[–]▶ No.15934>>15937 >>16169 >>48544 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
What are your thoughts and preferences in anthro character design and style?
That usually boils down to the extent to which the animal traits are taken. You know.
digitigrade vs plantigrade
flat vs tits on reptiles
paw pads vs none
etc.
With some of these arguments it can get heated and I usually see "why care about X details not being realistic on a fantasy character."
I feel that overlooks the fact that half the point of these characters is that they take notable traits from the animals they are based on. Both so that they manage to be recognizable as that animal and to make an interesting character. It's a balancing act that also depends on some stylistic choices, but it's still an important factor.
It would be cool if we keep lewd spoilered in this thread
▶ No.15935>>15938 >>15945 >>15988 >>16170
Well for starters since we have a Poll birb thread, I think griffon style hands on anthros is a lazy as hell copout and feather wing hands are the way to go.
How do anon feel about birbs backward-legs? it's always humanized so it bends like our knees.
▶ No.15937>>15943
>>15934 (OP)
Always plantigrade for me because it looks cooler and the hips have a neat shape when sitting.
Either 1 pair of tits or no tits at all.
Chest plumes are nice.
No such thing as too much or too big whiskers.
▶ No.15938>>15940
>>15935
>How do anon feel about birbs backward-legs? it's always humanized so it bends like our knees.
Because no one wants to waste time trying to figure positions for backwards legs porn.
▶ No.15940>>15942
>>15938
>backwards legs porn
More like "backwards leg" kung fu for me.
But I still want to experiment with it. Could be interesting.
▶ No.15942
>>15940
>kung fu
literally only non furries give a shit about bird legs.
▶ No.15943>>15944
>>15937
>Always plantigrade
>it looks cooler and the hips have a neat shape when sitting.
Are you sure you're not confusing for digitigrade? plantigrade is the humanoid bone structure
▶ No.15944>>15946
▶ No.15945
>>15935
They're not backwards, they're just really *really* digitigrade. Not birbs but Dreamkeepers characters end up looking alien because their feet are so long. Same with birbs. They're in a constant state of slavsquat.
▶ No.15946>>15984
>>15944
thought so, but i forget what the birb bone structure is called. the way digitigrade bends always annoys me trying to draw it, especially in positions its not natural
▶ No.15949>>16052 >>34421
It depends on the universe, really so long as its internally consistent I don't care. Like Zootopia. Nick walks plantigrade and barefoot, but only has pads on the front half of his feet. This irritates me to DEATH. Either make him digitigrade, or give him shoes. You can't have it both ways.
For my own canon, generally I keep things pretty narrow because it's the only way to really make things consistent. The only anthros are predators of the order Carnivora, they walk digitigrade and barefoot on tough hind pawpads, and have soft and supple pads on their forepaws (like raccoons do) so they can still have human-level dexterity. All other animals are the same as normal, so the dog-people still eat hamburgers made of non-sapient cows, as we do. They're still bothered by mosquitoes and fleas, which aren't giant for no reason. They also have penis sheathes that point toward the chin just like quadruped animals, so even bathrooms in homes have urinals for the men to use; pointing the pee stream forward is the best possible option unless you stand on your head.
(Tits on reptiles just LOOKS stupid, though, regardless of whether you think it makes any sense.)
▶ No.15984
>>15946
>but i forget what the birb bone structure is called
Most are considered digitigrade. They just have really long, weird toes.
plantigrade: walks on toes and metatarsals (bones behind the toes)
digitigrade: walks on toes (also called digits)
unguligrade: walks on hooves
Fun Fact: Racoons are plantigrade
▶ No.15988>>15989
>>15935
>backward-legs
They're digitigrade just like canines, the difference is just in how the bones are proportioned, and even then it varies from bird to bird
I love digitigrade anything. Putting human legs on anthros makes them look just like humans with animal heads, which isn't enough for me. Digitigrade legs also look more P O W E R F U L and G R A C E F U L
▶ No.15989>>16062 >>16143
>>15988
I know that bird legs hip joints are much closer to the body so it looks hidden, still doesnt really change it looking backwards but drawing birbs digitigrade is better than nothing.
So are you into digitigrade legs bone structures as the main appeal or do you have a little gray area like the majority of furries with mixing mammalian parts on creatures that otherwise dont have it? Like the whole scalies and feathered anthros.
That cat looks plantigrade on the horse
▶ No.16034>>16062
My preference is mostly humanoid in form, but capturing the unique traits/evolutionary advantage of the species and retaining those features. So something like a jerboa, keep the long tail and strong (unique) legs. In something like a hagfish, keep the slime glands and odd anatomy (cloaca instead of humanoid features). Patagium on sugar gliders and their odd feet and long tails.
That sort of thing. I don't like zoodicks, oddly enough, but that's a personal preference, I don't like sexual characteristics much, especially when exaggerated.
▶ No.16052
>>15949
>The only anthros are predators of the order Carnivora
Arbitrary and limiting based on no logic considering Carnivora is of no exceptional intelligence in the real world and numerous other orders out perform it in that regard across tetrapoda.
You're only saving yourself from the uncomfortable moral questions you should be posing in the first place.
▶ No.16062>>16143
>>16034
>jerboa
I've yet to find a anthro jerboa that I like. This piece I found is kind of close, but it's just too human. The eyes are too small, the arms are a little big, and the body shape isn't right.
Plus, I don't think any anthro jerboa could ever be as cute as XZ. Feral jerboa is top-tier.
>>15989
>So are you into digitigrade legs bone structures as the main appeal or do you have a little gray area like the majority of furries with mixing mammalian parts on creatures that otherwise dont have it?
Not that anon, but I prefer to not mix species' traits. No tits on reptiles, no horse cocks on non-equines, no bird dicks, etc.... I don't mind when people do it, but it's just something I don't care for.
That cat looks plantigrade on the horse
Wow, how did they miss that? The lowest joint on the foot isn't even there.
▶ No.16143
>>15989
>That cat looks plantigrade on the horse
A little, but the feet should roughly look like that when not standing.
>>16062
I've never seen a jerboa before. It's really damn weird, but kinda cool.
▶ No.16169>>16209
>>15934 (OP)
My preferences are typically more beastlike than humanlike.
I do not like human features on what doesn't need it, outside of bipedal whatnot.
This is my main reason for despising most of furry works. Most of it is human, outside of the color, and head.
▶ No.16170>>16183
>>15935
Proper birb legs would be cool, but ultimately, nobody wants to try and figure that shit out.
