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

June 22 2018

9752 1b20 420
It's funny. I don't like talking about the new series of The Powerpuff Girls. I feel like it should best be ignored and forgotten. But then it went and pushed my personal button. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a world where everyone says "No Girls Allowed!"

In case you've been living under a rock, and please tell me where I can find it so we can be roommates, the PPG reboot seems to attract controversy like a supermagnet. And what makes it all the worse is its seeming double standards despite it being a "feminist" story, when it doesn't even fall into the modern definition of feminism.

After all, Ms. Bellum was removed because the producers thought she didn't "mesh well with the image they were trying to create". This, combined with the flattening of Miss Keane's chest tells me that the producers didn't see Bellum for her brain, that which makes part of her name, how she runs Townsville basically on her own, how she's a positive role model for the Girls. They only saw her for her body, exactly the kind of sexism women face on a daily basis for being seen not for their skills, but their bodies. Or maybe they just didn't like seeing a woman be strong, since the primary focus is given to the masculine Powerpuff Girl, and plenty of time the strong superheroes need to be saved by a man.

Then they went and did an episode on transgenderism... and hit all the wrong buttons on the list, including portraying the person having his body changed as literally turning into a monster because something "went wrong". Oh, and the unicorn had a horn the entire time. After all the sheer backlash from the trans community, they backtracked and said "it wasn't really a transgenderism episode!" when, of course, it was.

But what I'm here to talk about is their sexualization of children, since, of course, sexualizing children is awful and shameful under any circumstance. For instance, twice in episodes involving Allegro, the girls end up twerking, a sexual dance in all senses. Need I remind you the Girls are not even teenagers. They even dressed them up with adult clothing and with heavy makeup. But the crown jewel of all of their apparent pedophilia is when one of the writers had the gall to self-insert their own character as Blossom's love interest, a kindergartner, need I remind you. They were practically roasted on the internet by all sides, and justifiably so; this is quite blatant pedophilia and everyone knows it.

But then... but then they had to go and censor a bath scene in the episode "Toy Ploy." Out of all the mines they decided not to step on in that minefield they gleefully aimed for almost each explosive... they picked the one which the original series had no problem with. The one that was of no issue to anyone. And the wort part is? Even as I was removing the bathing suits, the soap bubbles still censor everything objectionable. The bathing suits were not necessary at all.

The only thing worse than a hypocrite... is a cowardly hypocrite.

As of now, the Reboot is floundering. The Powerpuff Girls is celebrating its 20th anniversary, and good things are happening. The original show is coming to Boomerang, and Ace is being made a member of the latest Gorillaz album, with WB's blessing. Years from now, the Reboot will simply be forgotten, while the original show will be remembered for years to come.

May the next reboot be a lot better than this.

January 24 2018

4977 c232
Since last time we talked about Miraculous Adventures doing so well, let's talk about a time they got it wrong by saying "No Girls Allowed!"

This is from the issue just prior to the issue where she detransforms without an outfit. There's a weird setup where in one version she's wearing a white shirt, and in another she's a lot more shy and wearing a pink bra. I'm liable to think this is the original version (or that it's as close to it as we're gonna get without editing) because the French are a lot more lax about nudity, seeing it as no big deal. Whereas for us Americans, a Big Deal is what it is indeed, because we gotta do everything we can to Protect The Girls and denigrate the boys.

Nothing more needs be said.

January 07 2018

8777 84cd 420
Siiiiiiigh... Okay... 2018 is not off to a good start. I was going to talk about this in proper during a week of production, but now's a better time.

On January 1st, 2018, and let me emphasize that for you, the first day of the new year, YouTube user Logan Paul filmed an actual suicide and posted it to his account, one which is watched by numerous children. Now, if Paul had something resembling, you know, a conscience, he'd delete the video from the feed and not post it there, or if he did mention it, talk about it in a separate V-Log, not one where he does things like say Mt. Fuji isn't where Fiji Water comes from. Instead, he subjected kids to a snuff film; not "basically", not "kinda", that's what he did, and that's what it was. In the end, the video was taken down... by Paul... after facing heavy backlash... while he chose to play his patented Victim Card at how those big meanies were saying mean things to him like how bad it is he joked about suicide.

And what was YouTube's punishment to the guy? Nothin'. Nothin' at all. He's still making videos. He tore the internet apart, and he gets a slap on the wrist.

