If you could swap your genitals for those of an animal would you and what kind?

[Fauna775]

The question is, are those genitals also fertile? I mean for an animal of their species? So, if I'd take the male genitals of a bonobo and would have sex with a female one, would I knock her up?

If the transformation was temporary or a voluntary transformation whenever I feel like it, I'd probably try out the genitals of rats, squirrels, bunnies, cats, bonobos or even dolphins, aligators, crocodiles or kaimans, just to figure out how a slit would feel like for a male to have. If fantasy genitalia would be an option, it would be especially interesting to try out imaginary dragon junk (scaled down to human dimensions of course).

But maybe it would be most beneficial to get the appropriately-species-sized genitalia of endangered species that have bonded with humans, so one may bone them and ensure the survival of their species. But that's a very specific fantasy I guess. When it only comes to aesthetics, I stated my choices above, and only if the choice my be reversible, because I became quite attached to the junk I already got...

Dragon genitalia is weird because it'd most likely need a cloaca to be used, and that's another complication for anything anthropomorphic, having glutes and all. Excess lymph fluid may be needed for it as well, since reptiles and the very few avians that have penetrative genitalia use that instead of blood. Even if the cloaca were placed toward the groin area, another problem arises, that being how uncomfortable it would be to be in the position to deposit fecal matter.

There is one solution though, and it's having the genitalia come out of a slit and the anus being separated, similar to how cetaceans are. It takes some of the reptile/bird aspect out of it, but is the only thing that works.

 

[CritterFunatic]

Dragon genitalia is weird because it'd most likely need a cloaca to be used, and that's another complication for anything anthropomorphic, having glutes and all. Excess lymph fluid may be needed for it as well, since reptiles and the very few avians that have penetrative genitalia use that instead of blood. Even if the cloaca were placed toward the groin area, another problem arises, that being how uncomfortable it would be to be in the position to deposit fecal matter.

Only if the dragon would follow a strictly reptilian body plan. Especially in the Furry Fandom there's the common view, that dragons aren't necessarily reptiles, so they may have seperate openings, like an anus and a genital slit, similar like dolphins might have. But personally I'd prefer the reptilian dragons myself, so I totally see your point as well. A cloaca would only work properly, if the legs aren't exactly below the body but a bit more to the side, so the tummy would turn smoothly into the crotch-area between the legs and turn directly into the tail. But since that wouldn't happen according to this thread, as full transformations wouldn't be an option, I'd go for the genital-slit only anatomy in this case.

There is one solution though, and it's having the genitalia come out of a slit and the anus being separated, similar to how cetaceans are. It takes some of the reptile/bird aspect out of it, but is the only thing that works.

That's what I was thinking about. Anything else wouldn't work that well without altering other aspects of the physilogy as well.

 

[Fauna775]

Only if the dragon would follow a strictly reptilian body plan. Especially in the Furry Fandom there's the common view, that dragons aren't necessarily reptiles, so they may have seperate openings, like an anus and a genital slit, similar like dolphins might have.

Reminds me of a small joke in the furry fandom where people jab at drawn dragons for basically being "dogs with scales/feathers".

I think it may just be stylization to make them more appealing to most of the demographic (through making them more "familiar", if that makes any sense).

 

[CritterFunatic]

Reminds me of a small joke in the furry fandom where people jab at drawn dragons for basically being "dogs with scales/feathers".

That, or cats with scales. Japanese folklore has the Kirin, a scaled horse-dragon thing. I've also seen the trend of some friends in the fandom to also alter the physiology of stereotypical dragons to their liking. One friend prefers warm-blooded dragons, because he thinks being a cold-blooded reptile would simply suck most of the time. Another friend opted for a dragon with fur, after going for a few years for a dragon with a more smooth-scaled reptilian skin. Also external balls and basically horse-penis (with occasional incorporated canine knot). His wife has a similarly furred dragon, in this case going down the mammalian dragon route, complete with crotch-boobs.

I toy for a while with a new dragon character myself, but I haven't really decided on some details, so I still toy around with ideas and concepts a lot.

I think it may just be stylization to make them more appealing to most of the demographic (through making them more "familiar", if that makes any sense).

