# Scalies - how do you prefer to have them drawn?



## Digitalpotato (Mar 7, 2011)

So, here's one thing I see a lot of: Scutes/Chestplates, versus just plain scaly frontsides like the rest of their body. 

What do you prefer? I know for snakes this is more or less an expected feature. (I mean, what's a corn snake without the frontside?)


----------



## DarkTalbain64 (Mar 7, 2011)

At one point while I think people like the chestplates, I also think it would be easier for people to draw out rather than the whole entire body being scaled and having to draw all those hundreds or thousands of scales depending on the scaley.

But to answer your question, I do prefer chestplates.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 7, 2011)

I prefer them not drawn at all because they're fucking stupid.
Dragonfags need to stop drawing them with balls adn dog knots, that shit is stupid.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't draw my reptiles with tits.

I don't draw anything else with tits that should not have tits either. à² _à²


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> I don't draw my reptiles with tits.
> 
> I don't draw anything else with tits that should not have tits either. à² _à²


 
What do you mean? Bitches have tits but they have like 6.. and they're down on their belly. Would you draw them with tits on their chest?


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

Clayton said:


> What do you mean? Bitches have tits but they have like 6.. and they're down on their belly. Would you draw them with tits on their chest?


 
Bitches don't have TITS until they give birth. Otherwise they're as flat as the Florida everglades. >:I


----------



## Oovie (Mar 7, 2011)

I really dislike when they draw the reptile minus the scales, you know when they have smooth looking skin? I've seen plenty of pictures where they took the time to draw individual scales, I thought it looked better that way.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 7, 2011)

I think it's extremely distracting then the artist puts a freakishly huge about of detail into the scales to make it look more detailed. It just backfired because the scales are even more detailed in the drawing than they are in real life. And I'm not a big fan of realistic art in the first place, so the scales don't even need to be visible to me.



Jesie said:


> I don't draw my reptiles with tits.
> 
> I don't draw anything else with tits that should not have tits either. à² _à²


 Why does this bother so many artists? Anthropomorphism is all about making things look more human, after all. Realism has pretty much nothing to do with it.


----------



## Mint (Mar 7, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Why does this bother so many artists? Anthropomorphism is all about making things look more human, after all. Realism has pretty much nothing to do with it.



I agree. I don't mind people giving their reptiles breasts, since all it is IS anthropomorphism, which is what the fandom is about.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

Next time you see a lizard, check and see if it's got tits.

Now check and see if it's got balls?

How about a dick just flappin' in the breeze?


They don't. Because they have cold blood. Thus they don't need to have something as sensitive and vulnerable as balls and cock hangin' out for all the world to see. Plus many reptiles crawl on their bellies. Do you even know how painful that would be to have a dick under you that's rubbing against tree bark like a fucking cheese grater?

They seem keen on giving dogs k-9 like cocks but reptiles get knotted dicks in sheaths with balls like the rest of them? I'm sorry but unless they're a hybrid there's no excuse for that shit.

If you're gonna draw that shit, draw it right. It can still look just fine without the ten-pound ballsack and the knotted dog-dick on my reptiles PLZTHAXBAI.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> Next time you see a lizard, check and see if it's got tits.
> 
> Now check and see if it's got balls?
> 
> ...


You didn't listen to a word I said. And you're reading too deeply into anthropomorphism. 

Oh, and you can't do it wrong.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

You should be ashamed to be a gator.


----------



## DarkTalbain64 (Mar 7, 2011)

I find it funny how this turned from a simple preference question to a full blown "this is not how they should be drawn" thread.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> You should be ashamed to be a gator.


 Yes, I'm ashamed of not completely missing the point of anthropomorphism. I should just go kill myself. :[


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

Wow really? You'd do that? Sweet.


EDIT: Hey, before you do that, could you change your avatar? It's creeping the fuck out of me.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> They seem keen on giving dogs k-9 like cocks but reptiles get knotted dicks in sheaths with balls like the rest of them? I'm sorry but unless they're a hybrid there's no excuse for that shit.


Dogs have flexible tails and they move them to the side after mating
Dragons fucking don't. They have thick ass treetrunks and it makes no sense for them to be in a mating tie.



DarkTalbain64 said:


> I find it funny how this turned from a simple preference question to a full blown "this is not how they should be drawn" thread.


We're still on topic. We're discussing how we prefer dragons to be drawn.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> Wow really? You'd do that? Sweet.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Hey, before you do that, could you change your avatar? It's creeping the fuck out of me.


 After a recent loldrama concerning my avatar in another thread I can tell you that there's no chance in hell I'll change it anytime soon. <3

EDIT:
I will agree that giving dragons dog genitals is pretty fucking weird and stupid.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 7, 2011)

Smooth/scaled/plated, it's all good, though I do prefer scales and chestplates. Sometimes the scales are _too_ detailed though and it's kind of distracting.

Like this is nice :3

Also no tits pl0x


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 7, 2011)

i hate when people draw dragons with smooth skin
what the fuck are you doiinnnggg
unless theyre an underwater dragon i dont
i
ugh forget it


----------



## JDFox (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm starting to realize the only way to get as many post counts as most of you I'm gonna have to start bitching about every last topic started in this forum.  That means I'm gonna have to quit my job, sell my new truck and all my guns, my nice new phone and even all my airsoft gear.  That way I have enough money to sit here as often as some folks do, so I can bitch piss whine and moan about everything the fandom has to offer. And derail every last thread posted because GOD FORBID anyone should ask a perfectly reasonable question around here and not be bombarded by a bunch of dick licking, attention grabbing fagtards!....Love you guys!

Anyways, now that I have that off my chest (Its been building, like a tumor...A big tumor)  I honestly haven't given that much attention to it, but I honestly prefer them with scales all around.  They can look good or awesome either way, it all depends on how its done and the detail of the piece.  But I kinda like the salamander skin look, as opposed to the big jagged scalie look.  But thats just me.


----------



## Heliophobic (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> I don't draw my reptiles with tits.
> 
> I don't draw anything else with tits that should not have tits either. à² _à²


 
I've always been annoyed by reptilian females with breasts. But then again, that logic is encouraging people to draw female canines with six breasts.


----------



## Icky (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie and Kellie, I've been waiting for a catfight between you for a while :3c


----------



## Seas (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't have a preference when looking at art, both types can look nice.
I like species/characters that don't have chest plating more though, so I could say that indirectly, I prefer looking at drawings of characters without chestplates.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Mar 7, 2011)

Both.  :3

Just as long as they are a scalie.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Mar 7, 2011)

Reptile girls should have tits simply because I wanna tap that scaly ass.


----------



## LLiz (Mar 7, 2011)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Reptile girls should have tits simply because I wanna tap that scaly ass.


 
LOL!

This is art, does it really matter how people draw it? There is no right or wrong answer. 
Sure, you can have a preference, but you can't lay down rules about how scalies should be drawn. 

Personally, I am more of a fan of the friendlier, cuter, more light hearted style of scalies, rather than plated beast warriors from hell style. I think my faves on my FA page would back me on that statement. 

Hair is ok, but when I finally decide on the final look of my fursona, I'd like to avoid hair and go for some other kind of feature, and he won't be drawn in a primeval style. 

Regarding drawing scales, I don't mind there being scales but I can just assume that they're there, I don't need them to be drawn on... actually sometimes I suppose its good to allow someone use their imagination about the scales (I often do this on the "smooth" pictures).


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 7, 2011)

Icky said:


> Jesie and Kellie, I've been waiting for a catfight between you for a while :3c


 That would be like, the hottest thing ever. <3


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

Grycho said:


> I've always been annoyed by reptilian females with breasts. But then again, that logic is encouraging people to draw female canines with six breasts.


 
See:



Jesie said:


> Bitches don't have TITS until they give birth. Otherwise they're as flat as the Florida everglades. >:I



Humans are just about the only animal on this planet that posses tits at sexual maturity.

Everyone in the animal kingdom only gets boobies after giving birth. As soon as the milk dries up, those tits go away. Because most animals walk on all fours. Do you know how uncomfortable it would be for an animal to walk about with six huge sagging tits on all fours? Yeah. Think about that for a moment. It's just about the same reason you don't see tits and dick on whales or birds.

Let's see how fast they move when they have giant knockers or a ding-dong and hacky sack in the way.


----------



## DarkTalbain64 (Mar 7, 2011)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Both.  :3
> 
> Just as long as they are a scalie.


 
You would :3


----------



## Trance (Mar 7, 2011)

No bewbs.  Lizards aren't mammals anyway.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Mar 7, 2011)

Without boobs.


----------



## cad (Mar 7, 2011)

Like this.


----------



## Tigers-Shadow (Mar 7, 2011)

Well it depends on the character really....


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> They don't. Because they have cold blood.


 
No, it's not because they have cold blood.  It's because they're REPTILES, not MAMMALS.  Puting mammalian bits on a reptile simply doesn't work, biologically... or artistically, far as I'm concerned.  Unless your "reptiles" are actually mammals that just happen to LOOK like reptiles.  Which really doesn't make much sense, unless you've created some odd alien critter just for the purpose of mixing said bits.  And even that would be pushing it.


----------



## Spatel (Mar 7, 2011)

No boobs. Nothing external. Androgyny is part of what's hot about scalies anyway.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, it's not because they have cold blood.  It's because they're REPTILES, not MAMMALS.  Puting mammalian bits on a reptile simply doesn't work, biologically... or artistically, far as I'm concerned.  Unless your "reptiles" are actually mammals that just happen to LOOK like reptiles.  Which really doesn't make much sense, unless you've created some odd alien critter just for the purpose of mixing said bits.  And even that would be pushing it.


 
Many of the reasons male mammals have external genitalia are because the balls need to be kept cooler than the rest of the body for optimal sperm growth. Reptiles don't need such a mechanisms, as they never worry about getting so hot that they stunt their own sperm growth.

Female reptiles don't have tits because they don't breast feed their offspring, simple as that.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 7, 2011)

Jesie said:


> Many of the reasons male mammals have external genitalia are because the balls need to be kept cooler than the rest of the body for optimal sperm growth. Reptiles don't need such a mechanisms, as they never worry about getting so hot that they stunt their own sperm growth.
> 
> Female reptiles don't have tits because they don't breast feed their offspring, simple as that.



You're forgetting... dolphins/whales (AKA, marine MAMMALS of this type) don't have external genetalia, as well.  But they are still warm-blooded.  And yes, female reptiles don't breast-feed their offspring, because breasts (MAMMARY glands) are what define a MAMMAL.  That was my point.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 7, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> You're forgetting... dolphins/whales (AKA, marine MAMMALS of this type) don't have external genetalia, as well.  But they are still warm-blooded.  And yes, female reptiles don't breast-feed their offspring, because breasts (MAMMARY glands) are what define a MAMMAL.  That was my point.


 
Whales and dolphins, mammal as they may be, are not exactly the same branch of mammal as land dwellers. They live in cold water. Dolphins and whales do lots of things we don't know much about, they may very well have a system for keeping sperm at a regulated temperature without the need to external genitalia either by using the water around them or simple evolution.

Plus, as I have mentioned before, it would be hard to be aero/hydrodynamic with giant cock and balls all hangin' out.


----------



## Aethze (Mar 8, 2011)

Hey hey hey! Dragonfag here! Wazzup!

So, yeah, to be honest I really don't care as far as the chestplates or just scales goes, I personally like both, but on the other parts mentioned, in my mind scalies should not have external parts, breasts, genitals, etc., but that's not to say that I don't like to see it if the art itself is good.


----------



## Ames (Mar 8, 2011)

Without basic knowledge in herpetology, it's quite difficult discerning a reptile's sex IRL.

If I showed my biology major friend scalie artwork, the balls and tits would give him an aneurysm.


----------



## Zenia (Mar 8, 2011)

Oovie said:


> I really dislike when they draw the reptile minus the scales, you know when they have smooth looking skin? I've seen plenty of pictures where they took the time to draw individual scales, I thought it looked better that way.


Like this? /plug

To answer the question, I like whatever the animal the anthro is of looks like.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 8, 2011)

JamesB said:


> Without basic knowledge in herpetology, it's quite difficult discerning a reptile's sex IRL.
> 
> If I showed my biology major friend scalie artwork, the balls and tits would give him an aneurysm.


 
Two anthro dragons approach eachother and shove their hands inside eachothers cloacas to determine if they want to sexytime


----------



## Ames (Mar 8, 2011)

Icky said:


> Jesie and Kellie, I've been waiting for a catfight between you for a while :3c


 
It would be a primal rage-esque showdown.


----------



## Aethze (Mar 8, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Two anthro dragons approach eachother and shove their hands inside eachothers cloacas to determine if they want to sexytime



Well that's the point of anthropomorphism is to make them seem more human, like say give females more feminine facial and body characteristics and males more masculine.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Mar 8, 2011)

I like scalies when they look like scalies. That means not looking like half mammal hybrids.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 8, 2011)

Oh, I see the problem now. I thought I walked into a furry forum, but it turns out this is really just a biology class.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 8, 2011)

Jesie said:


> Whales and dolphins, mammal as they may be, are not exactly the same branch of mammal as land dwellers. They live in cold water. Dolphins and whales do lots of things we don't know much about, *they may very well have a system for keeping sperm at a regulated temperature* without the need to external genitalia either by using the water around them or simple evolution.


 
They do, indeed, by keeping that area of their bodies cooler... evolution at work, not the water.  Which is the whole point:  Mammal or reptile, you don't NEED to have your junk hanging out, if evolution has a reason to keep it out of "harm's way".  Still means reptiles with boobs... or extermal maleness... don't fit in reptile evolution.




JamesB said:


> Without basic knowledge in herpetology, it's quite difficult discerning a reptile's sex IRL.
> 
> If I showed my biology major friend scalie artwork, the balls and tits *would give him an aneurysm*.


 
It just makes me roll my eyes and sigh.  I'd also most likely throw in a headshake.........   >.<




Trpdwarf said:


> I like scalies when they look like scalies. *That means not looking like half mammal hybrids.*


 
I agree.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 8, 2011)

I would also like to add that I'm rather creeped out by all the people complaining about how scalies can't look too human. It seems like something a zoophile it would do.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I would also like to add that I'm rather creeped out by all the people complaining about how scalies can't look too human. It seems like something a zoophile it would do.


 
Cloacas: Scalies love them some.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I would also like to add that I'm rather creeped out by all the people complaining about how scalies can't look too human. It seems like something a zoophile it would do.


 
Dude, Furries.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 8, 2011)

Jesie said:


> Dude, Furries.


 I guess you're right. It just makes no sense to me.

Drawing an anthropomorphized reptile that looks more animal than human by giving it the sexual organs of the animal it's based on is the right thing to do, but if you draw an anatomically correct male canine by giving it a dog penis with a knot, you're suddenly into bestiality. Nice double standards, you guys.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I guess you're right. It just makes no sense to me.
> 
> Drawing an anthropomorphized reptile that looks more animal than human by giving it the sexual organs of the animal it's based on is the right thing to do, but if you draw an anatomically correct male canine by giving it a dog penis with a knot, you're suddenly into bestiality. Nice double standards, you guys.


 
i think its creepy either way


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 8, 2011)

Clayton said:


> i think its creepy either way


 That's acceptable, I guess. Weird, but acceptable. I just think it's stupid when people say that doing anatomically correct reptiles is good but anatomically correct mammals is bad.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I would also like to add that I'm rather creeped out by all the people complaining about how scalies can't look too human. *It seems like something a zoophile it would do.*


 
Only if that person is interested in the subject for sexual reasons, rather than in how to create a believeable physiology for a fictional character.