Also on January 1st 2018, an Elementary School teacher in Utah got in hot water for showing kids porn. Except... that's not what really happened. He was an art teacher, and was showing kids examples of art in his class, his sixth grade class so they were of maximum age for elementary school. And the art was said to not fit pornographic standards at all. It was just a female butt. So what happened to him? Got fired. For, you know, doing his job. Apparently the parents complained about the art, then let the kids watch more TV and movies with butts aplenty.

Do you see now why I'm still working on this problem?

This nonesense double-standard of violence being okay and sex not being okay is absurd. The Last Jedi, a movie made by Disney, features a fight scene with lots of graphic, albeit bloodless violence. But the violence is quite horrific; heads getting cut off by lightsabers, impalements, stabbings through the brain... scary stuff! Meanwhile, Slave Leia is now being considered unacceptable to sell in figure format anymore, so stuff like that no longer exists. Which company did the deed? Disney! Apparently it's okay to sell "Star Wars figure with graphic violence action!" to kids, but not "Girl in outfit!" to those same kids just because of what that outfit looks like.

I mean, really, it's illogical. Kids don't see nudity as "inherently sexual", they find it funny! It's why nudity-based humor is a staple of adult comedies! In fact, if you do it to the right person, you can even have it in kids media, especially cartoons! Violence? You'll often find that in horror films, or stuff where violence is designed to horrify. Kids get scared of graphic violence. They don't get scared of girl butts. Show a kid a naked girl intended in a sexual scene and they'll be laughing their butts off. Show a kid a scene from Saw and they'll be in tears. So why does one get a scumbag a slap on the wrist while another gets guys who're doing their jobs the axe?

I grew up in similar situations to the kids in this class, and I was mostly okay with it. Kids're fascinated by the human body, especially given the things that're different between boys and girls. That makes sense for the same reason they're attracted to swear words; they want to learn more and accumulate info. Show them actual sex acts, however, and they don't wanna see them at all, and graphic violence is much the same way. The way we are treating content that is allegedly "unacceptable for children" is completely upside-down and backwards! We should be showing butts and hiding guts, not the other way around which is what we're currently doing!

In the end, if you're looking for an example on why the taboo against nudity and acceptance of violence in America is loony, look no further than how a jackmule of a YouTuber gets away with filming murder, and how a guy gets fired for doing his job.

November 26 2017

I know I technically should have a title, but I don't have a picture to illustrate this, and I don't remember if the last time I did something like this I had one, so have a nice entry of Mature Musings with mostly text.

I recently ended up seeing a trailer for another video game turned into a movie. And this one is in live-action, making it even less worthy of adaptation. We're talking about Rampage, a game that basically had the objective of "you're a giant monster, smash everything, eat stuff." It was very memorable, but for some reason, all the boys crowded around the Player 2 side.

There's a reason for that, though. Player 2 controlled Lizzie, a giant reptile that was like Godzilla. All the monsters in this game were, in fact, humans turned into these creatures, and when your health hit zero, they detransformed back into a human. A naked human. One who covers their privates with their arms and scuttles away. Lizzie, of course, was the girl, so she ended up being very popular.

The movie, I guarantee, might not have a scene like that. At least, not due to the original intent. See, all the monsters have been changed from transformed humans into giant versions of the animal in question, with George a transformed gorilla, Ralph a massive wolf, and Lizzie a giant crocodile. Since they will of course not revert back into anything other than an ordinary-size animal, this is either an act of Hollywood thinking they know better than "some stupid game designer", or an act of cowardice to get rid of the naked girl.

Oh, but I know Hollywood. Hollywood movies like these tend to have brief hints at existing material without actually honoring it, like the Finster, Squatt and Baboo toys in the Power Rangers movie when they don't appear, and Superman being referred to by that name exactly once before that name is called ridiculous, or Wolverine being chided for wanting yellow spandex instead of boring black leather. So of course there's going to be a nude woman covering in there, but it will not be for comedy like the original game; of course it's going to be played for sexiness, because the female body is, according to Hollywood, "inherently sexual" and can only be used to entice people who are not gamers to watch the movie just for the possibilty of getting whacked to it.

So, you've basically taken two problems Hollywood suffers from and combined them into a tragedy of global proportions. Needless to say, Hollywood will not get any of my money.

