ITT: Non-sexualized, generally thin and possibly scroungy cat folk

ITT: Non-sexualized, generally thin and possibly scroungy cat folk.

Bonus if without weapons and not within some super overhyped combat stance.

I'll dump what I have.

...

...

That's a weird fetish

...

Last one.

I need it for a campaign. My DM suffers zero muh fetishes. And I want to play.

does this count as "cat-folk"?

OP here.

Close enough imo. Thanks.

does this count as "sexualized"?

I would have a last one.

OP here.

Guess not. Too close to real animal perhaps?

I despise furries but I like antro-cats.
it's a small edge.

eh.
missed pic.

...

...

...

neither thin or scroungy but I like this one so fuck it

Do like a sphinx cat as a stand in for a goblin

...

...

...

...

...

MtG has some good Catfolk.

...

...

Pugmire has some nice catfolk art if you look OP

Khitten pretty.

>Non-sexualized
>cat folk.

Contradition in terms.

Reported for furshit.

Are you saying you find any of the above images to be sexualized?

why the fuck does the cat have boobs?

Why does it have opposable thumbs and human-like limbs? This likely is not a creature arising simply through natural selection. More likely created by a deity or the result of some magic hybrid-experiment, mixing the animal with the human.

AKA it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit.

I mean I'd masterbate to them

Hiding your furriness behind magic...

How would the magic hide furriness? It's a convenient handwave to explain why we have cat people (or snake people or whatever) that have boobs when such doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

felines tend to be mammal,
mammals tend to have boobs,
hominids tend to have two boobs,

well, would you rather your cat-folk have more or less boobs?

I feel like I might be your DM user. Does your name start with K?

...

...

...

...

...

>Non-sexualized

I'll do what I want, thank you.

>I despise furries but I like antro-cats.

That makes you one, retard.