Shapeshifters and Beastiality

[Bubo_bubo]

Werewolves seem to be OK, but it's not quite clear if we're talking full animal shapes or hybrid shapes (and probably only werewolf on werewolf)
What about a Vampire shifting into a cloud of bats and fluttering up a girl's skirt, giving her little sucking love bites on her thighs?
What about two druids shifting into bear form and doing it bearback?

(It's just that someone said they wanted a variety of topics, and I thought, "Enough about the underage rule, let's go for the really controversial stuff.")

 

[ElectricBlue]

The Lit application of the "no bestiality" rule, as I've seen it occasionally explained, is that the critter must have intelligence and sentience and a "human" free will, or be completely fictional.

Thus, a centaur, unicorn or werewolf will pass, but a horse or a dog will not. And never write about gerbils or hamsters, in any kind of sexual way. Pets only!

I'm not sure there's ever been a mythical connection between druids and bears, just saying. So I think you've been deliberately controversial with that .

 

[Bubo_bubo]

I'm not sure there's ever been a mythical connection between druids and bears, just saying. So I think you've been deliberately controversial with that .

Not in the mythology no. But in RPGs very much. Both World of Warcraft, the most popular MMORPG, as Dungeons and Dragons, the most popular TTRPG, have shape-shifting into an animal as a signature ability of the druid character class.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Not in the mythology no. But in RPGs very much. Both World of Warcraft, the most popular MMORPG, as Dungeons and Dragons, the most popular TTRPG, have shape-shifting into an animal as a signature ability of the druid character class.

Ahhh, I get you. I meant literary/historical druid mythology, not RPG - I do the former and have never done the latter, which explains that disconnect.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Ahhh, I get you. I meant literary/historical druid mythology, not RPG - I do the former and have never done the latter, which explains that disconnect.

I admit to some pot stirring, but these are actual questions that crossed my (admittedly twisted) mind.

And that's not going into situations where only one partner shifts into an animal

 

[Bramblethorn]

Ahhh, I get you. I meant literary/historical druid mythology, not RPG - I do the former and have never done the latter, which explains that disconnect.

Is there actually much historical druid mythology? My understanding was that a large amount of what's commonly "known" about the druids is ahistorical 18th-19th century invention, and that a significant chunk of the remainder might be Roman invention.

(obligatory Spinal Tap sequence here)

 

[ElectricBlue]

Is there actually much historical druid mythology? My understanding was that a large amount of what's commonly "known" about the druids is ahistorical 18th-19th century invention, and that a significant chunk of the remainder might be Roman invention.

(obligatory Spinal Tap sequence here)

I go with the Roman inventions, in that one of my favourite periods in history is the Dark Ages, when the Roman's left- of course, there were several centuries where most written history went into something of a hiatus.

Being English, I always liked the idea of some kind of ancestral lineage back to the dudes and dudettes who built Stonehenge, because they were bloody clever. But it appears more likely that, during the millennia or two in question, my lot were in a bog in Ireland.

However, I will claim ancestral heritage to the Seven Kings of Ireland and the legend of The Red Right Hand, followed by an interlude with the Scots.

There's a deconsecrated church graveyard in the middle of Ireland where every second grave had the same surname as me, which was spooky to say the least, because it's not a common variant, spelling-wise.

 

[RejectReality]

The more humanoid the creature is during the sex scenes, the more likely it is to pass. The more existing lore establishes the creature as a sentient being which would be capable of consent, the more likely it is to pass. The farther you stray from either of those, the closer you get to rejection.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The more humanoid the creature is during the sex scenes, the more likely it is to pass. The more existing lore establishes the creature as a sentient being which would be capable of consent, the more likely it is to pass. The farther you stray from either of those, the closer you get to rejection.

This, and also: the more distant it is from any RL animal.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

D&D is really a goldmine for finding edge cases for this rule. Shape-shifter, animal companions, familiars, awakened/celestial/infernal templates, and that's before even cracking open any of the monster manuals.