Sad, it is. You have some stuff that sort of tries it, but really, with a humanoid style, it just doesn't lean itself to the balance right. The problem is more that weight on a bird is forward, but not so much on a human.
▶ No.16183>>16199 >>16209 >>16249
>>16170
I think if the artist goes overboard with digitigrade it doesn't look good. Plantigrade can look good on birds if done correctly.
▶ No.16199>>16202 >>16250
>>16183
Personally, I am of the opinion that if you're doing plantigrade, you shouldn't be drawing anthro creatures. But, then, most furshit is like that. Less fantasy, more humans with mild changes.
Still, at least that case has proper feet. Would've been better digitigrade, but meh
▶ No.16202>>16203 >>16209
>>16199
I think that character is digitigrade. The leg structure is just more "normal" than birb.
I kind of dig it
▶ No.16203>>16209
>>16202
The way the feet are set up, it's very close, but fair enough.
Personally'd prefer less 'normal' as it were, though.
What's with the pair of stalkers she crashes through?
▶ No.16209
>>16183
>>16202
>>16203
Looks like it's digitigrade but not using birb structures, and instead the lengths is more like mammals, like the cat from earlier or the bold in >>16169.
I do like that a lot more than just plain plantigrade for birbs.
▶ No.16249
>>16183
wew, nice reminder that ashcozy is based as fuck
▶ No.16250>>21408
>>16199
>I am of the opinion that if you're doing plantigrade, you shouldn't be drawing anthro creatures
>disregarding marsupials, rodents, lagomorphs, raccoons, elephants, bears, crocodiles, lizards etc etc
hip morphology of every anthro is more unique to man than feet because furries want asses to jerk it too
▶ No.21398>>21411
I hope none of you fags forget this.
Also does anyone actually prefer completely realistic heads?
▶ No.21400
Oh and if anyone has more images of a furry spectrum from realistic to more human-like, that would be cool.
▶ No.21408>>21616
>>16250
I love cat hips, and you should too.
▶ No.21411>>21414 >>21550
>>21398
I don't think that guide isn't reliable because it's made by an inexperienced artist. You can check out their material here:
https://www.furaffinity.net/user/adiago
In my opinion, design depends on it's execution or context.
▶ No.21414>>21444 >>21550
>>21411
Inexperience or average skill didn't keep him from making a solid point. Judge something based on it's own merits.
The point is pretty basic too as far as art goes. Good stylization comes from a knowledge of reality. If you want to draw humanized or stylized animals without the nagging feeling of "man, this just looks weird" then you need to actually study animals and work from there.
If the goal is to have characters that are like humans with animal traits, for lore reasons or otherwise, then that's another story. Of course then you still need to have the knowledge not to fuck that up with poor choices that make it look extremely weird. That's something where many artists screw up.
▶ No.21444>>21465 >>21550
>>21414
Adiago is a dumbass art hack that doesn't know what she's talking about.
That guide is embarrassingly bad. She's trying so hard to look like she knows anything about art but her skills keep getting in the way.
▶ No.21465>>21502
>>21444
I rather wholeheartedly disagree. The guide is completely correct on the whole. You want to use animals with human traits, not the other way around. It results in a much more interesting character, what doesn't look like the usual furry garbage that's all the same.
You can draw shit well, but that doesn't make it not shit.
▶ No.21502>>21529 >>21556
>>21465
None of your anthros are "animals with human traits" save for legs and muzzle.
Coincidentally, the same as every other pop anthro drawn. You hide behind biology you do not understand with the delusion that it will defend you. It will not.
>b-b-but muh dick
Nobody cares about your digitigrade fetish, loser.
▶ No.21529
>>21502
Depends on how you argue it. I'd say it is far, far more animalistic than the usual lot. Thus, I'd start the case that it is more animalistic with human traits. Namely, bipedalness.
Unfortunately I don't save much the stuff, so these are all I've got, but I'm sure you understand what I mean when I say "Basically just human with a different head and a tail".
Guoh's take is hardly the same as all of this stuff, and I'd've thought that was obvious. I'm left wondering what stuff you must be looking at. I'd certainly love a link to these types, as I rather dig the stuff, and have had a hard time finding it.
▶ No.21550>>21555
>>21414
Nope. I agree with these two.
>>21411
>>21444
>Learn from real life before stylizing
Everyone already knows about this advice.
Inexperience and average (or below) skill does matter, beginners can come to the same conclusions after a while but they rarely do a good job at getting the point across. Littering the web with subpar crappy tutorials from DA and FA like this is exactly why I started the /fur/ art doc, teaching should be left to the pros and the ones who are successful at executing it, because they will be the best at explaining it.
Just showing bad examples is only going to get people to believe it's something you should never do so people won't try it out, but I've also seen cases where every one of these uncanny valley points in this "guide" looks fine because the artist has the skill to pull it off.
▶ No.21555>>21560 >>21573
>>21550
>Everyone already knows about this advice.
Given the amount of artists that fall short here, not really. And the specific point is to utilize lessons from life on animals and augment from there, instead of from humans. Another thing many furry artists ironically screw up.
>the rest
Except the point illustrated is done so perfectly fine and even just the written description does the job.
It isn't a step by step tutorial on how to draw something where the artist is making mistakes on execution that misleads people. She's getting a simple but commonly ignored concept across and does so well.
Put the baggage you have on the artist aside and just look at something for its own merits.
▶ No.21556
>>21502
What the hell are you talking about? The head on that wolf is extremely animalistic. Hell, the neck is as far as it gets from human too.
And what do you mean "none of your anthros"? He only posted one picture. I don't understand the rest of your post either. It's like you're responding to a different person.
Anon, pls.
▶ No.21560>>21598
>>21555 (checked)
>The point is illustrated so perfectly
No it's actually pretty much trash, and falls more into bias stylistic choices in subjectivity than a real "do and do not" guide. Just doing a poor job on drawing examples does not give it blanket powers across all artists as "good or bad".
Even her own followers disagree with this idiotic stance that there's only one way to create appealing and successful animal characters. She has no actual proof other than her own bias towards her tastes, so the guide is terrible and her "advice" that she acts as fact is almost fully discard-able opinion. It would have been better if she showed examples of when these things can work and when they don't but all she knows is being a 1 trick style pony so that's all she thinks is good.
▶ No.21573>>21579 >>21606
>>21555
I don't disagree with her telling me to study from animals, but I disagree with her stating that you can't do animal-like or human-like styles, The reason why the examples appear uncanny to us is because she didn't execute those ideas well when other artists did.
