# Are furry creatures naked or not?



## Lynxx (Apr 13, 2010)

Can a furry creature be naked? I mean the whole thing is covert with fur like regular animals.
Like that furry next to 'Fur Affinity Forum' at the header. He has only a tie. Is he naked?


----------



## Chmat (Apr 13, 2010)

I guess it depends on how humanoid they are


----------



## The Chaos Knight (Apr 13, 2010)

I don't Know. It Depends on how Human Like they are, And how animal like they are. 
EXAMPLE: Are Anthros, but are to Animal-Like  for Clothes.
Are Anthros, But are Human-Like Enough for Clothes


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Apr 13, 2010)

I say that more depends on ones own modesty, personally I have no problem with my fursona being naked.


----------



## Tabasco (Apr 13, 2010)

Yes.

*flashes*


----------



## Lynxx (Apr 13, 2010)

So a fox with alot of fur on his body isn't naked without clothes?
And a 'human' with just a tail and ears is naked without .. yea makes sence  ye ye


----------



## xcliber (Apr 13, 2010)

In terms of art, I consider the ones that show private parts to be 'naked', while ones that don't show genetals (even if they don't were clothes) are not 'naked'.

Edit:
After reconsideration, I can also conclude that furry characters, whose artists normally draw them with clothing, drawn without clothing can be considered naked as they normally would wear clothes.

If the character is normally drawn without clothing, then I don't consider it naked unless it's only purpose is yiff.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Apr 13, 2010)

In the end "naked" pretty much means "not wearing any clothes", so I'd say they are naked even when their genitals don't show.


----------



## Tycho (Apr 13, 2010)

Yeah, sure, why not.  They're naked.  Who gives a shit? Sex involves more than just nudity, you know.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 13, 2010)

Here's a helpful flowchart!


----------



## Lynxx (Apr 13, 2010)

Nude furry art *Lynxx approves stamp* 

(I prefere female beings)


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 13, 2010)

Lynxx said:


> (I prefere female beings)


*highfive*



What creeps me out though is some furry artists draw a sheath without it sticking out and still say it's clean.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Apr 13, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> *highfive*
> 
> 
> 
> What creeps me out though is some furry artists draw a sheath without it sticking out and still say it's clean.


God I hate that. There's some guy on YouTube who plasters his murrsona all over his YouTube videos, a naked one with sheath and everything.

He's also a zoophile, rofl.


----------



## Lynxx (Apr 13, 2010)

I don't watch that stuff :S No no .. no thanks
But you're female so you can watch without being gay


----------



## Kellie Gator (Apr 13, 2010)

Lynxx said:


> I don't watch that stuff :S No no .. no thanks
> But you're female so you can watch without being gay


Male furries can watch that without being gay too. _Seriously_. I've met male furries who'll typefuck with other men and wank to gay porn but still fight to the end that they are totally not gay and will never have a relationship with another man. WTF.


----------



## Lynxx (Apr 13, 2010)

Yea but you're talking 'bout awesome people .. not like me :3


----------



## Browder (Apr 13, 2010)

Yes. Why does this need to be asked?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Apr 13, 2010)

Well, you gotta think of it as with the appearance of an animal would most likely follow with more animalistic qualities such as the thoughts of said animal and I'm pretty damn sure a rat wouldn't give a rat's ass if his ass was blatantly visible...


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 13, 2010)

Ozy and Millie shows wearing clothes as optional, but it's weird seeing a naked dragon talking to a fully clothed fox or whatever...


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (Apr 13, 2010)

BlueberriHusky said:


> Yes.
> 
> *flashes*



*clickflash*


Otter yiff $5 a copy!!!


----------



## Browder (Apr 13, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> Ozy and Millie shows wearing clothes as optional, but it's weird seeing a naked dragon talking to a fully clothed fox or whatever...



Cartoon logic. Changes nothing. For a long time Ziggy didn't wear pants. The fact that he was a cartoon didn't make him any less naked, but it made him less noticeable. I like Scotty's take on the idea though...


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (Apr 13, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Here's a helpful flowchart!



Where would FAF be without your wisdom?


