/fur/ - Furry★

>"How would a Furry world work?"

This greatly depends on a lot of factors. Like "are there any carnivores?" If there are and they're friendly, they need to explain how they get their food. Like are there "lesser" animals they eat etc.

One thing a lot of fictional universes tend to mess up is when different races behave differently depending on which character is being portrayed. A famous example is the Goofy and Pluto paradox. Since in this fictional universe both are dogs, but Goofy stands upright, lives in a house and wears clothes. And the other is on all fours and barks. I've also seen something similar with horses where they'll have both anthro and feral horses.

>Would different Furry “Species” be able to have healthy offspring?

It depends on how cartoony you're going for. If it's something like Zootopia you're probably not aiming for realism anyway.

>Do Humans live besides Anthros? Would different Species have tense relations with one another or would they all get along

If they do it needs to be explained why the humans aren't subjugating the anthros like they attempt to do for every race throughout history. A lot of worlds that do something like this tend to portray the anthro race as like black person living in the Jim Crow south

It greatly depends on what you're going for since you can also make something optimistic like Star Trek or something that's just straight up cartoony like Zootopia. The world you create should exist in service to the plot.

bump

>>79907

>>79986

>>79993

The world revolves around my dick

Are we talking about in general or our personal worlds? I've always been into world building, especially conlanging. In my conworld:

>Would different Furry “Species” be able to have healthy offspring

No.

>Do Humans live besides Anthros?

Humans don't even exist.

>Would different Species have tense relations with one another or would they all get along?

I've always linked world building with languages, so I usually have each species in a aztec or ancient greece like setting with their own separate languages. Like I'll have a Proto-Canine language with a small vocabulary and simple grammar that I could write simple mythos in, and then as the Canine tribes evolve away from each other into their respective species the languages will evolve to reflect the stereotypes (for example since foxes are small, quick, and make high pitched noises, they'd have a language with few consonants and a complicated tonal system). I focus almost exclusively on predator species and any sentient herbivore are more goblin-like in intelligence. Since each species also lives in a stereotypical environment (wolfs in snowy mountains, lizards in deserts etc.) it gives them a kind of cultural archetype to follow and from that stems conflict over resources when territories overlap.

Would all of the anthros willingly form groups or governments? What if some species don't value authority, what if some aren't as altruistic as humans are? Let's say the asocial species would have been out competed. Would there be a big carnivore/herbivore race divide?

Even if the carnivores ate things fish or insects these food production differences would lead to something similar to the nomadic vs sedentary conflicts we had up until the 1500s in eurasia (without the potato pushing population density up in europe, who knows how long the nomads would have lived on the steppe).

>>80013

>I've always linked world building with languages

So the Tolkien method. Nice. I'd love to do something like that, if my crippling autism didn't make thinking of alternate languages basically impossible.

Anyway, in my world I did away with the idea of herbivores being sapient at all. It's just too much trouble with figuring out how things work, and Zootopia thoroughly played out the whole predator/prey thing. No point rehashing that if it would distract from the rest. I also went a step farther and restricted the world to nothing but terrestrial species from the order Carnivora. That way they're all similar enough that it would make sense for them to live and work together, and share common values and needs. A unified, modern world is impossible to have if everyone's in isolated squabbling tribes that cannot understand each other.

>>80090

>A unified, modern world is impossible to have if everyone's in isolated squabbling tribes that cannot understand each other.

I think it can work, just need a dominant group to lead a confederation of backward people, as an example look to the russian federation. Dozens of autonomous republics, a hundred ethnicities, all kept under control not by direct force but by large distances between people, harsh weather, and low cultural influence from things like enlightenment ideas.

For communication there could be some history of language dominance; centuries of trying to assimilate similar languages, decades long campaigns to eliminate accents, going so far as to have standardized surgery performed on the tongues of newborns so they can "speak the language correctly". For maintaining a common goal to strive for there could be some sort of changing higher authority preaching truth and teaching the morals that should concern people.

This is all shit you see in russia, even as a caricature this could be an interesting world.

>>80030

>What if some species don't value authority, what if some aren't as altruistic as humans are?

Well we have that on Earth

The general world I prefer uses a lesser species approach, with the most predominant of species (at least within the fandom) being greater. Things like cows and some species of birds are lesser (food, wildlife), while canines, felines, rabbits, etc, are greater (meaning they're industrious, complex social structure). Even though for the purpose of the story beavers are a cognitive species (working, communicating, subservient).

