> To begin, as there always must be a beginning, there was a dog and a boar.
> This was not a metaphorical dog and a metaphorical boar, but an actual, literal dog and an actual, literal boar.
> This actual, literal dog was not an actual, literal dog-girl, coated in delightfully soft hair and a love to kiss and play, feeding on the fresh semen of the young boys they are raised with.
> This actual, literal boar was not an actual, literal boar-girl, coated in decidedly undelightful coarse brown/black hair and hosting a vestigial pair of tusks, feeding on the fresh semen of the young boys they find and forcefully ravish.
> This was a dog, as in dog, and boar, as in boar.
> It is not to say that there WEREN'T dog-girls, feeding on the fresh semen of young boys, and boar-girls, feeding of the fresh semen of young boys.
> But the dog and boar in question were not.

> Company to the dog was a boy, a small one. Had the dog been a dog-girl, she would eventually coerce him into awkward shota sex. Fortunately ( or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint regarding the sexual use of minors ) this was not a dog-girl.
> The dog, and the boy as well, meandered along as dogs and boys do. Two creatures so steeped in codependency that it would take a significant event to discourage their affection.
> For the dog, the boy was all warm hands and the scent of food, delightful glances and handouts from the table.
> For the boy, the dog was all regal might and sleek strength, a protecting figure in leiu of the father.
> Along the winding wood path, just out of the garden fence and passing sparingly through the tree line, the dog led the boy.
> The dog walked with the boy, and the boy followed the dog, each leading and urging the other onward by their compliance.
> Eying the dog and the boy was a boar, all short and wide and angry. Had the boar been a boar-girl, it would have had nonconsentual shota sex with the boy. Fortunately ( or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint regarding the sexual abuse of minors ) this was not a boar-girl.
> The boar was not angry because it was hurt, the boar was not angry because it was hungry.
> The boar was angry because it was a boar, and its natural state was to be pissed as all-get-out.
> The boar knew this and, like all boars, having a deep and profound respect for the beauty of nature, thought it only appropriate that it should be absolutely furious.
> The dog and the boy, not seeing the boar from the garden path and their sparse interludes behind the tree line, continued to meander, an aimless sort of walk that delighted more in the company of your companion then the trees and the beauty of nature so admired by boars.
> Had the boar been a boar-girl or even cognizant enough to understand speech, it might have demanded that they leave its territory and not return.
> Rather then that, the not-boar-girl chose to charge, as boars do, attacking with its non-vestigial tusks.
> As a result, the dog, in the typical manner of large dogs, chose to fight with the boar, only partly from its desire to protect the boy and partly from its intrinsic dislike of other animals.
> A dog and a boar, fighting, with the typical ending. The dog did not return to the house with the boy, who ran away.
> If this were a love story, the boar would feel sorrow, deep in its angry boar heart, and would utilize the nondescript power of manoa mana to become a rough-and-tumble strong girl who would promptly have nonconsentual and apologetic sex with the boy as an apology for murdering his very best friend.
> It's a pity, really, that this isn't a love story, or at least not the love story of the particular boar who killed the particular dog in from of the particular boy, all along the garden path by the tree line.