Posted on 2014-02-23 08:03:43
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Absolutely wonderful work! Very sexy!

Posted on 2014-02-23 08:32:12
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Hell yeah

Posted on 2014-02-23 09:42:12
Score: 0 (vote Up)

I don't see how the furry tag applies here. She is a catgirl and is darkskined - there is no fur on her.

As far as the text goes - it is too much. Walls of text will shy away most ppl, but I give you credit for making it at least readable fontwise. With that much text it looks more like a light novel with an added picture, instead of a picture with an added story. If you go for that, the picture would need to be on the left side though.

I'd shorten the story and enlarge the font - maybe make a 2 picture manip out of it. Reading the text I think she should probably also be heavily blushing, maybe also drooling - but her mouth would definetly be open at the end of the manip with her tongue visually showing. Additionally, she'd be sweating - at least a little bit.

Also, why is "Always wet" such a prominent phrase when she is clearly dry?

This may seem harsh, but for a picture and story to work together, they'd have to match at least somewhat. There are some inconsistencies here, that could be worked on.

Posted on 2014-02-23 10:08:08
Score: 0 (vote Up)

I'm not sure how you're missing it. It's clearly visible on her cheek and just above her thong. Not to mention her cat nose and the fact that her feet have pads and claws

Posted on 2014-02-23 10:32:45
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Okay I see it now. It's kind of subtle in this picture. I have furry on my blacklist, but this image is okay for me because it's barely recognizable as furry.

Posted on 2014-02-26 07:52:05
Score: 0 (vote Up)

It's furry
- primarily because the tag definition (click the ? next to it) implies that it's using the internet-colloquial use of furry, meaning that people (especially the furry community) agree that it is "furry"
- secondarily because the intent is so easy to read as being beyond the typical kemonomimi (cat ears and tail, fine, but what about: cat nose the same flesh color as the inside of the ears, bulging lower face implying a muzzle, pads on the soles of the foot, tiny sharp toenail-claws, full-body color more appropriate as a cat fur color than a skin tone). Such traits are almost exclusively on characters that are covered in fur, often not just by assumption but by official acknowledgement or in cherry-picked images (especially close-ups).

This is not even bringing up meta-knowledge like the fact that the character's universe is all-furry-no-kemonomimi-or-human (The Coldthorn Corporation mentioned in the text is run by a cow-woman) or the fact that the artist <<e621.net/post/index?tags=chalosan|only draws furry stuff>>

Bonus justifications:
<<spinoff.comicbookresource...ros-for-space-jam-sequel/|Lola Bunny's official artwork>> has the same level of fur as the above image
<<2.bp.blogspot.com/_QeX1Gs..._Pbw/s320/neanderthal.jpg|How hairy and apelike can a human be before they cross into furry?>> Subjective answers don't count because that's no better than "because the internet agreed on it".
<<e621.net/post/show/437014...bikini_top-blue_eyes-brid|What do you think of sharks?>> They have less fur than an actual human, so is sandpapery shark skin OK? Even with the big muzzles of triangle-teeth? Feathers are not generally considered fur, so <<e621.net/post/show/445223/|are ducks OK?>>

Sometimes a pic is fine when usually you would want nothing to do with it just based on the tags. This problem cannot be eliminated even hypothetically.

Posted on 2014-02-26 12:07:30
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Thanks for the ... elaborate explanation. It's just that the fur part is very subtle, that's all. You could say it's the artists style or you could say he was just plain lazy. Nevertheless a nice picture.

Posted on 2014-02-26 12:20:37
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Discrimination! Fursecution! (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Posted on 2014-02-26 17:39:23
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Anthromorphed animals are considered "furries", no matter if they have actual fur or not. That's to differentiate them from humans with certain animal elements (cat/animal ears, animal tail, cat nose, as long as you can otherwise still identify them as a modified homo sapiens).The character in the posted image for example has paws and claws, which makes it a furry character.

Posted on 2014-02-26 22:56:00
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Actually while I was joking above and don't really give a shit the generally accepted definition of "furry" is when the skull structure is changed significantly (or the face is covered in fur.) What you described is a monstergirl. For example e621.net/post/show/98829/...ack_hair-breasts-caucasia is not furry (despite being on e621) and it has those qualities. Usually not worth tagging furry unless the face gets fucked up like it is in this one. Furry vs. xeno, /d/ will argue that one with you but it hasn't really been relevant here (yet.)

Edit: Not relevant but just checked the tagdef here and I'm not really sure why it applies to animal-sub pictures. I mean that's come up, like, once I guess, but it was on something I uploaded so I'm obviously EXTREMELY UPSET about it. It's be a tiny-ass pool but it'd probably be better to tag it with beastsub or animalsub or something since they're fairly different things.