Unimplicating Bestiality --> Interspecies

Reason: While the Interspecies tag is obviously going to be correct for the majority of Bestiality pictures, before Anthro_on_Feral was made to imply Bestiality, it was not common tagging practice to add Interspecies to images depicting anthropomorphic and feral dragons engaging in sexuality activity.

The following are images that would not have been tagged interspecies before:
post #197864
post #147150
post #98105
post #124842

Images depicting interactions between anthropomorphic and feral gryphons were also not tagged interspecies, as I believe were any other images where the anthro and the feral were of the same general species type.

Hmf, sorry about the blunder on categories, someone please move this into the tagging section. If I can do it myself at this point, I don't know how.

If the bestiality -> interspecies implication gets undone, then posts with humans having sex with feral animals will no longer have the interspecies tag, and that's about as non-species related as you can get.

Is the implication in the topic header really the one that needs removal?

Riversyde said:

Is the implication in the topic header really the one that needs removal?

Maybe. It's breaking searchability for certain things. Before the implication, finding anthro dragons having sex with feral dragons was easy:
anthro_on_feral dragon -interspecies

Now, there is no search to do that. There are two possible solutions: deimplicate bestiality -> interspecies, or deimplicate anthro_on_feral -> bestiality. If implications are making it impossible to search for a particular situation, they are bad implications.

Snowy said:
Now, there is no search to do that. There are two possible solutions: deimplicate bestiality -> interspecies, or deimplicate anthro_on_feral -> bestiality. If implications are making it impossible to search for a particular situation, they are bad implications.

It does seem that way
Even though anthro_in_feral might be considered bestiality if we assume that all anthro characters are counted as human, it requires more workarounds (and in some cases those aren't currently possible to find) when it comes to narrowing down posts that contain interspecies and bestiality/anthro_on_feral

I think that bestiality should be de-implicated from anthro_on_feral, since the cons seem to outweigh the pros;
But if someone can find a reason & manageable workaround that outweighs de-implicating either of the 2 that snowy mentioned for searchability effectiveness, then that works too

titaniachkt said:
I think that bestiality should be de-implicated from anthro_on_feral, since the cons seem to outweigh the pros;

Agreed.

titaniachkt said:

I think that bestiality should be de-implicated from anthro_on_feral

could not agree more

ippiki_ookami said:
could not agree more

I'm not sure I agree as much, but it's still a bit confusing.

To me, anthro_on_feral is, by its very definition, bestiality. Google defines bestiality as "Sexual intercourse between a person and an animal". So that raises the question "Would we consider the anthro a person?" My initial instincts say yes, we would, but looking up the definition for "person" in Google seems to indicate that "person" is reserved just for human beings. However, I think this could be because we've not yet had to consider non-human "persons" in real life.

I think this is essentially the same classic debate though as whether or not you could ever consider an artificial humanoid a "person". They're technically nothing but computers, but if they have thoughts, feelings, dreams, aspirations... is there still no point at which they could officially be considered a person, even if they're not technically human?

That's just how I feel about this at least. I realize I'm not really providing any answers here, but I do think the issue may not be as black-and-white as it might appear.

Char said:

Not arguing your points, all I would ask is, what do people who search bestiality want to see in the results? An anthro dog screwing a feral dog? Personally I don't think so. I feel like there's enough of a distinction to warrant keeping them separate.

ippiki_ookami said:
Not arguing your points, all I would ask is, what do people who search bestiality want to see in the results? An anthro dog screwing a feral dog? Personally I don't think so. I feel like there's enough of a distinction to warrant keeping them separate.

You could argue that either way, but deimplicating provides much better searchability. As it is now, anthro_on_feral is basically a one-tag shortcut for bestiality -human. The "correctness" of the implication is debatable, but even if it's correct, let's not sacrifice usability for correctness.

In real life, bestiality is interspecies. Anthro-on-feral is not necessarily interspecies. Anthro-on-feral is not bestiality.

As I understand it, "feral" = "no visible human characteristics". Is that correct? Then, for ferals, the anthropomorphism is in the personality, intelligence, and the like. And so nothing with ferals would be bestiality.

If bestiality did not imply interspecies, then sex between a normal human and a human with severe mental retardation might be considered bestiality. So bestiality should imply interspecies, no?

Given a picture that showed a lion with human personality, intelligence, etc. (Simba) mating with a normal lioness (that you might see in National Geographic), "feral_on_animal" would be a useful tag.

Alternatively, we can have bestiality only involve human_on_non-human (INCLUDING human_on_anthro), which would solve almost everything, since we do have anthro_on_feral for most other situations where anthros are involved.

After all, human on humanoid aliens is considered bestiality, human on anthro-like mythical creatures is considered bestiality, human on human-like existing apes is considered bestiality.

So: bestiality implies: human, interspecies. And most current tagging of bestiality would be mistagged as anthro_on_feral

(if you really want to think about it, by current standards of bestiality, almost every interspecies tags with anthros should be considered bestiality, unless you consider something like a minotaur on human not bestiality)

Char said:
I'm not sure I agree as much, but it's still a bit confusing.

To me, anthro_on_feral is, by its very definition, bestiality. Google defines bestiality as "Sexual intercourse between a person and an animal". So that raises the question "Would we consider the anthro a person?" My initial instincts say yes, we would, but looking up the definition for "person" in Google seems to indicate that "person" is reserved just for human beings. However, I think this could be because we've not yet had to consider non-human "persons" in real life.

I think this is essentially the same classic debate though as whether or not you could ever consider an artificial humanoid a "person". They're technically nothing but computers, but if they have thoughts, feelings, dreams, aspirations... is there still no point at which they could officially be considered a person, even if they're not technically human?

That's just how I feel about this at least. I realize I'm not really providing any answers here, but I do think the issue may not be as black-and-white as it might appear.

Anthro is short for "anthropomorphic" which is defined as "applying human characteristics to a being or thing that is not human". So in essence an anthro character is more human than feral.

human_on_anthro is essentially human on "slightly human". i think it would be simplest to de-imply the anthro_on_feral -> bestiality

Mai_Lil_Pwny said:
human_on_anthro is essentially human on "slightly human".

About human_on_anthro tag, why it is stated in its wiki that it's defunct tag? If it's defunct shouldn't it be aliased to invalid tag?

anomaly said:
About human_on_anthro tag, why it is stated in its wiki that it's defunct tag? If it's defunct shouldn't it be aliased to invalid tag?

Not sure. I'll look into it.

This is still an unresolved issue. I hope bumping this isn't a breach of etiquette.

BUMP

Really, either bestiality -> interspecies implication or anthro_on_feral -> bestiality implication needs to be removed.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
BUMP

Really, either bestiality -> interspecies implication or anthro_on_feral -> bestiality implication needs to be removed.

Yes! (Both actually.) I think the problem is the term "bestiality" was not invented for a context where there's a third category. It's entirely based on "human" vs "beast" (whatever that was supposed to mean). There's no room in that for anthros. But anthros are more than 3/4ths of furry fandom.

To make it fit we have to assign anthros to being either a version of human or a version of beast. But they are neither. They live in this grey area, being equally both humanoid-ish and feral-ish. Sure some are more one way than the other. But what unites them as a taggable group is that they all have bodies which are a cross between humanoid characteristics and feral characteristics. They are physically somewhere inbetween the two groups but not quite either one. Judging sentience would be impossible using TWYS. It has to be based on physical characteristics.

I know it sounds gigantically insane, but I think this won't find an easy solution as long as we keep using 'bestiality' as a term. The word itself is problematic for a site with anthros, and that's not going to change even if we managed to currently agree on something. It's an ongoing and intrinsic issue that will just keep coming back up. A more straightforward approach would be to phase out "bestiality" entirely and instead adopt a different system:

• human_on_anthro
• human_on_feral

• anthro_on_anthro
• anthro_on_feral

• feral_on_feral

It's far less ambiguous, which makes it possible to maintain it long term.
It's far less subjective, which makes it much better as a tag system. (For the same reasons TWYS works).

And because it'd no longer be bundled under one broad tag, it makes it possible for anyone to customize EXACTLY where they want that line to be in their blacklist. Or to customize their searches. (Which is probably vital on a kink which people feel very strongly about but rarely agree on exactly where the line is at.)

It know the tag is pretty large [approx 6000 images]. But I think with a "phasing out" approach, and some serious group tagging it could still be done. And it would be far less painful to do it this month (or next month) than it would be to do three years from now. I don't think the size of the project should limit the discussion though, because it's doable to change things at this point. I'd gladly help, but only after a decision is reached. While it's not a squick for me personally, I'd love to have the clearer set of tags for improved searching.

As for interspecies, I vote to de-implicate it from all but "human_on_feral" and "human_on_anthro". And to add/keep those two implications to interspecies simply because there is no feral version of a human, which makes interspecies literally the only possiblity. But any of the other combinations would sometimes be the anthro and the feral of the same species (ex: anthro-dragon + feral-dragon is not interspecies). Which makes their auto-implication to "interspecies" inappropriate.

ETA: in writing this I overlooked the current human_on_anthro implication to interspecies, which is probably still a good idea to also keep. Edited to add that bit in. Thanks Gilda_The_Gryphon for catching that. My bad.

As for interspecies, I vote to de-implicate it from all but "human_on_feral"

Interspecies is implied now by human_on_anthro and I think that it's good implication.

I didn't read everyone's posts, but my opinion is that an anthro is still an animal, just an anthropomorphic one, so anthro_on_feral would not be bestiality. Whether or not it's interspecies would depend on whether or not they are both the same animal or not(example: anthro wolf on feral wolf would not be interspecies, but an anthro feline on a feral wolf would be, and so on and so forth).

I consider anthro_on_feral to be interspecies. Even if it's anthro wolf on feral wolf. In my eyes, those are obviously not the same species. It's the same as human on human-like ape.

The current interspecies implications have worked well for my search needs. Wouldn't like to see those removed.

This is a really good point. Defining an anthro isn't easy, and it's going to come up to which we prefer to think of it as more of an animal, or more of a human.

Personally, my opinion is that the distinction is that an anthro is a beast with human characteristics. Meaning that it is more beast now, than man. Obviously, there are people who draw their anthro characters with more or less human characteristics as they choose.

However, as furrypickle pointed out, the problem lies within the term "bestiality". As solutions go, I like their idea of breaking it up to specify the different types.

I think that the problem is defining Bestiality as Anthro on Feral, not Human on Feral. If I ever wanted to search for bestiality, I'd want to see human on feral, right? So instead of being able to just type "bestiality", I'd need to type "bestiality human". *Shrugs* I dunno