Kellie Gator said:


> That's acceptable, I guess. Weird, but acceptable. I just think it's stupid when people say that doing anatomically correct reptiles is good *but anatomically correct mammals is bad*.


 
The only question about anatomical correctness in "humanized" animals would relate to the adaptations such a creature would require for a bipedal stance.  As opposed to a four-legger.  If you have to change other bits to fit, then that "most important" of bits should also be considered.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 8, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Only if that person is interested in the subject for sexual reasons, rather than in how to create a believeable physiology for a fictional character.


The people who complain are doing so for sexual reasons because the breasts is a turn-off for them when it comes to scalies, so they remove them to make it less of a turn-off for them.





Roose Hurro said:


> The only question about anatomical correctness in "humanized" animals would relate to the adaptations such a creature would require for a bipedal stance.  As opposed to a four-legger.  If you have to change other bits to fit, then that "most important" of bits should also be considered.


 Nope. You can anthropomorphize anything and you can do it however the fuck you like. It's not about making sense (because talking, bipedal animals make no sense to begin with), it's about taking something and give it the characteristics of a human. And there are no rules for what characteristics you can give it.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I would also like to add that I'm rather creeped out by all the people complaining about how scalies can't look too human. It seems like something a zoophile it would do.


 
humans are totally gross bro

all those flappy bits


----------



## RuBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I think it's extremely distracting then the artist puts a freakishly huge about of detail into the scales to make it look more detailed. It just backfired because the scales are even more detailed in the drawing than they are in real life. And I'm not a big fan of realistic art in the first place, so the scales don't even need to be visible to me.
> 
> 
> Why does this bother so many artists? Anthropomorphism is all about making things look more human, after all. Realism has pretty much nothing to do with it.



This.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 8, 2011)

I've drawn a lot of reptiles and dragons, so for me it's a habit to draw in a subtle scale pattern all across them.  Yes, that makes for a lot of texturing work (hundreds and thousands of scales, I can tell you), but in my case it's not distracting because the pattern is repeated at a small scale, and it matches the effort I put in to the rest of the piece. (Example)


----------



## Oovie (Mar 8, 2011)

Zenia said:


> Like this? /plug
> 
> To answer the question, I like whatever the animal the anthro is of looks like.


 More along the lines of this and that. All I ask is that there is some indication of scale pattern, otherwise without it the creature comes off as more amphibian rather than reptilian.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 8, 2011)

When I draw reptiles or amphibians, I don't try to mamalize them. I just use sexual dimorphism.
Bewbies on a lizard is just plain silly.


----------



## Heliophobic (Mar 8, 2011)

Jesie said:


> See:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
But we also have to remember anthros are hybrid-like. In theory, they'd have tits... just small ones.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 8, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> When I draw reptiles or amphibians, I don't try to mamalize them. I just use sexual dimorphism.
> Bewbies on a lizard is just plain silly.


 How do you do that, exactly? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just curious here.

Oh, and boobies on lizards isn't silly. After all, you don't "mammalize" an animal, you "anthropomorphize" them. Meaning you humanize them. And guess what, humans are mammals.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> The people who complain are doing so for sexual reasons because the breasts is a turn-off for them when it comes to scalies, so they remove them to make it less of a turn-off for them.



Your avatar is a rabbit with human breasts... very "nice" ones, in fact.  Why?




Kellie Gator said:


> Nope. You can anthropomorphize anything and you can do it however the fuck you like. It's not about making sense (*because talking, bipedal animals make no sense to begin with*), it's about taking something and give it the characteristics of a human. And there are no rules for what characteristics you can give it.


 
Ummm, I hate to break it to you, Kellie... but WE ARE talking, bipedal animals.  Primates, to be exact.  Do we make no sense?  And yes, there are no rules, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have rules.  You know, so that our talking, bipedal animals make sense.  But then, according to you, humans don't make sense, right?   




Kellie Gator said:


> How do you do that, exactly? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just curious here.
> 
> Oh, and boobies on lizards isn't silly. After all, you don't "mammalize" an animal, you "anthropomorphize" them. Meaning you humanize them. *And guess what, humans are mammals.*


 
Indeed they are... which means you have just "mammalized" your reptile, if you give it human, MAMMALIAN characteristics.  Thing is, you can "anthropomorpize" a teapot, without needing to give it boobs or a pecker.  The human characteristics of anthropomorphization are, basically, the ability to talk and think like a human, not LOOK like one.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 8, 2011)

The more you know:  the word "anthropomorphism" originally _did_ explicitly refer to humanlike _shape or form_.  The application of humanlike mental psyche or emotions was originally "anthropropathy" (anthro + pathos), though nobody but ancient Greeks ever really used the term.


----------



## Jesie (Mar 8, 2011)

Hell, the dog in UP was anthro for the simple fact he talked.


Also, while I could not find a tea-pot with tits, I did find this tea getting tea-bagged...


----------



## Spatel (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> How do you do that, exactly? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just curious here.
> 
> Oh, and boobies on lizards isn't silly. After all, you don't "mammalize" an animal, you "anthropomorphize" them. Meaning you humanize them. And guess what, humans are mammals.


 
You can make lizards sentient, bipedal, and give them opposable thumbs. There are human traits and then there are mammal-indicative traits. 

It's pretty easy to give reptilian characters a male or female 'frame' to distinguish them.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 8, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> How do you do that, exactly? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just curious here.


I imagine you could either add crests to one sex, change around the colors, make one type larger than the other in art, etcetera.

It's pretty easy to make an obvious differentiation between "male" and "female" without resorting to breasts, "Jessica Rabbit" face / frame, etcetera.  Heck, you could make it something simple like only males have tail-spines or something.  There's also the possibility of leaving it somewhat ambiguous, as for the most part a ready identification of "Male or Female" is somewhat cultural as well as not really necessary in most artwork.  Well, unless you consider your personal representation as incomplete without huge knockers, but if you think your representation / "persona" wouldn't be complete without huge melons then there's probably something off other than just "It's me but an [x]".


----------



## Jesie (Mar 8, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You can make lizards sentient, bipedal, and give them opposable thumbs. There are human traits and then there are mammal-indicative traits.
> 
> It's pretty easy to give reptilian characters a male or female 'frame' to distinguish them.



Most reptiles naturally have 'thumbs'. You don't need to _give_ them that characteristic...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 9, 2011)

Stratadrake said:


> The more you know:  *the word "anthropomorphism" originally did explicitly refer to humanlike shape or form.*  The application of humanlike mental psyche or emotions was originally "anthropropathy" (anthro + pathos), though nobody but ancient Greeks ever really used the term.


 
So, you're saying Aesop wasn't anthropomorphizing when he used talking/thinking animals in his fables?  Really, all it takes is an animal talking/thinking like a human to make it anthro, anything further is just a matter of degree.




Spatel said:


> You can make lizards sentient, bipedal, and give them opposable thumbs. *There are human traits and then there are mammal-indicative traits.*


 
Exactly.




