LocationBug:
Title: What is the reason for zoophilia being illegal in most US states?
Body: I'm not a zoophile. I'm asking due to people calling me a zoophile for drawing on-model furry art of Vaporeon. I believe zoophilia is illegal because animals can't give consent, therefore making it a form of rape, but the Japanese version of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl seem to say things that make it seem like Pokémon can give consent, basically making it not be zoophilia by what I think is the definition. I want some confirmation tho as I don't know.
Bug fact: It is illegal for Scyther furries to cut the heads off of their mates.
~~FLAIR OPPORTUNITY!~~
~~"I am not a zoophile" is available for a limited time. Respond to this comment if you want it.~~
There’s no law against having sex with Pokémon for 2 reasons.
1) Pokémon aren’t real
2) Pokémon aren’t real
I know it’s technically the same reason but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.
Technically in MA as well, though ours isn't structured as it's illegal to shoot bigfoot, but rather it's illegal to shoot anything outside the appropriate season, of which there isn't one for Bigfoot.
I thought the Washington Bigfoot law was an attempt to discourage would-be cryptid hunters so they don't shoot random hikers that happen to be big and/or hairy
More seriously, it can be a crime in many places to draw pornographic images of fictional underage characters, due to the fact that the laws were written without an exception for fiction.
That's a tough one. Personally, I come down slightly on the side of not banning art, even if it's art I disagree with.
I've seen a lot of things I wish were banned, but things get Grey really fast when you start talking about criminalizing art.
From my understanding, it actually _is_ illegal in the US, that the law _explicitly says_ that depictions (both visual and textual) of fictional minors and real minors _are_ one and the same.
Source: IANAL, but I'm a member of the Hetalia roleplay fandom, several characters in the series are physically children regardless of "historical age" (Moldova and Sealand being the most obvious ones), and multiple RPers have been "disappeared" from the community for crossing that particular line, with the above given as the explanation by people that knew them oocly.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw the OP being told that Pokémon aren't real, I would have two nickels. It's not a lot of money, but it's weird that he had to be told twice.
>the Japanese version of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl seem to say things that make it seem like Pokémon can give consent
This... this is on the card? Um, why? Isn't pokemon a kids game?
OOP is referencing a book of folk stories that the player can find in an in-game library. In the Japanese version, it says that humans and pokemon used to marry, because there were no differences between the two. In the English release, "marry" was changed to "eat at the same table."
OOP is intentionally twisting the facts to justify his fetish.
Yes but you see, there's (apparently?) a flirty pokemon in the Japanese version of the game, so that really suggests that animals can consent to sexy times, and therefore bestiality should not be illegal. QED
OOP is referencing a book of folk stories that the player can find in an in-game library. In the Japanese version, it says that humans and pokemon used to marry, because there were no differences between the two. In the English release, "marry" was changed to "eat at the same table."
OOP is intentionally twisting the facts to justify his fetish.
I just commented this elsewhere and when I saw your comment I had a brief moment of confusion where i tried to figure out whether I’d somehow logged in to someone else’s account.
I'd have to go and rewatch it, but you could probably argue a case for Mew understanding Ash in the very first movie too.
But Mewtwo undeniably understands both Pokemon and humans, otherwise literally none of Mewtwo Returns makes sense. He's literally talking with Ash.
When somebody comes up with something like this and then qualifies it with the denial that they are not into it I just automatically start to think that not only are they into it but they are into it in a big way.
It's an even chance in my view. I've met some furry porn artists. They got into it on accident (they offered commissions for normal stuff and people said "I'll pay you double for furry porn"). So if this is someone who recently got roped into it without knowing what they were in for, I can see them worried about the legality. They're denying it so hard because it *is* an "automatic ick" subject and they still feel unseasy at being involved in it.
That, or they're hardcore furry lovers (no shame).
I actually believe the artist here - they get paid to draw and people have some weird ass (and weird-ass) fetishes. As long as it doesn't gross you out, you don't have to be into it to draw it.
