# Non mammals with mammary glands



## ADF (Oct 23, 2009)

How do you feel about this? I personally like my furries to be close to the traits of their species, for instance reptile fems to have flat chests. I do like breasts; but I don't consider them to be a requirement of a female character. However I've noted people take issue with this.

When I've attempted to draw female reptile furries in the past I have actually had people complain about the lack of breasts. Since so few people make reptile loyal characters I've commissioned some artists in the past for drawings of them, again people complained about the lack of breasts. In response to this I actually started trying to draw characters with breasts and adding them to commissions. But I'm asking myself now why I did, it's my personal taste; what does others preferences matter?

Furries are human/animal hybrids and since human females have breasts I fully understand why furries would have breasts, even if the particular species doesn't. But why do people act like it is a requirement? Is it really that big a deal for a female to not have breasts; even if they are a reptile?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Anthro furries are part human, therefore are part mammal. So I don't have a problem with them having mammalian mammary glands. 

Also, WTF is up with people complaining about other people's art and _what they draw_? I hate FA. =<


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> Anthro furries are part human, therefore are part mammal. So I don't have a problem with them having mammalian mammary glands.
> 
> Also, WTF is up with people complaining about other people's art and _what they draw_? I hate FA. =<



Just because something is made anthro does not suddenly make it half mammal. That's some messed up logic you've got right there. My anthro dragon is not part mammel just because it has human thinking capabilities.

I still stand by my stance that putting boobage and other mammalian trains on non mammal fursona's is stupid. It looks stupid. It make no sense. Complete death of any suspension of belief, the moment you start randomly tacking mammel parts on things like birds and reptiles.

;sticks out tongue; I said it.

Hey furries try makings something fem without sticking boobs on it. I wonder how many of you can do it?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> Just because something is made anthro does not suddenly make it half mammal. That's some messed up logic you've got right there. My anthro dragon is not part mammel just because it has human thinking capabilities.
> 
> I still stand by my stance that putting boobage and other mammalian trains on non mammal fursona's is stupid. It looks stupid. It make no sense.
> 
> ...



Anthropomorphic: Having human traits.

Boobs: A human trait.

Therefore, anthropomorphic animals can have boobs, even if they are reptilian.

That's not messed up logic. I was explaining why I don't mind it. I'm not saying that they HAVE to have boobs. It's retarded to say reptilian furs SHOULDN'T have boobs. There's no reason for them not to.

It's like saying no furries should have thumbs because they ruin the suspension of disbelief and look "stupid" and "unrealistic." Dumb logic.


----------



## Kaamos (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I don't really care. They're just fucking drawings.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> Anthropomorphic: Having human traits.
> 
> Boobs: A human trait.
> 
> ...



Anthropomorphic is taking human traits and applying them to animals.

Last time I checked "Boobs" is not a human trait. It's a mammal trait.


----------



## Seas (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I also prefer non-mammal characters without mammary glands.
A while ago someone actually tried to tell me that anthropomorphic reptiles are more realistic with boobs....lolwat


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> Anthropomorphic is taking human traits and applying them to animals.
> 
> Last time I checked "Boobs" is not a human trait. It's a mammal trait. It's something mammals have.



Boobs are also a human trait. Especially human shaped boobs. That's dumb to say "Boobs can be on all mammals so they're not a human trait!" Seriously. When you're adding human looking boobs to an animal that doesn't have human boobs, you're anthropomorphizing that animal. Same as if you were to give him thumbs, erect posture, and a higher level of thinking.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> Boobs are also a human trait. Especially human shaped boobs. That's dumb to say "Boobs can be on all mammals so they're not a human trait!" Seriously. When you're adding human looking boobs to an animal that doesn't have human boobs, you're anthropomorphizing that animal. Same as if you were to give him thumbs, erect posture, and a higher level of thinking.



No they are not.

Technically the boobs of human women would the same as the boobs of other large primates, except that we use artificial means to shape them, and force them to have an ideal shape.

boobs /=/ human trait.

Opposable thumbs /=/ human trait

boobs = mammal trait


----------



## Kittiara (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I honestly could care less unless the anthro is supposed to be part of a universe with strict rules about that stuff.

Otherwise it doesn't matter because there is no set anthro universe or guidelines.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> No they are not.
> 
> Technically the boobs of human women would the same as the boobs of other large primates, except that we use artificial means to shape them, and force them to have an ideal shape.
> 
> ...



All I'm saying is that there's no reason why non-mammalian furries can't have boobs. There's no reason not to. Not that they HAVE to. But it's not terrible if they do.

Also, yes, human boobs are a human trait. I have no idea what you're on right now.


----------



## Shadowwolf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I prefer to see non-mammal anthro characters without breasts. There are ways to make creatures look feminine without having to throw a couple of fat sacks on 'em. When someone puts boobs on a character, to me, it seems like they're just pleading for attention. Mammal or not.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> All I'm saying is that there's no reason why non-mammalian furries can't have boobs. There's no reason not to.
> 
> Also, yes, human boobs are a human trait. I have no idea what you're on right now.



I'm saying you cannot use the argument that "Well you are anthropomorphizing" as an argument for taking mammal parts, sticking them on non mammals.

I'm on logic. What are you on?

I for one recognize that some of these traits we associate as being human are not human traits at all.

EDIT: Besides, what function does mammary glands serve on birds or reptiles? None at all. Mammary glands are for the production of milk to nourish the young. Such a function would be useless in on reptiles who tend to be born with sharp teeth and nipping mouths and capable of taking care of themselves from day one, and birds who have sharp beaks.

I don't see why people need to stick boobs on non mammals. It would be nice if furs when mixing and matching parts, would do it in a way that makes sense. That's just me though. It shows more creativity when you mix and match things that make sense. Using the Boob thing to make something fem is just being lazy. As some one else pointing out, if you want something to look fem there are other ways of doing it.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Why exactly is this always such a contentious issue, again?  Last I checked, there were no commandments of furryism (Thou shalt not draw thy non-mammalian furries with breasts).  The way I see it, it's an aesthetic choice, whether that means aesthetics for the purpose of wank material, for artistic expression, or for biological accuracy.  It's all just aesthetics.
I go with slightly more biological accuracy, so I don't give my female reptiles human breasts.  But that's just an artistic choice I made.  I don't really feel a need to justify it as anything but.  And it'd be the same way if I drew them with breasts.
This subject is getting pretty tired, anyhow.  I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I would not find non-womanly  anthros attractive. Boobs are needed for the sexy.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> I'm saying you cannot use the argument that "Well you are anthropomorphizing" as an argument for taking mammal parts, sticking them on non mammals.
> 
> I'm on logic. What are you on?
> 
> ...



If you want to get technical, I've never seen an opposable thumb on anything other than a mammal. I've never seen a highly evolved brain on anything other than a mammal. Why are those all perfectly peachy while boobs are not?

Reptiles don't need highly evolved brains and opposable thumbs. They are _born with sharp teeth and nipping mouths and capable of taking care of themselves from day one._


----------



## ADF (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I see an argument has broke out  it doesn't really matter what the justifications for having breasts are, the topic is about people taking issue with the lack of them.



The Drunken Ace said:


> I would not find non-womanly  anthros attractive. Boobs are needed for the sexy.



The way I see it the fact that people find anthropomorphic animals attractive shows there is something about animal traits applied to a anthropomorphic character that they find attractive. The trick is finding out what those traits are, when you do you can compensate for the lack of breasts by focusing on those areas.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> If you want to get technical, I've never seen an opposable thumb on anything other than a mammal. I've never seen a highly evolved brain on anything other than a mammal. Why are those all perfectly peachy while boobs are not?
> 
> Reptiles don't need highly evolved brains and opposable thumbs. They are _born with sharp teeth and nipping mouths and capable of taking care of themselves from day one._



Uh...some dinosaurs had what amounts to an opposable thumb. It also appeared that some dinosaurs were well on their way to become similar to us in intelligence based on analysis of brain casts. In the past some reptiles did need highly evolved brains, if you want to call them reptiles. Look at the Utahraptor, and Troodon. Troodon is of particular interest to scientists because it is believed they had a higher than average level of intelligence, and also had eye sight very similar to ours, amongst other things.

EDIT: Linkage: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11047-birdlike-dinosaur-boasted-opposable-fingers.html

Also, highly evolved brain? There are those that argue that octopus and squid have rather highly developed brains. The debate still rages on over certain birds and their true levels of intelligence. But we will never know if any of the dinosaurs in the past had anything close to our intelligence because they are gone.

That aside stop changing the subject. I never said I had a problem with mixing and matching parts as long as those parts "Make sense". If you can justify the mixing and matching, that shows creativity. I fail to see any real admirable justification for boobage on non mammals other than "I want to fap to it" or "I just want to". If that's what you want to do fine, but don't get pissy when others call it out as being unecessary.


----------



## FluffMouse (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

>> I agree with the argument that boobs don't make a female.
It's pretty much the same with super small chested ladies.. they either look 
prepubescent, or just not female. :< Which sucks, because I'm not into cub shit, 
nor am I loli, or a male. :< I want my character to have my own physique.. but I
can't seem to do that without it looking like cub stuff. DD: FU art and media, for
making boobs the end-all be-all of the female figure.. the vag is just an afterthought.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> Uh...some dinosaurs had what amounts to an opposable thumb. It also appeared that some dinosaurs were well on their way to become similar to us in intelligence based on analysis of brain casts.
> 
> Also, highly evolved brain? There are those that argue that octopus and squid have rather highly developed brains. The debate still rages on over certain birds and their true levels of intelligence.
> 
> ...



Reptiles don't have highly evolved brains or opposable thumbs. But for some reason it makes perfect logical sense give those traits to an anthro reptile, even though reptiles have evolved to take care of themselves perfectly fine without the use of opposable thumbs or highly evolved brains. Even though boobs, which are equally useless because reptiles have evolved to survive without them, are somehow wrong.

Your logic is SOOO skewed. Opposable thumbs, highly evolved brains and boobs are all traits that reptiles don't have, and they have no biological need for any of them. Why are two of those traits perfectly fine but the other isn't? What's the big difference?

If you want to get so technical and say anthro reptiles have no need for boobs, then why is it okay to add thumbs and highly evolved brains?? Reptiles have done perfectly fine for millions of years without all three.

Please explain to me what the difference is.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Lol epic argument,
i must say i dont see any reason why not, After all if you have gone as far to make the damn things smart why not re-decorate them a lil'


----------



## HoneyPup (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> Anthro furries are part human, therefore are part mammal. So I don't have a problem with them having mammalian mammary glands.


Anthros are human-like, not necessarily part human.



Trpdwarf said:


> Besides, what function does mammary glands serve on birds or reptiles? None at all. *Mammary glands are for the production of milk to nourish the young. Such a function would be useless in on reptiles who tend to be born with sharp teeth and nipping mouths and capable of taking care of themselves from day one, and birds who have sharp beaks.*
> 
> I don't see why people need to stick boobs on non mammals. It would be nice if furs when mixing and matching parts, would do it in a way that makes sense. That's just me though. It shows more creativity when you mix and match things that make sense. Using the Boob thing to make something fem is just being lazy. As some one else pointing out, if you want something to look fem there are other ways of doing it.


Agreed. 
But most guys have a fascination with boobs, and that's why they put them on everything, even bird and lizard characters. And as you mentioned its the quick, lazy way to make a character look female. They draw what they think looks "hot", not what's most realistic, which much furry art is not realistic. 
Personally, I don't think boobs are necessary on non-mammals, but I don't have anything against those that do it. I think its best to do a curvy chest just for female shape, without large boobs and without nipples. But its artist's choice really.


----------



## Beta Link (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Female characters without boobs!? Heresy, I say! Heresy! :V

But anyway, I prefer more realistic anthro characters, so I'm totally with you on this.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



ADF said:


> I
> The way I see it the fact that people find anthropomorphic animals attractive shows there is something about animal traits applied to a anthropomorphic character that they find attractive. The trick is finding out what those traits are, when you do you can compensate for the lack of breasts by focusing on those areas.


 But a human-like figure is needed for me to find it attractive. |I do not find most animal fetures attractive on their own, I like them when the complement the human form


----------



## ADF (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



The Drunken Ace said:


> But a human-like figure is needed for me to find it attractive. |I do not find most animal fetures attractive on their own, I like them when the complement the human form



Hence "applied to a anthropomorphic character".


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I would simply like to point out that it is entirely possible for breasts to be both a human trait _and_ a mammalian trait. You are correct if you say breasts are a human trait. You are also correct if you say breasts are a mammalian trait.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> Reptiles don't have highly evolved brains or opposable thumbs. But for some reason it makes perfect logical sense give those traits to an anthro reptile, even though reptiles have evolved to take care of themselves perfectly fine without the use of opposable thumbs or highly evolved brains. Even though boobs, which are equally useless because reptiles have evolved to survive without them, are somehow wrong.
> 
> Your logic is SOOO skewed. Opposable thumbs, highly evolved brains and boobs are all traits that reptiles don't have, and they have no biological need for any of them. Why are two of those traits perfectly fine but the other isn't? What's the big difference?
> 
> ...



I like how you start flailing when I'm actually making sense. You ignore everything that is said and go even further off topic.

I don't have a problem with mixing and matching so long as it makes sense. Did you get that part? Make it make sense.

As for intelligence? Remember anthropomorphizing things? If you understood the term and what it really applies to, human emotion and intelligence, our way of thinking, giving that to animals is a form of anthropomorphizing them. 

Our way of thinking is relevant to us as far as we know. In order to get that level of thinking in other organisms, such as birds, reptiles, non human mammals, ect, you need one very important thing: Complex brains. That's fairly reasonable justification there isn't it? To achieve a anthropomorphization, you have to give it that higher brain function.

Without that developed brain you cannot have the developed thought. This is a good example of making something anthropomorphic, and you give it a feature that makes sense. A developed brain.

There are other traits that arguably are more suited with humans or perhaps at this point specific/exclusive. You are right in that we alone tend to have this very specific posture. If other primates had it, they are not around. So for the sake of it it does seem to be a human trait.

Giving something upright posture is definitely a form of physical anthropomorphizing.

But not every feature you give a critter is going to be tied to making it anthropomorphic. It doesn't hurt for it to make sense when you start adding unassociated odds and ends. It can help it live in a world though where it is anthropomorphic. Giving it the necessary hand structure to be able to maniuplate objects makes sense. 

As far as I see it, the putting of boobs period on non mammal anthro's has more to do with human sex appeal. But it's so woefully impractical to the point that it hinders the critter just so it looks more appealing to the person looking at it. It has the sex appeal going for it but everything else goes against it. It's so impractical it really just ruins the critter, in my humble opinion.

I'm not saying you cannot give critters different parts but I would like to see more of it in the furry community that they stop and think about it. Instead of just doing it for the sex appeal. Is it that much to ask for it to make sense? To put some thought into it?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



CommodoreKitty said:


> I would simply like to point out that it is entirely possible for breasts to be both a human trait _and_ a mammalian trait. You are correct if you say breasts are a human trait. You are also correct if you say breasts are a mammalian trait.



Never mind.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> I like how you start flailing when I'm actually making sense. You ignore everything that is said and go even further off topic.



I'm not flailing or getting off-topic, I'm re-stating my same questions that I was asking earlier, that you failed to answer and instead started going off topic and telling me semantics about other animals that have brains and thumbs.



Trpdwarf said:


> I don't have a problem with mixing and matching so long as it makes sense. Did you get that part? Make it make sense.
> 
> As for intelligence? Remember anthropomorphizing things? If you understood the term and what it really applies to, human emotion and intelligence, our way of thinking, giving that to animals is a form of anthropomorphizing them.
> 
> ...



Adding a brain is obviously anthropomorphizing, I agree. Obviously that's the number one anthropomorphic trait we add to our characters, because they'd be pretty lame otherwise.



Trpdwarf said:


> There are other traits that arguably are more suited with humans or perhaps at this point specific/exclusive. You are right in that we alone tend to have this very specific posture. If other primates had it, they are not around. So for the sake of it it does seem to be a human trait.



Adding a human's erect posture is the exact same thing as adding human breasts. Yes, other animals have mammary glands, but the human breast is a very distinct shape, much like the human posture. Other animals walk on two legs, but only humans have human erect posture.



Trpdwarf said:


> Giving something upright posture is definitely a form of physical anthropomorphizing.



Same with adding human breasts.



Trpdwarf said:


> But not every feature you give a critter is going to be tied to making it anthropomorphic. It doesn't hurt for it to make sense when you start adding unassociated odds and ends. It can help it live in a world though where it is anthropomorphic. Giving it the necessary hand structure to be able to maniuplate objects makes sense.
> 
> As far as I see it, the putting of boobs period on non mammal anthro's has more to do with human sex appeal. But it's so woefully impractical to the point that it hinders the critter just so it looks more appealing to the person looking at it. It has the sex appeal going for it but everything else goes against it. It's so impractical it really just ruins the critter, in my humble opinion.



First of all, breasts can STILL serve a function with anthropomorphic creatures. If you think about it, if an anthro was born with a human's mind, then they'd most likely grow and develop much like a human baby. Human babies don't hatch out of eggs and scamper off to go start hunting. You don't need a very complex brain to develop a few hunting instincts just to keep you alive. Humans are dependent on their mothers for a comparatively long time. Therefore, there may still be some need to produce milk if your offspring is going to remain dependent on you for such a length of time.

