fchan

discussion

RequestingNon-morphs/Bestiality clarification

Pages:1
1Report
at 9 Feb 2008: 03:49

I just wanted to clarify this section, pertaining to non-morphs/bestiality (In this case, sexualizing of RL non-morph creatures) above.

Quoting from the definition of "furry" in rule 1:

"What is a "furry?" Many people consider a furry to be an "anthroporphic animal." But what is that? Dictionary.com defines "anthropomorphism" as:
"Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena."

Fchan allows the posting of anthropomorphic animals only. In order for us to consider something to be such, it must meet one or more of the following criteria:
    1. Animal-human Hybrids: These creatures are your most common "furry." Some people consider them to be humans with animal attributes, some people think of them as animals with human attributes. But whatever you think, they all tend to share the same design: An animal that walks on two legs and has the general figure of a human being. An example of this would be Disney's Robin Hood or Road Rovers.
    2. Humans with Animal Features: In Japan they are known as "kemonomimi." These are you typical "cat-girls" and "dog-men" that are mostly human, but have some animal parts and/or behavior. The addition of ears, tails, fangs, and wings are the most popular. Some examples are Felicia from Darkstalkers and Inuyasha.
    3. Funny Animal/Toon: Funny animals are your very stylized cartoon furries. Anime fans may all them "chibi." They are mostly like the an Animal-human Hybrid, but much less defined. Examples of these would be Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, or most of the Tiny Toons characters.
    4. Talking Animal: While many people will not cconsider these to be furry, we allow them to be posted mainly on /c and /toon (depending on content). Defining them is easy, as they look exactly like animals, but have human intelligence and the ability to speak. Balto is a prime example of what fits within this category.

Lastly, we do make the exception for mythical creatures which directly resemble an animal or were modeled after one. Some general examples are unicorns, dragons, nagas, and taurs. Specific examples include (but are not limited to) Disney's Gargoyles, the Halo Elites, and Final Fantasy's Galka.

Some popular misconceptions of what constitutes a furry are Orcs, Trolls, and Elves. While they are quite obviously not human, they are also not in any way animal-like. Thusly, they are not allowed on Fchan. However, you may be able to find such material on 4chan."

Inherently, RL non-morphs (aka non-mythical creatures) not from an anthropomorphed series would fall outside this definition. If assuming no other morphic characters are involved, is such allowed on fchan? I was of the assumption of otherwise, however since a few moderators have implied that such are allowed, could we have a clarification so no further confusion would result?

NOTE: This is not about whether the above is right or wrong. This is only about whether the above is allowed here.

2Report(capped)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 9 Feb 2008: 05:01

Have any examples?

3Report
at 9 Feb 2008: 05:55

Isn't there a non-morph thread on /ah/ already?

I've seen a thread to that end before on /ah/ that often involves plain humans and plain animals, seems to me that it's already allowed provided it is just drawn and not real and put in the correct section.

4Report
at 9 Feb 2008: 06:35

To me, non-morphic means animals but with human carcterizations, like the "talking animal" point. As long as you can clearly distinguish them from "real" animals, I'm perfectly fine with it. In porn, for example, you can tell from facial expressions and such.

But pornographic material of "photorealistic" non-morph is considered beastiality, and images involving plain humans and plain animals should really not allowed to post here. Further, we had some meterial in the last days (I don't have a link, though)which involved plain animals tied down and tortured by humans, which was absolutely disgusting, even more than the usual pedophilia around fchan.

My opinion on that topic.

5Report
at 9 Feb 2008: 10:12

admit it, already! fchan is Beastforum 2.0

6Report
at 9 Feb 2008: 12:12

>>2
Specific threads and images (not all images within applicable):
http://fchan.me/ah/res/64859.html
 - >>64874
http://fchan.me/ah/res/59883.html
 - >>60248
 - >>62719
http://fchan.me/ah/res/65035.html
 - >>65035
 - >>65454
 - >>65590
 - >>65614

Some here are ignored because they are possibly artist created characters, or were in japanese so I can't tell from reference whether they are non-morphs or talking.

7Report(capped) (sage)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 9 Feb 2008: 16:40

>>6

I must admit, back when I created /ah/, I created it as a place to put all those things I was not wanting to look at. So I do not really go there unless I really have to.
Something to think about is the staff here is directed to look for reasons to allow things to remain, not to look for reasons to remove. Personally, I would prefer to see those removed, but I have no way to prove that they are not just non-morphs, or just animals.

Also, keep in mind, what is quoted in >>1 is a general guideline. It is subject to interpretation, and possibly a rewrite some time in the near future.

8Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage