Besides a private instance with federation disabled (and even then), I don't think Lemmy is really designed for private communities. Even in NSFW communities, guest users can still see the posts if they have direct links to them, or use a non-lemmy fediverse viewer ( https://mastodon.social/@gfur@yiffit.net ).

Even if there was a way to do it (perhaps with a Lemmy fork), you also have to trust that any instances users are on also comply with your requests. Depending on your requirements for privacy, this may not be something you want to rely on.

Is this even a desirable feature Yiffit turned on, or is it just a quirk of how Lemmy works? It certainly hurts discoverability of content here, IMO.

@Wander@yiffit.net figure I may as well mention something here. https://yiffit.net/post/20 Lists !stories@yiffit.net as a community, but that community doesn't seem to actually exist. (Might also be worth updating that post to point to !newcommunities@yiffit.net ).

And yeah, I'd love an e621 but for erotica. Tagging would be so nice for written works.

Wonder if it's rigged like most crane games...

So he gets close to orgasming, and the milker shuts off.

This art style is a bit of an acquired taste, but as far as I'm aware it doesn't break any rules.

I wouldn't worry about downvotes; I think most posts here get 1 or 2 downvotes, likely from people seeing it in their "all" feed.

89%. Y'all a bunch of degenerates. :P

It's a known issue in Lemmy 0.18.3 (presumably as a result of fixes to stop the same attack that happened with emoji a while ago). I don't have the issue number to hand, but I'm pretty sure it's listed in the known issues somewhere.

That thread is locked, I have no idea why it's still showing the comment box. If it knows to disable it, it should know that it can just remove it.

Just a heads up though: There are a few comments there from people on feral.cafe, which pawb.social defederates from, so you aren't seeing the full comment list (which is probably for the better).

He makes a convincing argument~

I'd define bestiality as "having sex with a living creature which does cannot consent to sexual acts in the same way that humans can".

Human/anthro and human/feral don't fit those criteria, because anthros and ferals can understand and consent to human norms (Well, I assume ferals can. Don't really know much about them). What I'm concerned about is what the difference between "man having sex with an animal dog" and "man having sex with a furry feral dog" is.

More generally, if I drew a picture of an animal dog, what separates it from a picture of a realistic feral?

1. It's a useful tool to give a quick guideline on how consent works; if something passes the harkness test, it's a good sign that there won't be moral issues with having (hypothetical) sex acts with them.
2. Agreed. Although it still makes me feel greatly unconfortable.
3. No, anthros (and ferals) have the ability to give consent. Anthros also generally appear very human like, and so there is the implicit understanding that they have human-like society and language.

I was going to just leave a few bullet points and then leave, because this kind of thing kinda makes me feel uncomfortable and frustrated. But then I started thinking and there are two related things I kinda... Wanna get off my chest, I guess?

Firstly, my thoughts on the matter:

• IMO, platforms (Twitter, Mastodon instances, Subreddits, etc.) should be able to limit what they deem acceptable. I may not like it when they do so (Especially if they have a monopoly e.g. Paypal and Patreon), but ultimately it's their right to do so.
• I define whether something is morally "right or wrong" based on consent. If all parties involved fully understand what is going on and consent to it, then IMO there is no moral issue. This does imply that platforms should gain your consent before showing you certain things (although not in an obnoxious data gathery way...).
• Anyone who claims to act upon some objective moral standard other than that, and goes on crusades to try to "purify" people or groups deserve a spot in hell. Especially if they make up some nonsense about it being tied to pedophilia or bestiality. If you don't like NSFW furry stuff, just don't engage. Hell, put "SFW Furry" or something in your bio if you want to raise awareness that it's not all NSFW.
• Bestiality is not furry. It doesn't meet the definition, isn't moral and we should try to kick people like that out.

Also, yes I know you can probably poke some holes in my stance. It's the best I can do, and most people's moral codes have holes in them.

Anyway, onto things I want to get off my chest. When I was younger, I only really consumed NSFW furry stuff (which is probably still what I do nowadays), and that filled me with a lot of guilt. I knew the fandom had this reputation of being NSFW, and I felt that me being into it in that way was making me somehow complicit? I didn't go on any crusades or anything, but I did annoyingly point out "btw it's not just a sex thing" when furry came up. I hope that nowadays either that reputation has died down or people are becoming more accepting that everything has a sex element. But yeah, I can kinda see where they are coming from, I guess. They love this stuff and don't want it to have the "bad" reputation.

Another thing I want to bring up about me is... Feral makes me uncomfortable. I understand the Harkness test, and that they can talk and consent and all that, but it feels a little too close to bestiality for my tastes. I even blacklist it in the communities I run even though I know most people there are probably fine with it. I saw a post a while back which to me just looked like an (animal) cheetah with his bits out, and I'm just wondering why that is "furry". I can kinda see why places ban human x feral because it's super unclear to me where the line is.

So a question to feral furry peeps, if you don't mind me asking, where do you draw the line between "feral" and "animal"?

Big sub / small dom is a fun dynamic.

Just huddling together for warmth in the long winters.

I mean, it feels like a healthier outlet compared to like alcohol, drugs or getting mad at people online, tbh.

And yeah, I like the idea of just turning my head off and letting someone take control.

Just wanted to check something, I've noticed that some of the stuff I'm posting here might be a bit more, uh, intense than what other people are posting. Is this something people are fine with seeing here, or does it cross a line for some people?

Honestly feeling a bit burnt out recently, so trying to maybe take things a bit easy for a bit and also try to fix my sleep schedule.

As a user of Jerboa and I don't think it has that feature yet, sadly.

/uj For what it's worth, as someone who posts quite a bit of stuff there, I also wish full instance per-user blocks were a thing. I like that stuff, but I understand some people don't and rather not force furry tiddies on them. ;_;

/rj But yes, certainly avoid yiffit.net if you don't like that sort of thing. :P

Edit: To those wondering if their instance is blocking it, afaik lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works do not. You can check the instance list at the bottom of the page. Or I guess check if you can see this comment, since my account is on there.

You also won't see furry porn if you have nsfw off in the settings. Or if you don't linger in r/all for too long (there's only like 5 of us posting regularly, it's easy for it to get drowned out).

To their credit, in many countries where circumcision is common there's a lot of misinformation about uncut penises, and a general taboo around talking about penises in general. The whole "uncut penises are unclean" thing is a common myth which appears to be pushed super hard. I can also imagine some men not actually learning how to clean properly (because where would you learn that?), furthering the stereotype.

I think OP is just coming from a background of misunderstanding, rather than trolling. I guess they also didn't realise how charged a topic it would be.

Lemmy really needs an option for "Show NSFW, except in the all/local feed".