Second, if you think about it, most people aren't attracted to an animal's body shape, so the erect posture, hips, stomach, shoulders, legs, etc. etc. are all potentially just as sexual as breasts. It's not like slapping boobs on an iguana is going to be very attractive. You have to have the whole package. But that doesn't mean you can't still have a human shape. It doesn't HAVE to be sexual. 



Trpdwarf said:


> I'm not saying you cannot give critters different parts but I would like to see more of it in the furry community that they stop and think about it. Instead of just doing it for the sex appeal. Is it that much to ask for it to make sense? To put some thought into it?



It's possible to put some thought into it and still come out with a character that has breasts. First of all, for the child rearing reasons I stated earlier, and second, what if you want your character to appear more human? What if your fantasy world is more of a human one than a wild one? Not every creature has to look like an animal to be well made and thoughtful.


----------



## Pomponio (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Oh, FFS...

Anthropomorphism means giving stuff human traits. Not only biologically speaking (thumbs, posture, facial features, etc.) but also social ones (a Baseball uniform, glasses, silicone boobs, etc)

Just like someone said earlier on this thread, "they're just fucking drawings"


Arguing about what traits "make sense" or not in an anthro makes you look stupid.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> I'm not flailing or getting off-topic, I'm re-stating my same questions that I was asking earlier, that you failed to answer and instead started going off topic and telling me semantics about other animals that have brains and thumbs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see anything special about the artificial shape. I'm sorry. It's a failing argument. Oh so they "Roundish" when we put them in bra's, suddenly they are like, special? Yet you forget that the human male breast looks really no different than that on other mammals.

You really don't understand animal biology do you? Yes the human baby is helpless. Guess what else is? The fledglings of birds. The most intelligent reptiles out there need help getting out of the nest and to safer grounds and even then they get a bit of help here and there. Most animals upon birth are helpless. It's no so special with humans.

You are trying to make an argument that because they would end up with bigger brains evolution would swing them into going the mammal route, but I beg to differ based on simple knowledge.

Please remember that from reptiles we got dinosaurs and from dinosaurs we got birds. The solution to a problem with helpless offspring was an internal system of spitting up food, that would just as effective for anthro's as it is for the smaller non anthro-versions. Given that both birds and reptiles, and even dinosaurs didn't have gentle mouths to begin with it makes even more sense that things would swing towards continuing the internal system. Even if they grew in teeth or beaks later, it still makes sense that what appears to be where the line is heading is where it would follow, that path in the process of being more like us. Why suddenly take a turn when the other way is just as practical and already there?

I like the idea of making things anthro but I think it does a person a great deal of good to understand the animal they are trying ot make anthro. That's the most I can say here. Furries could do so much more with creativity and if they don't care to be creative than they shouldn't whine when topics like this come up. And also lol...the person who said "Arguing just makes you look stupid" and I agree to some point but I sort of find it fun to see two challenging view points collide.

I guess I'm off to sleep now, it was fun arguing with you Nargle. You're the first one to ever put up even half a good attempt at a fight when it comes to this subject. For that I salute you.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> I don't see anything special about the artificial shape. I'm sorry. It's a failing argument. Oh so they "Roundish" when we put them in bra's, suddenly they are like, special? Yet you forget that the human male breast looks really no different than that on other mammals.
> 
> You really don't understand animal biology do you? Yes the human baby is helpless. Guess what else is? The fledglings of birds. The most intelligent reptiles out there need help getting out of the nest and to safer grounds and even then they get a bit of help here and there. Most animals upon birth are helpless. It's no so special with humans.
> 
> ...




All I'm saying is that breasts don't have to be completely useless sex tools. Yes, you could also go the regurgitating route, but producing milk is still an option. I'm not saying that's the only way.

Breasts don't have to be unrealistic. They don't have to be purely sexual. That CAN make sense. So I have no problem with reptilian anthros that have breasts. It's optional. You can still have a well thought out character that's a reptile with breasts.

Also, dinosaurs are completely unrelated to reptiles. They had a different body structure (Dinosaurs are exclusively upright on straight legs, positioned directly under the body, while reptiles are belly crawlers) and dinosaurs were also warm-blooded.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

i LIKE BOOBS. Enough so that Anatomical accusing is meaningless to me if it means no boobs. No boobs. No sexy.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



ADF said:


> Furries are human/animal hybrids


 
Is this really an accurate way to say it?  That a furry character is a human/animal hybrid?  Certianly it's true for some but not all.  Many furry characters are not animals hybrid with humans but animals with human traits through evolution or creation or whatever that setting creator uses.

So rather than being 'hybrids' they are just animals that through the same natural process that lead the evolution of humans, lead to the evolution of sapien bipedal foxes and cats and rabbits and bears.

'Anthropomorphic' mean to give something human traits.  You draw stickman legs and a face on a refridgerator while it sings a song about baking soda's freshness and it's anthropomorphic.

You are probably finding that people expect boobs on the females, not because it is a mammalian trait a human trait.  Aftera all humans are the only species on this planet that actually has 'boobs' in the jiggly sense when not pregnant or nursing young.  Every other mammalian species is flat chested otherwise.


----------



## ADF (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I was browsing around Google image with "furry dragoness" as the search criticia and came across a yiff image of a dragoness with no breasts.

Needless to say adult and NSFW.

And sure enough there are people talking about the lack of breasts, not in a negative manner but still they took note. 

It is interesting that people in this fandom think nothing of a reptile with breasts, something anyone outside the fandom would react to, but take note when they are not there.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



ADF said:


> It is interesting that people in this fandom think nothing of a reptile with breasts, something anyone outside the fandom would react to


 
You've ignored my point.  Most people would not react normally.  Breasts are exclusively a human trait, all other mammals don't have developed 'breasts' if they arn't nursing or pregnant.

So you take an animal, mammal or not, you make it all humany, peolpe are going to expect boobs.  Especially when you stuff the characters with tones of other human traits.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I don't mind when reptiles don't have breasts. I personally can't pull that off in my style. I usually try to get the sort of curvy shape with fur, or feathers, or whatever (it's hard with reptiles) but if it looks good, whatever.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



CommodoreKitty said:


> I would simply like to point out that it is entirely possible for breasts to be both a human trait _and_ a mammalian trait.









...and don't stare at 'em, that's rude. 

But on a more serious note....


SugarMental said:


> >> I agree with the argument that boobs don't make a female.


That's about the best summary I've ever seen for the matter.  Kudos 

Still, it sort of goes without saying that most viewers are human....


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Hrmm.  Surprised LizardKing hasn't replied to this thread.

Both are fine to me.  I'm not gonna bitch at you if you draw scaly fems with boobs or without boobs.  Whatever you wanna draw, man.


----------



## Kiszka (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> Anthropomorphic is taking human traits and applying them to animals.
> 
> Last time I checked "Boobs" is not a human trait. It's a mammal trait.


And... humans are mammals.
Logic fail.


----------



## the_donut_master (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Oh my god you guys are arguing over BOOBS! Lol. It's actually a preferencial choice... I personally don't think everything HAS to have boobs... if you can make a character look feminine without them, why add them? It's not really a big deal - with or without - as long as you can make it look good.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



ADF said:


> How do you feel about this? I personally like my furries to be close to the traits of their species, for instance reptile fems to have flat chests. I do like breasts; but I don't consider them to be a requirement of a female character. However I've noted people take issue with this.
> 
> When I've attempted to draw female reptile furries in the past I have actually had people complain about the lack of breasts. Since so few people make reptile loyal characters I've commissioned some artists in the past for drawings of them, again people complained about the lack of breasts. In response to this I actually started trying to draw characters with breasts and adding them to commissions. But I'm asking myself now why I did, it's my personal taste; what does others preferences matter?
> 
> Furries are human/animal hybrids and since human females have breasts I fully understand why furries would have breasts, even if the particular species doesn't. But why do people act like it is a requirement? Is it really that big a deal for a female to not have breasts; even if they are a reptile?



It's just as rediculous to have breasts on a reptile as it is to have breasts on an avian.  Mammals are defined by their possession of "mammary" glands... breasts.  No other class of animal has them.  So, why put them on creatures that don't have them and NEVER WILL have them?  Not to mention humans are rather unusual, in that our females have prominent breasts even when they aren't lactating.  Most other mammals, if not all, only show breasts when they're nursing young.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



the_donut_master said:


> Oh my god you guys are arguing over BOOBS!.


 Dont point that out or they may wake up to themselves, this is decently amusing.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Only on FAF would there be serious discussion over putting boobs on reptiles


----------



## Jelly (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Because men find breasts attractive?
What is there to think about?


