Just something that's been on my mind recently. It's always sad when a good cartoon dog drawing artist decides to make their art more "realistic" by adding a big, detailed, anatomically incorrect dog penis on their males. I mean, really? You're drawing Baltos. Instead of spending your time looking at dog penises, why not spend your time referencing anatomy? Doggie porn does not equal "realistic."

And if you really want to get hired as a cartoonist/animator/illustrator for some cartoon canine story... having cute cartoon dogs with disturbing genitals will not help your cause.

And before I get people screaming "ITS JUST NATURE!!!!"... sorry man, in a world where twig-legged technicolor wolfs listen to ipods tucked in their Hot Topic armwarmers, the "don't blame me for being realistic" argument is pretty flimsy.

EDIT: Okay to clarify my point:

On relatively realistic art where the whole character is evenly detailed and more or less resembles a real animal, go ahead and add your dog penis on there. Probably no one will even notice unless they're looking for it. See this: [link]

On your cartoony, heavily stylized dogs that bear little resemblance to real animals, a dog dick looks out of place. Would this character greatly benefit from being drawn with junk? [link]