Otis from "Back at the Barnyard" A bull with Udders?, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 15-2-2010 @ 02:31 PM by Icarus Rising

What is with Otis? Or more to the point, what is with the creators of BatB? How can they think for one second it is anatomically, politically, or socially correct to put an udder on a bull? Or is it that they don't have the balls to portray correctly what should be there (his balls, for starters)? Is this part of the feminist agenda to emasculate American males? We now have a generation of American children that will grow up thinking male cattle should have udders. I think there is even an episode where he shoots milk out of them! I don't watch the show myself (I prefer Penguins of Madagascar) but my son does. I've had to explain to him that Otis just isn't right between the legs.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Icarus Rising]

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:54 PM by FortAnthem

reply to post by Icarus Rising

I had to give you a S&F for this before the mods dump it to BTS.

Also wanted to say, you are 100% correct. That cartoon gives me the creaps with the male bull with the udders. Someone need to take the animator to a farm and show him what a REAL bull looks like.

And tell him to wear red for the trip.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 03:00 PM by iamsupermanv2

really? you think a bull with utters will demasculate males?

Come on, it's clown shoes.

It's also a cartoon. When was the last time cartoons portrayed things correctly?

Last I checked Goofy was a dog, but dogs don't walk upright.

One of the identifying characteristics of a bovine is that they have utters...a kid doesn't care if its anatomically correct or not..

if I remember right, my stretch arm strong didn't have a ding a ling...i was never confused.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 03:16 PM by Icarus Rising

reply to post by iamsupermanv2

They shouldn't portray a male animal with female anatomy. Its that simple. None of your examples are transgender. Apples and oranges. Yeah, its just a cartoon. That's how pervasive this conspiracy has become. There is no way a bull should be portrayed in any media as having udders. The fact is, a bull would just have what appears to be a tuft of fur in that spot (most of the time). The gonads would be more to the rear.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 03:40 PM by Phlynx

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by iamsupermanv2

They shouldn't portray a male animal with female anatomy. Its that simple. None of your examples are transgender. Apples and oranges. Yeah, its just a cartoon. That's how pervasive this conspiracy has become. There is no way a bull should be portrayed in any media as having udders. The fact is, a bull would just have what appears to be a tuft of fur in that spot (most of the time). The gonads would be more to the rear.

Big deal... I think it's funny... it's a transgender cartoon.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 05:23 PM by Icarus Rising

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I accept the choice transgendered individuals have made for themselves, as well. I wouldn't allow my son to have a transgendered babysitter, though. That's my choice and I am entitled to it.

Pages: ^^TOP^^