So long as they're within the same family of animal they can reproduce successfully. No cabbits, but folfs are possible.

I use an alternate Earth set-up, where technologically and geographically they're similar. So planes, trains, cars, roads, oceans (we going ocean?) need to exist. Which means other resources (trees, gas, etc) also need to exist. Which means conflict.

I think BoJack Horseman's solution to pred/prey is horrifically charming. Though it is catroon world building (framed so in the source material and improbable for realist settings.)

All animals, insects, fish, etc are anthro. "Food" is injected with with hormones that prevent the development of sapience. They're kept in farms for slaughter. This is portrayed as normalized behavior and is socially acceptable in the source material.

>>80119

God I miss those books. I wish I had a scan of the city one I kept reading in the 90s.

>>80119

>DO YOU GET IT?

Something tells me you plan on making pigs the ruling class, they're also omnivores...yeah, I understand the allegory you're making.

>>80140

hit up https://www.libgen.io/

check the fiction section; maybe you'll find a digital scanned copy?

>>80136

that could have been an allegory for veganism bro. cartoons and shit is often a fucking caricature hopefully

are there any carnivore mammals who can't survive on fish, birds, bugs or lizards and need to eat other mammals?

>>80174

definitely the most interesting aspect of this whole food and anthros idea

>>80179

It wasn't exactly as hard-hitting a message as it would be in an adult movie to be sure but the bit with Nick as a kid was genuinely heartbreaking.

>>80174

I doubt most canids and felids can survive without red meat/poultry in the wild. Though I don't actually know enough food chemistry to be sure. There certainly has to be a reason why they hunt wild game instead of just eating fish. But if I had to guess, it would most likely be more about caloric density. You get more calories from a pound of moose (counting the fat and organs) than from a pound of fish. So wolves will work together to take one down, instead of just camping out at a river, even though the former carries with it a chance of injury.

However, in a civilized setting, this could easily be mitigated. Protein from bugs is actually more nutritious per pound than anything else, but it's simply not efficient to hunt them yourself; you burn too many calories. A giant bug-farm and factory making protein patties changes this. Also, animals living in a city need burn many fewer calories than those hunting in the wild, so need less food overall. Provided there isn't some kind of vital nutrient that you can't get from fish/insect protein, there's no problem aside from cultural.

>>79834 (OP)

I've been rolling around one in my head where humans are driven to such solitude-driven rarity and deity-like power that among beastkin they're treated as gods. The twist is that the remaining humans have kept a Brotherhood of Steel-esque control of technology that it gives the illusion that it's magic.

The two races would get along fine, though the respect is almost entirely one-sided. Occasionally (like roughly one or two per generation) oddball humans wouldn't give a shit about the customs and hang out with the beastkin, causing all sorts of questions regarding if their faith is misplaced or if it's necessary. That would be the point where whether or not particular groups of beastkin decides to turn hostile or not.

>Predator food supplies

I really don't see there being a reason that during the million years of evolution/decades of science that a carnivore species can't transition to a more omnivorous diet. For example, if real pandas swapped all the way to herbivore then it's reasonable that your anthro foxes can get nutrition from a human diet.

If pred diet and the issues it raises is not a focus in your world then it doesn't have to be.

Also making food animals sapient is a dumb idea. There is maybe room for about 5 species before it devolves into human-world-but-with-animals so why waste a slot on sapient chickens.

Hoo boy, I missed thread like this.

In my world, there are anthropomorphize version of majority all animal, insect included. Normal version of those species exist as well.

Human exist along side them as subspecies of primates.

These Anthromorphs are referred to by human as beast men. that said, the beast men are considered to be separated species from the animal their kinds resemble to. And yes, there are beast men that completely resemble to human. The only things that marks clear indicator of beast men from their normal counterparts is their ability to mate with other species and bear offspring that take both traits from their parent, even if one of their parents isn't a beast men themselves. Any offspring borns will be a fully beast men, even of one of their parent isn't one. Most of the beast men can talk if their a good amount of human DNA left in it.

Most of the species are stronger,better,faster than human, and have near equal intelligent, but are slave to their instinct. Human, on the other hand, while not as strong, are one of the few species on land not restraint by their their instinct to use their intelligent. Although start out weakest at first, once they learnt to build weapon and exploit the beast men instinct, start to dominate the world, but never fully.

As for how they get's along, and placement of power, depends on era's they are in. Human are thrown into the mixes for sake of comparison.

