It's come to my attention that there are pictures featuring Pokémon and humans tagged as beastiality and/or zoophilia. While this is quasi-accurate, the better tag I've seen is Poképhilia.
My question is should they stay or should all be changed to Poképhilia? I mean, the definition(s) for beastiality and/or zoophilia is/are:
sex with an animal, and love of an animal, respectively.
And Pokémon are fantastical creatures, not animals.

-Your Friendly Neighborhood Chimera,
AshuraK

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it's not bestiality as it's not sex with feral animals, it's slightly different. Sex with feral pokemons is similar in some respects, in that just as a dog literally cannot consent to sex, and acts on instinct, so with feral pokemon. However, the subject matter is different in that pokemon are not real animals. That said, we should either leave it as bestiality and alias "pokephilia" to it, or else we ought to come up with something for things like post #112564, which depict sex between a human and what seems to be a feral dragon, another fantasy creature.

My personal vote is that Pokephilia be a tag, as it is specific without being overly so.

I think an implication of "poképhilia" --> "bestiality" would cover it , since pokémon are fantasy animals (for all intents and purposes). That would allow people to search or blacklist a subset of the overarching genre.

Shatari said:
I think an implication of "poképhilia" --> "bestiality" would cover it , since pokémon are fantasy animals (for all intents and purposes). That would allow people to search or blacklist a subset of the overarching genre.

Even better.

Shatari said:
I think an implication of "poképhilia" --> "bestiality" would cover it , since pokémon are fantasy animals (for all intents and purposes). That would allow people to search or blacklist a subset of the overarching genre.

No, I see no bestiality going on in post #122557, yet under your poorly thought-out implication, it would get tagged as such.

Here's what should be done (-> denotes alias, +> denotes implication):

pokephilia -> poképhilia
poképhilia +> interspecies pokémon

Personally, I hate the interspecies tag with the burning passion of a thousand suns, but as long as it is there, might as well use it.

I have a question about this tag :

Does Pokephilia applies on pictures with Anthro Pokémon (post #135593), Human Pokémon (post #121133) and even anthro characters (post #136227) ? Because I removed the tag on these two last pictures, and by looking the tag history, I saw I removed twice the tag on the same picture and I don't want to cause drama/fight about this tag.

Kitsu~ said:
Personally, I hate the interspecies tag with the burning passion of a thousand suns, but as long as it is there, might as well use it.

Why? It's especially useful on images with humans and anthros.

RedOctober said:
Why? It's especially useful on images with humans and anthros.

Because it's name is misleading, based on the name alone, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it to be attached to posts such as post #130809, where two different species are going at it.

It needs a better name.

Neitsuke said:
I have a question about this tag :

Does Pokephilia applies on pictures with Anthro Pokémon (post #135593), Human Pokémon (post #121133) and even anthro characters (post #136227) ? Because I removed the tag on these two last pictures, and by looking the tag history, I saw I removed twice the tag on the same picture and I don't want to cause drama/fight about this tag.

According to the pokephilia tag, it's between humans and pokemon, it doesn't specify the required anthrocity of the pokemon.

It's a bit of a tricky subject, as certain pokemon can be labelled as "anthro" in their official form.

Personally, I think anthro on pokemon should be considered pokephilia, but I'm conflicted about feral on pokemon.

Just a thought exercise: would an anthro pokemon (not anthro base) on a feral pokemon of the first pokemon's type, be considered pokephilia?

Pokemon while animals showcase a very real sentience that you cannot find in real life animals; they can communicate (albeit in restricted fashion), they can use tools, they can laugh, cry, sing- They can do everything but talk in a language humans can understand (And even then some humans can understand what they say). They are intelligent, sentient beings. There is no bestiality involved even with "feral" pokemon; just rape or consensual sex, whichever the case may be.

Kitsu~ said:
Because it's name is misleading, based on the name alone, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it to be attached to posts such as post #130809, where two different species are going at it.

It needs a better name.

It's not unreasonable to expect it on such a post. In fact, it ought to be, as it is, as you pointed out, two different species going at it! I fail to see the problem with this...

Kitsu~ said:
No, I see no bestiality going on in post #122557, yet under your poorly thought-out implication, it would get tagged as such.

A think a better solution to your spaztastic problem here would be to not mark anthro pokémon as poképhilia, much like the way we don't mark anthro animals as bestiality.

Kitsu~ said:
According to the pokephilia tag, it's between humans and pokemon

I am the one who created this wiki >: I only wrote that because as I'm not English native, I always have the fear to write something barely understandable or say something completely stupid by accident.