Shenzebo said:


> Only on FAF would there be serious discussion over putting boobs on reptiles


I'm pretty sure only on FAF is fascism the obvious status quo party line for everything and for the majority of posters. I think that's a little more fucked up than putting fake tits on an iguana. :I


----------



## the_donut_master (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



jellyhurwit said:


> Because men find breasts attractive?
> What is there to think about?
> 
> I'm pretty sure only on FAF is fascism the obvious status quo party line for everything and for the majority of posters. I think that's a little more fucked up than putting fake tits on an iguana. :I



Lmao. I love this thread...


----------



## BakuryuuTyranno (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

Not only do breasts look extremely out of place on reptiles, they're the most *un*sexy thing since...

... well they're they most unsexy thing in recorded history, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

I think women look too much like bishounen without tits.
So I draw tits on my fem characters, animal or otherwise.

Although I prefer one large "lump" on the chest for some fem animals, like reptiles. 
Looks better than having them separate, like the scales are a vest, or something.


----------



## Ikrit (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

my fursona is a wizard
so everything can have boobs


----------



## Xerox2 (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> I'm saying you cannot use the argument that "Well you are anthropomorphizing" as an argument for taking mammal parts, sticking them on non mammals.
> 
> I'm on logic. What are you on?
> 
> I for one recognize that some of these traits we associate as being human are not human traits at all.


definitions of *anthropomorphic* on the Web:

suggesting human characteristics for animals or inanimate things  
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic
Having the form of a man;  given human attributes
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropomorphic
anthropomorphism - the representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits  
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Oops.

Also I'd like to point out that logistics don't really matter when you're making a fantasy character. Dragons could never fly anatomically, but people still give them wings. It doesn't matter that anthro lizards won't suckle young because they're never going to do ANYTHING, including thinking. Hence FANTASY.


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*

How would a cow have breasts while having an utter?


----------



## Carenath (Oct 24, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I would not find non-womanly  anthros attractive. Boobs are needed for the sexy.


One word for ya mate: Playboy



ADF said:


> I was browsing around Google image with "furry dragoness" as the search criticia and came across a yiff image of a dragoness with no breasts.


Probably one of the best pics of a female dragon I've seen in a long time.

@Trp: Add to this.. male reptilian anthro's with human genitals (cawk n bawls). Its on the same vein, completely unnecessary and I've always found it detracts from the character more than it adds.


----------



## Pomponio (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Roose Hurro said:


> It's just as rediculous to have breasts on a reptile as it is to have breasts on an avian. Mammals are defined by their possession of "mammary" glands... breasts. No other class of animal has them. So, why put them on creatures that don't have them and NEVER WILL have them? Not to mention humans are rather unusual, in that our females have prominent breasts even when they aren't lactating. Most other mammals, if not all, only show breasts when they're nursing young.


 
So an angsty 2-legged dragon going to college makes sense, but giving her boobs is just stupid, right?


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2009)

Female dragons:

boobs <<< not-boobs

Female mammals:

boobs >>> not-boobs

I like boobs as much as the next dude, but for me the image of a female dragon with boobs... doesn't work.  It's just too strange.  It could be b/c I like feral dragons over anthro dragons overall, but boobs just don't belong on dragons, imo.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Pomponio said:


> So an angsty 2-legged dragon going to college makes sense, but giving her boobs is just stupid, right?



Yes... though more "anatomically incorrect" than stupid.  Now, if she was a mammalian "dragon", with fur...?  Not to mention, I created a mammalian species without breasts:  Both males and females suckle young with a pair of feelerish "milk tongues"... French kiss, anyone?


----------



## Pomponio (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Roose Hurro said:


> Yes... though more "anatomically incorrect" than stupid. Now, if she was a mammalian "dragon", with fur...? Not to mention, I created a mammalian species without breasts: Both males and females suckle young with a pair of feelerish "milk tongues"... French kiss, anyone?


 
Let me rephrase it...

Do you believe that drawing boobs on a dragon is wrong and that everyone should draw them with no boobs?

Do you make a big deal out of anatomical correctness of an anthro version of an animal that never existed?


PS: I've seen many people arguing about anatomically correct dragon cocks =/


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Nargle said:


> All I'm saying is that breasts don't have to be completely useless sex tools. Yes, you could also go the regurgitating route, but producing milk is still an option. I'm not saying that's the only way.
> 
> Breasts don't have to be unrealistic. They don't have to be purely sexual. That CAN make sense. So I have no problem with reptilian anthros that have breasts. It's optional. You can still have a well thought out character that's a reptile with breasts.
> 
> Also, dinosaurs are completely unrelated to reptiles. They had a different body structure (Dinosaurs are exclusively upright on straight legs, positioned directly under the body, while reptiles are belly crawlers) and dinosaurs were also warm-blooded.



Unfortunately Nargle that is what they have become in this day and age. Honestly it sickens me. Breasts cannot just be mammary glands that for some reason are more prominent on primates. They don't have to be sexually idolized and in many past cultures they were revered as what they are or function as. That's then and this is now. Even if they are not always useless, why do other animals made anthro have to have the mammal solution to an issue? Why not just follow along with what appears to be their trend as per a solution?

If you take the "What if route" where we have our anthro races because every animal followed our similar line of evolution you have to stop and think well what do they have? It takes quite an understanding of animals and biology and paleontology for that matter. As far as I know, as in last time I checked there is a line from reptiles to dinosaurs as per evolution. I know dinosaurs are not reptiles, and dinosaurs are related to birds. Well birds are related to dinosaurs...but still. Birds ended up going the internal route as per feeding young in their first hours. Why not follow along with that for anthro reptiles?

Actually that is quite false. If you follow the line of evolution, you'd understand how things came about and underwent changes, much of it doing directly with the evolution of actual physiology.

Reptiles were the pre-cursor's to the warm blooded dinosaurs. Some critters ended up evolving from Amphibian to Reptile, and some went from Reptile to Dinosauria, and some went from Dinosauria to Avian.

We see a general change from cold to warm blood, and honestly who knows. If not for the catacyclism that ended the rule of a log line of animals, we could be seeing reptile like highly intelligent beings sitting at computers arguing over the merits of anthropmorphism in some different language as we are right now.

That's niether here nor there though.

As for Xerox2
Nice way to end up really just backing me up. Or do you too not understand that some of what we attribute as "Human traits" in the furry fandom are not unique to human beings?

Point still stands regardless of the shape of the human breast that breasts are mammal exclusive, and not human exclusive. The shape may be eclusive to one kind of mammel, and in that case taking something that is a mammal and anthropomorphisizing it with human breasts only holds water in that you are making something there conform to a unique human trait.

For that I will back down. Yeah taking a fox, removing the multi nipples, and giving them just two round boobs, is a form of anthropomorphism. It can make sense.

But they already have nipples. Your are acting on a trait and making it comfort to a unique human trait.

That is all we really do anyway when it comes to anthropomorphism. We take an existing trait and we act upon it. But we also bicker amongst ourselves if we don't do it right. I find it deliciously hypocritical how it's okay to bicker about acting upon a trait on an existing animal in it's transformation into being anthropomorphic, and that is completely okay(so long as it is based on a real animal being turned anthro), but the moment a person objects to simply tacking things on that make little sense, or if we take a stance against fucking with the anatomy of mythological creature that has thousands of years of drawn and written history, somehow that is just being stupid.

Back to the original topic, honestly when people get all upset when something like avians and reptiles or dragons don't have boobs, it's because they only want to look at something as fap material, and don't even really appreciate anthro content for what it is. That's all I can see it as. If you appreciate it for what it is, anthro art, than you wouldn't care as much that one artist's preference is to follow actual anthropmorphism instead of just making mindless fap material.

I joined the fandom because I enjoyed the idea of what if animals were anthropomorphized? How would they look? Could they look? How could/would they function? It's pretty effin cool what Brian Jaques (non fur) did with his entire world of red-wall. He did do a good job of making his transition from taking feral races and making them anthro, and making it make sense.

So sorry if that's something I still like to stick to. If people don't like having breasts on non-mammels, respect that. I'll try to respect people who see it otherwise, although I still in my mind see putting boobage on non mammals as being silly, and unnecessary.


----------



## Boondawks (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Stratadrake said:


> ...and don't stare at 'em, that's rude.
> 
> But on a more serious note....
> 
> ...



NSFW, I guess.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Piglets1.jpg

Humans have breasts.

Mammals have mammary glands.

I honestly don't care about this argument, it's one of the most banal things I've ever read. But I cannot stand by you people always being incorrect.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Boondawks said:


> Humans *[and primates]* have breasts.
> 
> Mammals have mammary glands.



Even if you take the relatively restrictive definition of a "breast" as opposed to the more general mammary, it can still be applied to more than just humans.


