# No such thing as anatomically correct



## Tsukiyomi (Feb 28, 2010)

You know why? b/c anthro's are pure fantasy and they fit within a general spectrum of animal and human. It's up to the artist to determine what aspects within the spectrum is used. Can anyone explain to me why people are trying to dictate what is what with anthro-anatomy.


----------



## Browder (Feb 28, 2010)

So the fantasy has some form of believability and logic. Duh.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Feb 28, 2010)

Browder said:


> So the fantasy has some form of believability and logic. Duh.



Tell that to the macro-fetish peoples.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

I love it when people say "That *insert fantasy creature*'s anatomy is not correct. it brings me lots of lulz.


----------



## Browder (Feb 28, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Tell that to the macro-fetish peoples.



I'd rather not, thank you. *is squicked*


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Well, flame me all you want but I'd rather fantasize about something more close to home rather than something way out there....Realism > Human cock on an anthro dog...


----------



## Krasl (Feb 28, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You know why? b/c anthro's are pure fantasy and they fit within a general spectrum of animal and human. It's up to the artist to determine what aspects within the spectrum is used. Can anyone explain to me why people are trying to dictate what is what with *anthro-anatomy*.



there's your answer.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Krasl said:


> there's your answer.



Ah I see, I do believe there is an anthro-anatomy because it's not quite the animal's anatomy and not quite the human's anatomy so we're going into the blending theory that anthro-anatomy is right smack dab in the middle


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Ah I see, I do believe there is an anthro-anatomy because it's not quite the animal's anatomy and not quite the human's anatomy so we're going into the blending theory that anthro-anatomy is right smack dab in the middle



But who decides which parts are used from both species to end up in the middle? It differs from artist to artist.


----------



## Krasl (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Ah I see, I do believe there is an anthro-anatomy because it's not quite the animal's anatomy and not quite the human's anatomy so we're going into the blending theory that anthro-anatomy is right smack dab in the middle



exactly what i was saying.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> But who decides which parts are used from both species to end up in the middle? It differs from artist to artist.



Yep, that's why I only watch the artists that draw more on the lines of the anatomy of the animal...If you haven't noticed, human anatomy is boring, no knot, no furry sheath, no pre-cum....dammit now I'm horny <(^_^)>


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Yep, that's why I only watch the artists that draw more on the lines of the anatomy of the animal...If you haven't noticed, human anatomy is boring, no knot, no furry sheath, no pre-cum....dammit now I'm horny <(^_^)>



Meh, to each their own i guess.


----------



## Krasl (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Yep, that's why I only watch the artists that draw more on the lines of the anatomy of the animal...If you haven't noticed, human anatomy is boring, no knot, no furry sheath, no pre-cum....dammit now I'm horny <(^_^)>



you're always horny, what are you talking about?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Krasl said:


> you're always horny, what are you talking about?



Nah, I'm not when I first wake up and when I reach like 14 hours of no sleep....God I'm gonna go browse FA's yiff now


----------



## Jelly (Feb 28, 2010)

ooh look at me i live in a crazy fantasy world where animals dont have bones or tissue


----------



## Browder (Feb 28, 2010)

Jelly said:


> ooh look at me i live in a crazy fantasy world where animals dont have bones or tissue



Gummi bears. Yum.


----------



## Krasl (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Nah, I'm not when I first wake up and when I reach like 14 hours of no sleep....God I'm gonna go browse FA's yiff now



suuuuuuuuure.
i'm scared...


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 28, 2010)

Jelly said:


> ooh look at me i live in a crazy fantasy world where animals dont have bones or tissue



It's _supposed_ to bend at that angle!


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

Its people's preference on what kind of damn cock they want. Personally, real dog cocks creep me out o-o


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Its people's preference on what kind of damn cock they want. Personally, real dog cocks creep me out o-o



This. You can't argue about this topic as it's all opinionated, it's like arguing about what religion is best...it can't be done.


----------



## Tommy (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> This. You can't argue about this topic as it's all opinionated, it's like arguing about what religion is best...it can't be done.



I couldn't agree more on this.


----------



## Krasl (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> This. You can't argue about this topic as it's all opinionated, it's like arguing about what religion is best...it can't be done.