----------



## Lynxx (Apr 13, 2010)

Stone-age


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Apr 13, 2010)

Yes they are. However, you can get away with it because they have fur which somehow makes it better.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 13, 2010)

"Wookie" rule for some, to others, they put clothes on them.

I prefer clothes to the wookiness..


----------



## Mentova (Apr 13, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> "Wookie" rule for some, to others, they put clothes on them.
> 
> I prefer clothes to the wookiness..


I agree.

Also I'm naked right nao


----------



## Aslekel (Apr 13, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I agree.
> 
> Also I'm naked right nao



hehe, nice to know


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 13, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I agree.
> 
> Also I'm naked right nao



TMI.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Apr 13, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I agree.
> 
> Also I'm naked right nao




OH HAWT LETS YIFF


----------



## Aslekel (Apr 13, 2010)

HAXX said:


> OH HAWT LETS YIFF



okay children, turn your heads.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 13, 2010)

Lynxx said:


> Can a furry creature be naked? I mean the whole thing is covert with fur like regular animals.
> Like that furry next to 'Fur Affinity Forum' at the header. He has only a tie. *Is he naked?*



Technically yes and technically no... just call it "naked", but "dressed" in fur.


----------



## Aslekel (Apr 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Technically yes and technically no... just call it "naked", but "dressed" in fur.



heh, good logical point.


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 13, 2010)

Wookie rule. 

If a humanoid creature is sufficiently furred, it need not wear clothes.



That said: I usually treat anthro characters as more human than animal, and thus put clothing on them most of the time.


----------



## Aslekel (Apr 13, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Wookie rule.
> 
> If a humanoid creature is sufficiently furred, it need not wear clothes.



agreed


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Apr 13, 2010)

Chmat said:


> I guess it depends on how humanoid they are


*This^^*


----------



## Aslekel (Apr 13, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> *This^^*



yeah, that makes quite a bit of sense too.


----------



## MrKovu (Apr 13, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Here's a helpful flowchart!



I lol'd.

Also I agree with what Roose said.


----------



## Lynxx (Apr 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Technically yes and technically no... just call it "naked", but "dressed" in fur.



Ahhh, now I got my answers after all :3


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 13, 2010)

Hey, most of my characters don't make a habit of wearing clothes... just part of them being not only non-human but non-humanoid.  Even my critters that do wear clothes tend to have a quite different outlook on public "nudity", clothes being for practical/protective reasons, not to "hide" their "nakedness".  (I had a character refer to being clothed as "Like covering a Ferrari in burlap.")


----------



## mystery_penguin (Apr 13, 2010)

xcliber said:


> In terms of art, I consider the ones that show private parts to be 'naked', while ones that don't show genetals (even if they don't were clothes) are not 'naked'.
> 
> Edit:
> After reconsideration, I can also conclude that furry characters, whose artists normally draw them with clothing, drawn without clothing can be considered naked as they normally would wear clothes.
> ...


^what he said


----------



## kitsunefighter (Apr 13, 2010)

The sheath thing on a naked furry is so creepy.I mean that is still considered naked but they put it under "Tame Art" just weird IMO.


----------



## kitsunefighter (Apr 13, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> *highfive*
> 
> 
> 
> What creeps me out though is some furry artists draw a sheath without it sticking out and still say it's clean.


The sheath thing on a naked furry is so creepy.I mean that is still considered naked but they put it under "Tame Art" just weird IMO.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 13, 2010)

BlueberriHusky said:


> Yes.
> 
> *flashes*


 
*gets hard*

Hai...w8 a sec, what did I learn last time from messing with that otter?
Stop tempting me ;_;


----------



## Seriman (Apr 13, 2010)

kitsunefighter said:


> The sheath thing on a naked furry is so creepy.I mean that is still considered naked but they put it under "Tame Art" just weird IMO.


But that IS tame considering... Have you _seen_ some of the art here?   And yeah, I likes the sheef of a furry in an art sense. :3


----------



## Scotty1700 (Apr 13, 2010)

Seriman said:


> But that IS tame considering... Have you _seen_ some of the art here?   And yeah, I likes the sheef of a furry in an art sense. :3



Yay similarities xD

I find it sorta cute in a way...not hawt, just cute.


