The tag alias #72110 bestiality -> non-feral_on_feral has been rejected.

Reason: bestiality comes with very strong connotations, stronger than is often warranted considering it applies to sapient ferals.
It also typically specifically means sex. This is reflected in the wiki ("Sexual activity"), but is often applied in romance situations, since tags such as anthro_on_feral imply it, and it's reasonable to assume such tags include romance when most of the other pairing tags do.

With this alias, it can be made to specifically include romantic situations, allowing parity between pairing tags. It resolves the connotations, without impacting searching or blacklisting.
This is an alternative to topic #46093, which would explicitly make bestiality not include romance instead by removing those implications.

EDIT: The tag alias bestiality -> non-feral_on_feral (forum #417573) has been rejected by @slyroon.

I'm curious if you can propose a solution, dba afish, since you have disagreed with everything so far. Unless you think having bestiality both include and not include romance depending on who you ask is acceptable?
Actually I'm guessing you're just in favor of explicitly making bestiality include romance, and if so fine, but there'd be a lot of pushback on that too.

I do like the idea of eradicating "bestiality" and replacing it with something less contentious/vulgar [as we have done with intersex and genital tags], but the proposed tag replacement is a little clunky. I can't think of anything that would be a better named tag, though.

Best not make the alias suggestion right now since the discussion for the new tag is still very much in the preliminary stages on topic #46093.
We are even considering maintaining bestiality as it is, if the desire to have a sexually-explicit tag is high.

I know the tag's name sounds clunky as heck, but it is the most direct and clear cut name so far.
If a better tag name gets thought up, then do suggest them.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Best not make the alias suggestion right now since the discussion for the new tag is still very much in the preliminary stages on topic #46093.

I know the tag's name sounds clunky as heck, but it is the most direct and clear name so far.
If a better tag name gets thought up, then that would be used.

I mostly just want something people can vote on; gauging support on a long forum thread is tricky. I'd be in support of a better name, but I don't think there is one, unless someone wants to create a new word. Closest related short form would be zoophilia, but the connotations on that are just as bad, and shot down in the past.
If we just have one thread discussing the ideas without things to vote on, by far the most likely result is nothing gets done.

moonlit-comet said:
I do like the idea of eradicating "bestiality" and replacing it with something less contentious/vulgar [as we have done with intersex and genital tags]

Is the word "bestiality" considered vulgar? I mean, I can understand some people not liking their content being tagged with it, but the same goes for "young" and other objectionable concepts in adult art. It's a descriptive word, like rape. It's not the word itself that's a problem, unlike cock or cunt such that you could replace it with another word that means the exact same thing but is more acceptable, it's the concept itself that some people don't like being tagged on art they made or like. I can almost guarantee for any tag it would be replaced with that indicates the same 'non-feral character doing naughty stuff with a feral character', people will still want "sapient" or "realistic" feral tag alternatives of it to try to disassociate from "real" ferals.

watsit said:
Is the word "bestiality" considered vulgar? I mean, I can understand some people not liking their content being tagged with it, but the same goes for "young" and other objectionable concepts in adult art. It's a descriptive word, like rape. It's not the word itself that's a problem, unlike cock or cunt such that you could replace it with another word that means the exact same thing but is more acceptable, it's the concept itself that some people don't like being tagged on art they made or like. I can almost guarantee for any tag it would be replaced with that indicates the same 'non-feral character doing naughty stuff with a feral character', people will still want "sapient" or "realistic" feral tag alternatives of it to try to disassociate from "real" ferals.

Perhaps some, but I think there would be less of a push if the tag name itself didn't inherently imply non-sapient in other contexts.
Although I suppose feral itself can mean non-sapient in those other contexts too, so, maybe.

watsit said:
Is the word "bestiality" considered vulgar?

I think it's more of a definition issue than one of vulgarity.

If kept to include romantic interactions, then it is just wrong to include that word in SFW posts (and e926.net).
If kept to be purely explicit in nature, then it is fine the way it is (barring issues on implications or disuse already mentioned on the other thread).

watsit said:
Is the word "bestiality" considered vulgar? I mean, I can understand some people not liking their content being tagged with it, but the same goes for "young" and other objectionable concepts in adult art. It's a descriptive word, like rape. It's not the word itself that's a problem, unlike cock or cunt such that you could replace it with another word that means the exact same thing but is more acceptable, it's the concept itself that some people don't like being tagged on art they made or like. I can almost guarantee for any tag it would be replaced with that indicates the same 'non-feral character doing naughty stuff with a feral character', people will still want "sapient" or "realistic" feral tag alternatives of it to try to disassociate from "real" ferals.

Since you bring up "young", notice how we don't tag young pairings as "pedophilia".

"Bestiality" is not the word for the pairing, it's the word for the crime involving it.

lendrimujina said:
Since you bring up "young", notice how we don't tag young pairings as "pedophilia".

"Bestiality" is not the word for the pairing, it's the word for the crime involving it.

honestly, the two reasons we don't have pedophilia as a tag is a) we already have two well-defined terms to use to create adult_on_young b) people would just spam the tag on everything featuring a young character regardless. if we didn't have a word like "adult" for any character who's not young, we'd probably consider having that tag.

while case "b" might kind of happen with feral characters and bestiality the same isn't true for case "a", obviously. if we could find or create a coherent set name that contains human, anthro, humanoid, and taur _{^{(and any other "roughly humanoid"-type character that might somehow not be included there)}} without defining it by its lack of including feral there wouldn't really be much of a problem here.

I'm tired so sorry in advance if I missed something critical from one of these threads...

My ideal solution:

• rename the form_on_form tags to form/form to match gender/gender (or the other way around? but they should match)
• all form/form tags should be for both romantic and sexual, for consistency both among themselves and with gender/gender
• rename bestiality to non-feral/feral for the same reason LendriMujina brought up, and have it include romantic activity too. the subtags should still imply it as an umbrella

Mostly same objections as Watsit.

Hmm, not entirely related but this has some non-furry_with_furry feelings to it.

lendrimujina said:
Since you bring up "young", notice how we don't tag young pairings as "pedophilia".

Yes, and the equivalent here would be zoophilia, which we don't use either (it's aliased to bestiality because that's what people tend to mean with the tag, or is the closest thing that can be tagged by TWYS, but strictly speaking isn't the same thing).

lendrimujina said:
"Bestiality" is not the word for the pairing, it's the word for the crime involving it.

Bestiality is sex or sexual activity in such a pairings. There are laws banning the act, so the laws use the word that describe the act its banning. Just as it does for rape.

wandering_spaniel said:
I'm tired so sorry in advance if I missed something critical from one of these threads...

My ideal solution:

• rename the form_on_form tags to form/form to match gender/gender (or the other way around? but they should match)
• all form/form tags should be for both romantic and sexual, for consistency both among themselves and with gender/gender
• rename bestiality to non-feral/feral for the same reason LendriMujina brought up, and have it include romantic activity too. the subtags should still imply it as an umbrella

Made part 1 in topic #46115. The rest should wait for consensus.

lendrimujina said:
Since you bring up "young", notice how we don't tag young pairings as "pedophilia".

"Bestiality" is not the word for the pairing, it's the word for the crime involving it.

Oh ho ho, look at topic #45088.

Also, I wouldn't refer to bestiality as a "crime" within the context of artworks.

watsit said:
Yes, and the equivalent here would be zoophilia, which we don't use either (it's aliased to bestiality because that's what people tend to mean with the tag, or is the closest thing that can be tagged by TWYS, but strictly speaking isn't the same thing).

But when I suggest bringing it back on topic #45089, it got shot down immediately.

Zoophilia would be the accurate term since it could encompass everything, from acts of bestiality as well as indirect tags like bestiality_marriage and bestiality_kiss.
However, the strong real-world stigma surrounding the term as well as outwardly appearances make it a non-viable choice for a tag.