Era's of strengths:

From stone ages to pre-medival era

In this era, the dominance are determined by physical strengths and quantities. Tools aren't used, and farming technique are widepread

This era is dominated by carnivores, the omivores usually act as a peacemaker, but many of them ended up siding with carnivore for sake of power. Depending on region, human may or may not be oppressed by them. However, the human are considered to be the weakest of the talking species, and are usually enslaved by the carnivore along with other weaker species. Majority of Herbivore are hunting target and enslaved as food source. They are also the most basic example of "farming" in that era. However, this doesn't necessary mean they are guarantee to be in the bottom of the power. Many species that can protect themselves with physical ability maintain mid to mid-high hierarchy of political power, but never at the top due to carnivore's dominance and lack of points to be at the tops.

Racial tension are high, with the carnivore being the most condensing side in majority of the case and see themselves as the superior life forms, and herbivore harboring strong hatred against them. both side look down and dislike majority of the omnivore, seeing them as selves-serving coward who switch side to their convenient

(post too long, to be cont).

>>80444

(cont'd)

Era of wisdom:

from beginning of medieval era to near industrial era

Farming method are widespread and tools are used regularly. Proper weapon are invented and used on regular basis.

It's this era that the carnivore are starting to lose their grip on the power as the herbivore start coming to power along with the omnivore. Part of the reason is that the carnivore are too caught up in their belief of physical superiority, which cause them to forget that they still have weakness, are caught off-guard as the herbivore start using the weapon to counter them. Omnivore, being neutral in belief, are stuck in the middle of the hierarchy, Adopting weapon to step up the game, but avoiding the wrath of the herbivore. Herbivore ultimately came to dominate this Era, taking in the Omnivore as the second class citizen and themselves as a noble. The Carnivore are treated as savage, those with below intelligent. How they are dealt with varied. Some simply keep them out, other tried to enslave them or take them in as third class citizen and finally some seek to commit genocide on them(which didn't succeeded) In rare case, the 3 group manage to co-exist peacefully on their own terms.

This era is also where many religion emerges. Majority of the herbivore worships god of nature, for carnivore, god of bloods and hunter. As for the Omnivore, they worship god of the world in general, but 100 more of unique religion are there too.

That said, In general, the Herbivore is very racist, believing themselves to be superior for their grace and intelligent, not unlike lord of the ring's elves. The Omnivore are the closer to the muggle and the hobbits(especially human)Finally, the Carnivore are oppressed and looked by both.

Era of revolutions.

Omnivore and especially human start to dominate this era.

It's the era of industrial revolution. The herbivore lost their intelligent's due to their descendant blind faith in their species intelligent, thus didn't brother to consider that they can fall like the carnivore. They also keep following the old custom, which have lost it's meaning(originally to help make life easier) and have already turn into something pointless and impracticable, making them especially vulnerable to losing their power(However, their intelligence potentials is still as good as human, just not trained correctly). The Omnivore and human, in meantime, still remembering their ancestor flaws, keep improving. Both herbivore and omnivore start working on technology, later leading to industrial revolution. However, like our world's industrial revolution, neither expected the side effect and the environmental change from it, leading to resource scarcity that the herbivore was dependent on. Combined with restraint of their tradition, many of the headstrong that refuse to adapt died and herbivore lost their power balance, leading the omnivore, who could take on both herbivore and carnivore diets to became the dominant race. Herbivore aren't exactly oppressed, but are neglected and can no longer dictate the world. However, the Omnivore still relied on them for their past experise, ensuring that they keep some of their old power. Meanwhile, the carnivore finally accept their own weakness and start getting smarter, those that survive start gaining power that edge them closer to the herbivore in that moment. However, with oppressed past and the economic introduced in the wisdom era, they don't have the economic power to rival the omnivore, and brute force as a whole became worthless as all species have access to weapon that can easily put them in their place. On the bright side for them, their right are slowly recognized and are rebuilding their economic power.

The beast men also no longer eating each other in each era, as they simply hunt non-beast men or farm them, however, many of the herbivore find the latter action offensive to them, thus didn't reduce the racial tension between twos.

Omnivore, on the other hand are somewhat feared and disliked by the two side in general, but are reliable enough to not be in constant conflict with them. It's only when the beast men instinctive weakness that human starts to dominate the hierarchy, However that another story, which concluded that for both moral and logical reason(and perhaps romantic and compassionate one) that all side decided to let each other have equal treatment.

