Posts

@Anonymous #3B40  
???

@Anonymous #9577  
False equivalence argument.

The fact that something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Something completely fictional and not promoting a hateful ideology should never be illegal.
 
However, I can see why, for that reason, the site feels they can’t host it.

Guys, chill.
 
Zoo/beast is illegal in vast vast vast majority of countries.
 
You’re splitting hairs over a non-issue.

Hello, I understand why this rule is being put in place but I want to clarify what exactly does qualify under ‘sexual act between a human and a lifelike “feral” animal’. For the purpose of it I will post few links from FurAffinity as examples, and if even linking some of them may cause problems feel free to edit them out of this post.
 
First of all, I believe any fantasy animal, be thier unicorn, a dragon, a gryphon or MLP pony or zebra or any other character from such aren’t restricted and can be freely be posted in artwork that depicts them engaging in sex with humanoids (also I assume the rule includes any near human humanoids like elves or orcs), even if they’re not talking to show their sapience or are shown in scenarios of dubious consent.  
Also I believe pictures of real life “feral” animals that do not contain humanoids engaging in sexual acts with said animal are free to post, including pin ups showing their genitalia, the character masturbating or engaging in sexual act with some other animal character.  
Now, the most easiest case for when an otherwise animal looking character may not fall under this rule - when they show clear intelligence by talking in the picture. Like this https://www.furaffinity.net/view/31810357/ or this https://www.furaffinity.net/view/28816738/ Both show that is pretty much a horse in some manner of sexual contact with a humanoid, but they, in addition to human like emoting, talk, either complete sentences or exclamations like “Yes!” or “Oh god!”.  
Then there’s examples where animal character emotes but doesn’t talk, but they use non animal exclamations like “ah”, for example https://www.furaffinity.net/view/28075587/  
Also, just the pictures without verbal text at all, but with the characters showing human like emotions, eyes or blushing https://www.furaffinity.net/view/36338319/ https://www.furaffinity.net/view/26810856/ And then there’s also images that have animal character “behaving in non animal way”, as was said in discord in reference to the animation of a (non feathered) raptor performing a blowjob, so perhaps the previous picture of a horse in reverse cowgirl on a bed or this picture of an animal character grinning and propping up humanoid character so he can engage in sexual activity with other animal character https://www.furaffinity.net/view/37619736/  
There’s also this image https://www.furaffinity.net/view/36240098/ where the animal character is in non animal or realistic situation, but is not showing clear consent, so it only leaves such characteristics as human like eyes and emoting.  
In the same vein there’s this picture with a character that passes a few of previous milestones and in general depicted as sapient but not talking, coming up to the human character and performing blowjob, which is not something animals regularly do, while looking up to PoV with human like eyes.  
Also, what about sequences of images? For example here the previous character exclaiming and emoting in human like way https://www.furaffinity.net/view/37928290/ and here’s the next image where we only see a close up of her genitalias and humanoid penis penetrating it. If, let’s say, individual pictures of former scenario were okay to post and the later wasn’t, would the fact that these pictures are in sequence matter, thus allowing the latter too? And it actually very important question, since a close up like that could be in a sequences of images that has animal “feral” character who talks and behaves in non animal like manner or even with a fantasy creature, for example a picture of a humanoid engaging in sex with a unicorn and the next picture that is close up of their genitalia touching, which can look like a picture of a regular horse, for example. This also may present a situation where a comic page as the whole may be okay to post, but a single cropped panel isn’t.
 
Sorry for slightly disjointed post, hope it will help to clear at least some vagueness.

@Gyro
 
I think the tagging example is definitely what throws it. Any speficic definition of what qualifies is most definitely going to cause weasel issues. a “know it when you see it” test might be applicable here, since like was pointed out, a jackalope isn’t a “lifelike feral” nor is say an eeveelution.
 
Something to the effect of “Do not upload art that’s meant to realistically emulate bestiality” with either no additional qualifications, or a detailed list might be the better way to go such as  

@Fleetfoot  

 
 
Lifelike feral still has sapience as a requirement. Which means its still about character sapience. You may want to revise further.

Hello there everyone!
 
There’s been some heated discussions here, and before anything it is important to calm down and think objectively on the intent of the recent rule #5 additions. Primary reasoning was to consolidate the previous section of the rule that already forbids the real life photos/videos of the subject.
 
Some recent events helped us take notice regarding zoophilia and consider the laws of the country our servers are located in, it was made necessary to ensure that the imagery doing realistic portraiting of bestiality wasn’t hosted on the site.
 
We do greatly appreciate the feedback and attention everyone has given us here and thanks to it we were able to clarify the text, improving on it and making it easier to understand to all users by specifying what it really means. The revised rule text now reads as follows:
 
Do not upload art that’s meant to realistically emulate bestiality (humans x lifelike feral animals in sexual situations).
 
So this is not about the sapience of a feral character, it is about this specific theme. The problem only arises if the art specifically depicts itself as realistic real life bestiality. Anything else is fair game.
 
This thread will remain open for further discussion and feedback, however the rule is already in effect. If you have any doubts whether something breaks the new rule - please report the image through the proper means (the report button). You may also wish to give the Lifelike Feral - General Thread thread a read if you’re in doubt whether or not an image should be tagged as such.
 
I appreciate everyone’s comprehension and engagement!

@Zuthal  
I don’t really care about what causes people to do what, I’m running a site and I need to make decisions on what kind of content I want to distribute.  
And yes read what Teaspoon replied to you with.

@Zuthal  
Art can be non-fictional. Filming, photography, literature concerning real happenings, etc.. I know you meant drawings, but I had to point it out. (But even then there’s the technique of drawing over photographies.)
 
@Anonymous #EA4B  
This pretty much. I don’t know why the rule change is there, but I guess it has to do with laws, and if someone gets pissed, they’ll look at the pictures, and not whatever stories people invented.
 
I personally would have guessed either none of the lions or all except the last one.  
And the jackalope would be not okay to me in my opinion, just like putting cat ears and a tail on an underage human character.
 
Other than that about real but extinct animals, such as dinosaurs?
 
At another note, if I got that rule correctly, I assume that means two animals doing it like animals - or anthropomorphic with animal - would still be okay?

@Zuthal  
Unfortunately not an argument the arresting officers are going to care to hear while they confiscate all electronic devices the admins possess.

@Teaspoon  
Are you saying that a large enough civil suit wouldnt destroy someone’s life and take teh site down?

@Luna  
I see people claiming that all the time, but they always fail to provide any evidence that depictions of such things actually have a causal relationship to making people commit real-life zoophilia.

@Luna  
I mean I think banning lolli is itself harmful as many a psychological study has seemed to indicate, but that’s not the topic at hand.

@Zuthal  
I’m aware, I was just providing it for the sake of an example, I didn’t mean for you to look at it more closely than what I presented, since it was my way of showing you that this content promotes and glorifies behavior that is legitimately illegal where we are hosted, and we would like to avoid any legal trouble. Additionally this site is no place for any content glorifying zoophilia or pedophilia, and if you’re into that please find a different imageboard that is okay with such content, because we’re not.

@Zuthal  
Copyright issues are almost always handled with civil suits, if they even go that far which is rare. This is a criminal matter.

@Luna
 
If you did it knowing it would upset me, and posted it on this site with intent to upset me, I believe that would fall afoul of Rule #0, regardless of the specific content of the art.
 
If you want to make an argument, actually make a comparison that is similar to the topic which is being discussed.

@Zuthal  

 
This is a common argument against banning loli, to which I say okay let me draw YOU in a way you won’t appreciate and say “but it’s just a drawing, no harm done eks de”

@Zuthal  
Here is a Wikipedia article that is illustrated with a lot of human x animal explicit art:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia  
If it was illegal then it would not be there.
 
@Anonymous #EA4B  
That’s something else entirely, because in the case of deciding whether a character is sapient or non-sapient you just have to add a speech bubble to indicate that it can talk and then it would appear sapient.  
 
You can’t do that with apparent age.

@Anonymous #EA4B  
Except in this case, many have other established images of the same characters displaying sapience.

@Anonymous #EA4B  
Leaving aside that art should just not be policed period, with that there is at least in a lot of cases (the ones where the body is that of an actual child, rather than an adolescent) an easy way to tell the “truth”. With sapient vs nonsapient ferals, there are a lot of cases where you cannot tell - is a picture of a horse railing a human a sapient horse, or a nonsapient one just following its instincts?
 
@Teaspoon  
Even if all feral art was banned, some malicious actor could, as Gyro said, nail this site on copyright grounds alone.

@CruFox  
Derpi is hosted in a different country where the law only cares about the animal itself. Where Furb is hosted, the law also concerns storage and transmission of images where “lewd acts” are practiced with an animal or apparent animal. An overzealous prosecutor, or one simply acting on report spam, can have the site shuttered pending investigation based on an intentional bad reading of the law; “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t exclude one’s life being destroyed.
 
Thankfully even the most obtuse interpretation would exclude 99% of drawn images where a human and a feral are drawn together as most intend to show them as persons rather than beasts. The 1% requires a rule in place to avoid the inevitable complaints of “why was this image removed” down the line.

@Zuthal  

 
“She’s actually an immortal goddess as old as the universe itself, she merely looks six” - common excuse to why it’s definitely not lolicon

@Luna  
Honestly struggling or complete indifference is a threshold I could probably agree to. I cant imagine the amount of human on sapient feral noncon that also includes no other indication of sapience is terribly high.
 
That said, I’m not an expert on the field, this isn’t really my thing xP
 
I just mostly hate this idea of legislating sapience of someone’s character.

@Zuthal  
I agree.