Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

September 17 2017

arcroyale
I know it's a special week, but I thought I'd leave you with some final thoughts.

Things've been pretty tough for me ever since I stopped earning income, but I've made due on donations. While I still can't quite work with Xierra yet, there are some cheaper artists out there I can work with, meaning I can still provide some content... provided I do it strategically.

As for word in the world of television, tonight marked the American TV premiere of the seventh episode Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders, aka the episode that had a nude 11-year-old girl in it with plenty of shots of her butt. Granted, it was on [adult swim] and it was a tense scenario, but some progress is better than none. Seems to me like we may be approaching a new paradigm, that young female nudity is acceptable if it's tragic or harsh, while comedic female nudity of any kind is right out, as shown by an incident involving the N-Sane Trilogy of Crash Bandicoot. We'll see how this goes, however.

In terms of my personal life, I'm in a bit of limbo. I may or may not be moving to college this week. Given the tense relationship with my parents, I don't think things will go very well if I miss out on this week, but the situation is caused by factors out of my control. I'm doing what I can to survive, but with no source of income and the way things are going looking like I'll never get it back, and my inability to find another job, I'm in big trouble if I get kicked out. I'm gonna try and do our designated "week of examples" at the end of the month, of course, but I can only do so much.

So that's what's going on in life. Maybe we'll talk more when we get things under control. Until then, cheers!
arcroyale
2833 fbca 420
Here's something for all you adults out there!

One thing that's been bothering me when it comes to depictions of unclothed cartoon animals like, say, the Sonic cast or Gadget from Rescue Rangers is when they give naughty bits to the females, but not often the males. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, and it's a reason furries are so disliked. It just feels weird to me, mostly because, well, the boys don't have any! (Though sometimes they do in those artworks. Weird.)

It appears this comic artist thought the same way, because he did this pic mocking the trend. It only makes sense and when pushed to this kind of extreme, it's great satire. I hope he doesn't mind me putting this here...

September 15 2017

arcroyale
7182 38af 420
So, final day of our little Special Episode, and we've got the solution to the problem I kept referring to.

Normally I'd consider non-sexual female nudity to be a big demand of mine. That's because I'd prefer kids come across the kind of stuff that's acceptable in cartoons instead of worse stuff. That's me being concerned for kids.

Of course, all that goes out the window for cartoon animals, primarily because the thing about them is all about character design, so in this case, an alternate solution to undressing the girls could simply be giving the guys some clothes instead. It could fit really well thematically with the character and give them an additional layer to their characterization. Sonic's classic, yes, but his USA-inspired color scheme doesn't suggest much to his personality. That's all in the poses, and these days his characterization gets very... muddled. Something like the pic depicted may give a chance to show his attitude, as would the outfit given to Tails to show his youth.

See? I can be reasonable. I'm not a pervert like some people think I am. I'm willing to solve a problem like this this way, because not everything requires an extreme solution.

Although, giving Bugs an outfit aside from his suit might be a little extreme...

Anyway, that's it for our second Special Episode! Hope you enjoyed this little thing, and I'm glad I posted everything on time. Maybe I'll do more, provided my output suits it. Until then, see you later!

September 14 2017

arcroyale
6827 e856 420
Well, you probably knew this was coming, didn't you? Of course you did.

In the 90's, to promote Michael Jordon and his line of sneakers, Warner Bros. brought back the Looney Tunes cast out of retirement to produce Space Jam, a movie that couldn't be more 90's if it tried. But they ran into a problem: the only female among their cast was Granny, and despite how strong she may be, Jordan needed the cartoon stars on his team and Granny was kinda, well, Granny.

To bring a female into the mix and promote that Spice Girls "GRRL POWA!" that was going on at the time, Warner Bros. added Lola Bunny to the mix. There's a lot of problems with Lola, though, at least in her start. Big problem #1 is that she isn't very funny, and, when you've got cartoon characters who by their very nature star in satirical comedy cartoons, being "not funny" is a death sentence. Problem #2 is that she was basically eye-candy, a sexualized bunny with feminine form to draw audiences to. Why not? Jessica Rabbit was just last decade!

Lola stuck around for a while, getting a role on modern cartoons as being goofy and ditzy. While there's a lot that can be said on how Lola's two modes are "sex object" and "dumb blonde" and how that's two negative female stereotypes right there, that's not what you read this blog for, is it?

