A Question on Shapeshifting and Beastiality

After watching an essay of the video game Hollow Knight and being reminded of Greek Mythology, it occurred to me, and long before I type this, that loopholes against the second rule of the site, which as the CHYOA Guide entails:



I understand that, because of a shapeshifter potentially either being an alien or a superhuman, therefore they instantly pass the Harkness test or are exempt via the Plants, robots, objects, etc. rule. However, what's stopping an author with using descriptions, such as:

"A mechanical horse which was anatomically and biologically similar to a real one, along with its mannerism. Even the size of its penis was magnificently accurate, and the only thing that missed the mark were the lack of flies.."

...to justify any acts of Beastiality.

Furthermore, impregnation is a popular fetish, and while I'm not here to kinkshame and neither have I read: "Zeus and his 1001 Demigod children part 1," the Greek god Zeus shiftshapes to numerous different animals from swans, to bulls, husbands, ants, and a golden shower (like, a literal golden shower). There are also some variations of rape in the stories, so what's exactly stopping, either a Percy Jackson fanfic, Greek myth retelling, or power fantasy, of a character shapeshifting into a horse, a dog, a turtle for all I care, and taking advantage of another character?

The other character wouldn't know. Mayhaps they get impregnated and poop out a human baby, sure, and biologically, that's not plausible (and I pray it never does, or else I'm going Warhammer 40K with this planet) so scientifically it points to the father, though animal, being human.

Now, supposedly, I was going to link a chapter that does this. A robot dog is used and it somehow cums inside the daughter's womb, but either I'm misremembering or it's from a different story.

Still, this looks like familiar territory looking into things. Mayhaps the branch has been deleted, or I'm not looking hard enough.

Now, to recap since I may have derailed my own train of thought: Since shapeshifting and robots are detailed to not be illegal, what if someone justifies those things to write Beastiality?

 

Does that pass the Harkness test? I mean, it's pretty safe to assume that it's beastiality if you think it's a normal animal. If it looks and act as a normal animal it shouldn't even matter what the inside is made of.

 

Now that i had a drink i think you might be right... I think you can safely argue that the use of the same object can be both depending on the situation. If i invent the robot dog and open a secret compartment to select the program and adjust parameters before the act i think you can argue that it's nothing more than a toy. I know it's a toy i treat it as a toy. But if after i'm done i put in on the porch and you come to visit and say "Oh, what a cute dog..." and proceed to bang bang i'd say it's bestiality. Does it make sense?

 

I think its all about perception... and storytelling.

If Zeus as a God kidnaps and fucks Europa, then OK.
If we're told he took on the form of a Bull while doing so, then its a bit iffy, but I guess as long as we dont have erotic content about the encounter we probably squeak past the rule.
If we're told a chapter where the anatomy of the Bull is described in sweaty detail along with any penetrative acts and Europa's responses to the same, then definitely NOT OK.
Even if Zeus has enchanted Europa so that he is in his Godly form, but she perceives him as a Bull, then I think its still NOT OK, due to her perception.

Another example would be the God/Titan humanoids Medusa and Poseidon fucking could be described in as much detail as we could stomach. However, their child Pegasus (once its 18 of course and even though its the same race) could not, just because it has all the appearance of a horse.

I think your robot dog analogy is similar. While its obviously just a toy, then there's no line crossed. If its convincingly furry and smells bad when its wet then its not OK either. Same goes for shapeshifters. If they shapeshift convincingly into the form of something/someone which fails the Harkness test then its not OK. However shapeshifting into a humanoid with big teeth and ears and a 3 foot long cock would still pass the test if it was sufficiently human otherwise.

I guess if you see someone using something to try to bypass the rules my suggestion would be a quiet message or comment asking them to make the necessary changes to stay in the rules. Failing that, report it to the Mods as we dont want the site to get into trouble.

 

It had however occurred to me to do a Torchwood Fan-fic, where the irrepressible, futuristic but incredibly ancient Captain Jack Harkness goes through an era where he has a regular hobby of fucking every human (and sufficiently similar humanoid, alien and robot creature) he can get his hands on, on their 18th birthday. Jumping out of cakes etc - just to push the limits of his self-imposed rule.