----------



## Boondawks (Oct 25, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



CommodoreKitty said:


> Even if you take the relatively restrictive definition of a "breast" as opposed to the more general mammary, it can still be applied to more than just humans.



http://www.yale.edu/cfe/images/female%20chimp.jpg
http://aintnogod.com/images/breasts.jpg

"Compared to other primates, human breasts are proportionately large throughout adult females' lives and may have evolved as a visual signal of sexual maturity and fertility."
"Zoologists point out that no female mammal other than the human has breasts of comparable size, relative to the rest of the body, *when not lactating* and that humans are the only primate that has permanently swollen breasts."

The human breast is incredibly massive. A chimpanzee furry should not have breasts, unless it was actively breastfeeding a newborn. Going further from _Homo sapiens_ only reduces breast size.

EDIT:I still think it's an aesthetic choice, having boobs or no boobs on a species that should or should not have boobs makes little to no sense. I'm simply stating that the argument "Only mammals have breasts" is invalid because only humans have breasts the size of melons. The ADF's argument is only _logical_ when extended to all animal species.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 25, 2009)

I did not claim that human breasts were identical to primate breasts, that would be an asinine statement. What I said was that "breasts" as would be defined on a human, also appear on primates. Breasts are not a uniquely human feature. 

Permanently swelled and proportionally massive breasts are, as you pointed out, a uniquely human trait. But the breasts themselves are not.


----------



## Boondawks (Oct 25, 2009)

http://yiffstar.com/?pid=106122

Then explain that.

Please.

We all know that we are talking about "Permanently swelled and proportionally massive breasts". Honestly, do you find females with deflated breasts to be attractive?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Oct 25, 2009)

FOXES DON'T HAVE THUMBS OR WALK UPRIGHT EITHER.

Seriously, it's like no one here knows what the greek word 'Anthros' even means.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Pomponio said:


> Let me rephrase it...



Fine by me...




Pomponio said:


> Do you believe that drawing boobs on a dragon is wrong and that everyone should draw them with no boobs?



Not wrong, just anatomically incorrect... that's all.




Pomponio said:


> Do you make a big deal out of anatomical correctness of an anthro version of an animal that never existed?



Only in my own creations...




Pomponio said:


> PS: I've seen many people arguing about anatomically correct dragon cocks =/



Completely different thing, Pomponio... only mammals have a reason to have mammaries/breasts.  Unless your dragon is mammalian in nature, females of the species would have no reason to have what they don't need.  That is the key to anatomical correctness:  Is it needed?  What an anatomically correct dragon phalus looks like is of no matter, so long as he has one, and keeps it tucked away when not in use.  Far as I know, most non-avian male critters NEED a cock to mate.  Even some male birds are so endowed.  Even male lizards are endowed, *due to need*.  Unless your female needs to feed her young on milk, she should not have mammary glands.

But this is just how I see the issue, with my own creations.  Matters not to me if you feel different, have at it, put breasts on a lizard or a teapot, if it suits your fancy.  It just doesn't suit mine, creatively speaking.........


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 25, 2009)

Carenath said:


> One word for ya mate: Playboy


Indeed such a good word.


----------



## Zrcalo (Oct 25, 2009)

we need more sexy cloaca's in the fandom. hands down.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 25, 2009)

Boondawks said:


> [link]
> 
> Then explain that.
> 
> ...



I did not know we were talking about "permanently swelled and proportionally massive breasts" but rather discussing breasts in the context of mammalian anatomy, which tied into the assertion that "only humans have breasts." 

And I don't see how asking if I am attracted to deflated breasts or not is relevant. :\


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 25, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Vaelarsa said:


> I think women look too much like bishounen without tits.


... or vice versa, but that's a separate topic.



Xerox2 said:


> Also I'd like to point out that logistics don't really matter when you're making a fantasy character.


Emphasizing the inherently obvious to defend one's point is . . . not good style.

Generally I'll agree, but only so long as it doesn't "fail physics forever".  Or common sense, for that matter.  Maybe I should be calling it Checkov's "Schrodinger's Bra":  If it's included for sake of viewer recognition, but the subject of which never comes up _within its context_ (i.e: within said fantasy world), then any debates about whether or not it is reasonable are aside the point.  But if not . . . *it wouldn't be a part of that world if it didn't serve some kind of purpose in that world*.

Think about it.  Say we have a reptilian female whose chest contains milk glands.  Fill out the following form and your score (out of five) is determined by the first question you can answer "yes" to:

5 - Does she suckle her young, Ã  la mammals?
4 - Is there some other obvious use or purpose within her own species that those milk glands serve?  In other words, since she has them already, what does she actually DO with them?
3 - ...or for that matter, a use with any other species (past or present)?  For example, maybe it's a "vestigial" characteristic that her species' ancient precursors used to put to good and obvious use themselves (e.g. #5) ?
2 - Are her milk glands "unusual" compared to the rest of her species?  That is, is there some specific reason in her _personal_ history that she should have breasts?  (magical curse or mishap, etc.)
1 - Is there some specific reason in her _species'_ history that they should have milk glands when similar genera do not?
0 - Can you at least _not_ summarize their milk glands as "because [the author] wanted it that way" ?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Oct 25, 2009)

I'm not reading through three pages of pointless, pointless arguements.

Has anyone pointed out that "true" mammal anthros would have rows of breasts? Six or so teats.
If reptile-boobs are an OUTRAGE, then surely just two breasts on a vixen are too?


----------



## the_donut_master (Oct 25, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> I'm not reading through three pages of pointless, pointless arguements.
> 
> Has anyone pointed out that "true" mammal anthros would have rows of breasts? Six or so teats.
> If reptile-boobs are an OUTRAGE, then surely just two breasts on a vixen are too?



This this this...


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 25, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> I'm not reading through three pages of pointless, pointless arguements.


Neither did I.

I skimmed. 



> Has anyone pointed out that "true" mammal anthros would have rows of breasts? Six or so teats.


Generally yes, although it can and does vary by species.  You probably wouldn't find a cow with more than four teats, and kangaroos don't even have them visible (see image) in the first place.


----------



## Monkeykitten (Oct 25, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> I'm not reading through three pages of pointless, pointless arguements.
> 
> Has anyone pointed out that "true" mammal anthros would have rows of breasts? Six or so teats.
> If reptile-boobs are an OUTRAGE, then surely just two breasts on a vixen are too?



What exactly is a "true" mammal anthro, anyways?


----------



## Jelly (Oct 25, 2009)

This thread is super creepy.
Seriously.




Super
Fuckin'
Creepy


----------



## Disparity (Oct 25, 2009)

In anthro? Because they are half human. Some have fingers too.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Oct 25, 2009)

Monkeykitten said:


> What exactly is a "true" mammal anthro, anyways?



Whatever these bloody furries BAWWWing about reptiles being wrong think they are.


----------



## Jhetmonev (Oct 25, 2009)

I think that's one way to distinguish the people who like to fap to your artwork and the people who can appreciate it for it's artistic merit.  And as an artist, I don't think it should matter what people think about your work, unless you are drawing for those people.  Just because you put it on display, doesn't mean you're asking for direction.


----------



## Monkeykitten (Oct 25, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> Whatever these bloody furries BAWWWing about reptiles being wrong think they are.



I'm confused... weren't you the one who used the term and said what a "true" mammal anthro would have?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Oct 25, 2009)

Monkeykitten said:


> I'm confused... weren't you the one who used the term and said what a "true" mammal anthro would have?



The quotation marks, damnit!

Ok, from the anti-lizard-boob-furs point of view: anthro lizard chick wouldn't have breats, and an anthro cheetah chick would have four or six.

Basically they should STFU about how incorrect artwork of fictional animal people apparently is.


----------



## Monkeykitten (Oct 25, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> The quotation marks, damnit!
> 
> Ok, from the anti-lizard-boob-furs point of view: anthro lizard chick wouldn't have breats, and an anthro cheetah chick would have four or six.
> 
> Basically they should STFU about how incorrect artwork of fictional animal people apparently is.



Well, OP wasn't having so much of an issue with other people being incorrect as they were tired of being hassled for not putting breasts on their characters. Though you may have been responding to someone else, I dunno, oops.

ANYWAYS, yeah, when you mix two species in a way that can't be done in the real world, there is no 'correct' way to do it.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 25, 2009)

Monkeykitten said:


> ANYWAYS, yeah, when you mix two species in a way that can't be done in the real world, there is no 'correct' way to do it.



If "correct" is defined as having a real-life standard to compare it with . . . then yes, there's no "correct" or "incorrect" way since there's no standard to adhere to.

Otherwise, if we define "correct" in terms of having a practical or common-sense use in its own context, then yes, we can definitely make a ruling on whether it at least fits, or just plain looks stupid.