Attaman said:


> I imagine you could either add crests to one sex, change around the colors, make one type larger than the other in art, etcetera.
> 
> It's pretty easy to make an obvious differentiation between "male" and "female" without resorting to breasts, "Jessica Rabbit" face / frame, etcetera.  *Heck, you could make it something simple like only males have tail-spines or something.*  There's also the possibility of leaving it somewhat ambiguous, as for the most part a ready identification of "Male or Female" is somewhat cultural as well as not really necessary in most artwork.  Well, unless you consider your personal representation as incomplete without huge knockers, but if you think your representation / "persona" wouldn't be complete without huge melons then there's probably something off other than just "It's me but an [x]".


 
I've used this myself in my own creations, even on alien critters with the obvious external differences... Roose, as a male of his species, has a pair of stubby wings, while females of his species don't.  (They're for show, not for flight.)


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 9, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Your avatar is a rabbit with human breasts... very "nice" ones, in fact.  Why?


I figured I'd have some fun and use a picture of Bugs Bunny in drag with big tits for the sake of shock value and IT WORKED PERFECTLY. lul, you furries are so predictable.




Roose Hurro said:


> Ummm, I hate to break it to you, Kellie... but WE ARE talking, bipedal animals.  Primates, to be exact.  Do we make no sense?  And yes, there are no rules, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have rules.  You know, so that our talking, bipedal animals make sense.  But then, according to you, humans don't make sense, right?


Oh great the "BUT WE'RE ALL ANIMALS" argument. You just lost all fucking credibility there. I was talking about animals who aren't primates and anyone with half a fucking brain would've known that. And yes, because there are no rules, we shouldn't have to invent any kind of rules, but you people get so offended when someone breaks the laws of nature on an animal that's already broken the laws of nature because _it's doing things that only humans can do._



Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed they are... which means you have just "mammalized" your reptile, if you give it human, MAMMALIAN characteristics.  Thing is, you can "anthropomorpize" a teapot, without needing to give it boobs or a pecker.  The human characteristics of anthropomorphization are, basically, the ability to talk and think like a human, not LOOK like one.


I know you don't need to give what you anthropmoprhize any sexual organs, but you're complaining about giving a reptile the traits of a mammal when you're already giving it traits of a mammal by giving it the characteristics of a mammal we all know as homo sapiens. :/

Oh, while I agree that they don't have to look human I must ask, how come all the earliest examples of anthropomorphic animals all looked like humans? Were those people doing it WRONG all those thousands of years ago?



Jesie said:


> Hell, the dog in UP was anthro for the simple fact he talked.
> 
> 
> Also, while I could not find a tea-pot with tits, I did find this tea getting tea-bagged...


And that's perfectly fine. I'm just saying that getting a bunch of asspain over some imaginary rules that never existed is fucking stupid.

Oh, and that teabagging image... oh god. D:



Spatel said:


> You can make lizards sentient, bipedal, and give them opposable thumbs. There are human traits and then there are mammal-indicative traits.
> 
> It's pretty easy to give reptilian characters a male or female 'frame' to distinguish them.


It is possible, but as far as I know, I've only seen like, two or three furfag artists who's done it well (one of 'em being Jesie).


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 9, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> How do you do that, exactly? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just curious here.
> 
> Oh, and boobies on lizards isn't silly. After all, you don't "mammalize" an animal, you "anthropomorphize" them. Meaning you humanize them. And guess what, humans are mammals.


 
There are ways in order to make it look a female look like a female. Eyes are one, head stylization is another, and the body shape: the hourglass figure is last. Adding boobs is a cheap-shot way to try to make it female because many people do not know how to make it more female with out the mammal parts. And humans aren't the only animals with two bewbs.

Unless you are fapping off to it,  it is silly to me. So why would I want to appease you by adding boobs to it?
Humanizing them is just making them walk upright and giving them a cognitive thought process. 

Also, another reptilian creature that has sexual dimorphism..Hork Bajir. Remember those? :V


----------



## Gavrill (Mar 9, 2011)

I add boobs to reptiles to give people like Trpdwarf an ulcer

teehee


----------



## Hiskkvhiss (Mar 9, 2011)

If it has Scales, I want it.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 9, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> So, you're saying Aesop wasn't anthropomorphizing when he used talking/thinking animals in his fables?  Really, all it takes is an animal talking/thinking like a human to make it anthro, anything further is just a matter of degree.


No, because apparently I need to double-check my facts before posting   The term was apparently coined in the 1700s, long after the ancient Greeks (of which the legendary Aesop was one himself), nonetheless physical anthropomorphism is the most common way to depict it visually.  The use of a separate term for anthropomorphism of _psyche_ (anthropropathy) apparently never caught on, which is why nobody knows about it.

And by the way, there's a huge difference between calling something "anthro" (adjective) versus "an anthro" (noun) depending on how you interpret the terms.  Blame it on the fandom for not agreeing on a consistent vocabulary.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 9, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> There are ways in order to make it look a female look like a female. Eyes are one, head stylization is another, and the body shape: the hourglass figure is last. Adding boobs is a cheap-shot way to try to make it female because many people do not know how to make it more female with out the mammal parts. And humans aren't the only animals with two bewbs.
> 
> Unless you are fapping off to it,  it is silly to me. So why would I want to appease you by adding boobs to it?
> Humanizing them is just making them walk upright and giving them a cognitive thought process.
> ...


 Humanizing is not just those two things, you can do it however the fuck you like and I think people are stupid when they complain about how certain body parts are illogical on an already illogical and imaginary creature. There are no rules and anyone who seriously gets upset because someone drew a picture of a dragon with breasts deserve to be slapped. Hard.

Oh, and I didn't know what a Hork-Bajir is so I googled it. I can safely say that I've never read Animorphs and I never will.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 9, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Humanizing is not just those two things, you can do it however the fuck you like and I think people are stupid when they complain about how certain body parts are illogical on an already illogical and imaginary creature. There are no rules and anyone who seriously gets upset because someone drew a picture of a dragon with breasts deserve to be slapped. Hard.
> 
> Oh, and I didn't know what a Hork-Bajir is so I googled it. I can safely say that I've never read Animorphs and I never will.


 

Yet you are being counter-productive just like everyone else who have their own opinionated standards. When you add things that are mamamal based traits--such as a pair of breast (Which gorillas, chimps, lemurs, and other primates have), it's just adding mammilian parts. Not so much anthropomorphizing.
When you put sexual emphasis on it, it's anthropomorphizing.
To me, boobs on a reptile look silly. Plain and simple.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 9, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Yet you are being counter-productive just like everyone else who have their own opinionated standards. When you add things that are mamamal based traits--such as a pair of breast (Which gorillas, chimps, lemurs, and other primates have), it's just adding mammilian parts. Not so much anthropomorphizing.
> When you put sexual emphasis on it, it's anthropomorphizing.
> To me, boobs on a reptile look silly. Plain and simple.


 People are entitled to their own opinions and preferences. I just think too many people here treat their opinions like fact and insist on trying to find logic in a concept that doesn't have any logic in the first place.

And how the hell is it NOT anthropomorphizing if you're making a reptile look more like a real human female? Of course you don't have to add breasts, but they are part of human (female) anatomy, you know. :/


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 9, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> And how the hell is it NOT anthropomorphizing if you're making a reptile look more like a real human female? Of course you don't have to add breasts, but they are part of human (female) anatomy, you know. :/


 
Female Lemurs have tiddies, not over inflated tiddies that Carmen Elektra or some other Playboy bunny, but they have a pair.
Gorillas have tiddies too, so do Chimps. I guess they are anthro cause they have hyooman parts and hyoomanz are isolated to having one pair of tiddies. :V


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 9, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I think people are stupid when they complain about how certain body parts are illogical on an already illogical and imaginary creature. There are no rules and anyone who seriously gets upset because someone drew a picture of a dragon with breasts deserve to be slapped. Hard.


