Who was the first Disney heroine who was given sex appeal?

[Super Aurora]

A lot of gay men can find the sex appeal in certain women. Besides, I've been told by plenty of straight men that they can find the sex appeal in men.

I was just joking hence the emoticon. but yeah that's true.

[WaltDisneyFanBoy]

A lot of gay men can find the sex appeal in certain women. Besides, I've been told by plenty of straight men that they can find the sex appeal in men.

True, I am gay too, bur I still can find sex appeal in certain women

[Dragonlion]

Sluefoot Sue, as mentioned before, was probably the first heroine to have sex appeal, but I think Ariel was the first Disney protagonist, male or female, to have any intentional sex appeal. Do you think Walt Disney would ever have a shot like this for Cinderella?

[Cheshire_Cat]

Sluefoot Sue, as mentioned before, was probably the first heroine to have sex appeal, but I think Ariel was the first Disney protagonist, male or female, to have any intentional sex appeal. Do you think Walt Disney would ever have a shot like this for Cinderella?

He probably would have been shocked by how skinny she was.

[Dragonlion]

He probably would have been shocked by how skinny she was.

Really? He didn't seem to mind Aurora much...

[Goliath]

Wow! She's a poster child for anorexia.

Seriously. The more I look at that pic, the more it becomes clear to me that this isn't healthy. It's not even a 'normal' human body. I believe such a body would even be impossible for a human being. Her waist is so thin, it would never be able to hold her chest. if we see these kinds of photos in magazines, we immediately recognize them as photoshopped images. Because it's simply not possible. Actually, when you frame the picture like that and are able to take a good look at it, it's getting creepy after a while. It just doesn't look like a human body at all.

[Scarred4life]

Actually, when you frame the picture like that and are able to take a good look at it, it's getting creepy after a while. It just doesn't look like a human body at all.

Especially the curve of the stomach. I once read somewhere that if the Barbie doll was a life-size human being, she would only have room for half a liver, one kidney, etc. Having a body like Ariel does in that picture is taking it a step beyond anorexia, it's actually physically impossible.

[Elladorine]

There's an enormous difference between an exaggerated cartoon figure and a photoshopped image of a real figure (or a real anorexic one, for that matter).

[Scarred4life]

There's an enormous difference between an exaggerated cartoon figure and a photoshopped image of a real figure (or a real anorexic one, for that matter).

But they're both sending out the same message. Girls have to be anorexic to be beautiful.

[Goliath]

There's an enormous difference between an exaggerated cartoon figure and a photoshopped image of a real figure (or a real anorexic one, for that matter).

Aside from the obvious difference that one is animated and none-existant in the real world and the other is not, I can't see the difference.

Especially the curve of the stomach. I once read somewhere that if the Barbie doll was a life-size human being, she would only have room for half a liver, one kidney, etc. Having a body like Ariel does in that picture is taking it a step beyond anorexia, it's actually physically impossible.

Exactly. I just regard this as bad animation, even if that will earn me the wrath of half of UD who love TLM --as do I! I love that movie, but lately I've become aware ust how ridiculously thin Ariel is. Now, admittedly, I'm all for slim girls, but there's a huge difference between healthy slim and scaringly thin! have to think of a bit of stand-up comedy of Bill Maher that I saw the other night; he was talking about how the image of 'sexy women' has changed in his lifetime from the curvy women like Marilyn Monroe to the thin stick-figures we see today. He mentioned it all began with a model he referred to as 'Tweaky' in a man's magazine. Anybody here old enough to know who he's referring to?

[Super Aurora]

Yeah it's bit exaggerated but I think what they were going for is girls like this, considering that Ariel was 16 in that film:




or




which is the slim body but not so anorexic. It's just that in Animation and animu, they exaggerate the body. Just like in Animu they exaggerate they eyes and shit.

[Marce82]

First, I believe the model Bill Maher was referring to was Twiggy, a major model in the 60's who got her name cause she looked like a twig...being so skinny.

As for Ariel's figure. People. Relax. Cartoons aren't meant to be role models, or reflect human beings. If that were the case, we;d all jump off cliffs and expect to survive, and chasing after road runners.

Ariel's features, like most well designed cartoons, are exaggerated. Nobody has eyes THAT big, or waist THAT small. THing is, in 2-d animation, because everything looks flat, you can't have a realistic waistline, cause it doesn't look like it's wrapping around the body, making all the characters look fat (look up some of the rotoscoped drawings of Snow White), so one has to exaggerate to convey thin.

When one sees a real actress or model with a photoshopped body, that DOES mislead people to think that such proportions are possible.

Just relax and enjoy the movie!

[Disney's Divinity]

Having a body like Ariel does in that picture is taking it a step beyond anorexia, it's actually physically impossible.

So is living underwater without scales or being able to survive as a human at the bottom of the sea long enough to make it to the surface of the ocean.

I honestly don't take it seriously, because her head is too big, her eyes are too big, and her hair is too large for a normal human being. I don't look to cartoons for role models and I'd honestly be surprised if most girls did either. Which is where the difference between a cartoon image and a fake image of a real person comes in. Of course, I recognize the fact that it reinforces cultural ideas of beauty found in magazines, but it's not the cause.

The only sad thing is it’s still 2010, and our latest 'Disney princess' follows the Ariel model almost exactly. Clearly not much progress in the body image area.

[Elladorine]

There's an enormous difference between an exaggerated cartoon figure and a photoshopped image of a real figure (or a real anorexic one, for that matter).

Aside from the obvious difference that one is animated and none-existant in the real world and the other is not, I can't see the difference.

Do real girls have the same size head and eyes as Ariel? Are their noses as small as hers? Same thing with the feet and hands, the fullness of the hair . . . no one ever really complains about any of that looking unhealthy even though it's all exaggerated. There is a major difference because she's animated. As I've pointed out many times, cartoons need to be exaggerated to an extent in order to be visually appealing. Ask any professional cartoonist or animator and you'll hear the same thing.

* * *
ETA: Yeah, pretty much what Disney's Divinity says in the above post, which was posted when I was still typing mine. Also Super Aurora and Marce82. In addition . . .

The only sad thing is it’s still 2010, and our latest 'Disney princess' follows the Ariel model almost exactly. Clearly not much progress in the body image area.

I think a lot of that simply has to do with Glen Keane's artistic style. I realize he went a totally different direction with Pocahontas, but I think he drifted back toward his natural preferences with Rapunzel.

* * *
And oops, meant to address this but forgot . . .

He mentioned it all began with a model he referred to as 'Tweaky' in a man's magazine. Anybody here old enough to know who he's referring to?

He's actually referring to Twiggy, you can see her official website here: http://www.twiggylawson.co.uk/

[carolinakid]

and her hair is too large for a normal human being.

You must never have seen a Jersey Girl in the '80s!

[Goliath]

Yeah, but at least she's got a middle that keeps her chest from falling off, unlike Ariel. Still, that's very thin. Are you sure that picture isn't photoshopped? The middle looks... I dunno, the curve seems strange. She's got a beautiful face, though. <3

First, I believe the model Bill Maher was referring to was Twiggy, a major model in the 60's who got her name cause she looked like a twig...being so skinny.

Yes, it was 'Twiggy'; I got it wrong! Thanks for setting that straight!

[...] Ariel's features, like most well designed cartoons, are exaggerated. Nobody has eyes THAT big, or waist THAT small. THing is, in 2-d animation, because everything looks flat, you can't have a realistic waistline, cause it doesn't look like it's wrapping around the body, making all the characters look fat (look up some of the rotoscoped drawings of Snow White), so one has to exaggerate to convey thin.

I don't know. Tiana, Pocahontas and Esmeralda didn't look fat, but they didn't look that extremely thin either. It's not only the waist, but also the anorexic arms. I think some people underestimate the influence *all* media can have on children, even animated. If animators choose this type of body for their female characters time after time (they did it to Rapunzel, too), that does give the impression that being that thin is the 'ideal' woman. I understand the reflex to defend the movie, but it's not the movie I'm criticizing.

So is living underwater without scales or being able to survive as a human at the bottom of the sea long enough to make it to the surface of the ocean.

That's a non-argument, a HUGE one if I've ever seen one, and you know that. That's like saying proportions in animated humans isn't important, because it's only a cartoon! Might as well throw all of the classic Disney animators' lessons about animating in the garbage. After all, "it's only a cartoon"!

That image of Ariel that was shown does not even look like a human body. I doubt that's what the animators were going for. They pushed it too far. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.

[Disney's Divinity]

So is living underwater without scales or being able to survive as a human at the bottom of the sea long enough to make it to the surface of the ocean.

That's a non-argument, a HUGE one if I've ever seen one, and you know that. That's like saying proportions in animated humans isn't important, because it's only a cartoon! Might as well throw all of the classic Disney animators' lessons about animating in the garbage. After all, "it's only a cartoon"!

Yes, I know it's a non-argument. That's why it wasn't the only thing I wrote. For me, it was an opener into how comparatively ridiculous the issue over Ariel's body is to me.

That image of Ariel that was shown does not even look like a human body. I doubt that's what the animators were going for. They pushed it too far. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.

It does look like a human body to me, just not a real one. Same with Ursula (the skeleton that shows in the lightning flash is hilarious--like Cruella + 400 lbs).