----------



## Monkeykitten (Oct 25, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> If "correct" is defined as having a real-life standard to compare it with . . . then yes, there's no "correct" or "incorrect" way since there's no standard to adhere to.
> 
> Otherwise, if we define "correct" in terms of having a practical or common-sense use in its own context, then yes, we can definitely make a ruling on whether it at least fits, or just plain looks stupid.



Whether things "fit" or "look stupid" is entirely subjective. The only real standard for "mixing" a human and, for instance, a rabbit would be that traits from both would probably show up in the result.


----------



## ADF (Oct 25, 2009)

One of my favourite artists, amun, has just done a cute Wyvern fem commission for me.

Relevant because she doesn't have boobs


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2009)

ADF said:


> One of my favourite artists, amun, has just done a cute Wyvern fem commission for me.
> 
> *Relevant because she doesn't have boobs*



... because boobs on a creature with wings wouldn't make any sense, even on a female bat.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 25, 2009)

ADF said:


> Relevant because she doesn't have boobs


Isn't it also partially irrelevant because no-one commented on the lack of breasts?


----------



## ADF (Oct 25, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Isn't it also partially irrelevant because no-one commented on the lack of breasts?



*shrug* I didn't post it in that sense. I'm just happy my commish is done; and since it is a boob-less fem I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Nitzleplick (Oct 25, 2009)

I could illustrate a multi-breasted lizard woman with massive mammaries to be controversial.. but it would be lost as people would probably take it seriously.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 26, 2009)

Monkeykitten said:


> Whether things "fit" or "look stupid" is entirely subjective.


True.... if you're daring enough to attempt reading _only_ one Tropes article, look up "Art Major Biology" sometime.



ADF said:


> One of my favourite artists, amun, has just done a cute Wyvern fem commission for me.
> 
> Relevant because she doesn't have boobs


Her pectorals make a good visual substitute.  Maybe that's why nobody's complained about it.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 26, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> True.... if you're daring enough to attempt reading _only_ one Tropes article, look up "Art Major Biology" sometime.



Bastard. 


Also on topic "lol boobs"


----------



## Origamigryphon (Oct 26, 2009)

I prefer my birds without boobs, if that's what you mean. But I'm not looking for the birds with boobies, in any case. >:3


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 26, 2009)

So they have human traits. Now lemme ask you something else...

1) Are Reptilians born with teeth? Especially dragons? If you said yes, then remove *all* the mammaries and nipples from that snake you just drew with boobs...It would be *incredibly* painful for people with teeth to be nursing. About as painful as their jaws snapping on a nipple. 

2) If you are drawing gryphons and avians with breasts, then you should not call them "Realistic". They have a massive breast bone for flight muscles, mammaries just get in the way. No, don't pull the "But they're part lion and lions are mammals!" card on me...I spot a large beak, and considering some beaks I see people portray grphons with are hooked...they can *not* nurse. It would be incredibly painful.

3) If you are drawing males without nipples yet females have breasts and nipples, then you'll have to remove the breasts or add nipples to the males...because humans have nipples because they don't initially start off with their "Y" chromosome and they never develop.

4) Do not try and say "But cats have six teats so they should have six breasts!". Do you see *humans* with six breasts? Do you see humans with any more than two? They can not be humanlike. The six teats are also for cat litter sizes...explain to me how having *ONE* baby with *six* breasts makes *any* sense, or how a bipedal anthro can walk around with *six* babies and be sexually active. (Pregfurs are most guilty of this...)

5) How come the whole Reptiloid/avian anatomy only seems to apply to males, but not females? You know what I mean...people who draw their genitals as being interior, yet violate their whole "Reptilioid anatomy" by giving breasts to scalies. (The half-human nagas do not count because they are drawn with a *human* torso.)


----------



## Pomponio (Oct 26, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Roose Hurro said:


> Not wrong, just anatomically incorrect... that's all.


Anthropomorphism and anatomical correctness are 2 mutually exclusive concepts at least 100% of the time.

Why should breasts have to make sense, but not the spinal cord, thumbs, or human-like behavior on a supposedly reptile creature?

Most of the anthro traits couldn't possibly work or at leat would be completely unnecessary biologically speaking, thus making a cold-blooded 2-legged sentient animal as absurd as a tortoise with the speed of a cheetah, or a white shark with a poisonous bite.



Roose Hurro said:


> Only in my own creations...


 Fine by me. However, are you aware that if you try to apply logic to art (and furry art in particular), the least of your concerns should be dragons with breasts?


----------



## LizardKing (Oct 26, 2009)

People like tits.

People like furries.

People like tits on furries.

Even when they're not very furry.

Â¯\(Âº_o)/Â¯

(Personally I think it looks stupid and gross but yeah)


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 26, 2009)

i don't even like mammals with mammary glands :c nipples are gross.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 26, 2009)

Lizard tits are awesome, multiple sets of tits are nasty, animal dicks are fucking gross, getting mad about this crap is dumb :V .


----------



## kashaki (Oct 26, 2009)

Reptiles with boobs are weird to me.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 27, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Pomponio said:


> Anthropomorphism and anatomical correctness are 2 mutually exclusive concepts at least 100% of the time.
> 
> Why should breasts have to make sense, but not the spinal cord, thumbs, or human-like behavior on a supposedly reptile creature?
> 
> Most of the anthro traits couldn't possibly work or at leat would be completely unnecessary biologically speaking, thus making a cold-blooded 2-legged sentient animal as absurd as a tortoise with the speed of a cheetah, or a white shark with a poisonous bite.



I hate to play the "fiction" card here but your bipolar argument is really asking for it.

Obviously, just because anthropomorphic creatures are fictional doesn't mean the artist can get away with doing whatever the hell they want with regards to anatomy.  The author should at least take a bit to think their artistic liberties through, so that if it comes into question they can provide at least a _reasonable_ justification for where their creatures' anatomy diverges from reality.

But the rub is:  Just because an artist _did_ take time to think carefully about the workings of their creature's anatomy, doesn't mean they are suddenly required to adhere to _all_ the 'rules', conditions and complications of real-life creature anatomy -- the fact that said creatures are fictional _does_ mean that there are no real-world examples that we can use as a standard.

That's the difference between strict realism and what I might call 'plausible' realism.


----------



## Lucidum (Oct 27, 2009)

*shrug* I've always found breasts pretty much attractive on any species of fur, so I have no problem with it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 27, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Pomponio said:


> *Anthropomorphism and anatomical correctness are 2 mutually exclusive concepts at least 100% of the time.*
> 
> Why should breasts have to make sense, but not the spinal cord, thumbs, or human-like behavior on a supposedly reptile creature?
> 
> ...



When you create an anthropomorphic character, you are, in effect, saying "What would happen if this animal/creature had evolved sentience/sapience like humans?"  Of course, this doesn't include "Talking Animals", a different class of anthro, but bear with me, hmmm?  When you choose to "evolve" a non-mammal, to be true to that animal, you need to maintain what is anatomically correct for that animal, based on the concept of an animal evolved like a human.  Giving said non-mammal thumbs and a posture makes sense, and stays true to the concept of anatomical correctness, because such things as an upright posture and thumbs could reasonably evolve on a non-human creature filling the human role.  However, if that creature isn't a MAMMAL, then there is no way it can have human breasts or even mammaries.  Lizards do not nurse their young.  Non-mammals tend to feed their young by regurgitation.  Or the young are born able to eat solid foods on their own.

HOWEVER...

If you are going for a cartoon effect, or don't care one whit for anatomical correctness or being true to your non-mammalian critter, feel free to give it boobs, but don't be surprised if you get negative comments with the positive... or without the positive.  Personally speaking, I go for realism in my fictional creations, even though they ARE fictional.  Because, in the worlds where my creations roam, they are SUPPOSED to be "real"... and giving my non-mammal females breasts would break the realism I'm trying to creatively accomplish.  Male and female non-mammals already have spines and digits, by the way.  Just like mammals....

So, no boobs where they don't belong.........   >.<


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 27, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Roose Hurro said:


> When you create an anthropomorphic character, you are, in effect, saying "What would happen if this animal/creature had evolved sentience/sapience like humans?"  Of course, this doesn't include "Talking Animals", a different class of anthro, but bear with me, hmmm?  When you choose to "evolve" a non-mammal, to be true to that animal, you need to maintain what is anatomically correct for that animal, based on the concept of an animal evolved like a human.  Giving said non-mammal thumbs and a posture makes sense, and stays true to the concept of anatomical correctness, because such things as an upright posture and thumbs could reasonably evolve on a non-human creature filling the human role.  However, it that creature isn't a MAMMAL, then their is no way it can have human breasts or even mammaries.  Lizards do not nurse their young.  Non-mammals tend to feed their young by regurgitation.  Or the young are born able to eat solid foods on their own.
> 
> HOWEVER...
> 
> ...




