>>3277
The rest of the Methods I see is with /hmofa/:
1) Animals act modern day western humans (dating, hook-up culture, etc.) to varying degrees of sexual morality
2) Animals have a higher sexual morality than humans
3) Animals directly borrow quirks from their feral counter parts
The third one is what has been bothering me. But it seems...narrowing. Like
wolves: (mate for life, monogamous, family oriented).
Lions: (polygamy, males fight for females or share females)
Chimps: (High Promiscuity, Not father figures, everybody takes care of kids and everybody fucks the mother)
What I see alot of the times is that the more Promiscuous an animal is known to be, the more freedom a writer seems to have to write about it, for most writers don't to write the 'Furry' version of the anthros and want to 'humanize' them. Thus concerning wolves and lions this is what I see.
wolves (family oriented, monogamous, my lover/mate, loyal)
lions (polygamous/monogamous, my mate/male, Dom, possessive)
Although wolves have been much more diversely writen than lions, due to the amount of stories on them.
Like are we stuck with this or can we mix it up outside the influence of their feral counter parts?