Why Is It Anthropomorphic Animals In Cartoons Don't Wear Clothes?

[Seil]

I was looking through the old Rabbit's A Grouch (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?p=845142) thread, and I noticed that this question popped up a bunch:

What is it with cartoons not wearing clothes anyway? Theres Yogi, Chip and Dale, Pokemon, Dragonball, and like a billion other shows. They should put on pants.
I like how Rabbit puts on more clothing to sleep than when he's awake.

Like, alright, time to go to sleep, I'm going to get into a shirt and cap despite that I do everything else in my daily routine buttass naked.

So yeah - I kinda get the idea that "Hey, they're animals - they don't need clothes." But then why put the clothes on in the first place? I mean, geez - Pooh has a shirt, Yogi has a hat and a tie... um... Chip and Dale had shirts... Whatever happened to pants? I feel that cartoons scarred me into the pantophoic person I am today.

And don't even get started on Donald Duck.

Okay, Donald is game.

And, just to get it out of the way:

FURRIES.

[Arhra]

Because otherwise it would be harder to make them look like specific animals?

Also, a lot of them are really weird shapes. Pants would just look weird.

[Bells]

just to put it on record... Goofy had pants and shoes, and Mickey too, didnt he?

Maybe that's why Disney is so famous...

[Tev]

Gadget wore a jumpsuit.....but she had girly bits to cover up.

[Lumenskir]

And WHAT'S the deal with that black box? If it's the only thing that survives a plane crash, why not make the entire plane out of the black box? And Count Chocula, what's his story? Am I honestly supposed to be afraid of this guy? Don't even get me started on the ad-wizards behind Frankenberry, don't even get me started.

[Regulus Tera]

Dot Warner cared to put on panties and a skirt, yet never wore a top. An intriguing question indeed....

[EVILNess]

I was looking through the old Rabbit's A Grouch (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?p=845142) thread, and I noticed that this question popped up a bunch:




So yeah - I kinda get the idea that "Hey, they're animals - they don't need clothes." But then why put the clothes on in the first place? I mean, geez - Pooh has a shirt, Yogi has a hat and a tie... um... Chip and Dale had shirts... Whatever happened to pants? I feel that cartoons scarred me into the pantophoic person I am today.

And don't even get started on Donald Duck.

Okay, Donald is game.

And, just to get it out of the way:

FURRIES.

It's traditional.

And how dare you call Winnie the Motherfucking Pooh a goddamn furry. You should be ashamed.

[bluestarultor]

Part of the reason is that clothes are something patently limited to humans. Putting a few articles on a cartoon animal helps humanize them a bit more. Also to consider, though, is that clothes are harder to draw. Therefore, limiting the clothing on a cartoon character makes them easier to draw, which helps when you have to do it a million times for 3 seconds of film. Hence other things like skipping the pinkies, putting on white gloves, etc. Anything you can do to simplify the design is a plus in traditional animation.

[Marelo]

What bluestarultor said.

Also, sometimes, as in the case of Dot Warner, the clothes are the only way to easily determine gender. If Donald Duck had no clothing whatsoever, would you be so sure he's a he?

[Tev]

Another thing with the humanization is, as blue said, small bits of clothing work wonders. Take for instance the transformation between the animals from Jungle Book into Tail Spin.

http://www.startedbyamouse.com/graphics/bvpreview/JungleBook01.jpg
http://www.movieswelike.net/i_01/jungle_book_03_500.jpg
http://ifoughtthelaw.cementhorizon.com/archives/khan.jpg
http://tv-mafia.com/series_images/TaleSpin.jpg

[Donomni]

Arthur.

That's pretty much the only reason.

He's supposed to be a goddamn aardvark!

[Mirai Gen]

"I just remembered! I don't wear any pants!"

Dinosaurs once again proves how awesome it is.

[Magus]

At least in the cartoon Sam & Max jokes were made involving the fact that Sam is fully dressed (except for shoes for some reason), whereas Max is butt naked, so it was self-aware of this occurrence in anthropomorphic animals in various cartoon media.

[Amake]

And WHAT'S the deal with that black box? If it's the only thing that survives a plane crash, why not make the entire plane out of the black box?
Because it's made of titanium. It's too expensive and probably doesn't fly well.

And how dare you call Winnie the Motherfucking Pooh a goddamn furry. You should be ashamed. What do you think a furry is? If it's synonymous with "anthropomorphic animal", that is, a creature with humanoid and animal traits, then you'd be right.

Yes, Winnie the Pooh is a furry. Why bother trying to deny it? I'd take it as a hint that furries aren't the devil.

[TDK]

He's an anthropomorphic STUFFED animal. A furry he ain't. And furries tend to be more like humans with animal fur and ears, things like that. Small features, mostly human body/limb shape.

[Fifthfiend]

What bluestarultor said.

Also, sometimes, as in the case of Dot Warner, the clothes are the only way to easily determine gender. If Donald Duck had no clothing whatsoever, would you be so sure he's a he?

