The tag implication #67748 bestiality_kiss -> bestiality is pending approval.

Reason: shouldnt it imply it?

See topic #46093 (and the BUR that's currently the latest post).

disposableyeens said:
The tag implication #67748 bestiality_kiss -> bestiality is pending approval.

Reason: shouldnt it imply it?

Strictly speaking, bestiality is any form of sexual activity (not necessarily sex itself) between feral and non-feral characters.
Kissing is not inherently considered to be a type of sexual activity, as it can just be platonic kisses instead of a sexually intimate one.

The reason why bestiality_kiss (and other bestiality_* tags) exists is because they are all not strictly considered to be bestiality, yet people want to be able to blacklist them.
Otherwise, there would be no reason to keep them in their own category and they should be aliased to the general counterpart tags instead (e.g., alias bestiality_kiss -> kissing).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Strictly speaking, bestiality is any form of sexual activity (not necessarily sex itself) between feral and non-feral characters.
Kissing is not inherently considered to be a type of sexual activity, as it can just be platonic kisses instead of a sexually intimate one.

The reason why bestiality_kiss (and other bestiality_* tags) exists is because they are all not strictly considered to be bestiality, yet people want to be able to blacklist them.
Otherwise, there would be no reason to keep them in their own category and they should be aliased to the general counterpart tags instead (e.g., alias bestiality_kiss -> kissing).

people souldn't be tagging platonic kisses with bestiality_kiss, it's not for situations of like a character kissing their dog on the top of the head and stuff, it's for romantic/sexual kisses; stuff that'd warrant a pairing tag.

EDIT: also, from what I can see, no one _has_ ever used it for platonic kisses both active posts and posts that used to have the tag not a one includes platonic kisses; all of the posts are characters, like, making out (the valid removals were posts where none of the characters involved in the kiss were feral or the the action wasn't really a "kiss").

dba_afish said:
people souldn't be tagging platonic kisses with bestiality_kiss, it's not for situations of like a character kissing their dog on the top of the head and stuff, it's for romantic/sexual kisses; stuff that'd warrant a pairing tag.

EDIT: also, from what I can see, no one _has_ ever used it for platonic kisses both active posts and posts that used to have the tag not a one includes platonic kisses; all of the posts are characters, like, making out (the valid removals were posts where none of the characters involved in the kiss were feral or the the action wasn't really a "kiss").

I should probably have phrased it better, but the point I'm making is that kissing (in general) is not always sexual in nature.
In the case with bestiality_kiss, the kisses featured could be any other type of kisses that lay after that and before straight-up kissing during sex.
However, the key difference separating bestiality_kiss from bestiality kissing is whether or not the whole post could be considered as featuring "sexual activity" (i.e., bestiality).

thegreatwolfgang said:
I should probably have phrased it better, but the point I'm making is that kissing (in general) is not always sexual in nature.
In the case with bestiality_kiss, the kisses featured could be any other type of kisses that lay between that and straight-up kissing during sex.
However, the key difference between bestiality_kiss and bestiality kissing is whether or not the whole post could be considered as featuring "sexual activity" (i.e., bestiality).

but we already don't use bestiality in a strictly sexual manner, I mean, every pairing tag for one feral and one non-feral character (anthro_on_feral, feral_on_taur, human_on_feral, humanoid_on_feral) already implies bestiality and those tags include romantic situations as well as sexual ones. so any situation that could be tagged bestiality_kiss should already warrant the tag though other tags.

and it seems like most of us agree with using that definition of "bestiality". technically I think the way we use the word migh be more accurate to call "zoophilia", but like, that word has way worse connotations in the furry community, and I don't think most anyone would be in favour of changing over to using that word instead.

I still think renaming it to feral_on_non-feral would solve the problem.

regsmutt said:
I still think renaming it to feral_on_non-feral would solve the problem.

are dires or amorphous characters or, like, whatever piranha_plants are "non-feral". because it feels weird to me to have feral eevees and the like interacting with dittos counted as what we used to tag "bestiality".

dba_afish said:
are dires or amorphous characters or, like, whatever piranha_plants are "non-feral". because it feels weird to me to have feral eevees and the like interacting with dittos counted as what we used to tag "bestiality".

