Gyro 
This would mean any IRL ferals, with natural color schemes who do not, in the image explicitly display sapience through expression or speech would be removed from the site. Because fidelity to realism isnt a requirement, this means that Disney eyes and other cartoony characteristics would not be proof, because those are by definition style choices.
———————————–END BASIC DESCRIPTION––––––––––––––––––––
I would like to submit that this itself is not really an enforceable distinction. How do you tell that a feral lion is sapient in most images?
If you guessed all but the last one, you’re right! It is based off of a regular feral lion by a non furry artist. The cartoony eyes are a style choice, the rest is just a neutral expresson. The other 3 are fursonas that have sapience.
Now…what happens if we discover that jackaolope actually are real and nonsapeint?
Would we take the absurd route of NSFW art with >>24715 suddenly being banned, despite the day before being allowed all hunky dory?
Or would we take the incosistent route of saying, “Well, they werent real animals before, and therefor our criteria isnt really ‘real life animals’ but just what we thought were real when we made that delcaration.”
There’s no middle ground on that above.
Therefore, I think that this is entirely unenforceable, a can of worms, and somethign that should be rolled back.
Piaow Birb!
The site administration has seen fit to ban human on feral porn with irl creatures where the image does not explicitly make the viewer aware that the feral in question is indeed sapient.
Rules
Do not upload life-like imagery depicting a human and a non-sapient animal/animal-like character (which would warrant the lifelike feral tag) that appear to be engaging in sexually explicit scenarios between each other.
The lifelike feral tag describes itself as:
Real life animals depicted realistically in art without giving them sapience.
The administration further goes on to clarify in the discord that:
lifelike feral tag is added to irl animals being portraited, fidelity to realism is not a requirement so much as theme
This would mean any IRL ferals, with natural color schemes who do not, in the image explicitly display sapience through expression or speech would be removed from the site. Because fidelity to realism isnt a requirement, this means that Disney eyes and other cartoony characteristics would not be proof, because those are by definition style choices.
———————————–END BASIC DESCRIPTION––––––––––––––––––––
I would like to submit that this itself is not really an enforceable distinction. How do you tell that a feral lion is sapient in most images?
Which of the following is safe to fuck?
If you guessed all but the last one, you’re right! It is based off of a regular feral lion by a non furry artist. The cartoony eyes are a style choice, the rest is just a neutral expresson. The other 3 are fursonas that have sapience.
Additionally, mythological creatures get a pass. So the following would not be safe to fuck.
Now…what happens if we discover that jackaolope actually are real and nonsapeint?
Would we take the absurd route of NSFW art with >>24715 suddenly being banned, despite the day before being allowed all hunky dory?
Or would we take the incosistent route of saying, “Well, they werent real animals before, and therefor our criteria isnt really ‘real life animals’ but just what we thought were real when we made that delcaration.”
There’s no middle ground on that above.
Therefore, I think that this is entirely unenforceable, a can of worms, and somethign that should be rolled back.
