# Anthro's and anatomy.



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 2, 2010)

I haven't posted in the den in ages so here it comes.


I have been thinking about this today. The definition of an anthropomorphic animal is an animal with human characteristics. It does not define how much human has to be mixed into it. This made me come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether an anthro has human anatomy or animal anatomy they are both technically correct because it is down to the artists themselves on how much human is mixed into them.

This also makes me ask the question: Why do we often have debates on anatomy on anthros?

This is just another point of view I decided to throw out there, please leave your thoughts.


----------



## Browder (Jun 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This also makes me ask the question: Why do we often have debates on anatomy on anthros?
> 
> .



I DON'T KNOW, BUT OH GOD MAKE IT STOP.

Subjective taste is _subjective_, dammit. >:[

EDIT

Also because dog cock, that's why.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2010)

Isn't it beacuse people are only trying to impose their point of view and their tastes as the unique way of doing things?


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 2, 2010)

Merely being Bipedal is enough for me, any more human and it starts to get annoying.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 2, 2010)

Martino Zorrilla said:


> Isn't it beacuse people are only trying to impose their point of view and their tastes as the unique way of doing things?



Exactly. But in my time here I have seen many a debate about anatomically correctness, and it always seemed to go in the favour of animal anatomy for some reason. My point is, that there isn't really any anatomy that is "correct" on anthro because it is down to the artist how much or how little human gets mixed into it.

and as my friend on YIM just pointed out, a human cock on a taur would look dumb. Same goes for a feral anthro.


----------



## Browder (Jun 2, 2010)

I agree with everything you just posted except for the bit about the penii.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 2, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Merely being Bipedal is enough for me, any more human and it starts to get annoying.



I don't like to much animal in mine. To much animal like in facial features, limbs, paws etc and I start to think "Hell I might aswell go look at real animal porn" I just prefer....well.....I suppose a more cartoony or 50/50 split.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 2, 2010)

Browder said:


> I agree with everything you just posted except for the bit about the penii.



Care to clarify? What about the penii don't you agree with?


----------



## Silver Dragon (Jun 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This also makes me ask the question: Why do we often have debates on anatomy on anthros?



Because it's a furry forum.


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't like to much animal in mine. To much animal like in facial features, limbs, paws etc and I start to think "Hell I might aswell go look at real animal porn" I just prefer....well.....I suppose a more cartoony or 50/50 split.



But then you've got the opposite end of the scale where they're just people with animal heads.


----------



## Browder (Jun 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Care to clarify? What about the penii don't you agree with?



Your paragraph was about how peoples tastes were subjective then you made a sentence about how penii would 'look dumb' as if it were an objective viewpoint.



RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't like to much animal in mine. To much animal like in facial features, limbs, paws etc and I start to think "Hell I might aswell go look at real animal porn" I just prefer....well.....I suppose a more cartoony or 50/50 split.



And since when was the thread about porn?!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 2, 2010)

Browder said:


> Your paragraph was about how peoples tastes were subjective then you made a sentence about how penii would 'look dumb' as if it were an objective viewpoint.



I meant a human cock on a Taur would just look.....odd.



TashkentFox said:


> But then you've got the opposite end of the scale where they're just people with animal heads.




Except I like footpaws, tails and slight digitigrade on some species. I don't like human feet on anthro's. Paws are cuter.....

I don't like feet irl either.


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2010)

It's all about consistency


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Except I like footpaws, tails and slight digitigrade on some species. I don't like human feet on anthro's. Paws are cuter.....
> 
> I don't like feet irl either.



Paws are awesome.


----------



## Tycho (Jun 2, 2010)

I hate taurs.  Seriously.  They are horribly anatomically infeasible.  I like it when at least the artist can make the subject so much as even FLIRT with the idea of being anatomically feasible.

Plantigrade, digitigrade, whatever.  Excessive digitigrade looks dumb.  Three toes to a plantigrade humanoid foot looks dumb.  Making hooves look good is difficult.  Hands should have 5 digits.  Fuck your "paws", they are hands and should look like hands.