True. "dragon" is less a singular species, nor a taxonomy, it's more of an generalized concept and depending on the media they appear in, they could be pretty much anything someone imagines. So we get the western (standard?) and eastern (more like sky-snakes) dragons, wyrms (which might also be a bit more like snakes), wyverns (western design without forelegs), sometimes even hydras (multi-headed monstrosities), fairy dragons (reptilian butterflies?), then drakes (wingless dragons if I'm not mistaken), draconoids (humanoid dragons) etc.

When someone says "My OC is a dragon!" I usually ask for a reference image, because it could be a wide variety of things that all fall under the "dragon" umbrella.

 

[Fauna775]

That, or cats with scales. Japanese folklore has the Kirin, a scaled horse-dragon thing.

Kirins are a special cause. They sometimes have deer-like qualities instead. They're a heavily romanticized description of a giraffe, hence the Japanese word for them being the same.

I've also seen the trend of some friends in the fandom to also alter the physiology of stereotypical dragons to their liking. One friend prefers warm-blooded dragons, because he thinks being a cold-blooded reptile would simply suck most of the time. Another friend opted for a dragon with fur, after going for a few years for a dragon with a more smooth-scaled reptilian skin. Also external balls and basically horse-penis (with occasional incorporated canine knot). His wife has a similarly furred dragon, in this case going down the mammalian dragon route, complete with crotch-boobs.

Those are those things called "felkins", right? As interesting as those creatures look, they seem like they exist purely for pornographic purposes.

While I am usually conservative with sex organ anatomy in furry art (preferring images of characters to have either all human or the right animal genitalia), I do enjoy some of the creative liberties used, like even-toed ungulate (cattle, giraffes, deer, etc) characters having equine penises. While it's not technically correct, it just "feels" right. Reality can be disappointing sometimes (that sounded heavier than I wanted it to).

 

[CritterFunatic]

Kirins are a special cause. They sometimes have deer-like qualities instead. They're a heavily romanticized description of a giraffe, hence the Japanese word for them being the same.

Oh? I didn't know. Learned something new again, thanks.

Those are those things called "felkins", right? As interesting as those creatures look, they seem like they exist purely for pornographic purposes.

...like most fictional species in the fandom, I guess. But yeah, I believe they are usually called "felkins", although said friend of mine calls his fluffy dragon a "lunar dragon", I'm not sure it that's the same thing or a different beast entirely.

While I am usually conservative with sex organ anatomy in furry art (preferring images of characters to have either all human or the right animal genitalia),

Same here, although I guess I'm even a bit stricter. I prefer human genitalia on humans, but I prefer anthropomorphic animals to still have species-appropriate junk. Slight modifications to make it work with humanoid posture are okay, but I get tired of human/dog/horse genitalia on almost every non-human, non-dog, non-horse species. Or the generic tapered dick for less popular species when the artist couldn't be bothered to research the proper form.

I do enjoy some of the creative liberties used, like even-toed ungulate (cattle, giraffes, deer, etc) characters having equine penises.

That's a turn-off for me personally, based on personal preferences of the artist (or commissioner) mostly. I would rather see the proper species equipment. There's so much cool variety, it's a shame not to see it more often.

While it's not technically correct, it just "feels" right. Reality can be disappointing sometimes (that sounded heavier than I wanted it to).

In the case of above mentioned ungulates I actually really prefer their usual penis shape above a horse penis, just because horse penises are such a common thing to see among zoo-groups, mating and genitalia photo galleries and furryart.

It's really just a matter of personal preference, I guess. But it really irks me when species I like get kinda misrepresented. Take bunnies for example. I can't count how often their junk gets drawn the wrong way. Instead of seperated balls just the usual, canine ballsack. Instead of the genitalia opening in the back, close to the anus, it's in the front, inside a canine sheath. And if the penis is shown it's either the penis of a different species or just a short, pink nub. And I get it, most "sexing" videos never show the full rabbit penis and just the tip emerging from the opening, giving the impression that's all there is to see, while the real penis is actually a good bit longer. The worst part is, that people immediately defend this decision as artistic freedom, while if you'd do the same to a kangaroo for example, people would flip the lid, of course the roo has to have a cloaca, of course it looks like a sheath pointing downwards, of course the balls have to be in the front. I've seen different people being vocal about that countless of times. But once it's a species they don't care for, they employ a double standard. It's tiresome.