Any style between "animal-like" and "human-like" styles can work well. A lot of kemono styles fit the latter as they have human facial proportions and structure.
It's not ideas that make your work good, it's execution and context.
▶ No.21579>>21587 >>21588
>>21573
Personally, I'd be inclined to say kemono is more animalistic, at least when compared to the average western fur stuff
▶ No.21587>>21593 >>21609
>>21579
>Kemono is more animalistic
Not really. There's different flavors of kemono, the moe-style kemono is practically just anime cute human faces with a snout. The dragon girl or cat is a good example of that. And it can look fine even though they are closer to human features having a round skull which, according to Adiago it's "uncanny and bad". which is bullshit. She's saying all kemono art like that is bad, but it's really down to shape language on what the artist wants to get across.
▶ No.21588>>21592
>>21579
Personally, I've found the kemono style to be almost entirely "chibi". Small chubby bodies, short limbs, tiny hands and feet, cute round faces with big eyes and nonexistent noses compared to what you'd expect.
Granted, it's about as meaningless a term in this context as "anime" is, considering it merely means "furry made by Japanese artists" which can of course be in ANY style. But, generally, if someone is going to put everything they consider "kemono" into a pile, it will all correspond to that stereotype.
▶ No.21592
>>21588
The stereotype exists for a reason, if the artists keep doing it so much that it becomes one of the most defining parts of the style. It's not automatically bad, but it is recognizable.
▶ No.21593>>21598
>>21587
I think you're putting words in the artists' mouth. Did any of the examples of "uncanny and bad" look like any of your examples? No, because that's not what they're talking about.
This is also an assumption, but it seems like she's only speaking in regard to the general style she labels "animalistic with human traits," and how people shoot for it but fall in the valley. (Though it's not really the valley since that's right before realism. But to be fair I can't think of a good term to describe letting one species' facial structure interfere with your goals for another) That's what pops up in my head because it's a common problem faced when you're starting out with more realistic styles.
In that light you can say it's a fuck up not to specify this and using "human with animal traits" as the negative description, but I think there's at least a little context to clue in on. Especially since "uncanny valley" is meant to describe the point of going for more realism, but falling short in a way that's unsettling. In that respect you should be able to assume she is fine with what comes before the valley as well.
If the artist said what you're thinking elsewhere then she's an idiot.
▶ No.21598>>21600
>>21593
>I think you're putting words in the artists' mouth
Read the FA screencap in >>21560
▶ No.21600
>>21598
Ok, she's an idiot
▶ No.21606
>>21573
Her guide is trash because she only thinks in terms of black and white. Everyone that conforms to what she already believes she will agree and circlejerk with, but anyone who offers a different point she will try to act like she knows better and argue down because she set herself up for confirmation bias "it's bad if its not like my style" and "im good because I follow this style advice" circular logic.
She only thinks only 1 direction can be successful in the market (ie media), so she's a dumbass. Here's a video of a much better job at explaining the idea of what she failed to learn. It's not furry stuff but who cares you can apply it to furry stuff easily, the information is way better than anything in this terrible, terrible guide.
▶ No.21609>>21626
>>21587
But even the moe stuff throws on tufts of fur, hand and limb structures, and other such smaller detail. That little dragon seems to exemplify what I mean about how it is more animalistic than the standard western lot.
The cat is more close to something that can be tossed over, though. I'd point out, we've not got much to base on her, sadly, as it is just a top-portion shot with a suit and glove covering most everything else.
▶ No.21616
>>21408
This is kind of hard to see, it's so cluttered.
▶ No.21626>>21629
>>21609
>tufts of fur
Yeah but It's got much less to do with furry stuff, that's just a cultural aspect of Japanese preference. Big balls of fluffy fur fit right into the "cute" and "soft" aspect of moe.
Daily reminder of cat or kemo girls and animal-smiles on humans is the same concept, it's not augmenting animal parts for the sake of being different, weird or fetishist (though there's certainly cases of that) it's because they associate animal traits and animal behavior with "cute" first and foremost before "sexy"
▶ No.21629>>21632
>>21626
Maybe so, but that's one item on the whole what I thinks add into kemono being more animalistic than the typical western lot.
The only spot they tend to fall short on is always adding hair, but unlike Western furshit, outside of that, they're much more beastlike.
▶ No.21632>>21633
>>21629
All of the items that make kemono more animalistic can be boiled down to "is it cute? if yes add it"
What's one of the most common things you see in moe-kemono? paws. Little tiny paws and paw pads are cuter than feet and hands, but they're already a stones throw from the chibi-fied "cute" forms. Same reason that they think animal hoodies and animal mittens is appealing because it reminds them of something soft and "cute". it's got much less to do with furries than you probably think.
▶ No.21633>>21635
>>21632
Entirely possible.
But, again, that doesn't change that they're much more animalistic than the typical western shit.
▶ No.21635>>21636
>>21633
So what makes this more animalistic, instead of just more cute?
▶ No.21636>>21639
>>21635
"animalistic" and "cute" do not have to be separate entities.
Something can be cute and animalistic.
▶ No.21639>>21643
>>21636
>cute and animal do not have to be seperate
Obviously, thats why people focus on the "cute" small animals both in western and eastern art like rabbits or cats.
You said you like the more animalistic aspect of kemono, but at the end of the day it's more likely you like the "cute" aspect instead. Anime faces, with big wide eyes, small simple noses and muzzles are the only thing that separates kemono "cute" from western furry art because I can find plenty of paws or chibis in western stuff too. In actuality, there isn't one having more beastial animal traits than the other, western anthro art can typically have more realistic animalistic eyes, skulls and muzzles (like that moron Adiago is talking about) so just saying one has more is a poor job, and factually untrue.
This is western, and by your definition it's better because it's more animalistic.
▶ No.21643>>21653
>>21639
Again, you assume "cute" and "animalistic" must be two separate items.
Not that an item must be cute anyway. I certainly like cute things, but it isn't like you have to have it "cute" to be good, or that animalistic items must be cute.
I'm not saying that all kemono is animalistic, or that all western furry stuff isn't. I'm saying that, of the majority, western furstuff tends to be less animalistic than eastern furstuff.
I can think of plenty western artists what are an exception to that average.
Yes, I do find that much better compared to the usual furshit you find. What of it? Does that prove anything wrong?
▶ No.21653>>21663 >>23640
>>21643
>Gouh gets posted again for the 1000000th time.
There''s literally nothing that's bestial about that last pic besides being minorly fluffy which is just one trait many MANY artists do, even non-furry ones. So I dont see why you included it, unless youre comparing it to the other first 2. The horse is even less bestial, its practically literally a horsehead and tail on a human body, isnt that what you said you didnt like?
