I need to ask the community if there has been any discussion on the possibility of fluffies gaining animal rights? Or at least, being sapient enough that they are given their rights as living beings?
6 Likes
It depends on your headcanon to be fair.
If your stories take place in a mirror world that has the same scientific conventions as our real one, then youâll likely ditch the biotoy trope as a whole, because it makes no sense.
That being said, it does present some unique writing challenges to do so.
Mainly, no abuse in plain sight, unless you want your abuser character to be locked up immediately or be accused of having god levels of plot armor. Also a more strict take on shelters/mills and foal-in-a-can machines, as youâd be hard pressed to have those in a regulated, modern setting.
Unless you go with the chinese stereotype of eating domestic pets like dogs or cats, then you can have people eating fluffies.
In short, the biotoy thing frees the author from having to think about third parties and their reactions, as âhigh pitched voices screaming bloody murder from an alleywayâ is normal and nobody cares.
If you meant âbanning the biotoy trope community-wideâ, I doubt it will happen.
If you envision a world where Fluffies are considered animals, this primarily affects abuse-focused stories. Neutral, Hug and Sadbox would be largely unchanged, Fluffies would still far and wide be considered a pest, look no further than rats as comparison.
That being said, I do remember reading a story or two that used similar writing methods, instead of saying âFluffies are animalsâ, they at least made it illegal to torture them. Likewise Iâve seen the exact opposite, where being kind to Fluffies was illegal because they caused so many problems as a pest. You can honestly go wherever you like with your headcanon as long as you write it properly.
2 Likes
That is so entrenched with fluffy consciousness, that itâs almost impossible to consider.
Itâs like batman and depressing childhood trauma.
2 Likes
The stories, can you gimme a link to them?
I know itâs kind of shameless to say this, but fluffies in my stories have animal rights.
there is always discussion of fluffies having rights , all that really changes is fluffies go from being a commodity to a willing slave or you start changing other characteristic till anything unique about fluffies is lost and you might as well just be writing about talking dogs
4 Likes
I know it happened in the Boopverse.
1 Like
Thatâs a rather fatalistic point of view.
The concept of animal rights does not change much for most stories: it only makes things a bit harder for the writer.
You canât have abusers just paint an alleyway red in broad daylight and abusers that do get caught in the act face anything from a fine to a few years in prison, just like real life, but beyond that, itâs really not a big deal.
For example (Shamelessness ahead):
From my first story
Now replace it with: The next morning, he had shown up, a metal baseball bat in his hands: a tool used by many people to deal with the filthy biotoys whenever they invaded their property.
See how little that changed?
The result is the same, I only had to take a few steps to make the human go Rambo when nobody was around to avoid legal and moral repercussions, as opposed to have most humans look like bloodthirsty maniacs who openly butcher herds in public.
1 Like
no a lot had to change from going from a society that looks as fluffies as nothing to having them have value, but as you say whatâs the point of giving them rights if it is just lip service and changes nothing in the story you could have said they have magical powers but if it is not used as a plot point why bother
2 Likes
Ok, but the whole âfluffies have no valueâ is best portrayed with bleakbox, where fluffy lives have no meaning and matter so little to every human that they might aswell not exist. In that case, since the point of the story is to be willingly dystopian, the biotoy trope has actual literary value.
Which is not what the story in question was about. It followed the misadventures of a foal and his family in a more realistic (hence the lack of dystopian elements) setting.
You still have the fluffy violence, but the human society isnât depicted as a bunch of screaming lunatics who collectively draw pleasure from painting the town red.
You still have (like real life!) people who do, but have to do so quietly, far from prying eyes.
You donât have (like real life, I guess) magic animals floating around.
Tl;dr realistic setting instead of dystopian one.
I simply like it more.
If you do prefer the âworthlessness of fluffies as a speciesâ theme, itâs really just peachy!
1 Like
like i said earlier you eventuly start striping away what makes fluffies uniqe to justify your inconsequential plot point , the fluffy is sill killed but it is more discreet what really changed for the fluffy
2 Likes
Basically the same as what everyone else is saying, it just muddies abuse stories and makes the setting too realistic for some people. The idea of fluffies being considered biotoys isnât nearly as unbelievable as the idea of fluffies actually existing in the first place. I think of it as similar to slavery in ancient societies. Slaves arenât considered people in these environments and in theory you could do whatever you wanted to them without any legal repercussions, but if pentius flavius gets a reputation for setting his slaves on fire, people are probably going to get a little wary of him. Likewise going into some alley where discarded slaves are hiding out and just going crazy with the gladius would be seen as similarly distasteful, even if it isnât technically illegal. Though of course, slaves werenât considered invasive vermin in roman societiesâŚ
You can do what you want with your stories at the end of the day, but the biotoy angle is popular for a reason, and itâs probably not going away any time soon.