Thus, the idea of non-feral_on_feral as an alternative. It is not perfect, but what other options do we have?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Thus, the idea of non-feral_on_feral as an alternative. It is not perfect, but what other options do we have?

non-feral/feral, as Wandering Spaniel suggested, seems more reasonable to me. It actually seems like a reasonable tag, while the original didn't for some reason.
It doesn't fit with the form_on_form tags, but it would if they were to be aliased to form/form.

wandering_spaniel said:
I'm tired so sorry in advance if I missed something critical from one of these threads...

My ideal solution:

• rename the form_on_form tags to form/form to match gender/gender (or the other way around? but they should match)
• all form/form tags should be for both romantic and sexual, for consistency both among themselves and with gender/gender
• rename bestiality to non-feral/feral for the same reason LendriMujina brought up, and have it include romantic activity too. the subtags should still imply it as an umbrella

I would agree with this, though I'm more inclined to having full tag names taking precedence over abbreviations (e.g., see age group table ).

scth said:
non-feral/feral, as Wandering Spaniel suggested, seems more reasonable to me. It actually seems like a reasonable tag, while the original didn't for some reason.
It doesn't fit with the form_on_form tags, but it would if they were to be aliased to form/form.

It's literally the same thing, just abbreviated. Plus, they positively voted on topic #46102.
In the end, we would still need to alias one to the other.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I would agree with this, though I'm more inclined to having full tag names taking precedence over abbreviations (e.g., see age group table ).

It's literally the same thing, just abbreviated.

True, but it just doesn't seem as clunky.
That said, I am very much in favor of / instead of on for all of these, because *_on_* to me sounds more like on_top_of. I'd more consider / as an abbreviation for paired with, rather than on.
That is, I don't really think tags like male_on_female are as understandable in a general context, when male/female is quite common everywhere. It's easy to learn, but really doesn't help compared to just a /.

scth said:
True, but it just doesn't seem as clunky.
That said, I am very much in favor of / instead of on for all of these, because *_on_* to me sounds more like on_top_of. I'd more consider / as an abbreviation for paired with, rather than on.
That is, I don't really think tags like male_on_female are as understandable in a general context, when male/female is quite common everywhere. It's easy to learn, but really doesn't help compared to just a /.

inb4 f/f becomes the new feral/feral 💀

Jokes aside, I'm not going to be nitpicky about how the tag is named. Just want to see if others are on board with the non-feral_on_feral naming, I know some aren't.

thegreatwolfgang said:
inb4 f/f becomes the new feral/feral 💀

You jest, but fe/fe is actually a thing. I'd never use that as the alias target, though. (The short form pairing tags are such a mess, but not touching that for now).

This seems like a kind of euphemism treadmill kind of thing. I don't know that you're really going to escape the negative connotations of whatever you decide to call it.

harrybenson said:
This seems like a kind of euphemism treadmill kind of thing. I don't know that you're really going to escape the negative connotations of whatever you decide to call it.

The main point for me is more the concern about bestiality not being applicable for romance or rating:s posts in any reasonable context, which it has to be unless the implications from form_on_feral are removed. Less negative connotations would just be a bonus.

scth said:
The main point for me is more the concern about bestiality not being applicable for romance or rating:s posts in any reasonable context, which it has to be unless the implications from form_on_feral are removed. Less negative connotations would just be a bonus.

bestiality should be applicable to romance, where it's clear there's a non-feral and feral character that are into each other in a non-platonic way.

watsit said:
bestiality should be applicable to romance, where it's clear there's a non-feral and feral character that are into each other in a non-platonic way.

While zoophilia would in theory work for that, bestiality as a term just means sex. I've never heard or seen it being used for attraction outside of this site.

scth said:
While zoophilia would in theory work for that, bestiality as a term just means sex. I've never heard or seen it being used for attraction outside of this site.