----------



## Seriman (Apr 13, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Yay similarities xD
> 
> I find it sorta cute in a way...not hawt, just cute.


Exactly!


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 13, 2010)

yes.


----------



## bloobyrd18 (Apr 14, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I agree.
> 
> Also I'm naked right nao


As am I.


----------



## Charrio (Apr 14, 2010)

I believe cartoon law is, Animals require at least one item of Human attire to be considered clothed in cartoons.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 14, 2010)

Charrio said:


> I believe cartoon law is, Animals require at least one item of Human attire to be considered clothed in cartoons.



That can be anything from a pair of gloves to a bow tie or a hat.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 14, 2010)

If they are not wearing some article of clothing then of course they must be naked.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 14, 2010)

they're butt naked. and they fuck like animals.


----------



## Ames (Apr 14, 2010)

I don't mind being naked.  I have a sheath :3

Sorry to those who had to use brain bleach after reading this post.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 14, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> they're butt naked. and they fuck like animals.


 Hawt...


JamesB said:


> I don't mind being naked.  I have a sheath :3
> 
> Sorry to those who had to use brain bleach after reading this post.


Why hello there... chuu~


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Apr 14, 2010)

xcliber said:


> In terms of art, I consider the ones that show private parts to be 'naked', while ones that don't show genetals (even if they don't were clothes) are not 'naked'.
> 
> Edit:
> After reconsideration, I can also conclude that furry characters, whose artists normally draw them with clothing, drawn without clothing can be considered naked as they normally would wear clothes.
> ...


 
I agree with this.  It like saying do you consider Bugs Bunny naked?


----------



## Telnac (Apr 14, 2010)

If they wear clothes, then no they aren't naked.  If they don't, they are.

Telnac goes around in the nude, though he keeps all his naughty bits inside.


----------



## Riptor (Apr 14, 2010)

For some reason I'm reminded of Wile E. Coyote, who somehow keeps a pair of boxers over his fur. I'd look for a picture, but that'd require me to Google 'Wile E. Coyote underwear' and I really don't think I want to do that. At all.


----------



## Seas (Apr 14, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Hey, most of my characters don't make a habit of wearing clothes... just part of them being not only non-human but non-humanoid.  Even my critters that do wear clothes tend to have a quite different outlook on public "nudity", clothes being for practical/protective reasons, not to "hide" their "nakedness".



Same here.
Human "rules" don't necessarily apply to aliens and such.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 14, 2010)

Meh. My fursona can be drawn with or without clothes. usually she's drawn without. technically naked considering she has no clothes. 
I don't find it indecent if the genitals don't show.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 14, 2010)

Riptor said:


> For some reason I'm reminded of Wile E. Coyote, who somehow keeps a pair of boxers over his fur.


... since when?


----------



## mumbles (Apr 14, 2010)

xcliber said:


> In terms of art, I consider the ones that show private parts to be 'naked', while ones that don't show genetals (even if they don't were clothes) are not 'naked'.
> 
> Edit:
> After reconsideration, I can also conclude that furry characters, whose artists normally draw them with clothing, drawn without clothing can be considered naked as they normally would wear clothes.
> ...



Yeah, that's pretty much where I stand, too.

When you can't see the naughty bits, they're 'dressed'. There's also something about how BLATANT SHINY PINK NIPPLES on something covered in fur that makes it seem more naked, somehow.


----------



## virus (Apr 14, 2010)

What if a character is naked and possibly engaging in a sexual act yet the angle is discreet so you can't see anything?

It all comes down to preference. 

Technically your always naked anyways even clothed. The only thing keep the clothes on is gravity and design.


