Animation Source Forums

If it's going to be a 'lump of fur' Why would it be their anyway? I thought it was a penis. Well a lump of fur doesn't belong there....so they'll erase it.

You know, you guys are arguing nothing here.

I agree with the point; YOU DO NOT NEED EXCESSIVE DETAIL, JUST A TINY SOMETHING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. You don't need excessive detail; I mean GOD, kids that are seven and younger are watching "Morale Oral" on Adult Swim, IT CAN'T GET ANY WORSE!

You guys are here acting like "OMG IT'LL OFFEND THEM" when parents really won't care so much. A tiny bit of detail? I don't do so myself, because the lot of my characters are FEMALE. I think more teenagers would be offended, like "OMG that's SICK" because little kids don't think of those parts like hormonal teens/adults do. You have to remember, six-year-olds won't go look at a kids' cartoon and go "They made those characters sexually explicit"!

But to be honest, Universal wasn't even anatomacly correct in "Balto", so we can't badger them for a lack of ONE detail when they make a bunch of other mistakes.

Lets say I'm in-the-middle with your point, like "Yea, they should do it" BUT "at the same time, the rest of detail is WAY off".

I'm just worried this is going to end up in a flame war.

*sigh* Okay. I understand that you're going to need an illustration -_-'

This is what I mean --> Pay close attention to the Male Dog

See? Nothing explicit or dirty. Not sure if you ever noticed, but a male animal's penis goes INSIDE of a casing called a sheath.

So how about the female's privates? They have stuff there too.

-_-
That's when you use just a simple, flat belly. >_> Take Rolla's picture for example. You can tell which is the male, and which is the female.

Not sure why I am even bothering but that picture you showed of a male dog.. again nothing different from any other piece of dog art in history. The difference? In cartoons they are not 100% animals. They are human personifications on an animal form. Balto was more realistic and less anthropomorthic than say mickey mouse but he still had qualities such as big human baby style eyes, human eyebrows and a humanish tongue (depending on what part of the movie you watch). His facial expressions, his mouth movements and his general mannerisms are all human qualities and that is why it would be wrong to put any hint of genitalia on him. The 'natural' animal qualities have been removed, if what you are saying is true then surely Barbie's (ex?)boyfriend Ken should have more indication he is a guy than a pair of plastic Y front underwear. No wait cos kids know he is a guy without seeing a bulge there.

You should be pleased that in the alley scene when Boris is walking away the animators must have though it was funny to put that little dot on his back side.


Going back to the picture though you can clearly see which is male and which is female from the body structure and the facial qualities, you don't need to be a brain surgeon or be in presence of a sheath to realise that. But I am not saying it is wrong to put a sheath on the picture because as I said before it is nothing new in art.

Again, I totally agree with you.
There is enough indication that it's a male, so it's pointless.
Also.. if your going to make a penis for the male, why not a vagina for the girl? Because I totally can't tell thats a girl.
It's just pointless.

Yeah, I agree.....
-privates togo-

Ever since I said my piece, I've been wondering how long it would take for this to get locked, simply because of the subject matter. It actually went on far longer than I thought it would.

I've been thinking the same thing myself. You know, it's not everyday I get to read stuff like this. It always makes me laugh.

The same could be said for myself...