100.jpg)
I thought some of you might be interested in this. Not going to repost the story, but here's the link.
http://comicsalliance.com/superheroine-sex-art-story/
Art and Superheroines: When Over-Sexualization Kills the Sto
-
admin
Or in this case, when too long of a title kills the subject line
I thought some of you might be interested in this. Not going to repost the story, but here's the link.
http://comicsalliance.com/superheroine-sex-art-story/
I thought some of you might be interested in this. Not going to repost the story, but here's the link.
http://comicsalliance.com/superheroine-sex-art-story/
-
Alex Bettinger
- Henchman
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 16 years ago
- Location: CT
- Contact:
I already posted a comment on that article--I think it's rather foolish.
Virtually EVERY major comic book hero/heroine is deliberately drawn to be as beautiful, sexy, stylish, as possible.
Every male character depicted in the images in this very article is wearing skin tight costumes, has bulging muscles, stylish and wavy hair, manly chin, etc.
I think the most one could conclude from the evidence is that the WAY comicbooks represent female and male sexual imagery is different (the men wear more clothes, albeit skin tight and all but equally revealing). But that's about it.
I would also point out that, considering our culture does construct different gender roles and norms for men and women, such a difference is to be expected.
Virtually EVERY major comic book hero/heroine is deliberately drawn to be as beautiful, sexy, stylish, as possible.
Every male character depicted in the images in this very article is wearing skin tight costumes, has bulging muscles, stylish and wavy hair, manly chin, etc.
I think the most one could conclude from the evidence is that the WAY comicbooks represent female and male sexual imagery is different (the men wear more clothes, albeit skin tight and all but equally revealing). But that's about it.
I would also point out that, considering our culture does construct different gender roles and norms for men and women, such a difference is to be expected.
-
Alex Bettinger
- Henchman
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 16 years ago
- Location: CT
- Contact:
In fact, one could opine that a reading of sexual imagery in comic books that ONLY saw sexualization of female characters, and was blind to the obvious sexualization of male characters, constitutes nothing more than a repetition of the very sexism that the reading purports to denounce.
It's as though the author was SO determined to see ONLY women as sexualized, that the male sexuality waving right in front of his face went entirely unnoticed.
It's as though the author was SO determined to see ONLY women as sexualized, that the male sexuality waving right in front of his face went entirely unnoticed.
Or ignoring that men die more in comics and are mostly the villains.Alex Bettinger wrote:In fact, one could opine that a reading of sexual imagery in comic books that ONLY saw sexualization of female characters, and was blind to the obvious sexualization of male characters, constitutes nothing more than a repetition of the very sexism that the reading purports to denounce.
It's as though the author was SO determined to see ONLY women as sexualized, that the male sexuality waving right in front of his face went entirely unnoticed.
And so what there is sexiness? Look at a romance novel. Geez talk about hyper sexuality.
I see these articles all the time. It seems there are some people out there who think if straight men like something it must be evil and must be destroyed. And you see this in the video game industry all the time. Complaints about one scantily clad elf chic and ignore all the men as bad guys and all the men murdered. Yes we live in a more enlightened, open world yet here's a call for prudishness. This Brothers guy sounds like he's late for his West Burough Baptist church get together. This is NOT an endemic problem. T&A does not sell given the slumping comic book sales in general. If T&A sold, Wonder Woman and all superheroine comics would be the #1 sellers.
But by all means censor comics. That just means more customers for the rest of us. Being a man is not evil. Liking hot chics is not evil. Damn if we're supposed to accept every other kind of sexuality how about accepting this.
BTW where is all the hyper sexuality? I'm not seeing it? Occasionally a pic of Wonder Woman trussed up which is too few and far between. Gee was Avengers loaded with sex? I don't recall Johanson in a bikini. Thor? Geez. How about the Hulk movies? Spiderman? Where's the hypersexuality. Most of the skin tight costume people are men. Great time to be ga.y now a days. Ok name ONE mainstream movie with some serious hypersexuality? Robocop? Heck one little peekaboo scene in Star Trek? Except for the material like the stuff here that says "hey superheroine fan boys, come here and we cater to your fantasies" I'm not seeing this dreaded hyper sexuality. Out of this year alone I bet you can't find 10 comics with some cheese in it.