 

I fail to see the point here.

I think it was generally agreed that an intelligent, talking, over-eighteen (robotic or not) dog-looking creature is not a dog.

Stemming from there, every spawn of imagination, furry, scaly, slimy, tailed or not, it's game, as long as it passes the Harkness test.

Does it scratch the itches of those who might like bestiality? Probably.
Is it bestiality? Nope.

 

I think it's if we see it as a dog and a character thinks of it or treats it as a dog then we have to accept it as a dog so it fails. If its a furry doglooking humanoid. (EG walks on 2 legs, talks, is human size and dimensions) then it passes.

 

Not meaning to sound rude, but every now and then these kinds of threads pop up and suddenly it seems the rule needs constantly to be reworked or reinterpreted.

This specifically, has been already covered, I'm pretty sure of it.

A talking, intelligent, over-eighteen, dog-looking as much as you want creature, is not a dog as long as you don't cleverly decide to name it "talking dog".

 

Fair enough. I will bow to your knowledge on the subject (and rest easier when considering some previous efforts of mine involving hucows etc...)

 

I was just chiming in, I'm naturally drawn by discussions about rules.

You may want to wait for Gene.sis to pop by, just to be sure.

Then again, with all that is going on with Chyoa funding, these rules may as well change in the near future.

 

There is a reason rules are vague in the world... No bestiality means no bestiality. Because, obviously, I know it when I see it.

 

The appearance is not that relevant as long as it is clear from the descriptions that the creature passes the Harkness test.

If it is a robot, it needs to be clear to the reader that it is a robot. (Using an immersion variable with the default value "robot dog" being the only mention of it being a robot won't work.)

 

Sorry to labor the point but could you give a ruling on my example of pegasus. IE racially a god with god parents but the appearance of a winged horse?

 

If they pass the Harkness test, it would be fine.

I'm not familiar with the lore to say if that applies to Pegasus. (It doesn't matter if they are technically a god or if the parents pass the Harkness test or not.)

From the fantasy lore I know, I'd say pegasi don't pass the Harkness test.

 

OK thanks.

 

In each chapter, Jack Harkness encounters something or something, and either realizes it passes his test and he seduces and fucks it, or doesn't and he feeds them something species-appropriate by way of apology.

 

I do think there is an interesting point to be made about categories that are excluded from the Harkness test - in this case, robots. For a character (or perhaps "thing" is a better term) to count as a robot, I imagine they should be depicted as such, not merely stated.

For example, suppose you have an ordinary, everyday dog that explicitly does not pass the Harkness test. It gets into an accident and has its leg amputated, and is fitted with a cybernetic leg. In your story, you choose to begin using the word "robot" to refer to the dog. However, the dog is still a living thing and not a mechanical entity, so the Harkness test should still apply, and since the dog fails, it should not appear in sexual situations.

Now suppose you repeat this for every part of the dog, internal and external, including its heart and brain. It is now an entirely artificial object that runs on advanced AI. Clearly, it is not subject to the Harkness test. At what point did it stop being an animal and start being a robot?

 

Or just a full-fledged robot replica of a dog, like those of Westworld.

It behaves like a dog, although it is potentially more intelligent than a human.

 

This!

This is what I had in mind while I was writing the robot horse. That and the Robot Dog chapter that I can no longer find.

And something did come up as I wrote this. Say I was to write another Fallout fanfic using synthetic characters that are present in the 4th game.

Then being the naughty boy I am, I say that, the gorillas found within the Institute have their AIs changed so that they can pass the Harkness test and the ability to consent to sexual encounters. But since they are also synthetic/robotic, so do they need to pass the Harkness test to begin with?

 

Hmm, I wonder if you pass the Turing test then does that mean that you fail the Harkness? ie. the Robot is sufficiently alive as defined by Turing, that the Harkness test is needed if you want to use it? If it fails the Turing then its not alive so it doesnt need to bother about Harkness and is the equivalent of a fleshlight.