Minor update to loli/shota and furry rules

The only thing that crosses a border is real, filmed content. Anything animated, no matter how “realistic” it looks, is well behind any border of propriety.

There’s no fine line here. Either a person or animal was exploited and victimized to create content or not. If the content is animated, there are no real participants, and hence no victims.

The only point of contention would be if the animation is so good that you literally cannot tell if it’s real. That’s a concern to deal with in the future, when such content is possible. It is not possible at present.

2 Likes

Important note, in the current state if AI was used, it must be considered that a real person was used. All AI models here use real human information to generate new things.

And even for things that clearly are animated, this is valid. Artists rarely make something without a bias on something. Almost always someone was involved. But the main diffirence here is, if that person has built its own character (like any anime or game character), its enough of a seperation towards a human source to not worry about it.

Even if you generate a potentialy real person from a CGI character can be a problem since some might be based on real people. While you might not know this happened, it still can be. So making things photorealistic because you can, doesnt always mean its legal. Even if no AI was used.

Laws currently down know how to handle this, but 1 thing is clear: intention matters. If the intention was to still have that character in a game setting, even if it was more realistic, its still fine in this case. You are improving the computer character, not trying to mimic the actual person.

There are already several laws here, and thats also why making porno using AI software is rarely allowed. Most of those models used real human information and must legaly protect that. Using such model to make a more realistic character still means you were doing an illegal thing. Its in this case not even about age anymore.

This stuff goes far. But there is 1 thing in common here: as long as its clearly fake and is also allowed by other laws, its not an issue. Even if a real person was used as a base, if you keep it looking like cgi, it indicates an intention of it not being realistic.

And these things can still change over time.

the way i see it: it doesn’t matter if such content is realistic or not (and there’s parts in the clip above which clearly aim to look realistic eg. doberman, german shepherd…), the fact that stuff like this is getting posted on these forums shows that there’s folks around here who seem to be into sex with dogs. i don’t think that these forums should offer a platform for such content.

i’d really be interested in a mod’s opinion on this case @defucilis

3 Likes

There is a HUGE difference between just being “into sex with dogs” and enjoying erotic fantasies that involve sex with dogs, just as there is with “being into rape” and enjoying erotic fantasies that involve rape, which this site also allows. It’s also kinda like saying anyone who enjoys playing games where the objective is to kill as many people as you can is “into murder”.

I would like to hear a mod’s opinion as well, but I fundamentally disagree that these examples are evidence of anyone wanting anything to do with a real animal. I enjoy the more realistic-looking computer models, and am repulsed by anything involving real animals. If it were a CGI model that was so realistic I legitimately could not tell if it was real or not, I wouldn’t be into it. Knowing for certain it’s a fantasy is precisely what makes it enjoyable.

1 Like

I’ve posted about this elsewhere, the mod team’s position on this stuff is basically to comply with US law. As far as I can tell from having done some research, there are no US laws prohibiting the distribution of virtual representations of bestiality, no matter how realistic (although is a law prohibiting the distribution of photos and videos of actual acts of bestiality).

2 Likes

Thanks for the clarification. Just because it’s theoretically allowed by US law, there should still be a certain ethical framework for certain content on platforms like these. There’s a reason why there are more and more disturbed people out there, especially in the US. But i won’t get too political now. That’s just my opinion and maybe im too old-fashioned or prude for these times. At least I can say of myself that I still have some dignity in me.

3 Likes

“There’s a reason why there are more and more disturbed people out there.”

“At least I can say of myself that I still have some dignity in me.”

I’d avoid using language like that on this website, especially given that the content in question has already been confirmed by a moderator to not be breaking any site rules, US laws, nor does it involve any victims whatsoever. At that point I would argue making statements like that falls pretty firmly into kink-shaming, as it adds nothing to the conversation and only puts other people down, and that is against the rules. With your last quote you’re literally implying that I and the other people here who enjoy that material have no dignity, and that’s not okay.

I initially thought you bringing this up was out of some genuine concern for the safety of real animals or even just maintaining the rules of the site which is fine, but you just made it abundantly clear that it was at least partially about outwardly placing your personal perceived ethical standards onto others. Once it was confirmed to be within the rules, you could have just left it at that, but you didn’t, you had to make sure to remind us that in your opinion we’re disturbed people with no dignity. This website is not the place for that.

1 Like

You see erotic fantasies with dogs.

I see erotic FANTASIES with dogs.

I just want to point out that by continuing to bring this to a place of “I’m better than this group of niche fetishists” and directly insulting my mental health you clearly do not care about this website’s rules. Your messages are probably going to get flagged and deleted, and you are the only person being problematic.

3 Likes

You’re just moralizing. That’s actually quite undignified behavior.

3 Likes

Im personally glad the site is moderating content of this type. Sadly the same cannot be said for platforms like faptap which has since been filled with realistic beastiality porn since this post.

Moderation and ability to filterout specific tags is a win for this site.

2 Likes

I’m also pretty disappointed about the lack of content organization/ ability to filter content on Faptap and am partially responsible for some of the recent more realistic animated-bestiality posts.

I really wish sites would make it easy for users to only see new and recommended videos related to tags they choose… Hell even if they would just let me as the uploader spoiler the thumbnail and put a content warning over it or something. And honestly now that you’re reminding me that you can’t do that on FapTap (at least not YET), I may actually choose to delete my more realistic animated content on that site and keep to things that are less controversial until they add some kind of filtering system.