Ok I'm gonna say this. The two groups who complain about hypersexuality are either nerd girls who for some reason can't hook up even in a 10:1 ratio of men to women and just want attention OR its a bunch of angel wing earning men beating up on their fellow man to impress some girls. It fact its mostly those angel wing earners.
-
Alex Bettinger
- Henchman
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 16 years ago
- Location: CT
- Contact:
All fine points. At first I thought this David Brothers hack was just a typical sloganeer--looking only at women precisely in order to find the bad sexualization going on.
On second thought, I think he's probably repressing something--his absolute refusal to acknowledge the sexiness of Superman's or Green Lantern's skin-tight costumes, impossibly defined abs, sculpted chins, wavy locks, bulging muscles and bulging cocks, etc., and his exclusive focus on the way the women's bodies are represented (as though he were desperately trying to prove to everyone that he does NOT see the men as sexy), suggests to me that he has much deeper issues to deal with...
On second thought, I think he's probably repressing something--his absolute refusal to acknowledge the sexiness of Superman's or Green Lantern's skin-tight costumes, impossibly defined abs, sculpted chins, wavy locks, bulging muscles and bulging cocks, etc., and his exclusive focus on the way the women's bodies are represented (as though he were desperately trying to prove to everyone that he does NOT see the men as sexy), suggests to me that he has much deeper issues to deal with...
I don't know where this scene with Amanda Righetti was taken from, but you can see a typical male fantasy heroine being drawn and her comment about the way she is drawn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVMw8_k9ULg
The difference between the Good Girl art of the 1940s and now is the detail and realism in depiction. The situations are pretty much the same with the captured heroine being bound and positioned to show her off. But that still doesn't drive sales even with that being the cover art.
There isn't a comment about showing off men with Marvel's Namor wearing swim trunks and wings. Namorita has more on than he does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVMw8_k9ULg
The difference between the Good Girl art of the 1940s and now is the detail and realism in depiction. The situations are pretty much the same with the captured heroine being bound and positioned to show her off. But that still doesn't drive sales even with that being the cover art.
There isn't a comment about showing off men with Marvel's Namor wearing swim trunks and wings. Namorita has more on than he does.
I've never felt sex appeal has ever killed a story, if the story is good. But here's the universal fact: SEX SELLS! My girlfriend wouldn't be watching the superhero movies with me if hot actors weren't playing the superheroes. She watches Thor for Chris Hemsworth and watches Star Trek for Chris Pine. It really doesn't bother me, and those characters Thor, Captain America, Cpt Kirk etc., are way more sexualized then any of the women characters.
I think the problem is with many feminists or writers like David Brothers is that they believe by showing sex appeal in comics or film we are somehow promoting the idea that women are objects and subservient to men. That's simply not true. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of discrimination and sexual harassment toward women that need to be addressed, but just because I go to Hooters doesn't mean I (or Hooters) support the objectification of women and the patriarchal culture in the real world.
I think the problem is with many feminists or writers like David Brothers is that they believe by showing sex appeal in comics or film we are somehow promoting the idea that women are objects and subservient to men. That's simply not true. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of discrimination and sexual harassment toward women that need to be addressed, but just because I go to Hooters doesn't mean I (or Hooters) support the objectification of women and the patriarchal culture in the real world.
Yeah I thought that as well. But I think its more of a disrespect to women. He appears to me to think women are just dumb damsels that need him to save them. He's essentially being a guy trying to please women with his article. And trying to create some issue that isn't there. Almost reminds me of those In Living color, Men on Film skits where the two guys are describing a prison movie and getting off on describing bulbous muscles and hot sweaty menz. The guy does spend a while focusing real hard on the thing he thinks is so bad.Alex Bettinger wrote:All fine points. At first I thought this David Brothers hack was just a typical sloganeer--looking only at women precisely in order to find the bad sexualization going on.