But in my mind, Pokephilia should be Human with feral Pokémon, the one you can see on the cartoon. They can be more defined, or anthro if they are in the cartoon (Lopunny and Gardevoir to name the most popular), but I refuse to tag Pokephilia on human Pokémon or Pokémon with anything else but human.

Neitsuke said:
I refuse to tag Pokephilia on ... Pokémon with anything else but human.

So you don't think that post #131231, for example, is an example of pokephilia?

I see 0 human on the picture, so of course I would say it's not, but I am not the creator of this tag and I don't want to claim my definition is the right one.

Where it comes to a *philia word, it's indirectly talking about humans that like that sort of thing. The problem is we can couple anything with anything and use the *philia terms on every things imaginable. We just need to give an official definition for the tag and we will be all set !

*philia does not specify humans intrinsically; A crocodile (anthro or feral or whatever) who professes to be vegetarian but can't keep himself from eating live bunnies, hamsters, and other small furry critters could be a voraphiliac, for example.

Pokephilia simply references a love of pokemon. The above anthro dragon fucking a Typhlosion would in fact be a case of pokephilia.

The problem is if we follow this way, every explicit pictures of Pokémon that is not Solo potentially need this tag :v

Perhaps it should mean a pokemon paired with anything other than another pokemon, regardless of anthrocity.

Shatari said:
A think a better solution to your spaztastic problem here would be to not mark anthro pokémon as poképhilia, much like the way we don't mark anthro animals as bestiality.

What about pokemon that are anthro? Lopunny, Lucario, etc

Kitsu~ said:
Perhaps it should mean a pokemon paired with anything other than another pokemon, regardless of anthrocity.

This. We don't call it homophilia (sapienphilia?) for humans that like humans- That'd just be redundant.

I will then modify the wiki and clarify more about the tag. Just be sure to check in case I write with some horrible English >:

Next thought exercise: how about disembodied penises, would they be considered in pokephilia if applied on a feral pokemon?

Depends on the shape; If it's obviously human shaped, I'd argue that it's pokephilia. If it looks animalistic, or has been clarified by artist to indicate it's another pokemon, then I'd not use it (Animalistic representing possible other pokemon, artist saying so because, well, artist says so).

Lyokira said:
Next thought exercise: how about disembodied penises, would they be considered in pokephilia if applied on a feral pokemon?

I think disembodied penises are weird.

But really, I have no idea how to tag that shit. If it's a character plus disembodied cocks (post #112782), is it solo? Some people seem to think so. I'm not so sure. If it IS solo, then it probably should be pokephilia in general, because apparently disembodied dicks don't count as characters.

RedOctober said:
I think disembodied penises are weird.

But really, I have no idea how to tag that shit. If it's a character plus disembodied cocks (post #112782), is it solo? Some people seem to think so. I'm not so sure. If it IS solo, then it probably should be pokephilia in general, because apparently disembodied dicks don't count as characters.

I don't think it's any different from if the owner of the dick has been cropped out of the image. So I disagree with it being "solo".

I've always counted disembodied penises as characters. if someone searches female solo they probably don't want to see a penis. Disembodied or otherwise.

Kitsu~ said:
I don't think it's any different from if the owner of the dick has been cropped out of the image. So I disagree with it being "solo".

This (Agreeing with kitsu. World is gonna end :P). That's exactly what disembodied penises are- Images with the penetration or whatever going on but with the guy cropped out for maximum visibility. Except in a few eird cases like that manga about the guy who has his dick stolen by his sister in a scientific/onmyou ritual thing so the three girls that torment him can fuck around with it without dealing with him. >_>

Yeah, that's right, "disembodied penis" isn't meant to be taken literally.

Okay, let's try to clarify some things...

From what it looks like, everyone seems to be in agreement on the following things (speak up if I'm mistaken):

A) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting human on unmodified non-anthro pokemon, such as post #78069 and post #64515.

B) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting human on unmodified anthro pokemon (lucario, etc), such as post #46781.

There seems to be conflicting opinions about the following:

C) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting non-pokemon anthros on unmodified non-anthro pokemon, such as post #131231.

D) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting modified anthro pokemon on unmodified non-anthro pokemon, such as post #132462, post #36959 and post #122978.

E) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting ferals on modified anthro pokemon, such as post #37884.

F) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting human on modified anthro pokemon, such as post #145901.

By unmodified and modified I mean official and unofficial (an anthro eevee would be considered modified, while an anthro lucario (as they are anthro by default) would be considered unmodified).