No, I'm sure you noticed that Lola is always dressed while Bugs doesn't have anything but his gloves on. Past Looney Tunes gave their female animals aprons, but not much else, see Pepe Le Pew and Daffy Duck's one-time wives for details. It's amazing that despite them mainly being housewives, they still are a little more equal in that manner, and when you're being beaten by the 1940's, you're losing the war. (No pun intended)

This isn't just Lola, however. Characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog games have the same discrepancy in outfits, with males like Sonic, Tails and Knuckes having little but shoes and gloves, and girls like Amy, Cream, and Blaze being dressed. Just this year, every Emoji in The Emoji Movie looks like a big face, big hand, or giant turd (need I mention the movie is not good?), but the females all have some kind of dress and hairstyle that makes them look less like Emojis. A grinning Emoji would just be a big grinning yellow face, and what the heck is Jailbreak supposed to be? Besides WildStyle, of course, because that movie is basically every 2010's animated movie in a blender.

This difference in attire once again calls to the fact that females are considered "inherently sexual" while males are not for some reason. Nobody wants to mate with a rabbit, but for some reason these girls are being designed as if you might consider it. Even bereft of clothing, as seen in the Lola pic above, they are still designed as sexual beings, to the detriment of things like characterization and good character design.

Tune in tomorrow when we bring this to an end, and find TWO solutions to the problem! One might shock you...

September 13 2017

arcroyale
2721 9b10 420
Today, I'm gonna talk about a trend that's been bothering me for some time, and it relates to how things are going today. In order to tell you this, I need to relay a story.

Back in DuckTales, the character of Webby Vanderquack dressed in a similar manner to the boys, but with girl versions of each part. These two examples served to illustrate that Tertiary Sexual Characteristics also apply to boys, with the boys having baseball caps and t-shirts, and Webby wearing pink and having a bow. The two were very much equivalent.

This would happen again in The Powerpuff Girls, with humans this time. The female Powerpuff Girls were given evil male counterparts in the form of the Rowdyruff Boys, who dressed in boy versions of the Girls' clothes. The best example of this is Brick compared to Blossom. Blossom, the girl, wears pink, while Brick, the boy, wears red. Blossom has a dress and Mary Janes, while Brick has a long-sleeve shirt, slacks, and sneakers. Most importantly, Blossom has a bow, while Brick has a baseball cap. They're all prime examples of how to do this well.

How do you not do this well, you may ask? Well, DuckTales, like most cartoons from the older era, was rebooted recently. Of all the characters, one was redesigned completely: Webby. She's been made more "modern" which means not being girly at all, having hair, and dressing more conservatively. The boys weren't given pants, so why does Webby need the skirt if she didn't before? Also note that she is the only character who doesn't resemble her original comic design, something the other characters do.

I'll get more into this next time, but let me tell you, things don't get pretty.

September 12 2017

arcroyale
4730 1f33 420
Okay, so, on to the second part! People who know me on a personal level know about a rule I follow with regards to certain depictions of characters. This rule is called the "Law of Equivalency" or "Rule of Equivalency", one of those two, and it works like this:

"Female characters exposed in the same manner as males must have some kind of equivalence to their exposure, otherwise it is inequal. Male waist-up nudity is equal to female shoulders-up nudity. Male nudity that shows all but the crotch is equal to female nudity that hides the chest and crotch. Full male nudity is equal to full female nudity. These are set by societal standards on what's acceptable for certain MPAA ratings."

So how does that work with cartoon animals? Well, it's quite simple: Unless that girl really needs a skirt, bottomless males should be met with bottomless females, and shirtless males should be met with shirtless females. It makes the most sense of all, since cartoon animals who are male do not possess any "objectionable" features human characters do, and yes, featureless humans will also be the same as I draw them, male or female.

Makes sense, right? Not to most people, apparently.

The biggest example of this was Minnie Mouse, female counterpart to Mickey Mouse. When Walt was running the show, Minnie was defined by her skirt and flower hat, while Mickey was defined by his overalls. Unfortunately, the conservative nature of Disney after Walt's death led Minnie to be given a full dress by the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse works. This is not equivalent at all because it suggests Minnie, by nature of her being a girl, is, despite being an animal, "inherently sexual" if wearing as much as Mickey. In other words, it's nothing short of cowardice.

We saw this with other animals, too. We've got, say, Rescue Rangers, where Gadget dresses in a full outfit while the boys do not. And many series made nowadays do the same thing for some strange reason. Worse, Robot Chicken mocked people who said Gadget should go bottomless, too, by insinuating Chip and Dale would act perverted. This shows how much sexuality plays into this whole debate, all because the subject is a girl and the female body is "inherently sexual" or something. Guess what? It isn't.

Now, modern era Minnie is back to wearing as much up top as Mickey, and heck, they even did a short where Mickey and Donald dressed as their female counterparts to show why we need Tertiary Sexual Characteristics. That's because, as seen in the last set on the illustration graph, Mickey and Minnie basically look the same without anything on, save Minnie's accessories. This is why we need those characteristics to tell them apart, given that they are the same species. These are good things, trust me.

We'll keep on this topic next time, when I'll have more to say on it.

September 11 2017

arcroyale
4715 cc32 420
Greetings, welcome, and hello to all! Welcome to our second ever Special Episode! For this round, we will be talking about cartoon animals who are assumed to be equivalent to humans, specifically on how the females tend to be treated in those cases.

For our first day, we need to address a singular topic: What makes a cartoon animal a girl? This is a little harder than you might realize, while still easier than you think.

Humans can easily tell males and females of their own species apart. It's the reason we laugh at Professor Oak asking if you're a boy or a girl: the fact should be plainly obvious. It's also the reason why a popular trick played on the internet is to present what looks like a cute girl, only for them to turn out to be a man: We know what girls "should" look like, and it's quite a shock to see that what looks like a girl isn't.

That same courtesy cannot be said for animals. With no training whatsoever, I want you to do an image search for an animal, just by the name of the animal and nothing else. Look at any real life photo. Can you tell if the animal is a male or a female? You probably can't, and if you can you would have had to have looked it up in some kind of guide previously.

So since cartoons that star animals need some kind of females in their cast let it become a Boys Club, we need ways for the audience to easily tell whether or not the character is a boy or a girl.

This leads to something we call "Tertiary Sexual Characteristics". What are those? They're things that signify something is a girl without any sexual content, stuff like the color pink, ribbons, or a skirt. It may seem a little sexually backwards, but unless you can think of another method to tell a young cartoon animal girl apart from the boys other than her voice, you kinda need them. It's a necessary evil.

Now, fully-dressed cartoon animals like the characters from Star Fox don't need these. Krystal can dress up in a military outfit and be equal to Fox's outfit. But in cases where the animal is not fully-dressed, or even dressed at all, Tertiary Sexual Characteristics are kinda needed. 

Take Tiny Toons Adventures, for example. Males will often go bottomless, sometimes even have no clothing, and the girls need to look similar. Thus, even in cases where they have nothing on, they still have things like, say, a bow or a pink color scheme. It actually makes sense with Buster and Babs; one's a blue bunny boy, the other's a pink bunny girl with a skirt. Their gender is easily identifiable. These girls didn't need clothing; Fifi La Fume is still purple despite never wearing anything. It's just the boys are dressed, so the girls get something, too.

There's a similar case with another WB cartoon, Animaniacs. The two boy Warner Brothers have some boyish outfit, while Dot, the girl, has a skirt. No shirt is needed, the skirt does all the work. It gets the job done simply and easily. Rita and Runt are also good examples, since their designs easily convey "masculine and feminine".

So the first element that unites this entire topic is "A girl needs to be, above all else, recognizable as a girl." Tune in next time when we see how this relates to the Law of Equivalency.

September 09 2017

arcroyale

HIATUS END POINT SET

Next week I may or may not be moving to a place without internet for a long time, so I'm gonna make this next week the week of our next special episode. Hope you like!

August 27 2017

arcroyale

NEXT MEETING WEEK SET

I was planning on doing my next special episode sometime soon. I've decided a theme for it already, I'm just going out to get my examples.

Since the end of next month is a long way away, I'm just going to start talking about the theme for this special episode: Cartoon Animals! The weird thing about character designs for cartoon animals is that the girls are more conservatively-dressed than the boys, even though the boys are already featureless. Technically speaking, the girls should be, too, but for some reason the industry insists on dressing them despite there really being no need to.

Over the course of the week, we'll be looking at different ways companies handled animal dressing, through looking at comparisons between boys and girls and, of course, doing some reversals with dressed boys and undressed girls. Don't worry, there's nothing to be seen! At the weekend, we'll do some funny pictures to illustrate the concepts I'm talking about.

See you whenever that is!
arcroyale
1857 9370 420
More sexy guys! This one is fun because it's specifically bait for female audiences. The long hair, the chiseled body, the thong of shielding... I can tell this isn't a gay pic because the artist seemed to want it to be for the ladies. Yeah, I'm sure John Smith WISHES he looked this cool.

August 26 2017

arcroyale
9994 f405 420
Now why feature this one if it's got a sexy girl you may ask? Well, this artist did something interesting by including Kale as well as Caulifla. Kale is basically a female Broly, but in a unique twist, she's just as buff as her male version, and Broly was very buff. That alone makes her the best version of a Female Broly, since her design doesn't shrink her muscles to make her "sexier". Thus the inclusion of Kale makes this pic worthwhile since her massive muscles show what this kind of girl would look like in this way. It's something you don't normally see, so I felt that it was worth featuring on our blog.
arcroyale
9843 bde7 420
I don't get to feature the reboot of PPG a lot, mainly because the reboot isn't that good, thus, doesn't inspire a lot of fanart that isn't hate art. This one works though. It's a new take on that classic nano scene. I mean, why not? Depowering the girl heroes is the name of the reboot's game. Feminism!
arcroyale
9840 a25a 420
I'm sure you've heard at least one "Magical Girl Naked Transformation" joke before. Well, here's one with a spell gone awry to strip the girl. It works well as a parody of the gag, and keeps things mostly comedic, even with the butt, but then, butts are funny. Well, hopefully the battery on the wand isn't out!
Tags: found stuff

August 23 2017

arcroyale
3723 24d7 420
Bonus non-nudity-related pic. Funny thing, both claims are ones I'd say to be true.
arcroyale
3720 1d4c 420
Good grief, nobody told me finding toon pics would get harder and harder. Anyway, this is a silly little parody of the Lynn bath scene, with the differences being made apparent. This kind of stuff gets in kids shows every now and then (Rugrats, anyone?), so I'm certain it's safe. Hey, the fact that this scene even exists in the original says I should be fine. I mean, the chests are the same! ...for now.
arcroyale
3714 fa11 420
Dragon Ball is not a universe where clothes grow with the wearer when he changes size. Heck, clothes in that show barely stay on even when the wearer is the same size, given all the fighting! So when an accident causes the predictable to happen, poor Pan is stuck without an outfit in the ship they came in. The thing that makes this pic work is that it mostly takes a comedic approach this portion of Dragon Ball would take, with Pan "wearing" the ship. I think the bigger worry right now is how they're going to leave the planet!

August 22 2017

arcroyale
1985 0e68 420
Gwen stuff is really hard to find, but at the same time I'm having a really difficult time finding something I can use for the toon pic today. As such, we're going with one of my commissions, an old one.

This one is based off a moment from Metal Gear Solid 2. The idea is that Raiden was stripped naked and had to sneak through a base to get to a goal. Along the way, he had calls from his support staff that were basically nonesense. There are reasons, but they're spoiler-y, and they don't make sense even in context.

Now, I don't know much about Ben 10, but I do know Grampa Max is played by the same actor as that support staff member, Paul Eiding. So I had Gwen streak through a base while Max, dressed as the staff member, delivers crazy lines. It's a fun little VA joke. I could've make Ben the streaker, but you know me. Plus Gwen needed some non-sexual stuff.

I dunno, maybe I should do a Himmsday version with Reboot Gwen when my budget goes back to normal. We'll see...
arcroyale

UPDATE ON HIATUS

Okay, so I just lost my one source of income. That's what we call "bad". I've had to cancel deals with artists and sell some old things and start asking for donations.

That means if we come back next time, it'll likely be a Special Episode. I've got a theme picked for it, I just need the resources. You'll find out what it is before we started.

Also, since the month is almost over, we'll be starting a week of examples. Just formality.
Tags: announcement
arcroyale
1981 35f1 420
Sorry for the delay. Complications kept coming up.

This pic was on the blog before. I like it because it's got that perfect bedroom look. Part of the difficulty with these is in finding stuff that isn't just homoerotic; it has to be something that's like a female picture. I think this qualifies, but I've found plenty of pics that don't, hence the low activity.

July 29 2017

arcroyale
5926 3518 420
The difficulty in finding pics of ladies is that they can actually be sexualized, so finding examples of stuff that isn't is harder. This one cuts it close, but is ultimately more humorous in the author's intent. I can tell because no uncensored version of it exists, despite the artist having no problem with doing so. So, this is a nice little play on the portal to the other world, since, you know, ponies don't wear clothes. Well, if there is another version of her in that world...
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl