fchan

discussion

Lizards with Boobs

Pages:1
1Report
OP#Pdi7T.x7Zg at 28 Oct 2006: 16:30

Okay then, I’m just trying to get the arguments straight here on the Scaly Anatomy thing.

Now, as far as I can tell, there’s two big groups that argue here.  Those who think reptile morphs should be more anatomically plausible, and those who think reptile morphs should have/are improved by the more human traits... the most contested of which seem to be the presence of hominid sexual characteristics: in particular, breasts on females, testicals on males.

I know there’s other groups too... those who like both, or neither, or like one feature more than others, etc.  But, they don’t seem to argue as much, so I’ll just let that rest.

Alright, anyhow, I tend to get a little confused on this subject.  I like scalies with human-like sexual characteristics.  There’s no deep reasoning behind this really... I like dragons, and I like boobies... Booya: Dragons with Boobies, how can you go wrong there?

Well, apparently you can go wrong, because dragons, and other reptiles, amphibians, fish, and avians, aren’t supposed to have them, because they aren’t mammals; mammary organs not present, etc.

...

Okay... but anthropomorphic beings have identifiably hominid (humanoid) traits right?  Erect bipedal, opposing thumbs, speech apparatus... and scalies are, as far as I can tell, people (humans) with reptilian characteristics.  Maybe anthropomorphic reptiles would have mammary glands, seeing as how they have so many other characteristics from humans?

I mean, I’ve never actually seen any reptile people before... just plain old reptiles.  And yes, none of them had boobs... but none of them talked, used tools, wore clothes, walked upright, engaged in silly social rituals, etc.  Yes, reptiles in the wild don’t nurse... but then, reptiles in the wild just lay a bunch of eggs with the whole idea of only the strongest surviving.  They don’t nurture and teach one or two young, they pop out dozens and let the weak ones die off.  That isn’t something that I usually see attributed to scalies though... they tend to be portrayed as being more like us humans.  I’m not saying that this is the reason reptile morphs should have boobs, I’m just saying that scalies aren’t necessarily modeled strictly after their real-life animal counterparts.

In other words, I don’t think adding boobs is any different from any of the other physical or behavioral changes applied.  I mean, in terms of anatomy and behavior, you could go on forever pointing out possible and likely discrepancies.  “Why would scalies have invented weapons when they’re born with weapons?  They aren’t like humans who don’t have claws or sharp teeth and need to compensate.  They would just fight with their claws, teeth, and tails like real reptiles.” and “Scalies wouldn’t wear clothes.  They have tough skin to protect them from grass and twigs, they’re cold blooded, so they wouldn’t need the insulation, etc.” or how about “Scalies wouldn’t bother talking.  They aren’t frail like humans, who relied on social advantages and grouping in order to survive and prosper.  Scalies wouldn’t need to group together for warmth or protection (especially dragons), so there would be no point in evolving complex vocal apparatus and speech centers in their brains.  Simple grunts and hisses, pheromones, and physical displays would suffice, just like with real reptiles.”

I could go on like that too... until basically, you wouldn’t have anthro reptiles... you’d just have reptiles... because when it comes right down to it, that’s all there are.  Evolutionarily speaking, reptiles wouldn’t need to become humanoids... ever.  Humans became that way because we came from some sort of tree dwelling rat (that’s just a guess, don’t quote me on that).  Reptiles were on the ground, and didn’t need light, agile bodies with tricky fingers.  They could walk around with nice, squat bodies and go about their efficient existence for millions of years; so efficient that they didn’t even need to develop high intelligence in order to survive.

So basically, all I’m saying is: don’t quote science in order to explain why scalies (or any other anthros) are built the way they are... because basically, all science really says is that there are no scalies.  Just let people draw the (completely fictitious) scalies how they like, and let the people who like it that way enjoy it.  Don’t come in telling them “what scaly anatomy is really like”, because there are no scalies.  All you’re doing by badgering people is ruining their buzz.  You don’t know what real scalies look like, the artist doesn’t know, nobody knows... so just let the art be, alright? Please?

...

Same thing goes for all of you “It needs boobs” people out there.  You know who you are.

2Report
#m0hEY/p0RI at 29 Oct 2006: 02:30

This thread wins.

I'm constantly sick of this boobs vs non-boobs arguments with scalies. Just like what you like and let the artist draws what they want to draw nyoro~n.

3Report
Skunkworks at 29 Oct 2006: 05:15

Awesome post, man.  I've got to say, I agree with pretty much everything you noted.  I realize a lot of artists like to draw their creations with "specie-specific" attributes, especially when it comes to sexual organs and such.  Unusually shaped genitals, for some folks, are a turn on (don't ask me why, though).  But I can see one major flaw in that line of design.

Real-life animals have various specialties and adaptations which have allowed them to survive and prosper in their given environment.  A RL horse could not mate with a RL dog, and there's a reason for that.  Some artists like to make their creations direct, humanoid versions of these animals, with the only true difference being their creations walk, talk and behave like humans.  Otherwise, it's simply an animal.  How many anthro characters have knots, flares, or any other animal-specific differences in their genitals?  While it should have no bearing on this conversation, my view is that they are just two (or more) animals engaging in sexual behavior.  It's no different than watching a nature special on National Geographic.  ;P

Personally, I've always tried to draw my critters as evolved species, not necessarily similar to their four-legged counterparts.  I draw lizards, chameleons and reptiles as warm-blooded creatures who engage in social activities and give birth to live young (and yeah, they have breasts).  Same thing goes for avians, sharks and dolphins.  While they may be inherently different based upon their form and genetics, all the species share a similarity in how they exist and have adapted.  You won't find any exotic-looking genitals on my critters!  The only difference they may exhibit is size, as larger species would obviously have larger genitals.  Otherwise, the various species can engage in sexual activities with others who are not of their species, and there's no real issues (other than two dissimilar species could not reproduce, but that's sort of common sense).

Ultimately, it depends on how the artist wishes to portray their characters and their universe.  Some like to keep it similar to how non-sentient animals are, while others populate their fictional worlds with creatures who are both animal _and_ human, combinations of the best of both worlds, but still able to interact with one another despite being different species.  The way I see it, most of my characters are just like us; they may look different on the outside, but they're relatively alike on the inside.

Kudos to the OP for an excellent topic.

4Report
Anonymoose at 29 Oct 2006: 09:48

>>2

Second the win, because I'm sick of this argument as well.

5Report
at 29 Oct 2006: 15:03

This is absolutely correct, and I'll just add a little more similar reasoning. We draw mammals with human boobs, even though no non-primate mammal has two breasts on the chest. Even the people who draw eight-breasted mammals make the top ones humanlike and emphasized. So if that works, regularly, then lizards with breasts work too.

Hail Xenu!

6Report
Randomlizard#4Mp8lGoMCQ at 29 Oct 2006: 16:40

My main reasoning behind putting breasts on my reptile gals mainly because they look too much like males without them. also, just to touch on the subject of reptiles not caring for their young: some snakes and all crocodilians are fairly good parents. Crocodilians in particular still guard and teach their young after they're born

7Report
at 29 Oct 2006: 17:52

>>6

Seriously?  I never knew crocodiles actually taught their young.  I thought they basically just made sure they didn't get eaten for a brief period after hatching.  Do they feed their young and such too? O.O

8Report
Anonymoose at 30 Oct 2006: 01:51

>>6 >>7

Wow, we actually learn something on a porn board. I didn't know tihs, either. Cool, huh?

9Report
at 2 Nov 2006: 12:25

>>6

No offence dude, but I don't think crocodiles teach their young. Everything I've seen or read just says they protect the eggs, and then hatchlings for a little while. No teaching, no comforting, no love.

Course, it'd be cool to be proved wrong here. Throw me a bone if you could. A video clip, a scientific source, anything.

>>1
SIGNED! Who isn't tired of that debate?

10Report
Randomlizard#4Mp8lGoMCQ at 2 Nov 2006: 22:42

yah, i realized that i used the wrong word after i posted it. but still protecting their young is a lot more than a lot of other critters do. for the most part its basic instinct that teaches animals how to survive

11Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage