I go for B, because I kind of defeats the point of them being a reptile, or amphibian, or whatever |D;;;

A

A
why not? nipples (when placed on breasts ) are cool!

B
nipples are for mammals

Breasts (mammaries) are for mammals.

tits4mammals

The question you should ask yourself is why non-mammal characters have breasts in the first place. ;3

^this. But if anon-mammal has breasts due to the fantasy-reasoning of character design, breasts have nipples, kinda silly one without the other for a non-mammal or mammal either one.

Well put!

A
There's no reason why anthromorphism shouldn't apply to that too if the artist so wishes.

A .

Because if you're gonna go as far as to put breasts on non-mammal characters you might as well go all the way.

Tottaly did not mean to reply to you specificly XD

B.

I'm with Sizalia here. Breasts on non-mammals doesn't make sense in the first place, adding nipples is making the problem worse. That said, if you're going to put breasts on non-mammals keep the tits off of them.

With me? I was just saying to thing about why!

if they have breasts, then they will have nipples. i hate when people try to say "they're a reptile!! they cant have nipples!" because a. they already have breasts, and b. anthro = human characteristics

D.

...Youre kidding right :P

Though please, for the love of the Maker, please no shitting dick nipples, I cant stand those :P

i dotn know what are that things...

Noted you, hope you get!

dick in breast ? OMYGAD!!!

*pets* and now you know...er...sorry :P

i know much things.

Most of the time B. Though I don't make a big fuss about it. I believe it's just merging qualities of both the human form and the animal that they're creating the anthro from.

When it comes down to it though, it's exactly like the 'Rabbits drawn with pawpads' debate. Many people just don't care

I believe the whole pawpad thing is to be blamed to cartoonists in the 30's/40's. The same reason 80% of all skunks you see online have Pepe Le Pew pattern instead of the actual skunk pattern.

A

^^

C.

wut?

A.

Honestly though it's all up to the artist if they want to add nipples to a non-mammal character, but for me adding nipples just adds to the female character's sex appeal no matter what species they are.

A yes!

If you make a non-mammal you really have two options in my opinion.

No breasts.

Breasts with nipples.

Now, I for one like breasts and see no reason not to take your creative anthro elements and put boobs on non-mammals.

But, a breast without nipples looks weird. :/. It's awkward. I just star wondering why it's there without a nipple?

The nipple is one of the best parts Of the breast!

why does it matter?

Haha, because i find it odd how often people ask me that. XD

A

because boobs are smexy 8D

An anthro is pretty cracked out if you think about it, too...... why not do what you want with a reptile!? :P

I find it funny that i get asked about Cela's breasts/nipples and not the fact that she has long blonde hair. XD

If your going to put breasts on a non-mammal you should put nipples on them. Non-mamals dont have mammary glands to have breasts in the first place... so if you give them boobs you should make them proper boobs with nipples.

Whatever you want! Sometimes purely scaly breasts with no nipples are sexier. But other times, a particular.. 'focal point', as it were, might be needed.

YES!

A. Why else have breasts?

Yeah, don't add nipples. Doesn't make sense to me.
...
...
... then again, anthros in general don't make sense in genera, so you can BS whatever you want!
Personally, I don't put nipples on my lizard girls

B, for reasons a number of commenters listed above ^_^

Non-mammals aren't supposed to have breasts in the first place if you're gonna have them you might as well do it all the way. As far as anthros go it's gonna depend on whether you're just going for visual appeal or you have a biological reason why animals are walking and talking like humans.

Los pezones están sobrevaluados.

Como el aguacate?

Como todo lo importado XD

A
Only for the reason that if the female has breasts, she clearly has mammary glands even though the species doesn't so why not just complete the package?
If she has no breasts then we're talking about a different story.

Depends.

If they got something covering the chest area, like fur, feathers, etc... then drawing them is kinda weird. They wouldn't really show up unless the fur/feathers were short. A bump in the fur showing they're below there works, tho.
As for scaled beings or such, well, while not mandatory, they could have them. They might look different, tho =P If their genitals look different to normal furries, so (c/w)ould them nips. XD

Hmm...I would have to vote for B in this case.

I wouldn't

A

Why A? Because it's anthropomorphic, and by definition it's going to have human characteristics. Plus if you're drawing it naked in the first place you may as well go full bore. Even on my automotive porn pic I have requested nipples.

D

sure, something else to play with :D

Pues, no soy muy fan de los pezones en los furries en general. No se me hacen agradables en general.

Pero creo que añadir senos y pezones es parte de la antropomorfizacion (sea con reptiles o aves, o con animales que no los tienen naturalmente.)

Asi que es "perdonable" que los tengan; aunque su especie de origen no los tenga. Supongo Xp

Lo que se me hace tan raro es que se haga tanto alboroto por esa zona en particular. La gente siempre me pregunta sobre los pechos de Cela, pero nunca por el hecho de que tiene una larga y rubia cabellera.