Multibreast is dumb - the torso and abdomen of an anthro are human.  Therefore, two tits.  Knots do not belong on anything but a canid.  An uncut is not going to be the color of the fur except for the pink eye of the cyclops, it's going to be the skin color.  A dick shaft does not have hair/fur.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2010)

I think that those discussions are as pointless as a hypothetical discussion between Courbet and Kandinsky about how to make art. 
Plus, the fandom is based in a concept that has got no ressonance in real life, why bother discussing about the correct way of representing something that does not even exist?


----------



## Browder (Jun 2, 2010)

Okay is this thread about porn or not, because if it is I need to get the hell out.


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I hate taurs.  Seriously.  They are horribly anatomically infeasible.  I like it when at least the artist can make the subject so much as even FLIRT with the idea of being anatomically feasible.
> 
> Plantigrade, digitigrade, whatever.  Excessive digitigrade looks dumb.  Three toes to a plantigrade humanoid foot looks dumb.  Making hooves look good is difficult.


Hooves are hard to draw this is true, and taurs do kinda look awkward
The only taur I recognize is the centaur



Browder said:


> Okay is this thread about porn or not, because if it is I need to get the hell out.


It probably is or heading there


----------



## Tycho (Jun 2, 2010)

Browder said:


> Okay is this thread about porn or not, because if it is I need to get the hell out.



Anatomy encompasses a lot.  Including what gets covered (or uncovered rather) in porn.  Anatomical fuck-ups are as annoying in porn as they are in clean art.  It's pretty much all in the same boat, as long as you can keep the discussion about the pornographic aspects mature and meaningful and not "o murr i love knots yiff yiff".


----------



## Mollfie (Jun 2, 2010)

I think the same way. To me, an animal that talks, is anthro. An animal with human proportions is anthro. An animal looking character with super-deformed proportions (very very cartoony) is also anthro. The character could have two breasts, four arms, a rabbit tail and sheeps horns. Whatever. It's your character. I don't think it really matters aslong as you're happy with it! I might not like how it looks, but I could just not look at it and avoid the issue lol.

We all like different things, that's what makes it so interesting.


----------



## Browder (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Anatomy encompasses a lot.  Including what gets covered (or uncovered rather) in porn.  Anatomical fuck-ups are as annoying in porn as they are in clean art.  It's pretty much all in the same boat, as long as you can keep the discussion about the pornographic aspects mature and meaningful and not "o murr i love knots yiff yiff".



The topic isn't about  about anatomical fuck-ups, it's about what's subjectively appealing.  I'm not willing to talk about what gets my rocks off on a furry board.


----------



## Tycho (Jun 2, 2010)

Browder said:


> The topic isn't about  about anatomical fuck-ups, it's about what's subjectively appealing.  I'm not willing to talk about what gets my rocks off on a furry board.



I pretty much stated what I find subjectively appealing and what I find subjectively annoying.  I don't care what gets your rocks off.  Hell, I wasn't even going into what gets my rocks off, I was just saying that putting decidedly animalistic traits on an otherwise human body looks fucking retarded and contrived.

Also, sometimes there are these things called "tasteful nudes" where these anatomical bugaboos are very much an issue and not in the context of "o murr yiff yiff yiff".


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I pretty much stated what I find subjectively appealing and what I find subjectively annoying. I don't care what gets your rocks off. Hell, I wasn't even going into what gets my rocks off, I was just saying that *putting decidedly animalistic traits on an otherwise human body looks fucking retarded and contrived*.


 
Because? (Although that's probably your opinion and you're not trying to impose it, are you?)


----------



## Tycho (Jun 2, 2010)

Martino Zorrilla said:


> Because? (Although that's probably your opinion and you're not trying to impose it, are you?)



It's my opinion.  I'm not trying to IMPOSE it though it'd be awesome if people agreed with me, that's never a bad thing.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's my opinion. I'm not trying to IMPOSE it though it'd be awesome if people agreed with me, that's never a bad thing.


