Are pets allowed to be part of a story?

[Elizasboss]

I was wondering if pets like dogs or say horses are allowed to be part of the story in a sexual way? Please advise.

 

[Brandnewbuddy]

No.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I was wondering if pets like dogs or say horses are allowed to be part of the story in a sexual way? Please advise.

Since this is the second question you're asking regarding things that are easily explained on the FAQ-Page, I guess you didn't read it. So, here, take a look: https://www.literotica.com/resources/content-guidelines

Bestiality - sexual activity between humans and real-life animals will not be published; human sex with fantasy characters, monsters, furries, anthro, etc. are allowed.

 

[Elizasboss]

No.

Thanks mate

 

[Elizasboss]

Since this is the second question you're asking regarding things that are easily explained on the FAQ-Page, I guess you didn't read it. So, here, take a look: https://www.literotica.com/resources/content-guidelines

Oh thanks for the guide, i actually didnt.

 

[Laodice]

Rye rope so.

Rooby rooby roo!

 

[Rustyoznail]

Oh thanks for the guide, i actually didnt.

Most of Lit's rules have a hard line, like no under 18's even thinking about sex, and no beastiality. Some lines are a bit fuzzier for newcomers like noncon is ok, but the participant must get some satisfaction from the encounter.

Read the guide, and then if you have any questions or need clarification (most of us have had to), then ask here or in the Authors Hangout forum.

 

[Elizasboss]

Most of Lit's rules have a hard line, like no under 18's even thinking about sex, and no beastiality. Some lines are a bit fuzzier for newcomers like noncon is ok, but the participant must get some satisfaction from the encounter.

Read the guide, and then if you have any questions or need clarification (most of us have had to), then ask here or in the Authors Hangout forum.

Thanks mate. I will go through it all.

 

[JenniZinc]

I was wondering if pets like dogs or say horses are allowed to be part of the story in a sexual way? Please advise.

I wish men like you could keep their minds on adult humans only. I saw another post where you were wanting to write about children breastfeeding - that's a disgrace!

 

[Carnevil9]

I wish men like you could keep their minds on adult humans only. I saw another post where you were wanting to write about children breastfeeding - that's a disgrace!

Children breastfeeding!? Disgusting!!!! What is this world coming to?

 

[Elizasboss]

Hey no need to get that emotional

I wish men like you could keep their minds on adult humans only. I saw another post where you were wanting to write about children breastfeeding - that's a disgrace!

Hey no need to get that emotional. Its not something i am fantasizing about, i dont need to because i run a legit business. My sister does it already and it was only that which i thought to make part of the story if possible.
And as far as the children are concerned she still breastfeeds her twin boys and they are i think 6 or about to be 6 soon

 

[Elizasboss]

Children breastfeeding!? Disgusting!!!! What is this world coming to?

My sister breastfeeds her boys who are 6 or about to be 6 soon and she told me she knows some women who are doing it for upto 10 years as well

 

[Lube_it_up]

I have read at least one animal story on this site.

And here's another question: if you write that a dog has two tails, will it already be fantastic or is it an ordinary dog with a mutation?

 

[alohadave]

I have read at least one animal story on this site.

And here's another question: if you write that a dog has two tails, will it already be fantastic or is it an ordinary dog with a mutation?

It has to be sentient to be able to give consent. That's why it has to be a fantastical/mythical beast. A mutated dog is still a dog.

The consent part is the key to this.

 

[Lube_it_up]

It has to be sentient to be able to give consent. That's why it has to be a fantastical/mythical beast. A mutated dog is still a dog.

The consent part is the key to this.

Yes but, you can describe a fantastic beast as a non-intelligent animal.
And if we continue the reasoning about consent. A pig cannot consent to being eaten. But we eat pig. A pig cannot consent to sex. And we can't do that. Don't you see a contradiction here?

 

[alohadave]

Yes but, you can describe a fantastic beast as a non-intelligent animal.
And if we continue the reasoning about consent. A pig cannot consent to being eaten. But we eat pig. A pig cannot consent to sex. And we can't do that. Don't you see a contradiction here?

I'm not going to argue rules with you. Sentience and the ability to give consent is the line that Laurel has set, end of story.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I have read at least one animal story on this site.

And here's another question: if you write that a dog has two tails, will it already be fantastic or is it an ordinary dog with a mutation?

