Okay, so, on to the second part! People who know me on a personal level know about a rule I follow with regards to certain depictions of characters. This rule is called the "Law of Equivalency" or "Rule of Equivalency", one of those two, and it works like this:
"Female characters exposed in the same manner as males must have some kind of equivalence to their exposure, otherwise it is inequal. Male waist-up nudity is equal to female shoulders-up nudity. Male nudity that shows all but the crotch is equal to female nudity that hides the chest and crotch. Full male nudity is equal to full female nudity. These are set by societal standards on what's acceptable for certain MPAA ratings."
So how does that work with cartoon animals? Well, it's quite simple: Unless that girl really needs a skirt, bottomless males should be met with bottomless females, and shirtless males should be met with shirtless females. It makes the most sense of all, since cartoon animals who are male do not possess any "objectionable" features human characters do, and yes, featureless humans will also be the same as I draw them, male or female.
Makes sense, right? Not to most people, apparently.
The biggest example of this was Minnie Mouse, female counterpart to Mickey Mouse. When Walt was running the show, Minnie was defined by her skirt and flower hat, while Mickey was defined by his overalls. Unfortunately, the conservative nature of Disney after Walt's death led Minnie to be given a full dress by the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse works. This is not equivalent at all because it suggests Minnie, by nature of her being a girl, is, despite being an animal, "inherently sexual" if wearing as much as Mickey. In other words, it's nothing short of cowardice.
We saw this with other animals, too. We've got, say, Rescue Rangers, where Gadget dresses in a full outfit while the boys do not. And many series made nowadays do the same thing for some strange reason. Worse, Robot Chicken mocked people who said Gadget should go bottomless, too, by insinuating Chip and Dale would act perverted. This shows how much sexuality plays into this whole debate, all because the subject is a girl and the female body is "inherently sexual" or something. Guess what? It isn't.
Now, modern era Minnie is back to wearing as much up top as Mickey, and heck, they even did a short where Mickey and Donald dressed as their female counterparts to show why we need Tertiary Sexual Characteristics. That's because, as seen in the last set on the illustration graph, Mickey and Minnie basically look the same without anything on, save Minnie's accessories. This is why we need those characteristics to tell them apart, given that they are the same species. These are good things, trust me.
We'll keep on this topic next time, when I'll have more to say on it.