-nods sagely-


----------



## Pomponio (Oct 28, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Roose Hurro said:


> When you create an anthropomorphic character, you are, in effect, saying "What would happen if this animal/creature had evolved sentience/sapience like humans?" Of course, this doesn't include "Talking Animals", a different class of anthro, but bear with me, hmmm? When you choose to "evolve" a non-mammal, to be true to that animal, you need to maintain what is anatomically correct for that animal, based on the concept of an animal evolved like a human. Giving said non-mammal thumbs and a posture makes sense, and stays true to the concept of anatomical correctness, because such things as an upright posture and thumbs could reasonably evolve on a non-human creature filling the human role. However, if that creature isn't a MAMMAL, then there is no way it can have human breasts or even mammaries. Lizards do not nurse their young. Non-mammals tend to feed their young by regurgitation. Or the young are born able to eat solid foods on their own.
> 
> HOWEVER...
> 
> ...


 
Uhmm, i think you got the meaning of "anthropomorphic" wrong.

It does NOT mean "evolving an animal until it has human intelligence" (Evolution does not work that way)

It simply means giving human traits to beings that don't have them. We humans do it naturally for some reason. Some cultures did it when they believed some stupid forest had consciousness, some guys did it when they wrote about talking animals, and some guy did it when he created Thomas the Tank Engine.

All these people did so without taking Biology (or mechanics) in mind.

At the end of the day, an anthro dragon makes as much sense as a gun-sword (too awkward to be used in either way)

Just like someone else said on this thread, "who cares, they're just fucking drawings"


----------



## BackwardsButterfly (Oct 28, 2009)

alot of my mammal furry chars don't have breasticles :3 I have bigguns and they're a PAIN...so some of my chars don't has teh bewbiesh


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 28, 2009)

Pomponio said:


> Uhmm, i think you got the meaning of "anthropomorphic" wrong.
> 
> It does NOT mean "evolving an animal until it has human intelligence" (Evolution does not work that way)
> 
> ...



No, I don't think I have... I've interpreted it based on my own creative use for anthro art/stories.  Giving human traits to a lizard does not mean I have to give my female lizards boobs.  It simply means I give them an upright posture, thumbs, the ability to talk, and a culture to go with their intelligence.  Or even just give them the ability to talk and think like a human... or should I say, as well as a human.  That is all.  If you wish to go further, to throw fictional "realism" to the four winds, be my guest, but don't get all huffy if I point and laugh.

Oh, as for the gun-sword?

http://www.replicaweaponry.com/gunswithswords.html

http://realgunblades.blogspot.com/2008/01/pictures-of-real-gunblades.html

http://realgunblades.blogspot.com/2008/02/real-nice-gunblade-photo.html

http://realgunblades.blogspot.com/2008/02/collection-of-historical-weapons.html

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_combo.html

As a writer, my fictional critters need to be as "realistic" as I can make them, so my readers have an easy time suspending their disbelief.  Tits on a lizard make as much sense as tits on a bull... wait, actually, they make LESS sense.  The bull is at least A MAMMAL.  Remember, Mrs. Potts, in Disney's "Beauty And The Beast", didn't have tits.........   >.<


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 28, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Pomponio said:


> Uhmm, i think you got the meaning of "anthropomorphic" wrong.
> 
> It does NOT mean "evolving an animal until it has human intelligence" (Evolution does not work that way)
> 
> ...



Oh yeah, because giving a mythological creature something it already has by default is totally stupid. Dragons are by default supposed to be sentient highly intelligent beings equal or greater in intelligence to human beings.

It actually makes more sense to take the dragon and put it walking up right because at least by default they have sentience. They have intelligence. That is what was given as per their mythology for thousands of years.

Mean while some goody two shoes is arguing that the anatomy of an anthro bat is fucked up, it's not real, but the wings are wrong so lets argue about it. Anthro dragons make more sense that anthro bats, because by themselves dragons are anthro to begin with even before furfags mess with them. But noooo....it's stupid to start getting into it about mythological critters and doing things to them that simply don't make sense because they are not real.

The arguement that "Well it doesn't make sense but who cares, it's not real?" Every one of you who wants to pull that card better STFU any time someone does a major botch job on real animals that get anthropomorphisized, because after all "They arn't real!". Half of this is directly related to what you wrote, but the other half is sort of a general remark to the people in the thread, not towards you specifically as it is not relevent completely to your post. I don't feel like breaking it into two separate posts though so deal with it.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 28, 2009)

Seems to me if you want a believable back story explaining all sorts of half animal people using deliberately altered humans is a lot more plausible than trying to pin it on natural evolution. Plus that makes it a lot easier to explain away things like lizard tits and digitigrade legs on bipeds. The alterations were more about novelty than function so they don't have to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint :V .


----------



## DamionRuthers (Oct 28, 2009)

I suppose it's a matter of preference. Personally, with no-chested reptilian fems, I find the beauty lies in effeminating (it's a word now!!!!) a form that lends itself to masculinity.

One of the reasons they make such perfect material for lady-warrior pictures.

Mind you, I'm talking beauty in an artistic sense not in the "OMFG FAP TO IT" sense.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 28, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Pomponio said:


> At the end of the day, an anthro dragon makes as much sense as a gun-sword (too awkward to be used in either way)


Actually, gun + blades were developed about the 16th century, but it was never intended as a primary weapon.

Kinda shows you the intelligence of SeeD's tactical division when their members are constantly forced to use long-range weapons in close quarters combat 



Trpdwarf said:


> ...Dragons are by default supposed to be sentient highly intelligent beings equal or greater in intelligence to human beings.


_Which_ dragons?  Asia elevated their dragons to godhood, Europe demonized them to extinction, and I hate both types of dragonlore equally because of that.



Whitenoise said:


> Seems to me if you want a believable back story explaining all sorts of half animal people using deliberately altered humans is a lot more plausible than trying to pin it on natural evolution. Plus that makes it a lot easier to explain away things like lizard tits and digitigrade legs on bipeds. The alterations were more about novelty than function so they don't have to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint :V .


Criteria #2 / 1 in this post.

Besides, there is only *one* real-world "standard" for "natural evolution" and it's called "Life As We Know It" for a reason.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 28, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Stratadrake said:


> _Which_ dragons?  Asia elevated their dragons to godhood, Europe demonized them to extinction, and I hate both types of dragonlore equally because of that.



Uh..both? Normally dragons in either east or west were endowed (believed to have as part of the myth) high levels of intelligence and or sentience. It's just that after Christianity swept most of Europe the ideas were twisted to represent the dragon as Satan's familure...and the ultimate challenge to over become (which again I have stated my line of thinking that the dragon represents humans in a mirror, everything we hate and love about ourselves, and everything we loath to be, but strive to become). Now with the dominance of Christianity the dragon was raped of part of it's mythos, where it is supposed to be intelligent and sentient...but as a stereotype, as a trait, neither paying too much attention to east and west dragons are equals at the least to humans, or superiors at the most to human kind.

EDIT: You know, considering that the Asian dragon tended to be deeply steeped in beliefs of creation, of course to some point some of them were elevated to god-hood but it was nothing more than a reflection of humanity. They were supposed to be the ones that gave humanity all these important things that fueled civilization. At least per the beliefs of certain people.


----------



## Xerox2 (Oct 28, 2009)

I think it's up to the artist.


----------



## Pomponio (Oct 28, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, I don't think I have... I've interpreted it based on my own creative use for anthro art/stories. Giving human traits to a lizard *does not mean I have to give my female lizards boobs.*


I still think you misinterpreted it. Anthropomorphism occurs naturally in every culture. It's not a concept with rigid rules that some guy developed. Therefore it does not have to make sense (that does NOT mean it SHOULD NOT make sense, either)

*bold text:* Totally agreed.
My point is that you can draw them without boobs and rationalize your decision all you want, but don't be surprised (or pissed off) if someone does the contrary, because furry art is by nature illogical and out-of-this-world romanticism.



> Oh, as for the gun-sword?
> [links]


Just because someone made them doesn't mean they make sense.
As i said, things like that are too awkward to use, and reality (war) "breeded them out".

Why would someone want an expensive gun-sword if they can have a musket with a bayonet attached to it, which would cost much less than the former?




> As a writer, my fictional critters need to be as "realistic" as I can make them, so my readers have an easy time suspending their disbelief. Tits on a lizard make as much sense as tits on a bull... wait, actually, they make LESS sense. The bull is at least A MAMMAL. Remember, Mrs. Potts, in Disney's "Beauty And The Beast", didn't have tits......... >.<


Well, i didn't know you were a writer, so i guess you have a point since you actually have to explain what's going on. Visual artists are much less restrained by logic.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Oct 28, 2009)

WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING?