----------



## rcdragon (Apr 14, 2010)

Depends if the character usually wears clothes. If they do and they aren't, then yes they are naked. If they usually don't, then they are not. I wouldn't consider someone's pet to be naked so I don't see why a character should be considered to be so.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 15, 2010)

Seastalker said:


> Same here.
> *Human "rules" don't necessarily apply to aliens and such.*



That's the way I see it, and not just with the clothing/no clothing issue.  Even in human cultures, nakedness can be and is acceptable.  I remember an anthropology class in which we watched a film of these jungle natives who didn't even have a word for "naked" in their language.  The closest word they had was one that translated as "beltless"... yes, all these natives ever wore were these elaborate, handmade belts.  Didn't cover any of the dangly bits.




rcdragon said:


> Depends if the character usually wears clothes. If they do and they aren't, then yes they are naked. If they usually don't, then they are not. *I wouldn't consider someone's pet to be naked so I don't see why a character should be considered to be so.*



In other words, it's a matter of perspective...


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Apr 15, 2010)

Depends on whether the nudity is meant to be sexual or innocent.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Apr 15, 2010)

KirbyCowFox said:


> Depends on whether the nudity is meant to be sexual or innocent.


 
This is true. Think about it. There is many animated shows where animals dont thave clothes. Many are aimed at kids.

So as long as it innocent type it ok.:grin:

Well so can the other kind, for the mature ppl. (well as close as a furry can get to being mature if thats possible)


----------



## CanzetYote (Apr 15, 2010)

Chmat said:


> I guess it depends on how humanoid they are


 
You hit the nail on the head! It all depends on the individual fursona in question.


----------



## Shaui (Apr 16, 2010)

With all that fur, how could furries possibly be "naked", whatever that is.


----------



## Bernkastel (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't see what's so complicated about this.

If the creature is not wearing any form of clothing, it's naked. If it is, then it's not naked.


----------



## Dregna (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't mind to be naked but what will happen if anyone around me are not naked ?

It's upon situation and condition where those furries live.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 17, 2010)

Dregna said:


> I don't mind to be naked but what will happen if anyone around me are not naked ?
> 
> It's upon situation and condition where those furries live.



Society and culture, in other words.


----------



## Icky (Apr 17, 2010)

They don't have clothes. They're naked.

Why did this even need to be asked.


----------



## Vulpin Greeneye (Apr 17, 2010)

KirbyCowFox said:


> Depends on whether the nudity is meant to be sexual or innocent.


 
^This... Totally.


----------



## marcwolf (May 10, 2010)

Ok.. Lets consider human cultures and the look at furry ones.
With many human cultures nudity is the norm, although the definition of 'nakedness' to each of them is different.

For example - with some tribes where circumcision is not performed the exposure of the glans by pulling back the foreskin is considered to be 'naked' however with the glans covered they are just nude. Same with women by showing the inner labia.

Now - many furry animals have a sheath. It does two things.. Firstly it covers the penis and protects it, and secondly it holds the penis close to the body so it cannot be harmed re bumps etc.

So if one was to consider that a sheath is akin to a furry jockstrap (as that IS its function) having a male furry walk around without clothing cannot really be called nudity. However if he was to unsheath himself in public then that would be 'naked' and considered immodest.

To quote "Form fits Function and Function fits Need"

Hoped ths puts things in a different perspective.

Marcwolf


----------



## TreacleFox (May 10, 2010)

Yes, but in a good way.


----------



## Seas (May 10, 2010)

marcwolf said:


> So if one was to consider that a sheath is akin to a furry jockstrap (as that IS its function) having a male furry walk around without clothing cannot really be called nudity. However if he was to unsheath himself in public then that would be 'naked' and considered immodest.



But then it is immodest only in that culture's perspective.

An other culture might just also shrug off that off anyway.


----------



## Slyck (May 10, 2010)

Don't know about furry creatures, but furrys can be found naked quite often.


----------



## Lobo Roo (May 10, 2010)

I don't know, I just always assumed it was optional. I have clothes that my forms usually wear, or they just don't have any clothes. Generally they aren't drawn with sheaths, though.


----------



## Oovie (May 10, 2010)

Feathers are great for prancing around in the nude.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (May 10, 2010)

Lynxx said:


> Can a furry creature be naked? I mean the whole thing is covert with fur like regular animals.
> Like that furry next to 'Fur Affinity Forum' at the header. He has only a tie. Is he naked?



Well... they're not wearing clothes so yeah, they're naked.  Someone should tell Fender to put some damn pants on!  This is a PG-13 forum.  >:C


----------



## Tails The Fox (May 10, 2010)

xcliber said:


> In terms of art, I consider the ones that show private parts to be 'naked', while ones that don't show genetals (even if they don't were clothes) are not 'naked'.
> 
> Edit:
> After reconsideration, I can also conclude that furry characters, whose artists normally draw them with clothing, drawn without clothing can be considered naked as they normally would wear clothes.
> ...



He makes some good points here.


----------



## Tao (May 10, 2010)

The people who don't make their anthros have clothes or genitals obviously never think about sex.


----------



## Willow (May 10, 2010)

Not a serious necro

Well, I always draw clothes on Willow or at least shorts, and as far as genitals go, I don't draw them 

Besides, it would be a bit of an embarrassment


----------



## Luca (May 10, 2010)

I guess if they army wearing any clothes they are naked. I perfer furrys to be wearing clothes though.


----------



## Kiva (May 10, 2010)

(covered* ) Clothes or no clothes :/. Well, he has a tie so he's not "naked" but he's still _naked_ (note the use of italic-ness :3, and no that is not a word ) I generally try to avoid any art that shows any genitals, but when it comes down to it, an extremely muscular anthro (I hate those, they spam deviantart) looks creepy naked. However a normal looking anthro, even without genitals, looks smecsy. Murrr...


----------



## Scotty1700 (May 10, 2010)

Not naked (SFW)
Still not naked (SFW)
Naked (NSFW)


----------



## Alstor (May 10, 2010)

EDIT: nvm


----------



## Tomias_Redford (May 10, 2010)

Scotty...can I yiff you?


----------



## Scotty1700 (May 10, 2010)

Alstor said:


> inb4 Willow raeg



Inb4 porn links






...too late xD

P.S. JESUS CHRIST, LONGEST URL I'VE EVER SEEN! I had to change it for it to work.


----------



## Kiva (May 10, 2010)

I didn't click the NSFW one, pron/yiff fear :/.


----------



## Willow (May 10, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Inb4 porn links
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What about Willow raeg?


----------



## Scotty1700 (May 10, 2010)

Kifale said:


> I didn't click the NSFW one, pron/yiff fear :/.



What...it's just an anthropomorphic wolf presenting his rather enticing package *Drooling*

Hahah, not really though 



WillowWulf said:


> What about Willow raeg?



Only if it's a "Scotty, why the hell did you post moar porn, I want to keep my virgin eyes clean, RAWR!" sort of rage.


----------



## Willow (May 10, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Only if it's a "Scotty, why the hell did you post moar porn, I want to keep my virgin eyes clean, RAWR!" sort of rage.


I'm used to that though

My eyes are not virgins


----------



## Tomias_Redford (May 10, 2010)

Scotty, I love it when you randomly post porn.  Srsly, we should name the art of it after you or something.  So everyone timeone posts surprise porn it should be called the Scottyslap, or something...

*murrs*


----------



## Scotty1700 (May 10, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> I'm used to that though
> 
> My eyes are not virgins



My sniffer detects a large quantity of porn heading this way.


P-P-POOORN DUMP!

Nah, Just kiddin' 



Tomias_Redford said:


> Scotty, I love it when you randomly post porn.  Srsly, we should name the art of it after you or something.  So everyone timeone posts surprise porn it should be called the Scottyslap, or something...
> 
> *murrs*



Bam! You just got scotty-porn-slapped!


----------



## Willow (May 10, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> My sniffer detects a large quantity of porn heading this way.
> 
> 
> P-P-POOORN DUMP!
> ...


Besides, I can't even view porn on FA


----------



## Scotty1700 (May 10, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> Besides, I can't even view porn on FA



 You're missin' out hun!

Nah, I'd say wait till you're at least of age.


----------



## Willow (May 10, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> You're missin' out hun!
> 
> Nah, I'd say wait till you're at least of age.


damn


----------



## Tomias_Redford (May 10, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Bam! You just got scotty-porn-slapped!




Wow, that pic actually basically happened to me this summer...

