I find the irrational reaction to this in a way similar to how someone might stereotype another person they have seen based on... I dunno, skin color without knowing how capable the person actually is. If you're going to complain about the actual art quality, then do so. However I can't see how the content of it has generated so much ire out of the prior posters.
T5J8F8, I would assume given the walking nature of her feet, padding and protection for just the tip is all that is required.
Tinari said: However I can't see how the content of it has generated so much ire out of the prior posters.
It's because this site is not focused on furry art. If the image is appropriately humorous, it may pass, but anthropomorphisms for sexual purposes, to whatever extent, are not covered by this site.
Also, internets is srs bsns. Even if they're not serious, it's a traditional reaction.
T5J8F8 said: It's because this site is not focused on furry art. If the image is appropriately humorous, it may pass, but anthropomorphisms for sexual purposes, to whatever extent, are not covered by this site.
Also, internets is srs bsns. Even if they're not serious, it's a traditional reaction.
You're right. This site is not focused on furry art. So why is furry art rejected yet if you type 'beastiality' which is explicitly sex with an animal, you'll find upwards of SIX times as many images than you will by typing 'furry' in which is just an anthropomorphized animal? Seems like a massive, bass-akwards double-standard from hell.
Tinari said: You're right. This site is not focused on furry art. So why is furry art rejected yet if you type 'beastiality' which is explicitly sex with an animal, you'll find upwards of SIX times as many images than you will by typing 'furry' in which is just an anthropomorphized animal? Seems like a massive, bass-akwards double-standard from hell.
Cause bestiality isn't the same as furry. I don't look at either, but there is a big enough difference to get the furry crud deleted or ignored until it goes poof.
Eh, the stereotype continues. People only really hate furry stuff just because the internet masses do. It's a perpetual sheep drive that eventually ends at the slaughter house for many(thank god). Yes, this picture is shitty, and sadly, much furry art suffers from this disease as well, but for interfags who hate it just because they think it's immoral, anti-lulz, or whatever else fagtarded reason: The barrel of a gun is small enough to fit in your mouth, so just do it and stop bitching.
Canon anime furry characters are ok (post #430626). Images that are personifications of animals are ok (at least judging by all the "what if this pokemon was human?" images). So I honestly don't understand why there's such an objection to a furry personification (furrification?) of a canon anime animal. It's not like a few furry images is going to turn the whole site into a furry haven.
SindriAndBale said: I don't look at either, but there is a big enough difference to get the furry crud deleted or ignored until it goes poof.
Furry stuff isn't automatically crud. Nor is it automatically non-anime.
Probably something to do with an uncanny valley of sorts. Personified creatures are similar to catgirls, which are essentially humans with a few animal decorations, like a tail of in-their-hair ears. Bestiality is just animals, and thus is something normal on its own, even though the copulation is fetish at best. Furries, though, are typically cartoony and always a bit weird for the uninitiated, since it's an animal with human features (almost the inverse of catgirls and such beings). It's...creepy.
And the site won't turn into a furry haven because the images will disappear from the Danbooru-public conscious after a while. However, you prolly mean "approving a few won't turn this place into a furry haven," those few would have to be artistically sound, and further have enough Japanese (or otherwise foreign) flare to be considered topical; Disney-esque or Sonic-knockoff stuff wouldn't get by on that principle alone.