Ariel's body reminds me of a lot of girls I'm friends with, who aren't anorexic, but who have small frames. Plus exaggeration (but not as much as you'd think).

EDIT:

Just for reference, this is about how much that could be added and she would look half-way real to me:

For an exaggerated cartoon, that's not a huge deal. Especially when considering that part of the reason it looks so small in this shot is because the eyes/head/hair is so huge; also, because it's from the side and not the front. Imo though, the arms look perfectly normal--especially for a girl who's been swimming non-stop at the bottom of the ocean for 16 years (though she should really have muscle after all that work ).

EDIT (just to keep from taking over a thread and for clarification):

My point was that if you’re going to complain about one thing, you have to open the door to all those other “unrealistic” things and exaggerations on reality. You can’t pick and choose what crosses the line.

[Goliath]

Yes, I know it's a non-argument. That's why it wasn't the only thing I wrote. For me, it was an opener into how comparatively ridiculous the issue over Ariel's body is to me.

It doesn't matter that it's not the only thing you wrote. When you begin with saying someone's argument is not important, because not everything that happens in cartoons is realistic, it's hard to take the rest of your post seriously. I'm not saying this to slam *you* down, but to shoot *that kind of argumentation* down. Just because these are movies about mermaids, beasts, genies, talking lions or fairy godmothers doesn't mean everything goes. There are still rules.

[Elladorine]

That's like saying proportions in animated humans isn't important, because it's only a cartoon! Might as well throw all of the classic Disney animators' lessons about animating in the garbage. After all, "it's only a cartoon"!

Artists have to know the "rules" of anatomy before they can get a feel of where and what to exaggerate on the human form when it comes to cartoon characters. So yes, proportions are important for any artist to study and incorporate into their work. And given the typical Disney style once again, the heads are proportionally large, and so are the eyes. The waist is typically made smaller, the legs are usually made longer, etc. Why? Large heads are appealing and sympathetic, large eyes are appealing and expressive. Long legs are attractive, so are small waists. They just push it further with the character designs. And it's more than overall proportions, much of the time there's the entire look of the film to consider and work with (take Aladdin for example):



When broken down into simple shapes, Jasmine doesn't exactly look like she has a realisitic human body, but compare it Aladdin, Jafar, the Sultan; they lack just as much realism but no one ever seems to complain about them.

That image of Ariel that was shown does not even look like a human body. I doubt that's what the animators were going for. They pushed it too far. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.

It does look like a human body to me, just not a real one. Same with Ursula (the skeleton that shows in the lightning flash is hilarious--like Cruella + 400 lbs).

Ariel's body reminds me of a lot of girls I'm friends with, who aren't anorexic, but who have small frames. Plus exaggeration (but not as much as you'd think).

EDIT:

Just for reference, this is about how much that could be added and she would look half-way real to me:



For an exaggerated cartoon, that's not a huge deal. Especially when considering that part of the reason it looks so small in this shot is because the eyes/head/hair is so huge; also, because it's from the side and not the front.

Exactly! She's not a real human, none of the characters in these animated films are realistic; not Ursula, not Eric, not Grimsby. The artist of that particular scene was pushing to exaggerate the curve of the back, something that's considered very feminine. And when you consider the size of the head compared with the body . . . well, when specifically talking about Ariel, she is only 5 1/2 heads high! Real humans are approximately 8 heads high (and in turn, comic book heroines are often 9 heads high).



And all of these animated characters remain merely cartoons, because that's exactly what they are. At least they aren't attempting to masquerade as reality like the following images do:



Ralph Lauren tried to pass the left image off as Fillipa Hamilton's real figure, something entirely impossible in reality. I mean, even her pelvis is too small! They initially tried to sue a website for pointing that out, but eventually issued an apology over the backlash they received. The image on the right is how her body actually looks.



And here we go with Faith Hill. Apparently this very beautiful lady wasn't beautiful enough to sell the magazine cover. Not only did they remove lines on her face, they removed part of her side and made her already slender arm and legs impossibly more slender.

If you want to talk about being a poor influence in the media and body image issues, that is where the real damage happens. And you can probably tell that you don't even want to get me started on body image issues, I've been dealing with those much longer than some of you have been alive. Cartoons always have been a visual exaggeration, but now photos have turned into them as well. But at least with cartoons the untrained eye knows the difference in an instant.

Edited for bad grammar.

[Goliath]

The image on the right is how her body actually looks.

Really? I thought they had photoshopped a man's face on both bodies.

If you want to talk about being a poor influence in the media and body image issues, that is where the real damage happens. [...]

It's not an either-or thing issue to me.