In meantime, the already peacefully co-existing society start advancing better than those that didn't get along, barring few exception where their relation get worse due to the effect of industrial revolution.

I will write 2 more era later sometime, but that all I have for now.

That said, there are alternate world where alliance are formed based on territory, rather than species in the alternate version of the era of wisdom, which I realize it's the beginning of the timeline I mostly intended to use, I might write that too later.

>>80414

Perhaps a WW3 situation where most modern day states end up collapsing from Nukes, and in the mist of the chaos retrovriuses designed for genetic engineering on humans leaks out of labs and infects the wildlife. So while most humans die, plenty of Anthros are created in this situation. Perhaps a few nation-states survive, and those states constantly see themselves as superior to the Anthros and refuse to give them technology.

>>84253

If you change even the slightest thing, they wouldn't speak English, either. So you'd have to create your own language, write the entire story using it, and provide no translation so nobody could understand anything.

>>84257

Man, even real life has plot holes. I could be making money and making people happy by finishing their art commissions, but here I am instead sitting on my ass reading imageboard posts and watching YouTube videos instead.

>>84257

>written well

>has plot holes

No matter how hard you try to downplay something having plot holes, pick fucking one.

>>84293

You don't have some binary opinion of writing based on the presence of a single plot hole do you?

>>84293

Between an interesting story with plot holes and a boring story without any, I know which one I'd be reading.

>>84289

I can't tell if you're joking or butthurt.

>>84381

I can't tell if you're a retard or a retard.

>>84289

>>84461

You realize how retarded you sound, right? Even in settings where English/whatever language you speak doesn't exist, the actual book about that setting has it in a language the reader can understand because the author understands writing a book is an activity of little value if no one can read it. just go back to the zoophile drama thread with your logic

>>84835

>Because of this, a lot of species / tribes develop technologies at different rates, each to suit their needs or requirements.

Keep in mind that it's extremely difficult in reality for technological advances to happen without trading of resources. Even just going from the stone age to the bronze age required middle-eastern civilizations to trade for tin found in Europe. What's more likely to occur is that larger territories will have access to more resources, and thus be more technologically advanced, while smaller ones will lag far behind. But if everyone is tiny scattered tribes, none of them are getting out of the hunter/gatherer phase without some serious handwaving.

>>84846

Cry harder, I can't hear you yet.

>>84849

>no u

Fantastic argument.

Perhaps you should actually provide a defense of your assertion instead of making nebulous assertions with little value. Which in case you've forgotten, was the following:

>If you change even the slightest thing, they wouldn't speak English, either. So you'd have to create your own language, write the entire story using it, and provide no translation so nobody could understand anything.

Now tell me how Tolkien and Richard Adams were wrong to make their works readable in a language other than one they had created from scratch. Hint, they weren't- because books are always written in the language of the intended audience. The only exception is small snippets of text from characters that aren't meant to be understood by the reader due to the protagonist not understanding it either.

>>84835

I like what I see. Although, the lore is a bit cliche. I'm not really sure of the inclusion of magic either, because that makes it seem like a fantasy setting while the lore is science fiction. Then again, it might not matter if the lore isn't crucial to the stories' narratives.

Have you published any of it? It sounds like a good read.

>>84849

I think what he has is fine. By what he's written, it seems they do trade with each other, but it just doesn't happen very often.

>>84872

>This is all in allegory to similar situations in our history.

I can think of a few for sure. I have a feeling /pol/ would be all over it if it's an allegory to a certain subset of those situations. minus it being a furfag setting of course

Can you tell us anything about specific factions that have arisen in your setting?

>>84885

Is it bad that I thought the same thing when I read his spoiler?

>>84886

>How so? Could it be changed in any way?

Well, by definition, I should probably call it a trope instead of a cliche. When I first read your bit of lore, the first thing I was reminded of was a somewhat similar premise in Solatorobo and Angels with Scaly Wings: Humans, through some technological means, engineer creatures to inhabit a world for varied reasons. That's about where the similarities end though. And it's not a bad thing by any means, as it's always interesting to see what an artist can do with an idea like this.

