It's OK for Donald Duck to be Naked

It’s Okay for Donald Duck to Be Naked:
Several Observations About the Inane

I was about fifteen when I realized that cartoon characters don’t always wear clothes. I hadn’t watched cartoons in years, but the realization that many cartoon characters are underdressed struck me out of the blue one day, as it occurred to me that while Donald Duck doesn’t wear pants when he takes a shower he wraps the towel around his waist. I didn’t pay much attention to this revelation once I had it. Why should I? I’d never been offended by it. I simply stuck it in my mind as an inane little trivia fact. But there are those who would argue that all cartoon characters must wear clothes. This argument seems to me a silly, flimsy, and pointless example of what happens when nerds get bored. Some, like the ones my father works with, figure out how much money the company’s coffee-making policy wastes a year. Others ponder the philosophical and practical questions of clothing for animated characters. Both are so frivolous and truly humorous that we find ourselves feeling guilty for giving the arguments any credence. But, because there are arguments in favor of clothing for all cartoon characters, one must take sides and defend one’s point of view.

To come to the point, people do argue that all cartoon characters must wear clothes. Take, for example, Donald Duck, who I mentioned earlier. He, a male duck, wears a shirt but not pants. Obviously this, they say, sends a negative image to the youth who are watching him on TV. In our society walking around without pants is not acceptable, and letting cartoon characters do this is inappropriate and disturbing. According to them, this offensive lack of clothing must be stopped.

However, people who are making this argument, I fear, are forgetting several small details that make their arguments seem almost a joke, however seriously they may be presented. To begin, let us stick with our example of Donald Duck.
Firstly, he is a duck. He is not a person. In day to day life, people would be hard pressed to find examples of ducks wearing clothing, or for that matter living in a house or spending time with mice. Secondly, he is a cartoon. Entirely drawn, he can ignore some of the limits of reality because he is not a part of it. It should also be noted that he is not drawn in any way that depicts the “offensive” body parts clothing would hide. And this brings me to my third point: he is a fantasy character. Ducks in the real world do not have hands. They do not stand on their two webbed feet in an upright position. They do not speak lisped English, or, for that matter, any other language spoken by humans with any sort of diction whatsoever. He is entirely fake, not even plausible in the real world, and as such he is not required to behave in any certain way as we are as members of society.

Now that we have established the non-reality of cartoons, let’s take this argument one step farther. Children do not act based on what they see cartoon characters doing. Of course they play around some. They sit on a rug and pretend to fly like Aladdin, or imagine themselves as Ariel from The Little Mermaid when they go swimming. But how many children run off cliffs, thinking that, like Wile E. Coyote, who by the way does not wear clothes, the laws of gravity may not apply to them? How many kids, when making their birthday list, include rocket packs and elaborate catapults from the ACME Company? Not many. The line between the real world and Toontown is distinct, even at the age of three. Kids just don’t run around naked from the waist down yelling that they want to be like Donald. It simply doesn’t happen. Any three-year-old can tell you that Bugs Bunny is fun, but their pet bunny doesn’t say, “What’s up, Doc?” like he does. Children learn that cartoons are not real, and claiming that they will emulate a cartoon character’s lack of clothing is ridiculous.

But regardless of the fantasy of cartoons, taking them literally as those who want all cartoon characters in clothing do, examples of characters for whom clothing is unpractical and unrealistic spring to mind. Garfield, Snoopy, and Pluto are all pet characters. Pets in the real world don’t wear clothes, and, though these characters are fictional, they play roles based in reality and therefore have roots in realism. I will admit that, on occasion, these characters do wear some clothing, but it is the humorous, fantastic aspect, and not the realistic aspect, that permits them to do this. By the same token, I understand and agree with restrictions on animated nudity for human characters. But this is not exactly a problem in the animated world. The most scantily clad character that comes to mind is Jessica Rabbit, and while her sparkling red dress is certainly revealing, it covers everything that needs covering and serves the purpose of providing humor and enhancing character. Simply stated, from a realistic standpoint, clothing may be appropriate in some cases, but it is extremely inappropriate in others.

When you really think about it, is there any argument more bizarre than whether or not cartoon characters should wear clothes? The fact that we debate this is so strange and foreign to me. People, on the whole, are not offended, and are more often amused, by animated characters and their clothing or lack thereof. And as long as no one is harmed, I say, let them do whatever they want. Let Donald waddle around in a shirt and nothing else. Let Snoopy lie in the buff on his doghouse in peace. Let Wile E. Coyote fall off his cliffs and get up to fall another day. Let Mickey cast spells and curse brooms. Let mermaids, flying carpets, genies, talking statues, Greek gods, lost civilizations, jealous toys, and llamas that used to be emperors exist in their own parallel universe that is just as much ours as theirs. It is their ability to suspend reality, from the laws of nature to the laws of society and practicality, which makes them hilarious and entertaining. They are not us. With this realization firmly in place, we can see in them pieces of us, our frustrations, our observations, and our errors, all reflected in them, making them just like us in all the ways that really matter.

Even if they don’t wear clothes.