Ngl I feel like this is fringe enough to not impact most searches. Plus I feel like the utility of being able to specify feral_on_non-feral_sex from feral_on_non-feral romantic situations with the same definitions every other *_on_* uses outweighs any conflict "is a dog fucking a talking tree really feral_on_non-feral?" might cause.

dba_afish said:
but we already don't use bestiality in a strictly sexual manner, I mean, every pairing tag for one feral and one non-feral character (anthro_on_feral, feral_on_taur, human_on_feral, humanoid_on_feral) already implies bestiality and those tags include romantic situations as well as sexual ones. so any situation that could be tagged bestiality_kiss should already warrant the tag though other tags.

and it seems like most of us agree with using that definition of "bestiality". technically I think the way we use the word migh be more accurate to call "zoophilia", but like, that word has way worse connotations in the furry community, and I don't think most anyone would be in favour of changing over to using that word instead.

regsmutt said:
I still think renaming it to feral_on_non-feral would solve the problem.

I understand, I'm just saying that from my own stance, it wouldn't make sense to imply it as bestiality when it could be non-sexual kissing.
I acknowledge that if we included non-sexual kissing that this implication would be justified.

With that said, I also won't be debating these points again on this thread since it is already part of the larger discussion on renaming or redefining bestiality on topic #46102 and topic #46093.

regsmutt said:
Ngl I feel like this is fringe enough to not impact most searches. Plus I feel like the utility of being able to specify feral_on_non-feral_sex from feral_on_non-feral romantic situations with the same definitions every other *_on_* uses outweighs any conflict "is a dog fucking a talking tree really feral_on_non-feral?" might cause.

I just don't really see the point in changing the tagname and introducing this other alternate ambiguity of "what is non-feral" when nearly everyone's already pretty okay with the tag's current definition.

not to mention that we'd also either need to class everything that lacks a currently recognized "form" as either feral or non-feral, and that's a _lot_ of stuff. lots of elementals, animate inanimates and the like, a tonne of pokémon, most Mario enemies, heck, probably most video game enemies.

and either way, the name of the bestiality tag is kind of a non-sequitur in this discussion anyway.

bestiality_kiss's implication will be valid regardless. whether the tagname(s) ought to be changed or not is completely irrelevant. the tags as used and as defined should have an implication relationship, this does not change if the word used is bestiality or zoophilia or feral_on_non-feral or whatever else terminology we could possibly decide on.

dba_afish said:
and either way, the name of the bestiality tag is kind of a non-sequitur in this discussion anyway.

bestiality_kiss's implication will be valid regardless. whether the tagname(s) ought to be changed or not is completely irrelevant. the tags as used and as defined should have an implication relationship, this does not change if the word used is bestiality or zoophilia or feral_on_non-feral or whatever else terminology we could possibly decide on.

As mentioned on my first comment, I don't believe that is how the bestiality_* tags are supposed to be used despite their naming.*
^{*The only exception to this would be bestiality_impregnation which had its origins as a pairing tag (see topic #32536).}

All of the other bestiality_* tags have seem to have been created either as a copycat to bestiality_impregnation or created out of blacklisting purposes that -bestiality would not cover, without considering the proper naming.
For example, concerns of bestiality_kiss's validity was raised on topic #39957 and I have pointed out that it was initially solely populated by a single user.

I support tags like bestiality_kiss and bestiality_marriage because it serves as a means to blacklist content that could not be otherwise adequately captured by the bestiality tag (i.e., they are not strictly considered to be bestiality due to its "sexual activity"-only definition).
However, if we had considered it as a simple pairing tag (and that bestiality would include romantic activities), then it would be no different than searching for bestiality kissing or bestiality marriage. Thus, making it redundant to keep as a separate tag.