▶ No.21663
>>21653
Yes, that was the point. The second two were intended to contrast the first, being far more human. The horse literally has fucking toes.
▶ No.23011
▶ No.23320
Anybody have any art of something that started out feral and gained human features?
▶ No.23640
▶ No.34415
▶ No.34421>>34429 >>34446 >>34483 >>36287
>>15949
>They also have penis sheathes that point toward the chin just like quadruped animals, so even bathrooms in homes have urinals for the men to use; pointing the pee stream forward is the best possible option unless you stand on your head.
Nope, sorry. I know this is from half a year ago, but this is a pet peeve of mine and I have to object. I know you want a soft fluffy sheath to rest your head on but penises just do not work like that.
The reason why human sheaths evolved to point down is that the urinary tract needs to be able to drain. If your dick is pointed up all of the time it will retain fluids that you would much rather get rid of. An upright sheath would be an absolute monster for the furry's personal hygeine and more than a little bit of an evolutionary disadvantage.
▶ No.34429
>>34421
But anon, didn't you know that trying to make the design of your character conform to reality in some way and actually make sense makes you a giant faggot with no sense of creativity or style? It's much better (and not to mention more creative/attractive) to just put an animal head on a neon green and chrome furred human body.
▶ No.34446
>>34421
>a soft fluffy sheath to rest your head on
idgaf if it's realistic or not, this right here is a requirement in my book.
▶ No.34483>>34485
>>34421
>the urinary tract needs to be able to drain
Basically you're claiming that urinating is a result of gravity and not hydraulic pressure. I wonder how astronauts feel about that.
▶ No.34485>>34521 >>36287
>>34483
Not at all. What I'm saying is that your pingas needs to be able to drip. All of the guys here will know, though they will never admit it. that when you pee a little bit dribbles out. And that's not even getting into the fate of the last drop of spunk after you go soft, what happens when you get an infection that gives you "unusual discharge," or even the fact that as anon pointed out being forced to piss while your little you is pointed at your face is super inconvenient. In fact astronauts in that situation would be in particular trouble because it turns out in zero-g fluids just kind of stick to you, so they'd have to shake it off, which gives me a really cute image of a guy in space trying to shake his brave little cave explorer to get rid of the last drop of spunk
The logistics of biological phenomena that we all take for granted are non-trivial, is all I'm saying. That's why it took us millions of years to evolve dicks optimized for upright design that we, in the past couple of generations, have arbitrarily decided are perfectly okay to just cut off and pretend nothing will go horribly wrong.
▶ No.34521
>>34485
>All of the guys here will know, though they will never admit it. that when you pee a little bit dribbles out
Mine doesn't. I squeeze out the last bit of pee and sop it up with a square of toilet paper so my underwear doesn't smell like piss for the rest of the day. You'd think every guy would do that, but I guess leaving the last few drops to stain your pants is just normal.
As for the sheath, even in real quadruped dogs, all the pee doesn't come out, and the dog is not harmed by it. Neither canines nor humans are very susceptible to infections, and normally have colonies of symbiotic bacteria at orifices to keep the bad stuff out.
▶ No.34650>>34661
I'll just say that Guoh's art is a prime example of how excellent anatomy and proportioning can make a basic character image far sexier than a kinky situation drawn with average quality.
▶ No.34661>>34672
>>34650
True.
I do wish he'd go for a more beastial take, though. Whenever he does, it's always really amazing.
▶ No.34672
▶ No.36287>>36289
>>34421
>>34485
I decided to simply go with a relatively flexible sheath that normally points downwards. Like you said, it just makes no functional sense for it to be pointing up all the time.
I wanted to stay as feral as possible, but the fact is if you want an *realistic* bipedal, social, tool using species that natural selection wouldn't immediately wreck it's hard to avoid a lot of human features. I decided I had to go with plantigrade with the supporting hips & buttocks. Digitigrade looks awesome, but it makes no anatomical sense for a biped. Just standing up would be tremendously fatiguing. I think digitigrade makes the most sense for feral were-species or shapeshifters that don't need to spend a lot of time on two legs.
▶ No.36289>>36296
>>36287
So, a fuzzy foreskin?
▶ No.36296
>>36289
With loose skin above it like an actual canid's to make it look more like it evolved directly from a feral sheath. And unlike a foreskin it wouldn't enter the vagina during mating.
Maybe tomorrow I need to get around to actually drawing some anthro fox dicks.
▶ No.36322>>36345 >>36365 >>36392
Boy, I sure am late to the discussion. If it comes down to modern day settings, essentially a mirror of this world, that's where 'humans with animal features' would fit. Because let's face it, it's basically fursona-world where you project your ideal physique upon your personal character rather than put attention to the proper anatomical implication of it. Not realistic sure, but given we humans find ways to see physical attractions to one another, those artists basically combine the best of both worlds to fill that niche. Justifiable with sci-fi splicing, or being magical creations of gods.
Now if I were to desire designing a serious setting, like exploring if X evolved in tandem with man or so, then I find it necessary to bridge their design to the animal they were based on rather than applying animal traits to humans. Small tidbits like dewclaws and other vestigial characteristics from their evolutionary ancestors.
Still, I admit I'm quite a hypocrite in my desire to give them visually appealing breasts. And also for their posture/gait to never exceed a certain scale one way or the other than what is logically plausible.
▶ No.36345
>>36322
Very cool imageset, anon.
▶ No.36365
Being a bird fur is serious hell dude. There's so many variables in terms of anatomy to work with.
My sona has claw hands instead of wing arms (has no wings at all for that matter; back wings are s h i t) and tail feathers but I'm a little stuck on how the feet should be?? There's so many camps in each species type that it can be really tough.
Also, I very much agree with what >>36322 has to say, since the current modern world is very human based in terms of ergonomics, I see no foul in making anthros more human like.
▶ No.36377
Personally, I tend to draw anthros as more on the human side and with breasts and sometimes hair regardless of their species, but I don't think it's really constructive to lambaste others for not following your own biological preferences.
▶ No.36392>>36419
>>36322
So... rather than the dewclaw type digit becoming a thumb, like basically every other form of mammalian life ends up with, the index digit is supposed to be the thumb?
That's kind of silly.
▶ No.36419>>36427
>>36392
Well, that does depend if generational conditions will compel the canine genes to prioritize and turn the dewclaw into a functional over its evolution to sentience, or adaptation decides to make the dewclaw even more nonfunctional and have the other digits compensate for it. In which at that point they'd categorize their fingers something entirely.