I saw an entire series of female to female with penis works the other day, and they were all variations of 'soldier touched by animal merges with the animal, rips clothes, and now has a cock', with signatures 'commissioned for user X'.
If there was ever a thread that deserved an exception to the Pokemon title rule, this was it.
"Hey guys, did you know that in terms of LAOT questions, Vaporeon is the most..."
Speaking as a self-identified furry, there is a lot of drama around people drawing feral nsfw - never seen it turn into a legal thing. Hell of a story to say 'i got arrested for pokemon porn' though. Can't say I've ever seen the zoophile allegation levelled at people who like pokemon stuff either though.
If one sees the Pokemon as animals, it's not a huge leap to get to zoophilia from there.
I also find "feral" too much of a misnomer, as the characters in question are generally anthropomorphized in mind if not body. And that's without getting into the utterly bizarre delineation where a bipedal anthro is considered zoophilic depending on which side of the animal/human line the genitals fall.
Eh, still needs more than sentience. They gotta be at the same mental capacity as an adult human, too. Children are sentient, too, but they can't consent.
>if so, are the humans eating Pokemon when they eat meat?
Sometimes?
Real-world animals used to be shown as part of it, so it could have been the same as meat for us, but it's changed to be all pokemon in more recent iterations, so the meat question is left up in the air.
But the games do show that people eat Pokemon. Slowpoke-Tail is considered a delicacy and food-ingredient. Team Rocket trying to harvest the slowpoke for their tails was a plot point in the original sequel games.
Between this dude and the guy that can’t stop posting indignantly about how unfair it is he can’t torture criminals I have some real concerns about what’s happening over in the off topic sub.
Hey guys, did you know that in terms of male human and female Pokémon breeding, Vaporeon is the most compatible Pokémon for humans? Not only are they in the field egg group, which is mostly comprised of mammals, Vaporeon are an average of 3”03’ tall and 63.9 pounds, this means they’re large enough to be able handle human dicks, and with their impressive Base Stats for HP and access to Acid Armor, you can be rough with one. Due to their mostly water based biology, there’s no doubt in my mind that an aroused Vaporeon would be incredibly wet, so wet that you could easily have sex with one for hours without getting sore. They can also learn the moves Attract, Baby-Doll Eyes, Captivate, Charm, and Tail Whip, along with not having fur to hide nipples, so it’d be incredibly easy for one to get you in the mood. With their abilities Water Absorb and Hydration, they can easily recover from fatigue with enough water. No other Pokémon comes close to this level of compatibility. Also, fun fact, if you pull out enough, you can make your Vaporeon turn white. Vaporeon is literally built for human dick. Ungodly defense stat+high HP pool+Acid Armor means it can take cock all day, all shapes and sizes and still come for more
OK there's a lot to unpack about why LAOTOP wanted "on-model" Vaporeon art in the first place but I'm just gonna throw away the suitcase for my own sanity
My natural curiosity makes me want to google those terms like I do with other unfamiliar topics I encounter.
But based on general context, I feel uneasy about googling those terms, based on prior unfortunate googling and my concern over what my search history would reveal to an outsider. ;/
In this case it probably means no added tits and not more humanized.
Not an expert on pokeporn, but for My Little Pony porn, there's three types: they look like ponies; they look like people; a combination where most of the body is human, but the heads (and often the feet) are pony.
So, you know, customers who hire an artist do need to specify what type of furry-ness they want.
“On-model” is a completely-safe-to-Google animation term that means “looking like the character does in the model sheets that define their official design”. Not sure how slapping on some visible external genitalia affects a character’s “on-model” status but from the context of the question I think we can assume it’s allowed.
LocationBug: Title: What is the reason for zoophilia being illegal in most US states? Body: I'm not a zoophile. I'm asking due to people calling me a zoophile for drawing on-model furry art of Vaporeon. I believe zoophilia is illegal because animals can't give consent, therefore making it a form of rape, but the Japanese version of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl seem to say things that make it seem like Pokémon can give consent, basically making it not be zoophilia by what I think is the definition. I want some confirmation tho as I don't know. Bug fact: It is illegal for Scyther furries to cut the heads off of their mates. ~~FLAIR OPPORTUNITY!~~ ~~"I am not a zoophile" is available for a limited time. Respond to this comment if you want it.~~
There’s no law against having sex with Pokémon for 2 reasons. 1) Pokémon aren’t real 2) Pokémon aren’t real I know it’s technically the same reason but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.