Tommy said:


> I couldn't agree more on this.



w/e i agree with both of these!


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

I agree with all of you guys


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 28, 2010)

Because fantasy can still follow the laws of fizziks. 

That's why.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Feb 28, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Because fantasy can still follow the laws of fizziks.
> 
> That's why.


Only if you want it to.


----------



## KylieIsACannibal (Feb 28, 2010)

I left furry porn as the background on a computer in the microsoft store at the mall.


----------



## Usarise (Feb 28, 2010)

KylieIsACannibal said:


> I left furry porn as the background on a computer in the microsoft store at the mall.


disgusting but Badass.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Feb 28, 2010)

KylieIsACannibal said:


> I left furry porn as the background on a computer in the microsoft store at the mall.


Nice. XD


----------



## KylieIsACannibal (Feb 28, 2010)

Yeah, it was pretty gross. I felt proud to have potentially scarred a child for life.


----------



## Carenath (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Yep, that's why I only watch the artists that draw more on the lines of the anatomy of the animal...If you haven't noticed, human anatomy is boring, no knot, no furry sheath, *no pre-cum*....dammit now I'm horny <(^_^)>


I don't know what's wrong with your cock...


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Carenath said:


> I don't know what's wrong with your cock...



Well I guess I gotta break it down then. (Why am I blushing IRL??) Next time you go at it (sorry, assuming you're a guy as I didn't double check your gender) see if you start to leak when you're no where near climax, I know I don't.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 28, 2010)

If you Insert boobs and a pussy on a Dragons body you get a Fantasy.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Feb 28, 2010)

Browder said:


> Gummi bears. Yum.



lol


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 28, 2010)

Portal was a cool game. 
Sure, portals are impossible and defy the laws of physics, but if gravity went up in that game, there would be complaints.

What I'm saying is that you have to keep some kind of realism in there. You're merging an animal and a human being. You can't have human being's arms suddenly half their size. Else it's not human. Sure, it's fine if it's something totally new, but really now.


----------



## Icky (Feb 28, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> If you Insert boobs and a pussy on a Dragons body you get a Fantasy.


And male dragons aren't a fantasy?


----------



## Jelly (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Well I guess I gotta break it down then. (Why am I blushing IRL??) Next time you go at it (sorry, assuming you're a guy as I didn't double check your gender) see if you start to leak when you're no where near climax, I know I don't.



Most guys do.
[nsfw]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-ejaculate_fluid


----------



## Icky (Feb 28, 2010)

Jelly said:


> Most guys do.
> [nsfw]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-ejaculate_fluid


Why did I click on that. I trusted you, Wikipedia, and you betray me with pictures of dicks.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 28, 2010)

Icarus615 said:


> And male dragons aren't a fantasy?


 
They're mythical creatures which are fantasy. If you want to add penis attachment of garganchuin size to a Dragon and call that a Fantasy, I guess so.


----------



## Morroke (Feb 28, 2010)

Since when is there a recommendation on the anatomical correctness of dog dick and giant fucking tits anyways?


----------



## Willow (Feb 28, 2010)

Depends on how human it is right?


----------



## Willow (Feb 28, 2010)

KylieIsACannibal said:


> I left furry porn as the background on a computer in the microsoft store at the mall.


That's amazing XD


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

precisely.

dog dicks do not belong on humans and birds dont have dicks.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Well on the topic of pre, it's hard to determine. A canid releases pre during any time they're aroused and I know that doesn't happen to me...I always thought the the first contraction via climax released the pre in humans but idk, I think I might be broken down there :shock:


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Well on the topic of pre, it's hard to determine. A canid releases pre during any time they're aroused and I know that doesn't happen to me...I always thought the the first contraction via climax released the pre in humans but idk, I think I might be broken down there :shock:



Every post you create makes me want to turn away, or scroll down. But for some reason, I just can't tear my eyes away...


----------



## KylieIsACannibal (Feb 28, 2010)

Like a train wreck: horrific and nauseating, but you can't seem to stop watching.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> Every post you create makes me want to turn away, or scroll down. But for some reason, I just can't tear my eyes away...



Cause I'm that awesome 
DON'T LOOK AWAY OR SCROLL DOWN!



KylieIsACannibal said:


> Like a train wreck: horrific and nauseating, but you can't seem to stop watching.



Hahaha so damn true. Wow, that's a real knee slapper right there!


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Cause I'm that awesome
> DON'T LOOK AWAY OR SCROLL DOWN!



Curse you, Scotty! Curse you!


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 28, 2010)

hehe and you actually read it. Told you I'm awesome


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> hehe and you actually read it. Told you I'm awesome



:/


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 28, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Well, flame me all you want but I'd rather fantasize about something more close to home rather than something way out there....*Realism > Human cock on an anthro dog...*


This pisses me off to no end.
The REASON humans have a human cock, and not one with a knot or whatever, is because they stand UPRIGHT. Do anthros stand upright? Yes. Yes they do. Therefore, they should have a human penis. All the people who draw dogcocks aren't going for realism, they're just wanting to draw a dogcock to fap to, because they're pervs. If they wanted realism, they'd stick to feral porn, or draw human dicks.

gtfo.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> This pisses me off to no end.
> The REASON humans have a human cock, and not one with a knot or whatever, is because they stand UPRIGHT. Do anthros stand upright? Yes. Yes they do. Therefore, they should have a human penis. All the people who draw dogcocks aren't going for realism, they're just wanting to draw a dogcock to fap to, because they're pervs. If they wanted realism, they'd stick to feral porn, or draw human dicks.
> 
> gtfo.




You seem to know a lot about cocks.


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> You seem to know a lot about cocks.


I read. Omgomgomgomgomg. >>


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> I read. Omgomgomgomgomg. >>



Meh, just something I would not imagine people wanting to read about. Unless they were going into a career that required extensive knowledge of anatomy and things of the sort.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 28, 2010)

Browder said:


> So the fantasy has some form of believability and logic. Duh.



So long as the sexual organs do their job does it fucking matter whether it is a human dick or animal dick? they both squirt spunk do they not? 

Personally I prefer my anthros to have human like anatomy, if anyone likes looking at animal anatomy, well, it is just too zoophillic for me.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> You seem to know a lot about cocks.



I always thought the reason a human had a human cock was because we are human.


Also, I fully agree with Sugar on this.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I always thought the reason a human had a human cock was because we are human.
> 
> 
> Also, I fully agree with Sugar on this.



I meant more of the bit on "we have it cause we stand up straight" part, not the " we have human cocks because were humans"

But yes, I agree with her also.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> So long as the sexual organs do their job does it fucking matter whether it is a human dick or animal dick? they both squirt spunk do they not?
> 
> Personally I prefer my anthros to have human like anatomy, if anyone likes looking at animal anatomy, well, it is just too zoophillic for me.


 

Yeah, dog cock creeps the fuck out of me.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

LOOK AWAY AND SCROLL DOWN


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> LOOK AWAY AND SCROLL DOWN


Is that a dog cock in your sig? o.=.o It looks like it. Actually, it looks like a statue


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Is that a dog cock in your sig? o.=.o It looks like it. Actually, it looks like a statue



tilt the image sideways and be horrified.
and it is neither.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> LOOK AWAY AND SCROLL DOWN



I hate you with so much passion right now, that it could burn down a building.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> I hate you with so much passion right now, that it could burn down a building.



I love you.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> I love you.



....





<3


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> tilt the image sideways and be horrified.
> and it is neither.


 Oh, its a dead person. Dog cocks are scarier!


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*steals your food*


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Oh, its a dead person. Dog cocks are scarier!



actually its a greyhound that was hung from a tree and left to rot.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> *steals your food*



FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Can't say I didn't see it coming, really.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> actually its a greyhound that was hung from a tree and left to rot.


OMG, ITS AN ANIMAL T-T HOW TERRIBLE!!!! 



Ahhh, I see it now. Okay, now its creepy.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> actually its a greyhound that was hung from a tree and left to rot.



Sexy.


----------



## KylieIsACannibal (Feb 28, 2010)

I came.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 28, 2010)

SAD!


