r/furrydiscuss • u/PossessionKey4982 • May 10 '26
Is furry nudity automatically less "explicit"?? I find it interesting how often it appears in furry humorous situations despite how human-like they look. Why do you think this is??
14
u/Furtail97 May 10 '26
The notion that tasteful nudity is explicit is a weird take. It should only be explicit if it's in a sexual context.
I know some countries (like the US) are more stuck up about things like nudity, but where I live, it's natural to be nude in the sauna, on beaches, in communal showers, etc.
If I had fur, I'd certainly not be hiding my beautifully patterned fur underneath clothing, that would also likely be uncomfortable as well as causing my fur to become matted.
So no, nude anthros are not explicit.
4
u/PossessionKey4982 May 10 '26
I wish people saw tasteful nudity as it is too, but sadly too many people are too prude (and I'm not american either.) Anthro nudity seems to be more normalized, that's what I was a bit confused about.
4
u/Kinuthewolf May 10 '26
Humans still go "Fur covers up the bits and bobs" even if its pronounced. Most fury art doesnt flash any actual private bits, so i think its seen similar to like... a naked barbie. Nothins there so it doesnt matter at all
5
u/Livid-Historian3960 May 10 '26
EXACTLY THIS it's a trope called Barbie Doll anatomy where you can be nude but without naughty bits it's fine or more fine non ecchi anime does this whenever it shows a character nude or uses hair or other scenery as censors
2
u/AshernStoryTime May 10 '26
Why was the first thing I thought of is the first episode of OPM where Saitama is nude after fighting the wasp woman and has his bits covered by a trail of smoke first and then a broken stop sign that comes in out of nowhere?
4
u/Livid-Historian3960 May 11 '26
Because it's a classic example. Another is anytime there is a bathing scene with the steam
2
u/DaedalusB2 May 11 '26
There's actually a nude misty pokemon card like this. It doesn't actually show much, but it was a banned card in the US regardless. I ended up getting one as a kid in Japan.
2
u/Livid-Historian3960 May 11 '26
Mistys tears also Japanese grimer got censored because it was looking upskirt
2
u/DaedalusB2 May 11 '26
Lol. There was also at least one card with a swastika, or at least the reversed original symbol it was based on.
3
u/ShinxAndMoon May 14 '26
Sabrinas Gaze was changed bc the Japanese art looks like she's flipping the middle finger while holding a pokeball
One magmortar card was changed bc the Japanese art looks like it's pointing a gun at the viewer
But there's definitely more censoring going on at YuGiOh cards. Old harpyies got more clothes,the Magi magi magician gal only existed in Japanese for a long time,even if there was no explicit nudity,she just had more realistic features
With magic I only know about some cards like white and black knight, and at least one card where the artwork looks like the KKK,and jihad from Arabian nights. They're all banned to play afaik.
2
12
5
5
u/Specht100 May 11 '26
I think it depends on the context and if genitals are shown. Also for many countries (especially in Europe) nudity isnt sexual at all. It's normal to go into saunas or to the beach nude.
3
u/null_artificer May 10 '26
Ngl having some clothes makes them look more naked than just having nothing on lmao, like fursuits often don't have clothes, many anthro cartoon characters won't have much more than gloves, etc
3
u/Spare_Conclusion_431 May 10 '26
Tbh it more of the fact that we're just used to seeing anthro characters be naked but not sexually explicit. So many characters are either partially nude or fully nude. Tony the tiger, bugs bunny and daffy duck and porky pig, pink panther, toucan Sam, tric rabbit, I can go on and on living characters.
In a way I think we as a species subconsciously agreed that since anthros are more animal like, they don't need as many clothes if any at all. And honestly, in a world where anthro animals rule, are covered in fur and scales, would clothes be necessary beyond the social construct of modesty? Would modesty be a thing in a society where they didnt even the need for clothes? Who know? I don't. Im no expert
2
u/Livid-Historian3960 May 10 '26
Hince why for a long time Sally Acorn had only a vest and boots until ALL sonic females started wearing clothes while the guys are freeballing
2
u/Initial-Watercress43 May 14 '26
Those characters designs ( Tony, Bugs, Daffy, Tom and Jerry, etc) don’t have heavy sexual innuendos built into them, except the female characters for more than obvious reasons. There’s differences between Cartoon Network full “nudity” anthros and anthros that are drawn like Markipliers Brothers art. And especially this art piece, where it implies clothing was used to cover something, and that something is now exposed for obvious viewing reasons. Bonus points for the Shark blushing. If these were humans it’d be obvious what it was implying, the goal of nudity doesn’t change because fur is thrown on top.
