The reason you have not got one answer is that there are several reasons not to host work involving humans in sexual situations. Some might apply to your particular work, some obviously do not, but taken together, they have caused us to forbid humans in sexual situations entirely.
First I'm told it's a payment issue. (The payment providers don't allow pornography of any kind online. Alertpay has rules about it, Paypal has rules about it.) I don't comprehend why this results in 'no humans.'
If humans are not involved, it is not pornography. It is a cartoon depiction of animal mating. (In practice, this might not stand up, but we at least have a chance of avoiding no-bestiality rules, because . . .)
Then I'm told _my work falls foul of bestiality law._ ¬¬
Well that's because you are writing about bestiality, by the technical definition of a non-human animal having sex with a human. Do I think it should be illegal? No; it's just fiction. Do I think it makes sense, given the intelligence of a furry character? No. But it fits the definition, because you put a human in there.
I don't understand why it's assumed that barring humans will provide any kind of legal protection.
I thought I was clear, but again: when it comes to bestiality, underage sex, etc., laws refer to "person" (or "children") - and when they define person, it is as "human", or (in a very few jurisdictions) "human despite a few things that indicate it's not" - the objective being to criminalize lolicon where they stuck fox ears/tail on a human child; this grey area is where IB's mods focus. ("Animal" is typically "anything but human.")
If animals were people under the law, killing them would be murder. Clearly, this is not the case, even for "bright" animals; we have separate animal protection laws to cover them. If human-animal hybrids or uplifted animals are created, we may see evolution of legislation; for now it is a clear dividing line.
If we do not have written or visual depictions of "persons" in sexual situations (or displaying genitals) on our website, we do not have to evaluate any work for adherence to laws referring to them. We have decided that this situation is preferable, given the other issues which make humans problematic, even when legal, and given that humans are not the focus of our site to start with.
The reason you have not got one answer is that there are several reasons not to host work involving humans in sexual situations. Some might apply to your particular work, some obviously do not, but taken together, they have caused us to forbid humans in sexual situations entirely.
If humans are not involved, it is not pornography. It is a cartoon depiction of animal mating. (In practice, this might not stand up, but we at least have a chance of avoiding no-bestiality rules, because . . .)
Well that's because you are writing about bestiality, by the technical definition of a non-human animal having sex with a human. Do I think it should be illegal? No; it's just fiction. Do I think it makes sense, given the intelligence of a furry character? No. But it fits the definition, because you put a human in there.
I thought I was clear, but again: when it comes to bestiality, underage sex, etc., laws refer to "person" (or "children") - and when they define person, it is as "human", or (in a very few jurisdictions) "human despite a few things that indicate it's not" - the objective being to criminalize lolicon where they stuck fox ears/tail on a human child; this grey area is where IB's mods focus. ("Animal" is typically "anything but human.")
If animals were people under the law, killing them would be murder. Clearly, this is not the case, even for "bright" animals; we have separate animal protection laws to cover them. If human-animal hybrids or uplifted animals are created, we may see evolution of legislation; for now it is a clear dividing line.
If we do not have written or visual depictions of "persons" in sexual situations (or displaying genitals) on our website, we do not have to evaluate any work for adherence to laws referring to them. We have decided that this situation is preferable, given the other issues which make humans problematic, even when legal, and given that humans are not the focus of our site to start with.