I've seen hermy birds with both tits and cock...

But then...*plays "this is a fantasy" card*

eh... the best fantasy conforms to general rules of realism

I'm inclined to agree. When the fantasy is more relatable to real life, it seems to give our own real lives that much more majesty, because we're almost forced to examine the rules of our own true universe to tie into the "what ifs" of the fantasy.

Don't care. This is my journal, my rant, and boobs on non-mammals are one of my pet-peeves.

Nah. Creative license.

Might as well say "Stop drawing anthropomorphic animals~! It's contrary to reality~!"

Thank you! So many people go 'why does your dragon do not have tits?' because she is a dragon, the only reason she has them at all is when she is in her human form, mammal that is all. I do understand some reasons why people do, sometimes they really do bring a feminine charm to the character, or as one gal I spoke to put it, her character may be a bird but she is also anthro and has more of the human genetic then avian so thus she has tatas.

Well, if you go by that reasoning, I should have six boobs, and so should most other female mammalian anthros. It is my character, and I can make her how I please. It's called ''artistic license.'' At least I included a dewlap on my character, which is almost exclusive to female rabbits (males can develop a small one, but it's uncommon)...

Also link to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p.....ammalMammaries

Very true. However, that only works with feral reptiles and stuff. With anthros, I have to go with the artistic license, honestly. I mean, anthros is short for anthropomorphic animals, or animals with human traits. Some anthros are very animal like, those probably shouldn't have breasts. However, for the more human looking ones, why not. It's another human trait.

That said, I can understand it being a personal preference in not liking it. But I can't agree with saying that it doesn't belong there when that's what anthros is all about, IMO.

I've always found that mentally jarring. It's almost like saying "hey, reptiles are pretty good, but we can improve them by sticking mammal parts on them!" It's not as disturbing as many other artistic mistakes (like the entire film The Barnyard). I've always been a little perturbed by combinations of fur and feathers (two different branches, guys), though it looks fab on David Bowie.

LOL! With you on all of that. The previews for The Barnyard, and most similar kids movies featuring cows as the main characters, piss me off to no end. Cows (udders) = female. Bulls/steers/oxen (no udders) = male. Why is that so hard? Why are they forever having visual cows being male characters?

Did you ever watch Rocko's Modern Life on Nickelodeon? The secondary/best friend character was male, described himself as a steer, and was named Heifer. WTF?!

I personally agree fullhartedly with this journal. I can't even begin to fathom what drives people to draw such. Then again I prefer to take a realistic approach to anthros and other make belief beings.

Personally I have often tryed to figure out how to draw certain anthros. Say antrophomised animals like dogs ( the females of witch ahve multyple sets of tits ) or horses or cows witch have tits situated at the back of the body...

I haven't been able to come up with a viable solution for such questions. Seems that it's almos always easyer to just draw males... ey?