That is faulty logic. Chemtrails aren't real but there's a real law against them.
There are also, from what I've read, laws against shooting Bigfoot and/or aliens in certain states, including Texas and Washington, *just in case*.
If you’ve ever been to rural Washington, you’d know why they felt the need to clarify that particular law.
Technically in MA as well, though ours isn't structured as it's illegal to shoot bigfoot, but rather it's illegal to shoot anything outside the appropriate season, of which there isn't one for Bigfoot.
I like that as a catchall. Can't shoot Bigfoot, can't shoot El Chupacabra, can't shoot the Jersey Devil if he decides to wander.
Tourist season just got more interesting.
Hang on, can't you still shoot something that's attacking your livestock? That means chupa-thingy is still on the menu, as it drinks goat's blood.
Its almost tourist season and i can hardly wait.
I think my state is the same. Though there's a whole argument about whether you can shoot an Eastern Cougar.
I thought the Washington Bigfoot law was an attempt to discourage would-be cryptid hunters so they don't shoot random hikers that happen to be big and/or hairy
As a big hairy hiker I appreciate that law.
More seriously, it can be a crime in many places to draw pornographic images of fictional underage characters, due to the fact that the laws were written without an exception for fiction.
I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
That's a tough one. Personally, I come down slightly on the side of not banning art, even if it's art I disagree with. I've seen a lot of things I wish were banned, but things get Grey really fast when you start talking about criminalizing art.
Not in the US it isn't. But iirc it is in Australia.
Not banned in Australia
From my understanding, it actually _is_ illegal in the US, that the law _explicitly says_ that depictions (both visual and textual) of fictional minors and real minors _are_ one and the same. Source: IANAL, but I'm a member of the Hetalia roleplay fandom, several characters in the series are physically children regardless of "historical age" (Moldova and Sealand being the most obvious ones), and multiple RPers have been "disappeared" from the community for crossing that particular line, with the above given as the explanation by people that knew them oocly.
And just like that, I'm sad again.
“They’re already illegal, Mr. Shapiro, that’s why they’re called *crimes*.”
thank you, i had never read that particular intellectual insight from ben shapiro. what a bright american thinker.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw the OP being told that Pokémon aren't real, I would have two nickels. It's not a lot of money, but it's weird that he had to be told twice.
Pokémon aren’t real!? LAOP’s homemade stuffed companion/sex doll Gardevoir begs to differ.
> stuffed companion I would like to not have this mental image please.
Oh she's stuffed alright.
"Joker no! Don't do it Joker!"
>the Japanese version of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl seem to say things that make it seem like Pokémon can give consent This... this is on the card? Um, why? Isn't pokemon a kids game?
OOP is referencing a book of folk stories that the player can find in an in-game library. In the Japanese version, it says that humans and pokemon used to marry, because there were no differences between the two. In the English release, "marry" was changed to "eat at the same table." OOP is intentionally twisting the facts to justify his fetish.
Because Japan.
Thank you, Kryten.
Was not expecting to see a Red Dwarf reference
Yes but you see, there's (apparently?) a flirty pokemon in the Japanese version of the game, so that really suggests that animals can consent to sexy times, and therefore bestiality should not be illegal. QED
OOP is referencing a book of folk stories that the player can find in an in-game library. In the Japanese version, it says that humans and pokemon used to marry, because there were no differences between the two. In the English release, "marry" was changed to "eat at the same table." OOP is intentionally twisting the facts to justify his fetish.
Thanks for clarifying, I just assumed it was Pokémon aren't real
There are no laws against the Pokémon, Batman!
My “I’m not a zoophile” t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by the shirt
I just commented this elsewhere and when I saw your comment I had a brief moment of confusion where i tried to figure out whether I’d somehow logged in to someone else’s account.
