Temper Tantrums (the GBAtemp webcomic) - issue #37 "Clothing Conspiracy"

By GB [prebreak][/prebreak]

< Previous comic | Next comic >

< Previous comic | Next comic >​

 

[Sonic Angel Knight]

I thought this would be lewd.

 

[Olmectron]

This is genius.

 

[Chary]

Me: Oh snap a new comic
Me 1 second later: Oh snap Tempbot did something for once

 

[VinsCool]

The Rabbid killed me

 

[x65943]

Me: Oh snap a new comic
Me 1 second later: Oh snap Tempbot did something for once

My exact reaction

I think this is the first thing I've seen it do in my tenure

 

[linuxares]

Tempbot? Well I guess @Chary is out of a job. Gotten replaced by AI.

 

[Sonic Angel Knight]

What is "Tempbot" job anyway?

 

[Xzi]

I thought this would be lewd.

Well there is a naked Zora.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Very clever! Looking back, it's hard to believe that we have come up with so many amazing ideas...
Keep creating! Awesome job, @shaunj66!

 

[Reploid]

I don't get it

 

[jt_1258]

Me having to resort to google just to figure out what spats are.... '_>'

 

[Draxzelex]

I don't get it

Trying not to get too deep into the meaning, the act of obscuring skin is usually more provocative than not concealing it in a general sense. The theory is that not seeing a naked body allows one to imagine what is underneath which is more attractive than seeing the naked body itself.

 

[shaunj66]

Very clever! Looking back, it's hard to believe that we have come up with so many amazing ideas...
Keep creating! Awesome job, @shaunj66!

I didn't write or illustrate this one, only the issues that I've posted myself.

 

[kuwanger]

Trying not to get too deep into the meaning, the act of obscuring skin is usually more provocative than not concealing it in a general sense.

Try drawing anatomically correct male animal characters* and get back to me on that. For that matter, one could argue not drawing them anatomically correct is a form of concealing. Then again, most child dolls (Barbie and Ken) aren't formed as anatomically correct.

I'd tend to argue the real truth is more obvious: you accept a person or character as they are from the start if you don't perceive their appearance as intended to be provocative. When they change appearance is when you wonder if their intention is provocative. Hence, there is more room to making characters provocative with clothing. To achieve the same without clothes involves in some fashion changing the art style, and that'll get detractors of a whole other kind.

* Or generally pose them in a fashion that their general lower body is the center of attention...

 

[Kioku]

Try drawing anatomically correct male animal characters and get back to me on that. For that matter, one could argue not drawing them anatomically correct is a form of concealing. Then again, most child dolls (Barbie and Ken) aren't formed as anatomically correct.

I'd tend to argue the real truth is more obvious: you accept a person or character as they are from the start if you don't perceive their appearance as intended to be provocative. When they change appearance is when you wonder if their intention is provocative. Hence, there is more room to making characters provocative with clothing. To achieve the same without clothes involves in some fashion changing the art style, and that'll get detractors of a whole other kind.

....from way out in left field..... What Drax said makes sense. You're explaining what seems like an entirely different concern? Why would they draw "anatomically correct" anthromorphs?..............

 

[Justinde75]

This felt like a parody porn comic for a second

 

[kuwanger]

Why would they draw "anatomically correct" anthromorphs?

The question is, "why wouldn't they draw anatomically correct anthromorphs, humans, etc?" It'd be considered lazy to not draw hands, eyes, etc (in general). Even a simple line or some circles would be equal conveyance of a more complete appearance of a character, right? Maybe draw in a few lines to signify muscles or not. Obviously there's some sort of taboo there.

PS - I know it can actually be laziness or an art style choice. The thing is, though, that a large part of what was considered the rebirth of art in Europe was being willing and able to accurately depict the human form. No doubt a large part of this was merely to demonstrate an ability to truly capture what is seen and not merely a caricature of what is seen. There's definitely something to be said about art evolving beyond merely depiction of what is. I don't think, though, that's the overriding motive for generally drawing female characters with breasts* and drawing male characters with nothing. Of course, like most things, there are exceptions.

* A very human trait.

 

[Sakitoshi]

Trying not to get too deep into the meaning, the act of obscuring skin is usually more provocative than not concealing it in a general sense. The theory is that not seeing a naked body allows one to imagine what is underneath which is more attractive than seeing the naked body itself.

while you are completely right, I think this comic is trying to say another thing.

it seems to be about how getting proper clothes gives her a different treatment compared to other characters wearing little to nothing, adding the argument that it only happens to female also makes it contemporary for the latest trends of genre equality of rights, #metoo and that stuff.

 

[BlueFox gui]

i could point so many wrong things :V