Whenever you see a particular furry species portrayed, depicted, or stereotyped in such a way that just kinda bugs you. Whether it's something minor like small anatomical inaccuracies, or maybe something more all-encompassing like an entire species being excessively associated with a specific fetish. Anybody have anything like that?

when fennecs don't have ears that are half their body lengths smh

cutefox123 said:
when fennecs don't have ears that are half their body lengths smh

I live for cute big ears so, same.

Giving hyaenids canid dicks all the time doesn't help that a lot of people seem to think they're actually canids.
And disappointingly few artists understand spotted_hyena pseudo-penis.

magnuseffect said:
Giving hyaenids canid dicks all the time doesn't help that a lot of people seem to think they're actually canids.
And disappointingly few artists understand spotted_hyena pseudo-penis.

+1. Also, it's only spotted and the extinct cave hyaenas, to the best of my zoological knowledge, that should have it. I fear I lack familiarity beyond "not this" with brown, striped, and aardwolf varieties.

As for me I have a few.

Cats with dog dicks. Cats without barbs in general.
All hooved creatures having horsecocks.
Snek? Dragon? Scales in general? VORE VORE VORE VORE.
Horses being used as the furry equivalent of "BBC" and, inside equines, Zebras being the equine equivalent even within that. "Striped" and whatnot. Curiously, not as bothered by the Rabbit equivalent of "Thumped", probably because it's too funny to take seriously.
All Encompassing: Drawing males with animal dicks, but females with human vaginas. Human anatomy on ferals.

Lesser things;
Horses sweating, but not getting frothy. Horses vomitting.
Cloacae on spiders. They are one of the few arthropods that have an immense distance, relatively speaking, between anus and sexual equipment.

I like scalies, but I also really like balls and dislike hemipenes. These tastes are somewhat conflicting. post #3373771

A big one for me myself is monkey anthros, or at least how they're handled a lot of the time. They're either:

• Some iteration of the same standard brown monkey with the long curly tail from every cartoon ever (not that that depiction can't be cute, but monkeys are very diverse appearance-wise in real life and it's a shame more people don't capitalize on that)
• Just take a human character, cover most of their body in fur, and stick a tail in their butt (most species of monkey look little to nothing like humans)
• Mix and match features from widely different species and hand-wave it by just calling the character a nonspecific "monkey" (seriously, baboons and capuchins aren't even in the same family - hybrid characters are all fine and good but at least call them that)
• Not a monkey at all (apes and lemurs are also very neat, but they're not monkeys and they're not much closer to being monkeys than humans are)

It sucks because I find monkey characters in concept to be quite underrated and I like them a lot, but in terms of depictions in the fandom I find them to be rather hit-or-miss.

I saw people complain about rabbits and sharks with pawpads... how can one complain about ✨pawpads✨? I do like it if species are mixed up, and I do not mind if there are features on a species that are not there irl. But What I don't like is, if orifices are displaced. Or if the tail of an anthro starts too high on the back of it. The only species related thing what comes to my mind is, if the urethra of a canine penis is in the middle of it. But that's actually not too bad, I just take a deep breath, and try to calm down for the next 30 minutes after I have seen it.

Bat characters that have the wings stuck on the back instead of having the wings properly forming hands/arms

In general anthropomorphizing with too many human-like features, though I just strongly prefer kemono style and on-model art so that one may just be bias from personal preference

people being way to dang particular with how cartoon funny animals are depicted in art

dubsthefox said:
I saw people complain about rabbits and sharks with pawpads... how can one complain about ✨pawpads✨?

"in conclusion, bunnies have toe beans. It's nature that's inaccurate." — panken, on Twitter

crocogator said:
I like scalies, but I also really like balls and dislike hemipenes. These tastes are somewhat conflicting. post #3373771

In the same vein, I can't stand when people insist on giving female scalies freaking Barbie doll anatomy.
Yes. I know real reptiles aren't mammals. Most real reptiles also don't walk on two legs and speak.

Rabbits with pawpads. If it's something really cartoony I can ignore it, though.
Rats and mice with furred ears, digitigrade legs, and/or fiveheads.
Dog or horse dicks on everything. I don't like animal junk in the first place but that's just obnoxious. Hyenas with dog dicks is the fucking worst.
Everything is a dog syndrome.
Sharks that are just dragons with shit-eating grins and bathing suits.
Sharks with massive tails that also have pelvic and anal fins. It's like some kind of fucked up taur.
Hybrids that are just animal1 skin on animal2 body. You can do better than that.
...And just kinda the lack of variety with anthro species. It isn't as bad as it was like 15-20+ years ago but when you've seen one wolf, fox, or dragon you've seen them all and just making them rainbow vomit colors doesn't really change that.

embertail803 said:
In general anthropomorphizing with too many human-like features, though I just strongly prefer kemono style and on-model art so that one may just be bias from personal preference

Doesn't kemono usually minimizes the animal features like the muzzle and fur?