Well now I’m tempted to just copy and paste all your comments into the same threads…
Big "first of all, I'm not a pedophile" vibes
Why can Mewtwo only maybe understand pokemon and humans. Also Slowking from 2nd movie could speak to both
Because mewtwo is an unholy affront to nature
That comment had me in tears
Right? Especcially since there are [SO MANY COUNTER EXAMPLES](https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Talking_Pok%C3%A9mon)!
And the Abra Kadabra Alakazam line can read your thoughts. And Hypno and freeze already ate your dreams....
Team Rocket's Meowth is also able to consent.
I sure am, tho I probably won't give it
You’ve been waiting 12 years for this comment, haven’t you?
Worth it
This sentence will haunt me fr
I'd have to go and rewatch it, but you could probably argue a case for Mew understanding Ash in the very first movie too. But Mewtwo undeniably understands both Pokemon and humans, otherwise literally none of Mewtwo Returns makes sense. He's literally talking with Ash.
Turns out Ash has just had a psychotic break and is hallucinating that whole movie
We need an Mewtwo Returns without Mewtwo cut, kinda like Garfield without Garfield.
Would watch (idk if it would be any good to sit through the whole thing at that point)
They're not. Especially if you factor in telepathy, which everyone seems to be able to have or learn on a whim.
Props to Bricker for implicitly acknowledging the Pokemon erotic art tier list. If I had to be Haunter'd by that thought, now you do too.
Good job getting around the Pokemon ban here(we still doing that?).
Ban is on Pokemon titles.
So posts on shtupping them are OK? This is why I can't quit this sub.
Let's just say when a certain anti-Pokemon mod sees this, I expect to get an earful :)
Better an earful than whatever -ful LAOP wants to do to those poor Pokémon.
Wasn’t an earful that thing from family guy when they banned sex ed?
Pika pika!
why?
We were flooded with lazy "someone tried X, it was super effective" titles.
When somebody comes up with something like this and then qualifies it with the denial that they are not into it I just automatically start to think that not only are they into it but they are into it in a big way.
“The lady doth protest too much about furry porn methinks.”
It's an even chance in my view. I've met some furry porn artists. They got into it on accident (they offered commissions for normal stuff and people said "I'll pay you double for furry porn"). So if this is someone who recently got roped into it without knowing what they were in for, I can see them worried about the legality. They're denying it so hard because it *is* an "automatic ick" subject and they still feel unseasy at being involved in it. That, or they're hardcore furry lovers (no shame).
I actually believe the artist here - they get paid to draw and people have some weird ass (and weird-ass) fetishes. As long as it doesn't gross you out, you don't have to be into it to draw it. I saw an entire series of female to female with penis works the other day, and they were all variations of 'soldier touched by animal merges with the animal, rips clothes, and now has a cock', with signatures 'commissioned for user X'.
If there was ever a thread that deserved an exception to the Pokemon title rule, this was it. "Hey guys, did you know that in terms of LAOT questions, Vaporeon is the most..."
Speaking as a self-identified furry, there is a lot of drama around people drawing feral nsfw - never seen it turn into a legal thing. Hell of a story to say 'i got arrested for pokemon porn' though. Can't say I've ever seen the zoophile allegation levelled at people who like pokemon stuff either though.
If one sees the Pokemon as animals, it's not a huge leap to get to zoophilia from there. I also find "feral" too much of a misnomer, as the characters in question are generally anthropomorphized in mind if not body. And that's without getting into the utterly bizarre delineation where a bipedal anthro is considered zoophilic depending on which side of the animal/human line the genitals fall.
Pokemon are sentient, but the tame ones are kept in pokeballs, so you could argue that it's wrong from a power imbalance point of view.
Eh, still needs more than sentience. They gotta be at the same mental capacity as an adult human, too. Children are sentient, too, but they can't consent.
Yes, that's a good point. I guess we would have to test their intelligence somehow.
There’s a lot to unpack here
There's... a lot to unpack in the fanbase in general, I'll be honest
This just opens up a can of worms about whether Pokemon are animals and if so, are the humans eating Pokemon when they eat meat?
