Fixing the bestiality tag's blind spots

BUR #31135 has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

mass update favgroup:35632 -> animal_sexualization

Currently, the bestiality tag does one very important job and one somewhat less important job. By being in Danbooru's default blacklist, it hides such posts from most users because most users find it extremely distasteful. However, it also lets our more degenerate users search for the bestiality content they know and, for whatever reason, love.

Unfortunately, this tag also has a very important and a somewhat less important drawback. Posts such as post #7242287, lacking in humanoid-animal interaction as they are, do not qualify for bestiality and therefore slip through the default blacklist, even though they really shouldn't. Also, most users searching for bestiality are only looking for stuff like post #8055804 and post #7279978, but have no way to filter out stuff like post #7383533 and post #7382912.

As such, I am suggesting we create the animal_sexualization tag. The name's a bit odd, but that's because it took some workshopping on Discord to find something with the least risk of being misused - animal_porn and animal-focused_porn could easily be mistaken for bestiality 2.0, feral would be 99.99% SFW animal posts, animal_objectification would be tossed on post #7620923 and the like, and animal_focus_(sexual) both sounds stupid and is still confusingly similar to bestiality. To be honest, any name that accurately describes what this tag is for is going to be something that could potentially be confused with bestiality, but the odd phrasing of animal_sexualization combined with the fact that bestiality has already been around for over a decade should be enough to keep them seperate.

Normally I don't ping people in BURs, but @evazion you'll need to add this tag to Danbooru's default blacklist once this BUR is approved (iirc you're the only one who can do that). As such, if you have any issues/suggestions regarding the tag's name, please mention them.

I've just been informed that the bestiality tag is not in fact part of the default blacklist. Therefore, if this BUR is approved, I'd like to see both animal_sexualization and bestiality added to it.

Do we have an equivalent tag for pokephilia stuff that doesn't involves sex, like post #7895215? I didn't want to see a Pokemon's genitalia in the middle of human's because apparently Pokemon is not considered an animal for whatever reason.

Coprolite said:

Do we have an equivalent tag for pokephilia stuff that doesn't involves sex, like post #7895215? I didn't want to see a Pokemon's genitalia in the middle of human's because apparently Pokemon is not considered an animal for whatever reason.

If you read my original post a little more carefully, you will realise that this BUR is creating a tag for exactly that. As I stated in said original post, once the BUR is approved, you will be able to blacklist animal_sexualization and never see these kinds of posts again.

AngryZapdos said:

I've just been informed that the bestiality tag is not in fact part of the default blacklist. Therefore, if this BUR is approved, I'd like to see both animal_sexualization and bestiality added to it.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it has been removed from the default blacklist alongside spoilers a couple years ago.

Login_to_view said:

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it has been removed from the default blacklist alongside spoilers a couple years ago.

Spoilers was removed from the default blacklist in March 2022 but bestiality already wasn't on the list at that moment.
I'm actually not sure if it ever was on the list to begin with, but please do correct me.

Should https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/5554016 and https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7928571 really be included? They both feature typical "female human with male animal" bestiality, and are the only ones in the favegroup to do so. I can't speak for everyone but those don't seem like they would bother a typical bestiality fan.

Which leads into my second concern: If you ignore those two, the tag is currently like 89.9% "female pokemon animal", 10% mating (animal), and 0.1% solo male animal. Given that 10% already has an appropriate tag, do they really need to be included? And is it really the best solution to include "solo sexualized animals" together with "male human with female pokemon animal" bestiality? I could understand this approach if the proposed tag was intended to be an umbrella for all bestiality and miscellaneous NSFW animal posts, but it's not. It's trying to function as both a search for female animal bestiality, separate from the much more populous male animal bestiality, and a collection of miscellaneous animal porn, which to me seem like concepts that should be handled separately with their own tags.

blindVigil said:

Should https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/5554016 and https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7928571 really be included? They both feature typical "female human with male animal" bestiality, and are the only ones in the favegroup to do so. I can't speak for everyone but those don't seem like they would bother a typical bestiality fan.

The main focus of both of those posts is clearly the animal and its experience, not the human's. This is just another example of the female bias that permeates Danbooru - bestiality, for example, has over 8000 posts, but only 3% of them are male_focus. animal_sexualization is not a gendered tag, and is not solely for the purposes of excluding female animals from bestiality searches. Posts shouldn't be excluded from it just because the animal in focus happens to be male.

———————————————

Which leads into my second concern: If you ignore those two, the tag is currently like 89.9% "female pokemon animal", 10% mating (animal), and 0.1% solo male animal. Given that 10% already has an appropriate tag, do they really need to be included? And is it really the best solution to include "solo sexualized animals" together with "male human with female pokemon animal" bestiality?

mating_(animal) contains stuff like post #7805913 and post #6386544, neither of which are something that a fan of sexualized animals is going to be looking for. For the same reason, it's also not a tag that works particularly well for blacklisting such content.

Users searching for smut of, say, Shantae, are generally looking for both post #5839722 and post #7324085, and have the option to add or exclude tags like sex or solo to get more specific results. I imagine users searching for smut of animals are similarly looking for post #5619918, post #7383371 and post #7142632, and with the creation of animal_sexualization they'll be able to add or exclude tags like bestiality or mating_(animal) to get more specific results. It doesn't make sense to tell these users that despite these posts all sharing a clear focal theme, they need to search three separate tags to find them all. It also doesn't make sense to make users have to blacklist three seperate tags just to hide them.

———————————————

I could understand this approach if the proposed tag was intended to be an umbrella for all bestiality and miscellaneous NSFW animal posts, but it's not. It's trying to function as both a search for female animal bestiality, separate from the much more populous male animal bestiality, and a collection of miscellaneous animal porn, which to me seem like concepts that should be handled separately with their own tags.

If we created an umbrella tag for all bestiality and miscellaneous NSFW animal posts, then it wouldn't help anyone. Nobody wants both post #8047164 and post #7130504, they're going to be looking for one or the other. It also wouldn't help you search for either case via exclusion, as it would hide all the posts and leave you with nothing.

At the end of the day, animal_sexualization is for porn of animals rather than porn that just features animals. Having a dedicated tag for this means three things:

1. Fans of this content can easily search for it.
2. Users looking for white women and their dogs can easily avoid it.
3. It's much harder for NSFW posts that only feature animals to bypass blacklists.

Without a tag for this, accomplishing these three things ranges from being a pain in the ass to almost impossible, and that third one is a particularly important function.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

+1 to adding both bestiality and the new tag to default blacklist!
It would be good to know why it was never added to the default blacklist in the first place.

Toctoc said:

+1 to adding both bestiality and the new tag to default blacklist!
It would be good to know why it was never added to the default blacklist in the first place.

From what I've heard since making the topic, albert didn't see enough of a reason to add it.

The bulk update request #31135 (forum #305909) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

@evazion The tag and its wiki have been created. I now request that you add both bestiality and animal_sexualization to Danbooru's default blacklist.