SHE'S.
A .
CARTOON!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHES NOT REAL.
HER AGE IS LITERALLY JUST A CONCEPT SHE CAN BE 1600 YRS OLD BC AT THE END OF THE DAY SHE'S NOT REAL
He's trying to draw in an off beat "cutesy" artstyle. It's a big thing with the trans and furry lofi art communities on discord. Think of the kind of stuff adjacent to sewerslvt or the boykisser meme. It all rhythms with the archetype of low esteem men getting into anxious cylces who then end up surrounding themselves with other discord friends as a coping mechanism and outlet, but those same people who are highly receptive to their worries (and, woah, they are even flirting with pathetic guy like me!) trade their baggage in return. Then the guy starts getting more involved with their interests and what do you know they like quirky music, interesting art and are refreshingly open about porn. If that pathetic guy is an artist they will soon take inspiration while being egged on by their "alty" friends to do more and more. Then the cycle of egg cracking starts, because those exact same people who have become that guy's "friends" don't just like pornagraphy but also include it as part of their lifestyle which then gets pushed more and more on the guy. Overtime the he picks up the same habits and interests as these people and starts to see these groups as a big part of his identity, so he starts to conform with the desires and wishes of people who at their core are just as low in esteem as he is but make up for it with sexual gratification which he will fill. He will either crack or he will become a chaser for "cute" guys or "enbys" as he finally told about the pink or furry pill by his friends and takes it as a serious cool alternative for his life and not a confession of nerfarious intentions by people he knows online.
Shen is falling into that archetype and his art is an indicator of his gradual downward spiral.
Or maybe he just sucks, that could be true too

For starters, these behaviors are mostly isolated and no way representative of the species behavior at large. All it shows is that some individuals will engage in them. This does not describe the generality that each and every members of the species will engage into. So this is to be kept in mind.

Then I'd like to remind that as of now, intelligence isn't even properly defined, and that all systematic attempts at having it be described in a system that is capable to account for all its nuances following a scientific method have failed to be 100% so far. Animal intelligence and hence the intellectual superiority of some of them is also hard to define. For the sake of the argument I'm going to use Leary's interpretation of intelligence under the 8 circuit system. I feel this is relevant because it describes symbolic-tool-using intelligence not as the finality of intelligence, but as one of its component. A cherry on the cake that likes to imagine itself as the whole cake. Much the same way that being capable to articulate ideas under symbols, plan things on, make maps, languages and use them effectively is an intellectual feat that does not guarantee that an individual will shine in the other aspects of intelligence, such as emotional-territorial or moral intelligence. This way, while a person can be a genius of mathematics and referred to as 'superior', he might be a complete dumbass in other areas of life. I think in the case of these species, the same pattern can be relevant. Belonging to a species generally considered more intelligent does not guarantee that members of this species will not engage in destructive, deviant, or plain unintelligent behaviors. If anything it just highlights that these behaviors are to be dissociated from the development of intelligence overall, because these acts serve no intelligent purposes. Thanks for reading my fancy blog post I hope your mom dies in her sleep tonight.