I often encounter complaints about non-human female cartoon character appearance that focus on one of two features: the “problem” of “nakedness” or lack of clothing on certain female furry anthropomorphic cartoon characters and the stylistic human-like rather than cartoony proportions and body shapes drawn by some artists (cartoony look was first for the characters).
I dislike the argument for clothes on these female cartoon characters and feel conflicted about the overly-human proportions for the same reason: they both are based on sexualizing the female body. The human-like detail on female characters is presumably the artists sexualizing the characters (but this is not unique to the female characters as some of the male characters from the same series have been drawn overly muscled or, at a minimum, with broader shoulders/less-cartoony-oval-shaped bodies, generally corresponding to the exaggerated female form’s use in their art), and it does bother me, although I do usually like the overall look aesthetically. However, complaints about the “inappropriateness” of female cartoon character “nakedness” despite the lack of anatomical details beyond what would be visible through clothes also suggest sexualizing the female body because, when contrast with the accepted lack of clothing on male characters, imply that the female body is inherently sexually inappropriate. Wanting clothing when the non-human character has already been sexualized to me doubles the problem of sexualizing, by simultaneously accepting the “inappropriateness” of the female body by coving it (especially paradoxical when “cover” amounts to a simple recolor) and rejecting the option for a more “appropriate” less-sexy or cartoony body.
To me, insisting that they “cover up” or having a noticeable clothing-level contrast (in either direction) between what is acceptable for male and female characters puts the focus on sexuality or suggests that there is something inappropriate much more so than showing that there is nothing inappropriate about female cartoon characters by leaving them “naked” as their male counterparts are, or, more accurately, with the same range of degrees of clothing.
Not to discount the facts of biology or that most adult males (and arguably many females too) are going to find the female figure sexually attractive. But what I find inappropriate in children’s cartoons is a focus on that type of attractiveness through both exaggerated physical features and personality/behavior, not that an “attractive” female (or male) character exists, because how do you define “sexually attractive”? “Sexualized” figures tend to over-emphasize “sexy” traits such as narrow waists and large hips and breasts on females or broad shoulders and large muscles on males (or, alternatively, perfectly toned muscles on a more slender, athletic body), often combined with attractive facial features and either revealing or fancy clothes, and this I find questionable in children’s entertainment. But this is different from the fact that even a realistic or underemphasized female (or male) figure can be found sexually attractive, even if the character is animated or not intended to be “sexy.” Thus, it seems like trying to cover female characters because someone may find sexually attractive amounts to blaming the reality of a female body for “undesirable” or contextually inappropriate adult feelings that a child likely doesn’t even have. And it doesn’t necessarily “fix” anything because clothing can be “sexy” or inappropriate too, and often are, within the same series, such as skin-tight black leather bodysuits. To me, that double-standard is worse than some artists giving non-human cartoon characters unrealistic-human proportions because it implies not only a responsibility for other’s behaviors, but defectiveness – that there is no "outside of sexuality," and females should be ashamed of their bodies beyond the already invisible/covered anatomical details, while males should not.
To quote Jessica Rabbit, “I’m not bad; I’m just drawn that way.” Maybe, but owning that perception is as much the responsibility of the viewer as it is the artist.
