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.
