Foals chemically treated to have their fluff removes (Artist: Carpdime) (fb id: 22757)


Concept from CaptainD

The foals are chemically treated to remove the fluff. As such the fluff never grows back. Great way to sell more fluffy clothing accessories.

Ah, I see you went through with my idea of bald foals. Thank you very much :slight_smile: They look like cute piglets. Owners who are allergic to fur will appreciate these.

  • CaptainD


I initially thought this was an abuse picture. This picture has often been posted on fluffy threads on 4chan’s /trash/, without context, as an example of Carpdime’s abuse. However, and judging from the statements made on the archived page, it is clear that this is actually a way to produce fluffies that can be owned by people that have fur allergies.

Of course, there is a sadbox-ish element to this. The foals do not understand better, and thus, will cry, and object to what they’re going through. But, it is clear that the image was not intended to be abuse or even sadbox, and it was not tagged as such on the booru. Hence, I have tagged it as neutralbox.

On a sidenote, this looks like a continuation from a previous theme here. However, they will be kept seperate as this seems to be drawn quite a while afetr the previous image, with this image explicitly stated to be based off a concept from CaptainD.


Oh,like hairless Sphinx cats. Clever.
A good way to give “bad color” foals a second chance.


Indeed, But I feel like that nuance would be lost on anyone who didn’t research this picture, especially if they post it without context as a means to “troll others” or for “shock value.”


I definitely wouldn’t have gotten it if you had not provided the context,I definitely would have thought it was abuse or perhaps foals pre-shaved for feeding to pet snakes and such.


Great way to sell more fluffy clothing accessories.

Hairless foals wearing tiny outfits. That’s just way too adorable.


I mean I’d say robbing a mass-produced intelligent animal of its comfort and dignity for commercial purposes on a massive scale is the DEFINITION of industrial abuse, but you can enjoy the context however you like


Well, there is a term called “industrial sadbox”. And yes, this pic “could” fit under the industrial sadbox umbrella. But again, there was no malicious intent in defluffing the fluffies, as they’re meant to be sold as unharmed pets. In my humble opinion, more bodily harm would be needed to classify it for industrial abuse. I’m talking something along the lines of amputation, sensory depriovation, and so on. Here, they’re just being deprived of fluff, but for the purpose of being prepared for pets.

It is why I am a bit adamant on the “neutralbox” term. Yes, its definitely sadbox-ish, but the intent wasn’t outright malicious. For me, this is one of those complex images that needs a better appreciation of the nuance. I’d compare it to the freeze-tattooing in Racing Fluffies.

1 Like

There’d definitely be people out there that’d enjoy hairless fluffies. Though them being cold because they’re shaved is pretty funny.

The goal is not abuse itself, as it were.

1 Like

I’m gonna have to respectfully disagree and say this is still technically abuse, you can absolutely abuse something without malicious intent or extreme maiming. By de-fluffing the fluffy’s you’re taking away a fundamental aspect of their being (it’s literally their name) and they know it even if it’s technically for their own good as it would net them a loving home. The de-fluffed fluffys are ALWAYS gonna know they aren’t full fluffys anymore and never will be. This is less like breeding Sphynx cats and more akin to tail docking or declawing or maybe the more unsavory food preparation aspects to create foods like veal and foie gras


I appreciate the disagreement. Again, this is why I specified this as “neutralbox”. I wouldn’t go so far as to compare it to something like veal and foie gras, as those do involve bodily harm. But I can see why might see tail docking and declawing as “harmful”. Again, and as Bonnacon pointed out, the goal is not “abuse” or a negative outcome, another reason why I compared it to the Waggytail example.

That said, and something I’ve said before - the ultimate judge is still the original artist, that being Carp. If he decides that the picture is abuse, then it will be treated as so. Going by what was clearly discussed on the original upload from the booru, the intent was not abuse. But Carpdime is the real decider.

neglect came knocking. He asked why you left him out.

This isn’t reddit where you can use only one flair. Things can be sadbox and abuse.


Indeed, which is why I did add sadbox-ish as well. But it was not tagged as abuse, and the artist (and requester) did not interpret or intend to be abuse. Unless the artist states otherwise, I want to be a bit firm on the classification - I think people are too quick to assume a fluffy work is abuse if the fluffy is in discomfort.

:thinking: I bet snakes and lizards would prefer them more as well, who likes hair on their food right?

1 Like

If they cost about the same as a rat ($2-6 depending on the size) I’d strongly consider using these as feeders.

1 Like