November 21 2017

4822 13df
Sigh. My job will never be done. Just a few years ago, a no good, know-nothing executive put the hammer down and proclaimed "No Girls Allowed!"

The scariest words in the human language are "Think of the children!" Often times, these words are being said by people who know nothing about children, but think they know more than them. Case in point, a bill in Japan called for the end of "pornographic content", but was so vaguely phrased it basically meant censoring everything to the ends of the earth. When prodded about stuff like Shizuka's bath scenes in the cultural cornerstone Doraemon, the bill's owners said "that's an example of things that won't be censored."

So when a new Doraemon movie comes out and has a scene where Shizuka's clothes accidentally get vacuumed up, and her butt is shown in the process, you'd expect the people in charge of the bill to keep their promise and not censor the Shizuka scene when it aired on TV, right?

You don't know anything about politicians, do you?

Indeed, on the TV airing of the exact same movie, the scene was completely censored, completely blatantly with a big bright light that obscured just about everything, and I do mean everything. You had to buy the DVD to get the real thing. For those who don't know, this is the exact same strategy used by late night anime. Doraemon is considered in the same category as To-Love-Ru and Strike Witches in that their content has to be censored on TV. The only difference? Those series were for adults.

This is why we can't keep doing this. Despite all signs saying that this kind of scene won't be censored, it still is, for no reason other than it's a girl, as Nobita's numerous scenes show. What is it about a girl that makes it pornographic, other than the female body being "inherently sexual"?

When kids TV is given the same treatment as series for hardcore adolescent nerds, it's time to stop.

October 10 2017

7479 1209 420
There's nothing scarier than some no good executive saying "No Girls Allowed!" But this time, not even a boy goes unscathed.

Another one with the Doraemon dub, this time the episode "Transform, Transform, and Transform Again!" In that one, Nobita drinks too much of a drink that lets him transform into whatever's on his mind, mostly turning himself into animals. He quickly loses control of his power, and turns back to human form naked, then later on for a gag turns into Shizuka.

Of course, Disney XD, despite just having moments like the last show, ended up censoring the episode for their version, "Transformade." Indeed, Nobys lower half is totally censored, and Sue ends up being covered in smoke. Worse, a very revealing shot of Shizuka is removed completely. I'm not even sure why this is allowed; because it's Disney XD could be one reason, but...

A lot of anime has a history of being comparatively censored in comparison to western cartoons. Whereas a cartoon would make moments of showing blood special like in Batman, anime on kids networks can't show it at all, like with Dragon Ball Z. The same goes for nudity; anime nudity is often a lot more censored than cartoon nudity over on kids networks, even for boys in children's cartoons. I'm not talking about the fanservice stuff, I'm talking about stuff Dexter's Lab does all the time, but other anime dubbed for children's networks can't do once. It's clearly not a matter of material being "too sensitive for children" since the situations are the same!

I'll probably have more on this later, but that's for another time. In the meantime, witness another failure on the broadcaster's part.

September 26 2017

0581 f5e5 420
Ah, the rancid joys of censoring young girls on the basis of them being young girls. It's time to take a look at another time the staff stepped in to say "No Girls Allowed!"

Not too many people know this, but the most recent Doraemon series had a short-lived dub on Disney XD. The whole thing being so Japanese, it didn't last very long, and the joys of being able to watch Doraemon didn't last either, mostly because the whole thing was edited to heck and back. All Japanese cultural icons were removed, the script and music were changed, and heavier jokes were censored. It's practically as bad as the Saban/4Kids days, which is even worse because those days are long gone.

Case in point, in the episode titled in the dub "The Horizon Tape", Doraemon and Nobita, er sorry... "Noby" get lost in the endless horizon of their own creation. They stumble across Shizuka in a tub. That part was the same. In the Japanese version, she's taking a bath, as she tends to do. But... in the dubbed version, cowardice takes hold, as the bath is changed in dialogue to a hot tub, and "Sue" as she's called there is given a bathing suit. Because why would you want to do laundry and get clean separately when you could do both at once? Or not get clean at all because baths don't work that way, but hey, gotta protect the kids!

Now, to it's credit, I don't mind the edits too much. The localized tests are hilarious, showing the dubbers know all too well how ridiculous the prospect is. And if you're going to sidestep around nudity, changing the bath to a hot tub is a good way to do it. But my point is that you really shouldn't have to. Nick and Cartoon Network got away with this kind of thing all the time, and there's little in the actual episode that needed to be changed with regards to that. Not to mention Doraemon is already a kids show, and I mean for little tikes, and this is the censored Doraemon series after standards have changed and gotten stricter.

