39,327
edits
Petting Zoo People/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
m
Mass update links
(clean up) |
m (Mass update links) |
||
Line 9:
** For me it was a mix of amusement and [[Fetish Fuel]] except for...the squid, that squiked me big time.
*** Cthulhu's daughter!
** This is going to sound offensive probably, but I just have to say it-That really should be used as some kind of furry radar or something. As for me, I spent the [[Bile Fascination|whole commercial]] with a horrified look on my face, as the strange antics got worse and worse. Wait let me check something...yeah. Even the [[Non
* Is anyone else annoyed when fur and hair are completely different colors?
** A little bit, but only for rather specific combos. It's not too unusual for a human to have red top-of-head-hair but brown-red eyebrows and body hair. On the other side, if we're talking blue hair, then it's ([[El Goonish Shive (Webcomic)|usually]]) dyed. It's the people with, say, brown fur and bright blond hair with a very clear dividing line that seem a little odd. Usually you assume some sort of different biology (comparable to fur patterns in normal mammals), but it is a [[Fridge Logic]] moment.
Line 26:
**** And [[Funny Animal|Funny Animals]] often shift levels of anthro depending on the episode, just watch a few [[Looney Tunes]] cartoons (and see also [[Anthropomorphic Shift]], [[Furry Confusion]]). [[Petting Zoo People]] tend to choose a level and stick with it.
*** Plus, the [[Funny Animal]] design [http://cuteanimalart.blogspot.com/2009/10/alfred-mainzer-company-and-dressed.html keeps the natural body shape of the animal], even when [[Four Legs Good Two Legs Better|walking on two legs]] and wearing chothes, whereas the [[Petting Zoo Person]] design juxtaposes an animal head and tail (if the character or species has one) onto a completely humanoid body.
* Seeing how they tend to wear pants/skirts/dresses(these characters are rarely [[Half
** This is a normal feature of furry clothes; it's called a tail-hole, except when that term is used as a (very bad) euphemism for the anus. The other option is just to put the waistline of the pants lower.
* I can understand people enjoying media that include characters like this, because they are basically just Goofy from Disney, which isn't inherently bad or anything. But what I don't get is why do some people (furries) "adore" these characters. There is absolutely zero way for them to find personalilty traits similar between them to have the attraction to the characters from that (as they would be no different at all if they were human besides changing a few words in the script). I just don't get the obsession. It makes sense to the ones who sexualize it because some people have weird fetishes (bestiality, corophilia, stranger abduction fetishes are just a few). But i've seen some Furries who try and say that its all about Admiring the art. Considering that there are much better art work in movies that don't include animals at all even, then it can't simply be the art. So I guess it just bugs me that there seems to be no rational reason to be a furry at all unless it sexually arouses you (which is squick to most of us, but still understandable) as the personality is irrelevant, the characterization is irrelevant, the quality of art is irrelevant and so theres no real explanation for how one can claim to be a Furry with no sexual arousal from the art. Is there something i'm missing, or are all furries at least somewhat sexually aroused by "human animals"?
| |||