Posts
Search Results
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 14
Zuthal 
Since in basically all jurisdictions “innocent unless proven guilty” is a core maxim of the legal system, the inherent ambiguity in feral art should be an advantage - as long as the artist claims that the animal in question is sapient, or makes no claim either way, it is basically impossible to prove that a situation that would be called bestiality is present.
And aside from any legal discussions, I do not think art should be policed in general. It is fictional, with no involvement of, and thus no harm to, real-life animals (or humans, in case of e.g. snuff art or noncon content that depicts things that would be illegal to do to IRL humans). Of course stupid laws exist, but those laws should be changed - and what should definitely not be done is assuming the law represents any form of morality.
And aside from any legal discussions, I do not think art should be policed in general. It is fictional, with no involvement of, and thus no harm to, real-life animals (or humans, in case of e.g. snuff art or noncon content that depicts things that would be illegal to do to IRL humans). Of course stupid laws exist, but those laws should be changed - and what should definitely not be done is assuming the law represents any form of morality.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 13
Luna 
Administrator
Devops
Copied from Discord:
Non sapient realistic depiction of animal fucking with human is not ok by the rule. Sapience can be easily judged and the rule likely applies only to animals being fucked that appear to either be struggling or show complete indifference and just stand there on all fours
So, this is ok:
Realistic looking animal in cowgirl position fucking with a human dude, since that position requires deliberate effort and willingness
However this is not ok:
Realistic Animal standing on all fours and just taking it without showing any intelligence or having any facial expression other than complete indifference
Non sapient realistic depiction of animal fucking with human is not ok by the rule. Sapience can be easily judged and the rule likely applies only to animals being fucked that appear to either be struggling or show complete indifference and just stand there on all fours
So, this is ok:
Realistic looking animal in cowgirl position fucking with a human dude, since that position requires deliberate effort and willingness
However this is not ok:
Realistic Animal standing on all fours and just taking it without showing any intelligence or having any facial expression other than complete indifference
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 12
Gyro 
Piaow Birb!
@Teaspoon
I mean, we’re violating a shit ton of copyright with this site itself. If someone wanted to go after this site. Or the host could get hit with a meteor. Or a supervolcano could erupt and destroy all the data.
The expected risk of such a thing is so infintesimal as to not be considered. Otherwise we can scare monger with all sorts of hyper implausible scenarios.
I mean, we’re violating a shit ton of copyright with this site itself. If someone wanted to go after this site. Or the host could get hit with a meteor. Or a supervolcano could erupt and destroy all the data.
The expected risk of such a thing is so infintesimal as to not be considered. Otherwise we can scare monger with all sorts of hyper implausible scenarios.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 11
Gyro
Piaow Birb!
A healthy compromise might be to remove the ‘real life animal’ on any explicit image that might be tagged such. Always rule that animals in explicit situations have enough sapience to be aware.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 10
Teaspoon 
Moderator
still using a ps/2 kb
@Gyro
@CruFox
I have seen this song and dance play out before and I know for myself I’m not willing to waste any more of my life over it, and I don’t believe the admins are too eager to do so either. You can either care about the legal safety of the people that operate the site by allowing them to play it safe and avoid overzealous prosecutors, or you can prioritize a hyper-obscure fetish and admit you don’t care if real people are sent to prison and the site shut down over it.
@CruFox
I have seen this song and dance play out before and I know for myself I’m not willing to waste any more of my life over it, and I don’t believe the admins are too eager to do so either. You can either care about the legal safety of the people that operate the site by allowing them to play it safe and avoid overzealous prosecutors, or you can prioritize a hyper-obscure fetish and admit you don’t care if real people are sent to prison and the site shut down over it.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 9
CruFox
That’s not a valid argument unless you quote the exact law regarding this issue. I am pretty sure that no country on Earth has a law that mentions sapience of animals in their laws, so going by that logic even sapient animals might be banned, MLP characters included. I bet the law is only meant for irl stuff - this is the reason why there are specific laws that ban explicit art with underage human characters, because “normal” laws used to not cover those situations.
Moderator
I like tags
Bestiality is illegal where the site is hosted, and like in the case of lolicon etc., the legal wording surrounding it is not 100% clear enough on whether it applies to only IRL animals or may also apply to “things that look real enough”.
