This Polish town thinks Winnie the Pooh is too scantily dressed to be around children

This Polish town thinks Winnie the Pooh is too scantily dressed to be around children

Here's a bit of crazy to make you go "HUH?" So apparently this town in Poland thinks that Winnie the Pooh is a bad influence on children because he is a hermaphrodite (don't ask me why a hermaphrodite is a bad thing) and doesn't wear pants.

A small town in Poland is trying to redefine Winnie the Pooh into something the bear's creator, A. A. Milne, wouldn't even recognize: A hermaphroditic, nudist bear created by a disturbed old man.

Say WHAT? That's a new one.

Officials in the small town of Tuszyn, in central Poland, were meeting to decide upon a new patron for a children’s playground when Winnie-the-Pooh was brought up.

But the suggestion was quickly rounded on by more conservative members.

Councillor Ryszard Cichy, 46, said: "The problem with that bear is it doesn’t have a complete wardrobe.

"It is half naked which is wholly inappropriate for children."

He then suggested a Polish fictional bear, saying: "Ours is dressed from head to toe, unlike Pooh who is only dressed from the waist up."

Yes, all of our bears should be fully clothed. Think of the children!

So, okay. A few things to note here:

1. In general, bears on the whole do not wear pants. This is a mostly consistent law of nature (with notable exceptions, h/t the circus etc.); but if one were to take a survey of bears in nature, one would most likely find that the vast majority are not wearing pants. So the fact that Winnie wears a shirt actually suggests he's quite conservative in nature.

2. Winnie has already proven he can be trusted with children. In most of their interactions, Winnie and Christopher Robin are without supervision, and this never seems to become a problem.

3. The genital issue is a little murkier. There's really no way to prove one way or the other whether Milne performed said surgical operation on Winnie's nether regions, so we'll call it a wash.

4. Winnie the Pooh is a known honey thief. Just seems like a missed opportunity here. Although UPI seized it, reporting: "Winnie-the-Pooh is being run out of town, and it's not for taking all the honey."

Gotta love crazy and out of touch old people worrying about trivial things.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I thought America was PC... nyuk nyuk nyuk...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just think of the sorry lives of people that have the time and energy to be concerned with this.

They live just to spread their sickness to others.

Witch trials next I suppose.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Seriously... What has Winnie the Pooh done to anyone? Well besides showing kids all about mental disorders.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, put some pants on already you sicko perv bear! The same goes for Donald duck.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It does explain why his hands are always sticky, i never bought the "i just really like honey" excuse.

a reply to: johnnyBgood

Hey now. Don't beat up on poor Donald. He suffers from PTSD from his tour in WWII

According to Ranger Smith, all forest animals must wear at least one article of human clothing.
I think Pooh bear is within the rules. What about Bambi? That disgraceful floozy needs to put on a hat or a tie.

I think Finland actually banned Donald Duck for a time because he had no pants.

Why don't some animal characters have pants? Do they think fur counts as pants? My dog's hairy and still anyone can spot he's not wearing pants.

skunkape23: I don't think Yogi Bear wore pants either. Same goes for Ren & Stimpy. Bunch of exhibitionists.....

a reply to: intrepid

And Porky Pig too right?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: intrepid

And Porky Pig too right?

Sorry. I'm Jewish.

All of them really. This is ridiculous.

as winnie would say,

Do they put their real wild animals in pants? They have a lot more to see than Winnie does. I've never been a fan, but ridiculous is ridiculous.

I can only imagine a whole forest full of animals forced to wear clothing...

Maybe their animal rights activists can get in on that Eeyore has a nail in his butt thing.

It always makes me wonder where people have their minds when they connect dots that aren't there in any normal context. I'm assuming those who are opposing Pooh in this particular situation have placed some sort of sexual connotation onto the character. Otherwise how is a bear with no pants on even remotely offensive and/or inappropriate for children?

This sort of story is supposed to be Onion material, not real life.

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
I can only imagine a whole forest full of animals forced to wear clothing...

Its called Los Angeles Kanga...

a reply to: FraggleRock

I was wondering something like that too.

When a person sees Winnie The Pooh and equates him with nudity, exposed parts, etc. what does it say about that person?

Are they easily offended? Uptight? Maybe they can see it from the other side?

Like "dirty things" being seen in Disney films. Sure they look filthy but are they really put there as subliminal queues to force certain thoughts on people? Or do people view things animators put in without a second thought as sexual innuendos?

I can't put it into words properly but exactly what does it say about a person who sees a cartoon character with no pants and equates it to nudity? Just wondering what people think about them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What I don't get about Pooh Bear and Donald Duck and all those other characters is why put any clothes on them at all? Why just leave off the pants?

I don't trust Mr. Disney or some of the stuff they have shot out over the years.

Don't trust everything you read over the web. The truth is: one of the councilors, Ewa Kotecka, organizes a party each october (since ten years), to celebrate Poohs birthday (As I understand, near the vicinity of the mentioned playground). This year, she proposed to name the playground after Pooh. However, other councilors voted in favor to name the playground after a bear from a polish production (Uszatek). There was a vivid discussion about the playgrounds patron - im not even sure which one was chosen in the end.
One of the councilors indeed said: "Ta inicjatywa radnej Koteckiej ma ścisły związek z kampanią wyborczą. Jest kojarzona z imprezą dla dzieci. A nasz Uszatek przynajmniej spodenki nosił."
Which means: This initiative or councilor Kotecka has a close relation with the election campaign. She wants to be associated with the party she organizes for the kids. At least our Uszatek wore pants.
However, he later mentioned that this was a joke. It would seem that the councilors simply preferred a patron of polish origin.
tldr: pooh not banned. Just not chosen as a patron of the playground.
Would provide sources, but its in polish language anyway. Im sure that anyone interested can google "Puchatek (the translation of pooh) Tuszyn"

This seems reasonable.