I don't mind furry art in general, but this one is a little too much for my liking, though it could be due to my preference in Pony art to either be one (their regular selves) or the other (personified).
The rule against furry applies to all depictions, not just sexual, doesn't it?
"Furry: Any image or movie where a person's skin is made of fur or scales."
That being said, is this really furry, or is it similar to "monster girl" type characters? Because they don't have hooves or muzzles, just horns, horse ears and rainbow skin.
Arrei said: The rule against furry applies to all depictions, not just sexual, doesn't it?
"Furry: Any image or movie where a person's skin is made of fur or scales."
That being said, is this really furry, or is it similar to "monster girl" type characters? Because they don't have hooves or muzzles, just horns, horse ears and rainbow skin.
The thing is, just like Guro, we also have acceptable Furry pictures here as well. Its about how the picture is potrayed itself. Guro pics that don't go overboard and are well drawn/detailed get to stay here. Same goes for Furry as well too. As far as furry is concerned, sexual furry has pretty much NO chance of ever getting approved(or even uploaded by a contributer).
Also as you sorta said yourself, this doesn't really seem "Furry" at all. Any "Fur/Feathers"(Just covering my bases) is almost non existant. Look here post #896903
It may be a Touhou pic, but IMO, that is WAY MORE furry than this pic is. This is honestly closer to the "Monster Girl" character type of drawings.
Tetsamaru said: The thing is, just like Guro, we also have acceptable Furry pictures here as well. Its about how the picture is potrayed itself. Guro pics that don't go overboard and are well drawn/detailed get to stay here. Same goes for Furry as well too. As far as furry is concerned, sexual furry has pretty much NO chance of ever getting approved(or even uploaded by a contributer).
Yeah, I'm aware of that - but it is also true that all those violations that are kept are exceptions, which are meant (though it is not always enforced) to be exceptionally good or clever enough to warrant inclusion despite the rule violation. I'm not certain this would qualify - if it were even actually furry in the first place, of course, which I doubt.
Whoever calls this 'furry' deserves to be shot in the groin.
And about the Uncanny Valley thing... it refers to objects (or images of objects) that come very close to looking like the real thing but still make us feel confused as to whether they are alive or not. This image is unambiguously flat and cartoonish and is nowhere close to that.