▶ No.36427
>>36419
I guess that's true, but I can't think of an environment that would favor one of the other digits over the dewclaw.
Especially with how canine DNA likes to go all over the place with physical characteristics.
Though I can't perceive an anthro canine that would keep the rear dewclaw. Hell I expect humans are going to slowly lose our small toe over time.
▶ No.37924
Personally I'm geared towards a middle-point between the typical anthro and werebeast style (like this picture illustrates)
▶ No.39358
I wish there were less vestigial features in anthropomorphized animals. Take whiskers, for instance. In a cat, they extend at least as wide as their shoulders so they know in advance if they can fit through a tight space. If the art even includes whiskers, most of the time they're shortened more like a canine's. I'm a little bit autistic about that.
▶ No.41336
I had this idea for a slightly anthro bat OC, but figuring out how she'd dress with her wings and still be modest is freaking difficult. I figured she'd have a suit for flying similar to a chest guard in motocross she'd wear for coverage, protection, and maximum flexibility that won't impede her wings. I've mostly given up on thinking about her because that much detail is tough for a first OC.
▶ No.41499>>41552
i keep getting slightly bothered by human hair for some reason
i appreciate artist who are able to draw characters without human hair like the disney and whatnot, i mean i can suspend my disbelief over a horse anthro or a lion anthro having human like hair, and also when other types have hair that looks like it fits the fur, i also wont think about it when it fits the character either, maybe its hard for people to make their characters look different when everyone's "bald", i can understand that.
but on rare occations sometimes i come across that one picture of an anthro with long smooth everflowing neon collored hair and i go "oh thats just getting silly now".
▶ No.41552>>41619
>>41499
I like the idea of their growing out and styling their natural fur. Maybe they'd color it for looks?
▶ No.41619>>41756 >>41760
>>41552
>I like the idea of their growing out and styling their natural fur
Except you can't just choose to "grow out" your hair anywhere you want. Humans are the only creatures in the entire animal kingdom that have hair that grows without end on some random part of their body. Every other animal (and every other part of the body except the head on humans) grows to a certain (rather short) length and then just stops. An anthro animal could no more choose to grow their headfur to a foot long than you could choose to grow the hair on your arm to a foot long.
Besides, it just looks stupid.
▶ No.41756
▶ No.41760>>41762
>>41619
Sheep need to be sheared by a human or else their fleece grows forever.
▶ No.41762
>>41760
And cows need to be milked by humans or they'll die. In neither case did they naturally evolve that way.
▶ No.41792>>41802 >>41882
Fun fact:
Most furry stuff is digitigrade. It's a big deal on tumblr. That's why we have avian and dragon anthros with fucking canine paws. Are talons and dragon feet that hard to draw? Then again I shouldn't be surprised as most furry artists only draw canines.
▶ No.41802>>41840 >>41846
>>41792
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Birds are technically digitigrade, and dragons DO NOT EXIST, so there is no standard for how their feet are supposed to look. You can't look at how someone has chosen to draw a dragon (within reason, of course) and claim it's anatomically-incorrect.
Nobody is looking at the feet, anyway.
▶ No.41840
>>41802
>nobody is looking at feet
>in this fucking community
Did you forget where the fuck we are?
▶ No.41846
>>41802
>canine feet
>on a reptile/avian
>"right"
Last time I checked, dragons were reptilian creatures, not canines. Drawing fucking canine paws on a dragon/avian is *still* wrong, but as I said earlier most artists suck at drawing anything other than paws. And it seems you've forgotten what this fandom is centered around. All furries love paws. It's an icon. If anything, the feet are a huge deal regardless if you care for them, schlick/jerk to them or not.
▶ No.41863
Dragons are usually portrayed with mammalian leg structure though.
▶ No.41865>>41870 >>41884 >>42231
I'd like to design anthros to be scientifically informed, I'd take all the behavioral characteristics that an anthropomorphic animal would have, and determine what changes to their physical characteristics would be necessary to enable them, the typical design, where the head is pretty much the same as the standard animal form, is not reasonable, given that a snout would not be able to produce language, and if the feet aren't made to support bipedal the main crux of my design would be: "if animals took on human qualities, what physical mutations would be required to acquire them, and how would this affect the way they appear?".
I'd like to create a comic with the premise that all animals mutate within a single generation to take on human characteristics, the cause being never known nor discovered, the animal species native to each environment take on the psychological traits of the first human race to be native to that environment, so an animal from australia will acquire the characteristics of an aboriginee, while an animal from peru will acquire the characteristics of the undiluted native peruvian race.
The animals all keep their diets, which remain completely unchanged, so the carnivores are still carnivores, the herbivores are still herbivores, the omnivores are still omnivores, and if they require a specialized diet, that also carries over, in the case of carnivores, this leads to the unfortunate situation of sapient being that must eat other sapient being to survive, although now, they can probably find some peaceful solution to this problem.
The second thing that remains unchanged is their sizes, though the form has changed, and they gain new abilities, a small animal shall remain just as small, and a large animal will remain just as large, given that ALL animals with brains in the new generation have been affected, this leads to things like colonies of sapient ants, and swarms of sapient flies.
Thirdly, their reproductive systems and organs are unchanged, so sapient fish still reproduce by spawning, and reptiles still lack nipples, and on that note, fourthly, their environmental factors remain unchanged, so the fish people are still able to swim, live underwater, and breathe through gills, and they still drown in the open air, while bird people can still fly.
▶ No.41870
>>41865
>size unchanged
Sounds like my kind of world.
▶ No.41882>>41886
>>41792
Well, how would you draw the lot?
I will grant you, digitigrade is the go-to lot. But I'm not really convinced this is 'wrong'.
▶ No.41884
>>41865
I never much liked the 'humanization' aspect to anthropomorphic whatnot.
I mean, that's ultimately what you're doing, sure, but I just really despise the building of a race as it were with that mindset.
I prefer to look at anthro races as their own thing, separate from humanity, not limited in simply being, say, a crow-human, but rather its own crow people.
Definitely like the size bit, though.
Drives me crazy how furries drop the ball on sizing. Everyone's the same standard, no matter what you are. It's part of why I will always prefer /tg/ type stuff.
▶ No.41886>>41889 >>42231 >>42319 >>42604
>>41882
Nonono.. I'm not saying digitigrade is wrong on anthros at all. I'm saying putting canine paws on avians/dragons is wrong and it is if you follow anatomy. Have you seen those dutch angel "dragon" things the tumblrites love so much? They're barely dragons at all. They look like a fucking mutant canine.
