bugsgirl bugsgirl

Sunday Morning Cheesecake

That doll is HOT… and the girl is cute, too!

(Thanks, Devlin Thompson via RetroZone)

  • That’s not a young Natalie Wood, is it?

  • Fred Sparrman

    Never were a doll’s pupils painted on in a more apt direction.

  • jordan reichek

    Silly, rabbit!

  • top cat james

    Deleted scene from the 70’s documentary, “Bugs Bunny Superstud”.

  • David Breneman

    This is utterly inappropriate for the Christmas season!

    You should have saved it for Easter.

  • a girl

    why do you guys post stuff like this and then bemoan how animation is still such a boys club?

    • Gray64

      What about it offends you? It’s not explicit or gross or obscene. It’s the tamest type of cheesecake you’re likely to find anywhere. If you find it so insulting that men enjoy looking at attractive women, how exactly do you cope with daily existence?

      • A.C. the actress

        “If you find it so insulting that men enjoy looking at attractive women, how exactly do you cope with daily existence?”

        It’s not that, it’s objectification. There is no reason for her to be so barely clothed in that picture other than to have her body oogled by men. She is not a person in that picture, just a cutely posed body with breasts.

        So yes, it is gross. I find it gross to be viewed as something to be looked at for others’ pleasure as opposed to a human being with opinions and a history.

        I’m baffled that this was even posted. Yes, there’s Bugs Bunny in the _background_, but the focus is the chick with the ta-tas. If it’s supposed to be “oh, look, it’s an animation icon included in a pseudo-pornographic image” then, hello, nothing new. Everyone on the internet has heard of rule 34.

      • She didn’t claim it offended or insulted her. That’s a conclusion you made.

        She asked about the apparent contradiction.

      • David Breneman

        If nothing else, I think it’s educational for the youth of today to know how the style of women’s panties has evolved since the post-war years. The fact that she’s NOT wearing alluring lingerie and is rather wearing the 1940s’ equivalent of men’s boxer shorts is in and of itself interesting.

      • Autumn

        I don’t claim to speak for every woman here, but I’m a girl and I don’t find this remotely offensive. Women at that time who posed like this weren’t the bimbos and sluts they are today (or at least as they’re perceived). They were woman embracing their sexuality in a time when women were basically locked up like little dolls and told how to behave.

        There’s nothing wrong with this picture. Nothing is showing. She’s wearing more than I see some girls going out in today. I see it as nothing more than a sexually liberated girl finding joy in a Bugs Bunny doll.

        Bugs Bunny’s an animation icon, ergo, this picture belongs. How does the fact that a girl is in the picture NOT make it relevant to animation? The fact that that doll is so old alone makes the picture interesting.

      • Hulk

        Good points Autumn. AC the actress- pardon my ignorance but what is rule 34?

      • A.C. the actress

        I suppose my statement of “everyone knows what rule 34 is” was a little too broad, pardon. (I made my assumption just because most of my friends, who are all big into internet culture, know it).

        It comes from a list of “rules of the internet” and rule 34* is as follows: “If it exists, there is porn of it.” My point was that cartoons being used within sexual situations isn’t new, as this picture above proves.

        Following the link provided, it says “Bugs Bunny pin-up c. 1940s.” It’s a pin-up. Pin-ups are supposed to be sexual but not overly so because they are displayed in at least somewhat public areas. Even today you don’t pin a completely naked girl on your wall unless you’re looking to be socially sanctioned. You keep your completely naked girl pictures hidden, not on full display. So this still the objectification of a woman.

        I’m not saying that all women need to put some clothes on stat and keep it that way or that the female body is icky. I’m just objecting to this manner in which it’s represented.

        *I would not recommend googling this term or else you’ll find some NSFW images of your favorite childhood cartoons.

    • Yeah, seriously. Tomorrow I want to see an underwear pic of Brad Pitt and Donald Duck.

    • We don’t have ESP so the truth is we all objectify when we see anyone or anything. We initially judge them by how they look and use that impression to determine the potential value of what this person or thing has to offer. That the girl is topless in the photo doesn’t mean anything about her unless you decide, pre-judicially, that being topless is a reflection of her ethics. So she’s either ethical and was forced to do this or she’s unethical and did it by choice. Either way, you aren’t judging her for what her thoughts and opinions are but, rather, judging her for being topless. In that since, YOU are objectifying her because you see her as a symbol within your own personal belief system (even if she doesn’t share that belief) while, at the same time, you demonize others for seeing her as simply a beautiful woman and nothing more.

