Trackbacks & Pings

1. Racialicious on Princely Tails « Broke Hoedown on 06 Mar 2010 at 3:00 pm

   [...] Racialicious blog has excellent commentary on a series of beefcake, racialized images of Disney princes. Some are kinda [...]

2. Monday Morning Stepback: Lots o’ Links « Read React Review on 08 Mar 2010 at 6:41 am

   [...] NSFW commentary at Racialicious on a series of racialized, hypersexualized images of Disney princes. Sometimes I am really happy to say “your kink is not my kink”. And this is one of [...]

Comments

1. Najela wrote:

   Ha, I just wanted to say before I read this that the artist is on my Deviant Art watch account. I’m not really a fan of these pictures, but he is a really good artist. Now to go read.

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 10:56 am ¶

2. reallyneat wrote:

   Is “John” supposed to be John Smith from Pocahontas?

   Those images are sick, as in disgusting. People need to stop sexualizing everything. It’s vulgar. Our hypersexualized culture is getting worse and worse. I mean seriously, erotizing Disney characters?

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 2:21 pm ¶

3. Minotaar wrote:

   Overbulge? Or cancer? That is seriously gross.

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 2:26 pm ¶

4. Charles J wrote:

   Why would someone do this to children’s cartoons?

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 3:05 pm ¶

5. Molly M. wrote:

   Another interesting element is the way in which these masculinities are not only hypersexualized and stereotypical, but also in constant competition with one another. Anyway, a great film that addresses the relationship between masculinity and pop culture is “Tough Guise” directed by Sut Jhally (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139643/)

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 3:43 pm ¶

6. jen* wrote:

   @reallyneat – Sometimes I’m kind of into the sexualization of dude cartoons, just cuz it’s so rare in comparison with how often it’s done with the ladies. I get the issue with the childhood character thing, but you must not have seen the things that have been done with the images of Ariel, Snow White, Cinderella, etc.

   I’m not gonna say this is necessarily a goose-gander sitch, but I don’t mind a little boy-hotness in cartoons [when they're appropriately steered to the appropriate markets].

   Keeping all of them in their clearly marked racial boxes does seem forced and constricting, though.

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 3:59 pm ¶

7. TierListE wrote:

   Omg I remember these pictures; I still have them on my bookmarked links, haha. I liked them but they freaked out my whole family and boyfriend; and sparked an interesting response of “Augh men being sexual automatically equals gay”, in which I (tried) to question 1) why do these men *have* to be gay now and 2) why, even in my female family members, did them being “gay” now need to evoke a disgusted/horrified response?

   I know all of the straight males I’m close with their probably get tired of me picking apart the “naturalness” of narrowly defined masculinity and related homophobic reactions, but their answers, or rather, their admitted non-answers, are fascinating to me.

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 4:07 pm ¶

8. n wrote:

   I like the pics, but the huge package on that one guy is rather alarming.
   @reallyneat
   Everything about a Disney movie is sex, I think its actually cool to take away the facade and reveal what its about. All of these Princes and Princesses are looking for love and a mate. Happily ever after will involve some clothing removal and some erotic acts.

   Most of these movies came out way after my childhood, so they don’t bother me in the way they may have if I had watched them as a child. But I hope that as adults who see them, the appeal isn’t freakiness, but an appreciation of a good looking man and an adult understanding of what really happened AFTER the fairy tale wedding. To be skeeved out about it, IMO, is kinda like being an adult and STILL mortified to realize your grandparents and parents had sex with one another.

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 4:08 pm ¶

9. Celeste wrote:

   Shang’s pose was all wrong, it doesn’t look natural.

   Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 4:17 pm ¶

10. Kat wrote:

    @ jen & TierListE:

    Really??? Cause this speaks “gay” to me in very different ways: It’s Tom of Finland for cartoon characters. And I am not attracted to Tom of Finland stuff for the same reason: Waaaay over the top to the point of grossness. To me this always was an indication that men are much more visual than women, since I am actually very turned off by this hypermasculinity (including the ridiculous focus on the ‘packages’). You just challenged my perception on that.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 4:47 pm ¶

11. jen* wrote:

    @Kat – I’ll admit that I don’t focus on the package in these pics – I focus on the face and chest like I do in real life. But – no – I didn’t get the implied gay. I just got that they were focusing on Disney boys as hotboys.

    I can see now tho, how that could be construed as going for gay appeal, but I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily only to other dudes. And I don’t know who Tom of Finland is, so…

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 4:56 pm ¶

12. Mooncat wrote:

    shang’s unnatural pose and the over-bulge is a bit much for me but i like them too.

    heh, now i feel dirty.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 5:43 pm ¶

13. Asada wrote:

    @ 5

    Thats a ashame!
    Why cant men be sexual, is it too much to please womens tastes now? Jeez….

    Kuzco, OMG is hawt…..

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 6:03 pm ¶

14. Kat wrote:

    @ jen*:

    Tom of Finland

    Cution: NSFW AT ALL! (not even a little bit, unless you work in… you’ll get the idea)

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 6:15 pm ¶

15. Kat wrote:

    That’s supposed to read “Caution” of course. Can’t spell today. “Tom of Finland” is pretty much the most famous gay erotic artist.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 6:18 pm ¶

16. Aristo wrote:

    I think it’s an interesting art project to portray what are often the earliest crushes of young girls in such a way for those of us who’ve grown up. I’m going to have to roll my eyes at the people bantering about rampant sexualization–these weren’t meant to be looked at by children any more than adult comics are meant to be looked at by children.

