The currently available categories don't make much sense

Why? What specifically about the number 3 gives it those properties? Why would you select 3, rather than 2 or 4? I find the suggestions of choosing setting, fetish etc. as a multi-dimensional system acceptable, but I am less in favour of arbitrarily allowing more categories to be selected.

Right. Because the MILF aspect of stories tends to be less important than whatever else goes on in them. All MILF stories are by definition Mature stories, so as long as the Mature category exists, the MILF category is unnecessary. That is, unless you consider MILF to be a better category than Mature, a notion with which I disagree because the term MILF is gendered.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure I follow. Bestiality is, by definition, about non-humans.

Authors are looking to attract readers. Putting their stories in more categories means it gets more attention, which means it gets more readers. There's not a whole lot more to it than that. I understand that users shouldn't behave that way, but things don't occur as they should; they occur as they do.

To organise the stories on the site. A newcomer can stumble onto the homepage and think, "I'm really into fantasy..." or, "I have a BDSM fetish..." and use that to instantly browse stories tailored to their interests. More importantly, it's a way of giving each story a single, distinct trait that makes it easier to think and talk about them, to group related stories together in a fixed and definitive manner so that there is no uncertainty or ambiguity - but that's rather abstract.

As I said, I find the multi-dimensional system acceptable, but my main issue with it is its potential to be innapplicable. You can put down Sci-Fi as a setting, for example, even if that aspect is utterly irrelevant to the story itself, like how it doesn't matter that 1984 is technically sci-fi moreso than any other setting. That said, I find this particular idea appealing. This aspect of a story is inevitably important to it, so is an effective and certain way of categorising them.

 

Perspective is already a search filter.
The other categorizations are quite similar to my 3-levels/3-dimensions suggestion

I think MILF (or DILF) implies a significant age gap while Mature could also be with two middle-aged persons.

 

Well, it's still gendered. You could have both Mature and Age Gap categories, if you wanted.

 

Besides, I don't think MILF and mature really do overlap much as whereas mature should be about over 45-50 years older at least, MILF considers much younger people in my experience.
A 25 y.o. woman can be techincally a MILF.
While she wouldn't match my ideal for the category, she would be definitely out of the mature's league.

Some consider MILF as M(someone who is mother)ILF, some others consider it as M(someone who could be my mother)ILF.

 

Unfortunately, under the Oxford and Collins definitions of 'MILF', the first group would be wrong. A MILF is, by definition, mature.

In other news, I discovered that the Oxford and Collins dictionaries both list the word 'MILF'.

 

2 or 4 is fine as well. I just thought 3 would work nicely. One primary category and one secondary. Then a tertiary to be very specific.

That they are a milf is usually quite relevant.

No. It's about non-sentients.

Right so the amount of categories available should not be too many. But still I don´t think they would put their story in the wrong category just to attract more people since they won´t stick around.

 

I was going to reply to each of those statements, but my response to each of them is the same: "Why do you think that?" To me it seems that you're less interested in devising a solution than you are in listing opinions.

 

That is kind of the case.
It is bestiality when one being involved is an animal or a creature that behaves like an animal while the other being is a human or a creature that behaves like a human.

 

I think bestiality usually refers to the practice of humans having sex with animals.
In this, as humans are in fact involved, it could sound conterituitive to place it under the non-human label.

Anyhow, I feel like pointing out that debating how to categorize bestiality is pretty futile, given it's not allowed by the site rule.

On the other hand, non-human could be a good way to round up together all stories where the characters are:

-fictional monsters (sentient) like vampires, zombies, werevolves;
-fictional humanoid races like elves, orcs, vulcanians (space elves),
-furries, meant as zoomorphic humanoids more than humans wearing costumes(real life furries);
-original fictional creations that take into account the harkness test

Since these kind of stories do not imply the presence of humans as partners of these fictional creatures, there is no actual reason to not call it non- human as suggested.
It could in fact stress even more the difference with the above mentioned porn category.

 

Fictional races fall perfectly under the sci-fi or fantasy respectively, so they already have that category. If you write a story about fucking elves, you are creating a world where elves exist, therefore you are writing fantasy. I see no need to complicate things with that mentioned non-human category. Furries, on the other hand are a much more specific trend and subculture and they could refer simply to real people dressing as furries and stories about that subculture. So, that could be a category.

 

In the contemporary world, there are only animals and humans.

So we have to divide fictional beings into animal-like and human-like.
If they pass the Harkness test, they are in that sense human-like.

The Non-Human category was rather for pairings of one "non-human human-like being" and one "human-like being" (human or not).