  • Jesse Pindus

    All I have to say is that is anyone sure that rabbit doll is actually supposed to be Bugs? It could be just some anonymous rabbit. I think it’s a little hard to tell since the whole picture’s in black and white, but Bugs doesn’t usually wear a bow tie and what’s with his head?

    • Julius Gryphon

      What, you’ve never seen an off-model toy before? It is definitely Bugs. These dolls were some of the earliest Looney Tunes tie-in products. Compared to some of the other toys made shortly after (or heck some of the ones made in the ’70’s), this is a pretty good likeness. They even had a tag under one arm proclaiming them as Bugs bunny (that might be the white blob you can see under his left arm).

  • I. Do Declare

    Good Lord, we still such a Puritanical culture. Lighten the eff up, “artists.”

  • another girl

    I just dont see why this was posted here. I’m not particularly offended by the image, but I am disappointed it was posted on Cartoon Brew.
    I look at this blog for animation. What relation does this have to animation really?

    • Autumn

      How does this disappoint you? What about a pin-up, no different from the likes of Marilyn Monroe, enjoying a BUGS BUNNY doll, disappoints you? Bugs Bunny is a huge part of the animation industry. It’s an old fashioned doll of an animation icon, teamed with the type of girl you would typically see hung in the background of one of his cartoons. How much more relevant to cartoons can you get?

      You may not like pin-ups, but they were a big part of the culture and sexual revolution of women in the 1940’s. Bugs came to fame in the 1940’s. Hello?

  • Sun

    The title of this image on the original site is “Bugs Bunny pin-up c. 1940s” So I suppose it was meant to be a bit provocative, but as a lady myself I find this to be rather tastefully done and sort of cute. I think that just the fact that Bugs is in this pin up says a lot about the influence animation has in different aspects of our culture, whether we agree with its placement or not. Besides, as far as oogling, don’t both genders do that? Just sayin’^.^

    • Autumn

      THANK YOU!

    • Tory

      Well, you see there is now a double standard. It is now perfectly ok for women to oogle pictures of half naked men in cheesecake images but not so for men. Like men only gyms are no-nos but women only gyms are commonplace. I find this double standard wrong. I grew up in a world full of Mr. Clean, the Jolly Green Giant, He-Man and the Brawny Man and I am tired of this double standard being applied. Society is putting to much restriction on men these days and it is not in the true spirit of liberation.

      • Mr. Clean, the Jolly Green Giant, He-Man and the Brawny Man are not cheesecake and I doubt any women are oggling them…

      • Gray64

        You’re right, they’re not cheesecake. They’re not even beefcake. But suppose, instead of Mr.Clean, et al, Tory had held up the work of Tom of Finland, whose highly sexualized images of men HAVE been ogled by gay men for something like 40 years? Would he have a point then?

  • Damn it! I can’t see her feet!

  • Boy, the world has sure changed since I was a kid. I remember when pinups hung on the walls of conservative Disney and men and women had sex.

    Apparently, none of that happens anymore.

  • Damon

    Honest question so please nobody be offended, but is that her real nose? Something looks a little off about it.

    • Jason

      It’s because we’re so used to models being ‘perfect’ I think. I know what you mean though.

  • Gray64

    I would venture to say that one risks objectifying a person the moment one captures that person in a image. By taking a person’s picture, by drawing them, etc, you DO objectify them. You render their image subject to whatever meaning an audience chooses to ascribe to them. You can try to give it context, but ultimately the audience is going to bring it’s own preconceptions into play (here’s an example — Lord Byron, on reading Paradise Lose, felt that, given Milton’s portrayal of a stern and wrathful God, Milton must have sympathized with the Devil; given that a stern and wrathful God were exactly what the staunchly Calvinist Milton thought were right and proper, one expects that it was Byron who had sympathy for the Devil). We all look at this picture and see cheesecake and, most likely, that’s it’s purpose. But are we sure? How else might it be interpreted?
    And I do apologize to A Girl; as she says, her point was about how relevant the image was to this site, rather than whether or not the image was offensive. That I responded as I did likely says more about me than her.

  • Brad Constantine

    Just like Chuck Jones always said…”the best way to draw Bugs is draw a girl holding a carrot and attach a rabbit to it”…