You are Doe. Ever since the day your mummah saved you and your baby from your monster daddy, you’ve finally known joy. Your mummah took you in, gave you a home and actual love. She let you keep the foal you protected, finally granting you the motherhood you’ve always wanted. She even bought you a special belt that lets you feed the foal with pretend milky places, since you can’t make your own.
Your mummah pats you and feeds you the tastiest kibble you’ve ever had. You no longer num poopies, You no longer get bad enfies, you no longer have to sacrifice your happiness for someone else’s.
Today, your foal – your mummah let you name him, and you decided on Freckle – opened his seeie-places for the first time and chirped at you. “Mummah?” he questions, and you find yourself crying. it’s the first time you’ve cried since you were rescued. But these weren’t sad tears or pained tears or heartbroken tears-- they were tears of joy. You love your baby, your new home and your new mummah.
I can’t help but wonder what an alternate ending would’ve been like for Doe if she had just cut her losses and begged to go back to the Fluffmart. Imagine being returned just for her to be ranting to the other Poopie Fluffies about what she had to go through probably would’ve made them think twice about being adopted out. Or even dumped at a shelter that did Euthanasia after a certain period. It would’ve sucked for her, but it’d be a really interesting twist for sure!
I was thinking that Andrew takes Rocket with him to Rebecca’s house after she runs out, and Andrew rapes and murders Rebecca at the same time Rocket rapes and murders Doe. And then they culminate the party by double teaming the new born foal, exploding it from both sides with fluffy and human jizz.
I want to say that’s vile and you’re out of line, but on one hand 1) people not taking rejection and/or break-ups very well and 2) I could totally see an abuser kill a hugboxer for something small.
I could totally see an abuser kill a hugboxer for something small.
An abuser who would kill a hugboxer over fluffy abuse is really just a murderer with a hair-trigger that’s just looking for any excuse.
While there have been stories on this site of this happening, (even one or two featuring serial killers who abuse fluffies to keep their urges in check), the vast majority have abusers who are unwilling to escalate, either because their urges are met by abusing fluffies or they’re too scared of the consequences of escalating.
Well, I mean, technically one could argue that killing fluffies IS murder. We suspend disbelief for abusebox but going out of your way to kill things you know are sapient for funsies would not go down well at all in real life.
Depends on the culture. Very few western cultures would eat dogs for example, but in Far Eastern cultures, dogs are typically viewed as a common foodstuff.
As for fluffies having sapience, many real world animals straddle the line (dolphins, chimpanzees, elephants, some species of parrots) and they don’t have the same level of legal protection as humans.
Playing devil’s advocate, there’s also the argument that fluffy sapience is in fact just a Chinese Room style input/output device and they don’t act beyond their programming.
You poke it with a stick, it goes “Nu huwties fwuffy! Fwuffy am fo’ huggies an’ wuw!”, just like the design team intended, to flag unintentional product damage to the owner and to reinforce the Fluffy sales tag line as further product advertising and recommended usage instructions.
You flay the thing alive and rub salt over its bare flesh, it’s going to go “WOWSTEST HUWTIES” then enter the “WAN DIE” loop as its programming is overwhelmed and to indicate to the owner that this product is now defective and a new one should be bought.
I remember reading a story that was focused on fluffies being nothing more than the sum of their programming, and part of it was that different fluffies’ crayon drawings were very similar due to the limits of building a suitable randomisation engine for artistry (aka creativity). Edit: Biotoys Last All Summer Long by Gardel.
I’m playing around with my own story based around a similar viewpoint, I just can’t get the story to go anywhere beyond a giant world building exposition dump.
I feel like that kind of defeats the purpose of almost all fluffy fiction. Abuse is only meaningful if the fluffies are genuinely suffering and hugbox is only meaningful if the fluffies are genuinely happy.
Great series. Wasnt expecting Doe to get a happy ending but thats poopie justice for ya. Cant wait to see what youve got in store for your next series if you plan to make more
I think it depends on how it’s done. The human could think so, but the fluffy, lacking the ability to exceed its programming, fully believes that it’s sapient and hence capable of genuine emotional responses.
I would agree that the difference is mostly academic or philosophical in nature though - if it looks, smells, feels (literally and emotionally) and screams like a real animal, for all practical intents and purposes, it’s a real animal.
True. I feel like, whether it’s technically sapient or not, the law IRL would not look well on people going out of their way to torture something which sounds and behaves like a human child. A lot of countries forbid lolicon and shotacon manga, after all, and the drawn kids in that definitely aren’t sapient.
In my personal opinion, fluffy abuse in fiction is not a warning sign, and honestly from what I hear from actual research lolisho usually isn’t either. (From what I hear, readers are more likely to project on the child than the adult, and many point out that the fictional ones neither look nor act very much like real children.) If fluffies were real, though… I would probably drop-kick a smarty, but anyone real who would nail a small animal to the wall for missing its litterbox once despite it shrieking for help in a human voice should at the very least not be allowed around actual children.
