Just to clarify, since it says “furry” in the post title: Realistic anthropomorphic content is still fine, right?
Also, would it be possible to have a tag specifically for zoophile/feral/beastiality/whatever content? People might want to blacklist it without getting rid of the more human-like stuff.
Oh, sorry, I just assumed because of your user name. When it comes to furry art, “anthro” usually means characters who have, more or less, a human-like physique. What most people will picture when they read “furry”: Werewolves, Disney’s Robin Hood, Egyptian gods, suits/mascots. That sort of thing. I’m sure that’s still fine, even when done in a realistic style, right?
I think bestiality (human/human-like on normal-looking animal) is the correct term for what you want to regulate since that’s what could get you into legal/web host trouble.
That leaves a potential grey area of anything involving fictional species but I guess that at least law enforcement won’t really care about, I don’t know, (four-legged) pokémon and dragons. Also means you don’t have to get dragged into discussions about some character’s sapience, which is basically the same as the “but she’s not actually 10 but a million-year old goddess!” argument when it comes to content moderation.
Yeah I don’t think there’s any issue with photorealistic animations of something like a human with fur and dog ears. We’re talking specifically about bestiality-style content: photorealistic animations of an actual dog
I do think it might be worth separating the tags, now that it’s mentioned: a lot of people don’t have an issue with furry content, but are made uncomfortable by bestiality content.
As for fictional species, I think it’s a grey area that kind of changes based on how fictional they are. A dragon would probably be fine, but an Eevee or Tauros would probably not be, since they look so similar to real species. Mod discretion will ultimately decide things, and it’s probably going to be pretty rare that we have such edge-cases in practice.
I’m not even sure how I interpret the word photorealistic in these cases. Maybe not that the quality of the video is extremely high, but that the art/modeling is attempting to be closely represent real life?
For example, I vaguely recall a teen titans beast boy video, and I think they were just straight up using a 3d horse model painted green in part of the video. It may not be high quality, but is trying to get close to the real life representation of that animal.
If anyone has a better way of wording it, let me know
Right so @Midevil just posted a script for https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/717270 which I believe is the exact video I was talking about in my previous reply lol.
does this constitute too realistic and should be removed? @moderators
oh was just about to message you about it. I’ll follow what you guys decide. I figured since there are some other Beastiality stuff on here from back in the day it would be ok. please let me know too cause if bestiality is a no I think its better to just remove the tag altogether
At least from what @xipeho is saying, the existence of a bestiality tag is not necessarily disallowed as you could have very fictional/non-realistic content.
open to others’ contribution on defining something more clearly
maybe: Nothing that is realistic or close to realistic. ‘Realistic’ does not only mean visual fidelity, but can also include accuracy of modeling or scenario.
Leaning more towards anthropomorphic fantasy than zoomorphic reality?
I think the difference comes in being able to remove from reality.
Like if I used the horse as example.
Even if the horse talked like a human and nothing else changed most probably still wouldn’t want to see it. If you have a man with a horse’s head and hooves, stands on two legs, and mixes neighs in with his words… a lot more tolerable.
Another example could be like an Orc. Big dumb beast. Might not even speak or think. But people can tolerate it because you can’t go outside and find an Orc. Werewolves push that boundary a lot more simply because we all are familiar with dogs and wolves even if it’s standing on two legs and talking.
I think there are at least two different goals here: Content filtering for users (aka “I don’t want to see that”) and staying legal within whatever jurisdiction the site operates in. Maybe also what the owner/teams themselves think is right or wrong.
Real child pornography or bestiality is not allowed.
Content that is realistically styled is not allowed (as a reference example: Last of Us gameplay). Content that is clearly cartoonized is usually fine but must be tagged and titled clearly.
However, we reserve the right to take down any content we believe is pushing things too far. We understand that these rules aren’t the most specific, but when dealing with fiction we have to rely heavily on discretion.
As the creator of that topic I respect your opinion and had a feeling someone might speak up about it. I appreciate you starting this discussion in a way that didn’t involve accusations or kink shaming, and it’ll be good to have some examples like these to see what the community at large thinks.
My personal philosophy is that as long as at a glance it’s instantly 100% clearly, obviously stylized and computer-modeled it should be allowed, even if it has elements of photo-realism. I realize this is still subjective, but I would argue a model can be somewhat photo-realistic, ultimately stylized, and also very clearly computer-generated simultaneously, which is where I would personally put the animations in these compilations. All that said, if there’s some general consensus or authoritative decision that even these examples are too realistic for Eroscripts, I take no issue with that and will remove similar posts and refrain from posting similar content.