----------



## Pomponio (Oct 28, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING?


A part of me finds this whole deal amusing, but i also want to figure furries out ;__;

OK, enough. This thread fails on so many levels.
[/quit]

EDIT: Also, your icon + your reply = LOL


----------



## Ricky (Oct 28, 2009)

FINISH THE FUCKING STORY

What about the glands?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 28, 2009)

Ricky said:


> *What about the glands?*



What glands?  (_*rolls eyes*_ )


----------



## RoqsWolf (Oct 28, 2009)

It's all up to the artist, I don't really mind what they put on there characters as long it's not grotesque


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 28, 2009)

*Re: None mammals with mammary glands*



Trpdwarf said:


> [Dragons]  were supposed to be the ones that gave humanity all these important things that fueled civilization. At least per the beliefs of certain people.


Sorry to crop your post but I don't need to make a line-by-line reply since I agree entirely.

If we talk dinosaurs as an example, which are considered as being the largest but otherwise ordinary reptiles, by theory the precursors to birds and almost certainly the inspiration for certain mythic creatures -- well, I have the opinion that *if* dragons were at some point a real-world species then they would be certainly be much like any other real-world species.  Their primary concerns would be the necessities:  food/water, sleep, their own safety, and a mate to produce offspring.  What people think of them doesn't change what they were . . . or were not.



Ricky said:


> What about the glands?


Not much for phrasing but -- yeah.  How much good exactly is form without function?


P.S.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 28, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Seems to me if you want a believable back story explaining all sorts of half animal people using deliberately altered humans is a lot more plausible than *trying to pin it on natural evolution*. Plus that makes it a lot easier to explain away things like lizard tits and *digitigrade legs on bipeds*. The alterations were more about novelty than function so they don't have to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint :V .



Thought I'd provide some educational materials:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/elong.htm

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/4/640

http://www.indiana.edu/~g112/Lab 8 Handout.pdf

http://www.livescience.com/animals/061030_emus_dinos.html

http://dinosaurs.nhm.org/dinosaurs/



This was an interesting article:

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/209/20/3953

I found this part particularly interesting:



> "Rolling contact of the entire foot with the ground is characteristic of plantigrade gaits, and *is unique to humans among bipeds*. Other bipeds such as birds employ a digitigrade gait that allows for long stride lengths because the foot can be extended during ground contact."


----------



## BackwardsButterfly (Oct 29, 2009)

Also doesn't mammary *GLANDS* imply nipplies?


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 29, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Hurf durf



Admittedly biped was a poor choice of words, what I meant was digitigrade legs on an otherwise humanoid body type :V .


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 29, 2009)

BackwardsButterfly said:


> Also doesn't mammary *GLANDS* imply nipplies?


Usually, yes, because that's where the milk comes out in mammals.  And for a long time mammaries weren't just "a" characteristic of mammals they were "THE" characteristic defining what a mammal even is.


----------



## The Fitz (Oct 29, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Seems to me if you want a believable back story explaining all sorts of half animal people using deliberately altered humans is a lot more plausible than trying to pin it on natural evolution. Plus that makes it a lot easier to explain away things like lizard tits and digitigrade legs on bipeds. The alterations were more about novelty than function so they don't have to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint :V .




This seems to make the most sense to me, as I feel that this is the most likely scenario under which Anthros could become a reality. However, if it was in terms of a natural evolution scenario, then I suppose it's up to the person who's drawing it. I don't give a shit as long as it's done well...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 29, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Admittedly biped was a poor choice of words, what I meant was digitigrade legs on an otherwise humanoid body type :V .



First point, you don't help yourself by replacing my post with ther words "Hurf durf"....

Second point, yes, poor choice of words.

Third point?  Perhaps, but then again, who knows...?  Since none of my critters have a humanoid body type, for me at least, digitigrade (non-plantigrade) is the way I go:  See my quote from that article link, above.........


----------



## ADF (Oct 29, 2009)

Considering the thread is about people who have a problem with fems without breasts; there's allot of debate on whether or not they should have them.

As I said in the OP I'm not really bothered how people design their furries, people shouldn't try to dictate what others should draw because of 'their' preferences. I was just asking why some people make a big deal about females needing to have breasts.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 30, 2009)

ADF said:


> Considering the thread is about people who have a problem with fems without breasts; there's allot of debate on whether or not they should have them.
> 
> As I said in the OP I'm not really bothered how people design their furries, people shouldn't try to dictate what others should draw because of 'their' preferences. *I was just asking why some people make a big deal about females needing to have breasts.*



I don't have a clue why.........


----------



## BackwardsButterfly (Oct 30, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Usually, yes, because that's where the milk comes out in mammals. And for a long time mammaries weren't just "a" characteristic of mammals they were "THE" characteristic defining what a mammal even is.


 Ok well, I disagree with non mammals having mammary glands (nipples)

Mammaries (boobs) on the otherhand...mmm... I guess it depends, like I mentioned before, even some of my furry chars don't have much boob :3


----------



## Vatz (Oct 30, 2009)

ADF said:


> How do you feel about this? I personally like my furries to be close to the traits of their species, for instance reptile fems to have flat chests. I do like breasts; but I don't consider them to be a requirement of a female character. However I've noted people take issue with this.
> 
> When I've attempted to draw female reptile furries in the past I have actually had people complain about the lack of breasts. Since so few people make reptile loyal characters I've commissioned some artists in the past for drawings of them, again people complained about the lack of breasts. In response to this I actually started trying to draw characters with breasts and adding them to commissions. But I'm asking myself now why I did, it's my personal taste; what does others preferences matter?
> 
> Furries are human/animal hybrids and since human females have breasts I fully understand why furries would have breasts, even if the particular species doesn't. But why do people act like it is a requirement? Is it really that big a deal for a female to not have breasts; even if they are a reptile?


 


I don't draw breasts on Lexonians, which are essentially lizards (lizards with sniper rifles and tanks, but still lizards). People, furry or not, have complained about the lack of breasts, and I'm just like "I'm done talking to you, you perverted asswipe."


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 31, 2009)

I'd rather appreciate an anthro itself.


----------



## PKBitchGirl (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't care if reptilian anthros have breasts, I don't care if they don't have them.

If I ever get around to commissioning a fic of a female member of the Storm Hawks raptor species, she won't have mammalian protuberances.

I do have one half-raptor OC, she had breasts, but her mother was a mammal (human).

Can someone point me in the way of non-mammalian reptilian females?

I'd say it's possible to make female reptiles look feminine in non-boobage ways, such as hips and facial features.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 31, 2009)

PKBitchGirl said:


> I don't care if reptilian anthros have breasts, I don't care if they don't have them.
> 
> If I ever get around to commissioning a fic of a female member of the Storm Hawks raptor species, she won't have mammalian protuberances.
> 
> ...



Every RL reptile I've ever handled, I haven't been able to tell male from female without "checking"...


----------



## Attaman (Oct 31, 2009)

If you have to distinguish them:  Coloration?  Size would also work, albeit only if you put it side-to-side with a male at some point (that or if one gender is made unbelievably bulky / one unbelievably lithe).  Then there's, surprise of surprise, clothes.


----------



## X (Oct 31, 2009)

is it so bad to want an appearance that instantly distinguishes the gender of the character?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 31, 2009)

X said:


> is it so bad to want an appearance that instantly distinguishes the gender of the character?



No, but that's not always how biology works... so, if you are looking for biological veracity, puting boobs on a lizard doesn't work.


----------



## PKBitchGirl (Oct 31, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Every RL reptile I've ever handled, I haven't been able to tell male from female without "checking"...



It's easy to tell adult male igunas apart from adult female iguanas. Males have larger head spines and dewlaps and have large jowls


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 1, 2009)

PKBitchGirl said:


> It's easy to tell adult male igunas apart from adult female iguanas. Males have larger head spines and dewlaps and have large jowls



My reptile experience doesn't include iguanas...


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 1, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Then there's, surprise of surprise, clothes.


"Clothing makes the man gender" ?  Eh... don't think too hard about that.


----------



## virus (Nov 1, 2009)

Tits go on non mammals for audience. Human sexual desires a wider audience gets.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 1, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> "Clothing makes the man gender" ?


May not make the sex, but they can make it easier to tell them apart.  Certain shirts, pants, underwear, etc.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 1, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Certain shirts, pants, underwear, etc.


Because Real Men wear pink?  Or something like that.  That has the potential to be a nasty fetish request, but I won't go searching.  It's out there already, no doubts.




			
				Virus said:
			
		

> Human sexual desires a wider audience gets.


... whether you want it or not.


----------