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm not going to lie, it looks crispy and tasty.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

>:/ this will be this thread's secret! I really like the image and I dont want it removed!


----------



## KylieIsACannibal (Feb 28, 2010)

-salute-


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> >:/ this will be this thread's secret! I really like the image and I dont want it removed!



Unless someone here is secretly a member of PETA, you have nothing to worry about. (I think.)


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 28, 2010)

I think we should ask Dog Cock Artist "Do women buy your Dog Cock Art?" I would maybe get a Hell yeah to that one.


----------



## Fehne (Feb 28, 2010)

This is mildly off-topic (but does have to do with anatomy, just not dog cock), but I hate when someone draws a skinny character and a bunch of people go 'THAT'S NOT REALISTIC, NO ONE IS THAT SKINNY!!!!'  You know...some people ARE that skinny, right?  You can be healthy and skinny.  I'm skinny, and it always just kinda miffs me, because I feel like when I draw my character to look like me, people are going to think I'm making her look skinnier than myself, but she's the same body type as me. /endminirant


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> Unless someone here is secretly a member of PETA, you have nothing to worry about. (I think.)


 No one is THAT brainless here


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

KylieIsACannibal said:


> -salute-



I was trying to find the original pic, but I have no clue what happened to the site.


----------



## Kregoth (Feb 28, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> No one is THAT brainless here



I actually think there was a member of PETA on here before. But he wasn't your stereotypical "I will kill you if you look at an animal wrong." one. I think he was pretty chill. (If I am remembering correctly.)


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 28, 2010)

Kregoth said:


> I actually think there was a member of PETA on here before. But he wasn't your stereotypical "I will kill you if you look at an animal wrong." one. I think he was pretty chill. (If I am remembering correctly.)


 
Hard to believe o.=.o

What is worse than PETA is ALF


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 28, 2010)

I am a supporter of some of what PETA does, but they are very hypocrittical. MEH. Long ass story, I'll spare you.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 28, 2010)

I fucking hate peta...
they fucking kill animals and dont believe in having pets.


----------



## Kregoth (Mar 1, 2010)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> I am a supporter of some of what PETA does, but they are very hypocrittical. MEH. Long ass story, I'll spare you.



My interest has been aroused, send me a PM if you feel like sharing.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> I fucking hate peta...
> they fucking kill animals and dont believe in having pets.


 At least they don't try to kill you for having pets like ALF!


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 1, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> At least they don't try to kill you for having pets like ALF!



ALF is peta's covert operations.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> ALF is peta's covert operations.


 That makes sense... This has just BLOWN my mind!


----------



## kyle19 (Mar 1, 2010)

I like how this thread went from anatomy of an anthro to "I hate PETA and ALF"


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

kyle19 said:


> I like how this thread went from anatomy of an anthro to "I hate PETA and ALF"


Such as FA always is.


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 1, 2010)

kyle19 said:


> I like how this thread went from anatomy of an anthro to "I hate PETA and ALF"



it's because I'm here.


----------



## Kregoth (Mar 1, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> it's because I'm here.



That's quite a talent you have there, Zrcalo.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 1, 2010)

Can I throw in my $.02 for the OP?



Tsukiyomi said:


> You know why? b/c anthro's are pure fantasy and they fit within a general spectrum of animal and human. It's up to the artist to determine what aspects within the spectrum is used. Can anyone explain to me why people are trying to dictate what is what with anthro-anatomy.



Short answer:  Form follows function.  Have you done your research?

Long answer:

It's true that anthropomorphic animals are a depiction you wouldn't find in Real Life.  But that's not the point.  The ability to portray a creature's anatomy in a realistic fashion (i.e: "as compared to Real Life") is a testament to the amount of research that the artist put into the creature's design.  There are many, many patterns that show up when you compare anatomy and physiology of Real Life creatures, and it's safe to assume that fantasy creatures would share at least some of these patterns themselves.

Sure, you could (for example) add a random "backpack" of wings onto a fantasy creature and cite the Rule Of Cool[sup]tm[/sup] for justification.  But that only lasts as long as the viewer doesn't start thinking too hard about "just how does that _work_, anyway?"


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 1, 2010)

[EDIT: Duplicate post]


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2010)

Well how realistic the form must be really depends on the artist and the style. I mean fuck it's not like cartoons are ever anatomically correct, so if it's a toon artist and you make the comment " D: not realistic" you might have missed the forest for the trees there. 
If the person is going for realistic then yeah, like most fantasy things it usually look better if they apply the rules of anatomy to it. 

Example. Taz from looney toons makes no anatomical sense at all. his mouth takes up half his body, however no one is sitting around going , he would however look very strange if drawn realistically.


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Mar 1, 2010)

Defenders of the Wildlife or WWF > PETA lol I've upgraded from when I was a kid when I realized they were hypocritical eco-terrorists XD 

On the topic of anatomy: I am one who tries to keep to realism as much as possible, even with doing anthros. For instance when I did the bearded dragon anthro the head was an exact portrait of my beardie, then kept the spikey scales, markings, wide/flat stomach and the row of spikes along his sides then added a human-esk body under all of those. Or with ferrets I'll have the torso elongated and limbs shortened a little to keep them closer to the animal (it's not completely animal proportionate but it gives the feel). For deity animals (ie dragons) I keep to lore as much as possible. I don't do them anthro (have tried, can't get it to look right for my personal standards). Nor do I draw them too beyond physics unless it's what the lore dictates... then again it's a religious choice. ie If I were to draw Ama Ushumgal Sumun Tiamat I'll draw her how a Sumerian dragon was depicted instead of drawing the DnD version of her (in temperament and appearance). 

For more cartoony stuff, there will still need some level of anatomy for things to be believable for people... it'll need some form of functionality but how much of human or animal is artist choice.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 1, 2010)

There's no exact realism when it comes to anthros/hybrids b/c they are drawn from a pool of human and animal features. It's up to the artist as to which features are used from that pool. 

From the functionality perspective, most artists draw anthros walking on two digitized legs i.e. longer feet and shorter lower end of the legs - that's not functional but artists do it b/c they that's their unique style. Usually I'll see someone complain about the genitalia being too human but say nothing about the legs. (Btw -fun fact- humans have more developed/evolved genitalia).


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Mar 1, 2010)

Imo nothing has to be correct on an anthro, it is all fictional anyway so why the fuck does it matter if it is realistic of not? star trek isn't realistic, Dr Who isn't realistic. So why the fuck should Anthro's be realistic?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 1, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Imo nothing has to be correct on an anthro, it is all fictional anyway so why the fuck does it matter if it is realistic of not? star trek isn't realistic, Dr Who isn't realistic. So why the fuck should Anthro's be realistic?



Personal preference. Some like anatomically correctness and some don't care. Pick your side and flame like the rest of us.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Mar 1, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Personal preference. Some like anatomically correctness and some don't care. Pick your side and flame like the rest of us.



I'm not going to "pick sides" and flame people, we are all entitled to have our own preferences. I just fail to see why people get pissy if something isn't realistic, or couldn't possibly work IRL, or not anatomically correct. I mean COM ON! it is all fictional, anthro's are fucking fictional to start with, do you people REALLY think Dumbo the elephant could fly and have such big ears irl? Do you people really think micky mouse would talk if he was a real mouse? No you wouldn't, because it is a cartoon, which the fandom was started around, cartoons. NOT realism, NOT being anatomically correct, FICTIONAL stuff.

Imo, if anyone has a preference to see a REAL dog cock on an anthro and get turned on by it must have zoophillic tendencies and should go suck fido's cock.


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 1, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'm not going to "pick sides" and flame people, we are all entitled to have our own preferences. I just fail to see why people get pissy if something isn't realistic, or couldn't possibly work IRL, or not anatomically correct. I mean COM ON! it is all fictional, anthro's are fucking fictional to start with, do you people REALLY think Dumbo the elephant could fly and have such big ears irl? Do you people really think micky mouse would talk if he was a real mouse? No you wouldn't, because it is a cartoon, which the fandom was started around, cartoons. NOT realism, NOT being anatomically correct, FICTIONAL stuff.
> 
> Imo, if anyone has a preference to see a REAL dog cock on an anthro and get turned on by it must have zoophillic tendencies and should go suck fido's cock.


