zoophilia parent tag

Posted under Tags

LightSolas

BUR #60109 has been rejected.

create implication teratophilia -> zoophilia

This more recent tag didn't get mentioned here yet so here's my proposal. It's a bit trickier because teratophilia, monsterfucking, can include both bestial monsters and more humanoid/bipedal ones. The more bestial ones are supposed to be tagged bestiality and would imply zoophilia that way already, but the more humanoid ones would be interspecies instead. But even the more humanoid ones should still be sufficiently inhuman to fall under teratophilia that I think someone blacklisting zoophilia wouldn't want to see them either, and since they aren't necessarily furries they wouldn't be caught by furry with non-furry either.

Reply
LightSolas Knowledge Seeker wingdings wispydreamer BaiserLaVerite Blookryynnn World Funeral CommentaryRequest Massonia evvvk nonamethanks
wingdings

LightSolas said in forum #441823:

BUR #60109 has been rejected.

create implication teratophilia -> zoophilia

i'd say this has potential for some nasty edge cases. how about something like post #7482364 where the monster reads as more human than animal, i.e. not zoophilia? or... whatever the hell is going on in post #3892560. or even something along the lines of post #7483219 where the monster transcends the categories of "human" or "animal" entirely.

Reply
Freshblink

てはいさ said in forum #442267:

BUR #60255 is pending approval.

create implication animal_insertion -> zoophilia

I can't imagine a situation where putting snakes or worms into holes wouldn't be considered a form of zoophilia.

I mostly agree, but I remember a specific torture scene from Tokyo Ghoul that wasn't sexual.

Scene

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/I2ZQnT_qIZ8/maxresdefault.jpg

Reference fan art

post #4788134

Although I can't find any fan art of the exact insertion bit.

I guess since the tag says vaginally / anally and not just any orifice, it should be fine.

Reply
1 2