Did I miss anything? Yup, I did:

G) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting un-modified anthro pokemon on unmodified non-anthro pokemon, such as post #41014.

I agree that disembodied penises (and ghost_penis, for that matter) should count as a character. I was just pointing out current usage to see what others' opinions were.

Anyway. I agree with A and B. As for C, perhaps use "anthro_pokephilia." For D, either "anthro_pokephilia" or maybe even "poke_pokephilia." For E, "anthro_bestiality" should suffice. As for F...I'm unsure, but while I don't feel that "pokephilia" should apply here, I also don't feel that it [/i]shouldn't.[/i]

Do we REALLY need to differentiate between feral and anthro pokephilia? As for E: Anthro bestiality AND pokephilia would apply there imo. F: It's an anthropomorphized pokemon/OC pokemon- Still a pokemon. Pokephilia.

My personal views:
A - yes
B - yes
C - yes
D - yes
E - no (that's anthro_bestiality)
F - no (that would be like tagging human x furry with bestiality)

Basically, pokephilia should be human or anthro x canon-form pokemon.

Missed one:

G) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting un-modified anthro pokemon on unmodified non-anthro pokemon, such as post #41014.

@ OP:

To my knowledge, tags have two purposes; they allow us to filter our search results to find what we want and to prevent us from seeing what we don't want.

Whenever someone suggests a new tag, I try to imagine what that tag would be used to look up or block. In this case, someone -could- feasibly want to see pokemon-on-human action one day.

It is also possible that someone may like bestiality or zoophilia but hate pokemon.

Based on that logic, I support this new tag.

If there's anything that can be gathered from all of these posts and discussions, it's this:

"Ghost penises" and "disembodied penises" has little, if nothing, to do with the topic afforementioned above. If anything, I see it as a different topic. Anyways, in my personal opinion, let's treat 'Poképhilia' as it literally is. I'll use a psuedo-definition to tell you all what I mean.

Poképhilia - Adjective - "1. The love of a certain Pokémon or all Pokémon; 2. The resulting act of fucking a Pokémon out of Poképhilia {love of a Pokémon}."

Sure, a definition within a definition isn't really... good dictionary ettiquette I've heard, but meh. When you think about it, zoophilia has the same definitions. As far as some, if not most, pictures go, there isn't a lot of consent and there in possibly lies a different tag.

Pokéality - Adjective? - "1. The forced and/or coerced act of sex with Pokémon"

As I see it, anything involving love/consentual sex between non-Pokémon and unmodified Pokémon is Poképhilia; anything involving rape/non-consentual sex between non-Pokémon and unmodifed Pokémon is Pokéality; everything else is just sex or rape as the Poképhilia tag probably came about as a Pokémon-based version of zoophilia, and not anthrozoophilia - "the love of anthros?"

At this point, I say we go back to the original ruling of E621 when appling these tags: "tag what you see".

Anything else anybody wants to add, talk about, what have you?

Lyokira said:
Missed one:

G) The pokephilia tag should apply to posts depicting un-modified anthro pokemon on unmodified non-anthro pokemon, such as post #41014.

I don't think that should be pokephilia. That should be, perhaps, just "mating." Do we have a mating tag? -checks- We do not. Likely because we don't have a lot of non-anthro on non-anthro. But yeah, I wouldn't call two feral foxes doing it "bestiality," or even a feral fox shagging a feral rabbit. That's just, well ok that's not exactly mating, but it's not bestiality.

RedOctober said:
I don't think that should be pokephilia. That should be, perhaps, just "mating." Do we have a mating tag? -checks- We do not. Likely because we don't have a lot of non-anthro on non-anthro. But yeah, I wouldn't call two feral foxes doing it "bestiality," or even a feral fox shagging a feral rabbit. That's just, well ok that's not exactly mating, but it's not bestiality.

We do have a interspecies tag though. On that thought, Pokemon on Pokemon of different type should probably be interspecies irregardless of matching egg group or anthro status. And bestiality should imply interspecies. Pokephilia is somewhat tricky in this regard and can't directly imply due to the "modified originally non-anthro pokemon on non-anthro pokemon of the same type" situation.

Yes, please, let's NOT bring egg groups into this.

Lyokira said:
We do have a interspecies tag though. On that thought, Pokemon on Pokemon of different type should probably be interspecies irregardless of matching egg group or anthro status. And bestiality should imply interspecies. Pokephilia is somewhat tricky in this regard and can't directly imply due to the "modified originally non-anthro pokemon on non-anthro pokemon of the same type" situation.