 Once again...


Dog-cock = PUKE


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 1, 2010)

When it comes to realism in art, some things need to be anatomically correct to suspend the belief of the audience.

In some abstract forms, or impressionism, not really.

But for the Realistic aspects, artists appy anatomical parts to make it more believable to the audience that views it..
For some art, I like suspension of belief. 
If I want to be in good humor when viewing it, I pick the toony-esque.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 1, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> Once again...
> 
> 
> Dog-cock = PUKE



Agreed, I hate bestiality yet I love a semi-realistic dog cock on an anthro dog. Flame all you want about how you think it's silly that people want correctness but IDC, I'm still going to look at it all the same way...


----------



## Wilk Freeman (Mar 1, 2010)

Being anatomically correct with fictional characters is pointless imo.

Edited: What i wrote didn't sound as i intended.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 1, 2010)

Wilk Freeman said:


> yeah i dont get what the point of this is



ITT: it's not real, so I have an excuse to draw a five hundred feet of cock on a five foot furry fag fox. :V


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 1, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> ITT: it's not real, so I have an excuse to draw a five hundred feet of cock on a five foot furry fag fox. :V



I see what ya did thar.
Basically yes, people need to stop whining about how they don't care if something is even believable.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 1, 2010)

I'd rather a human dick on a furfag animal.  Animal dicks are grotesque.

Sheaths are one thing; having a veiny dog wang and a knot with no real purpose is another.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 1, 2010)

Ratte said:


> I'd rather a human dick on a furfag animal.  Animal dicks are grotesque.
> 
> Sheaths are one thing; having a veiny dog wang and a knot with no real purpose is another.



Finally some female input. Dog cock is sexy though, mine's boring 

I'd die for a furry sheath...and a different self to exploit and prod at


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Mar 1, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Finally some female input. Dog cock is sexy though, mine's boring
> 
> I'd die for a furry sheath...and a different self to exploit and prod at




How the hell can you say you hate beastiality when you find dogcock "sexy"?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 1, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> How the hell can you say you hate beastiality when you find dogcock "sexy"?



Cartoon dog cock. I'm a kid at heart, not a practicer of bestiality...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Mar 1, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Cartoon dog cock. I'm a kid at heart, not a practicer of bestiality...



Even if it is on a cartoon dog, if it is drawn to resemble a real doggy dick then I'd have concerns if people found that sexy. I'm not saying you're a zoo or anything but something like that will make people wonder.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 1, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Even if it is on a cartoon dog, if it is drawn to resemble a real doggy dick then I'd have concerns if people found that sexy. I'm not saying you're a zoo or anything but something like that will make people wonder.



Understood, It's just one of the many wonders of yours truly. I can honestly say if I had a male dog beside me at any time, the most I would do would be a belly rub.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2010)

dog cock is gross.


----------



## Bando (Mar 1, 2010)

Ratte said:


> I'd rather a human dick on a furfag animal.  Animal dicks are grotesque.
> 
> Sheaths are one thing; having a veiny dog wang and a knot with no real purpose is another.



^

ugh, when my dog wasn't fixed he used to get these super boner that make me want to vomit when I think about them... Make the dogcock go away T_____T


----------



## Ratte (Mar 1, 2010)

I died a little bit upon returning to this thread.

Even if shit is all made up, it's more pleasing in a visual sense to have proportions and sensible appendages.  For other things, it's a tossup.

I've been bitched at for having the leftmost-character in my featured submission have "too flexible a neck, making it seem as if it's part owl".  Uh, I can rotate my neck that far.  It's also /a completely fictional species beyond so much as mythology/.  It's mine to fuck around with, and you can just press the back button.

I don't mind critique, I mind when you tell me how to draw my ideas.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2010)

Ratte said:


> I died a little bit upon returning to this thread.
> 
> Even if shit is all made up, it's more pleasing in a visual sense to have proportions and sensible appendages.  For other things, it's a tossup.
> 
> ...