I'm just saying, censorship like this is unnecessary and should never have to happen under any circumstance, and if Japan realizes that, why can't we?

September 14 2017

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 12 2017

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.

July 05 2017

0165 5acc 420
This was the show that tripped me up. Well, thanks to some negotiation with one of my advisors, I managed to find a good example for our show. It's time for another time the management stepped in and said "No Girls Allowed!"

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with it, but if you were a little girl, you might've been raised on "The Paper Bag Princess" once or twice. It's a fun little story about Girl Power, on how a little girl princess with a fancy dress, finds her castle under attack from a fire-breathing dragon. The princess loses everything, including her outfit, so she fashions one out of a paper bag. She then challenges the dragon to a series of tasks that ultimately tire him out, meaning the princess ended up beating the dragon after all! And the prince she used to admire makes a snarky remark over her outfit and how she's "not much of a princess", so she just declares she doesn't need him and rides off into the sunset. Girls Rule!

So what if I told you that the feminism was incomplete? Or at least kinda hypocritical?

Now, the final page was changed multiple times. The first time, the princess socked the prince, which I can understand why it was changed. Funny, but not acceptable to first graders, you know, violence and all that. The second change to the final page was that originally, the princess was gonna show her new freedom by taking off that paper bag, showing off her bare bottom.

There's a few reasons why I think it got changed, or at least any possible rationalization behind it. Don't exactly want little girls stripping in public and they don't have situational awareness to know the full details... but then, there was a page just earlier where she got shown naked, and her (featureless) chest was in view, so there are only two reasons I can think of why that stays and the butt goes. Maybe it's because at the end the girl takes off her clothes, whereas the beginning she simply lost them. And of course, kids books can't portray bad behavior unless it's supposed to be shown to be bad, like how the explorers in that one book can die because they're stupid, or how anatomy books can be made for kids because they don't have much other than just situation-less pictures.

So while it would be natural to assume cowardice was involved, there's a lot of other factors to assume. Unless boys in kids books can strip and not be criticized by the narrative, cowardice wasn't completely involved. The age-range for picture books is lower; older kids tend to go for comics or chapter books instead. While I'm all for raising kids right, I realize there are certain times for funny nudity, and this may not necessarily be one of those times.

Make your own call. I got nothin'.

April 18 2017

6162 1cc7
Ah, the joys of hypocrisy and double standards. Let's explore some of those double standards as we look at a time an animator once again stepped in and said "No Girls Allowed!"

I don't often cover Nicktoons on this blog. That's because I've historically been more of a Cartoon Network fan. But when you peruse through the internet, you stumble across things that lead you to other things which lead you to either glory or disappointment. In this case, we have the latter.

That stumbling was upon a Nicktoon from the olden days called KaBlam!, an anthology series that showcased a series of animated shorts from different animators in different styles. It's kind of like What A Cartoon! except with series intended to always be shorts instead of just being pilots, although one series from that show, Action League NOW! did become a full series. One of its heroes is "The Flesh", a naked Ken doll superhero. It's pretty much a one note pun that really does nothing. (Maybe it's clear now why I didn't watch many Nicktoons growing up?)

Anyway, the wraparound segment tying these shorts together involved a pair of kids of an indeterminate age named Henry and June. It was traditionally animated and contained some jokes of its own, but the only reason I cared is some TV Tropes page or... well, some kinda database directed me to the episode "I Just Don't Get It", where the description I got was "Disappearing Ink causes Henry and June's clothes to vanish in the episode 'I Just Don't Get It' from KaBlam!" or something like that. One search for their page on the material, and I found out that one of those names was a girl! What excitement awaits!

Except... no excitement awaited at all. While it is true that the girl, June's clothes start to disappear around the same time Henry's do, once she gets up to her underwear, but just before her hat vanishes, she, while said hat is going away, bolts it to the nearest door and locks it tight with her strong grip. As for the boy, Henry? He gets totally naked. Why yes, we do see his butt. Why yes, they denied us a perfectly good opportunity for humor yet again.

