| rdfs:comment
| - Just because humans are uncomfortable with the subject of nudity, doesn't mean we're the only species to get our nudity censored in fiction -- it is just as common for regular everyday animals to get this treatment as well. This is technically Truth in Television for animals such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, echidnae, and insects, whose genetalia are visible only as a small underside 'vent' between the rear limbs (and easy to miss even without feathers or scales to obscure them). That's not a form of censorship, it's just Law of Conservation of Detail (remember: Nobody Poops).
|
| abstract
| - Just because humans are uncomfortable with the subject of nudity, doesn't mean we're the only species to get our nudity censored in fiction -- it is just as common for regular everyday animals to get this treatment as well. This is usually a concession of realism for the sake of the artist, as most artists would prefer to avoid drawing that part of an animal themselves, taboo or no taboo. It can also be a product of stylization, to which animals are especially prone, and which tends to remove unappealing or unimportant features, oftentimes to make them cuter (for example, stylized dogs tend to lack claws and lips). This is technically Truth in Television for animals such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, echidnae, and insects, whose genetalia are visible only as a small underside 'vent' between the rear limbs (and easy to miss even without feathers or scales to obscure them). That's not a form of censorship, it's just Law of Conservation of Detail (remember: Nobody Poops). On the other hand, when depicting mammals (save for platypuses and echidnas), there's a common assumption that an animal's natural fur will adequately preserve the creature's modesty. However, observation of most real mammals will show that their fur is actually thinner in those places (so it doesn't get soiled when nature calls, and is easier to clean if it does). Also, many species' coats of fur are just too short to adequately conceal the features of their genital area in the first place. Anyone who has seen a male pig or male dog for example, will have no doubt noticed the prominent pair of features between its rear legs. The sole exception to this censorship is the four teats of the female cow (and also quite often the male cow), which are always present, thanks to the iconic image of the country milkmaid. The only time cow udders were ever censored was in the early 1930s, when Moral Guardians became offended by the showing of Clarabelle Cow's bare udders in the 1930 Disney short "The Shindig." Other female mammals, even goats, are almost never shown with explicit mammaries, even in scenes where her offspring are shown nursing from her. For the purposes of defining examples, only animals who are mostly or "completely" normal in physical appearance (e.g. not visibly anthropomorphized) and animal mannerisms should be considered. For cases where a creature is sufficiently anthropomorphized that the Uncanny Valley effect might occur (such as with Funny Animals in a few cases and especially with Petting Zoo People), see Nonhumans Lack Attributes instead. Sub-Trope of Anatomy Anomaly and Nonhumans Lack Attributes, and related to Barbie Doll Anatomy (the human version). Compare Funny Animal Anatomy. See also Appropriate Animal Attire for a broader discussion of modesty and clothing as it applies to animals. Examples of Animals Lack Attributes include:
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)