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

[katiuska]

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

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.

Originally Posted by Premonitions

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?



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]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Daffy gets by.

Whoa...Daffy is a girl?