 
Fine then. I wanted to be sure.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I hate taurs.  Seriously.  They are horribly anatomically infeasible.  I like it when at least the artist can make the subject so much as even FLIRT with the idea of being anatomically feasible.
> 
> Plantigrade, digitigrade, whatever.  Excessive digitigrade looks dumb.  Three toes to a plantigrade humanoid foot looks dumb.  Making hooves look good is difficult.  Hands should have 5 digits.  Fuck your "paws", they are hands and should look like hands.
> 
> Multibreast is dumb - the torso and abdomen of an anthro are human.  Therefore, two tits.  Knots do not belong on anything but a canid.  An uncut is not going to be the color of the fur except for the pink eye of the cyclops, it's going to be the skin color.  A dick shaft does not have hair/fur.



It is my opinion that you think way to much looks retarded. :/


----------



## Tycho (Jun 2, 2010)

Here's an interesting dilemma for you.

Creatures like cows and goats normally do not possess a top set of front teeth.  Should you give an ANTHRO goat/cow/sheep a full set of teeth similar to a human's?

A ruminant's digestive system is going to be hard-pressed to fit into a humanoid torso.  Therefore it follows that the digestive system in that torso should remain fairly analogous to a human's.  The standard ruminant mouth is DESIGNED to complement the ruminant digestive system.  Should it be replaced by a more humanoid mouth as well?


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Here's an interesting dilemma for you.
> 
> Creatures like cows and goats normally do not possess a top set of front teeth.  Should you give an ANTHRO goat/cow/sheep a full set of teeth similar to a human's?



You shouldn't have anthro prey full stop.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Here's an interesting dilemma for you.
> 
> Creatures like cows and goats normally do not possess a top set of front teeth.  Should you give an ANTHRO goat/cow/sheep a full set of teeth similar to a human's?



Why not? In case you have forgotten furry involves fantasy, why can't artists draw what they want to draw without people like you saying it looks retarded?

Again anthropomorphic animals are animals with human characteristics. How much or how little is not defined. As the amount of human in animal is not defined, imo there is no right way or wrong way to draw anthros.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Here's an interesting dilemma for you.
> 
> Creatures like cows and goats normally do not possess a top set of front teeth. Should you give an ANTHRO goat/cow/sheep a full set of teeth similar to a human's?
> 
> A ruminant's digestive system is going to be hard-pressed to fit into a humanoid torso. Therefore it follows that the digestive system in that torso should remain fairly analogous to a human's. The standard ruminant mouth is DESIGNED to complement the ruminant digestive system. Should it be replaced by a more humanoid mouth as well?


 
You're thinking too hard into it.


----------



## Browder (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Here's an interesting dilemma for you.
> 
> Creatures like cows and goats normally do not possess a top set of front teeth.  Should you give an ANTHRO goat/cow/sheep a full set of teeth similar to a human's?
> 
> A ruminant's digestive system is going to be hard-pressed to fit into a humanoid torso.  Therefore it follows that the digestive system in that torso should remain fairly analogous to a human's.  The standard ruminant mouth is DESIGNED to complement the ruminant digestive system.  Should it be replaced by a more humanoid mouth as well?



Give them teeth and justify it by making the anthro cow a non-ruminant.


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I pretty much stated what I find subjectively appealing and what I find subjectively annoying.  I don't care what gets your rocks off.  Hell, I wasn't even going into what gets my rocks off, I was just saying that putting decidedly animalistic traits on an otherwise human body looks fucking retarded and contrived.


I have no problem with it unless it's done poorly


----------



## Jesie (Jun 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Plantigrade, digitigrade, whatever.  Excessive digitigrade looks dumb.  Three toes to a plantigrade humanoid foot looks dumb.  Making hooves look good is difficult.  Hands should have 5 digits.  Fuck your "paws", they are hands and should look like hands.



I agree. Even animals without 'opposable thumbs' still have thumbs. Just look at yer dogs paw and you'll see it.



Tycho said:


> Multibreast is dumb - the torso and abdomen of an anthro are human.  Therefore, two tits.



Not necessarily.

Multibreast are fine because unlike humans, animals don't have huge engorged breast. The only time you'll see a dogs tits dragging the ground is when she's just gave birth, but as soon as the pups are weened those tits just suck right back up like they never even existed. In fact humans are just about the only animal that always have engorged tits even while not breast feeding.