That's not what I had in mind. That's not nearly what I had in mind. That's not even remotely what I had in mind. That and what I had in mind should not be mentioned in the same sentence together. In fact, that is so far removed from what I had in mind, I've decided to create an animated series with caricatures of the people in charge to mock and belittle them in front of an audience of thousands of people, and I think I'll name it "Perversion, the Cowardly Animator."

So, for this one, I actually contracted a different artist than usual. I don't like to be tied down to one artist, so I called upon the talents of minor internet personality Jugend aka JUG. He's another of those artists who works on model, though since he does a lot of this stuff for fun, I felt he'd be best to get the idea for this off the ground. The fact that I knew him from somewhere else under both of our names helps.

So who's at fault for this blunder? Well, there's the description on that database for being kinda misleading, though that's a different problem... really, the fault lies in the cowardice of animators thinking girls should be protected at all costs even if it means sacrificing a perfectly good joke. Kids are gonna look at this and get confused, and when those kids grow up into people looking for scenes where young girls get nude for comedy, they're gonna get disappointed. You can't honestly tell me with a straight face this is fair, that this is even acceptable.

Funny how double-faced logic always seems to diminish the boys in this equation. "Well, we girls should be free to show our chests in public, too, but girls on TV need to be covered more than boys or else they're sexually demeaning!" If only I knew the root...

April 12 2017

1276 e3b6
It's time for another occasion where cowardice took over and did the unreasonable by saying "No Girls Allowed!"

We're back to Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi, since I just did a fanfic based on that show which you can find over on Inkbunny. I'll give it some illustrations later and maybe one day we can read along on the blog when the pictures are done.

Like I said before, I definitely believe the animators thought their versions of Ami and Yumi were sexy, given all the stuff they had them doing and wearing. Case in point, in two separate episodes, the girls (or at least Ami in the pictured episode "Helping Hand") step out of some kind of bath, and are seen wearing a towel. That towel goes up to their shoulders, meaning you can see everything above them is bare. It's actually kinda risque for a show that aired on Cartoon Network in 2005.

But for some reason, when we actually see Ami in the shower in the episode "Fan Clubs" (this show was not very creative in the name department, or anything else, really), Ami is wearing a swimsuit. I'm not sure if this is even cowardice or not; the dialogue offers no clue as to whether or not she's supposed to be wearing one. She's got an umbrella and is writing in a journal, but that seems more like a joke given the entry she's writing is all about her being in the shower to relax and get away from the world. And, without any info from production of the episode, I'm left completely stumped as to whether or not that swimsuit is censorship or not.

Nevertheless, in the eyes of this blog, it's an error that needs to be corrected, so I put Krizeii to the task to create an edited version of the scene. His take, supervised by myself, replaces Ami's swimsuit with some convenient soap suds, and I really think it works out better. It gives the same level of coverage while making it more apparent that she's in the shower. After all, the point of a shower is to get clean, right?

Although, I'm not sure if that's the reason why she's taking this shower. Cartoons are confusing...

April 01 2017

0801 3cb5 420
Today's subject is an essay, an essay on how hypocritical mods have made it hard to find good material. Today we're talking about one of the biggest art repositories on the internet: DeviantArt.

Kids of all ages browse DeviantArt, and it is there where they find some of their first fanart. Websites like these are usually the first place someone would go to find art based off their favorite cartoons, aside from just checking out Google Images, but then, that site also shows art from DeviantArt on a regular basis. I think kids stumbling across fanart is a good thing; it expands the tools available to them and shows them that they're not limited by what the show offers them.

Now, DeviantArt used to be okay with naked little girls. Some of my first nude lolis I found over there, and they were just safe enough to be a good place to be. DeviantArt has this thing called a Mature Content Filter to block the worst results from kids, and in some cases they restrict art to people 18 and up. Therefore, sometimes nudity both innocent and gratuitous can be found behind one of these filters. They can hide a variety of things besides that, like graphic violence and swearing alongside "ideologically sensitive material" which includes suffering and Nazis, stuff like that.

However, some time in I think 2005 or 2006, DeviantArt changed their policy to ban depictions of the underage in the nude, and you may think that's just girls, but it also includes boys, too. The official policy is that the underage, that is, those under 18, cannot be depicted in the nude, even with implied nudity. For those who don't know, implied nudity is nudity that doesn't show the privates, so art on DeviantArt can't even get away with showing things that you can show on television every day. They even do stupid things like, for characters who've been mutliple ages, use the average of their age to determine how old they are, so someone who's been 18 and 14 at once is 16, thus underage even if the picture is of their 18-year-old version.