▶ No.41889>>41961
>>41886
Oh! Definitely agree there, in that case.
Though, I don't think dragons must be reptiles. Albiet, that's only because I love me some feathered dragons.
Apparently this is the only image I have with any kind of focus on the feet.
▶ No.41961
>>41889
This is way hotter than it should be.
▶ No.42231>>42306 >>42319
>>41865
Considering that you're making even stuff like fishes and birds and INSECTS sapient, all your world's obligate carnivores are either going to be murderers, or they will starve. There is no "peaceful solution" without a stupid handwavey-sci-fi lab-grown protein or something. By the time that gets invented, they're all already dead.
Actually, on second thought, the entire biosphere will probably collapse if you suddenly make insects smart enough to avoid getting eaten, and allow that to ripple-effect up the food chain. So scratch that: literally everyone is already dead
>>41886
> dutch angel "dragon"
>mutant canine
I don't know where you got that impression from just paws. They're obviously horses, all things considered.
▶ No.42306
>>42231
Except most people draw them as if they were a fox, not a horse. Never got the impression from just the feet. That just adds to it. The detail is all in the face and the way they're drawn and that's why they're so popular with western furs attempting to be "unique". Don't defend inos cancer. Even the slavs and scalies don't think they're real dragons.
▶ No.42319>>42340
>>41886
>>42231
Looking up "Dutch angel dragon" got me some major cancer, so thanks for that.
The tiny bit of hope in the world I had crumbles further away.
▶ No.42340>>42346 >>42349
>>42319
The worst part is that it's really in-depth and the anatomy is competent and interesting and they got a guy who could draw illustrations for medical text to do the skeletons and shit... and all that wasted on a junk design like sergals. Like the design equivalent of that Korean guy spending tens of thousands of dollars on shitty macro porn.
▶ No.42346>>42388
>>42340
Eh, I actually like sergals. They're usually autistic when we're talking OCs, but in concept and appearance, I quite like them.
These guys, though... They're just cancer. Straight up.
▶ No.42349>>42395
>>42340
The actual DaDs are rather nice, but they are a very small majority compared to the millions of anthro ones that do not look equine nor draconian at all, but rather canine with canine paws and maws. A mutant canine as I mentioned earlier. The worst thing is that the creator, ino considers these canine ones canon and as a result they represent the whole entire DaD fanbase.
DaDs are supposed to be equine + dragon, not canine + whatever the hell they're not fucking dragons those ones are. Ino based them off her dead stallion, Dutch and that where they got the "Dutch" naming from.
▶ No.42388>>42390 >>42408
>>42346
Wasn't she just some weird, violent, sex-addicted mutant that was weirdly popular? Any time you look up sergals you get her, and everyone thinks thats what sergals are all like.
▶ No.42390>>42408
>>42388
I personally don't know if it's supposed to be the same for the standard template sergal...
>b-but the prehensile double clitoris. It's totally not a penis, we swear!
That shit is dumb. It's going into deep magical realms that I can't follow.
Your genitals still should follow real world rules as in the female equivalent to the male is pretty much undeveloped male genitals, plus adaptations to the whole birth thing and vice versa. It holds pretty true for mammals, reptiles, etc.
Which one(male/female) you should start with when designing a creature I couldn't tell you, but it should at the very least link to each other.
▶ No.42395
>>42349
>the creator, ino considers these canine ones canon
That's pretty fucking weird. Most people who go out of their way to invent their own kind of furry species do it as a "closed species". Even if they fail to prevent people from making their own (shitty) fursonas of the species, they will at least distance themselves from them, and deny any connection to their "canon". I mean, I hate to give any support to the idiotic raving of "original species donut steel" creators, but just letting any old fuck corrupt what you've made with their garbage interpretations seems even worse.
▶ No.42408
>>42390
They aren't really functional as penises from what I've seen. Too small, not thick enough to do more than be a little tentacle.
Also, please do keep in mind how many weird animal genitalia there are.
>>42388
There's apparently a huge series around them. I don't really keep up with the lot. I just liked the designed, looked like something more in the realm of /tg/ than your typical furshit.
▶ No.42604>>42610 >>42641
>>41886
Same thing with most sharks.
Besides the hair and dog ears a lot of artist will also give sharks dog paws.
I find even less excusable in this case because sharks aren't even some donut steel race.
▶ No.42610>>42613
>>42604
I think that one is actually a shark-dog hybrid, but you aren't wrong in general. I see that jazz fairly often.
▶ No.42613>>42614 >>42716
>>42610
Is this a better example?
▶ No.42614
>>42613
Yes, very much so. Fuck, it looks almost like a rabbit.
▶ No.42641
>>42604
That's a shark? It barely looks like one at all. It's no different to your average dutch angel dragon.
>canine maw
>canine paws
>anthro canine body
And holy shit that face. I'm well aware that this shark thing is a meme that tumblr/FA furfags have flocked to. Really they are just generic canine OCs with sharklike features. Calling it a "shark" is just wrong. It's the same as those "alien" ones. Draw a dog anthro, put antennae on it and make it lime green and its an alien!
▶ No.43218>>46771
▶ No.46748>>46752
What species of anthro most often get the shit end of the character design stick?
Besides sharks that is.
▶ No.46752>>46757
>>46748
Basically anything that doesn't have four limbs. Fish, snakes, insects, and birds to a degree because wings->arms is always awkward.
▶ No.46757>>46762
>>46752
Even if they're a bit awkward I still prefer wingarms to any alternative.
▶ No.46762>>46765
>>46757
While I usually prefer large tails, that is one seriously sweet birb.
Wingarms are objectively the best armstyle for an avian. Even if they're a bit difficult to do right. Not to mention issues when drawing them holding anything.
▶ No.46765>>46769
>>46762
You do it like the semi-avian dinosaurs where they have little fingers coming out of their uh... wrist is it?
▶ No.46769
>>46765
The technical effect would be that they have two hands coming out of their wrist, but I guess it could work. Though, at that point, I think you're better off doing feather-fingers.
▶ No.46771>>46774
>>43218
Maim is shit. Was that really so hard to understand?
▶ No.46774>>46782
>>46771
What does the artist have to do with the actual design of the character? Unless the character is theirs?
▶ No.46782>>46788 >>46792
>>46774
The character is also shit, but the point still stands. Why do you chose anorexic furless sergals AKA dogsharks, over the peak performance version? Are you some kind of faggot with shit taste?