Daffy gets by.

[Nikose Tyris]

Daffy gets by.

Yeah, she's still one of my favourite cartoon characters.

[Khael!]

What the hell are the Warners, anyway? Not-quite dog things?

Come to think of it, most all of the Bugs Bunny animal characters don't do clothes. Except for Bugs in drag, really.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

What the hell are the Warners, anyway? Not-quite dog things?
From my memory, they're referred to quite often as dogs, so take that as you will.

[bluestarultor]

He's an anthropomorphic STUFFED animal. A furry he ain't. And furries tend to be more like humans with animal fur and ears, things like that. Small features, mostly human body/limb shape.

He's right, you know. That makes him a Plushie, which is an entirely different fetish, apparently.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything people don't get off on. *~*;

[Khael!]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything people don't get off on. *~*;

The answer is surely a resounding no.

[DarkDrgon]

What the hell are the Warners, anyway? Not-quite dog things?

Come to think of it, most all of the Bugs Bunny animal characters don't do clothes. Except for Bugs in drag, really.
They had a song about it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONnWSSxJuwc)

[Amake]

He's an anthropomorphic STUFFED animal. A furry he ain't. And furries tend to be more like humans with animal fur and ears, things like that. Small features, mostly human body/limb shape. Stuffed animals are still animals, especially living ones. And as for your definition of furries, have a load of dictionary.com:
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings. Subjects for anthropomorphism commonly include animals and plants depicted as creatures with human motivation able to reason and converse . . .
In conclusion furries are non-human creatures with human characteristics. Whatever you pretend Winnie the Pooh or all your darling childhood heroes to be so you don't have to group them in with awful, awful furries, you can't get around that.

[Si Civa]

Wasn't there that silly rule that you can make pornography about everything? Stupid, stupid rule. And thus I say fuck.
You can even have sexual innuendo about civil rights and that's not nice at all. Why our rights about our sexuality need to have sexual innuendo in them? Wicked world.

But now something completely different. Duck Amuck is one of the best short animated cartoons ever which nicely proves that why Daffy is the man or the duck.
Donald's voice is quite boyish and he needs to wear silly sailor hat all the time to feel that he is a man but Daffy speaks like a man, he doesn't need clothes to be a man.
But I still like Donald more.

You already said that clothes make animals more human like and I would like to add that caricature feeling is improved when animal wears certain profession's clothing. But you covered it quite well already, phooey.

[Tev]

Wasn't there a racial profiling "pass/fail" chart for furries? I'm pretty sure I've seen one floating about the internet.

EDIT: Also, the Gummi Bears got by with robes and mini skirts.

http://sueczech.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/gummi_bears.jpg

[bluestarultor]

Stuffed animals are still animals, especially living ones. And there is no maximum amount of animal parts a humanoid can have and still be considered furry; just having an animal talk is enough. Are you in denial or what?

Animals that talk are called "ferals." As in like what that one kid asking for wolf sprites had as his title. "Furries" are the kind that stand on two legs.

[synkr0nized]

I think it'd be grand if we could steer this back to a discussion about clothes or the lack thereof and not continue down the furries and the related hatred/discussion of them being evil/etc. path.

[Tev]

Basically it comes down to the fact that most anthromorphic animals that make it to TV are drawn without lower sex parts. Clothes are in place as utility or to show job and social standing. Depending on the degree of anthromophism, female animals may have more clothing but for guys, a shirt and maybe a hat are all it takes. When you don’t have to worry about Baloo’s big bear wang hanging out you don’t bother drawing pants on hit furry butt.

EDIT: Mouse-type examples - Gadget VS the Mouse lady from the Secret of Nihm.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j89/ChpGLCorps/gadgeth1.jpg
And
http://laurendo.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/secret-of-nimh.jpg

[Amake]

Man, Gadget's design is so deviously psychosexual. Me and I think everyone in my generation had funny feelings for her, in many cases things we'd never felt before. And that was without even seeing the tiny porn movie posters those animator jokers put in the background. (Wait, that was in the Rescuers movie, nevermind.)

Just had to share that. ^_^

[Seil]

And how dare you call Winnie the Motherfucking Pooh a goddamn furry. You should be ashamed.

Dude, I'd be the last person to call Pooh, or any of the animals in the Hundred Acre Wood a furry. Look who you're talking to here.

[Kaneda]

Sometimes it seems to be just aesthetic choices. Winnie the Pooh clearly doesn't give a shit about covering up, most of the characters, even Kanga, are nude. Yet Pooh wears a shirt anyway. (Seeing as it didn't come in till the Disney version, it could have been to make him more recognizable and less of a generic bear.) Also Piglet's wearing a sweater, and that realization blew my fucking mind years ago.

[BitVyper]

Better question: Why are WE wearing clothes?

[Marelo]

Daffy gets by.

...

Shush.