But I from what I understand from the reactions up until now, it seems to be a rule that is adjudicated by the "I know it when I see it" standard, so there's little sense in actually discussing such cases, since we simply don't know how they will be judged, except to gross everyone out.

So discussion closed, I guess.

 

[shakna]

Ook!

 

[Carnevil9]

Since the spirit of the rule is that the fuckee must be able to consent, I think it should be fine if the shapeshifter, in human form, says, "Hey, come over here and fuck me, will ya?" before turning into wolf, a dog, a pony, or whatever. Since consent has been made abundantly clear.

I still don't think I would try it, though.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

Allow me to introduce you to the Harkness Test!

 

[BiscuitHammer]

I had it explained to me thus...

A person who can become a dog and retains their human nature... permissible, because it is fictional.

A dog that talks but was just a dog... no.

A mythological creature that can't speak... weird, but go. Equally applicable to tentacle monsters, just make sure they're eighteen (the 'Unca Gwemph Rider')

More or less, the harder you're trying to toe the line or skirt the 'no beastiality' rule, the less likely your story is to pass.

Leda banged a swan (demo of how that works at 11), but it was really Zeus, so okay. Some poor chick gave birth to the minotaur. There's the episiotomy from Hell, but still fair game.

But don't tell a story about your uncle Angus from the highlands banging his sheep in graphic detail, even if he insists the sheep talk back.

Keep it unreal, and talking RL animals don't count.

 

[Amy_66]

(obligatory Spinal Tap sequence here)

Yes, but not as "much" as some expect.

 

[lovecraft68]

My personal opinion is this is just an end around to bestiality. Three headed dogs, Centaurs, the whole, its mythical so its not real...

Okay, nothing here in stories are real, our stories are all fiction...but if the dog has two heads instead of being a standard Doberman, its not beastie?

Please. If its furry, fucking, and you're getting aroused, guess what? You have a beastie kink. Nothing wrong with that, fantasies are fantasies, but the denial is annoying. But not as annoying as the sites claim they don't allow it....wink, wink.

 

[Amy_66]

But don't tell a story about your uncle Angus from the highlands banging his sheep in graphic detail, even if he insists the sheep talk back.

How much of his home-made, dry, full-bodied, smokey, slightly fruity beverage did 'ole Uncle Angus have BEFORE the sheep started talking?

 

[BiscuitHammer]

D&D is really a goldmine for finding edge cases for this rule. Shape-shifter, animal companions, familiars, awakened/celestial/infernal templates, and that's before even cracking open any of the monster manuals.

But I from what I understand from the reactions up until now, it seems to be a rule that is adjudicated by the "I know it when I see it" standard, so there's little sense in actually discussing such cases, since we simply don't know how they will be judged, except to gross everyone out.

So discussion closed, I guess.

AKA, Horny Bard Syndrome.

"Dammit, Harlan, we said SLAY the wyvern!"

I've been playing D&D (and other RPGs) since 1977, so I've seen a lot of unbangable creatures get banged...

 

[BiscuitHammer]

How much of his home-made, dry, full-bodied, smokey, slightly fruity beverage did 'ole Uncle Angus have BEFORE the sheep started talking?

"I’m goin’ te skelp yer wee banny a yer lum reesht, ye wee, slooty woolly Jezebel!”

"BAAAAAA!"

"Haude yer weesht, nae!"

 

[SimonDoom]

My personal opinion is this is just an end around to bestiality. Three headed dogs, Centaurs, the whole, its mythical so its not real...

Okay, nothing here in stories are real, our stories are all fiction...but if the dog has two heads instead of being a standard Doberman, its not beastie?

Please. If its furry, fucking, and you're getting aroused, guess what? You have a beastie kink. Nothing wrong with that, fantasies are fantasies, but the denial is annoying. But not as annoying as the sites claim they don't allow it....wink, wink.

None of it necessarily makes any sense, but it doesn't have to. I'll bet if you polled readers, many of them WOULD see a difference and would be squicked by a story about sex with a bull but not by a story about sex with a minotaur. That's just how the erotic imagination works. My guess is this is how Laurel feels.
As far as my own imagination is concerned, I basically agree with you. Bestiality stories don't bother me. Same thing as sex with a werewolf or a sleestak. (Remember them?)

