Breeding Unit 4 - 03 (by Booperino)

Fortune is a very good fluffy


Okay, who’s chopping onions online? Please stop it because it makes me tear up. :sweat_smile:


Can we not automatically pair up male and female characters just because they are male and female? There aren’t nearly enough depictions in fiction of platonic friendships between men and women (though it’s better than it was, thanks to, of all companies, Disney). But there is still this idea that platonic friendships are somehow inferior to romantic ones–in fact, you imply it in your post, by suggesting that the two having a romantic relationship would be an extra special ending.

I think this is a really poisonous attitude in our society. The whole absurd idea of the “friend zone”, that being friends is less valuable than being lovers, needs to go away. Before the Victorian period, society recognized that platonic friendships could be just as intense, just as meaningful and satisfying, as romantic ones, and going back to that view would be a big step in dealing with the misogyny and toxic masculinity of our society.

And yes, I’m taking fluffies seriously again, but I think that, like any science fiction, fluffies can serve as a reflection of our own society, allowing us to observe it from the outside.


Plus i don’t intend for Snake to have a romantic partner, i like to think he and fixer are asexual, one being too married to the job to seek relationships outside of platonic and familial ones and the other prefering to only being friends to other fluffys as to not cloud his judgement as a quasi-therapist (and maybe working with fixer and witnessing how gross anatomy can be turned him off from the idea of sexual relationships lol)


I like how you went from sketching to fill color at the end :slight_smile:


I had the feeling Fixer was ace. Thank you for confirming it. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:


I simply think that mantaining a full blown relationship, where two persons actually share everything in their life, is bound to be more challenging than mere friendship, no matter how strong the latter is.

But that is merely how I feel about it.

In regards to fluffies, it’s usually common hivecanon that they tend to seek for special friends to establish a relationship with and procreate quite often. That’s the case with many animals and to an extent, many humans.

However, it’s up to Boop if he ever wants them to find their other half, or if they’ll simply be married to their work.

1 Like

Fair enough, it was just an idea

Regardless, I think Fortune deserves to take care of babbehs, since that was something she wasnt able to do before


I do have plans regarding that yeah :slight_smile:

1 Like

“two person’s share everything in their life” “mere friendship”-- sigh. I suppose I should thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly. There is nothing “mere” about friendship, and two people can live together and have deep emotional bonds without having a romantic or sexual relationship. Hell, many a marriage has no romance or sexual relationship, am I right guys? (Ick.)

Romantic / sexual love is only one of many forms of love, and not necessarily the strongest or most important. In fact, our society is very unusual in emphasizing romantic love. “No greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”.

The idea that sexual relationships are the most significant, and that by implication anyone who isn’t in a sexual relationship is losing out, denies the vast, rich depths of human emotional ties.

Somehow, I’m not surprised that Fixer and Snake food are possibly Ace, that seems to fit their personalities. But it was utterly predictable that some people would want to see Snafu and Fortune fall in love and have babies, regardless of whether it makes sense for their characters, because sex is supreme. Even though it isn’t, really.

It’s true that Fortune misses being able to hug her babies, but that doesn’t mean she has to have more babies (which is good, because I doubt even Fixer could repair that part of things.). She could work in a nursery or fluffy daycare. She could help at a shelter. She might even ‘adopt’ or ‘foster’ some foals.

1 Like

Sheesh, a tad condescending, are we?

I honestly, off the top of my head cannot think of anyone I know that fits that bill. While that is far from being factual evidence, with me having no real research done on “platonic love couples” around my area, I sadly have to rely on it. If you do happen to know a majority of people who made that work, props to them for the achievement. It’s bound to be a harduous task, relationship or not.

As far as I’m aware, while I do have friends who date back to the kindergarden, meaning I’ve known and had plenty of experiences, both bad and good, for 20+ years, it’s just not the same as what I had with my ex. It’s two different things for me. Might not be for someone else, clearly, that was not the intention of my post to say that.

On this topic, of these I know a handful. None of them lasted long, with most of them always having a halo of “dissatisfaction” around them. While I personally think a relationship is more than just getting in bed with your SO, it does play a role in it. Again, no expert on love and couple science. Just saying my opinion on the matter. Feel free to disagree.

That probably is because the stereotypical “happy ending” involves a couple of lovebirds who have a family of their own with which to live happily ever after. It’s not required per se, of course. But to some people, this might actually be a life goal. I can’t lie, I’d personally like to see it, because I find it endearing. Two broken fluffies, fixed and brought together by fate and a man’s dream. At the same time, I am fine with them only being colleagues/friends/siblings, working to give other fluffies like them another chance.

A small consideration, you might get your message across better if you didn’t give off an aura of “holier-than-thou, platonic love is best love because I say so”. At least, to me it came off like that, no offense.


You do realize, of course, that you were the one who said the sexual love is the best and referred to “mere friendship”? I’m not personally asexual / aromatic, so I won’t presume to speak for them, but you might consider whether your inability to have deeply meaningful platonic relationships is a personal flaw on your part. After all, what does it say about you if you have to have sex with someone in order to have a deep personal connection with them?

Most human civilizations and major religions have placed platonic love in a much higher status than ours-- in fact, that’s what “platonic love” means, it is the pure Platonic ideal of love, given without expectation of any return, certainly without any expectation of fulfilment of sexual desire.

I pity anyone who has never had a true friend. Though actually, I pity their partners more, it must suck to be in a relationship with someone who expects sex as part of the relationship.

1 Like

Said civilizations often sported child-adult intercourse, but that’s fine I guess. As long as it’s platonic. Also which major religions sorry?


Throughout these eras, platonic love was slowly categorized into seven different classical definitions. These were:

Eros: sexual or passionate love, or a modern perspective of romantic love.

Philia: the love of friendship or goodwill, often met with mutual benefits that can also be formed by companionship, dependability, and trust.

Storge: the love found between parents and children, often a unilateral love.

Agape: the universal love, consisting of love for strangers, nature, or God.

Ludus: playful and uncommitted love, intended for fun with no resulting consequences.

Pragma: love founded on duty and reason, and one’s longer-term interests.

Philautia: self-love, both healthy or unhealthy; unhealthy if one places oneself above the gods (to the point of hubris), and healthy if it is used to build self-esteem and confidence.

Despite the variety and number of definitions, the different distinctions between types of love were not considered concrete and mutually exclusive, and were often considered to blend into one another at certain points.

While this was taken from wikipedia (though based upon “These Are the 7 Types of Love”, Psychology Today, May 3 2018) and as such is prone to misleading, I urge you to take a look at the various academical texts regarding all types of platonic love.

At this point I am unsure whether to pity those who have to face your condescending pep talks everytime they have to express an opinion you disagree with.

Besides, what if the partner also enjoys partaking in sexual intercourse?

I merely said that a relationship where two persons share everything, their bodies included, seems to me to be more deep than friendship. You may disagree and that is indeed fine. I am not here to say (unlike you) that CARNAL LOVE IS BEST LOVE PERIOD. I simply gave my personal take on the matter. You went all “Oh I am such a superior and deeper philosophical platonic lover, I pity you peasants”. At least, that’s how you sound to me.