You're not drawing it the way I draw things. that makes you wrong D:<


----------



## Ratte (Mar 1, 2010)

Fay V said:


> You're not drawing it the way I draw things. that makes you wrong D:<



WELL FUCK YOU

ADDED TO BLOCK LIST


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 1, 2010)

NOT ENOUGH REAL DOG KAWK!!

BAWWW!!


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2010)

Ratte said:


> WELL FUCK YOU
> 
> ADDED TO BLOCK LIST



T.T  now I can't attention whore and live vicariously through you.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 1, 2010)

We need a "penis" thread, but I'm not going to be the one to start it.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 1, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> We need a "penis" thread, but I'm not going to be the one to start it.



I think I should make it as it's very suiting of me but I know it's going to get locked in an instant.


----------



## Kiszka (Mar 2, 2010)

I think it's usually the case of 'what looks right'. And by that I mean trying to find a good median between human and animal characteristics.
Example: certain animals have longer necks than others, so if you draw an anthro of a short necked animal and one of a long necked animal, it would be more 'anatomically correct' if the neck of the short necked animal is shorter on the anthro. Otherwise, it does tend to look off.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 2, 2010)

proportions are needed
then again the furry fandom dont listen to proportions, specially with Taurs with 3-4 sets of M size breast :V


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 2, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> proportions are needed
> then again the furry fandom dont listen to proportions, specially with Taurs with 3-4 sets of M size breast :V



Oh god I hate that art with more than one pair of breasts and I'm not a fan of Taurs myself....oh well. Personal preference is all.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Mar 2, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Personal preference is all.


True.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 2, 2010)

Taurs are fun to make and can be appealing if pulled off correctly.

No taur porn, yuck.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 2, 2010)

Ratte said:


> Taurs are fun to make and can be appealing if pulled off correctly.
> 
> No taur porn, yuck.



Words of wisdom yet again my friend.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 2, 2010)

The difference between bad fiction and good is the difference between impossible and improbable. 

A furry can be anatomically improbable, but not be impossible. 

Dog that can walk on hind legs and speak perfect English? Improbable. 

Animal with a dick twice the size of the rest of it's body? Impossible.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 3, 2010)

I dare suggest that in the latter case, unless the individual has hammerspace blood cells, arousal _itself_ could send him into circulatory shock.  (Chew on that)



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> When it comes to realism in art, some things need to be anatomically correct to suspend the *[disbelief]* of the audience.


Fix'd.  Of course, that threshold varies by the individual, but when you have a well-researched viewer, a well-researched creature physiology can satisfy even their suspension-of-disbelief, whereas a poorly-researched physiology won't.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 3, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> I dare suggest that in the latter case, unless the individual has hammerspace blood cells, arousal _itself_ could send him into circulatory shock.  (Chew on that)



Aye, that, or (since most such pictures show the oversized member aroused) we could assume the individual instead has massive cardiac failure/hemorrhaging the moment they stop being aroused... 

...

Must... 

Resist... 

CSI sunglasses joke...


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Mar 3, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> The difference between bad fiction and good is the difference between impossible and improbable.
> 
> A furry can be anatomically improbable, but not be impossible.
> 
> ...



Well put


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 3, 2010)

KashakuTatsu said:


> Well put



Agreed, great way to put it Unsilenced!


----------



## Shadow (Mar 3, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You know why? b/c anthro's are pure fantasy and they fit within a general spectrum of animal and human. It's up to the artist to determine what aspects within the spectrum is used. Can anyone explain to me why people are trying to dictate what is what with anthro-anatomy.



Hi there! I see you have no upper arms and your feet are sideways!


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 4, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> ...
> 
> Must...
> 
> ...


*dons glasses*

"Talk about a hard way to go out...."


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 4, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> *dons glasses*
> 
> "Talk about a hard way to go out...."


YEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Shadow said:


> Hi there! I see you have no upper arms and your feet are sideways!



Adding some here.

If you're talking about anthropomorphic anatomy, then, fiction or not, by definition it's supposed to have to-scale, proportional, and anatomically correct humanoid limbs and functions.  While you can argue in the name of the "artist's license" bullshit, if you're trying to fit into a genre of art or whatever, and you make the opposite, you can't call it what you're trying to fit into.  You can't call something of a complimentary color harmony a monochromatic work of art.