Es lo que le pasa a Missmab con Matilda. Es una cobra azul, con 6 extremidades y 3 ojos... pero la gente pregunta "Por que tiene senos?"... la chica es una triclope! XD

I think it's a bit more complex a question than that. I choose A on the fact that reptiles shouldn't have breasts in the first place and if you're going to personify them, there is little reason they should have breasts without nipples. Why not go all the way? :P Also it makes the breasts pointless, so why would they have developed there in the first place?

However B is also just fine. It's all up to personal preference and what you're trying to accomplish. It can go a long way to please your audience in certain situations. Take Matilda from DMFA for example. Works fine to me XD You can use this as a tool to get away with things too. You dont add nipples and viola, no need for that character to where a top anymore if they are female XD

Actually your justification for B is exactly what i have been doing all this time. XD

Hehehe whatever works for you and your work :3 I can imagine it would be a bit easier to run some scenes if you didn't have to worry about the toplessness thing XD

A. I don't see any reason not to add nipples when you've already added breasts.

The argument that reptiles shouldn't have nipples because real reptiles don't, could be said about the breasts themselves or nearly any other feature that we add to anthropomorphize them.

A. If you are gonna give 'em breasts, go all the way, give 'em nips as well.

A

D.

Personally, I prefer non-mammals without breasts (And therefor, without nipples). It's a pretty distinguishing difference between mammals and non-mammals, so it seems like the most sensible choice. Well, that and how scales (Especially the thick under-belly plate-like scales you often see) would probably create some issues for breasts. Even more when you get to other critters, like breasts combined with a carapace for insects. Not that the consequences of having fur often gets much thought anyway.

That said... Boobs can be fun sometimes, and sometimes that's more important. So while I generally prefer my non-mammals to be non-mammary, and generally like that look much more, there are a few I've drawn that way. For reptilian-like beings it usually works better if they have a thick hide instead of scales.

As for nipples if there's a breast... Well, seems a little odd to only go halfway there. There are a few cases where I could see it working. For example, I've seen some insect-morphs that had the curved carapace to give the impression of breasts (Though I would imagine they would be hard), yet not nipples, and it's a common way of stating "this character is feminine" to the human audience. There may even be the case where it's an unusual feature of the character in question (My demon, Terika, would be one of those). On creatures that have them, breasts and nipples work together for a purpose, so it seems weird to have the breasts but not the nipples that would give them a purpose.

If they have mammary glands: Yes. Why not? Unless it's a form of artistic censoring.

If they have no mammaries: No. Unless, like male mammals, it's a genetic hold over.

No nips unless it's a mammal.

I'd go with A if trying to draw something deliberately sexy, B otherwise

A

A, yes, because if we're already giving them human body structures and breasts, why NOT have nipples?

A

A. The anthro-reptile is obviously part mammal.

If you're going to think about it scientifically, the only way you could get an anthro-reptile is if there was some kind of accident or unlikely pairing that resulted in a human/reptile hybrid.

It's all Piers Anthony's fault for inventing the Love Spring.

Tits on a reptile involves nipples... because Tits without nipples are an affront to everything that's holy and good in the world lol

A. I agree with people who say that if for the fantasy reason they have breasts, then they will also have nipples.

Hell yeah!

C

*Facepalms at this discussion*

Its up to you Avencri on what you want to do. Whether you want to go for realism, semi-fantasy or true fantasy, it is up to you how you do it.

Razorfox does a great job in giving breasts without nipples for his dragons. I do not remember many artists who do nipples on dragons but they definitely show the female bits more than often enough.

I usually draw nippleless breast on characters like Cela and Vencrina (since i can get away with a lot) but i was wondering this because of the bust chart.

Well you can follow Chalo's example and use various clothing styles with the bust chart

It has already been announced that they are unclothed (will also serve as references for the patterns).

A

Personally, I feel like not giving a non-mammal breasts, nipples, or hair, is being too much of a stickler. If you think they would look better one way, just draw it that way.

Like I said on dA, I've done it :D

A, since if your going to through boobies on them at all (some opt no0t to give their female reptiles boobular mounds at all) then your anhroizing them to the point of having mammalian features, thus the nipple is recommended in my opinion.

A, if they have boobs then they should have nipples unless you're of the type that deems nipples making it adult where it wouldn't be otherwise. Also, in a world of anthropomorphism, hybrids would in theory become more common, so due to that it's possible that all would end up having boobs and nipples eventually, everything is possible. :)

Yay for boobs ! :3

Pretty much the choice of the artist, but for added sex appeal then nipples should be added, In the end its the decison of the person pushing the lead .

A) Who gives a fuck, go for it!

Haha, nice answer! Xd

I say A because of:
1. What Crawford said; sex appeal. ^^
2. I enjoy the pleasure nipples can give. ^////^

Bringing up a question here as well that I think might be a deciding factor here: Can the reptile characters in your setting cross breed with other species?

It depends on the combination.