Not merely attraction, but activities relating to courtship or foreplay. Aliasing away bestiality in favor of a more general non-sexual non-feral_on_feral would worsen the site for many people. People who blacklist bestiality, for example, are expecting it to block posts like
post #4902652 post #4499547
However, for people that want to blacklist the above, having the tag changed so it also blocks
post #4703106 post #4757992
would not be doing anyone a favor. Similarly, for people who search for bestiality, having posts like the latter two get included in the results wouldn't help. Rating is not a good substitute; notice those are all Safe, but they're not displaying the same kinds of interactions. Even if you want to argue that less platonic human/humanoid/anthro-on-feral interactions should automatically be at least Questionable, there are reasons a human/humanoid/anthro-on-feral post can be Questionable or Explicit that don't relate to sexual activity:
post #4804222 post #4872398
resulting in the search and blacklist functionality being worsened.

I think feral/non-feral would be clearer than non-feral_on_feral. Using "/" instead of "_on_" would be more consistent with other tags such as male/female, and moving the "non-" prefix ensures that it can only be interpreted as (feral)/(non-feral) rather than non-(feral/feral).

scth said:
While zoophilia would in theory work for that, bestiality as a term just means sex. I've never heard or seen it being used for attraction outside of this site.

that'd be great if the connotation of "zoophilia" wasn't, y'know, _significantly_ worse than "bestiality", at least in the furry community and, therefore, would kind of ruin the point of any of this.

also, I will again point to how we define incest as including romatic interactions, when the word is normally defined only in the terms of sex.

This is just a big mess...

I think we should move the discussions to their respective threads since there are multiple discussions about the same issues spread across multiple threads:

• Naming of the eventual replacement tag for existing implications - non-feral_on_feral (see topic #46093),
• Issues with x/y or x_on_y (see topic #46115),
• And whether or not bestiality should be kept (see topic #46102).

thegreatwolfgang said:
I think we should move the discussions to their respective threads since there are multiple discussions about the same issues spread across multiple threads:

• Naming of the eventual replacement tag for existing implications - non-feral_on_feral (see topic #46093),
• [...]
• And whether or not bestiality should be kept (see topic #46102).

These two are a bit related. If bestiality should be kept (which I say it should), that kinda kneecaps the need for non-feral_on_feral. We don't have non-anthro_on_anthro or non-human_on_human, so why should there be a non-feral_on_feral? The argument here is for it to be a replacement for bestiality, to replace bestiality with a non-sexual alternative, but if bestiality stays as-is, there's nothing to replace and it would just be adding non-feral_on_feral for the sake of it. Are general non-x_on_x tags a precedent we want to set?

watsit said:
However, for people that want to blacklist the above, having the tag changed so it also blocks
post #4703106 post #4757992
would not be doing anyone a favor.

Neither of those look romantic to me, personally. They look like hugging or playing with a pet or friend

watsit said:
These two are a bit related. If bestiality should be kept (which I say it should), that kinda kneecaps the need for non-feral_on_feral. We don't have non-anthro_on_anthro or non-human_on_human, so why should there be a non-feral_on_feral? The argument here is for it to be a replacement for bestiality, to replace bestiality with a non-sexual alternative, but if bestiality stays as-is, there's nothing to replace and it would just be adding non-feral_on_feral for the sake of it.

As weird as it may seem, I do think bestiality can be kept alongside non-feral_on_feral simply due to its popularity as a kink.
The same argument could be raised about sex and why there is a need for it when tags like penetration already exist.

The current problem with retaining bestiality as the base tag is that it could simply appear in posts with are SFW in nature (see bestiality rating:s), regardless of whether romance is involved due to its implications with *_on_feral that people will put on anything.
Moving the existing implications to another tag would solve this issue while keeping bestiality intact as an explicit-only tag for non-feral_on_feral.

watsit said:
These two are a bit related. If bestiality should be kept (which I say it should), that kinda kneecaps the need for non-feral_on_feral. We don't have non-anthro_on_anthro or non-human_on_human, so why should there be a non-feral_on_feral? The argument here is for it to be a replacement for bestiality, to replace bestiality with a non-sexual alternative, but if bestiality stays as-is, there's nothing to replace and it would just be adding non-feral_on_feral for the sake of it. Are general non-x_on_x tags a precedent we want to set?