On second thought, I think he's probably repressing something--his absolute refusal to acknowledge the sexiness of Superman's or Green Lantern's skin-tight costumes, impossibly defined abs, sculpted chins, wavy locks, bulging muscles and bulging cocks, etc., and his exclusive focus on the way the women's bodies are represented (as though he were desperately trying to prove to everyone that he does NOT see the men as sexy), suggests to me that he has much deeper issues to deal with...
On a side note the men in comics are NOT shown with their junk (costume bulges) yet the females do have nipples and camel toes. But from what I understand a lot of women don't even like male genitals so its moot. You don't see "bulges" in female erotica either.
http://www.dangerbabecentral.com 100% Mr. X
Twitter https://twitter.com/mrxdbc
Deviant Art http://mrxdbc.deviantart.com/
Twitter https://twitter.com/mrxdbc
Deviant Art http://mrxdbc.deviantart.com/
Interesting article, and even more interesting discussion on this thread concerning the article (and I suspect responding to a whole lot more besides this article). Its quite refreshing to see people arguing from the other side of this because I see this same type of issue come up again and again across all mediums of fiction from novels to games. The thing that really bugs me about this is that people often argue that there has been objectification simply because the character is attractive - which has to mean that the reader personally feels the character in question is attractive. Simply saying that you feel a character is attractive is nowhere near enough to conclude the character is being portrayed as an object. Nowhere. Near.
The point has also been made that men are more often evil or disgusting, and by far are the ones who get hurt or disfigured - yet this isn't sexism, of course, because... erm... well, why? Men don't need protecting. More than that, the image or identity of what a man is needs no protection or managing - however they are portrayed is fine. Women, however, seem to need much more care and must go to great pains to be right for the image and identity of women kind - there is something here that people feel needs regulating and protecting. I don't get it. By stressing out so much about it, people create this sense that there are correct and incorrect kinds of women. Madness. Women should be allowed to be anything just like men are. Someone has also made the point here that I think bears repeating: Every hero or heroine in almost any story - especially a story that involves action - is naturally going to be quite capable. If you give anyone the physique of a capable action hero then you're going to get a character that people find attractive, male or female, however you choose to clothe them.
The only things in this argument - and its many cousins around the net - that I feel any sympathy for is the limited 'types' of female characters that you see across all mediums which is more an issue with there simply not being that many female characters compared to males. Its probably that limited ratio of female to male characters which causes people to put SO much onus on it being done 'right'. The one thing I will grant people in this camp is that you often see cynical camera shots/stills/descriptions in a story which do nothing but titillate by perving up a female character - and this can undermine her as a character. In these cases, I consider it off putting story telling that damages its own character (at least when its done to death) but I still wouldn't say this turns the character into an object - it merely takes pleasure from their objective properties. This is just a thing story tellers do because their consumers quite like it... This is also something you see being done a lot to men in romance fiction and you see it on the cover of every Twilight rip offs that you care to look at. Don't get me wrong, I know there is something to this right at the core of it - but its come so far now that some people would have you believe there aren't any good female characters in anything. They'll tell you that she is a poor character acting as an offensive stereotype because: she is good looking, or because a character wolf whistles at her, or because she is sexualised in one of her presentations, or because she is promiscuous, or because she is overtly saintly, or because she shown as weak, or because she is motivated by a love interest, or because she is beholden to a man, or because she is evil - and so on seemingly forever.
The outfit of the woman in the first image is comically ridiculous, though - that's cynical nonsense and I'd call it the same if a male character was dressed in the same poor excuse for not being naked. If you're going to dress a character like that, then they need to acknowledge a reason why they dress that way - if they don't, then that's sleazy producers breaking the story with sex.
The point has also been made that men are more often evil or disgusting, and by far are the ones who get hurt or disfigured - yet this isn't sexism, of course, because... erm... well, why? Men don't need protecting. More than that, the image or identity of what a man is needs no protection or managing - however they are portrayed is fine. Women, however, seem to need much more care and must go to great pains to be right for the image and identity of women kind - there is something here that people feel needs regulating and protecting. I don't get it. By stressing out so much about it, people create this sense that there are correct and incorrect kinds of women. Madness. Women should be allowed to be anything just like men are. Someone has also made the point here that I think bears repeating: Every hero or heroine in almost any story - especially a story that involves action - is naturally going to be quite capable. If you give anyone the physique of a capable action hero then you're going to get a character that people find attractive, male or female, however you choose to clothe them.
The only things in this argument - and its many cousins around the net - that I feel any sympathy for is the limited 'types' of female characters that you see across all mediums which is more an issue with there simply not being that many female characters compared to males. Its probably that limited ratio of female to male characters which causes people to put SO much onus on it being done 'right'. The one thing I will grant people in this camp is that you often see cynical camera shots/stills/descriptions in a story which do nothing but titillate by perving up a female character - and this can undermine her as a character. In these cases, I consider it off putting story telling that damages its own character (at least when its done to death) but I still wouldn't say this turns the character into an object - it merely takes pleasure from their objective properties. This is just a thing story tellers do because their consumers quite like it... This is also something you see being done a lot to men in romance fiction and you see it on the cover of every Twilight rip offs that you care to look at. Don't get me wrong, I know there is something to this right at the core of it - but its come so far now that some people would have you believe there aren't any good female characters in anything. They'll tell you that she is a poor character acting as an offensive stereotype because: she is good looking, or because a character wolf whistles at her, or because she is sexualised in one of her presentations, or because she is promiscuous, or because she is overtly saintly, or because she shown as weak, or because she is motivated by a love interest, or because she is beholden to a man, or because she is evil - and so on seemingly forever.
The outfit of the woman in the first image is comically ridiculous, though - that's cynical nonsense and I'd call it the same if a male character was dressed in the same poor excuse for not being naked. If you're going to dress a character like that, then they need to acknowledge a reason why they dress that way - if they don't, then that's sleazy producers breaking the story with sex.
Lost in the night, and there is no morning.
-
Alex Bettinger
- Henchman
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 16 years ago
- Location: CT
- Contact:
"The outfit of the woman in the first image is comically ridiculous, though - that's cynical nonsense and I'd call it the same if a male character was dressed in the same poor excuse for not being naked. If you're going to dress a character like that, then they need to acknowledge a reason why they dress that way - if they don't, then that's sleazy producers breaking the story with sex."
Sure, but look at the image of Green Lantern offered by the same article. He is superbly muscled, with a skin tight costume, posed like a Greek statue, wind-blown locks... Now I am admittedly not an avid reader of comic books, but if memory serves Green Lantern is just Hal Jordan, a perfectly ordinary man with a ring that allows him to create objects out of some sort of green energy. There is absolutely ZERO reason to make him so muscled....ZERO reason to put him in a skin tight costume...ZERO reason to make his face and chin and hair so perfectly handsome...ZERO reason--EXCEPT to make him SEXY.
Green Lantern, at least in that image, is an absurdly sexualized figure. And that's the point--comic books are full of sexualized images, sure, but when a reader manages ONLY to be aware of the sexualized female bodies, then there is clearly a willful ignorance at play, a willful refusal to see the obvious sexualization of the male characters.
Sure, but look at the image of Green Lantern offered by the same article. He is superbly muscled, with a skin tight costume, posed like a Greek statue, wind-blown locks... Now I am admittedly not an avid reader of comic books, but if memory serves Green Lantern is just Hal Jordan, a perfectly ordinary man with a ring that allows him to create objects out of some sort of green energy. There is absolutely ZERO reason to make him so muscled....ZERO reason to put him in a skin tight costume...ZERO reason to make his face and chin and hair so perfectly handsome...ZERO reason--EXCEPT to make him SEXY.
Green Lantern, at least in that image, is an absurdly sexualized figure. And that's the point--comic books are full of sexualized images, sure, but when a reader manages ONLY to be aware of the sexualized female bodies, then there is clearly a willful ignorance at play, a willful refusal to see the obvious sexualization of the male characters.