I went off to get an ice cream, and I came back and a fox had nommed my sandwich and then decided to sit on my towel and lick it's privates.  I walked up, it sorta just looked at me, went back to licking for a remaining 3 secs, then got up and left...

XD


----------



## Kiva (May 10, 2010)

Anthro art doesn't always need genitals do be smecsy :V.

~edit~

to*


----------



## Scotty1700 (May 10, 2010)

Kifale said:


> Anthro art doesn't always need genitals do be smecsy :V.
> 
> ~edit~
> 
> to*



But everything's better with a penis, look at Lady Gaga...oh wait.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (May 11, 2010)

Humans have clothes because humans don't have fur and don't (for the most part) live near the equator.  Nakedness is cold.  Nudists outside are cold.



Oh, and it works as a sort of armor too.  Imagine falling off your bike with no pants on...  ouch...


----------



## Oasus (May 11, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Here's a helpful flowchart!



/thread


----------



## Steel_Wolf (May 11, 2010)

Well I guess if you count fur as clothing then they aren't naked. But if they aren't wearing clothes then it is most likely that they are naked


----------



## marcwolf (May 11, 2010)

When I see a movie about werewolves etc (like  Van Heilsing) the absence of genitals on the werewolf was far more noticible to me that if he did have genitials. Having grown up around animals  seeing a sheath etc is just part of nature. 
Its like looking over a group of humans and noticing that one of them does not have an arm. You don't specifically look for them bu the absence triggers a 'something different' and thus it becomes noticable.

I suppose that for others who were never brought up around animals of both sexes, or were taught that the male and female reproductive organs were 'something bad' then the sight of a sheath etc would generat the same ' somethings different' reaction.

Myself - my fursona is an anthrowolf who is comfortable either furclad or with a simple loincloth... because running through bushes can hurt EVEN with a protective sheath :>


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (May 11, 2010)

If they are then shows like looney toons and a lot of disney shows/animated movies are in big trouble.

Guess it really how its all presented.


----------



## l33tpower (May 11, 2010)

LOL omg u guys are makin me laugh so hard right now

ok i totally agree with some of you but heres an example

if u like MaxBlackRabbit's art work like ZigZag his most popular character have u noticed that in certain pictures it shows the pink nipple or her pussy *not being turned on by this u pervs*and most of the time shes wearing a full set of clothing shoes, top, shorts, skirts, etc. but in some of my friends work they have their character like full of fur no clothes other than glasses or a bowtie on their head if u can't see the difference then your just a moron.


----------



## Tails The Fox (May 11, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Not naked (SFW)
> Still not naked (SFW)
> Naked (NSFW)


 Okay, having the mature art only visible to users, and then not allowing people to join is a bunch of bull.


----------



## Whitenoise (May 11, 2010)

Fur is a shitty substitute for clothing. The less cartoony and stylized the character is, the more retarded the wooky rule looks :V .


----------



## Tails The Fox (May 11, 2010)

Yeah I'm gonna have to say no clothes = naked on this one. It just seems to make the most sense.


----------



## skunkspray03 (May 11, 2010)

*naÂ·ked*

â€‚ 

â€‚/ËˆneÉª
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




kÉªd/ 

 Show Spelled[ney-kid] 

 Show IPA  
  â€“adjective1.being  without clothing or covering; nude: naked  children swimming in the lake. 

 *Quoted form an online dictionary

In light of this definition, I'd say that, unless they have no pants an when they are obviously _supposed_ to, then no


----------



## Glitch (May 11, 2010)

Eh.  It depends.
I just am bad at drawing clothes, and my sona is more often than not feral.  

But yeah, no clothes = naked.
Yet, naked can be clean, because the genitals (including sheath or whatever) could be hidden, etc.


----------



## Willow (May 11, 2010)

I've only done little quick sketches in my medieval notebook of Willow shirtless, but never completely pant-less


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (May 11, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> Fur is a shitty substitute for clothing. The less cartoony and stylized the character is, the more retarded the wooky rule looks :V .



Clothing is also a pretty shitty substitute for fur.


----------