First of all, bestiality could stay as it is currently defined (only for sexual and so shouldn't be used for posts like post #4902652) while updating the implications to use a new tag. It's doable (like the situation with blood and gore).
Secondly, I actually don't think non-x_on_x would be a bad precedent; those would be tags easily added by implication, helpful for both searching and blacklisting. feral is especially important, though.

wandering_spaniel said:
Neither of those look romantic to me, personally. They look like hugging or playing with a pet or friend

Exactly. The alias request is to change the sexually-charged bestiality tag into a more general non-sexual non-feral_on_feral interaction tag. Just as two anthros hugging is anthro_on_anthro, a non-feral and feral hugging like in those examples would be non-feral_on_feral. People who search or blacklist bestiality would have that changed to non-feral_on_feral, which would include those situations.

thegreatwolfgang said:
As weird as it may seem, I do think bestiality can be kept alongside non-feral_on_feral simply due to its popularity as a kink.
The same argument could be raised about sex and why there is a need for it when tags like penetration already exist.

Sex and penetration are different. You can have sex without penetration (handjob, hotdogging, tribadism, etc), and you can have penetration that's not sex (penetrating one's own orifices for masturbation). In contrast, bestiality is always non-feral_on_feral, while non-feral_on_feral additionally includes non-sexual interactions that aren't bestiality. It's just a looser form of an existing tag, which stands out due to the lack of other forms and genders having their own non-x_on_x tags along with it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The current problem with retaining bestiality as the base tag is that it could simply appear in posts with are SFW in nature (see bestiality rating:s), regardless of whether romance is involved due to its implications with *_on_feral that people will put on anything.

I'd say that issue would be better solved by removing the implication if the x_on_feral tags aren't intended to be only sexual or non-platonically romantic, rather than changing bestiality into a non-sexual tag or adding a non-sexual variant of it that no other form or gender pairing tag has.

scth said:
First of all, bestiality could stay as it is currently defined (only for sexual and so shouldn't be used for posts like post #4902652)

Passionate on-the-lips kissing I'd call somewhat sexual/romantic. It's not overtly sexual, e.g. with groping or visible tongues, but it's clear there's more than friendly or pet-like affection between them. Honestly, even the examples in the other thread give me pause:
post #4575769 both characters blushing with eye contact while the anthro is kissing a feral with hearts by their head
post #1220205 hearts, wine, and flowers in a dinner date setting
These are displays of courtship, more-than-friends interactions, not platonic displays of affection. The first one I suppose could depend on how you interpret the blushing, there can be times it isn't meant as a sexual or passionate response, though it often is.

Yes, we've established that you think bestiality can include romance, Watsit. The rest of us largely don't, which would make it applicable on none of the posts that have been shown so far, while a more general tag would be.

scth said:
Yes, we've established that you think bestiality can include romance, Watsit. The rest of us largely don't

I mean, we don't really know that. we know that both him and I hold that opinion and we know that you and a few other users disagree, but we really don't know numbers.

by the polls we know that most of the users disagree with changing the tagname, and removing the implications, but we can't really draw much of a conclusion from that. since we can't hold polls for arbitrary things like changing a tag's definition it's a bit difficult to gauge opinions without just people saying +1 or -1.

thegreatwolfgang said:
This is just a big mess...

I think we should move the discussions to their respective threads since there are multiple discussions about the same issues spread across multiple threads:

• Naming of the eventual replacement tag for existing implications - non-feral_on_feral (see topic #46093),
• Issues with x/y or x_on_y (see topic #46115),
• And whether or not bestiality should be kept (see topic #46102).

At this point I'm thinking of making a form (which I now have, topic #46120):
Should bestiality include romance? (if yes, none of the rest matters)
Should there be a tag that includes bestiality and romance if not?
If so, what should the name of that tag be?
And should bestiality exist as a separate tag afterwards?

x_on_y or x/y should just be left separate, and in the case of not-feral they'd count as the same thing, left for topic #46115 to resolve.

scth said:
Yes, we've established that you think bestiality can include romance, Watsit. The rest of us largely don't, which would make it applicable on none of the posts that have been shown so far, while a more general tag would be.

The way I see it, if you or I or someone told our non-furry friends that one of us took a feral dog on a date, without any sense of humor or irony or anything, just a pure, straight-up romantic date with wine and flowers and a smitten, lovey-dovey attitude, or that one of us passionately kissed a dog on the lips that we're visibly enamored with, would they not start thinking that there's some form of bestiality going on? I think they would, regardless of whether "bestiality" is technically only sexual intercourse, which is what would make the tag applicable in my view.

dba_afish said:
I mean, we don't really know that. we know that both him and I hold that opinion and we know that you and a few other users disagree, but we really don't know numbers.

by the polls we know that most of the users disagree with changing the tagname, and removing the implications, but we can't really draw much of a conclusion from that. since we can't hold polls for arbitrary things like changing a tag's definition it's a bit difficult to gauge opinions without just people saying +1 or -1.

And that's why I created the form. Hopefully that will give us a way to get some actual numbers on this.

scth said:
And that's why I created the form. Hopefully that will give us a way to get some actual numbers on this.

I don't think that will help. Most users don't use the forums, and fewer directly interact. As it is, the simple 'thumbs up, meh, thumbs down' system for BURs, where most people only need to click a button, tend to have a low turnout, and asking people to make an actual response will inherently have a lower turnout. The questions are also somewhat ambiguous: the concept of platonic romance does exist, or romance between friends, which is why I try to be careful to say 'non-platonic', 'passionate', or 'more-than-friends', to clarify the kind of romance I'm talking about. The word "romance" alone doesn't really encapsulate what I mean, so the results can be skewed by people thinking of more innocent types of romance. It's also important to indicate it's about activity, displays of such affection, not general ambiance.

watsit said:
I'd say that issue would be better solved by removing the implication if the x_on_feral tags aren't intended to be only sexual or non-platonically romantic, rather than changing bestiality into a non-sexual tag or adding a non-sexual variant of it that no other form or gender pairing tag has.

Removing implications from bestiality could solve that issue, however it would also leave it "free-floating" in that nothing is tying everything together.
Since bestiality is also a widely used tag for blacklisting, I do believe people would still want to have a tag that encompasses all forms of non-feral on feral interactions, be it romantic or sexual in nature.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Removing implications from bestiality could solve that issue, however it would also leave it "free-floating" in that nothing is tying everything together.

It could still be implied by x_penetrating_feral and feral_penetrating_x, for non-feral xs. Yes, it would end up missing on many posts that don't have those tags but do have x_on_feral, from people expecting x_on_feral to imply it, but that's going to be the case regardless, as long as x_on_feral isn't just for non-innocent interactions. That's kind of why I don't like the idea of removing the implication rather than making x_on_y tags be for less innocent interactions so that bestiality would apply for the x_on_feral tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Since bestiality is also a widely used tag for blacklisting, I do believe people would still want to have a tag that encompasses all forms of non-feral on feral interactions, be it romantic or sexual in nature.

Which is why I'm surprised there's push-back against the idea of bestiality including other non-innocent interactions beyond sex only. Or why people think feral_on_non-feral would be a good alternative since it includes more than romantic or sexual interactions. As I pointed out above, the other x_on_y (and x/y) tags can be and are used for innocent, non-sexual interactions quite often:
post #4096125 post #4692611 post #5005590 post #5005236
A feral_on_non-feral tag that includes interactions like those would not be suitable for people that want to blacklist (or search for) forms of non-feral on feral interactions that are of a (non-platonically) romantic or sexual nature, as it catches too much. There's nothing really different between those examples and the ones I gave before:
post #4703106 post #4757992
hence my issue. People saying bestiality should either be done away with or restricted to explicit sex acts only, while also saying feral_on_non-feral would be a fine substitute, are inadvertently leaving out people that would prefer not to see things like
post #4999285 post #4902652
but also don't want to block things like
post #4997147 post #4991940

watsit said:
I'd say that issue would be better solved by removing the implication if the x_on_feral tags aren't intended to be only sexual or non-platonically romantic, rather than changing bestiality into a non-sexual tag or adding a non-sexual variant of it that no other form or gender pairing tag has.

I'm fairly confident that the only reason that the wiki definitions of the *_on_feral tags were left to only specify sexual interaction when others were changed to also include romantic interactions is because their relation to bestiality. I can't say for sure and unfortunately D.D.M. was the user who made the addition of that language to most of the <form>_on_<form> tags (and forwent it for the feral ones), so we can't really ask.

watsit said:
I don't think that will help. Most users don't use the forums, and fewer directly interact. As it is, the simple 'thumbs up, meh, thumbs down' system for BURs, where most people only need to click a button, tend to have a low turnout, and asking people to make an actual response will inherently have a lower turnout. The questions are also somewhat ambiguous: the concept of platonic romance does exist, or romance between friends, which is why I try to be careful to say 'non-platonic', 'passionate', or 'more-than-friends', to clarify the kind of romance I'm talking about. The word "romance" alone doesn't really encapsulate what I mean, so the results can be skewed by people thinking of more innocent types of romance. It's also important to indicate it's about activity, displays of such affection, not general ambiance.

I don't think any solution is going to get a positive ratio on a direct vote, but a solution is needed.
Also, platonic romance isn't supposed to be tagged as a pairing anyway, but what exactly counts almost entirely depends on the person. It's also just about impossible to enforce (look at what's tagged male/female, vs what the wiki says), and people in general go with the standard use rather than the wiki. Any attempt to keep a non-platonic romance pairing tag would never hold up to actual tagging.

watsit said:
As I pointed out above, the other x_on_y (and x/y) tags can be and are used for innocent, non-sexual interactions quite often

Then this problem is worse than I thought.

I laid out the list of four possible cases (in the other topic) partly to help people say 'well, in case 1 people can do this; in case 2 do this, in case 3 do that, in case 4 do that'.
But it seems to me that there is not going to be a coherent answer to all of them, that does not entail also making the same innocent/non-innocent distinction for every x_on_y and x/y case (in addition to making it for feral/non-feral interactions).

scth said:
Also, platonic romance isn't supposed to be tagged as a pairing anyway, but what exactly counts almost entirely depends on the person. It's also just about impossible to enforce (look at what's tagged male/female, vs what the wiki says), and people in general go with the standard use rather than the wiki. Any attempt to keep a non-platonic romance pairing tag would never hold up to actual tagging.

A tag in the form of x_on_y or x/y, yeah. But if the tag were called something like bestiality... I don't think that would get terribly misused for feral on non-feral pairings that aren't a least a little sexual or non-platonic (excepting for the other issue of it being implied by x_on_feral tags, that people want to use for innocent interactions).

watsit said:
A tag in the form of x_on_y or x/y, yeah. But if the tag were called something like bestiality... I don't think that would get terribly misused for feral on non-feral pairings that aren't a least a little sexual or non-platonic (excepting for the other issue of it being implied by x_on_feral tags, that people want to use for innocent interactions).

So you'd suggest we remove the implications from form_on_feral to bestiality, but keep allowing it with non-platonic romance?
It still would be weird to me on rating:s, though that is an option. I think there'd still need to be a tag that gets the implications in its stead, though. And I think people would find this a fair bit more confusing.

scth said:
So you'd suggest we remove the implications from form_on_feral to bestiality, but keep allowing it with non-platonic romance?

