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...

Reposted from arcroyale