...when you cannot tell what a species is. Not because it's a hybrid or creative license. But because they draw the same basic face shape and proportions for everything, and then call it different species even though it's built exactly the same.

I can still enjoy things, in a generic anthro way. But it does slightly annoy me when someone draws their canines and their felines and their mustelids and their mice and their bears...with the same face shapes. I'm never completely sold on 'generic anthro face but it has tiger stripes so it's OBVIOUSLY a TIGER" or "generic anthro face but the ears are 25% less pointy so why did you mistake it for a wolf when it clearly isn't!" etc. It's not really "clearly" anything. It doesn't have to realistic, but find some better ways to make your species choices more distinct and possible to detect without needing to consult a divination expert for clues. That would be nice.

Other than that, I just see it all as fantasy. So I don't mind mixing species traits or adding colors or surrealistic anatomy or etc. It's fine. It's fun. Even if it's not my thing, I can still see how someone gets something out of it. That's all good.

(but if you want me to believe it's actually X specific species, then pretty please make it distinct enough that I can actually tell that animal definitely is that and not just 'generic anthro shape number 5 but with tiger stripes this time', because relying solely on something like tiger stripes or coloring is almost more of an aesthetic decoration than it is a species trait. A paint job does not a new species make.)

bill_furray said:
Doesn't kemono usually minimizes the animal features like the muzzle and fur?

Sometimes, but the bits that usually throw me off are too-human-like limbs, eyes, etc and Kemono style usually makes those more animal-like, or at least less humanish.

So I'm a massive (I mean looking up stuff constantly to make sure it's correct to the point they as an entire species are my special interest massive) rabbit fanatic and so the worst thing you can do in my eyes regarding pet peeves is do the sins when it comes to rabbits in furry art:
- Digitigrade instead of plantigrade legs, rabbit only are digitigrade when in motion, similar to us when we run. You could use hares as an excuse since they are seen on the toes at times but they are plantigrade too. Lagomorphs are all plantigrade.
- PAWPADS! I do not care how much you like them, they do not belong on a rabbit and exposed skin is bad technically. Besides, fluffy paws are cute too!
- Broken ears. Like bent in the middle broken to where it looks like the cartilage broke. If you want floppy ears, make a Lop. Trust me they are adorable.
- Cat noses. Rabbits have a cute V nose with very little skin showing and when it does it's when it's twitching. You know how Zootopia basically got almost EVERYTHING right expect (even down to making her binky!) gave Judy a cat nose? That made me mad, they got SO close...
- Cat/Dog/horse anatomy in the penis/vagina when pure rabbit.

I could forgive the pawpads, cat noses, and digitigrade legs if it was specified that they are based off a cabbit or mixed with something that has digitigrade legs. Or even if you go the wolpertinger route (yes those are a thing, folklore) with bird feet since they got the legs for it. Same with Laquines having a equine dick (and digitigrade legs too) or a Cabbit with a cat dick. But PURE bunnies? Or ones that aren't clearly hybrids outside that "one" thing as an excuse? They always commit the sins I listed in furry art. I made a og species of mothbunny hybrids that I own aliens for that specific reasons. In that if they're aliens, I can get away with them having stuff like pawpads and other things as I design them, with my actual bunnies being fluffy footed.

Maybe I'm super picky and a super specific killjoy when it comes to bunnies. But fr though, do not use Bugs Bunny as a reference for bunnies! He's a cartoon for a reason, it'd be one thing if you're making something toony based off him but even that is a stretch for me. Hecc, I don't even know how an anatomically correct rabbit dick/vag looks like in exact, I have to go off artists that get close so that I don't have to do that 'research'.

But I love people that draw rabbits right, unfortunately they are not that many and are a slight niche in of themselves in the fandom. Yes, it's furry art. But for all of the bunnies in the fandom, you'd think more people would get them right, you get me? Even people like Jay Naylor for instance was pretty solid with rabbits until all of a sudden he started exposing the skin on their soles, one of my pet peeves linked with pawpads, it made me upset sorta since he was drawing them perfectly before.