-
Camvoy Productions
- Producer
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 10 years ago
All the things one could go on a rant about when it comes to the current state of mainstream comics...and this is what they go with. The guys who came up with Superman were inspired by a strongman who wore tight clothing. From that, we have superheroes, superheroines, and villains wearing tight clothing and sporting either muscular sex appeal or feminine sex appeal. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing to get worked up over.
Email about customs - [email protected]
@Alex Bettinger
I agree that the guys in these things are wearing outfits so tight that you may as well spray it on them - but those same outfits would take a step off the edge of what I'm willing to believe if they were so tight and were also covering them in convolutedly few places. Even then my issue isn't so much that its sexualised as much as its at odds with the character. A skin tight outfit you might just be able to explain away in the context of the story - even if the producer is doing it because it looks good on the men and the women - but I think you would struggle to explain it away if you cut out bits of that same outfit down to covering them in the bizarre way as on the purple chick. All of that being said - this IS still done with men as well as women and it breaks my suspension of disbelief with either gender when it goes that far (without explanation).
I very much agree with your point that people are selectively picking out what they are seeing in these cases - being really precious with how woman are portrayed, and not caring in the slightest how men are treated - and it makes this whole topic really frustrating. An attractive or even perfect man (Hal Jordon looks like an Adonis) doesn't arouse suspicion because the apologist's who argue this are straight, but the female equivalent of the very same thing seems to create a lot of suspicion just because those same people suddenly start thinking sex. It is their response to what they see, and they are crying foul at the intent of the producer. I see that tired attack more and more.
I agree that the guys in these things are wearing outfits so tight that you may as well spray it on them - but those same outfits would take a step off the edge of what I'm willing to believe if they were so tight and were also covering them in convolutedly few places. Even then my issue isn't so much that its sexualised as much as its at odds with the character. A skin tight outfit you might just be able to explain away in the context of the story - even if the producer is doing it because it looks good on the men and the women - but I think you would struggle to explain it away if you cut out bits of that same outfit down to covering them in the bizarre way as on the purple chick. All of that being said - this IS still done with men as well as women and it breaks my suspension of disbelief with either gender when it goes that far (without explanation).
I very much agree with your point that people are selectively picking out what they are seeing in these cases - being really precious with how woman are portrayed, and not caring in the slightest how men are treated - and it makes this whole topic really frustrating. An attractive or even perfect man (Hal Jordon looks like an Adonis) doesn't arouse suspicion because the apologist's who argue this are straight, but the female equivalent of the very same thing seems to create a lot of suspicion just because those same people suddenly start thinking sex. It is their response to what they see, and they are crying foul at the intent of the producer. I see that tired attack more and more.
Lost in the night, and there is no morning.
-
Leadpoison
- Staff Sargeant
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 12 years ago
Oh man I hate these jackasses. Especially jerkoffs on comic book forums I frequent that feel like they have the right to shame me about what comic art I like. So I like sexy drawings of women in unitards or chainmail bikinis. And? I grew up watching movies like Heavy Metal that really shaped the content I consume, and these internet white knights swagger in smelling their own farts preaching like comics are trying to take away women's rights because Wonder Woman doesn't wear pants.
I honestly think some of the things I draw are a middle finger to people that think like that.
I honestly think some of the things I draw are a middle finger to people that think like that.
-
Alex Bettinger
- Henchman
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 16 years ago
- Location: CT
- Contact:
@Void: I appreciate your points--but just to push even harder against what you wrote in your first paragraph, I guess I would say that taking exception to a scantily clad female character as being narratively out of place or unmotivated is just another instance of that very willful ignorance I've been talking about.
In EVERY case--whether it's a skin-tight costume, absurd muscles, huge breasts, scanty clothes, a far-too-lovely pose, a strangely orgasmic look on the face, etc. etc.--it is ALWAYS a PRETEXT. A pretext for what? For making the characters SEXY.
