Why don't they wear some cloth? And Sally too
Ilovejamaa74 wrote:
Mystic Monkey wrote:
Ilovejamaa74 wrote:
Kroshy wrote:
Kroshy wrote:
PKMNthehedgehog2.5 wrote: I don't really see why cartoon characters have to have reproductive organs. How they got there is irrelevanwt and the creators of the franchise themselves prolly didn't even want to think on it.
The break room is probably one big ̶H̶a̶k̶u̶r̶e̶i̶ shrine.
I'm just going to point out that they put clothing on Crash Bandicoot, Mario, Mickey Mouse and Spongebob Squarepants, although Sonic far from being the only one who doesn't wear pants. They didn't put pants on Garfield, Felix the cat, Bugs Bunny and most Looney Tunes characters, Scooby-Doo, Tom and Jerry, Elmo, Cookie Monster, plus heaps more.
In the world of cartoon, it is completely normal that Sonic doesn't wear pants or have private parts.
Cindy 77 wrote: I'm just going to point out that they put clothing on Crash Bandicoot, Mario, Mickey Mouse and Spongebob Squarepants, although Sonic far from being the only one who doesn't wear pants. They didn't put pants on Garfield, Felix the cat, Bugs Bunny and most Looney Tunes characters, Scooby-Doo, Tom and Jerry, Elmo, Cookie Monster, plus heaps more.
In the world of cartoon, it is completely normal that Sonic doesn't wear pants or have private parts.
You just hit the nail on the head.
Cindy 77 wrote: I'm just going to point out that they put clothing on Crash Bandicoot, Mario, Mickey Mouse and Spongebob Squarepants, although Sonic far from being the only one who doesn't wear pants. They didn't put pants on Garfield, Felix the cat, Bugs Bunny and most Looney Tunes characters, Scooby-Doo, Tom and Jerry, Elmo, Cookie Monster, plus heaps more.
In the world of cartoon, it is completely normal that Sonic doesn't wear pants or have private parts.
You just hit the nail on the head.
Yep, sure did.
In the games SonAmy is definitly going to be a thing. In the comics I'm not too sure, Sally has ALWAYS been his love interest even before Amy was around. Amy is definitly the second choice, but Sally just always has the upper hand against her in the comics xD
Not likely. The relationship is clearly one sided and I doubt SEGA would go any farther with it. Heck there are ships with more evidence on both sides in the games SEGA refuses to act on, I doubt Sonamy would stand any chance in this regard
MobianTheAngel wrote:
That I don't see nudity or the exposure of genitalia wrong, bad, taboo, disgusting, sinful etc.
Uh... you mean as long as they're not anatomically accurate, like Sally was Pre-SGW.
'cus I doubt kids cartoons and games can get away with nudity in general.
MobianTheAngel wrote:
'cus I doubt kids cartoons and games can get away with nudity in general.
Yes I know the laws of most societies having things like that publicised is not "legal" but I honestly and strongly do not beleve in those laws or the popular belief of the censoring of such things.
I do not see a reason to show them in kid shows. they serve a very basic function that, yes kids do need to know about, but not necessarily during their entertainment. We should leave that to the parents and sex ed. Basically my point is is that every other body part serves a purpose to the characters, like their hands, torso, head, ect but genitalia and other private parts have only two purposes (three on the woman's part) and neither need to be adressed in children's games/T.V. shows or any other public media. I see it only fit for education services.
I agree that those parts are not wrong in any way, but kids have a certain way of growing up and some things shouldn't be brought to their attention by their saturday morning cartoon, rather than from an one on one talk with their parents.