As for changes, one comparison between the two works I mentioned and yours is that the involvement of humans isn't just lore or backstory, but is critical for their plots. If you're going to have multiple stories all taking place in the same world on different continents, through many characters, and across time, it might be difficult to weave the lore into whatever plots happen in each story. I think your idea of a human-lich character is good for this, but I'm not sure about his current motivations. If humanity reached some level of godhood, there's a good chance they might already be some kind of singularity or omniscient, there'd be no way to learn more at this point. As some kind of AI, maybe that motivation could work, but what could he learn from these anthropomorphic civilizations that prior human civilizations wouldn't be able to give him? I'm not so sure how well I could write a character like that, so I would probably try to find an easier motivation. Maybe the humans / human AI's placed bets on which race wins the contest, and the lich is there to skew the results. Although this premise seems like a really trite thing as the impetus for a new civilization.

Lastly, after thinking about this for awhile, I think you might be better off writing these stories without a concrete backstory in mind, at least at first. It'd probably be easier to start with a smaller scope of a single story and slowly expand the lore than it would be to try and fit the stories into what would essentially be a second narrative. I think that's about all my main thoughts on the matter.

>No, I haven't. I'm still working on creating a consistency. Most of what I've written already isn't intended to be canon but to serve as a jumping point to see what I can work with. Figuring out where locations are in proximity to each other. Fully fleshing out forms and functions of animal society. I don't want them to just be Humans with an animal aesthetic, I want it to revolve around the fact that they are animals and how their societies would function due to that fact. As of now I don't plan on completely scrapping anything, but I do plan on revisions.

Glad to hear how your work's coming along so far. I believe the first step to creating good furry fiction is to make sure to make them animals instead of humans, otherwise I don't really see the point in it. Anyway, if you ever need some advice or want some critique or just want to share what you've wrote so far, you should put it in the lit thread. I'd be glad to read it.

would having hybrid species in an anthro world be an immediate sign it was furry nonsense rather than something well thought out?

>>84921

Only if those species can't cross-breed IRL.

>>84854

>Mentioning Tolkien, who explicitly invented fictional languages and had them in his books, much of it untranslated except for when characters straight-up tell you, rarely liner notes if it was critical information, or if you feel like flipping back and forth to the indices to translate it yourself, to try to argue why books should only be in basic English for clarity's sake

>Implying the English sections weren't only a stand-in for Westron (and associated similar regional tongues) and not everything

>Implying that the whole fucking work wasn't explicitly said to be translated from Westron to [insert your language here] as passed down the generations as the Red Book

I don't always have excellent arguments, but when I do, my opponent makes my points for me. Leveraging the best worldbuilder novelist OF ALL TIME to claim it as an excuse for idiots writing fapfics on a furry board is face-palm worthy. My original point still stands that if you don't have a VERY GOOD REASON that your fictional world (that is not Earth) ends up exactly like Earth, it's just a bullshit handwave.

But really, that wasn't even the point of what I was saying (though it makes a fine tangent, and it's still true)! It was actually a reductio ad absurdum attack on the guy who claimed that just having anthros would change all of society. If that was you, well, you're still an idiot; only now an idiot trying to have things both ways.

>>84872

I understand what you're getting at, but it seems that you've created a bit of a Catch-22. The purpose of having multiple species in the same work is so they can interact with each other to produce interesting situations. But things are set up so the only way there can be multiple species in your world is because the rough geography doesn't allow them to interact (most of the time). It would be much easier to have multiple societies separated by social barriers rather than physical ones.

The issue with the "one species dominates and the rest go extinct" is that it's an anthropic bias. One assumes (perhaps wrongly) that just because humans are this way, any theoretical alien planets MUST end up the same way. This belies that fact that in nature multiple species (often intelligent ones) can co-exist in a balance between themselves and the natural world. Especially if your setting is still pre-industrial, it's sensible that NONE of these tribes yet have the power to totally dominate anyone else. So what has developed is a stalemate between many different small powers. Any aggression on anyone else will result in their own destruction. Even if this is, in-universe, just a temporary condition that only exists for as long as your stories take place, it's still a perfectly valid reason. It has the additional benefit of allowing you to explore the conditions that led up to this peace, as well as what happens that cause it to end. Then you have the makings of a truly epic story, rather than just a setting where some things take place and nothing changes because it CAN'T change. As things are, you've kinda painted yourself into a corner.

>>84921

Excluding hybrids would be an immediate sign that it was furry nonsense, because it's a furry-only meme that hybrids are bad. Notice how they're a staple in practically every type of fiction ever made that has more than just humans in it. Half-elves, half-aliens, half-demons, whatever. If you had an entire rich world filled with anthro species, a reader would be extremely surprised if you never took the opportunity to make a hybrid.