Sure, you can dream up some narrative reason Superman must be absurdly muscular. Or Hal Jordan. You can make up some reason why EVERY superhero wears skin tight clothes. But you can just as easily invent some reason why Wonder Woman has giant breasts (maybe it's a special biological trait of Amazons), or why Psylocke wears a thong (to mentally disarm her foes so as to make her psychic knife more effective). I'm sure there is some reason that could be made up for why this or that female character wears a skimpy outfit.
But no matter what the narrative justification may (or may not) be, it's all just a pretext. It's a way to make the characters SEXY. Hollywood does it. TV does it. Literature does it. Artworks since the beginning of recorded history have done it.
If you ONLY take exception when it happens to be just this one instance of that pretext (i.e., a seemingly unnecessarily scanty outfit on a female character), then that's willful ignorance.
In EVERY case--whether it's a skin-tight costume, absurd muscles, huge breasts, scanty clothes, a far-too-lovely pose, a strangely orgasmic look on the face, etc. etc.--it is ALWAYS a PRETEXT. A pretext for what? For making the characters SEXY.
Sure, you can dream up some narrative reason Superman must be absurdly muscular. Or Hal Jordan. You can make up some reason why EVERY superhero wears skin tight clothes. But you can just as easily invent some reason why Wonder Woman has giant breasts (maybe it's a special biological trait of Amazons), or why Psylocke wears a thong (to mentally disarm her foes so as to make her psychic knife more effective). I'm sure there is some reason that could be made up for why this or that female character wears a skimpy outfit.
But no matter what the narrative justification may (or may not) be, it's all just a pretext. It's a way to make the characters SEXY. Hollywood does it. TV does it. Literature does it. Artworks since the beginning of recorded history have done it.
If you ONLY take exception when it happens to be just this one instance of that pretext (i.e., a seemingly unnecessarily scanty outfit on a female character), then that's willful ignorance.
Pretty much everything Alex said.
Just look at the VAST majority of male superheros on TV and in the movies today... gone are the days of tough rugged battle worn action stars.. Now its fucking Ryan Reynolds as green lantern with lots of shirtless screen time to try and draw in female views. (sadly that movie was such a pile of shit nothing could have saved it)
Just look at the VAST majority of male superheros on TV and in the movies today... gone are the days of tough rugged battle worn action stars.. Now its fucking Ryan Reynolds as green lantern with lots of shirtless screen time to try and draw in female views. (sadly that movie was such a pile of shit nothing could have saved it)
@ Alex Bettinger
I respect what you are pushing at here and I don't want to debate this too much because I feel we agree on the basic issue - that people banging the objectification of women drum can bugger off.
Any story you choose to immerse yourself in is wilful ignorance - since the story isn't real. I suspend my disbelief at all the ways the story doesn't match up with reality - willingly - because I enjoy the journey the story takes me on. However, to say that because I do that, then literally nothing should be able to break my disbelief is surely too much. This isn't all or nothing - it couldn't be. I'm not saying the inexplicably bizarre outfit is the ONLY thing that could ever take me out of the story - there's loads of things that could do that. The number of ways an experience can shake me off are probably endless, actually. Whether or not these things are a pretext is irrelevant to their effect on the consumer when all is said and done. I'm only concerned with the effects -not the intentions - when the story is finished which might conflict with the coherency of the story since, for me, I like a consistent character.
Its a matter of taste rather than strict, universal rules. If I were to be in for a penny in for a pound with all aspects of the story because I accept it in some situations then I wouldn't be able to dislike a story for pretty much any reason, ever.
Though this is just me saying why I would or wouldn't enjoy something. I'd have no opinions on someone else enjoying it.
I respect what you are pushing at here and I don't want to debate this too much because I feel we agree on the basic issue - that people banging the objectification of women drum can bugger off.
Any story you choose to immerse yourself in is wilful ignorance - since the story isn't real. I suspend my disbelief at all the ways the story doesn't match up with reality - willingly - because I enjoy the journey the story takes me on. However, to say that because I do that, then literally nothing should be able to break my disbelief is surely too much. This isn't all or nothing - it couldn't be. I'm not saying the inexplicably bizarre outfit is the ONLY thing that could ever take me out of the story - there's loads of things that could do that. The number of ways an experience can shake me off are probably endless, actually. Whether or not these things are a pretext is irrelevant to their effect on the consumer when all is said and done. I'm only concerned with the effects -not the intentions - when the story is finished which might conflict with the coherency of the story since, for me, I like a consistent character.
