Title says it all. I've noticed that most, if not all foxes with cookies are tagged as anatomically correct. However, foxes don't have cookies. Is it tagged this way because cookies look closer to animal genitalia than if it were anatomically correct? Is there not enough distinction between an anatomically correct fox and one with a human vagina to tell the difference? Does e621 just accept that cookies look more natural, so it is tagged as such? Sorry if this is a discussion that has already happened before, it just doesn't make sense to me.

tee hee

Uh, what are cookies? Cause I know you're not talking about the food lmao

do you mean spade? i've never heard them called cookies before.

This is a furry forum and nobody's heard "cookie" before??? It's furry slang for canine_pussy, since it resembles a fortune_cookie... Sorta. It's characterized by it's "Y"- or "spade"-like shape. I assume it's tagged on foxes because that's what everyone, including myself, assumed what fox pussies look like, but apparently the "cooki-ness" (so to speak) of actual fox vaginas is really toned down to the point of arguably not being "cookies" at all, or at least, they have really small cookies... Huh...

EDIT: ... I realize I'm playing with fire by merely responding to a thread like this, but now that I thought about it, it's worth noting that "anatomically correct" on this site doesn't need to mean 100% scientifically accurate. It's pretty reasonable to say post #3527253 is anatomically correct as far as this site goes. Though typically you see things like post #3622966, which is a bit more of a stretch, but since "anatomically correct" is a bit lenient on this site, perhaps it's fine.

crocogator said:
This is a furry forum and nobody's heard "cookie" before??? It's furry slang for canine_pussy, since it resembles a fortune_cookie... Sorta. It's characterized by it's "Y"- or "spade"-like shape. I assume it's tagged on foxes because that's what everyone, including myself, assumed what fox pussies look like, but apparently the "cooki-ness" (so to speak) of actual fox vaginas is really toned down to the point of arguably not being "cookies" at all, or at least, they have really small cookies... Huh...

Thanks for clarifying, I thought cookie was common knowledge around here too. Yeah, foxes don't really have any "cooki-ness" at all. It's actually closer in appearance to cats than to dogs. I assume it's just a common furry myth or preferred style.

Edit:

crocogator said:
... I realize I'm playing with fire by merely responding to a thread like this...

You know what... I just realized that too. I feel the need to clarify that the reason I’m asking about this is because of a comment created by the guy who made this guide: post #3183334

crocogator said:
This is a furry forum and nobody's heard "cookie" before??? It's furry slang for canine_pussy, since it resembles a fortune_cookie... Sorta.

Listen man, i don’t look at as much pussy as you think. I lean more gay okay. You can tell me dozens of dick slang and i’ll get it, but 1/3 of the time, i’m not gonna get pussy slang.

benjiboyo said:
Listen man, i don’t look at as much pussy as you think. I lean more gay okay. You can tell me dozens of dick slang and i’ll get it, but 1/3 of the time, i’m not gonna get pussy slang.

Fair enough, lol.