Its definition comes to play because of what exactly is portrayed.  If something is supposed to be anatomically anthropomorphic, you best have those proportions or else it doesn't make sense in the mind.

You can argue against that all you want.  If that definition is there for that artwork/whatever, your argument invalidates itself.

That is the point of being anatomically correct in this case, generally when it comes to realism.

Inb4 lolcounterargument


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

if I glued fur on my naked body would I be anatomically correct?


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> Adding some here.
> 
> If you're talking about anthropomorphic anatomy, then, fiction or not, by definition it's supposed to have to-scale, proportional, and anatomically correct humanoid limbs and functions.  While you can argue in the name of the "artist's license" bullshit, if you're trying to fit into a genre of art or whatever, and you make the opposite, you can't call it what you're trying to fit into.  You can't call something of a complimentary color harmony a monochromatic work of art.
> 
> ...



*applauds*


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> if I glued fur on my naked body would I be anatomically correct?



Provide me some pics.  ;3


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> Provide me some pics.  ;3



;3


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> ;3



:3c

Animal penises fucking human vaginas.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> :3c
> 
> Animal penises fucking human vaginas.



Bestiality....? O_O


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> :3c
> 
> Animal penises fucking human vaginas.



there's more of that where I come from baby..


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Bestiality....? O_O



it's not beastiality if they werent forced.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Bestiality....? O_O



You're new here.


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> You're new here.



of course he is.

bend over.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> of course he is.
> 
> bend over.



I'm not a bottom.  >:I


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> I'm not a bottom.  >:I



you are now.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> it's not beastiality if they werent forced.



I guess you're doing him a favor then...



Ratte said:


> You're new here.



I know hehe


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> you are now.



Nope.  :3c


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> Nope.  :3c



>:/

you make me sexually frustrated.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> >:/
> 
> you make me sexually frustrated.



It's a good thing we're not together then.  :V


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> It's a good thing we're not together then.  :V



yes. or I may end up whipping you.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> yes. or I may end up whipping you.



Only after I get done whipping you.


----------



## Zrcalo (Mar 4, 2010)

Ratte said:


> Only after I get done whipping you.



dammit. we're too much alike.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 4, 2010)

You two need a room hehe ^_^


----------



## Ratte (Mar 4, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> dammit. we're too much alike.



And we both have the girliest boyfriends.

Go figure.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 4, 2010)

:V


----------



## Thou Dog (Mar 4, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> If you haven't noticed, human anatomy is boring,


That's a matter of opinion.



> no knot,


True.



> no furry sheath,


Only if you're circumcised. Of course, humans don't have a baculum, and the connective tissue holding everything on is a little different.



> no pre-cum


I believe you're incorrect.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 4, 2010)

I personally love my man's penis...


----------



## Fay V (Mar 4, 2010)

Thou Dog said:


> I believe you're incorrect.



They are. Precum is exactly why pulling out is an awful plan and doesn't work. Sperm is released prior to orgasm.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 4, 2010)

Yeah but the amount's so small it's unlikely to impregnate a woman all on it's own. Some men tend to drip more than others, like my man who don't drip in the lest, tho boyfriends before tended to drip more.

A woman's only got like a 70% chance of getting knocked up with the normal ejaculation load of a man, not the precum, which might be only 10%. Unless yer a furtal as a frickin' jackrabbit, inwhich you may have greater odds.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 4, 2010)

When I said pre, I meant like how a dog does which is release it at more or less any time, humans release it a split second prior to climax. I find it hot to blow some lube in halfway through ^_^


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 4, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> *dons glasses*
> 
> "Talk about a hard way to go out...."



Heh. 

I was gunna say

"Sounds like that was a real..." 

*Puts on second pair of sunglasses*

"Bonerkill."


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 4, 2010)

Maybe, but Grissom one-liners [tm] generally involve a pun or double meaning, not slang.


----------



## Mentova (Mar 4, 2010)

I don't know what's going on in this thread so back to rockin' out to Megadeth.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 4, 2010)

Derailed.  Cocked, and locked.


----------

