Mr. Rochester by Coyoteskin

Mr. Rochester by

Date: 4/13/2012 Views: 21357 Favorites: 77 Comments: 27


Reverse TF~ Warning: Absolutely NO penis is visible.


To add a comment, please sign in or create an account.


I see the "nothing downstairs" comments as silly. The artist seems to wish to jog the imagination, not the appetite.


Wasn't Mr. Rochester the name of the cat in the girl to housecat picture?


I thought his odd left arm would be more of an issue lol

*shrugs* Tried to go for the vague, "not fully changed, still covered in fur"...but really I just didn't focus on 'the area'.

I mean...there were abs to draw soooo....


Selden: yes, same cat ^^


Hehe, talk about a role reversal.


It's pretty blatantly obvious, though, that there's nothing down there. Kind of reminds me of the movie "Dogma" and its angels.

Hiding nude anatomy you'd rather not draw is just one of those things you have to do creatively, or it looks weird.


See also "Godiva Hair"


There is more going on in this picture than not detailing a penis.

Do I need to defend this?


Does this image is directly with the See by relacinada,


Coyoteskin, this is an otherwise excellent picture, but last time I checked cats had genitals. If you're drawing a realistic portrayal of a transformation, as you are here, completely leaving out an area calls attention to that, far more than, say, a discrete drawing of a sheath.


I see a lot of careful detail in the ears, face, hands, and eyes that is being totally overlooked because of the penis issue.

While I don't believe that every picture here needs nudity (quite the opposite), I do have to say that there's a difference between an error that we can overlook and something that is downright distracting. I say this as someone who who would prefer something PG-13 rated as a break from the nude and fetish pics on this site. I think that all of the complaints you've heard about this pic would go away if you could creatively give this guy his modesty.


I did not want to compromise the pose, and I did not want to draw genitalia.... I feel uncomfortable having to explain myself. There is fur there, with some shading, but given the low contrast of the colours, perhaps that is not enough?

I am surprised about comments continuing to reiterate the "problem" when it has been addressed already and I have given my explanation.

A choice to blandly avoid drawing a penis seems like a minor talking point, and I am not excited about having to be defensive about my decision.


Hi there! Long-time lurker (Gosh that sounds creepy.), first-time poster. Time to butt in. I am half-tempted to look up images of cat genitalia, but my internet history is weird enough as it is. Especially on a university network. That said, can't the point of contention be interpreted as an element of the transformation, the genitalia being somewhat hidden in a sealed sheath as it, um, shifts? This is an excellent image, and I especially love how the legs are changing. And the subtlety in nose and mouth area. There's so much detail here, and what isn't detailed can be filled in with one's imagination!

(Adding to favorites...)


I think Coyote, that you have a good start on the contrast of colors. And maybe of the fur texture... he seemed a lot 'bushier' pre-transformation. Maybe it's just how smooth the texture is, that stands out as an oddity.

Not attacking you here. At least, I'm not. I thought the last pic was amazing. Keep it up.


Personally, I think it looks perfectly fine as it is. I think you've done an exceptional job, Coyoteskin.


The presence of a subject's genitals in any incarnation (or lack there of, apparently) can all too often overpower all other aspects of a picture, dominating any other intended meaning or impact the artist may have had in mind.

From that stand point, I'm honestly fine with this picture as it is - the choice removes any sexual connotation from the picture and forces it to focus on the aspect of transformation. In the end, that's the entire point of this website, so it's a choice I have to support.


No one was asking to see a raging hard-on--it's just bizarre to see a head-on picture of a naked person who has the groin of a Ken Doll. I appreciate the excellence of this picture and think it is otherwise outstanding, but why not simply put the character in shorts?


Cats wear shorts?

But really, this has carried on long enough. We're beating a dead horse--er, ex-cat. Thank you for the submission, Coyoteskin--we hope you take the number of remarks about this standing out to heart, at least.


I honestly can not believe a cockfight broke out in the comments. I like the picture.


I commend you. Its takes guts to keep your work tethered to a moral standard, and you shouldn't have to justify your creative decisions.

Penis or no, This is still a very well executed picture and Thank you for uploading it. :3

(You know, a lot of you, oh divine peanut gallery, don't even do art... just sayin'.)


Great design, I like it a lot. (And I have no issues with the lack of... parts, this is your drawing, you do it how you want.) Very nicely done.


I don't do art. I also like Coyoteskin's work.

There is a saying--'where there's smoke, there's fire'. I think it applies to all the criticism here, moral standard or no.


I'm very much on the side of appreciating this more because of your decision. I remember a time when 90% of the art submitted here didn't feature massive ragers or dripping bodily fluids but sadly it's been a while since those days. I find 99% of graphic nudity completely ruins my enjoyment or appreciating of a piece of art and relegates that artist to 'one of them' status.

I don't have a problem with other liking that but to me there is a massive and very clear line between transformation fetish and beastiality. Once a pic becomes about the depiction of the male member in a state of arousal or female juices flowing, while the subject has obvious and extensive animal parts then it's crossed the line.

Just my two pennies :P


Just give it a break not everything has to be rated r on this site


If you people want penis, then look up 90% (exaggeration but still) of the other art on this site. Like Flerg said, not everything has to be R on this site.

As for the pic.. I love it. The detail is really nice and it's nice to see a good cat TF here.


I agree with the artist, and I think it's a nice picture. I, for one, am delighted to see something without raging genitalia on this website.

My only crit is that you could have just made that area fluffier instead of a lump, but honestly I couldn't care less because I love the other 99% of the image. The facial anatomy and expression is REALLY GOOD. You look like someone who has had some experience with actually drawing art, which is a huge breather. I love the coloring and all the little details.

Thank you so much for sharing with us. <3


Oh, this picture. So many people struggle with penile object permanence, I guess.

Interestingly, I never see comments criticizing women or female characters with breasts the size of houses, or breasts that defy gravity, or women being slut shamed rampantly in the tf community. Which, for all but the last point, is understandable given this site's fantastic quality.

But - not drawing a penis /properly according to arbitrary standards/? Commence the self-righteous, condescending, entitled outrage.

And it has nothing to do with moral standards actually. I don't ask for censorship of sex and sexuality and all of those related things. I JUST personally, honestly don't like drawing penises if I don't have to (in other words, I drew this piece for myself and then shared it). Unbelievable, I know, being lazy AND not wanting to draw thumbs in turtlenecks. Still not sorry.

Jeller: Thank you. I think this is a nice picture, too, and I like having it in my gallery ;)