All this is in the name of protecting the kids, but here's the problem: DeviantArt is also home to a massive number of fetish content that is often produced with the specific purpose of arousing the person in question. It's content designed for sexual purposes, only of fat characters, or farting characters. It's just as disturbing as it sounds and gives the site a terrible reputation (well, that and you can and people have submitted low-quality art that stays for days on end).

So to examine just how stupid the loli ban is, I'm going to do a couple searches for art based on cartoons kids are likely to search for online. I'm going to turn off the Mature Content, so the only things they see are stuff the website/artist has determined to be kid friendly. Note the amount of problem content each one has:

We'll start with Teen Titans Go. For the first few pages, most content will be about the original show, which might confuse kids but is still worksafe. However, at some point there's a pic where Blackfire trespasses on Starfire with the boys recording, though the two are clothed. After some essays professing their hatred for the Go version, there's a pic of Terra which is drawn in such a way to make her look rather vavoom. Then there's some fat fetish art, a beach bikini pic, a baby fetish fanfiction that is explicitly stated to include sexual themes, a rather racy gay pic, a fanfiction containing adult language, a hypnosis fetish comic, and by the time you get to the pic where Lady Legasus is depicted with a big butt, any sane parent will have pulled the plug and banned the kid from the website. And all those horrible pics? All in plain view for a kid to see.

Let's try another search, this time Loud House. On page one, there's a fanfic whose description includes language that if you use more than once, your film gets rated R. Then a horror story that has nothing to do with the show but contains gore and vulgar language. Then a fanfic that explicitly identifies itself as a fart fetish fic, a genderswap transformation fetish fic, a second fart fetish fic that identifies itself as such, and once the pic of Lynn Loud in a string bikini with a big butt shows up, the poor kid browsing has developed a series of complexes that'll scar him into the future. All by art approved by the system as being "kid-friendly" when it clearly isn't.

Any given fetish has to start from somewhere. Enough big belly gags in cartoons can give someone a big belly fetish. Enough exposure to cartoon feet can make someone a foot guy. But pedophilia doesn't work that way. It's caused by brain abnormalities and is on a biological level as opposed to the way the child was raised. Any pedophile had to be born that way, or suffer explicit sexual abuse as a kid, so kids are not going to grow up on fanart of naked little girls and become one themselves.

That is what makes the ban on underage content so insidious. People make the art in most cases because they were curious as to what the character might look like naked, or for a funny gag, or just for artistic purposes. Any fetish art can only be created in the void of fetish art and only for arousal. It's also the reason it's stupid to censor little girls but leave the rest of the stuff: if we're so worried about naked little girl scenes catering to pedophiles or possibly creating them, why are cartoons still allowed to use inflation, transformation, or any other thing that's bound to accidentally make someone with that kind of fetish go gaga?

When your website can't do what the cartoons they do fanart of can do, then your website is broken and needs to be fixed. And DeviantArt is most certainly broken.

(Left as mature since this is heavy.)

March 28 2017

6352 b1ae
I've wanted to cover this episode for so long... it even served as the first episode of this day's show on Tumblr! It's time once again to shame an animator who went out of their way to say No Girls Allowed!

Back to Dexter's Laboratory. If I feature this one a lot, it's only because I find Dee Dee to be really cute. There was an ample opportunity to give her a matching set with her brother, too! In the first two seasons (season 3 was handled by a newcomer and broke many of the established rules), whenever Dexter got nude, which happened a lot, he would always have his privates hidden by a leaf of some kind. This, I found, was really clever, giving it a sort of Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve sort of thing that showed off the creativity of the production staff. It also gave them a lot of freedom to position Dexter now that they didn't need to use outside censorship; all they needed was the leaf and they were set.

Of course, if there's going to be an Adam, there must also be an Eve, and the episode "Game For a Game" proved an ample opportunity to showcase this, with Dee Dee, as part of her morning song, accidentally forgetting to dress herself and jumping out of her screen nude. Except... it didn't happen. Instead, her entire torso was blocked off by a large plant, obscuring the parts that could've been censored just like Dexter's. Need I remind you that the animators here are not just perverts, but cowards, too.

I've tried for years to get the edit to this one just right, and eventually I gave up and just set my man Krizeii to the task. Even on the original I've always felt Dee Dee should have some daisies for her chest, just to be cute, so I'm glad Krizeii got that just right.

There is, however, a brief silver lining to this scene. For one frame of animation, Dee Dee doesn't completely go behind the curtain, meaning we get to see her (featureless) chest. I'm sure if any kid used the pause button on it, they'd get the answer to a question that bugged them for so long. Seriously, even as a kid, this scene bugged me. I found it odd she wasn't censored like Dexter was, and found it hard to tell she was even naked like the song said. If it bugged me, it surely must've bugged other kids.

It's funny how we can only get stuff that should've been given to us by default on accident. That's gotta say something for the state we're in.

March 23 2017

8549 4cc4 420
After all the good I've talked about The Powerpuff Girls, it's time to talk about a moment where they gave into pressure and said No Girls Allowed!

One of the most notable moments of nudity-related humor came all the way in the first season, with the episode "The Bare Facts." In that one, Mojo had attempted to become Mayor, so he had to strip the existing Mayor of... something, something which led the Girls to laugh and laugh. We got our answer at the end, where the Mayor had been shown to be stripped of more than his powers... in a very personal way.

Three seasons later, in the episode, "Nano of the North", nanobots invaded Townsville via raindrops to destroy everything made of carbon (except evidently people for some reason), including buildings, cars and clothing. So when the Girls tried to fight them at full size, they failed, and they had to return home naked. Unfortunately, a series which used to do episodes like "Down N' Dirty" unashamed now embraced cowardice and comparatively censored the Girls, with them covering their butts and their fronts hidden by the Professor's arm.

It's a little weird why they'd chose to do that, given Craig is an unconventional person who does weird things in his cartoons. I have a hunch, though, that it was because at the time, the series was also airing on Kids WB, which was broadcast television on Saturday Mornings. That kinda thing is comparatively censored, and, in fact, this episode debuted on Kids WB, hence the probable need for censorship.

Nonetheless, it is an error, and it needs correcting, so I put Krizeii to task on creating a new version of the scene with less censorship. Considering later on one of the Rowdyruff Boys shows their butt, I don't think kids would mind. They'd more than likely see it as funny, since they laughed so much at the Mayor all those years earlier.

How sad that after years of bravery, they so suddenly embrace cowardice. What a waste.

March 01 2017

3541 1406
I've been wanting to share this moment from the begninning, but could never find a good chance to, since I didn't have the right edit for it. We do now, so here we are. It's time for another example the censorship board stepped in and said No Girls Allowed!

I already talked about The Simpsons in a prior episode or two, but this time we're talking about the comics based off the show. Now, the comics don't completely use the same staff as the show does, so there's bound to be some people involved who thing the comics should work differently from the show.

Case in point, one writer for the show may, in fact, have been an actual pedophile! His work involves Bart in a bunch of compromising positions, like in his underwear in public, or even a lot more nudity than usual. His major claim to fame is "Bart's Day at The Zoo," which sees Bart get trapped in a cage, slowly losing his clothes with every escape attempt, until he is left with nothing. And we see the stuff we usually see of Bart, namely his butt and stuff, while he's clearly embarrassed about the whole thing.

Of course, The Simpsons has historically been known for being preferential in their nudity cases, like how when Lisa shows up in "The Day the Earth Looked Stupid" when the entire rest of town is nude, she has her clothes on. As such, when she gets nude in "Journey to the Cellar of the Kwik-E-Mart", her backside is covered not just by a speech bubble, but by a crate that's clearly an afterthought, the most blatant example of censorship I've ever seen, to the point where I'd say it lands the staff a place in the Coward's Hall of Shame.

So with the help from my artist friend, I was able to remove the crate, and move the speech bubble. Getting this edit to look just right was difficult, since I needed the details to match up exactly. I ended up having to save the file as a compressed JPG, then edit it in post.

The things I have to do to get things just right. And I wouldn't have to do them if they'd gotten it right the first time!

February 21 2017

8759 eaa9
I just got a few new pictures I'd like to try out, but before we do one of 'em, I gotta talk about a specific show, and the reasons why once again a cowardly animator said No Girls Allowed!

