Big Bad Al wrote:I still find Sible hot in that dress tho!
JimRob wrote:I was at my local designer outlet on Saturday; that's where the extravagantly layered kind of design comes from. I can't remember the shop though.
PROKOFIEV2000 wrote:even if this topic was a mistake, i'm really glad it came up!
Big Bad Al wrote:Do I dare ask about the inspiration for the second from last panel (which I've only just noticed looking at the strip for a second time)?
JimRob wrote:That's really taken from the episode of The Simpsons where Marge and Homer are attempting to revive their love life and end up trying to creep home naked.
JimRob wrote:And yes, they were doing that.
JimRob wrote:It's not an experience I've ever had, I should add.
Rennen wrote:All in all, it's best not to think too heavily about it, unless great thought was put into the original decision. There are, indeed, those fans- and artists- who will argue at length sociological details such as predation and "inter species relationships", as well as more biological conundrums. Can a fox and a 'possum have kids? Why do the females have only two breasts?
To me, forget it. Enjoy it as is and where is. If you started worrying about that sort of thing, you're starting to worry about how they came to walk upright and then you start to worry about do they eat meat, and if so, whose, and then you wonder about the dolphins and whales and why cats are the same size as dogs, why a rabbit outweighs a wolf by a hundred pounds, why don't the females go into estrus cycles and why foxes and hedgehogs have hands while cows and moose have hooves and so how the hell do they hold a pen, or, for that matter, get dressed in the morning.
The movie directors call it "suspension of disbelief". It lets us believe that Xander can outrun an avalanche on a snowboard, and it lets us believe skunks can either read poetry or run an Amiga PC.
Don't worry about it.
Tek Roo wrote:The "furry" genre appeals to me because it is not reality, and does not pretend to be. It has the option of either representing reality, or just an analogy thereof, but certainly cannot be mistaken for reality itself. There is a tendency for traditional fantasy to present itself as a history that once was, and I have run across a few scary people that believed it.
Tek Roo wrote:As for the furry erotica, I just don't get it. I'm a fairly intelligent type, and insist upon understanding everything, but this one has been a constant puzzle to me. I don't care about the lifestyles that other people chose and stuff like that, but I'm particularly annoyed by the fact that stuff like that is being posted publicly, and it's quite easy to find, either accidentally or intentionally. The problem it creates is that those who know nothing about the anthropomorphic genre are literally afraid of it, and assume that it's by definition some form of fetish or perversion. I can't even carry an Ozy & Millie coffee mug around at the office without someone assuming I'm some sort of nutcase because the characters on it aren't recognised as any of the typical mass-marketed characters (okay, it only happened once, but you get the idea...)
Oh, but I do... not when reading comics, but when writing them. It's fine for readers to enjoy the furry genre for its own sake, but comics' creators really ought to think through what they're doing and why. If there's no reason for introducing something so obviously fantastic as talking animals, then it merely panders to people with a fondness for them and confuses those who don't. Which isn't a bad thing in itself, but it's a narrowing, rather than a broadening, kind of creative process.
Indeed. And the Egyptians made their gods as anthropomorphic animals--"therianthropic" is the correct term for this I believe--going back 5k years or so.Rennen wrote:...And as for confusion, I think not, actually. We've lived with anthropomorphized animals since Steamboat Willy in what, 1932?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest