Did Jagwar's mom have sex with a jaguar? (Archie)

[Coola Yagami]

Honestly.... yeah.... I guess Alopex should have 6-8 teats... I mean, she would have them before mutation, why would they suddenly disappear afterwards?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Honestly.... yeah.... I guess Alopex should have 6-8 teats... I mean, she would have them before mutation, why would they suddenly disappear afterwards?

Correct. Her not having 6-8 teats is as equally nonsense as, say, Venus having shell boobs.

[DarkFell]

I'll just throw in this option since it seems to be nowhere on this thread.

Perhaps The Jaguar God took the form of a human male and got it on with Juntarra. Instant next day anthro-baby because ..power of the God(s).

This topic wasn't meant to be taken serious anyway since Archie TMNT was weird & wacky throughout its many issues.

[Mutant Ninja Anole]

At the risk of taking this crazy discussion seriously...

Fun fact: Turtles lack vocal cords. And teeth. And a dozen other human features no one questions. Why get hung up on this?

Further more, there are actual good reasons why bipedal, intelligent creatures have only two teats, only give birth to one or two kids at a time, etc. Fewer kids actually means the mother survives more often and encourages those they do have to be cared for, which plays into the growth of society and nurturing. Physically having multiple breasts would actually be really taxing on the back, etc.

This video, focusing on the Khajiit of the Elder Scrolls video games, goes into the benefits of how we are built in pretty good detail:



(The irony being that in the Elder Scrolls universe science barely applies sometimes, especially in regards to Khajiit biology, but oh well)

With regards to the first post:

Read up on some Greek mythology man, if you think that is odd, you ain't seen nothing.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by DarkFell

Perhaps The Jaguar God took the form of a human male and got it on with Juntarra.

We've never seen him do that. We don't even know if he can do that. What we do know is that he can assume the physical form of a non-anthropomorphic jaguar.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Mutant Ninja Anole

At the risk of taking this crazy discussion seriously...

Fun fact: Turtles lack vocal cords. And teeth. And a dozen other human features no one questions. Why get hung up on this?

They are humanoid bipedal mutants, and some humanoid features makes more sense then others. For example, the Turtles lacks proper beaks, so teeth, pseudo-lips and a free moving tongue makes sense, they still have a shell so turtle boobs makes less sense as the shell on turtles are their ribcage fused with bone plates and scutes on top, i.e. there's no room for breast tissue to form on the humanoid mutant, plus turtles are reptiles no so breasts to begin with or any need of then as they don't care for their young.

Originally Posted by Mutant Ninja Anole

Further more, there are actual good reasons why bipedal, intelligent creatures have only two teats, only give birth to one or two kids at a time, etc. Fewer kids actually means the mother survives more often and encourages those they do have to be cared for, which plays into the growth of society and nurturing. Physically having multiple breasts would actually be really taxing on the back, etc.

This video, focusing on the Khajiit of the Elder Scrolls video games, goes into the benefits of how we are built in pretty good detail:

-Sz4JoLFhA4

(The irony being that in the Elder Scrolls universe science barely applies sometimes, especially in regards to Khajiit biology, but oh well)

With regards to the first post:

Read up on some Greek mythology man, if you think that is odd, you ain't seen nothing.

Kajiit's are a High-Fantasy race though, not animals that gets splashed with sci-fi mutagenic ooze, so they are basically cat humans, while Alopex is a humanoid fox. There's no sociality reason for Alopex's functionality, she's a anomaly while Kajiits evolved that way (or shaped by gods, but it's basically the same).

Same reason why Dragonborns in Dungeons & Dragons have boobs despite being reptilian in looks: Dragons are not reptiles and some sourcebooks state they nurse their young, and Dragonborns comes from a line of humans who made pacts with dragons to gain powers

That said, anything can happen with the mutagen/ooze of any of the TMNT incarnations, as they do remove things as well as giving mutants new features. The Turtles are missing 2 digits on each hand and depending on iteration 3 or 2 digits on their feet, and some versions don't have tails. So Alopex's number of teats could be 8 or 2 or even no teats at all.

Personally I'm really glad they ditched the apparent human boobs she seemed to be sporting in the Raphael Micro #1 and went with a more androgynous look.

[***First of Two Latin Kings***]

Everyone who makes this argument forgets to take into consideration that breasts also serve the evolutionary purpose of attracting a mate in humans. Turtles have been know to mate with turtles that were too far apart on the evolutionary tree from them for there to be conception, so if humanoid turtles did exist, they would be close enough anatomical ally to humans to see them as potential mates. A female mutant turtle would need breasts in order to compete with them.

Males of most species of animals are brightly colored/flashy, but this would be played down in a humanoid male turtle. Venus would care much more for Leonardo's stock portfolio.

[Candy Kappa]

The shell of a Chelonian isn't very compatible with human-like mammaries since their chest is covered with bones. And growing boobs out of your skeletal construction to attract a different species makes no sense even in the realm of Testudines Shinobi with a taste for a food that they can't digest.



By all means, a turtle with less plastron might have space for human boobs for those who desperately needs spank material on their hypothetical bipedal Turtle and have a obvious girl-coding to tell them apart easily.

A Snapper have a smaller plastron, so I guess a human boob can hang on each side of the shell



A humanoid turtle with boob shaped pectoral or humeral scutes should probably haver that checked out, could be Pyramiding and that can be life-threatening, but I guess beauty hurts/kills


As the old saying goes "Useless as tits on a turtle".

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ***First of Two Latin Kings***

Everyone who makes this argument forgets to take into consideration that breasts also serve the evolutionary purpose of attracting a mate in humans.

I'm pretty sure there's no studies to back this up. Boobs as an attractant is a cultural thing (kind of like, "I really want to put on a dress and makeup and perfume" has nothing to do with being female, biologically or otherwise... that's a construct of society). And I'm pretty sure ladies who are flat-chested aren't evolutionarily challenged.

[Utrommaniac]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

The shell of a Chelonian isn't very compatible with human-like mammaries since their chest is covered with bones. And growing boobs out of your skeletal construction to attract a different species makes no sense even in the realm of Testudines Shinobi with a taste for a food that they can't digest.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9e7GhYtvG_U/hqdefault.jpg

By all means, a turtle with less plastron might have space for human boobs for those who desperately needs spank material on their hypothetical bipedal Turtle and have a obvious girl-coding to tell them apart easily.

A Snapper have a smaller plastron, so I guess a human boob can hang on each side of the shell

http://www.naturenorth.com/Herps/images/Snapper_02.jpg

A humanoid turtle with boob shaped pectoral or humeral scutes should probably haver that checked out, could be Pyramiding and that can be life-threatening, but I guess beauty hurts/kills


As the old saying goes "Useless as tits on a turtle".

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I'm pretty sure there's no studies to back this up. Boobs as an attractant is a cultural thing (kind of like, "I really want to put on a dress and makeup and perfume" has nothing to do with being female, biologically or otherwise... that's a construct of society). And I'm pretty sure ladies who are flat-chested aren't evolutionarily challenged.

Exactly, on both of these points. A turtle's plastron is basically like bone, so "boobs" on a turtle wouldn't be very logical - or safe, again. It would have the same result as Boob Armor. It's not going to replace squishy fatty gland sacks. It'll just be hollow lumps that would probably mean a lot of danger.

They might be humaniod turtles, but they're turtles first. The only things they seem to have gained from humans is their bibedalism, some facial structures, vocal chords, and mental power. And some warm bloodedness, but probably more similar to birds than humans.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ***First of Two Latin Kings***

Everyone who makes this argument forgets to take into consideration that breasts also serve the evolutionary purpose of attracting a mate in humans.

Are we sure about this? Genetically?

[Leo656]

I mean, I've definitely read that, but I'm no scientist. I can buy it.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean, I've definitely read that, but I'm no scientist. I can buy it.

If we can find a woman's eyes and smile attractive, I don't see why it would be strange for breasts to also have sexual attraction purposes. There's a reason why men and women have different bodies...

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Honestly.... yeah.... I guess Alopex should have 6-8 teats... I mean, she would have them before mutation, why would they suddenly disappear afterwards?

I kinda thought those bandages on her mid section might be covering those…

[Cowabung-Gal]

Maybe the spirit took on the form of a man when they…well, did it. Like how in the sci-fi miniseries “Taken” by Spielberg, the aliens put on human disguises, or more accurately, illusions, when they seduced and knocked up a couple of women. One set of twins was born as freakish alien-human hybrids and had inherited their father’s powers.

Doesn’t change the fact that she did it with an animal, though. Yuck.

[Leo656]

I forget, but didn't that story take place in South America, somewhere near Brazil? Or am I misremembering?

Reason I ask is, once upon a time I read that bestiality is actually not uncommon down there, predominantly among women.

Perhaps the writer was trying to just be "authentic to the local culture"?

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I forget, but didn't that story take place in South America, somewhere near Brazil? Or am I misremembering?

Reason I ask is, once upon a time I read that bestiality is actually not uncommon down there, predominantly among women.

Perhaps the writer was trying to just be "authentic to the local culture"?

Thanks for reminding me again of that early scene in The 40 Year Old Virgin where Seth Rogen tells Steve Carell about going to Mexico and seeing a woman ****ing a horse. Whenever someone mentions furries or something like that I always think of that scene.

[Leo656]

I thought in Mexico it was generally donkeys, not horses? I've heard of a "donkey show" but never a "horse show" or "pony show". Well, I mean, not in THAT context, anyway.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I thought in Mexico it was generally donkeys, not horses? I've heard of a "donkey show" but never a "horse show" or "pony show". Well, I mean, not in THAT context, anyway.

No idea. Gotta ask that to the script writers of the movie.

But I can absolutely imagine Seth Rogen himself going to see something like that, dunno why.

[Cowabung-Gal]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I thought in Mexico it was generally donkeys, not horses? I've heard of a "donkey show" but never a "horse show" or "pony show". Well, I mean, not in THAT context, anyway.

“Donkey”, “Horse”. What difference does it make? A bunch of freaks are getting hard at the sight of a woman doing it with an animal. Am I the only one who thinks that the ship Belle X Beast is weird and even wrong?