Which brings me to my next irk, Why do all the male cattle in the cartoon Back to the Barnyard have udders? And why is it OK to show animal tits on a children's cartoon?


----------



## Attaman (Jun 2, 2010)

My opinions on the things brought up in this thread:

What counts as an anthropomorphic animal:  Dead simple, anything given human traits.  Depending on how you interpret the Thrush's or Raven's (or was it a Crow?) speaking in _The Hobbit_, it is anthropomorphized animal (depending on if you assume that birds normally have a 'language', or just chirp general meanings, for instance).  Similarly, Krystal - a _much_ more anthropomorphized animal (wait, I can't recall:  are SF anthro's their own species or specifically referred to as Foxes and the like?) - is also an anthropomorphized animal.

The point I would say it stops counting as an anthropomorphized animal is when it is so predominantly human that it's easier to assume it has a human base:  A generic Nekomimi (sp?), for example, is not an anthropomorphized animal as it more resembles a human given animal traits instead of the other way around.


Tauric Creatures:  Meh, they're alright... so long as you aren't trying to pass them off as biologically plausible.  I can take "genetic experiment for shits and giggles", as well as other things such as "Punishment by divine being."  However, try to pass them off somewhat realistically and you lose me.  Furthermore, making your biology-fail obvious - even with one of the above examples - is a good way to put me off:  Why the hell does your Cat-Crocodile have the "balance of a cat" when it's _entire fucking lower torso is a Crocodile_?  There's so many things wrong with the statement and how the body works with such a lower body that it isn't even funny.

Oh, yeah, and neck-genitalia.  I may not be a biology expert myself, but I have a hunch that if there's a tauric creature their genitals aren't going to extend up to the 'neck' of their lower body.  By a similar token:  No, you don't need a pair of genitals for every pair of legs nor a pair of breasts (if female) for every pair of arms.  I'm not even going into porn for this:  If someone's showing me their anthro'd scorpion, I don't want to see four-to-six pairs of breasts hanging under their shirts to balance out that they have four-to-six pairs of arms.  Those people born with three arms, did you see a third nipple on them anywhere?

Speaking of which:  Multibreast.  I can understand it... if it's solely nipples, _and_ your fursona's species origins include "litters" in type of breeding while _not_ using "litter" just because "it's more natural".  Multiple nipples were there because you needed to be able to feed multiple offspring, potentially at once.  If your species would only have one child, it does not need eight breasts.  Similarly, eight fully-developed breasts would just look fucking _terrible_ on a man-shaped creature.  Like, really bad.  This is ignoring how horribly it'd mess up your back, posture, and balance:  Look at what happens for someone with, say, DD cups.  Now imagine four times as many.  A small tail isn't going to change that their back is about to become gravity's bitch.


----------



## FuyumiAya (Jun 2, 2010)

my species in particular isn't "anthro", it's just the species, so I'm pretty much set as I am. :/
I walk on two _big_ feet and proud.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 2, 2010)

FuyumiAya said:


> my species in particular isn't "anthro", it's just the species, so I'm pretty much set as I am. :/
> I walk on two _big_ feet and proud.


  To rephrase this for people who don't understand Fuyumi (assuming that I'm getting this right):
Her species is not an animal turned humanoid, it is its own species with its own evolutionary (or whatever is being used in her universe for creation of a species) tree.  This is _different_ from anthropomorphizing an animal, as human traits are not being added to something that would not normally lack such - it has these traits by _default_.


----------



## Rachrix (Jun 2, 2010)

Jesie said:


> Which brings me to my next irk, Why do all the male cattle in the cartoon Back to the Barnyard have udders? And why is it OK to show animal tits on a children's cartoon?



dude. its an udder it does not look sexual to normal people, ex omg Brian Griffin does not have close on. 

and personal opinion i like more human cause the other is close to zoo, which is fine but not for me, and for the dog cock, my answer is, i look at the women, so it does no realy concern me, if i had to choose i would say dog cause the girls seem to like it better


----------



## FuyumiAya (Jun 2, 2010)

Attaman said:


> To rephrase this for people who don't understand Fuyumi (assuming that I'm getting this right):
> Her species is not an animal turned humanoid, it is its own species with its own evolutionary (or whatever is being used in her universe for creation of a species) tree.  This is _different_ from anthropomorphizing an animal, as human traits are not being added to something that would not normally lack such - it has these traits by _default_.