▶ No.46788>>46789
>>46782
>previously on steroids and now a dadbod type is peak performance
Heh
▶ No.46789
>>46788
you may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
▶ No.46792>>46801
>>46782
Is this a vagibro, or a woman?
I can't tell with those hips.
▶ No.46801>>46802
>>46792
It's a male with a slit.
▶ No.46802>>46806
>>46801
Kind of leaky for a slit. Doesn't help those are effectively panties.
▶ No.46806>>46808
>>46802
>Kind of leaky for a slit
those are just the fluids that lubricate the claspers.
>panties
what's wrong with men in panties?
▶ No.46808>>46896
>>46806
There's nothing particularly wrong, but when you combine it with a well-lubricated slit, and egg-laying hips, you give the impression the subject may actually be female.
▶ No.46868>>46891 >>46897 >>48546 >>48574
Which era of furries had the best anthro design?
▶ No.46891>>48394
>>46868
Can't answer that, but the ideal would be 2017 minus all the snowflake bullshit and obnoxious colors.
<tinyboard flag alt></tinyboard>
▶ No.46896>>46908
>>46808
You're just insinuating that sharks naturally have to look like females unless their genitals are external. How shallow!
▶ No.46897>>46926 >>48700
>>46868
Would be interesting to see a similar comparison of furry men.
Probably basically the same, except they've all turned into twink fembois that look like they're sixteen-years-old.
So not the same at all.
▶ No.46908
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>46896
Bitch, sharks don't normally have legs. If you ain't got no legs you can't have egg-laying hips.
▶ No.46926>>46929
>>46897
Nah, modern furry men would be obese men who have facial fair, wear piercings, shut their eyes, and stick their tongue out after whining on twitter.
▶ No.46929
>>46926
It's obviously not a reference to reality, you idiot.
If it were, there really WOULD be no change, because the nerdy DnD furries from the 90's were already fat whiny neckbeards.
▶ No.48394>>48404
>>46891
But if you remove all the snowflake bullshit from 2017 then all you have left is an obnoxious fatass.
▶ No.48404
>>48394
Dude he's 120 pounds
▶ No.48544
>>15934 (OP)
I think it is imperative for every ARGHTist to try to come up with their own way of drawing furries, instead of copying Disney AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Just learn animal anatomy, and human anatomy. Then, start with an animal shape, and mold it into something that can do human-like movements, like walk, run, and gesture.
▶ No.48546>>48574
>>46868
Making teh fandum hyper-tolerant was a mistake.
▶ No.48553>>48573
>"dragon character"
>its totally a dragon guys!
>has paws
Furfags can't seem to draw feet aside from paws. I wonder why?
▶ No.48573
>>48553
Let's guess... someone drew something in a way you didn't like?
▶ No.48574>>48583
>>46868
The first one is more like 1990.
>>48546
I'm not so sure anyone specifically consciously made that decision.
▶ No.48583>>48658
>>48574
The people with influence did and the majority of furfags went right along with it.
▶ No.48658>>48661 >>48671 >>48710
>>48583
There are no fucking "people of influence". Popufurs gain celebrity and then lose it in less than a few years. There is no President of The Furry Community to direct how things go. It's nothing more than a reflection of society as a whole, pushed along in various directions like an Invisible Hand.
Also, it's not changed into being more tolerant. It's NEVER changed. Back in the 90's the fandom was full of nerds and fags and losers who had nowhere else to turn, so it was hyper-tolerant to begin with. It had to be or they would never be able to meet other nerds and fags and losers. It's just that the face of "tolerance" in society has changed, and a bunch of normalfag chads got into the fandom and started inviting in girls so they could get sum fuk. Naturally, girls who are nerds and lesbians and losers are completely different than men who are. Tumblr and SJWs and all that shit was made by and for WOMEN, not homosexual men. The gays had their communities already, and were in the furry fandom already (and in sci-fi fandoms, as a whole, since the goddamn 60's, because again it was the only place they could go).
If anything the fandom might actually have become LESS tolerant, as these chads start trying to make it an exclusive club for themselves and their ugly-as-sin "girlfriends", and simultaneously try to claim it's "not just about sex" while filling the world with dog-girls with tits.
▶ No.48661>>48710 >>48821
>>48658
>it's the WOMEN who ruined everything
>using "normalfag chads" unironically
I wonder if you can operate outside of imageboards at all. You sound mentally broken.
▶ No.48671>>48939
>>48658
This guy had it... until he got into the Chad crap. That's NOT happening (and the Chad thing is BS anyway). But yes, there's no "ruling body," popufurs have a finite popularity lifespan, and no 'people with influence' made big decisions.
This is as nutty as the late Steve Addlesee, who used to opine constantly as though the fandom, as an organized group which could revoke membership, had pushed him out.
▶ No.48703
>>48700
Not really a fair comparison. The first group is obviously meant to represent teenagers. Also, they look like Goofy Movie extras.
▶ No.48710>>48713 >>48717 >>49078
>>48658
I'm screencapping this post. You summed it up perfectly.
>>48661
You're the normalfag who invited women he's talking about. Ah.. I wish computers could have stayed the way they are in the 80's where they were expensive as fuck, classes teaching you how to use them were practically non-existent and they were hard and tedious as fuck to use, and people generally didn't care about them and thought they were a fad and ignored them waiting for them to leave.
This all added up to the internet being exclusively for actual freaks and not normalfags like you poorly masquerading as "freaks" and ridiculing the real ones any chance you got. That's the secret to it all: making it hard to access. That's the one and only thing that can be done to stop people like you from ruining niche communities is to make them very difficult to access. You're so retarded and lazy that if you had to jump a few hoops to be involved in something, you'd just leave instead. It's very telling. You make something easy to use and cheap and retards, like you, flock to it and destroy it instantly.
▶ No.48713>>48714
>>48710
100% this fucking site is self-diagnosed autistic and yet the number of actual autists on this board is in the single digits, and we all get mocked.
pretending to be autistic is cool and funny and le cultural and shit here. but if you actually are unironically you're a leper.
i hate this site more every day but i don't know where else to go.
▶ No.48714
>>48713
There's nowhere to go. The internet is compromised. Onion browser's slowness kept normies out for a while but the comedic hitman ads were edgy enough to lure them in. It's funny, I see more retard normies there typing on smartphone keyboards than I do here, even. You'd have to find a place even more slow, ugly and awkward to use than the average onion browser site to avoid the normies.
