not get too anal about definitions or wording. You'll be happier.

popoto said:
I can sympathise with this but a lot of tags are not used the way they are on other sites or the way people generally think they should be.
That's just how e621 operates. Best to not get too anal about definitions or wording. You'll be happier.

There has been some effort to change the name, but a suitable replacement that isn't too long or wordy is what's causing the hangup. See this thread

I wouldn't mind renaming it to non-feral_on_feral honestly. Doesn't seem too wordy to me, and it's accurate

wandering_spaniel said:
I wouldn't mind renaming it to non-feral_on_feral honestly. Doesn't seem too wordy to me, and it's accurate

the problem is changing the name like that would potentially shift the definition. I mean, do we want to consider stuff like dire/amorphous/whatever on feral to be in the same category as what bestiality is now, though? because that just _feels_ like it should be different to me.

to me bestiality is supposed to be for human or human-adjacent character and an animal-shaped animal, not like a dragon fuckin' a living car or a ditto and any of the feral pokémon going at it.

maryland_p_sevenson said:
the problem is changing the name like that would potentially shift the definition. I mean, do we want to consider stuff like dire/amorphous/whatever on feral to be in the same category as what bestiality is now, though? because that just _feels_ like it should be different to me.

to me bestiality is supposed to be for human or human-adjacent character and an animal-shaped animal, not like a dragon fuckin' a living car or a ditto and any of the feral pokémon going at it.

Mm fair point...

wandering_spaniel said:
I wouldn't mind renaming it to non-feral_on_feral honestly. Doesn't seem too wordy to me, and it's accurate

Naming it feral_on_non-feral would be better rather than the other way around since it could sound like non-feral_on_feral.

maryland_p_sevenson said:
the problem is changing the name like that would potentially shift the definition. I mean, do we want to consider stuff like dire/amorphous/whatever on feral to be in the same category as what bestiality is now, though? because that just _feels_ like it should be different to me.

to me bestiality is supposed to be for human or human-adjacent character and an animal-shaped animal, not like a dragon fuckin' a living car or a ditto and any of the feral pokémon going at it.

I feel that is a negligible problem to be honest, as compared to finally resolving the greater issue at hand.
We have been sticking with the the non-feral definition for the past almost 10 years now, and I don't think people will be actively tagging it on posts that don't warrant it.

If it indeed does become a problem, a simple tagging project going through feral_on_non-feral dire would suffice?

thegreatwolfgang said:
I feel that is a negligible problem to be honest, as compared to finally resolving the greater issue at hand.

While creating others. I find it rather clunky phrasing, and I can almost guarantee people will start creating tags for other things, anthro_on_non-anthro, male_on_non-male, dragon_on_non-dragon, etc. It's just asking to make a mess.

watsit said:
While creating others. I find it rather clunky phrasing, and I can almost guarantee people will start creating tags for other things, anthro_on_non-anthro, male_on_non-male, dragon_on_non-dragon, etc. It's just asking to make a mess.

Just like with every other precedence-setting-precedence tags, we would have to catch them and shut them down as they appear.

There is no convenient way to stop people from creating tags that they think is alright.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just like with every other precedence-setting-precedence tags, we would have to catch them and shut them down as they appear.

There is no convenient way to stop people from creating tags that they think is alright.

Avoid setting the precedent, and fewer people will think to try creating such tags. It's easier to clean up when you don't make a mess in the first place, especially when people aren't happy with the proposed change to begin with.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just like with every other precedence-setting-precedence tags, we would have to catch them and shut them down as they appear.

There is no convenient way to stop people from creating tags that they think is alright.

or we could just, like, leave it. not set a precedent, not have to worry about it.

I mean, I don't think this is a dickgirl-cuntboy situation, with tag names so bad I think I remember people doing takedowns and going DNP just to avoid their characters being labled with them. as far as I'm aware, just about everyone is more or less fine with bestiality's name and definition.

maryland_p_sevenson said:
or we could just, like, leave it. not set a precedent, not have to worry about it.

I mean, I don't think this is a dickgirl-cuntboy situation, with tag names so bad I think I remember people doing takedowns and going DNP just to avoid their characters being labled with them. as far as I'm aware, just about everyone is more or less fine with bestiality's name and definition.

As I have discussed before, it would be fine if it was just for sex, but the implication from anthro_on_feral (which as a pairing tag necessarily includes stuff other than just sex, despite the wiki) makes it not great. That said, no point rehashing topic #46102 (which this topic is a misguided version of), and discussion on definition should be kept to topic #46093.

It's not like this hasn't already been thought of, and then decided to remain status quo several times. XD

scth said:
As I have discussed before, it would be fine if it was just for sex, but the implication from anthro_on_feral (which as a pairing tag necessarily includes stuff other than just sex, despite the wiki) makes it not great. That said, no point rehashing topic #46102 (which this topic is a misguided version of), and discussion on definition should be kept to topic #46093.

we already use slightly altered in-house definitions for a bunch of other tags to make their definitions more concice and more consistent with other tags, I don't see how it's suddenly a problem with bestuality. the closest parallel is that we don't use the dictionary definition of incest for incest_(lore) since we include stuff that isn't just sex, but there's a bunch of other tags where we fudge the definition a bit to make it easier for everyone to understand.

No, for reasons that have been exhaustively stated above.

There are some real problems with the bestiality tag, IMO, but my conclusion after the last thread is that those problems will never be fixed because people are acclimated to the status quo and many have objections to every solution that's been proposed.

Is pokephilia bestiality?

methoxyflurane said:
Is pokephilia bestiality?

Not for non-feral (anthro or humanoid) pokemon.

watsit said:
Not for non-feral (anthro or humanoid) pokemon.

(Greetings from New Zealand)

Cheers mate ^~^