I can still enjoy the art, but I never fave anything that hit one of those marks nowadays. And no I will not nor will I ever police how people draw pure rabbits/bunnies/hares or whatever but it's very easy to mess things up for me is all. It's a pet peeve thread for a reason, so I think it's okay to let me be a little (or a lotta) nitpicky here. And boy am I. Hopefully not to the point where I get hated. x.x

Sometimes I see the occasional weirdo claim the shark skin is actually rough, even though sharks are smooth.

throwaway106352 said:
Sometimes I see the occasional weirdo claim the shark skin is actually rough, even though sharks are smooth.

It depends on how you pet them. They're smooth one direction and rough in the other because of the shape of placoid scales.

Anatomically correct in hyperrealistic sometimes creeps me out.

jayfiregrowlithe said:
- Digitigrade instead of plantigrade legs, rabbit only are digitigrade when in motion, similar to us when we run. You could use hares as an excuse since they are seen on the toes at times but they are plantigrade too. Lagomorphs are all plantigrade.

I was going to call you out on this, but... you're correct. While Wikipedia once went the digitigrade route, it now goes the plantigrade route. Looks like I get to fix that for my future pictures. Good thing I always draw my pikas flat-footed. :p

- PAWPADS! I do not care how much you like them, they do not belong on a rabbit and exposed skin is bad technically. Besides, fluffy paws are cute too!
...
- Cat noses. Rabbits have a cute V nose with very little skin showing and when it does it's when it's twitching. You know how Zootopia basically got almost EVERYTHING right expect (even down to making her binky!) gave Judy a cat nose? That made me mad, they got SO close...

These I shrug off (though I don't draw my lagomorphs that way) as... shaving. Human men frequently grow hair on their face, which they also frequently shave off. Why wouldn't anthros similarly shave off some of their fur for fashion, hygiene, or practicality reasons? It's also the same logic I would apply to the common furry jokes about porcupine or hedgehog quills – cut them off. After all, quills are just modified hairs, and those animals would likely find them too bothersome (and unnecessary for an anthro capable of wielding better weapons) to let grow out.

ratte said:
Rats and mice with ... digitigrade legs...

Agreed. An artist spends so much effort anthropomorphosizing an animal, then turns around and changes up a trait that was already "human-like" in an unnecessary attempt to make them more bestial.

Related, I'm starting to dislike feet that are too human-like, yet, ironically, I also dislike feet that are too animalistic. There's a reason why humans (and other mammalian bipeds) have a big toe (to provide a strong and stable base to push off against the ground when locomoting), so bipedal anthros should also develop big toes. However, no matter how much they might have features resembling those on human feet, they still would have evolved from (or been genetically altered from) the original animal's feet, so shouldn't look like human feet with (maybe) claws (which can be trimmed so don't have to be sharp).

Related to that, big, deep human jaws on non-primates (and many primates, too). Humans have a particular type of heavy primate jaw that wouldn't have developed from a non-primate's jawbone.

Sharks that are just dragons with shit-eating grins and bathing suits.

Like sharks with external ears? Yes, that is bothersome. External pinnae is a mammalian trait that non-mammals shouldn't have (dragons get a pass as they're fantasy creatures anyway). Gluing them onto sharks just makes me wonder why the artist is bothering to create a shark character if they're not going to make them a shark.

clawstripe said:
Related, I'm starting to dislike feet that are too human-like, yet, ironically, I also dislike feet that are too animalistic. There's a reason why humans (and other mammalian bipeds) have a big toe (to provide a strong and stable base to push off against the ground when locomoting), so bipedal anthros should also develop big toes. However, no matter how much they might have features resembling those on human feet, they still would have evolved from (or been genetically altered from) the original animal's feet, so shouldn't look like human feet with (maybe) claws (which can be trimmed so don't have to be sharp).

I'm also heavily, heavily biased against humanoid feet, but for one reason and one reason alone: they evoke a more visceral disgusted reaction for me than any other fetish.

Giraffes that have had a neckectomy. This is the highest crime.

Don't know if it counts for being fictional, but like, 90% of pokemon having a pink spike for a penis.

mrnotsosafeforwork said:
Don't know if it counts for being fictional, but like, 90% of pokemon having a pink spike for a penis.

Even if it's fictional, I can agree, just a normal pink spike penis is really boring. They're mostly made-up species that we don't and won't ever know what the bits look like, spice it up a little!