...yeah.....this....
....I feel like you just made fun of me, though..


----------



## Browder (Jun 2, 2010)

FuyumiAya said:


> ...yeah.....this....
> ....I feel like you just made fun of me, though..



Ignore him, he just likes to pontificate.

But yeah, he made fun of you a little.


----------



## Willow (Jun 2, 2010)

I try to keep my fursona's anatomy consistent

So, for the moment, unless I decide to change it, he has humanlike hands and feet (with pawpads) and plantigrade legs

I haven't gotten as far as cawk yet though, not really worried about it at the moment


----------



## Attaman (Jun 2, 2010)

FuyumiAya said:


> ...yeah.....this....
> ....I feel like you just made fun of me, though..



My apologies, that was not the intent. My intent was to make fun of people who went "OMG TEH THING IT HAS A TAIL / ANIMAL EARS IT BE ANTHRO".


----------



## FuyumiAya (Jun 2, 2010)

Browder said:


> Ignore him, he just likes to pontificate.


and not just him.. I need to ignore a lot of people on this site  ._.

At least on the forums... for some reason, people's personalities change from when on forums and when on normal FA. o-o


Attaman said:


> My apologies, that was not the intent. My intent was to make fun of people who went "OMG TEH THING IT HAS A TAIL / ANIMAL EARS IT BE ANTHRO".


I get accused more of being a chimera or an alien more...  >.>;


----------



## Jesie (Jun 2, 2010)

Rachrix said:


> dude. its an udder it does not look sexual to normal people, ex omg Brian Griffin does not have close on.
> 
> and personal opinion i like more human cause the other is close to zoo, which is fine but not for me, and for the dog cock, my answer is, i look at the women, so it does no realy concern me, if i had to choose i would say dog cause the girls seem to like it better



First off, WUT?

Second off, I don't see a sheath or big hairy dog balls on Brian. Plus Family Guy is a cartoon meant for adults, so even if we did see something I wouldn't be too shocked form that cartoon.
While on the other hand I can see FEMALE tits on MALE animals on a cartoon meant for children. 

What exactly are you comparing?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jun 3, 2010)

-Breasts the size I often see considered "normal" would cause a spine fracture. 
-Especially multibreasts. Do you know why cats have four teats? Because their average birth size is around four. How many children do most humans have, and by that, I mean without stuff like fertility drugs? 
-Hooves should be a *lot* bigger than I see 'em drawn. 
-Same with paws. The way some people draw them, I'd be surprised if I can't just press on their chest and knock 'em onto their backs. And I'm not a big paw guy, either. (Yes you read it right, a marsupial without a paw fetish!)
-I'd prever Avians have that large breastbones with lots of muscles, instead of mammaries. 
-And the same with scalies and dragons.


----------



## Jesie (Jun 3, 2010)

There's pros and cons to adding breast to reptiles and birds. With birds it's not as bad, you can tell a female by the markings, and female birds don't always look the same as male birds, but with reptiles it's harder.


I get asked 'Hey Mr.?' alot.


I can see some people adding tits to reptiles and birds just to sort out the confusion. Like the reason I draw my alligator with a mammal vaginal opening. Because I don't feel like answering the flood of 'Why does her vagina look funny?' questions.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Jun 3, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I haven't posted in the den in ages so here it comes.
> 
> 
> I have been thinking about this today. The definition of an anthropomorphic animal is an animal with human characteristics. It does not define how much human has to be mixed into it. This made me come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether an anthro has human anatomy or animal anatomy they are both technically correct because it is down to the artists themselves on how much human is mixed into them.
> ...



EDIT: I thought you were talking about porn.  The below still works, but it's funnier now.
Because big black cocks are already in human porn, and since cocks are the focal point of masculine anatomy in porn, it defeats the purpose of it being FURRY porn.  If what you look at is the same, it's still the same.  Porn is one of those things in which context doesn't matter.

