Question to those that are better at me in anatomy. Atl when it comes to this kind of stuff, but isn't the tail a tad high up? I would have thought, evolutionary wise that the tail would be at the end of the spinal area rather than this high up?

The tail is an extension of the spine, so if tailed humans confirmed to normal mammalian anatomy, then it would emerge somewhere around the top of the butt crack. Compare with the position of the human coccyx, which is the vestigial remnant of a tail.

But such a low tail would make it very inconvenient to wear pants, so artists tend to place it up above the waistband. Yes, it's unrealistic, but when you start drawing humans with furry tails and ears on top of their heads, you've already chosen to abandon any pretense of realism.

iridescent_slime said:

The tail is an extension of the spine, so if tailed humans confirmed to normal mammalian anatomy, then it would emerge somewhere around the top of the butt crack. Compare with the position of the human coccyx, which is the vestigial remnant of a tail.

But such a low tail would make it very inconvenient to wear pants, so artists tend to place it up above the waistband. Yes, it's unrealistic, but when you start drawing humans with furry tails and ears on top of their heads, you've already chosen to abandon any pretense of realism.

I mean, we still have the residual genes for tails. Hell, there are people that get born with residual tail (just a flip, but still). So give it a century and we might have the option of regaining our gripping tails.