    As for the racial aspect? Some things are certainly iffy (the bulge on the black man? just wow.), while for others it sounds like the author is really digging. Kuzco was an adolescent boy. Shang was a martial arts artist. I’d imagine the artist is focusing on capturing the original characters–with all of the original mistakes. Unfortunate, but not groundbreaking or even newsworthy.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 6:38 pm ¶

17. karen wrote:

    Kat said, “To me this always was an indication that men are much more visual than women”

    I just need to vent that I ABSOLUTELY LOATHE this stereotype that you repeated here.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 6:54 pm ¶

18. Dr. Ivo Robotnik wrote:

    I absolutely agree with what you’ve said. And so, fap fap fap fap fap…

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 7:18 pm ¶

19. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    Jen # 9

    Tom of Finland was Touko Laaksonen [1920 1991], an artist from Kaarina, Finland, who drew these hypermasculine cartoons of sexually aggressive men, usually in military or military type uniforms or dressed like bikers.

    He fought in World War II as a lieutenant in the Finnish Army, and he says seeing all those good looking men in uniform every day was the inspiration for his later artwork

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_of_Finland

    And yeah, I can totally see the Tom of Finland influence in these cartoons.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 7:51 pm ¶

20. Ico wrote:

    I like these pics. They are very well rendered, though I agree that Shang’s pose is very awkward. Seeing this post makes me wonder how much time y’all spend on deviantART? Because really, these images of male Disney figures are incredibly rare examples in comparison to the number of overly sexualized, and much more explicit, images of female characters from any fandom. I think we are simply inured to the latter, so it doesn’t have the same shock-value to see, say, Pocahontas topless.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 10:01 pm ¶

21. miga wrote:

    An interview with the artist in question:http://www.disneylicious.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=177

    http://geminiart.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-kawena-does-disney.html

    He’s gay and from Israel. How does this change things? Or does it?

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 10:18 pm ¶

22. softestbullet wrote:

    Oh, Kat, you should see the kind of fanart women draw of hot male characters. Or, well, maybe you shouldn’t.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 11:41 pm ¶

23. westwood wrote:

    @jen/@reallyneat

    I agree with Jen. The women are sexualized anyway. Ask straight men about their boyhood crushes, and you can often (jokingly or not) get a few disney princesses out of it.

    I find this more to be a commentary on stereotypes and masculinity in cartoons then an actual attempt at sex objects.

    Posted 05 Mar 2010 at 11:43 pm ¶

24. n wrote:

    Gay? Maybe. But to me the whole idea that a man on display is gay just means all people consider is the male gaze, as they call it.

    Men look and desire, women are desired. So foreign to some people is the idea that women desire,that they can only see men attempting to be alluring as assuming the female role, that of an object on display looking for male attention.

    I was married to a bodybuilder and learned a lot about people’s perceptions of men who preen and emphasize their physique. But really, why do men get to have hot chicks, but hot chicks have to “settle” for schlumpy guys?

    I actually like the Kuzko and didn’t see him as “underdeveloped”, but slim like the Disney version is.He’s definitely got a package, not huge, but it looks like the artist tried to make the crotch area proportionate to the size of the guys muscles.

    I too look at the face and chest, though my favorite area is the lower torso. I love the sleek curve from the back to the hip.

    Posted 06 Mar 2010 at 12:27 am ¶

25. miga wrote:

    Also, at Reallyneat: Sadly, yes. It’s rule 34 of the interwebs.

    Posted 06 Mar 2010 at 4:24 am ¶

26. Kat wrote:

    @jen*: Just type “Tom of Finland” into images.google.com.

    Posted 06 Mar 2010 at 6:44 am ¶

27. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Are we now pretending that straight (um, pardon) Disney is not already sexualized? Oh, OK.

    And I think it is fine that the Black characters have big hammers. The whole point is in pushing the sexuality and the fetishes (including racial) to their (logical?) extremes. The point would have been different had the men been drawn hanging out of castle windows twirling their hair or dancing with tea cups and magic carpets.

    Posted 08 Mar 2010 at 8:29 am ¶

28. KB wrote:

    That guy is a great artist. His animation is crazy. He also puts adult content on these images, not that kids don’t just lie about their ages to see them anyway.

    The part I found creepy about this series was when he went into real actors from the Disney channel.

    Posted 08 Mar 2010 at 2:26 pm ¶

29. miga wrote:

    @KB- yeah, I think he crossed a line when he did Peter Pan, Jim from Treasure Planet, and Peter and Prince Caspian from Chronicles of Narnia. Those kids (cartoon or not) are underage.

    Posted 08 Mar 2010 at 9:50 pm ¶

30. jvansteppes wrote:

    I saw these somewhere else and missed the part where they’re supposed to be homoerotic. Tom of Finland depicts men lusting after one another- these guys look like they could be Marky Mark.

    Posted 09 Mar 2010 at 5:39 am ¶

31. miga wrote:

    I just did a search of Tom of Finland. I know, I know you guys told me about it but all the same I was NOT prepared for it. *my eyeees, my eeeeyes*

    Posted 12 Mar 2010 at 8:16 am ¶