Sometimes stuff that breaks the rules slips through moderation, which is why there's a "report story" option for readers.

I'm not going to argue rules with you. Sentience and the ability to give consent is the line that Laurel has set, end of story.

Has she actually said somewhere that that's the line? I'd always assumed the "mythical" requirement there was because there's not much risk of somebody getting caught fucking centaurs and then blaming centaur-fucking stories on Lit for encouraging him, but I can't recall seeing a clear statement one way or the other on it.

Purely academic curiosity for me, since I have no urge to write anything close to that particular line, but I like to know these things.

 

[alohadave]

Has she actually said somewhere that that's the line? I'd always assumed the "mythical" requirement there was because there's not much risk of somebody getting caught fucking centaurs and then blaming centaur-fucking stories on Lit for encouraging him, but I can't recall seeing a clear statement one way or the other on it.

I did a quick search of Laurel's posts about it, and I was not able to find anything where she explicitly said the reason was because of consent. So maybe I read into it, or took what someone else said as the reason. If so, my bad.

 

[Lube_it_up]

Has she actually said somewhere that that's the line? I'd always assumed the "mythical" requirement there was because there's not much risk of somebody getting caught fucking centaurs and then blaming centaur-fucking stories on Lit for encouraging him, but I can't recall seeing a clear statement one way or the other on it.

This rationalization seems more appropriate in the case of both animals and juveniles.
But I have no idea how loli hentai sites are supposed to survive))

 

[Bramblethorn]

This rationalization seems more appropriate in the case of both animals and juveniles.
But I have no idea how loli hentai sites are supposed to survive))

I expect Laurel and Manu view that as somebody else's problem, not theirs.

I'd guess a lot of those sites are based in countries where the legal and political climate is quite different to the USA, and their owners may have their own ideas about how willing they are to take risks. There have been cases of people going to jail under US law for running sites which hosted pedo stories and no doubt L&M would prefer not to have to defend Literotica's rules in court.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Yes but, you can describe a fantastic beast as a non-intelligent animal.
And if we continue the reasoning about consent. A pig cannot consent to being eaten. But we eat pig. A pig cannot consent to sex. And we can't do that. Don't you see a contradiction here?

Lmao, this is a false equivalence fallacy. Laurel and Manu’s Literotica has nothing to do with people choosing whether or not to eat pig.

 

[000zing]

Go ahead and write your story, whatever it is. Don't let the arbitrary rules of one website inhibit your creativity.

Believe me, not being able to publish (I use the term extremely loosely, as one would have to when doubled up with laughter) on Lit. is scarcely the end of the world. Lots of people here don't bother.

 

[jaF0]

Thread number 18,247 on this topic. The rules are the rules, no matter how you try to twist them. I would imagine it's quite difficult to type out a legalese set of rules to cover all instances given the international nature of the client base here. . And if they did, would people read them? Understand them? Have you ever tried to read the full Terms Of Service of some software packages, or even your bank accounts?

The bottom line is that this site is based in the US and governed by US law, n9 matter what you, the poster/reader are located. US Law applies. Period.

Within the image rules and some of the guideline pages, you see text like this:

----------------------

However, we remove any images which are brought to our attention that violate our Community Guidelines, forum rules, copyright statute, or any U.S. laws.​

​

Visual representations (photographs or video) of any real person engaged in “actual sexually explicit conduct” as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2257.​

-------------------------------------


Though they state images or pictures, they concept applies to ALL content.

Your opinion or interpretation is irrelevant. If it's illegal under US law, it's subject to removal from Lit. Period.

Admin and the Mods have some latitude in what violates those guidelines and what it, or is not removable.

 

[jaF0]

A pig cannot consent to being eaten. But we eat pig. A pig cannot consent to sex. And we can't do that.

It it legal under US law to eat pig. It is not legal under US law to boink a pig.

There are countries where it may not be legal to eat pig. Or cows. There may be countries where it is legal to eat dog, cat or horse. It is not in the US.

I'm not aware of any countries, anywhere in the world where sex with animals is legal. If there is, I don't want to know about them.

Fantasy creatures that appear in the approximate form of animals are not governed by laws, since they do not exist.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

Lmao, this is a false equivalence fallacy. Laurel and Manu’s Literotica has nothing to do with people choosing whether or not to eat pig.

A false fallacy, eh? Methinks this has the ring of a double negative to it.