Wolf and Spice

Cmyszka · Post by **Cmyszka** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:15 pm

King Arthur: ...That rabbit's dynamite.

Ultimatum479 · Post by **Ultimatum479** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:41 pm

David wrote:I like using humanoid animals in games because they are close enough to real people to identify with them, but distant enough that there are less ethical issues with killing them (and stabbing their dead bodies repeatedly).

I dunno about you guys, but I'd sooner kill a human than a wolf or rabbit if laws weren't a factor. (-.-)

Makrond · Post by **Makrond** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:19 am

Ethics is a combination of legal and moral issues. Morally, some people would prefer to kill people, but legally they're not allowed to. Plus the media already frowns upon the level of violence in modern-day games against humans, but are less concerned about violence against random humanoid animals; the logic being that humanoid is not generally associated with human, especially not when they have rabbit faces and fur.

It's part of the reasoning behind the huge explosion of 'yiffy vorarephiles'. Morally, there's not as much of a connection between a humanoid fox or leopard and people as anime girls and people. (Shit, I'm starting to make sense, better wrap up quickly.)

Simply put, furries allow artists and viewers to explore the boundaries of their fetishes without exposing them to the guilt of horrific things happening to something connected strongly to real people.

As David said, close enough to people to be identifiable, without the moral outrage.

nerodx: I've drawn a few anthropomorphic vixens - never even close to naked or in a sexy pose, though. I'd feel bad if I did - somehow it would still seem to me like an objectification of women in my own mind, something I've always tried to avoid.

Count Roland · Post by **Count Roland** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:54 am

LMAO I almost agree with U479 only i'd rather get them all except maybe a few of the smarter ones

Renegade_Turner · Post by **Renegade_Turner** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:03 am

Ultimatum479 wrote:Bad reasoning, Renegade. All female leopards have breasts. They're females. I think you meant to specify that it's a _humanoid_ female leopard.

Nah man, I just meant that someone tried to draw an animal with sex appeal..it's just wrong.

Count Roland wrote:LMAO I almost agree with U479 only i'd rather get them all except maybe a few of the smarter ones

Rofl and you're to decide who's worthy of living I see.
Would you off yourself then?

Makrond wrote:Ethics is a combination of legal and moral issues.

Ethics does not necessarily have to be about law, but I see what point you were making...unless you meant it can INCLUDE legal issues but does not necessarily have to.

Grayswandir · Post by **Grayswandir** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:43 am

Wolf and Spice is now officially complete. Episodes 1 to 13 are now out and Episode 8 is DVD only. As for the whole "furry" debate...Horo is actually a "wolf-girl" who can transform into a giant wolf that's excessively huge, so I suppose she doesn't fall under the "yiff" category. But I guess that doesn't really matter, since people will still see it as disturbing or sick since it involves a girl with animal ears...

Makrond · Post by **Makrond** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:37 pm

Hehe... like cat-girl but wolf...

Renegade_Turner wrote:unless you meant it can INCLUDE legal issues but does not necessarily have to.

That's exactly what I meant... it's a bit late but who cares...

Mr. Sword wrote:But I guess that doesn't really matter, since people will still see it as disturbing or sick since it involves a girl with animal ears...

Eh, I'm so used to it now... Gotta stop watching anime, I think.

GaGrin · Post by **GaGrin** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:31 pm

I'm kind of shocked at the rather overwhelmingly hostile attitude of a few of you. I probably shouldn't be; acceptance is something people are less than prone to without the added advantage of annonymity.

Instead of rising to defend any particular arguement or engage in flaming I'll just throw in this simple point: why is it that people think they can determine right and wrong in any other beings fantasy? There isn't some hardcoded sexuality that extends to all of humanity, other than the need to have sex.

If you want to get technical, the most genuinely perverse sexual desire is not having any at all.

Renegade_Turner · Post by **Renegade_Turner** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:23 pm

You would say that, you're the one with a furry in your avatar.

There is nothing right about being attracted to animals.

Is it alright to have sex with animals and, oh I don't know, children now just because you say so?

Post by **David** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:55 pm

Furries are very different from real animals, so it is not reasonable to suggest that fantasizing about them would lead to beastiality. I think that furries are more interested in their difference from humans than their closeness to animals; especially when they are just girls with animal ears and tails.

Grayswandir · Post by **Grayswandir** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:29 am

David wrote:Furries are very different from real animals, so it is not reasonable to suggest that fantasizing about them would lead to beastiality. I think that furries are more interested in their difference from humans than their closeness to animals; especially when they are just girls with animal ears and tails.

I thought a furry was someone who actually had the face of an animal and had fur, but had the physique of a human and walked upright. While a "xxx-girl" (xxx being a placeholder) was a person who had the ears and tail of the animal.

Post by **David** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:51 am

That is one way to look at it, but I think the line is a little bit blurry.

Renegade_Turner · Post by **Renegade_Turner** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:48 pm

Well children are just like adults only smaller, so that's alright too I guess. =)

Post by **David** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:52 pm

Fantasizing about children is different because they actually exist; the intention could translate into action. Furries and catgirls and things don't exist, so the only action it could translate to is dressing up in costumes, which is a bit odd but not unethical in any way.

Grayswandir · Post by **Grayswandir** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:53 pm

David wrote:That is one way to look at it, but I think the line is a little bit blurry.

True enough.
I consider each to be an art style. I personally wouldn't draw a furry or an animal-girl unless requested (and you'd really have to beg, I don't particularly like drawing either style...) but I don't see a problem with them either. Whatever floats your boat.