▶ No.48717>>48719
>>48710
>You make something easy to use and cheap and retards, like you, flock to it and destroy it instantly
You know, I've never actually thought about how the flood of "fursonas" has been rotting away the furry fandom for the last 10-15 years. I've heard it said, but never heard a convincing argument as to WHY. But you've just cracked it. Back in the day, if you wanted a drawing or especially a comic about your characters, you goddamn better git gud at drawing and make it yourself, because nobody else was going to. This barrier to entry into the fandom kept characters and stories at least decent, because anyone going to take pains to actually learn how to make art is going to (one way or another) learn how to create decent, reasonable characters.
Now, any dumb shit twelve-year-old with $500 of their parent's money to blow can have their vomit-colored, flavor-of-the-week species, edgy deviantart fursona drawn by several competent artists, and run into the community screaming "Look, guys! I'm one of you!!" All it takes for the normalfags to get into the fandom is MONEY. Now knowledge, not being nice, not building up the community, not contributing jack fucking SHIT, just a bit of money.
It transformed the furry fandom from what was once a gathering of at least semi-professional chefs swapping recipes and sampling each other's creations, into a casino's $20 all-you-can-eat buffet.
▶ No.48719>>48748
>>48717
It certainly didn't help, but by large, I don't see the furry community being particularily cancerous in recent years. They've relaxed a fair ways. Cons are still cancer, but honestly ,I don't even know if they're worse than the animecons or videogame cons any more.
▶ No.48738
>>48700
Sauce on the 2017 pic?
▶ No.48748>>48824
>>48719
It's more cancerous than ever and all the "art" on furashittity, dumblr and deviantfart proves it. The cancer continues to grow and at this rate it will never stop.
▶ No.48821>>48931 >>48970
>>48661
he is right and you know it, tumblrfags are ruining this fandom and you know perfectly what kind of people we are talking about...
▶ No.48822
>>48700
both are shit to be honest...
▶ No.48824>>48939
>>48748
Eh, I've not rightly seen much that's any worse than what I've seen prior. Further, now a days, it's contained.
Even beyond, now a days, every fandom has that. Fuck, Danny Phantom's even had a shooter.
The cancer may well grow, but it's where I don't have to see it, if I keep clear of those cancerous areas, seems. No longer do furries try to infest everything, same for other fandoms, say the bronies or whathaveyou.
Anime's the last one what jabs itself everywhere, honestly.
▶ No.48931>>48939
>>48821
>we are talking about
No, (you) are talking about.
▶ No.48939>>48967 >>49018
>>48671
This post was written by coonfox, who is a chad, albeit a sociopath one.
Anyone who has a problem with terms like "normies", "chads", "dumbass cunt hole whores" either is one or aspires to be one/with one.
You'll notice also that the people who have a problem with those terms never have any argument. I see here a reaction image, coonfox saying "no you're wrong" with no explanation, and ... >>48931 whatever the fuck this is. Another "no you're wrong" I guess, but without the sociopath silver tongue that coonfox has.
>>48824
>"it's not shit"
>yes it is
>"no it's not. but i don't visit those places at all btw so maybe it is"
you're so retarded
▶ No.48967>>48969 >>48971
>>48939
Ironically enough, I was actually the one who made the post that one was responding to. So you're close, but no cigar; I'm not nearly desperate enough to argue with MYSELF. I'm not about to start tripfagging, either, so you'll just have to do better in the future.
Though, if you think a gay sociopath furry with pedophilic tendencies and a God Complex can be normie enough to be a Chad, you're a little bit crazy, yourself. Or have you just appended the definition to be "more Alpha than I am"?
▶ No.48969
>>48967
honestly it's a shame we cant fug
▶ No.48970>>49027
>>48821
Oh, the tumblrinas are most certainly ruining furries in general. I can't even browse the front page without some sparkledog "oc" popping up with a made up gender. How many genderfluid/demiboy "dragons" have I seen in the last week? Easily over a hundred and that's on the first page alone.
Nowadays, the fandom is riddled with virtue signalling, pro trans rights, genderfluid, demiboy/demigirl and ftm, which are all the same thing when you think about it. Tumblr has made furries what they are today. Can't even get dragon anatomy right smh.
▶ No.48971
>>48967
Why would you write posts complaining about normies when you're in college and encouraging people to be the best they can be and believe in themselves and whatever else?
▶ No.49018
>>48939
What I was going for was more of a "It isn't any more shit than it used to be, nor is it more shit than anything else".
▶ No.49027>>49049
>>48970
I'll give you all the other stuff but I really don't see any of the demisexual stuff anymore.
It seems to me that was very much a flash in the pan kind of trend.
▶ No.49049
>>49027
>I really don't see any of the demisexual stuff anymore
It was partially because it's not really a "sexual orientation", and also because most everyone was using it wrong. They think it's just "I like having a little bit of romance with my sex, too!" or "I, too, prefer to get to know somebody before having sex with them."
It's actually more like you literally cannot be in any way sexually attracted to someone until/unless you form a meaningful romantic connection to them, over months or even years, even if they're what you would consider the perfect person; you simply don't have any interest in sex, don't even find them attractive, and then (sometimes rather suddenly) after a while it's like a switch flips in your brain and now you DO want to have sex with them. This is difficult to describe. It's a bit like if a guy is 100% straight, and meets another guy who is just the kind of person he likes most, and they become the best of friends, hang out all the time, and like all the same shit, and he would TOTALLY fuck that guy if he were gay (but he's not). Well, suddenly one day after a couple years have passed, the second guy magically transforms into a gorgeous girl. Now the first guy is obviously going to be attracted to him, and want sex.
▶ No.49078
>>48710
>I am the chad who invited EVIL VAGINA HAVERS and RUINED THE FANDOM
>despite me not knowing about teh fandum until about 2009
>despite me not having a regular Internet connection until 2007
>despite I haven't actually sexed anyone yet
Nice psychic abilities there, faggot! I wish your mother knew what you post online.
▶ No.49164
I have two characters I use in different settings or concepts, one is a hare and the other is a pigeon. Both female. I don't like boobs on non mammals so my birb has a flat chest. I also really dislike human hair on anthros but in some art ive seen it drawn well, where it compliments the colors of the creature instead of looking like a bad weave -
feather and fur tufts are fine though. Unnatural colors bother me a lot too... I guess it feels like people think they need neon fur or hair or markings to make their fursona look unique but then it just looks like every other neon sparkly dog design on Tumblr or whatever. Dragons with horse dongs are kinda odd, I think scalies and aquatics are better with slits but I don't really draw or look for porno so I don't really care about that type of art. Also lazy artists who draw everything looking like a canine with smooth plastic skin is a pet peeve of mine. That's about it.