Yes, we do have interspecies tag, and it should most definitely be used in instances of...well, different species doing the horizontal tango. If bestiality implies interspecies (which I'm in favor of), then it absolutely should not be used for feral on feral, of anything.

Lyokira said:
We do have a interspecies tag though. On that thought, Pokemon on Pokemon of different type should probably be interspecies irregardless of matching egg group or anthro status. And bestiality should imply interspecies. Pokephilia is somewhat tricky in this regard and can't directly imply due to the "modified originally non-anthro pokemon on non-anthro pokemon of the same type" situation.

No.

All Pokemon are the same species. They are different breeds/egg groups/subspecies, but they are all the same species. This is why you can have hot Wailord on Skitty action among other things- Like Ditto being the pimp mack daddy of the Pokeworld.

123easy said:
No.

All Pokemon are the same species.

But they can't all interbreed. I know that things like ring species exist in real life, but...god damnit now I'm going to be spending way too much time staring at egg groups.

Okay, gene flow is possible between most* egg groups, even if they can't directly interbreed. The Ditto egg group is a special case, being one-way (it's impossible to create a ditto by breeding). The Undiscovered egg group is also a special case, as those aren't supposed to be able to breed (and yet outside the game canon they apparently can. The non-baby pokemon in the Undiscovered egg group might therefore be separate species.

*In no particular order: Monster Grass Dragon Water 1 Field Human-Like Bug Water 3 Fairy
Water 2 Flying Mineral Amorphous

I'm surprised that my last comment was ignored... or, well, unmentioned.
Doesn't anyone think my ideas are worth considering?

123easy said:
No.

All Pokemon are the same species. They are different breeds/egg groups/subspecies, but they are all the same species. This is why you can have hot Wailord on Skitty action among other things- Like Ditto being the pimp mack daddy of the Pokeworld.

Capability of breeding is seperate from species. That's why we can have hot lion on tiger action.

Lyokira said:
Capability of breeding is seperate from species. That's why we can have hot lion on tiger action.

Except not really.
Subspecies i'd agree, if you want to get into more specific, scientific terms. I used species because it is the most commonly known, easily understood term (Lions and tigers are both Family Felidae, Genus Panthera, btw. It's only in the SUBspecies, that Panthera Leo and Panthera Tigris differ, and likely how it works for pokemon as well). Either way, all pokemon are related in a close genological sense. Subspecies is probably as far away genologically you'll find pokemon from each other- And the egg groups could simply represent subfamilies that mate easier with each other. After all, tiger/lion hybrids (Ligers) are hard to produce and are usually (if not always, I believe?} infertile (much like mules), so you could even say that they're outside the egg group, following pokemon format.

/nerd

123easy said:
Except not really.
Subspecies i'd agree, if you want to get into more specific, scientific terms. I used species because it is the most commonly known, easily understood term (Lions and tigers are both Family Felidae, Genus Panthera, btw. It's only in the SUBspecies, that Panthera Leo and Panthera Tigris differ, and likely how it works for pokemon as well). Either way, all pokemon are related in a close genological sense. Subspecies is probably as far away genologically you'll find pokemon from each other- And the egg groups could simply represent subfamilies that mate easier with each other. After all, tiger/lion hybrids (Ligers) are hard to produce and are usually (if not always, I believe?} infertile (much like mules), so you could even say that they're outside the egg group, following pokemon format.

/nerd

Regardless, an image of tiger on lion would be tagged as interspecies, not intersubspecies.

(also, a lot more images should be tagged interspecies...)

Lyokira said:
Regardless, an image of tiger on lion would be tagged as interspecies, not intersubspecies.

(also, a lot more images should be tagged interspecies...)

Technically it shouldn't be tagged interspecies but intraspecies.

123easy said:
Technically it shouldn't be tagged interspecies but intraspecies.

No it shouldn't. Lions and tigers are in different species, according to current taxonomy. They are the same genus, yes, but different species. Tiger: Panthera tigris, lion: Panthera leo. These two animals are pairs of few that can interbreed, but the offspring are- in every recorded instance so far- sterile. Regardless, I don't feel like whether or not to use the interspecies tag is tremendously relevant just now as it seems we've still not come to a consensus about the use of Pokephilia.

RedOctober said:
No it shouldn't. Lions and tigers are in different species, according to current taxonomy. They are the same genus, yes, but different species. Tiger: Panthera tigris, lion: Panthera leo. These two animals are pairs of few that can interbreed, but the offspring are- in every recorded instance so far- sterile. Regardless, I don't feel like whether or not to use the interspecies tag is tremendously relevant just now as it seems we've still not come to a consensus about the use of Pokephilia.