Reality is one thing, but suspension of disbelief is another.  Don't go getting them confused.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Mar 9, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> and hyoomanz are isolated to having *two pairs* of tiddies. :V



I don't think the V-face saves you on that one

To post on topic: I'm not quite sure why this Kellie vs. Zeke thing is a thing that's even happening.

Kellie says we're allowed to give lizards breasts because it's part of the anthropomorphization process, and Zeke is saying that we aren't because other animals have breasts too?

uh


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 9, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> I don't think the V-face saves you on that one
> 
> To post on topic: I'm not quite sure why this Kellie vs. Zeke thing is a thing that's even happening.
> 
> ...



Just that the one pair of breasts aren't isolated to just being human traits. Just Mammilizing them.


----------



## KittyMoo (Mar 9, 2011)

I love seeing and drawing full scaled bodies front and back. but alas my wrist does not like drawing it.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Mar 9, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Just that the one pair of breasts aren't isolated to just being human traits. Just Mammilizing them.


 
I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the attention you're giving the semantics, but I think maybe your argument is a little tangential to the point Kellie is trying to get across.

Kellie was responding to someone saying that Lizard anthros should never have breasts, because they aren't lizard-like. She said that because we're making them part human, some concession should be dolled in regards to what human assets we should give them. Whether said human assets are shared among other mammals is tangential, Ja? It doesn't subtract from the original tract of thought.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 9, 2011)

Well, Kellie's apparent willingness to dismiss "rules" and "logic" as irrelevant _to fiction_ comes across with about the same abrasion and arrogance as the side she's arguing against.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 10, 2011)

Scales - with ventral scales (usually divided down the middle) for the underside and smaller, thicker, scales protecting the rest of the body.

No boobs.  I like boobs on human women, not on anything reptilian or draconic.


----------



## WyvernReaper (Mar 10, 2011)

I like dragons drawn how they are supposed to be drawn. I will agree with most of the people who put that they should not have dog dicks or whatever!!!


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Female Lemurs have tiddies, not over inflated tiddies that Carmen Elektra or some other Playboy bunny, but they have a pair.
> Gorillas have tiddies too, so do Chimps. I guess they are anthro cause they have hyooman parts and hyoomanz are isolated to having one pair of tiddies. :V


Just because other animals also have breasts doesn't mean that breasts are not part of human anatomy, ugh.

Oh, and Tybalt summed up my feelings rather nicely on this. Thanks bro.



Stratadrake said:


> Reality is one thing, but suspension of disbelief is another.  Don't go getting them confused.


How the hell is it suspension of disbelief?



Stratadrake said:


> Well, Kellie's apparent willingness to dismiss "rules" and "logic" as irrelevant _to fiction_ comes across with about the same abrasion and arrogance as the side she's arguing against.


 I believe that in the creation of a fantasy creature like an anthropomorphic animal it is pretty irrelevant. Doesn't mean it _shouldn't_ have logic, it only means that you shouldn't throw a fit because someone broke the laws of the nature when they were already broken in the first place. Why, of all things, would anyone complain about a dragon being unrealistic? Oh yeah, because you're all a bunch of fucking furries. :V


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 10, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Doesn't mean it _shouldn't_ have logic, it only means that ....


See now, that's a less offensive way of saying it.

Suspension of disbelief certainly is relevant to drawings of fictional critters, same as it is to written fiction.  Not "realism", but "believability", which is where such things as logic, form/function come into play for the viewer.  Sure, you can strap a pair of wings onto the back of an anthropomorphic bird and call it good, or give that reptile a lovely pair of coconuts, but if you're just doing it for the sake of itself and not taking time to actually think them through, then it falls flat against others who have.  Some may even declare it wrong-on-so-many-levels.

The old form-function debate is part of what decides whether it's logical or not.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 10, 2011)

Stratadrake said:


> Sure, you can strap a pair of wings onto the back of an anthropomorphic bird and call it good, or give that reptile a lovely pair of coconuts, but if you're just doing it for the sake of itself and not taking time to actually think them through, then it falls flat against others who have.  Some may even declare it wrong-on-so-many-levels.


 That's the thing. How do you know the people who those things didn't think them through?


----------



## Attaman (Mar 10, 2011)

Well, for starters on the "wings on back, arms with hands from shoulder", you know because species don't sorta accident develop two new limbs as the evolve.  There needs to be some form of a six-limbed bird in the characters' lineage for it to work, and often times they pull a reverse-_Avatar_ and make the "Oops" of "Here's one animal with six limbs while everything else sharing a common ancestor has four" (The _Avatar_ version being the above, but with the hominid being four limbed instead of six).

Personally, I could see boobs being used on a comic / cartoon character because it's one of the easiest ways that a child will get in about half a second (Boys don't have knockers, that has knockers, it's not a boy), but even in this case just the stereotype "Pink v Blue" or "Distinct Voice Actor" methods can be used to solve this for a child audience.  If there are boobs on such a character, also, it isn't there (usually) for any reason other than saying "Female character".  

Inside the fandom, meanwhile?  If you see boobs on something that you might not expect to see them on (Ex:  An Alligator, or a Toucan), and the person making it isn't under 16, odds are the presence of breasts on 'em is for a reason other than "Identifiable as Woman", and I'll give you a hint what it is there for:  It's a reason that requires you to disable your mature filter.  Breasts are often just slapped on to provide fetish fuel, and - while you're free to pursue your own kinks - you don't really need to give a story to it / ass-cover:  If someone wants to slap breasts on every character they have, and they also happen to have only four visible submissions of their character even though their profile says "56 submissions", feel free.  However, don't say to me "There's an in-story reason for it" when anyone with two braincells to rub together can respond "In the same manner that there's an in-story reason that the mailman delivered the mail directly to the house-wife's bedroom?"


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 10, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Oh yeah, because you're all a bunch of fucking furries. :V


 
Oh the irony...


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 10, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Inside the fandom, meanwhile?  If you see boobs on something that you might not expect to see them on (Ex:  An Alligator, or a Toucan), and the person making it isn't under 16, odds are the presence of breasts on 'em is for a reason other than "Identifiable as Woman", and I'll give you a hint what it is there for:  It's a reason that requires you to disable your mature filter.  Breasts are often just slapped on to provide fetish fuel, and - while you're free to pursue your own kinks - you don't really need to give a story to it / ass-cover:  If someone wants to slap breasts on every character they have, and they also happen to have only four visible submissions of their character even though their profile says "56 submissions", feel free.  However, don't say to me "There's an in-story reason for it" when anyone with two braincells to rub together can respond "In the same manner that there's an in-story reason that the mailman delivered the mail directly to the house-wife's bedroom?"


 I can sort of agree to this. People don't really need to make up some bullshit excuse to justify having bewbs on their character. People should have the guts to admit that they just like breasts. :V



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Oh the irony...


Fine, don't respond to any of the valid points I made. That's real professional of you.

The reason I said that was because the people in this thread are clearly taking the anatomy of an imaginary creature too damn seriously, which nobody but a furry would do. :/


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 10, 2011)

> Fine, don't respond to any of the valid points I made. That's real professional of you.



 I assure you, aside from the immature language that you used, I hear your plight on this matter and it is very important. :V
Irrelevant as it may be, I have always been irreverent. 



Kellie Gator said:


> The reason I said that was because the people in this thread are clearly taking the anatomy of an imaginary creature too damn seriously, which nobody but a furry would do. :/



Usually it is reverse. Furries don't give a damn for anantomy, unless it is for realistic or "suspension of belief" purposes. Other than that, boobs for furries is just fetish fuel for female based toons in the fandom. 

Los pechos son importantes para carÃ¡cteres peludos, si?