>>85098

>It would be much easier to have multiple societies separated by social barriers rather than physical ones.

Not all tribes are explicitly separated from each other, there do exist tribes that live in the same area. It's actually rare for a tribe to be all on their own and they exist more so in groups without either infringing on the other. But they're also in pockets that prevent them from getting too large, like valleys, deserts, islands, etc. I do not intend to have them all entirely isolated. And when I say isolated, for the most part I mean by policy, not physically.

>The issue with the "one species dominates and the rest go extinct" is that it's an anthropic bias. One assumes (perhaps wrongly) that just because humans are this way, any theoretical alien planets MUST end up the same way.

You seem to misunderstand me. This isn't an argument of conquest or dominance, it's an argument of competition. They don't have to be consciously trying to oust the other, I'm not saying they would be and I wouldn't intentionally write them to be. Resources are always scarce, it's a law of nature and how economics work. Having similar species competing for the same resources they both need to survive will always result in an unbalance. Species 1 happens to get more resource than Species 2. This allows Species 1 to have more offspring which in turn allows them to collect more resource, leaving less and less each time for Species 2. This is why you never see a lot of similar animals per ecosystem, if so, they fill their own niche and perform different actions. They need to be spaced out evenly and given enough room and resources in accordance to their needs. Too many animals in one area means they will expand outwards into other areas and start competing with the population there. The geography and entire nature of this was intended for balance and to keep things in place. You need to keep in mind things like diet, habitat, breeding, etc, and feral animals still exist in this world too.

Also even in an animal world, you can't expect everyone to be buddy-buddy and accept everyother.

>Then you have the makings of a truly epic story

I don't intend to create a large scale long spanning grand epic. That was the original plan, actually, but I dropped it due to problems that further developed and is what lead to how I shaped the world currently. I don't care much for the visions of an epic, what I care about is exploring the culture and implications an anthropomorphic world has. How they live and all that.

From what I've seen, everyone who has attempted an epic either ends up generic or cut short by their ambition. I want to attempt something much more humble.

>>85124

Resources on Earth were effectively inexhaustible before industrialization and skyrocketing birth rates, and cities with millions of people in them. If you have a small tribe and a giant forest, even fifty more small tribes in the same area still won't be able to use all that wood faster than it can grow, not even if they have bonfires every night. There's just so much: thousands of trees per person. It takes serious industrial power for a country to even get close to using, say, all their coal or iron, when there are literally entire mountains of the stuff.

Resources are only scarce for US because we have the technological power to dig up an entire mountain in a few years and convert all those millions of tons of resources into cars and beams for skyscrapers. A medieval society couldn't do such a thing if they had a thousand years, supposing technology never advanced beyond digging with iron picks and shovels.

So it depends entirely on how advanced and how numerous your populations are.

>>85203

By resources, I meant more along the lines of food, living space, etc, stuff all animals use and need in order to survive, reproduce, and overall live comfortably. No matter what, there will always be a limiting factor.

>>85254

Yes, but the carrying capacity of land, especially if they're farming/ranching, is still a few people per acre. A small country can easily feed millions, far more than the population they would have. The only way this changes is if they're hunter/gatherers, because then it becomes more like wild animals (who need hundreds of square miles for only a single large predator, to have enough prey to feed on).

You can't just say "there will be a limiting factor" when reality and history does not bear that out for the time period you're speaking of.

>>84252

I think a sic-fi situation when humans unplift various animals is much more realistic than multiple species evolving at one time.

As a transformation-fan, I like the idea of a world like our own where people start turning into anthros. But not in a... zombie-apocalypse, soon-every-one-on-earth-will-be-a-furry-insert-evil-laugh kind of way. More just "Oh, so this is how things are now, sometimes your neighbor just grows fur, a tail, and a cute muzzle, and now they're a doggo."

One story I liked involved something happening on Earth that caused puberty to change. Some girls still underwent normal puberty, but a significant portion of them transformed into anthros or monster-girls. It was considered a normal part of growing up. The story revolved around a girl attending high school where all of her friends are transforming, often bemoaning how it will affect their futures. "Alice wanted to become a lawyer, but she became a bunny girl. No one will take her seriously now!" Things like that, little slice-of-life material with sexy transformations sprinkled all over the setting. The protagonist ends up transforming into a living-doll, worried that she'll lose her smarts because that particular TF tends to make the girls horny all the time.

I can't remember where the story's hosted though, which is a shame because I'd love to re-read it.