Just to correct, but there has been recorded instances of fertile hybrids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Also, there are instances of successful breeding across genus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_of_Botswana

Alternatively I can just point to the generic wiki article.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29

Ligers are cool.

Lyokira said:
Just to correct, but there has been recorded instances of fertile hybrids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Also, there are instances of successful breeding across genus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_of_Botswana

Alternatively I can just point to the generic wiki article.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29

Huh. Thanks for clarifying that, I had no idea about the ligers.

As for breeding across genus, that's cool but sort of irrelevant. Tigers and lions are still not the same species and should be tagged interspecies and this is all irrelevant 'cause what the fuck are we doing about the Pokephilia tag?

RedOctober said:
Huh. Thanks for clarifying that, I had no idea about the ligers.

As for breeding across genus, that's cool but sort of irrelevant. Tigers and lions are still not the same species and should be tagged interspecies and this is all irrelevant 'cause what the fuck are we doing about the Pokephilia tag?

Not fucking it up with interspecies, unless you want to bring the whole egg groups crap into it. Just leave it as is- Anything that showcases pokemon with something that isn't a pokemon, regardless of if the poke is anthro or not.

And if a human is doing it with a feral poke, pokephilia and bestiality. None of that pokeality nonsense.

123easy said:
Not fucking it up with interspecies, unless you want to bring the whole egg groups crap into it. Just leave it as is- Anything that showcases pokemon with something that isn't a pokemon, regardless of if the poke is anthro or not.

And if a human is doing it with a feral poke, pokephilia and bestiality. None of that pokeality nonsense.

Actually, I agree, if only because there're certain families of pokemon which are certainly supposed to be the same species even if numbered differently. For instance, evolution lines, the nindo* family, and some ere even simply groups of pokemon joined together. Pokemon is for all intents and purposes a scientific mess until someone comes up with something better than pokedex entries.

My mate brought up an extremely valid point to you users that are "spouting that bestiality crap".

My mate said:
The word Pokémon is a shortened version of the words Pocket Monster.
Pokémon are not animals.
Bestiality is raping animals... not monsters.

I'll simplify my earlier posts:

Original Pokémon + Non-Original Pokémon = Sex

Original Pokémon + Non-Pokémon = Poképhilia

Original Pokémon + Original Pokémon = Sex/Mating/Breeding/Whatever

Non-Original Pokémon + Non-Original Pokémon = Sex

Does this make better sense or sound better?

I haven't read any of those thread. But bestiality is sex with animals, rape is not necessarily involved, though it can be.

Bestiality is commonly thought of as raping animals, period, simply because without knowledge that the partner is sentient and willing, it's immediately assumed to be unwilling and/or trained. Total bullshit, IMO, 'cause no animal will do something it doesn't want to, but whatever.

That said, Pokemon are animals, in the sense that there is no real communication between trainer and pokemon other than that of highly intelligent pantomime and training. They ARE obviously intelligent, but one could say the same about dolphins- one's just fantastical.

123easy said:
Bestiality is commonly thought of as raping animals, period, simply because without knowledge that the partner is sentient and willing, it's immediately assumed to be unwilling and/or trained. Total bullshit, IMO, 'cause no animal will do something it doesn't want to, but whatever.

That said, Pokemon are animals, in the sense that there is no real communication between trainer and pokemon other than that of highly intelligent pantomime and training. They ARE obviously intelligent, but one could say the same about dolphins- one's just fantastical.

Not total bullshit. You might as well say that no kid will do something it doesn't want to either. The same argument applies for both kids and animals. (and is closer that one might think: There are several birds to has a verbal vocabulary, so technically CAN communicate displeasure.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_bird#African_Grey_Parrots

Also, there are some pokemon which do have ways of communicating intelligently. The most obvious is any psychic pokemon, though the capability of human speech appears to be a learned capability (aka technically possible if the pokemon is actually taught human speech).
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Talking_Pok%C3%A9mon

AshuraK said:
My mate brought up an extremely valid point to you users that are "spouting that bestiality crap".
I'll simplify my earlier posts:

Original Pokémon + Non-Original Pokémon = Sex

Original Pokémon + Non-Pokémon = Poképhilia

Original Pokémon + Original Pokémon = Sex/Mating/Breeding/Whatever

Non-Original Pokémon + Non-Original Pokémon = Sex

Does this make better sense or sound better?

ffs. I don't even care anymore. I'm going to say "yes" and let's be done with it.