2 Likes
For the fluffy nothing, for my suspension of disbelief a lot.
Also, itâs highly debatable that what makes fluffies unique is (only) how little they matter to humans.
Many great stories out here wouldnât exist if the fluffies in them didnât matter to some humans.
1 Like
talking genetic abomination a ok talking genetic abomination that is a commodity what that is not realistic at all, and did the fluffies need to have rights for them to matter to their owners no so what does giving them rights change .
the plot point of fluffies having right can be interesting but no one is really going to explore it in depth that would make it a worth will point, itâs just a point less check mark on your donut steel head cannon
3 Likes
My good fellow, we just like different things!
You like your fluffies for the nihilistic message of âlife is meaningless and the people on top donât care about youâ and I like a more ârealisticâ (not real, mind you. Fluffies donât exist, I am well aware, but I still want the universe my stories are set in to mostly adhere to real world laws and science mumbo jumbo, such as the correct definition of âanimalâ) approach.
I like Star Wars even if thereâs no space wizards and laser guns IRL. Or The Elder Scrolls/The Lord of The Rings even if elves and magic arenât a thing in reality!
We donât have to agree on every little detail, as long as we respect each otherâs opinion!
2 Likes
why would i respect you striping out one of the core themes of fluffies to replace it with a boring meaningless realistic platitude that fluffies have rights but nothing changes thematically in the fluffy stories . it is just some weird derangement that makes you feel superior by saying my interpretation is more realistic , your every post just confirms what i said in the begin fluffies having rights adds noting because if fluffies are treated like animals the size to be fluffies
1 Like
The biotoy thing is a bit weird, because wasnât it originally a way to avoid license fees or something? It was just a big corporation being like âno no we donât need breeding papers or anything, these are uh ⌠action figuresâ.
I guess the headcanon difference is whether people believed them or not. Some places being like âyeah those are toys sure, whatever lets me kill them without repercussionâ, while other ones are more âyeah no these are clearly animals, weâre gonna treat them like itâ.
Personally, I feel like it makes sense for their status to vary by area. Some cities or countries have gone all-in on the biotoy angle, others have completely seen through it and reclassified fluffies as animals, and some are on the fence about it. This means no stories are designated to ânot canonâ, and thereâs fun to be had from someone moving from one type of city to another.
2 Likes
The âIs a fluffy an animalâ debate gets political in my headcanon. When it comes to legislation, the Dems are in favor of recognizing fluffies as animals while the Repubs are the ones against it. The debate about fluffies and their rights have led to political extremists going against each other and taking the abuse vs. hugbox angle to a whole new level. One example is that thereâs an Anti Abuse Action group similar to Antifa.
1 Like
Well, because itâs a core theme only if you base your story on it.
And thereâs bleakbox for that whole theme, for authors to go nuts on the whole âmeaninglessness of fluffy livesâ thing.
As for why I do it, I told you already. I. Donât. Like. It. Simple as that. I am no fan of bleakbox, if I want to depresso espresso myself with nihilism on purpose, I can just go look up the death toll for some war and ponder on the fragility of life itself.
Beyond that, the biotoy trope simply ticks my suspension of disbelief, because itâs a random dystopian element that is, quite simply, unnecessary. âBut why are you ok with talking rat-pig-horses and not with that small detail?â you might ask. The answer is⌠I donât know. I simply dislike when, in any kind of fiction, the in-universe laws do not apply to something because itâs convenient to the plot or to the writers themselves. It simply happens, I canât turn it off, sorry.
About the superiority stuff?
Nnnyes? Yyyno?
I mean, if you take two different authorsâ works, both of which are set in a world just like ours, with the same laws of physics, mostly similar/same countries and legislations, wellâŚ
The one where fluffies are correctly labeled as âanimalsâ is automatically more realistic than the other where these flesh and blood, talking creatures can be jammed on a cactus and left to bleed to death in your backyard while your neighbours share a beer with you while admiring your handiwork.
But âmore realisticâ doesnât mean that the story is better.
Do not mistake a simple preference for arrogance.
2 Likes