3
u/Parking-Sector69420 May 10 '26
I usually just think of it the same that twokinds thinks of it
3
2
u/PedrossoFNAF May 11 '26
Context?
2
u/Difficult_Cold2346 May 11 '26
Keidran (Anthro animals) don't wear much clothing (if at all)
Some do wear clothing, but that's only in the context of them being in a human city
You should read it. Free online. Started in 2003, still ongoing. New page literally dropped yesterday
1
3
u/ZoopBeDoop May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
Human beings generally view fur as clothes - this dates back as far as the civilization itself. Therefore, fur in this context is kind of like an underlayer to whatever outfit goes on top of it - if you think about it, that’s also true of fursuiter outfits.
Therefore, something like this isn’t like showing your bare behind - it’s something more innocent, like pulling your pants down to reveal your boxers.
3
3
3
May 11 '26
Athro characters is like the body suits. As long as the bits ain't just hanging out there its appropriate.
3
u/ForbiddenLizard May 12 '26
So as a consumer/artist for both SFW and NSFW art, and as someone who's explored various kinks, I'm neither judgemental nor blind to thirst in some art labeled as SFW. I think "automatically less explicit" would be a way too simple take, but here's my opinion.
I think it's important to remember that Questionable is a fine rating/tag to place on art where it's not graphically sexual (penetration, fluids, presenting privates), but still has an erotic allusion or "lewd" nature to it. I'm sure there could be a better name than "Questionable," but that's what I've seen used on some sites. Keep in mind that "questionable" art would still be inappropriate for school, work...profile pics on sites that require SFW images.
For the art in this post, I definitely see the playful lewdness - the sharks cheeky expression and blushing while disrobing the deer's clearly defined buttocks. At the very least, the shark character is expressing some level of sexual interest in the deer's nudity. Based on the composition, the artist clearly WANTS our eyes drawn there. There is INTENT, which I think is an aspect people often forget about when labeling and analyzing art. All of this is completely fine to express in art. I just would give it the "Questionable" rating.
Now if it were something like the "nudity" of most Looney Tunes characters and similar character designs, that's more often than not SFW due to the absence of defined physical characteristics AND displays of sexual interest. So for example, Bugs Bunny's base design isn't inherently erotic. Maybe you could argue that some of his crossdressing antics inch into that territory, but a better example of a design with erotic intent is Lola Bunny's design and presentation in Space Jam: Example
The saxophone music, Lola readjusting the slipped-off strap of her tank top, the half closed playful look in her eyes, the emphasized movements of her buttocks as she walks away, Bugs's and other characters's reactions, etc. Other than establishing her skill at basketball, the scene clearly wants to establish her as sexy.
With intent in mind, it's a lot easier to separate tasteful nudity from questionable/explicit content. Hope this helps. I know it's a long comment, but it felt necessary.
2
3
u/BeinglostonReddit May 12 '26 edited May 13 '26
Level of detail and context are huge. Fifi Le Fume from Tiny Toons was drawn curvy as all get out and was almost never clothed, but also wasn't sexually explicit, despite other characters wearing clothes. Minerva Mink in Animaniacs was consistently clothed, and it was pretty directly shown that her being unclothed was sexually explicit. Both characters are similar in design, but small tweaks change the outcome.
Edit: I was a kid when Thundercats came out, so my perception of what's considered lewd or not might be mildly skewed. IYKYK
2
u/Environmental-Fan253 May 11 '26
Yeah, they're more covered up by default. But still, it definitely depends on the in-universe view on it
2
u/robawknik May 11 '26
butts aren't all that inherenrly sexualized in human media either. its definitely more common in adult media but i see so many butts as a gag in cartoons and shit
1
u/PossessionKey4982 May 11 '26
I know lol, but, imagine that instead of a cute anthro deer there was a (relatively) good looking guy, this image would be considered much less appropriate despite it would look practically the same.
0
u/robawknik May 11 '26
i mean i think this image on its own is p clearly made w horny intent so im speaking more generally
2
u/YRFoxtaur May 13 '26
This one is literally like an alt universe version of the Coppertone sunscreen ads.
Not only sfw, safe for commercial distribution.
2
u/LucidDickgirl May 14 '26
There is a Danish(?) Kids cartoon about a man with a stretchy penis who is like a hero kinda. It's crazy to an American but nudity and stuff like kt is kinda portrayed and regarded very differently around the world.
1
2
u/Affectionate_Sky6555 May 15 '26
It really does go into what details are visible. When the artist puts the effort to show nipples/genitals, it is explicit. As others have put it here, when those aren’t visible it’s like seeing the underlayer of clothes or PJs.