Its a matter of taste rather than strict, universal rules. If I were to be in for a penny in for a pound with all aspects of the story because I accept it in some situations then I wouldn't be able to dislike a story for pretty much any reason, ever.
Though this is just me saying why I would or wouldn't enjoy something. I'd have no opinions on someone else enjoying it.
Lost in the night, and there is no morning.
-
Alex Bettinger
- Henchman
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 16 years ago
- Location: CT
- Contact:
@Void: Ah yes, very good--I see your point and agree to all of it.
Of course, the moment this subject of this conversation shifts to the realm of pure aesthetic taste, then there is precious little to argue about. If you were to say to me (and this is admittedly not a perfect paraphrase of what you said): "For me personally, the story loses narrative credibility when a female character wears a costume that is oddly scanty, although the fact that a male character wears an unnecessarily skin tight costume doesn't have that same effect on me, though I acknowledge that it might have that effect on other readers"--then I certainly can not argue with you. But that's because in that moment we are talking about quirks or details in your personal interpretive habits. Not whether, objectively speaking, there is just as much of a pretextual effort to make male comic book characters sexy as there is with respect to the female characters.
Or, to put it a simpler way, I suspect this David Brothers person would vehemently deny that he's talking about taste. He's thinks he's talking about something objectively in the comics with respect to the female characters that is not there with respect to the male ones.
Of course, the moment this subject of this conversation shifts to the realm of pure aesthetic taste, then there is precious little to argue about. If you were to say to me (and this is admittedly not a perfect paraphrase of what you said): "For me personally, the story loses narrative credibility when a female character wears a costume that is oddly scanty, although the fact that a male character wears an unnecessarily skin tight costume doesn't have that same effect on me, though I acknowledge that it might have that effect on other readers"--then I certainly can not argue with you. But that's because in that moment we are talking about quirks or details in your personal interpretive habits. Not whether, objectively speaking, there is just as much of a pretextual effort to make male comic book characters sexy as there is with respect to the female characters.
Or, to put it a simpler way, I suspect this David Brothers person would vehemently deny that he's talking about taste. He's thinks he's talking about something objectively in the comics with respect to the female characters that is not there with respect to the male ones.
Very well said. I love how nobody cares that you have a script which breaks all known (and possibly even the yet undiscovered) laws of Nature, like the superheroine can fly in outerfucking interstellar vacuum and close black holes with her bare hands while tanking laser guns with harder-than-diamond skin, but if she has a nice butt and wears a thong then OH MY GOD THE BLASPHEMYVoid wrote:Any story you choose to immerse yourself in is wilful ignorance - since the story isn't real. I suspend my disbelief at all the ways the story doesn't match up with reality - willingly - because I enjoy the journey the story takes me on. However, to say that because I do that, then literally nothing should be able to break my disbelief is surely too much. This isn't all or nothing - it couldn't be. I'm not saying the inexplicably bizarre outfit is the ONLY thing that could ever take me out of the story - there's loads of things that could do that. The number of ways an experience can shake me off are probably endless, actually. Whether or not these things are a pretext is irrelevant to their effect on the consumer when all is said and done. I'm only concerned with the effects -not the intentions - when the story is finished which might conflict with the coherency of the story since, for me, I like a consistent character.
.Doesn't David Brothers realize that these comics are marketed to teenage males first and foremost? Of course the female characters are sexualized! If they were drawn as plain janes wearing sensible costumes...I almost certainly wouldn't have been so into comics when I was a teenager. "Over-Sexualization" is his opinion...nothing more.
Well one of the more absurd arguments I've read is there is some vast female market who are just dying to read comics but won't cause they saw a busty Power Girl on the cover.
Total bunk.
If there was such a market these girls would not wait around for some caterer to provide a buffet table of choices. They would make the material they want themselves. Especially now a days with the internet as publisher you don't need to go through Diamond who used to have a huge monopoly on the market. So there is nothing stopping women from making exactly what they want and raking in millions.
But look at the sales of Wonder Woman etc. Any single female character comic sells like crap compared to the male ones. So this shows two things. 1) Men are not thinking with their groins and sex doesn't sell cause the heroine comics would be the biggest sellers and 2) Girls are not buying up these mags making them the #1 sellers. In fact women aren't buying much of anything in comics and buy romance novels which is a multi billion dollar a year industry.
The romance novel industry does not cut 50% of its product line and sell to only men cause they think there's some vast male market. Why expect this from comics?
Total bunk.
If there was such a market these girls would not wait around for some caterer to provide a buffet table of choices. They would make the material they want themselves. Especially now a days with the internet as publisher you don't need to go through Diamond who used to have a huge monopoly on the market. So there is nothing stopping women from making exactly what they want and raking in millions.
But look at the sales of Wonder Woman etc. Any single female character comic sells like crap compared to the male ones. So this shows two things. 1) Men are not thinking with their groins and sex doesn't sell cause the heroine comics would be the biggest sellers and 2) Girls are not buying up these mags making them the #1 sellers. In fact women aren't buying much of anything in comics and buy romance novels which is a multi billion dollar a year industry.
The romance novel industry does not cut 50% of its product line and sell to only men cause they think there's some vast male market. Why expect this from comics?
-
Camvoy Productions
- Producer
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 10 years ago
Those romance novels have a lot of sex in them. Or so I've heard.
Email about customs - [email protected]
Loreli from bedroom bondage had a site completely devoted to the rape/ravish scenes from romance novels played out. Forgot the name of the site but here is her main site.Camvoy Productions wrote:Those romance novels have a lot of sex in them. Or so I've heard.
http://www.bedroombondage.com/
http://www.dangerbabecentral.com 100% Mr. X
Twitter https://twitter.com/mrxdbc
Deviant Art http://mrxdbc.deviantart.com/
Twitter https://twitter.com/mrxdbc
Deviant Art http://mrxdbc.deviantart.com/
-
theScribbler
- Millenium Member
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: 13 years ago
So I read the article, and the only thing I come away with is I've never read a comic/graphic novel where seeing sexy drawn heroines "pull[ed me] out of the moment and stop[ped my] reading experience dead." So I don't relate.
Anyway, here are his two other follow up articles that he also wrote in february 2012. I've not read them through yet (and I may not).
http://comicsalliance.com/psylocke-art- ... ome-opena/
http://comicsalliance.com/superhero-sex ... empowered/
---
Lorelei's r#pe site is...
http://www.forcefantasies.com/
Anyway, here are his two other follow up articles that he also wrote in february 2012. I've not read them through yet (and I may not).
http://comicsalliance.com/psylocke-art- ... ome-opena/
http://comicsalliance.com/superhero-sex ... empowered/
---
Lorelei's r#pe site is...
http://www.forcefantasies.com/
the Scribbler
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
From the second link you posted at the bottom of his article.
Soooo he says peoples' sexual desires are unique and we can't judge them yet he judges them and throws around the word "creepy".There’s no one right way to do sex in cape comics. Actually, there is, but it’s unfair: Make good comics. But in a more charitable sense, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution for not making creepy comics, instead of sexy ones. Some will be turned off by Empowered‘s art or damsel-in-distress foundation. Others will be turned on by it. Both sides will have thousands of words of justification for their opinion. Neither side is wrong, because our approach to sex and sexuality is unique. It’s about finding what works for you, and then figuring out why it works so that you can seek out more of it. That’s true of real life and it’s true of comic books.
Read More: Art and Superheroines: Getting Sex and Cape Comics Right | http://comicsalliance.com/superhero-sex ... ck=tsmclip
http://www.dangerbabecentral.com 100% Mr. X
Twitter https://twitter.com/mrxdbc
Deviant Art http://mrxdbc.deviantart.com/
Twitter https://twitter.com/mrxdbc
Deviant Art http://mrxdbc.deviantart.com/