 

[BiscuitHammer]

None of it necessarily makes any sense, but it doesn't have to. I'll bet if you polled readers, many of them WOULD see a difference and would be squicked by a story about sex with a bull but not by a story about sex with a minotaur. That's just how the erotic imagination works. My guess is this is how Laurel feels.
As far as my own imagination is concerned, I basically agree with you. Bestiality stories don't bother me. Same thing as sex with a werewolf or a sleestak. (Remember them?)

Sure, sex with a Sleestak, right before you get banged by Alice and Grumpy while your two children watch and scream in terror...

 

[SimonDoom]

Sure, sex with a Sleestak, right before you get banged by Alice and Grumpy while your two children watch and scream in terror...

I knew you'd understand.

 

[holliday1960]

When I first joined Lit, I didn't understand the application of certain rules about content, but there's a logic to it if you understand simple 'manners'. This is Laurel and Manu's home and business. We've all been graciously invited to join a potluck dinner under their roof. There's no fee... the food is free for everyone to share. However, Laurel has made certain stipulations. Consider that Laurel is our HOST and we are all GUESTS, the price she demands for the use of her home is that the dish you bring must not contain hemlock, arsenic, or a few other things that she's been pretty specific about. Never mind the reasons.

(Would YOU appreciate having your house rules challenged?) The mortgage, title, insurance, liability and responsibility are all in YOUR name. When you're the one paying the bills, no explanation is due any guest. Plain and simple. When you're invited to someone else's home, presumably, you don't write on the walls with magic-marker, or put your dirty feet on the furniture, or complain about what's served for dinner. (If you do, you can safely expect not to be welcomed back again given normal conditions.)

Seemingly ambiguous rules go hand-in-hand with hospitality; it's a polite way of allowing guests to exercise common sense, manners, and self-restraint. Reading and writing porn, or erotica, isn't an entitlement; it's a privilege, and even if there is a price-tag attached, there's no unlimited license to go along with it. Let's face it, when you rent a hotel room for the night, you also have the privilege of use of the amenities, but it doesn't give you the right to poop in the pool, especially when other people are paying for the use of it, too. There was a time when all the innkeeper had to do was post a sign that said, 'We reserve the right to refuse service...'

Good thing I'm not Laurel, because if I were, I could think of a few I'd have already served with eviction notices.

 

[SimonDoom]

When I first joined Lit, I didn't understand the application of certain rules about content, but there's a logic to it if you understand simple 'manners'. This is Laurel and Manu's home and business. We've all been graciously invited to join a potluck dinner under their roof. There's no fee... the food is free for everyone to share. However, Laurel has made certain stipulations. Consider that Laurel is our HOST and we are all GUESTS, the price she demands for the use of her home is that the dish you bring must not contain hemlock, arsenic, or a few other things that she's been pretty specific about. Never mind the reasons.

(Would YOU appreciate having your house rules challenged?) The mortgage, title, insurance, liability and responsibility are all in YOUR name. When you're the one paying the bills, no explanation is due any guest. Plain and simple. When you're invited to someone else's home, presumably, you don't write on the walls with magic-marker, or put your dirty feet on the furniture, or complain about what's served for dinner. (If you do, you can safely expect not to be welcomed back again given normal conditions.)

Seemingly ambiguous rules go hand-in-hand with hospitality; it's a polite way of allowing guests to exercise common sense, manners, and self-restraint. Reading and writing porn, or erotica, isn't an entitlement; it's a privilege, and even if there is a price-tag attached, there's no unlimited license to go along with it. Let's face it, when you rent a hotel room for the night, you also have the privilege of use of the amenities, but it doesn't give you the right to poop in the pool, especially when other people are paying for the use of it, too. There was a time when all the innkeeper had to do was post a sign that said, 'We reserve the right to refuse service...'

Good thing I'm not Laurel, because if I were, I could think of a few I'd have already served with eviction notices.

This is very well said. If everyone read it and thought about it, there would be fewer gripes.