If the x_on_feral tags can't be restricted to non-platonic and sexual activity, and would eventually include the aforementioned examples like post #4703106, that may be the only workable option. I don't imagine many people would be upset that blacklisting or searching bestiality would catch posts like post #4902652, as long as people are aware that human_on_feral won't imply it and it would need to be tagged manually more often.

watsit said:
If the x_on_feral tags can't be restricted to non-platonic and sexual activity, and would eventually include the aforementioned examples like post #4703106, that may be the only workable option. I don't imagine many people would be upset that blacklisting or searching bestiality would catch posts like post #4902652, as long as people are aware that human_on_feral won't imply it and it would need to be tagged manually more often.

That would be the best option yeah.

We could keep bestiality as an implication to non-feral_on_feral, which would require it to be tagged separately alongside form_on_feral.
OR, we could alias bestiality to non-feral_on_feral (due to reasons of redundancy as you have mentioned) and tell people to blacklist non-feral_on_feral -rating:s instead (just like the current young -rating:s).

thegreatwolfgang said:
OR, we could alias bestiality to non-feral_on_feral (due to reasons of redundancy as you have mentioned) and tell people to blacklist non-feral_on_feral -rating:s instead (just like the current young -rating:s).

Rating isn't a good way to filter for sexual activity. Posts rated Safe can still contain subject matter people may want to search for or blacklist with the current bestiality tag, and a post can be Questionable or Explicit for non-sexual reasons.

Safe human on feral, with a clear display of non-platonic affection:
post #4902652

Questionable human on feral, not a sexual or romantic interaction:
post #4872398

Explicit anthro on feral, from gore and nudity (the interaction not being sexual or romantic):
post #4804222

watsit said:
Rating isn't a good way to filter for sexual activity. Posts rated Safe can still contain subject matter people may want to search for or blacklist with the current bestiality tag, and a post can be Questionable or Explicit for non-sexual reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for keeping bestiality for ease of search/blacklist of sexual activity.

However, wouldn't the same logic apply for young -rating:s? I guess that is the reason behind the whole nonsexualized_young tag from topic #42191.

thegreatwolfgang said:
However, wouldn't the same logic apply for young -rating:s?

I think the logic for that is to filter out any questionable scene involving a young character, rather than young sexual activity. A solo nude cub with genitals on display could be a problem regardless of anything sexual occurring, similarly for violence or gore involving a young character. A closer analogy would be blacklisting feral -rating:s, for people that think any depiction of non-anthro animals should be kept pure and SFW.

Considering that sheaths and cartoon x buttholes are explicit, blacklisting feral -s isn't as useful as young -s. I like the idea of keeping bestiality as an umbrella tag for sexual interactions between ferals and non-ferals for this reason.

regsmutt said:
Considering that sheaths and cartoon x buttholes are explicit, blacklisting feral -s isn't as useful as young -s. I like the idea of keeping bestiality as an umbrella tag for sexual interactions between ferals and non-ferals for this reason.

I mean, there is just sex.

watsit said:
As I pointed out above, the other x_on_y (and x/y) tags can be and are used for innocent, non-sexual interactions quite often:
post #4096125 post #4692611 post #5005590 post #5005236

...Aren't these mistags? I was always under the impression that all x_on_y or x/y tags were for romantic or sexual activity only, not just for any kind of interaction. I would not tag any of these with x_on_y except maybe the handholding.

wandering_spaniel said:
...Aren't these mistags? I was always under the impression that all x_on_y or x/y tags were for romantic or sexual activity only, not just for any kind of interaction. I would not tag any of these with x_on_y except maybe the handholding.

Probably, but the issue is that the gender/gender tags are on the uploader quick buttons. People tag them for just about any interaction without reading the wikis.

The tag alias bestiality -> non-feral_on_feral (forum #417573) has been rejected by @slyroon.