That’s not a valid argument unless you quote the exact law regarding this issue. I am pretty sure that no country on Earth has a law that mentions sapience of animals in their laws, so going by that logic even sapient animals might be banned, MLP characters included. I bet the law is only meant for irl stuff - this is the reason why there are specific laws that ban explicit art with underage human characters, because “normal” laws used to not cover those situations.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 8
Gyro
Piaow Birb!
@Teaspoon
My point was that such a question cannot be answered in a manner that is neither absurd nor contradictory. And as such this is not a good distinction. The distinction, if we were to make it, is to say that irl/not doesnt matter. All that matters is sapience. And at that rate, well…again, you cant tell lack of sapience from an image, especially in realm of furry art.
My point was that such a question cannot be answered in a manner that is neither absurd nor contradictory. And as such this is not a good distinction. The distinction, if we were to make it, is to say that irl/not doesnt matter. All that matters is sapience. And at that rate, well…again, you cant tell lack of sapience from an image, especially in realm of furry art.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 7
Anonymous #EA4B
I’m not one to judge, but trying to fuck a lion does not seem like a safe idea overall.
Which of the following is safe to fuck?
I’m not one to judge, but trying to fuck a lion does not seem like a safe idea overall.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 5
Teaspoon
Moderator
still using a ps/2 kb
@Gyro
Bestiality is illegal where the site is hosted, and like in the case of lolicon etc., the legal wording surrounding it is not 100% clear enough on whether it applies to only IRL animals or may also apply to “things that look real enough”.
I was not part of any discussion about the change, but as far as I’m aware most of the staff weren’t even aware art of this nature (human x realistic looking animal) was remotely popular or had a reason to check up on its legality.
In the event jackelopes turn out to be real I’m sure there’ll be some discussion on what to do with the dearth of images depicting relations of a human with a feral non-sapient looking jackalope.
Disclaimer: I am not an admin, I just upload and prod tags.Bestiality is illegal where the site is hosted, and like in the case of lolicon etc., the legal wording surrounding it is not 100% clear enough on whether it applies to only IRL animals or may also apply to “things that look real enough”.
I was not part of any discussion about the change, but as far as I’m aware most of the staff weren’t even aware art of this nature (human x realistic looking animal) was remotely popular or had a reason to check up on its legality.
In the event jackelopes turn out to be real I’m sure there’ll be some discussion on what to do with the dearth of images depicting relations of a human with a feral non-sapient looking jackalope.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 4
CruFox
Moderator
I like tags
@Teaspoon
@Gyro
I think the Twitter drama started on Aug 29 from the person shown in this tweet: https://twitter.com/DirtCoyote/status/1299794022790168576
And the Furbooru rule change was first introduced on Aug 26, it can be checked here: https://furbooru.org/pages/rules/history
@Gyro
I think the Twitter drama started on Aug 29 from the person shown in this tweet: https://twitter.com/DirtCoyote/status/1299794022790168576
And the Furbooru rule change was first introduced on Aug 26, it can be checked here: https://furbooru.org/pages/rules/history
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 3
dream
TAKING A BREAK
Personally I don’t have an issue with the rule and its intended purpose, but I think it is a bit unclear like you’re saying.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Post 1
Teaspoon
Moderator
still using a ps/2 kb
In light of the most recent twitter outrage
Making uninformed accusations is not a great way to start a thread.
Site and Policy » Concerning Rule Changes on Banning Human on Feral Porn. » Topic Opener
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.
But this one is, because horns see?
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.
Showing results 26 - 41 of 41 total
Default search
If you do not specify a field to search over, the search engine will search for posts with a body that is similar to the query's word stems. For example, posts containing the words winged humanization, wings, and spread wings would all be found by a search for wing, but sewing would not be.
Allowed fields
| Field Selector | Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
author | Literal | Matches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this term. | author:Joey |
body | Full Text | Matches the body of this post. This is the default field. | body:test |
created_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation time of this post. | created_at:2015 |
id | Numeric Range | Matches the numeric surrogate key for this post. | id:1000000 |
my | Meta | my:posts matches posts you have posted if you are signed in. | my:posts |
subject | Full Text | Matches the title of the topic. | subject:time wasting thread |
topic_id | Literal | Matches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to. | topic_id:7000 |
topic_position | Numeric Range | Matches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0. | topic_position:0 |
updated_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation or last edit time of this post. | updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago |
user_id | Literal | Matches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term. | user_id:211190 |
forum | Literal | Matches the short name for the forum this post belongs to. | forum:meta |