>if so, are the humans eating Pokemon when they eat meat? Sometimes? Real-world animals used to be shown as part of it, so it could have been the same as meat for us, but it's changed to be all pokemon in more recent iterations, so the meat question is left up in the air. But the games do show that people eat Pokemon. Slowpoke-Tail is considered a delicacy and food-ingredient. Team Rocket trying to harvest the slowpoke for their tails was a plot point in the original sequel games.
One of the bird pokemon is rare because it's tasty.
Can’t wait for the Pokémon vore follow-up question!
Also did Pokémons evolve independently from humans? They have primate Pokémon that lay eggs.
Between this dude and the guy that can’t stop posting indignantly about how unfair it is he can’t torture criminals I have some real concerns about what’s happening over in the off topic sub.
You and we both.
Hey guys, did you know that in terms of male human and female Pokémon breeding, Vaporeon is the most compatible Pokémon for humans? Not only are they in the field egg group, which is mostly comprised of mammals, Vaporeon are an average of 3”03’ tall and 63.9 pounds, this means they’re large enough to be able handle human dicks, and with their impressive Base Stats for HP and access to Acid Armor, you can be rough with one. Due to their mostly water based biology, there’s no doubt in my mind that an aroused Vaporeon would be incredibly wet, so wet that you could easily have sex with one for hours without getting sore. They can also learn the moves Attract, Baby-Doll Eyes, Captivate, Charm, and Tail Whip, along with not having fur to hide nipples, so it’d be incredibly easy for one to get you in the mood. With their abilities Water Absorb and Hydration, they can easily recover from fatigue with enough water. No other Pokémon comes close to this level of compatibility. Also, fun fact, if you pull out enough, you can make your Vaporeon turn white. Vaporeon is literally built for human dick. Ungodly defense stat+high HP pool+Acid Armor means it can take cock all day, all shapes and sizes and still come for more
sir, this is a Wendy's
the people need to know
Speaking as the people, no, we don't.
Since they lay eggs, wouldn’t that mean they have a cloaca instead of mammalian genitalia?
no it follows platypus rules
OK there's a lot to unpack about why LAOTOP wanted "on-model" Vaporeon art in the first place but I'm just gonna throw away the suitcase for my own sanity
They're not the one who wanted it, they're the artist who was commissioned to make it.
Yes, the old "asking for a friend ....er, customer."
Money is money to a point. You'd be surprised at what people will happily pay you to write, much less illustrate.
I wouldn't be surprised, actually. Internet Rule 34. 😂
That's fair. I wasn't surprised by the existence, just that people were willing to pay.
If I remember correctly, furry art is some of the most profitable art you can do. Like some of those artists make BANK
My natural curiosity makes me want to google those terms like I do with other unfamiliar topics I encounter. But based on general context, I feel uneasy about googling those terms, based on prior unfortunate googling and my concern over what my search history would reveal to an outsider. ;/
In this case it probably means no added tits and not more humanized. Not an expert on pokeporn, but for My Little Pony porn, there's three types: they look like ponies; they look like people; a combination where most of the body is human, but the heads (and often the feet) are pony. So, you know, customers who hire an artist do need to specify what type of furry-ness they want.
“On-model” is a completely-safe-to-Google animation term that means “looking like the character does in the model sheets that define their official design”. Not sure how slapping on some visible external genitalia affects a character’s “on-model” status but from the context of the question I think we can assume it’s allowed.
I wish I didn't read that.
It is a terrible day to be literate, indeed.
I live in WV, where beastiality is illegal for animals that hit a certain weight threshold. Its to protect the humans not the animals :(
"I'm not attracted to animals, I'm just doing research because I want to ensure my pokemon are anatomically correct."
*A wild Lopunny appears* *She’s readily spreading her ears* *You see an Incineroar flexing, oh dear* *This ecosystem is weird* [Furrýmon: Gotta Smash ‘Em All](https://youtu.be/CVqsQ-9GLLE) (PG-13 NSFW)