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I assure you, asside from the immature language that you used, I hear your plight on this matter. :V


 Whoops, looks like I won an internet argument because you've clearly run out of things to say. Go me.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 10, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Whoops, looks like I won an internet argument because you've clearly run out of things to say. Go me.


 
Your prize is: One dozen Red herrings from Fallacy Wharf. :V
Great for stews and very good fried!


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 10, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> That's the thing. How do you know the people who those things didn't think them through?


If you're asking how do we tell whether or not they're indulging it for the sake of a fetish, it's not easy, and sometimes even impossible to really know _for sure_.  All we can pick up as a viewer are clues provided in how it's rendered, and how the artist discusses the matter themselves.  Say you ask the artist a question of "but why?" and get a "never really thought about it before" in return, that's a clue.  

For example, a few common things I pick up on:

1 - *Pin-the-tail-on-the-anthro*.  If the tailbones aren't continuous with the spine, or if there's a distinctly humanshaped gluteus maximus behind/aside them, that's an indication that the artist hasn't thought it through.  And the thicker the tail, the less flexibility it has to contort at sharp angles relative to the spine.  So when I see an allegedly reptilian creature with a vertical spine and a tail jutting out horizontally behind it, that sharp, 90Âº angle breaks my suspension of disbelief, because (discussions about center-of-gravity aside) it's clear that tail is merely an ornamental decoration and not a fixture of the creature's anatomy.

2 - *Winged humanoids*.  Sure, having a set of wings jutting out the back is a cherished visual motif (just ask Medieval European artists), but it's really not a functional design, because wings must be horizontal to generate lift.  How a species could've "evolved" the extra pair when every vertebrate species in Real Life stops at four limbs is aside the point (this is fiction, after all), but not many users take time to explain how they're supposed to work.  (I've seen one or two cases where the wings are actually explained to be vestigial limbs, remnants of some evolutionary path that at some point lost its ability to fly, but never lost the actual wings.)

3 - *Twin Tumors*.  Whether or not the mother actually _needs_ to nurse her young on her own milk is a matter of artistic license.  In Real Life, only mammals are known for this capacity, but a few other species (like pigeons) have similar mechanisms to care for their helpless young.  In Real Life, most reptiles are _not_ born blind and helpless but can grow up fine all by their lonesome, with no parental involvement.  That may or not be the reason they don't have nursing organs, but it's certainly related.  If a reptile is born naked and helpless then it will need a parent to protect and raise it, but as someone previously mentioned somewhere, only mammals tend to be born with soft, toothless lips capable of nursing milk off of the mother's glands (without injuring Mom in the process, that is).  So when you have a reptile with larger watermelons than Sports Illustrated covering a beach volleyball tournament, I consider that a sign that the artist is going for form over function.  (And did I mention that if it's a flying reptile, that bumpy undercarriage would be a contirbutor to aerodynamic drag?)


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Usually it is reverse. Furries don't give a damn for anantomy, unless it is for realistic or "suspension of belief" purposes. Other than that, boobs for furries is just fetish fuel for female based toons in the fandom.
> 
> Los pechos son importantes para carÃ¡cteres peludos, si?


I admit the statement I made there might have been put somewhat poorly. A lot of furries are pretty terrible at anatomy. You have every right complain anatomy flaws like misplaced dicks (ew) or people bending in ways that they should not be able to bend. But I do not believe people have a right to nitpick over giving an animal HUMAN body parts that they normally don't have.

I also think a it's kind of unfair generalization to say that all furries who give their female character breasts do it just for fetish purposes. How do you know they're not doing it simply because they want their characters to have a closer resemblance to human females? I mean sure, people fap to tits, but they serve more than one function in the end.




Stratadrake said:


> lots of words


After reading through all this I can say that rules like this can and probably should be applied when writing a realistic/serious fantasy story of sorts, but we're talking about a fandom, a hobby where people just draw talking animal people because they like it. They're just doing what they do for fun without paying any major attention to that kind of stuff because they want to express themselves freely through their art, without following any kind of rules.

I admire that and I think they should be able to draw whatever kind of abominations against the laws of nature they want without having people like you complain about it because you don't want anything other than cold, harsh logic.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 10, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> The reason I said that was because the people in this thread are clearly taking the anatomy of an imaginary creature too damn seriously, *which nobody but a furry would do.* :/


 
You're forgetting... a writer would take the anatomy of an imaginary creature seriously.  I happen to be a writer, so to me, to make a believeable character/creature, I have to consider the anatomical aspects.  So, for me, putting boobs on a lizard wouldn't be serious, it would be a joke.  And whatever story that boobed lizard was in would break the reader's suspension of disbelief... any serious reader, that is.  Anyone who might buy my book.




Kellie Gator said:


> After reading through all this I can say that rules like this can and probably should be applied when writing a realistic/serious fantasy story of sorts, but we're talking about a fandom, a hobby where people just draw talking animal people because they like it. They're just doing what they do for fun without paying any major attention to that kind of stuff because they want to express themselves freely through their art, without following any kind of rules.
> 
> I admire that and I think they should be able to draw whatever kind of abominations against the laws of nature they want *without having people like you complain about it because you don't want anything other than cold, harsh logic.*


 
It's not cold, harsh logic... we just have difficulties when confronted by "art" where we don't know whether we should laugh, cry or just throw up.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Mar 10, 2011)

Why are we all violently objecting to the idea that furries are half human half animal. Breasts are a human feature that could very well carry over to the hypothetical offspring of a human and a lizard.

I understand that fiction has grounds in logic, but that argument is pretty invalid. Furries aren't logical constructs in the literary sense. No matter how much you explain, there's always going to be unanswerable questions pertaining to their existence.

Now we're coming to the argument that it looks unnatural, or makes you want to react negatively. That's pretty fucking understandable. You have to remember though, that some people DO like it. Like Attaman was saying, people like to add and/or oversize breasts because they like them, not because they have some sort of relevance to the story. If you don't like them, then just don't look at that artwork. Not all people have to find the same things appealing.

I think it's a little unfair to bash something for being "illogical" when that word can be ascribed to the whole fandom :/


----------



## Tigers-Shadow (Mar 10, 2011)

Well the bird-anthro-with-extra-arms tends to be an aesthetic thing vs a realism thing for me. I like the look of the extra arms but my boyfriend doesn't. *shrug* as far as the wings actually working...well I kinda thought that this was a generally accepted fudge on a writers/artists part, kinda like seeing fireballs in space movies. 


As for scalies (did I post already? I think I did...) It tends to depend on the character/setting etc as to what they look like. 'Unique' alien species don't have to be strictly reptilian...


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 11, 2011)

Tigers-Shadow said:


> Well the bird-anthro-with-extra-arms tends to be an aesthetic thing vs a realism thing for me. I like the look of the extra arms but my boyfriend doesn't. *shrug* as far as the wings actually working...well I kinda thought that this was a generally accepted fudge on a writers/artists part, kinda like seeing fireballs in space movies.


To be fair, _some_ types of space explosions can be a result of the ship's fuel and interior atmosphere combusting.  Others don't have that logical explanation and instead rely on the "Rule Of Cool".



Kellie Gator said:


> I also think a it's kind of unfair generalization to say that all furries who give their female character breasts do it just for fetish purposes.


I have to agree with that.  Unless the author specifically _says_ they draw it for the fetish, then the audience can debate it all day long and get absolutely nowhere.

Me, for example, I may have a fetish or two for certain themes or elements, but good luck trying to figure out what they are....