[Premmy]

I want to know why the more "womanly" shaped animals have to wear more clothes, while the less-so ones wear only a skirt. If the less curvy ones are younger, woudl'nt it be proper to have them more covered up out of a sense of decency? that shit is just wrong.

[Satan's Onion]

Better question: Why are WE wearing clothes?

I dunno about you, but for many of the rest of us it's because it's frickin' December. Without a couple of layers on me, those cold breezes end up working themselves into places I'd much rather they didn't.

[Mirai Gen]

What SE said and also skin cancer sucks.

[Seil]

Well hold on here - I can understand shoes, and a few layers of clothing... though I often wonder what social behavior did to warrant wearing clothing? Which cave man was so uncomfortable with his body that he was like "GRUNT CLOTHES GRUNT!"

Could you imagine how much simpler life would be if we didn't have to wear clothes? No more excuses like "I couldn't find anything to wear," and it'd make that first date/job interview/Your kids Highschool dance that much more... freeing.

[Amake]

I figure it's because wearing clothes make you warmer, something cavemen figured out probably before they could control fire. I'm not sure when and why genitalia became unseemly in polite company, though. Probably had to do with the rise of consciousness three or six thousand years ago. It's basically there in certain old texts, where allegories of early man eat from the tree of knowledge and then become ashamed to show their nakedness.

But why exactly? I think because sex and sexuality remains a dark, mysterious thing that we're never in full conscious control over. Getting an erection against your will is embarrassing because it reminds us of the days of having no control at all over our bodily urges. You don't want people to see you as someone who's not aware of himself cause being conscious is such a great fine thing.

I submit that the practice of clothes covering up genitals emerged as a declaration of consciousness.

[Satan's Onion]

**ahem**

I reckon we could probably talk about why anthropomorphic animals don't wear clothing without any particular religious references. 'Kay? ~_^

[01d55]

Daffy gets by.

If by "gets by" you mean "leads a life of endless failure, suffering, and humiliation" then yeah, he "gets by."

[katiuska]

I submit that the practice of clothes covering up genitals emerged as a declaration of consciousness.

...That would only apply to one set of genitals, though.

I want to know why the more "womanly" shaped animals have to wear more clothes, while the less-so ones wear only a skirt. If the less curvy ones are younger, woudl'nt it be proper to have them more covered up out of a sense of decency? that shit is just wrong.

Because they're womanly shaped.

And I can't recall right now, but I'm pretty sure the ones without curves aren't all prepubescent. In any circumstances, it's better just to remind yourself they're not human and leave it at that.

[Amake]

Erections aren't the only things that are sexual about genitals. >_>

[katiuska]

I'm just sayin', we don't have those kinds of visual cues. There isn't much to belie a lack of self-control and therefore assert control by covering. >.>

[Amake]

It could be either that men have run the world the last 6000 years and just enforced their ideals, or sexuality in general and not specifically sexual arousal is what's embarrassing. I'll go with a little of both.

[Odjn]

I'd say it's sexuality by implication.

From a possible point of view, if kids can see there's nothing there, they accept nothing's there. But if there's something covering it up, kids get the implication that characters a) have those bits and b) use them the same way they do, like going to the bathroom. This goes to kids making jokes about pooping on things and later on, in puberty, sex.

By removing clothes and showing there's nothing there, there's nothing to reach that conclusion easily and thus is much less threatening to a society that goes wacko when Janet Jackson exposes her nipple.

Another reason could be that it helps the suspension of disbelief. In real life, you need to wear clothes because underneath you're naked and people make fusses about that. In the cartoon, if they have no clothes but no one fusses about nudity, it's easier for you to accept stuff like flying without support or magic because animals are wandering around looking vaguely like humans but not having any bits.

[Premmy]

I beleive it was Sall Corn from the sonic comics and 90's cartoon who had a womanly shape and yet only wore an open vest, and maybe some boots, I can't remember, I'll go check, but it did'nt cause any problems

[Khael!]

Sally Acorn, but yes, exactly the case. And she looks way more feminine in newer issues.

[Tev]

Remember Princess Sally Acorn from Sonic?

http://72.232.229.42/thumb/1/1f/Princess_Sally_(Archie_Style).jpg/170px-Princess_Sally_(Archie_Style).jpg

What we see here is a classic use of her own fur to act as underclothing. It's a nice, easy trick to use since the stomach fur is lighter and can be styled to look like a corset/jump suit/ or body stocking. So really it is not that she's not wearing clothes, it's that her fur is covering up anything too racy and thus works out like clothes. The extra shoes and jacket are just for show and she gets stripped of those often enough in the series as they are places she's good at hiding tools and such to escape from dungeons.

EDIT: Ninjas! The lot of you!

[Premmy]

single ninja is me posting quicker, double ninja is all you

[P-Sleazy]

Daffy gets by.

Whoa...Daffy is a girl?

[OverNineThousand89]

I think everyone knows what the appropriate solution should be. The world needs more nakedness. Hell, click the link in my sig, that hand puppet enjoys walking around in the nude, so why can't the rest of us?