And that's one of the many reasons I hate porn.


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Jun 3, 2010)

All I have to say is: Nobody gives a shit. Go browse the "Hyper-Adult" section of this site if you want to see how important anatomy is to furries. For that matter, consider inflation art. For that matter, shitting dick nipples, herms, and multicocks.

Trying to discuss anatomy with most furries is silly.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jun 3, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> -Breasts the size I often see considered "normal" would cause a spine fracture.
> -Especially multibreasts. *Do you know why cats have four teats?* Because their average birth size is around four. How many children do most humans have, and by that, I mean without stuff like fertility drugs?
> -Hooves should be a *lot* bigger than I see 'em drawn.
> -Same with paws. The way some people draw them, I'd be surprised if I can't just press on their chest and knock 'em onto their backs. And I'm not a big paw guy, either. (Yes you read it right, a marsupial without a paw fetish!)
> ...



Cats have six teats...


----------



## Rachrix (Jun 3, 2010)

Jesie said:


> First off, WUT?
> 
> Second off, I don't see a sheath or big hairy dog balls on Brian. Plus Family Guy is a cartoon meant for adults, so even if we did see something I wouldn't be too shocked form that cartoon.
> While on the other hand I can see FEMALE tits on MALE animals on a cartoon meant for children.
> ...



i noticed the udder thing too but its a kids show, most think that cows and bulls are different animals, and a bull would not realy fit in with there crew. and for the brian thing its the first thing that came to mind when i thought of an anthro animal on tv. (cause family guy is the best)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 3, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> I have no problem with it unless it's done poorly



Same. 



Rachrix said:


> i noticed the udder thing too but its a kids show, most think that cows and bulls are different animals, and a bull would not realy fit in with there crew. and for the brian thing its the first thing that came to mind when i thought of an anthro animal on tv. (cause family guy is the best)



Family guy FTW! I actually prefer Family Guy to the Simpsons now.


----------



## TashkentFox (Jun 3, 2010)

The Simpsons hasn't been funny for around a decade now.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jun 3, 2010)

I actually like digitigrade paws, but the number of digits should be accurate to the species. Dogs and cats would obviously have four digits. The hand should be human, but with pads and claws.

Multibreast is a big no-no. A creature the size of a human is not going to give birth to a litter. I remember reading on Transfur:



			
				Angrboda said:
			
		

> I really really dislike extra boobs. Being a girl, I know how much of a pain TWO is...


 
I know I might get crucified for this, but I'm a knots and barbs guy as well.

My fursona does have barbs, on the tongue and you know where else, like a real feline.


----------



## Van Ishikawa (Jun 3, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> The Simpsons hasn't been funny for around a decade now.



And the last few seasons of Family Guy have been dreadful.

I think American Dad got all the good writers or something.  Last few Cleavland show eps weren't bad compared to the pilot and season openers.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 3, 2010)

Because 50 inch dog cocks.


----------



## Jesie (Jun 3, 2010)

Van Ishikawa said:


> And the last few seasons of Family Guy have been dreadful.
> 
> I think American Dad got all the good writers or something.  Last few Cleavland show eps weren't bad compared to the pilot and season openers.



I'll never understand how a show that was canceled managed to pull itself out of it's grave and make 2 spinoffs.

Everywhere I look on TV now, all I see is Family Guy characters in every show. Here soon it will be a requirement that if you want a show on FOX, it will have to be done by the Family Guy man.



All I know is if this can happen, they should be able to bring back Firefly.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 3, 2010)

Jesie said:


> I'll never understand how a show that was canceled managed to pull itself out of it's grave and make 2 spinoffs.
> 
> Everywhere I look on TV now, all I see is Family Guy characters in every show. Here soon it will be a requirement that if you want a show on FOX, it will have to be done by the Family Guy man.
> 
> ...



I like Family Guy and American Dad.


----------



## Jesie (Jun 3, 2010)

I didn't say they were bad shows. I have my fair share of quotes from that show, As I would not have this avatar without that show. But I'm mystified as to how a canceled show gets put back on air.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 3, 2010)

Jesie said:


> I didn't say they were bad shows. I have my fair share of quotes from that show, As I would not have this avatar without that show. But I'm mystified as to how a canceled show gets put back on air.


Scraping the bottom of the barrel?  I mean, it's not like they could bring back "Married... With Children":  They needed something with no visible actor changes.  That left cartoons.


----------



## Rachrix (Jun 3, 2010)

Jesie said:


> I didn't say they were bad shows. I have my fair share of quotes from that show, As I would not have this avatar without that show. But I'm mystified as to how a canceled show gets put back on air.



they were canceled cause they though it was stupid but the season dvd was a huge success so they brought it back


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 3, 2010)

I tend to feel the main reason people argue and push for things like anatomy and proportion is because of what happens when you don't push for it. Just because something is not real, or is subjective does not mean you can't have some standards.

The lack of basic standards leads to being flooded with low quality trash people try to label art. I like realism to some extent where I like people taking the time to think about anatomy and explore it in their art. You start shifting towards quality. I like quality. I think others can very easily feel the same way.


----------



## Van Ishikawa (Jun 3, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I tend to feel the main reason people argue and push for things like anatomy and proportion is because of what happens when you don't push for it. Just because something is not real, or is subjective does not mean you can't have some standards.
> 
> The lack of basic standards leads to being flooded with low quality trash people try to label art. I like realism to some extend where I like people taking the time to think about anatomy and explore it in their art. You start shifting towards quality. I like quality. I think others can very easily feel the same way.



Basically this.

Remember kiddies:  even cartoonists study anatomy.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Jun 3, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Multibreast is a big no-no. A creature the size of a human is not going to give birth to a litter.
> 
> I know I might get crucified for this, but I'm a knots and barbs guy as well.
> 
> My fursona does have barbs, on the tongue and you know where else, like a real feline.


at the very least, more than two human-like breasts is ridiculous...

and i'd actually agree with you about the...  erm...  male anatomy for your species...

Of course, it doesn't make the kind of porn the fags want to look at, but it doesn't seem like the fact that it's furry matters to them...  it's just the porn part.  Big black cocks on something that's not a big scary black guy.  [because that's what it comes down to, right?  you're all afraid of the truth.]


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 3, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> at the very least, more than two human-like breasts is ridiculous...
> 
> and i'd actually agree with you about the...  erm...  male anatomy for your species...
> 
> Of course, it doesn't make the kind of porn the fags want to look at, but it doesn't seem like the fact that it's furry matters to them...  it's just the porn part.  Big black cocks on something that's not a big scary black guy.  [because that's what it comes down to, right?  you're all afraid of the truth.]



People are certainly afraid of the truth.


----------



## Van Ishikawa (Jun 3, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> Of course, it doesn't make the kind of porn the fags want to look at, but it doesn't seem like the fact that it's furry matters to them...  it's just the porn part.  Big black cocks on something that's not a big scary black guy.  [because that's what it comes down to, right?  you're all afraid of the truth.]



Where the fuck did this come from and what is wrong with you

(note pornographers purposely play up racial stereotypes in their porn.  I don't like hearing the girl, the guy, the camera man and steve the intern all talk about how big and black the guy's dick is, I find it distracting)


----------



## mrhippieguy (Jun 3, 2010)

Ah, anatomy. Such a dodgy thing. 

Usually it comes down to the character, such as my 'sona is digitigrade(and has anatomically correct genitals, but that's beside the point), but someone else's may be plantigrade and still look just as good.


----------



## Ames (Jun 3, 2010)

mrhippieguy said:


> Ah, anatomy. Such a dodgy thing.
> 
> Usually it comes down to the character, such as my 'sona is digitigrade(and has anatomically correct genitals, but that's beside the point), but someone else's may be plantigrade and still look just as good.



Yeah each artist has their own personal preferences and everything, so it's useless arguing about it.

Also, just a fair warning: some people may interpret your post like this:



mrhippieguy said:


> Something something something something  anatomically correct genitals something something something.


----------



## FuReNzIc (Jun 4, 2010)

Well It just Depends on how much Animal you want in your Human
just like how much Sugar you want in your Tea
It's a Common Question People Ask Everyday >:O
It Usually Ends up in...
SNOUT, EARS, TAIL and FEET 
Usually more and Sometimes Less


----------



## Van Ishikawa (Jun 4, 2010)

FuReNzIc said:


> Well It just Depends on how much Animal you want in your Human
> just like how much Sugar you want in your Tea
> It's a Common Question People Ask Everyday >:O
> It Usually Ends up in...
> ...



The format here makes me think you're doing free verse poetry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 4, 2010)

FuReNzIc said:


> Well It just Depends on how much Animal you want in your Human
> just like how much Sugar you want in your Tea
> It's a Common Question People Ask Everyday >:O
> It Usually Ends up in...
> ...



the definition of anthro is an animal with human characteristics, so it would be how much human in your animal, not vice versa.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jun 4, 2010)

Jesie said:


> There's pros and cons to adding breast to reptiles and birds. With birds it's not as bad, you can tell a female by the markings, and female birds don't always look the same as male birds, but with reptiles it's harder.
> 
> 
> I get asked 'Hey Mr.?' alot.
> ...



Typically, female reptiles would look a little smaller and have an hourglass shape.  You know, feminine figure, just no boobs.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jun 4, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> Typically, female reptiles would look a little smaller and have an hourglass shape.  You know, feminine figure, just no boobs.



Which wouldn't wash, because female reptiles are (or tend to be) bigger than the males.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Jun 5, 2010)

Van Ishikawa said:


> Where the fuck did this come from and what is wrong with you
> 
> (note pornographers purposely play up racial stereotypes in their porn.  I don't like hearing the girl, the guy, the camera man and steve the intern all talk about how big and black the guy's dick is, I find it distracting)



Multiple racial stereotypes in play with what I said-- white people being afraid of black people in particular.  

What is wrong with me?  I like calling people out.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Jun 5, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Which wouldn't wash, because female reptiles are (or tend to be) bigger than the males.



Females being smaller would be a human characteristic, and they are ANTHROpomorphic...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jun 5, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> *Females being smaller would be a human characteristic*, and they are ANTHROpomorphic...



That's true, but then, as has been mentioned, that would depend on how much human you put into the lizard...


----------



## Jesie (Jun 5, 2010)

I don't put much into mine at all. The only human characteristic is they have is speech and a ability to walk upright, but that is also my preference. Most others in the fandom go the more human route.

I go the more animal route.

It's up to the artist as to how 'human' they wish to make their animals.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jun 5, 2010)

That brings to my mind, the question -
If an anthro ever existed(NO), how long will it's lifespan be? 
The human characterics are not affecting age unless the anthro is suicidial.
Here, the more human mixed into it the more human lifespan will be.

Calculating things by that way, bug type would die after a day. Sorry Exunod and some other bee fellow member I don't remember.

If anthropomism is into chairs as well in various stories and art, then a chair(Thing with no possible humanity) is accepted. An 'anthro' by the furry fandom would be more than acceptable because it has already human attributes.

Just to remind, humanity is a thing no animal has - and that is what makes them weak and low. By adding anthropomism, it is distigunished.


The question is: Why do we debate on 'anthros' at all?
By the true meaning an anthro is an object(Live, plant or ... not live) that has human attributes in it. A human can't be anthro because it is plain human attributes.
By the furry fandom defenition, an anthro is an anthropomorphized animal. Some people take it that it must be exactly like a human except the looks - wrong. You can draw a talking show and that would be better.

Why do furriesl ike anthros at all
Because they are furry(Well, not all the times! Some animals are bald)
And they make a fursona


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jun 5, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Which wouldn't wash, because female reptiles are (or tend to be) bigger than the males.




Even though many of 'em are often drawn as having the frame as a human?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jun 5, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> Even though many of 'em are often drawn as having the frame as a human?



Like I said, depends on how much human you put in the animal... I like to keep it as small as possible, when I make an animal-based character.  Though, to be honest, most of my characters are alien, so "human" isn't in the cards, anyway.


----------