> After reading through all this I can say that rules like this can and probably should be applied when writing a realistic/serious fantasy story of sorts, but we're talking about a fandom, a hobby where people just draw talking animal people because they like it. They're just doing what they do for fun without paying any major attention to that kind of stuff because they want to express themselves freely through their art, without following any kind of rules.
> 
> I admire that, and I think they should be able to draw whatever kind of abominations against the laws of nature they want without having people like you complain about it because you don't want anything other than cold, harsh logic.



I only listed a few specifics because those happen to be pet peeves.  Do I complain about it all that much?  Heck no.  You said it yourself:  A lot of artists just don't have the skill to produce believable anatomy work, and then there's the matter of what extent they want to play it seriously.  But there's still a point to be made in that old saying, "you must learn the rules like a master, before you can break them like an artist".  There's a difference between deliberately breaking a rule for artistic license, and unknowingly breaking it through inexperience.



> ...a hobby where people just draw talking animal people because they like it.


That's true.  But does the hobby grow and mature along with them, or do they keep it restricted to ... well, Saturday Morning Cartoon Land?


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 11, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> You're forgetting... a writer would take the anatomy of an imaginary creature seriously.  I happen to be a writer, so to me, to make a believeable character/creature, I have to consider the anatomical aspects.  So, for me, putting boobs on a lizard wouldn't be serious, it would be a joke.  And whatever story that boobed lizard was in would break the reader's suspension of disbelief... any serious reader, that is.  Anyone who might buy my book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 With "taking too seriously" I meant that you go fucking insane with rage when someone has the balls to draw a lizard with tits or whatever. It absolutely must make sense to you because most of you guys a serious lack of suspension of disbelief, and I have a hard time believing otherwise.

So yes, that's what I mean about you operating purely on logic. You can't just let your mind go of such things and enjoy the ride this fandom has to offer (lul, that probably sounded dirty).



Stratadrake said:


> I only listed a few specifics because those happen to be pet peeves.  Do I complain about it all that much?  Heck no.  You said it yourself:  A lot of artists just don't have the skill to produce believable anatomy work, and then there's the matter of what extent they want to play it seriously.  But there's still a point to be made in that old saying, "you must learn the rules like a master, before you can break them like an artist".  There's a difference between deliberately breaking a rule for artistic license, and unknowingly breaking it through inexperience.


The thing is, you keep expecting other furries to be serious artists and not just people who do this shit for fun. It's just a hobby and no kind of serious profession that they make a living out of. Even if they're actually good at drawing it still doesn't mean that they need to pay as much attention to these things as you do.



Stratadrake said:


> That's true.  But does the hobby grow and mature along with them, or do they keep it restricted to ... well, Saturday Morning Cartoon Land?


I think I'll stick with Saturday Morning Cartoon Land. I joined this fandom because I was a fan of cartoon animals and their fun, carefree nature and I was hoping that I'd find others who thought the same. But it seems there's hardly anybody in furrydumb who really likes cartoons and this whole thing seems more like some kind of serious business to you guys. :/


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 11, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> *With "taking too seriously" I meant that you go fucking insane with rage when someone has the balls to draw a lizard with tits or whatever.* It absolutely must make sense to you because most of you guys a serious lack of suspension of disbelief, and I have a hard time believing otherwise.



Hey, the OP asked how I liked my "scalies" drawn, and I prefer realism in my own works... though I'm a writer, not a picture artist.  If you like "tits on your bull", to borrow a phrase, feel free.




Kellie Gator said:


> So yes, that's what I mean about you operating purely on logic. You can't just let your mind go of such things and enjoy the ride this fandom has to offer (lul, that probably sounded dirty).I think I'll stick with Saturday Morning Cartoon Land. I joined this fandom because I was a fan of cartoon animals and their fun, carefree nature and *I was hoping that I'd find others who thought the same.* But it seems there's hardly anybody in furrydumb who really likes cartoons and this whole thing seems more like some kind of serious business to you guys. :/


 
I happen to be an animation/anime/cartoon fan, myself.  I get tired of all the serious, "adult" stuff out there, and quite often need a breather.  I've even been watching that new My Little Pony show, and enjoying it.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 11, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Hey, the OP asked how I liked my "scalies" drawn, and I prefer realism in my own works... though I'm a writer, not a picture artist.  If you like "tits on your bull", to borrow a phrase, feel free.


You? A writer? ROFL.



Roose Hurro said:


> I've even been watching that new My Little Pony show, and enjoying it.


 Fuck you.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 11, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> *You? A writer?* ROFL.



Yes:



> _Shortly after the new Bard asked his question, a strange rythmic clacking could be heard, coming from the stairway_.........
> 
> Pico's sleep hadn't been disturbed by the passing hailstorm... oh no, not at all!  His sleep had been disturbed by an approaching force, an electric tickle to his sensory feelers.  And a full bladder... especially that!  If not for the need to pee, he probably would have fallen back asleep.  The need never failed to wake him, yes, but that was the price paid for drinking five mugs of ale before bedtime.  And too bad, how his attempts to get drunk always failed.
> 
> ...






Kellie Gator said:


> Fuck you.


 
Awww... that's so cute.


----------



## Carenath (Mar 11, 2011)

DarkTalbain64 said:


> I find it funny how this turned from a simple preference question to a full blown "this is not how they should be drawn" thread.


 Welcome to the Furry Fandom.


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 11, 2011)

I like them with scales, and destroying things. That is all.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 11, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yes:


 Nice overuse of ellipses bro.

Oh, and plenty of of the words you put there shouldn't even belong in this "serious storytelling" you're trying to achieve. Especially not "butt" and "hurrrrred".


----------



## Carenath (Mar 11, 2011)

To stick with the original topic here, and to answer the OP's question, it depends on the character.

On a personal level, I like my dragons without human reproductive organs and mammaries, they're an unacceptable incongruity.

On a general level, I prefer realism and reasonable anatomical accuracy (allowing for artistic license in the anthropomorphising process), outside of my additional personal preferences. The complete design, has to make sense for me to suspend disbelief. Breasts & Bawls on most dragons, flat out, does not work with the design of the character. It can work, if effort was taken to make it blend (sic), but, furries have a tendency as artists, to be lazy and averse to constructive criticism.

Breasts & Bawls, have to fit the character, or it ends up looking horribly wrong and even more out of place than Sarah Palin at a Mensa meeting. Smooth-scaled characters, look fine with them, so long as they're not exaggerated (I have a similar distaste for women with beach-balls instead of proportionately sized breasts). It's the characters with chest-plates when drawn as bipeds, that are a pet-peeve. The chest-plates are armour, which implies that the character is built to fight (and the non-anthro, purely bestial version would fight among themselves over females and territory). Imagine how painful it might be.. to have a claw slice through your nipple.. or similarly castrate you by slicing off your crown jewels.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 11, 2011)

BTW, was I seeing things or was this topic locked earlier this morning?


----------



## LLiz (Mar 11, 2011)

Hmm, dunno, but man, people sure are passionat about how scalies 'should' be drawn!


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 11, 2011)

Stratadrake said:


> BTW, was I seeing things or was this topic locked earlier this morning?


 Yes it was, but the post the administrator made while locking it is gone as well.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 12, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Nice overuse of ellipses bro.



Thank you...




Kellie Gator said:


> Oh, and plenty of of the words you put there shouldn't even belong in this "serious storytelling" you're trying to achieve. Especially not "butt" and "hurrrrred".


 
You have obviously never read serious humor...


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 12, 2011)

Carenath said:


> The complete design, has to make sense for me to suspend disbelief.


...that didn't even make sense.



Roose Hurro said:


> You have obviously never read serious humor...


Oh, so that's what it was. I wouldn't know because it was terribly unfunny and boring. :3


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 12, 2011)

Oh yeah, Kellie, I was going to respond to one of your posts earlier today, but ... nah, I don't feel like going back to quote it now.  I tend to be serious by nature; yes, I do have a silly side and I do enjoy some humor from time to time, but when I think about something a lot, I do take the thinking part seriously.


