From the bestiality guidelines, it seems like the likes of tentacle pits or other monsters is excluded unless they're the talkative type. So otherworldy creatures whose only purpose is to lay their eggs in a human victim are against the rules?
why should they be able to speak? I think, they should only be able to think and not just following their instincts! Would a tentacle pit count as animal/monster or as a plant?
Mainly that the Harkness test seems to be the standard. It seems to demand that any sexually involved creatures be sentient and have a way to communicate consent. I'm a bit partial to mindless ovipositors, but I guess I'll have to avoid those in my sci-fi stories.
There are stories that have this here. I've seen various slimegirl stories where, in my opinion anyway, they are acting instinctively even though they may have a shred of sentience in there actions. More to the point though, I have seen tentacle/vine and instinctual alien ovipositer threads.
I seem to remember on CHYOO the rule was otherworldly or monster creatures do not count as normal animals, which is the guideline. No sex with normal animals.
Oh, the harkness test image depicts a dragon. But then again, depending on how skeptical you are of cryptozoology, dragons could have been dinosaurs that (at the time) hadn't gone extinct yet.
I guess there's a very fine line to walk between what's considered as bestiality, and what is not. If the horse can talk, have wings, rainbow colored manes, or other unusual properties, would it still be considered bestiality? I'd probably say so, even if there's likely a lot of pony fans who'd immediately disagree. Would a dragon be stretching the lines too far? Even if it wasn't quite as sentient as a human being, I'd probably go with a term for legendary monster, rather than a plain animal. Why? I really don't know! As for tentacle pits, perhaps I would go with either a fully sentient alien creature, or with the plant idea, in which case it'd kind of be like an organic sex toy...? In the end I'm just glad as long as I'm not forced to draw that line for somebody else, but I'd definitively say no to any actual intercourse between human and any other of our world's species.
I think, the harkness test is sufficient for all kind of monsters. The crux of bestiality is, that it is not natural for the animal and violation in either case. Thinking about tentacle pits I thought about a different point of view. For this, I would assume, that they can be count as kind of a supernatural animal (monster). If a human passes them, they will rape him, because it is their natural behaviour. (Compare it with some kind of insects, which are planting there larvae under the skin of their victims.)
So in the cases of: A biologically fabricated creature that plants seeds in humans to serve as carriers, a living cave that traps women to endlessly breed with them making small creatures that burrow to become new caverns, or A giant spider ovipositing eggs into a woman's womb, the scenario gets a pass because It's natural behavior for the creature? Or does the creature need to be the aggressor and have a certain super-naturalness as well? For example, the spider case. Size aside, it's an ordinary animal. Or perhaps a tentacle pit that can't communicate, and uses pheromones to get it's apparent prey to do all the work?
The creature have to be the aggressor. If it would be the natural behaviour for an animal to attract humans to have sex with them (I can't imagine, that sth. like that exists), that animal would be the aggressor as well. I don't think, that this would be necessary in general. But a normal or giant spider probably won't penetrate a human in the classic sense. From this follows, that they usually have to be supernatural (depending on their reproduction method).
@gene.sis If it's ok, I'd like to ask you about tentacle sex and it's presence on chyoa. I've been a bit hesitant to ask, because I personally enjoy all types of tentacle sex no matter if the tentacle can give consent or not. And I'd hate to see so many chapters that are personal favourites of mine be taken down. But it's bugging me to not knowing if it's allowed or not even with the prevalence of tentacle sex on chyoa. So as I mentioned I've seen it appear a lot, either as a plant some kind of unspecific monster comprised of tentacles or just a disembodied tentacle, but very rarely do they pass the harkness test. Is it a deliberate oversight? or has it simply not been reported and thus not been cracked down upon?
It depends on how the tentacles are depicted. If they are plants (or parts of a plant,) they aren't considered creatures and thus they are fine. If they can't move around and no other descriptions imply they are creatures, they can be assumed to be plants. If they are considered creatures, they must pass the Harkness test. (It is necessary that their behavior shows that they pass, especially when they don't talk.) It isn't a deliberate oversight. If you notice any chapter that violates the rules, please report it.