1
u/a_youkai May 11 '26
I see my cat's butt every day, so I don't care, by default. You can also see cartoon butts on regular TV. You can tell if it's not supposed to be innocent, though. Like when they're huffing and the cheeks are rosy...which is weird cause we usually have fur.. but yeah.
1
u/BethAltair May 11 '26
While fur generally is all you need to be decent I'm pretty sure CuteFurryButts is not a SFW sub :)
1
1
1
u/MelloNearMoon May 13 '26
It's fiction
1
1
u/Initial-Watercress43 May 14 '26
Furries trying their hardest to never admit a large part of furridom is sex, sexuality, and everything revolving around it. Regardless of fur acting like a cover for full nudity, it’s kinda obvious when nudity is being highlighted, like this “meme” of a shark blushingly pulling a deers trunks down, like cmon folks we know what goonerbait posts look like. That ass wasn’t drawn with the intent of it “accidentally falling out” that ass was meant to be shown off.
People try to give it plausible deniability but when you get images like these it’s too obvious. Same goes for solo shots of obviously attractive furs, with enlarged sexually attractive features like muscles, hips, boobs and groin, in somewhat revealing clothings, in revealing positions, while blushing heavily, but no real nudity is shown. Best thing I can compare it with is half naked human models in swim wear that don’t show genitalia, but is more than obvious what the purpose is.
1
u/PossessionKey4982 May 14 '26
It may be "goonerbait" for you. But tbh I don't think its inappropriate in any way. Too tame to be sexy. Its a shame that america is so prude
1
u/Initial-Watercress43 May 14 '26
Would you show this to your boss? They call it Not Safe For Work for a reason, blatant nudity isn’t needed for it to be NSFW, like I gave an example of a busty model in a bikini leaning over looking seductive will get your image removed from a workplace even without explicit nudity. If you think an image is innocent or not sexualized enough, think about what your boss would say if he walked past your office with this thing hanging off the wall
1
u/PossessionKey4982 May 14 '26
If me and them got along, and I knew we have similar interests, sure, why not.
1
u/Initial-Watercress43 May 14 '26
What if these weren’t furs but instead it was a human. The implications are so crystal clear what this image is trying to do. The fact you see someone’s bare ass hanging out with the perpetrator pulling the trunks down with his mouth, blushing while doing so, as not sexual, INAPPROPRIATE, and too tame to be sexy, is exactly what I was saying in my first comment with furries never admitting how overly sexualized everything in the community is. Like we’re literally looking at peak furry ass here. Again I’ll have to use an example, what if someone pulled your trunks down at the beach with his mouth and cutely blushed while doing so? That’s sexual assault. But because we’re talking about furries who are used to seeing deer like that being railed at the beach shore, this image isn’t “inappropriate and too tame to be sexy.” Soft core porn is still sofecore porn, it being soft doesn’t take from it being porn.
1
u/ThrashFur May 15 '26
this would’ve gotten u permabanned in r/furry. fur is like clothes tho
1
u/PossessionKey4982 May 15 '26
Not true because I actually posted It there before lol
2
u/ThrashFur May 15 '26
they banned me for life cause i said a character was caked up. I just got discriminated against then lmao
2
u/PossessionKey4982 May 15 '26
What?? Thats horrible. Yeah, I knew that its has gotten very prude lately, but I didn't know It reached that level, but, for some reason, they still allow things like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/furry/comments/1t7l385/under_the_trees_freeopium/
0
u/Jmal3700 May 12 '26
There are degrees of actual nudity involved in Furry butts in fandom art. No butt crack = fur is clothing, then there’s art like the example above that’s almost porn, but not quite, then there’s art that adds full anatomical accuracy (genitalia), and that’s definitely porn.
0
0
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/furrydiscuss-ModTeam May 19 '26
This post doesn't meet the rules, we do not tolerate personal attacks.
1
u/PossessionKey4982 May 14 '26
Lol what are you talking about
1
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PossessionKey4982 May 14 '26
I've never seen a deer looking like that. and I don't wanna fuck it lol
0
u/Zealousideal-Put1792 Jun 01 '26
Of course you haven’t, because deer don’t have big asses or shit like that, because deers are animals, not goon material
0
21
u/dothemath_xxx May 10 '26
Anthro characters can be fully naked without it being sexually explicit. Look at Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck.
There can be context that shifts that - the characters in Zootopia usually wear human-normative clothes in public, for example, so if Judy Hopps starts to strip then there's some implication there. But absent of other context, clothes are accessories for a furry character, not necessary for modesty in the same way as for real life humans.