----------



## MyWarpedRealities (Mar 15, 2011)

Personally, I like them with and without scales, as long as I can kinda make out what it is, I'm happy. I like them with some form of way to tell male from female, but then again dragon parts seem cool to me, an interesting take on an old idea. 

Generally, As I say, what ever rocks your boat


----------



## Bandit Braith (Mar 15, 2011)

.....Anthromorphing isn't adding human characteristics to something....

Isn't that called like...personification or something like that? I know there's some highschool level vocabulary word that means to Put human characteristics onto something inhuman, such as a talking animal, etc.

I prefer scalies to be drawn with subtle differences, I expect males to have slight broader shoulders, more square heads, with a wider chest.

I expect females to have a smaller waist, more round/angular features, and a chest that protrudes slightly but is still rather small.

I don't wanna see no scaley peen either D:

Edit: for the original question...I guess it really depends on the style.

if something's cute and cartoony, Id on't want to see a whole bunch of scales on it. If something's very realistic looking, I would like to see a scale texture. individual lined scales don't make sense to me though, because even on a real reptile...you don't see every individual scale when you look at them...usually.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 15, 2011)

Bandit Braith said:


> .....Anthromorphing isn't adding human characteristics to something....
> 
> Isn't that called like...personification or something like that? I know there's some highschool level vocabulary word that means to Put human characteristics onto something inhuman, such as a talking animal, etc.


 


> *Anthropomorphism* is a term coined in the mid 1700s[1][2] to refer to any attribution of human  characteristics (or characteristics assumed or believed by some to  belong only to humans) to animals or non-living things, phenomena,  material states and objects or abstract concepts, such as God.


Whoops, the first sentence of a Wikipedia article rendered your argument completely invalid.

(oh, and in b4 someone tells me that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source)


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 15, 2011)

I prefer them to be drawn in MSPaint by an artist with a BAC level of about 3.0 while they're drawing without a tablet.

Those are the best.

Jesie's signature makes me all hot and bothered.


----------



## Bandit Braith (Mar 15, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> Whoops, the first sentence of a Wikipedia article rendered your argument completely invalid.
> 
> (oh, and in b4 someone tells me that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source)


 
no no, I think you misunderstood the intents of my statement.

I guess I should have clarified, but I wasn't trying to argue the fact, I was actually asking a legitimate question as to the definition of the word >< I'm on my phone and google wasn't able to be pulled up right now.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 15, 2011)

Carenath said:


> The chest-plates are armour, which implies that the character is built to fight (and the non-anthro, purely bestial version would fight among themselves over females and territory). Imagine how painful it might be.. to have a claw slice through your nipple.. or similarly castrate you by slicing off your crown jewels.



Well said -- there's a _reason_ armor plating isn't anatomically correct.


----------



## MyWarpedRealities (Mar 15, 2011)

I think there is a possible compromise! 
I have seen people have thee scalies have gems but the penis is held inside the body until erect, make sense? protection from the elements and during battle!


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 15, 2011)

> The chest-plates are armour, which implies that the character is built to fight....



Come to think of it, armor plates _are_ for protection, sure enough, but not necessarily against their own kin.  That varies by social hierarchy and relative position in the food chain.  For example -- armadillos, in spite of their hard shells, are hardly aggressive creatures.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Mar 16, 2011)

However the artist wants to draw them. I'm not a huge fan of scalies anyway.


----------



## Spatel (Mar 16, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:


> I think I'll stick with Saturday Morning Cartoon Land. I joined this fandom because I was a fan of cartoon animals and their fun, carefree nature and I was hoping that I'd find others who thought the same. But it seems there's hardly anybody in furrydumb who really likes cartoons and this whole thing seems more like some kind of serious business to you guys. :/


 
You can be an anthro artist/fan without being a furry. That's totally fine. Lotta people on FAF are in that camp, and they're a welcome addition to the community.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 16, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You can be an anthro artist/fan without being a furry.


 Uh, no? The definition of furry is pretty much a person who's a fan of anthropomorphic animals last time I checked. I mean sure, you can be a fan of some characters who are anthropomorphic animals without being furry, like Sonic the Hedgehog or Bugs Bunny, but if you're a fan of anthropomorphic animals as a whole you're a furry. 'nuff said.


----------



## Spatel (Mar 16, 2011)

No, that just makes you an anthro art fan.

Furries invent a fursona. There is an element of wanting to identify with the characters that separates furries from people who just like cartoons.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 16, 2011)

Spatel said:


> No, that just makes you an anthro art fan.
> 
> Furries invent a fursona. There is an element of wanting to identify with the characters that separates furries from people who just like cartoons.


 What the fuck's an anthro art fan? If there was such a thing I'm pretty sure it'd be more well-known. Face it, furries ARE "anthro art fans". Oh, and some furries don't even have fursonas as far as I know.

I'm also pretty sure a lot of people identify with the Looney Tunes without being remotely furfaggy in any way. :/


----------



## Spatel (Mar 16, 2011)

There are a lot of artists out there that draw comics, still art, and shows with anthro characters that don't consider themselves furries. The anthro genre is broad. 

'furry' is a subculture based around that to a great extent, although some furries are not anthro art fans or anthro artists.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 17, 2011)

Spatel said:


> There are a lot of artists out there that draw comics, still art, and shows with anthro characters that don't consider themselves furries. The anthro genre is broad.
> 
> 'furry' is a subculture based around that to a great extent, although some furries are not anthro art fans or anthro artists.


 Simply drawing anthros doesn't make you a furry, but being a fan of them does.


----------



## Icky (Mar 17, 2011)

Kellie Gator said:
			
		

> if you're a fan of anthropomorphic animals as a whole you're a furry. 'nuff said.


 
Now, I ordinarily really, really hate to get into an argument with you until you learn to wash out that sand covered vagina, but you aren't a furry unless you say you are. :l


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 17, 2011)

Icky said:


> Now, I ordinarily really, really hate to get into an argument with you until you learn to wash out that sand covered vagina, but you aren't a furry unless you say you are. :l


 Despite throwing a few harsh words around, I've been trying to be somewhat mature with my arguments in this thread, so will attempt to respond to your posts in a mature manner as well.

I've said this a few times in the past, but I do not believe that just saying you're a furry makes you one. Your actions should define what you are after all, and you can't honestly tell me that someone who draws hundreds of furry art commissions and walks around in a fursuit at anthrocon isn't a furry just becaushe he/she says he/she isn't. It's not that simple.


----------



## cad (Mar 17, 2011)

You're only a furry if you _identify_ yourself as one. I mean, I liked the anthro art and all that shiz-nit, but I didn't consider myself a furry back then until somewhat recently.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 17, 2011)

B.P.R.D said:


> You're only a furry if you _identify_ yourself as one. I mean, I liked the anthro art and all that shiz-nit, but I didn't consider myself a furry back then until somewhat recently.


 What made you not identify as one, exactly?


----------



## cad (Mar 18, 2011)

Confusion. I had no idea what being a furry meant back then. I thought I was something else, that I did not belong here. Now I do realise what it's about, so I'm identifying myself as one.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Mar 18, 2011)

I was in the same boat as you, BPRD, but I'd still say that I was a furry for longer than I've been identifying as one

I mean, I walked like a furry, talked like a furry, must've been a furry. You know?


----------



## cad (Mar 18, 2011)

...How do you walk, and talk, like a furry?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Mar 18, 2011)

It was a play on the saying "Walks like a duck, Quacks like a duck, must be a duck"

:F)


----------

