Re: People unclear on the subject

Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Joseph Nebus wrote:
>> 	Thoroughgoing diversion: while the bulls-with-udders are really, 
>> really creepy and wrong in 'Barnyard', not least because the udders
look 
>> like horrible suction-cup stick-ons to an already questionable design
of 
>> the characters, they aren't a priori any more misplaced than pouches on

>> male kangaroos.  But cartoonists and animators have been getting away
>> with *that* casual hermaphroditism since whenever the first kangaroo
was 
>> put in a cartoon.  Why does that fly, other than the general usefulness

>> for the cartoon character pouch-of-holding effect?  
>
>	I would guess because the number of people aware that the pouch is a 
>***-limited characteristic is an order of magnitude lower than those 
>aware that udders are ***-limited characteristics.

And probably also because the genitalia of male kangaroos are at least as
visible a characteristic as the pouches are for females ... and drawing /
animating large male genitalia on animals, even if they're _there_ in real
life, will file your cartoon or animation in a subgenre that a lot of them
probably don't want to be filed in.

Dave
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	from dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "It's not the pot that	grows the
flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone
to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET
VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/
- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all
CAPS! --K.