Cartoon Network was goin' through some real troubles in 2004. They just changed their look to a brand new "city" look, and had to deal with a lot of new original shows. One of them was a show so outdated, it was outdated when it first premiered: Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi.

In this show meant to capitalize on the sudden popularity of the singers who did the Teen Titans theme, as well as cash in on the Japanese Invasion they helped start, Cartoon Network made a show about fictionalized versions of two famous pop singers, Puffy AmiYumi, the duo being Ami Onuki and Yumi Yoshimura. And I'd suspect the guys behind the show thought their cartoon counterparts that bore little resemblance to their real-life selves were sexy, since they kept shoving them into a bunch of sexy costumes and having them hug and share long, loving looks at each other. These guys were so perverted, the real Ami and Yumi famously asked "Why are you making us gay?", which they responded to with a storyboard of the cartoon versions making out. All this and more while the girls are implied to be teen idols, too! (surely the real Ami and Yumi were of age)

Of course, with perversion comes the need to deny you're a pervert in front of the children, so despite all the bikinis, bellydancer outfits and even towels they give the girls, they can't pull off even one nudity joke. Case in point, when Yumi is stripped of her clothes by Ami in the episode "Neat Freak", she's stuck with a chip packet to wear. The blush and small eyes probably mean she has nothing underneath, but this act of cowardice makes the entire thing moot since it's just a costume change, completely ruining the joke.

I had my friend Krizeii do a render of this a long time ago, and that's what we got here. Notice how Yumi is about as sexy as a block of wood. Notice the lack of sexual features, including hips and breasts. Notice how the thing is an actual embarrassment joke. I'm sure if the kids saw this, they'd be laughing harder than anything the show had ever done before, but I don't expect such a bland show to be anything other than boring.

Kids don't see nude girls as "inherently sexual". Only perverted animators who play matchmaker with pop stars on the same band do.

February 14 2017

3096 933f 420
Well, it's a good thing I get to start this blog again! I get to showcase one of my new toys! For those who don't know, every Tuesday I showcase just how unequal the standards of male and female nudity are, even when they're both put in the exact same situation. We call this show No Girls Allowed!

Our first example comes from the Cartoon Network show Dexter's Laboratory. Dexter's Lab was the first original television show produced by Cartoon Network that relied on its own characters instead of Hanna Barbera stock footage. That show, debuting in 1996, was a launchpad for the careers of many animators. It's probably the most important show in Cartoon Network's history, and has left a massive impact through the staff that worked on it.

That show was also very brave about nudity. One common gag was that the main character Dexter would be disrobed for humor's sake, and we'd often see his butt. The most prominent example of this is in the episode "Dexter's Rival" where we see his overjoyed morning routine, which includes him showering. It's very important because this was one of the few times it was used in children's entertainment; while Bart Simpson showed his butt numerous times, that was a strictly adult show. This was a kid's cartoon doing the exact same thing, which showcases how animators were really getting daring in the late 90's!

Unfortunately, I'd suspect the animators were a band of massive perverts. All the women in this show save the children have massive hips and many of them have large breasts. All of them are also lacking in personality beyond "mom" "surly waitress" "sex object" and "touchy-feely neighbor lady." That lady is of special note since at one point, she bends over and a clue to a mystery is printed on her tight-clad butt.

So if they regard female nudity as anything, it's sure to be sexual. And, as I've said numerous times, no one wants to sexualize children.

So when Dexter's older sister Dee Dee goes through the exact same scenario in the episode "Dee Dee's Rival", that includes a shower scene. Unfortunately, while Dexter's scene bared all, Dee Dee was hidden behind a shower curtain that showed nothing. Rather than try and be daring and do for boys what they did for girls, the animators take the coward's way out and censor completely. Even as a kid that bugged me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

So, to start off the third portion of the show, I'll introduce you to my dedicated screencap edit guy, Krizeii. I paid him to edit this screenshot to move the curtain to the same place Dexter's was, while at the same time showing as much as he did. What's the difference between the two? Well, to a kid, there isn't any. It's only the adults who've been raised in a society where female nudity is "inherently sexual" that sees this in a bad way, but the target audience doesn't mind one bit and is in fact bugged when the expected doesn't happen.

How unfortunate that this whole show showed it was okay to be brave with boys, but girls needed to be protected at all costs. A chance to change the rules was missed, and for that reason, this scene is the harbinger of the whole problem we're in.

And none of it was necessary at all.
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!